You might want to think twice about your love of computer models. I know how to make computer models and have made many of them before. First, you can make a computer model turn out, whatever answer you want. The tweeking necessary would likely not be caught by anyone, especially with sufficiently difficult code. Some of the tweeks are just a simple stating of assumptions. For example, the assumption that we can use "climate sensitivity to CO2" from the past to model into the future, means that you are entirely ignoring the fact that more warming tends to cause the oceans to hold less CO2 and thus causes more CO2 into the atmosphere. That is a huge assumption and one that is obviously not true.
Now even if you are trying to give the best models that you can, the predictive ability of the model drops significantly when modeling out too far in the future. Further, models tend to shoot of into infinity and negative infinity in the long run. This is almost always an error in the model caused by placing a larger amount of positive feedback then negative feedbacks.
This problem is also seen in the modeling. Please note that most of the models predict runaway warming, but if you take them out farther, you will not see an end to the warming. I find it difficult to beleive that we will be thousands of degrees warmer 100,000 years from now. Do you think this realistic?
The computer models that have been around long enough to check have all overestimated the warming, we know all of the errors that are inherent in comp modeling are seen in AGW modeling and they are incorrectly applying the models to a longer timeframe than is warranted by the data.
Computer models have been amazing at solving and predicting in the short term with a bunch of information. We need to understand their limitations though. Don't just try some handwaving at science and think that this should buy you anything. It doesn't buy jack. I can hand wave all I want at the smart scientists who came up with this drug and the number of computer simulations that they ran. Guess what, if the drug doesn't work, those comp models mean jack.
Herbert Lom,
So the republicans that think AGW is happening are deniers and the dems and independents that do not think AGW is happening are not deniers. WOW! I need a whole new definition of denier or your definition is stupid.
I define a climate change denier as one who believes in AGW even though the climate scientists have had to cherry pick starting dates, have to write off past warming periods, and totally ignore the fact that water vapor is the #1 green house gas and makes up about 1 to 2% of the atmosphere. I could go on, but the AGW crowd will ignore me again.
a] someone with the intelligence and training to either already know or be able to learn the truth. This is someone who deliberately ignores information, and thus consciously or unconsciously lies about anthropogenic global warming. They are often meteorologists, geologists, physicists or other non-climate scientists. or
b] someone who decides for ideological reasons that AGW *must* be wrong because it conflicts with personal beliefs. This applies to a lot of US conservatives, and moreso to those who identify as Tea Partiers.
Either as a person that does not think current data points towards any unusual climate change (or perhaps does not think current data points towards any human-influenced climate change), or a metric that indicates that climate change is either not currently ongoing, or going in the opposite direction (a growing glacier, for instance).
That's fairly simple. A denier is anyone who makes up excuses as to why humans aren't responsible, can't be responsible, or shouldn't be held responsible, for climate change.
This includes people who use differing theories depending on their mood, like "it's the sun", "it's not warming", "it's a natural, as yet mysterious, cycle", "we're causing it, but it's good", etc.
This includes those who claim that it's a conspiracy, including "liberal socialists", "liberal communists", "Club of Rome", "The UN", "The NWO", etc.
This also includes those who routinely entertain that other problems are 'also myths/hoaxes' such as tobacco/cancer, CFCs/ozone, acid rain, Y2K, DDT, etc.
Skeptics accept most of the scientific precepts of AGW but don't necessarily accept the severity, or that what is being observed is cause for alarm. Or, perhaps they disagree with what steps can or should be taken to deal with any problems associated with warming/climate change.
I would like to point out that there *are* alarmists. I don't particularly care for them, either, since they also like to make things up to support their claims of impending global doom.
Sometime people deny the truth of scientific findings in the mistaken belief that it threatens their power. Just the opposite is true.
Science is simply systematized knowledge. With computers we are now able to gather enormous numbers of measurements and use the analysis to make very accurate predictions. It’s like having almanacs from the future, though less specific. Used with fairness, kindness and consideration for the needs of all, science can help us attain a better world.
Hundreds of years ago, political leaders felt threatened by new discoveries showing that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Galileo Gallilei was put under house arrest and ordered not to teach that the Earth revolves around the sun.
In the last century in Russia under Stalin, and in China under Mao, the people with education, ‘intelligentsia,’ were banned from teaching and working, sent to farms and work camps, and killed.
