Why I am a “skeptic”

[Visbek]

Re: Why I am a “skeptic”

From Climate Graphs:

Evaluating the prediction of Manabe and Wetherald (1967) – Climate graphs

 

[ataraxia]

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.

But then why would these scientists be so confident and bold in their prediction? They could just tell us they can't be sure.

I remember before 2012 when they found the Higgs particle, they were telling us that their models made a good prediction that such a thing should exist, but they couldn't be completely confident about it.

And when it comes to things like string theory or supersymmetric particles, they have no qualms about telling us that they are not at all confident in those models. Despite the uncanny beauty, elegance, and intricacy of those models, they don't really push it very hard and are usually pretty comfortable telling everyone that there is still a great deal of uncertainty around them.

Scientists have no qualms about telling us when they are not sure about something. It doesn't take away from their credibility. It only adds to it. That's how science works: it's about varying degrees of certainty. So it's odd that they would choose to talk THIS confidently about their climate change models, when they could just as easily tell us that these predictions MAY be true but they can't be completely sure. So why would they, as an entire international community, talk so urgently and confidently about it if the evidence for the accuracy of the models was not overwhelming?

 

[Media_Truth]

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.

I like the cancer analogy, mentioned by Ataraxia...

"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."

 

[Media_Truth]

But then why would these scientists be so confident and bold in their prediction? They could just tell us they can't be sure.

I remember before 2012 when they found the Higgs particle, they were telling us that their models made a good prediction that such a thing should exist, but they couldn't be completely confident about it.

And when it comes to things like string theory or supersymmetric particles, they have no qualms about telling us that they are not at all confident in those models. Despite the uncanny beauty, elegance, and intricacy of those models, they don't really push it very hard and are usually pretty comfortable telling everyone that there is still a great deal of uncertainty around them.

Scientists have no qualms about telling us when they are not sure about something. It doesn't take away from their credibility. It only adds to it. That's how science works: it's about varying degrees of certainty. So it's odd that they would choose to talk THIS confidently about their climate change models, when they could just as easily tell us that these predictions MAY be true but they can't be completely sure. So why would they, as an entire international community, talk so urgently and confidently about it if the evidence for the accuracy of the models was not overwhelming?

The IPCC documents always point out the certainty level of their claims, with verbage like "high certainty", "extremely high certainty", "low certainty", etc. You are correct. This makes them more credible!

 

[Simpletruther]

I like the cancer analogy, mentioned by Ataraxia...

"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 again, we have a long track record of successful cancer diagnosis.

There is no historical track record yet confirming model accuracies. How do we know this isn’t more like nutrition science, where there was a strong agreement on x, onlynto be overturned later after observation?

I doubt seriously Thst global warming will be overturned. It’s most likely true. The level of warming might be overturned. We don’t have a track record yet.

 

[Simpletruther]

Re: Why I am a “skeptic�

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?

Could you direct me to the predictions of climate temperatures then for this 50 year old model? I could not find it.

Most times it seems projections are summarized in graphs. It’s stanrdard type thing in published science papers.

 

[Simpletruther]

Re: Why I am a “skeptic�

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)

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.
View attachment 67256999
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.

Thst doesn’t sound very precise or impressive. Why is this considered accurate?

 

[Simpletruther]

Yes, we do. I literally just pointed you to a paper from 1967 that made a fairly accurate prediction.

Yes, that’s one. A long track record would be several multi decade time spans, wih models accurately predicting that time span.

And I was just told this one you refer to was off 20% and on the low end of the IPCC prejections.

 

[Tim the plumber]

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.

Even better, try to get them to detail exactly what is actually likely to go wrong.

They don't like to talk about that.

There is nothing at all that stands up to the slightest scrutiny.

 

[PoS]

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?

It's a misleading article written by a doomsayer pundit.

Freeman Dyson (yeah, the guy who conceptualized the Dyson sphere) is one of the smartest men on the planet, and what he says about climate modeling is right on the money:

Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Freeman Dyson on Scientific Organizations and Climate Models

 

[Slavister]

I would like to see at minimum 4 or 5 successful 50 year periods of reasonably accurate model predictive success to be confident

Yes, that’s one. A long track record would be several multi decade time spans, wih models accurately predicting that time span.

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 like the cancer analogy, mentioned by Ataraxia...

Yes, but we have a long track record of people smoking and getting cancer.

Here is another analogy. Scientists all over the world tell us a large asteroid is going to hit Earth in 10 years and wipe us out. You can be skeptical about the accuracy and wait for 4-5 successful predictions about large asteroids hitting Earth and say not bouncing off of our unique atmosphere, or you can try doing something about it.

