• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why I am a “skeptic”

Simpletruther

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
15,932
Reaction score
3,177
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am not skeptical of the basic climate science that man is causing most of the recent warming.

I am skeptical though of the accuracy of climate models as of now. I think results speak volumes. And since climate modeling deals with long time periods, we just don’t have enough successful samples. In fsct we don’t even really have one yet, if we consider about 50 years to be a minimal sample size of model prediction is success.

I would like to see at minimum 4 or 5 successful 50 year periods of reasonably accurate model predictive success to be confident Thst models have a handle on things.


The short term success of models so far is ok. But from past reading the error range was pretty wide. So that takes away from usefulness obviously.


I know they plug models in for the past and all, that just doesn’t give me confidence.
 
I am not skeptical of the basic climate science that man is causing most of the recent warming.

I am skeptical though of the accuracy of climate models as of now. I think results speak volumes. And since climate modeling deals with long time periods, we just don’t have enough successful samples. In fsct we don’t even really have one yet, if we consider about 50 years to be a minimal sample size of model prediction is success.

I would like to see at minimum 4 or 5 successful 50 year periods of reasonably accurate model predictive success to be confident Thst models have a handle on things.


The short term success of models so far is ok. But from past reading the error range was pretty wide. So that takes away from usefulness obviously.


I know they plug models in for the past and all, that just doesn’t give me confidence.

You should probably provide a link for your assessment of models. The models have actually performed quite nicely to date. Here's my source...

Overview - Fourth National Climate Assessment

Confidence in these models is based, in part, on how well they reproduce these observed changes. Climate models have proven remarkably accurate in simulating the climate change we have experienced to date, particularly in the past 60 years or so when we have greater confidence in observations (see CSSR, Ch. 4.3.1). The observed signals of a changing climate continue to become stronger and clearer over time, giving scientists increased confidence in their findings even since the Third National Climate Assessment was released in 2014.
 
You should probably provide a link for your assessment of models. The models have actually performed quite nicely to date. Here's my source...
Where did I deny that?

Overview - Fourth National Climate Assessment

Confidence in these models is based, in part, on how well they reproduce these observed changes. Climate models have proven remarkably accurate in simulating the climate change we have experienced to date, particularly in the past 60 years or so when we have greater confidence in observations (see CSSR, Ch. 4.3.1). The observed signals of a changing climate continue to become stronger and clearer over time, giving scientists increased confidence in their findings even since the Third National Climate Assessment was released in 2014.[/QUOTE]
60 years? There are 60 year old climate models that are accurate? Yes I am skeptical of the wording here.
 
I even take, for what it is worth, the numbers from the IPCC's predictions of climate.

I then ask for some sort of examination of any place in the world and any single bad thing from the slight warming predicted. I never get any decent answer as to what the catastrophe is supposed to be.
 
I would like to see at minimum 4 or 5 successful 50 year periods of reasonably accurate model predictive success to be confident Thst models have a handle on things.
So... You want to see 200+ years of accurate model predictions before you trust them?


The short term success of models so far is ok. But from past reading the error range was pretty wide.
First of all, you really need to expand a bit more on this. Which models are you looking at? There are a number of different models, each with its own parameters. You can even run some of them on your home computer (e.g. EdGCM).

Second, it's not an "error range." It's an uncertainty range. Meaning they are fairly certain about most aspects, and some (notably cloud formation) introduce some variability. The uncertainties are fairly small; in fact, the biggest variation isn't due to a lack of understanding, it's a result of different emissions scenarios (i.e. what humans will do).

Third, you don't state what is, or is not, an acceptable range of uncertainty, or what your basis is for that acceptable range.

Fourth... Pretty much every scenario makes it clear that as emissions rise, so do temperatures. We don't need models with a 0.01% uncertainty range to realize that if we don't take action soon, we're going to face devastating impacts in a few decades.
 
Re: Why I am a “skeptic”

There are 60 year old climate models that are accurate?
They're talking about using data from the past 60 years to verify current models.

