(Part 2) Top products from r/climateskeptics

> "Even the ancient Romans...". By the standards of that time, exposing oneself to radiation is not dangerous so using 100-year-old guesses as "evidence" smacks of desperation.

You missed the point. You claimed that models are the cornerstone of the evidence behind global warming. That is laughably wrong; the basic physics and chemistry of the topic were elucidated decades before computers even existed. That's something Arrhenius contributed to.

> So, climate models that have been calibrated with 20th century data simulate the 20th century extremely well? Color me unsurprised. Even if that were true, it's hardly evidence of their validity, just the very minimum requirement for them to even have the possibility of any predictive capability. Bob Tisdale for one has done exhaustive reviews of climate model performance and has found them to perform very poorly. Considering their shortcomings, I don't find that hard to believe

Models are not calibrated with 20th century data. That's simply not how they work.

You said models perform poorly. And yet, they are able to reproduce observed 20th century climate variability among many, many other things - dynamical responses to volcanic eruptions, coupled oceanic-atmosphere oscillations, etc. Bob Tisdale's work is incredibly slip-shod; it's deconstructed regularly at Tamino and elsewhere. If you have nothing but citations to blog-science to back up your point here, I think we can move on.

> Whether it's a parametrization or results from the model run itself is irrelevant; all AR4 models had a positive cloud feedback. In actuality if a cloud feedback arises in the model as an emergent phenomenon, it is a condemnation of said model because a positive cloud feedback is not supported by any kind of empirical evidence. I suppose we'll see how your "virtually zero cloud feedback" claim stands up when AR5 gets released.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, the CMIP3 models generally had a weak positive cloud feedback. Soden and Held (2006) is a good paper which elaborates on this analysis. Above all else, that you think there is a settled "empirical evidence" estimate of the magnitude of cloud feedback really betrays how little time you have spent on this topic. The most relevant pre-AR4 article on cloud feedbacks is Randall et al, 2006. Read it; you'll find that observational estimates of cloud feedbacks had even higher uncertainty than model estimates, for a host of tehnical and dynamical reasons. As of AR4, theo bservations msot definitely did not exclude the modeling results.

I've already read drafts of the section on clouds in AR5. You do know that you don't have to wait for the report to come out, right? You can go to Google Scholar and start reading up on the topic; all the papers cited have already been published.

> Elementary physics like this one? In case you don't understand what a positive water vapor feedback means, it doesn't mean that warmer air can hold more water vapor. It means that A) the absorption bands of water vapor are not saturated, B) the latent heat going into evaporating said water is not equal or greater than than the increasthed absorption, C) that relative humidity stays constant and D) increased absolute humidity does not cause an increase in albedo through increased precipitation (more clouds?). I am sure there are more parameters but I guess those are enough.

Trying to deflect by invoking Al Gore? I see why it's necessary:

A) If absorption bans are not saturated, then that means adding water vapor will inrease absorption. How do you increase the water vapor? By warming, and letting Clausius-Clapeyron take effect.

B) That has nothing to do with the water vapor effect, and doesn't make sense. Latent heat is consumed during evaporation; it would cool the surrounding air. Hence why precipitation kills downdrafts in convection.

C) Assuming relative humidity stays constant in a global average is just an approximation - and it's a very good one on the time scale of global warming.

D) Nonsense; absolute humidity has nothing to do with precipitation, which is a consequence of dynamic cloud physics. This is entirely irrelevant to water vapor feedback.

You might want to brush up on a basic climate science text.

> Now I'm confused. This guy seems to disagree with you, perhaps you should go and educate him of Real Climate Modelingtm. One thing the GCMs do achieve consistently, though, is not replicating the 1910-1970 warming/cooling period.

Barnston is simplifying the response since it's an IAMA, not a journal article. He's also not disagreeing with me; He's talking about how the oscillations interact, which is a different topic.