Just as Galileo’s use of the telescope frightened the religious leaders long ago, many politicians today are bewildered by computerized information showing the shrinking of Earth’s resources. They cling to the outdated notion that the measure of success is who has the most stuff, money, land, boats, or diamonds.
The new measure of success is when everybody has enough to eat, shelter, clothing, education and protection from physical and mental harm.
Many people think that this is impossible, or they are afraid that they may have to share what they have, and they want more stuff. Polls asking people how happy they are show that once people get their basic needs met, that increased wealth does not make them happier. Family, friends, fun, nature and caring for others brings more happiness than more possessions.
Science, accepted in its accuracy, and applied to the creation of regulations that keep the free market functioning but makes it preserve our natural resources and protect us from repression, can give us a bright future.
Climate Cover -Up by James Hogan
Doubt is their product, How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health by David Michaels
Some people take the "contrarian" or denialist view against scientific evidence about global warming, opting instead for the view put forth by the fossil fuel industry which is merely trying to protect it's bottom line. This is a climate change denier. They see themselves as informed, but the information they use largely comes from experts in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry.
The industry hires PR firms and tries to overwhelm public opinion in much the same way tobacco companies muddied the truth about the 1964 Surgeon's Report on Smoking and Lung Cancer. Exploit any facet of the science of climatology that will make a news headline is the PR firm's method of diverting attention away from the facts . Yes, the deniers, skeptics, or contrarians see themselves as the ones who see behind the curtain......the romantic rebels against those "square science frauds who are in it only to get funding". Yeah, global warming is merely a theory with no basis in fact is the popular meme. Yeah, no one could "prove" smoking caused lung cancer in 1964. It was merely "linked"....and now, millions of deaths later, costing our society billions of dollars in added health care costs we know there is more than a "link".
A skeptic, not afraid to ask questions. Climate change (and even more it's direction) is still a hypothesis - although a strong one - not a dogma, due to relatively short observation time and inaccurate models.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Cool L,
You might want to think twice about your love of computer models. I know how to make computer models and have made many of them before. First, you can make a computer model turn out, whatever answer you want. The tweeking necessary would likely not be caught by anyone, especially with sufficiently difficult code. Some of the tweeks are just a simple stating of assumptions. For example, the assumption that we can use "climate sensitivity to CO2" from the past to model into the future, means that you are entirely ignoring the fact that more warming tends to cause the oceans to hold less CO2 and thus causes more CO2 into the atmosphere. That is a huge assumption and one that is obviously not true.
Now even if you are trying to give the best models that you can, the predictive ability of the model drops significantly when modeling out too far in the future. Further, models tend to shoot of into infinity and negative infinity in the long run. This is almost always an error in the model caused by placing a larger amount of positive feedback then negative feedbacks.
This problem is also seen in the modeling. Please note that most of the models predict runaway warming, but if you take them out farther, you will not see an end to the warming. I find it difficult to beleive that we will be thousands of degrees warmer 100,000 years from now. Do you think this realistic?
The computer models that have been around long enough to check have all overestimated the warming, we know all of the errors that are inherent in comp modeling are seen in AGW modeling and they are incorrectly applying the models to a longer timeframe than is warranted by the data.
Computer models have been amazing at solving and predicting in the short term with a bunch of information. We need to understand their limitations though. Don't just try some handwaving at science and think that this should buy you anything. It doesn't buy jack. I can hand wave all I want at the smart scientists who came up with this drug and the number of computer simulations that they ran. Guess what, if the drug doesn't work, those comp models mean jack.
Herbert Lom,
So the republicans that think AGW is happening are deniers and the dems and independents that do not think AGW is happening are not deniers. WOW! I need a whole new definition of denier or your definition is stupid.
I define a climate change denier as one who believes in AGW even though the climate scientists have had to cherry pick starting dates, have to write off past warming periods, and totally ignore the fact that water vapor is the #1 green house gas and makes up about 1 to 2% of the atmosphere. I could go on, but the AGW crowd will ignore me again.
A climate change denier is primarily:
a] someone with the intelligence and training to either already know or be able to learn the truth. This is someone who deliberately ignores information, and thus consciously or unconsciously lies about anthropogenic global warming. They are often meteorologists, geologists, physicists or other non-climate scientists. or
b] someone who decides for ideological reasons that AGW *must* be wrong because it conflicts with personal beliefs. This applies to a lot of US conservatives, and moreso to those who identify as Tea Partiers.