 

[Simpletruther]

But again, predicting movement of heavenly bodies has an incredibly proven track record. We can take it to the bank when they tell us a mentor will do this or that.

Suppose scientist were just figuring out the physics of moving bodies. They had not yet made many accurate predictions, they only have made one fairly accurate prediction so far. But the asteroid was still not quite where they said it would be.

Thst would be scant evidence to panick about a future event. Plus, he range of possibilities is narrow with climate. The odds of a “lucky guess” are pretty high. This is not wih a heavenly body in space. The range of pisibulites is vast in trying to predict its movements. A close prediction with a heavenly body is more convincing as a result.

Here is another analogy. Scientists all over the world tell us a large asteroid is going to hit Earth in 10 years and wipe us out. You can be skeptical about the accuracy and wait for 4-5 successful predictions about large asteroids hitting Earth and say not bouncing off of our unique atmosphere, or you can try doing something about it.

 

[longview]

Re: Why I am a “skeptic�

Thst doesn’t sound very precise or impressive. Why is this considered accurate?

It does not sound precise because it is not.
Consider that the predicted climate feedbacks are feedbacks in response to the perturbation of
forcing from the added CO2. If we use the example from IPCC TAR,
The forcing would cause warming of 1.2 °C, and then the feedbacks would produce additional warming
of between .3°C and 3.3°C (a factor of 11 difference low to high), to get to the ECS range of 1.5 to 4.5°C.
It is kind of difficult to call that any kind of precise.

 

[Slavister]

A close prediction with a heavenly body is more convincing as a result.

You missed the point of the analogy. It was not about precision of measurements. It was about when scientists of the world are saying the world will have dire consequences if we don't protect it, you can either wait and see how accurate they were or you can try doing something about it in case they are correct.

What's the worst that can happen if they are wrong? We get to renewable energy faster than we would have otherwise?

In any case, you can doubt experts in the field but you are not one of them, and if we do ignore them, we'd be doing it at our own peril.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Here is another analogy. Scientists all over the world tell us a large asteroid is going to hit Earth in 10 years and wipe us out. You can be skeptical about the accuracy and wait for 4-5 successful predictions about large asteroids hitting Earth and say not bouncing off of our unique atmosphere, or you can try doing something about it.

Can you tell me where, some particular local council area, on earth will be most severely effected, badly, by the worst single aspect of slightly warmer world?

Please justify any numbers that are greater than the IPCC's climate predictions with some published papers that explain the mechanism.

Also tell me what level of cost you think this local council will expect to have to spend to sort it out. Do you think it will be higher than the cost of the traffic lights over that time?

 

[Slavister]

Can you tell me where, some particular local council area, on earth will be most severely effected, badly, by the worst single aspect of slightly warmer world?

Please justify any numbers that are greater than the IPCC's climate predictions with some published papers that explain the mechanism.

Also tell me what level of cost you think this local council will expect to have to spend to sort it out. Do you think it will be higher than the cost of the traffic lights over that time?

I don't need to tell you any of it. You can read IPCC reports and references to your heart's content. You can also google proposed solutions and policies by various governments, including Paris accord.

Yes, it may cost more than traffic lights and it may avoid more than a traffic accident. Higher costs would also be in short term. Longer term, we end up with sustainable energy sources and a new industry stimulating world economy.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I don't need to tell you any of it. You can read IPCC reports and references to your heart's content. You can also google proposed solutions and policies by various governments, including Paris accord.

Yes, it may cost more than traffic lights and it may avoid more than a traffic accident.

I have read some of the IPCC's report. I don't think it will cost more for any local council in the world to sort out any single bad aspect of a slightly warmer world than that council spends on its' traffic lights. Assuming it has traffic lights. That is, the place is significant enough to have them and thus has a significant budget for everything else. So I see all the problems from a slightly warmer world as less than trivial.

The only places where this might be false are where the foundations are in permafrost. But if you live in a place that has permafrost it melting is surely a generally good thing?

It is you that is trying to convince us that there is some sort of problem.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: Why I am a “skeptic”

From Climate Graphs:

Evaluating the prediction of Manabe and Wetherald (1967) – Climate graphs

Hold on here.
How can that be called an accurate prediction?
You see that 20 year warming pause that started in 1940?
There is another warming pause that started in 2000.
Everyone knows about it.
The graph prediction doesn't show it.
The models didn't predict it either.
Makes a person think that just maybe there's a more powerful climate driver than the one programmed into the models.
At least it should make a person think that.