For your irrelevant topic change in the middle here - when you look at model output, you're typically looking at ensemble statistcs. There will be ensemble members that reproduce many finer details of observed 20th century warming. Others won't, becuase in ensemble modeling, you perturb the initial conditions slightly to get a better sense in the response's sensitivity to the initial conditions. Observed fine details aren't outside of the ensemble statistics by any stretch of the imagination, and they're a result of internal variability - not exogenous forcing.

> That is, the models are incapable of explaining past climate variability. This does not mean that a high feedback is a requirement, it can just as easily mean that having such a requirement means the climate models are flawed.

False. Models aren't usually used to simulate geological climate variability because it's too expensive to run them for that long. The necessity for a higher cliamte sensitivity comes from our knowledge of the time scales on which geological climate change has occurred. This is once again where physics and chemistry come into play - physical climatology dictates this. It ain't from models.


> So, I was correct then wasn't I, since I said that "The justification is that nothing else except a CO2 forcing and a high climate feedback could explain the rate of warming of the latter 20th century". That's a very roundabout way of agreeing with me. Also note the difference between "can measure" and "have sufficient historical data of".

No, you're wrong because you're playing semantics. There are plenty of other forcings that could explain modern observed warming. They just aren't happening. The sun isn't enormously increasing it's output. The Earth's orbit isn't rapidly changing. We're not releasing huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. We're not seeing a global decrease in stratospheric ozone.

I'm not interested in word games.

> Hmmmm? Besides, I didn't say no warming trend for 15 years, I said practically no warming for 15 years. I guess the Real Climate Sciencetm filter was too eager to mush what I said to agree with its parameters.
> Also, "models routinely produce variability which has characteristics similar to what we observe." I almost blew milk out of my nose without drinking any when I read this spin. That statement could mean practically anything or nothing.

A trendline is meaningless without a robust estimate of uncertainity. Gee, I wonder why you don't produce that statistic here?

After you clean up your keyboard, devote a handful of neurons to understanding the sentence. If I were to hand you a timeseries of model output and a timeseries of observed global temperature, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. That's because models produce decent climates - certainly decent enough to study the physics of how different processes elicit different responses in teh climate system.

> Oh, so that's why there has been such a scramble to explain the lack of warming with Chinese aerosols and heat magically disappearing in the deep oceans, yes? Gotcha. Decadal weather also has a funny ring to it, I must remember that the next time someone goes "zomg is HOT we has global warmings ok?!?!?!?" and tell them that counters himself of the Climate Science Businesstm talks of decadal weather.

Not all aerosols cause warming. Aerosols in china are an intense focus of research, especially in Asian-language journals (not so much in the West). No one has claimed that Chinese aerosols are a major contributor to global warming. There are many interesting things to talk about with respect to aerosols and their impacts on cloud physics, but that's an entirely different topic.

The deep ocean does store large amounts of heat. The infamous Trenberth quote alludes to our difficulty in building monitoring systems to measure this with any certainty. The physics is (relatively) straightforward; read the Hartmann book linked above.

Decadal variability is hard to produce in models which is why no one produces downscaled decadal forecasts. It's a technical problem involving needing too many ensemble members running at too high a resolution to resolve the statistics necessary to say anything meaningful about decadal-scale changes. that doesn't mean it isn't done; it means that there is lage uncertainty.

> More like the Art of Spin by Coun Tzurs.

Calling out your BS isn't spin, despite your heavy spinning trying to call it such. And that's what it is - BS.

A really good book that I appreciated when it first came out was "State Of Fear" by Michael Crichton. It's written as a novel but I feel it accurately represents the political airs around alarmism. He backs what he says with factual data and puts mans previous attempts at altering an ecosystem into perspective quite well. At this point, the arguments are somewhat outdated as the alarmists change their tune when empirical data is presented, but it's still a good read.

Edit: I'd like to hear other opinions on this book as well.