Scientists test climate models by comparing them to current observations and historical changes. Confidence in these models is based, in part, on how well they reproduce these observed changes. Climate models have proven remarkably accurate in simulating the climate change we have experienced to date, particularly in the past 60 years or so when we have greater confidence in observations (see CSSR, Ch. 4.3.1). The observed signals of a changing climate continue to become stronger and clearer over time, giving scientists increased confidence in their findings even since the Third National Climate Assessment was released in 2014.

Today, the largest uncertainty in projecting future climate conditions is the level of greenhouse gas emissions going forward.

(Emphasis added)

The earliest climate model was developed in 1967, and yes it was fairly accurate.

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly
 
Re: Why I am a “skeptic”

They're talking about using data from the past 60 years to verify current models.

Scientists test climate models by comparing them to current observations and historical changes. Confidence in these models is based, in part, on how well they reproduce these observed changes. Climate models have proven remarkably accurate in simulating the climate change we have experienced to date, particularly in the past 60 years or so when we have greater confidence in observations (see CSSR, Ch. 4.3.1). The observed signals of a changing climate continue to become stronger and clearer over time, giving scientists increased confidence in their findings even since the Third National Climate Assessment was released in 2014.

Today, the largest uncertainty in projecting future climate conditions is the level of greenhouse gas emissions going forward.

(Emphasis added)

The earliest climate model was developed in 1967, and yes it was fairly accurate.

The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly
The article didn’t show the original graph of projections from this 50 year old model or cite its uncertainly range.

Do you have that available?
 
Where did I deny that?

Overview - Fourth National Climate Assessment

Confidence in these models is based, in part, on how well they reproduce these observed changes. Climate models have proven remarkably accurate in simulating the climate change we have experienced to date, particularly in the past 60 years or so when we have greater confidence in observations (see CSSR, Ch. 4.3.1). The observed signals of a changing climate continue to become stronger and clearer over time, giving scientists increased confidence in their findings even since the Third National Climate Assessment was released in 2014.

I'm not sure what your question is referring to, but I was responding to your comment ---

"I am skeptical though of the accuracy of climate models as of now"

That's why I posted the reference from the 4th NCA, which talks about the accuracy of the models. Thanks...
 
Second, it's not an "error range." It's an uncertainty range. Meaning they are fairly certain about most aspects, and some (notably cloud formation) introduce some variability. The uncertainties are fairly small; in fact, the biggest variation isn't due to a lack of understanding, it's a result of different emissions scenarios (i.e. what humans will do).
The uncertainty of ECS has almost nothing to do emissions scenarios, and is mostly because of our poor understanding
of how clouds interact with radiation. (IPCC TAR)
It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.

Emissions scenarios are about when a possible doubling of CO2 levels would occur, not the result of the CO2 doubling being achieved.
 
I am not skeptical of the basic climate science that man is causing most of the recent warming.

I am skeptical though of the accuracy of climate models as of now. I think results speak volumes. And since climate modeling deals with long time periods, we just don’t have enough successful samples. In fsct we don’t even really have one yet, if we consider about 50 years to be a minimal sample size of model prediction is success.

I would like to see at minimum 4 or 5 successful 50 year periods of reasonably accurate model predictive success to be confident Thst models have a handle on things.


The short term success of models so far is ok. But from past reading the error range was pretty wide. So that takes away from usefulness obviously.


I know they plug models in for the past and all, that just doesn’t give me confidence.

If you want to wait that long, you may have more evidence than you may be comfortable handling. It's a little like someone hearing that they have cancer and without treatment they will die in the next year, and saying they want to wait a few years to be sure the doctors know what they are talking about before doing anything about the cancer.
 
I am not skeptical of the basic climate science that man is causing most of the recent warming.

I am skeptical though of the accuracy of climate models as of now. I think results speak volumes. And since climate modeling deals with long time periods, we just don’t have enough successful samples. In fsct we don’t even really have one yet, if we consider about 50 years to be a minimal sample size of model prediction is success.

I would like to see at minimum 4 or 5 successful 50 year periods of reasonably accurate model predictive success to be confident Thst models have a handle on things.