 

[Simpletruther]

Re: Why I am a “skeptic�

It does not sound precise because it is not.
Consider that the predicted climate feedbacks are feedbacks in response to the perturbation of
forcing from the added CO2. If we use the example from IPCC TAR,
The forcing would cause warming of 1.2 °C, and then the feedbacks would produce additional warming
of between .3°C and 3.3°C (a factor of 11 difference low to high), to get to the ECS range of 1.5 to 4.5°C.
It is kind of difficult to call that any kind of precise.

How do I find Thst, google IPCC tar? Or is there a certain year of this report?

 

[Simpletruther]

You missed the point of the analogy. It was not about precision of measurements. It was about when scientists of the world are saying the world will have dire consequences if we don't protect it, you can either wait and see how accurate they were or you can try doing something about it in case they are correct.

What's the worst that can happen if they are wrong? We get to renewable energy faster than we would have otherwise?

In any case, you can doubt experts in the field but you are not one of them, and if we do ignore them, we'd be doing it at our own peril.

The worst that can happen is we spend trillions of dollars up a hogs butte for nothing, and billions of poor people suffer even more becasue of overall wealth decline.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Why I am a “skeptic�

Could you direct me to the predictions of climate temperatures then for this 50 year old model? I could not find it.

I quoted it already.

"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.

It is also in Table 5.

It is also in post #26.

 

[Visbek]

Re: Why I am a “skeptic”

You see that 20 year warming pause that started in 1940? There is another warming pause that started in 2000. Everyone knows about it. The graph prediction doesn't show it.

sigh

Your inability to read the graph is not helping you here. The red line is the prediction, and it starts in 1967. There was no "warming pause" in 2000. Both should be screamingly obvious from the graph.

Anyway.... The model was not designed to provide a 100% accurate year-by-year prediction from 1967 to 2017. Nor did it make any such claim.

In fact, none of the models make claims like that. They aren't making 10-day weather forecasts, they are predicting long-term trends. As a result, they don't usually include events like volcanic eruptions or ENSOs that can have effects for up to a decade. They're looking at long-term trends.

The model specifically predicts that "if CO2 PPM doubles from 300ppm to 600ppm, we will see 2.3C of warming." The rise in CO2 and the rise in temperatures we've seen over the past 50 years fits that prediction very well.

 

[longview]

Re: Why I am a “skeptic”

How do I find Thst, google IPCC tar? Or is there a certain year of this report?

It was the third assessment report in 2001, it mostly seems to have dropped off the map, but sections are still cited in AR5.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/09/WG1AR5_Chapter01_FINAL.pdf

1.2.2 Key Concepts in Climate ScienceHere, some of the key concepts in climate science are briefly described;
many of these were summarized more comprehensively in earlier IPCC assessments (Baede et al., 2001).
We focus only on a certain number of them to facilitate discussions in this assessmen

The section I am citing was also in a paper called (Baede et al., 2001),
The link used to be,
Page not found (404) |
GRID-Arendal
but that has not worked in over a year.

 

[longview]

Re: Why I am a “skeptic�

I quoted it already.

"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.

It is also in Table 5.

It is also in post #26.

It is fine to say the observations overlap a 50 year old prediction of 2XCO2 ECS of 2°C, but what does that say
about those who stand fast on the idea that 2XCO2 will have an ECS of 3°C?

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: Why I am a “skeptic”

sigh

Your inability to read the graph is not helping you here. The red line is the prediction, and it starts in 1967. There was no "warming pause" in 2000. Both should be screamingly obvious from the graph.

Anyway.... The model was not designed to provide a 100% accurate year-by-year prediction from 1967 to 2017. Nor did it make any such claim.

In fact, none of the models make claims like that. They aren't making 10-day weather forecasts, they are predicting long-term trends. As a result, they don't usually include events like volcanic eruptions or ENSOs that can have effects for up to a decade. They're looking at long-term trends.

The model specifically predicts that "if CO2 PPM doubles from 300ppm to 600ppm, we will see 2.3C of warming." The rise in CO2 and the rise in temperatures we've seen over the past 50 years fits that prediction very well.

Uh, yeah. That's what I said.
The prediction didn't predict a warming pause so the graph didn't show a warming pause and, as I said, the models don't show a warming pause ... yet there was a warming pause starting in 2000.
That was the point.
It's been commented on in the news and everything.
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/examining-the-pause.pdf
The only thing in your climate debate that fits the past 50 years is your denial.
No wonder you get so confused ... sheesh.