"The history of science demonstrates, however, that the scientific truths of yesterday are often viewed as misconceptions, and, conversely, that ideas rejected in the past may now be considered true. History is littered with the discarded beliefs of yesteryear, and the present is populated by epistemic corrections. This realization leads us to the central problem of the history and philosophy of science: How are we to evaluate contemporary sciences's claims to truth given the perishability of past scientific knowledge? This question is of considerable philosophic interest and of practical import as well. If the truths of today are the falsehoods of tomorrow, what does this say about the nature of scientific truth? And if our knowledge is perishable and incomplete, how can we warrant its use in sensitive social and political decision-making?" -- Naomi Oreskes, The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science, 1999

Have a read of the following. Seems relevant. Good book too.

https://www.amazon.ca/Beyond-Hoax-Science-Philosophy-Culture/dp/0199561834

I don't think anyone is in charge of human race. There is no global "we“.

What part of your local environment is not sustainable? Why that is not an example right now? Cheer up, here is a book https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143111388/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0

And if you want to balance out your view you should also consider both sides

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/0521173159

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Observed-impacts-Planet/dp/044453301X/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10300308-living-in-denial

http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Global-Warming-Histories-Technology/dp/067403189X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888732&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Uncertainty-William-Stewart/dp/0976729164/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/1597265675

http://www.amazon.com/The-Weather-Makers-Changing-Climate/dp/B001PO66MG/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1

http://knopfdoubleday.com/2012/06/25/global-weirdness-by-climate-central/

http://mark-bowen.com/book_cs.html

http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Flat-Crowded-2-0-Revolution/dp/0312428928/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888779&sr=1-1

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/six-degrees-mark-lynas/1100833125

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15856813-overheated

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/1608193942

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Contact-Sport-Inside-Climate/dp/1426205406/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888885&sr=1-1

http://astore.amazon.com/wwwmichaelcot-20/detail/0822351099

http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Capitalism-Creating-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0316353000/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274888939&sr=1-1

Well, here's the Ron Paul of climate science. He invented the electron capture detector, which was used to detect CFCs. he's been involved in climate science since the early 60s, and is considered the grandfather of climate science. Also, he's self funded and lives a simple and humble life. His conversation style is quite refreshing as he uses hardly any emotive language when describing his work, ideas and predictions of the climate.

Stoked1984, I think you should read "Cool It"...

video makes the same mistake in interpretation you do. impossibility of deterministic forecasts of climate in the terms of weather, say, max and min temperatures on Nov 22 2104 is a given. does not mean that we can not predict a likely distribution of for those max and min temperatures conditioned on some boundary condition change to the climate system.

silly, silly, silly. you should start with strogatz, not with youtube.

>state of fear

http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0066214130

>And I've read L Ron Hubbard.

Global warming alarmism and Scientology are two of main things that I am against.

Luckily there are plenty of groups such as Anonymous that are exposing Scientology.

There's even a subreddit for exposing Scientology:

/r/scientology

I sometimes refer to global warming alarmism activists as "Climate Scientologists".

Who wants centralized government? (https://www.brightest.io/green-new-deal)
Who wants the removal of democracy? (https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Challenge-Democracy-Politics-Environment/dp/031334504X)
Who wants to eliminate dissenting opinions? (https://www.change.org/p/reddit-com-we-want-reddit-to-quarantinte-r-climateskeptics?recruiter=899626085&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition)

Yes, the radical left are fascists. It's a sad state of affairs when the, "progressives," want to eliminate free thought. Incidentally, this is one of the main reasons I'm here in this sub. The left pushed me here. Most of my views are quite progressive. I'm all about equality, I'm agnostic, I support the idea of limited government services, I am anti-world policing military. But catastrophic climate change is a farce. The data makes this very clear. That this is the entire platform of the Democrats at this point, is a tragedy. The green new deal is going to kill any hope that the Democrats have of taking back the white house.

Dr. Propaganda artist and eco-fascist more like it. Check out this 5 star review from Amazon!:

"Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. In this book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
  
  
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
  
  
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
  
  
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
  
  
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
  
  Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things. [...] "
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Ecoscience-Population-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/dp/0716700298