The short term success of models so far is ok. But from past reading the error range was pretty wide. So that takes away from usefulness obviously.


I know they plug models in for the past and all, that just doesn’t give me confidence.

I'm a skeptic because the facts as I know them indicate that there have been at least 6 catastrophic climate reversals over the life of the earth, and not one since man became a factor. So logic tells me it must be something else.

There's also the fact that far to many of these doomsday dates and catastrophic results have not happened.
 
Re: Why I am a “skeptic�

The article didn’t show the original graph of projections from this 50 year old model or cite its uncertainly range.

Do you have that available?
The article provides a link to the original paper.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0241:TEOTAW>2.0.CO;2


The article also describes and assesses the prediction:

"According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2 °C."

What we've seen from the pre-industrial revolution until today matches that extremely well. We haven't doubled CO2, but we have increased it by about 50%. Temperatures, going back to the first measurements of accurate global temperatures in the 1880s, have increased by nearly (but not quite) 1 °C.


I do not see any indications that they actually tried to quantify the uncertainties.
 
Re: Why I am a “skeptic�

The article provides a link to the original paper.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0241:TEOTAW>2.0.CO;2


The article also describes and assesses the prediction:

"According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2 °C."

What we've seen from the pre-industrial revolution until today matches that extremely well. We haven't doubled CO2, but we have increased it by about 50%. Temperatures, going back to the first measurements of accurate global temperatures in the 1880s, have increased by nearly (but not quite) 1 °C.


I do not see any indications that they actually tried to quantify the uncertainties.
Except the numbers do not match up.
If we assume the doubling the CO2 level will result in a 2 °C increase, the the log curve formula would look like,
2 °C/ln(2)= 2.88, so 2.88 X ln(410/280)=1.09°C, but the actual observed increase based on Hadcrut4 is ~.9°C.
 
I'm a skeptic because the facts as I know them indicate that there have been at least 6 catastrophic climate reversals over the life of the earth, and not one since man became a factor. So logic tells me it must be something else.

There's also the fact that far to many of these doomsday dates and catastrophic results have not happened.

So you want to wait until it happens before you believe it?

Interesting approach. Hey, what could go wrong?
 
I'm not sure what your question is referring to, but I was responding to your comment ---

"I am skeptical though of the accuracy of climate models as of now"

That's why I posted the reference from the 4th NCA, which talks about the accuracy of the models. Thanks...

For me, success will remove my skepticism. Just some political body making claims does not.

Success means multiple (at least maybe five runs) successful long scale predictions of climate. Which is means a couple hundred year track record.
 
So you want to wait until it happens before you believe it?

Interesting approach. Hey, what could go wrong?

Well, lots could go wrong. But I want base my concern on tested models, not reasonable theory. The theory is reasonable, and likely true, but how true? If it turns out to be the low end, it’s not worthy of much concern.
 
Re: Why I am a “skeptic�

The article provides a link to the original paper.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)024<0241:TEOTAW>2.0.CO;2


The article also describes and assesses the prediction:

"According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2 °C."

What we've seen from the pre-industrial revolution until today matches that extremely well. We haven't doubled CO2, but we have increased it by about 50%. Temperatures, going back to the first measurements of accurate global temperatures in the 1880s, have increased by nearly (but not quite) 1 °C.


I do not see any indications that they actually tried to quantify the uncertainties.
I didn’t spot a graph on there giving future temperature projections.
 
If you want to wait that long, you may have more evidence than you may be comfortable handling. It's a little like someone hearing that they have cancer and without treatment they will die in the next year, and saying they want to wait a few years to be sure the doctors know what they are talking about before doing anything about the cancer.
But there is an established track record of successful cancer predictions. So I would be pretty confidence in a diagnosis. There is no track record yet for multi decade climate(at least 5 decade) predictions.
 
Well, lots could go wrong. But I want base my concern on tested models, not reasonable theory. The theory is reasonable, and likely true, but how true? If it turns out to be the low end, it’s not worthy of much concern.