Either as a person that does not think current data points towards any unusual climate change (or perhaps does not think current data points towards any human-influenced climate change), or a metric that indicates that climate change is either not currently ongoing, or going in the opposite direction (a growing glacier, for instance).
That's fairly simple. A denier is anyone who makes up excuses as to why humans aren't responsible, can't be responsible, or shouldn't be held responsible, for climate change.
This includes people who use differing theories depending on their mood, like "it's the sun", "it's not warming", "it's a natural, as yet mysterious, cycle", "we're causing it, but it's good", etc.
This includes those who claim that it's a conspiracy, including "liberal socialists", "liberal communists", "Club of Rome", "The UN", "The NWO", etc.
This also includes those who routinely entertain that other problems are 'also myths/hoaxes' such as tobacco/cancer, CFCs/ozone, acid rain, Y2K, DDT, etc.
Skeptics accept most of the scientific precepts of AGW but don't necessarily accept the severity, or that what is being observed is cause for alarm. Or, perhaps they disagree with what steps can or should be taken to deal with any problems associated with warming/climate change.
I would like to point out that there *are* alarmists. I don't particularly care for them, either, since they also like to make things up to support their claims of impending global doom.
_
Sometime people deny the truth of scientific findings in the mistaken belief that it threatens their power. Just the opposite is true.
Science is simply systematized knowledge. With computers we are now able to gather enormous numbers of measurements and use the analysis to make very accurate predictions. It’s like having almanacs from the future, though less specific. Used with fairness, kindness and consideration for the needs of all, science can help us attain a better world.
Hundreds of years ago, political leaders felt threatened by new discoveries showing that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Galileo Gallilei was put under house arrest and ordered not to teach that the Earth revolves around the sun.
In the last century in Russia under Stalin, and in China under Mao, the people with education, ‘intelligentsia,’ were banned from teaching and working, sent to farms and work camps, and killed.
Just as Galileo’s use of the telescope frightened the religious leaders long ago, many politicians today are bewildered by computerized information showing the shrinking of Earth’s resources. They cling to the outdated notion that the measure of success is who has the most stuff, money, land, boats, or diamonds.
The new measure of success is when everybody has enough to eat, shelter, clothing, education and protection from physical and mental harm.
Many people think that this is impossible, or they are afraid that they may have to share what they have, and they want more stuff. Polls asking people how happy they are show that once people get their basic needs met, that increased wealth does not make them happier. Family, friends, fun, nature and caring for others brings more happiness than more possessions.
Science, accepted in its accuracy, and applied to the creation of regulations that keep the free market functioning but makes it preserve our natural resources and protect us from repression, can give us a bright future.
Climate Cover -Up by James Hogan
Doubt is their product, How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health by David Michaels
Science as a Contact Sport by Stephen Schneider
Plan B 4.0 by Lester Brown
Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken
Some people take the "contrarian" or denialist view against scientific evidence about global warming, opting instead for the view put forth by the fossil fuel industry which is merely trying to protect it's bottom line. This is a climate change denier. They see themselves as informed, but the information they use largely comes from experts in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry.
The industry hires PR firms and tries to overwhelm public opinion in much the same way tobacco companies muddied the truth about the 1964 Surgeon's Report on Smoking and Lung Cancer. Exploit any facet of the science of climatology that will make a news headline is the PR firm's method of diverting attention away from the facts . Yes, the deniers, skeptics, or contrarians see themselves as the ones who see behind the curtain......the romantic rebels against those "square science frauds who are in it only to get funding". Yeah, global warming is merely a theory with no basis in fact is the popular meme. Yeah, no one could "prove" smoking caused lung cancer in 1964. It was merely "linked"....and now, millions of deaths later, costing our society billions of dollars in added health care costs we know there is more than a "link".
Well apart from them not believing the official story of the jewish holocaust , they are usually intelligent and do not flock together crying baa
A skeptic, not afraid to ask questions. Climate change (and even more it's direction) is still a hypothesis - although a strong one - not a dogma, due to relatively short observation time and inaccurate models.
Hey rich, "denier" everybody who not a warmista-includes most everyone in world, yeah?
Peace and aloha to you from Hawaii.