The scientific community is warning us the dangers are too high to ignore. It's like a doctor telling a patient who is a smoker that the risks are continuing to smoke are just too high. Do they know if the patient is going to get cancer tomorrow or in 5 decades. They probably can't. But they would issue a strong caution. Here, too, they are telling us they are as confident telling us about the risks of climate change as they are of the cancer risks of smoking.

"The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases. Physicians, cardiovascular scientists, public health experts and others all agree smoking causes cancer," the AAAS wrote in its report, "What We Know."

"And this consensus among the health community has convinced most Americans that the health risks from smoking are real. A similar consensus now exists among climate scientists, a consensus that maintains climate change is happening, and human activity is the cause, and is potentially too dangerous to continue to ignore."...

The AAAS says there is scarcely any precedent for the speed at which this is happening: "The rate of climate change now may be as fast as any extended warming period over the past 65 million years, and it is projected to accelerate in the coming decades."

Historically rare extreme weather like once-in-a-century floods, droughts and heat waves could become almost annual occurrences, it says. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets could see large-scale collapse, the Gulf Stream could alter its course, the Amazon rain forest and coral reefs could die off, and mass extinctions could threaten ecosystems.

Climate Risks as Conclusive as Link between Smoking and Lung Cancer - Scientific American
 
I am not skeptical of the basic climate science that man is causing most of the recent warming.

I am skeptical though of the accuracy of climate models as of now. I think results speak volumes. And since climate modeling deals with long time periods, we just don’t have enough successful samples. In fsct we don’t even really have one yet, if we consider about 50 years to be a minimal sample size of model prediction is success.

I would like to see at minimum 4 or 5 successful 50 year periods of reasonably accurate model predictive success to be confident Thst models have a handle on things.


The short term success of models so far is ok. But from past reading the error range was pretty wide. So that takes away from usefulness obviously.


I know they plug models in for the past and all, that just doesn’t give me confidence.

So the science of greenhouse gases means nothing to you? There is no need for model when you have basic chemistry. More CO2 means more heat from the sun that is trapped. Due to record high CO2 levels we are trapping more heat than we lose so the temperature keeps rising. How many record highs do you need to see that?

The past five years have each now ranked among the five warmest on record. According to NASA, 18 of the 19 warmest years have occurred since 2000. The warming of the planet is unambiguous and irrefutable.


Congratulations, You Just Survived The 5 Hottest Years on Record
 
The scientific community is warning us the dangers are too high to ignore. It's like a doctor telling a patient who is a smoker that the risks are continuing to smoke are just too high. Do they know if the patient is going to get cancer tomorrow or in 5 decades. They probably can't. But they would issue a strong caution. Here, too, they are telling us they are as confident telling us about the risks of climate change as they are of the cancer risks of smoking.
Yes, but we have a long track record of people smoking and getting cancer.

We don’t have a long track record of successful multi decade (at least 5 decade) climate predictions.
 
Re: Why I am a “skeptic�

I didn’t spot a graph on there giving future temperature projections.
For the most part, The value of the climate's response to added CO2 is not based on time.
It goes something like this (example from IPCC AR3)
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge
of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
So the future prediction is tied to how long it takes to cause then doubling of CO2, not the effect.
In the case of the cited article, they found the effect of doubling CO2 was 2 °C with an equalization time of
less than one year.
manabe 1966.jpg
That prediction would be off by over 20% and even though it was on the low end of the IPCC's range,
would still be higher than the observed changes.
 
So you want to wait until it happens before you believe it?

Interesting approach. Hey, what could go wrong?

Nah. i tend to look at past results before I plan my life around someone's future predictions.

I might stop smoking cigars, however, just to be safe.
 
Re: Why I am a “skeptic”

I didn’t spot a graph on there giving future temperature projections.
Yes... that's because... you can make predictions... without graphs.

Do you really need me to draw you a graph? Would that actually change your mind?
 
Yes, but we have a long track record of people smoking and getting cancer.

We don’t have a long track record of successful multi decade (at least 5 decade) climate predictions.
Yes, we do. I literally just pointed you to a paper from 1967 that made a fairly accurate prediction.
 
Back
Top Bottom