Why should we believe global warming "skeptics" given their history of being wrong?

We shouldn't believe them because they are likely wrong now, not because they may have been in the past.

Jayd,

I've attempted to explain to you multiple times why your linear approach to future warming is wrong -- you are neglecting both negative aerosol forcing as well as the thermal inertia of the oceans. You also continue to assert that all climate models have overestimated the observed warming, but I wonder if you've actually done any proper analysis. If you have I'd love to take a look. My guess is that you are only comparing the IPCC ensemble average of ~0.2 K/decade with the current rate without even look at the individual model runs.

And finally, to fully appreciate your position, I'd like to again present a question you've yet to answer for me: Do you argue that the oceans cause the Earth to reach steady state more quickly than in the case of an oceanless (but otherwise identical) planet?

---------------

Jayd,

Let me go through this one more time:

1) Conventionally, there is really only one definition of steady state relating the energy budget at the TOA. Again, you can easily argue that the oceans prevent full equilibration from occurring realistically given finite fossil fuel reserves and the quick drawdown of atmospheric CO2 relative to deep ocean warming, but that doesn't reduce the temperature necessary for steady state.

2) Yes, I understand that the oceans require a great deal of energy to warm appreciably. So does everyone else. I can't figure out why you are trying to convince me of this -- the high heat capacity and low thermal conductivity of water is the very reason why equilibration time is so large, though the small k [and shallow MLD] is also a reason why we'll still see significant warming at the surface.

3) Simply because the oceans take a lot of energy to warm up that does not make them a negative feedback. Soil has a relatively low heat capacity, but that's not a feedback.

4) I don't and never have treated the oceans as a positive feedback. I did say that the "warming in the pipeline" is dependent on CS, and by simple thermodynamics, the farther we are from steady state the longer it takes to reach steady state. But equilibration time is also affected by effective diffusivity below the mixed layer, and even if CS is low, it still takes a... very long time to equilibrate.

And your linear approach to CS is still wrong. Human emissions of aerosols have reduced the net forcing at the top of the atmosphere, thus reducing the rate of warming we would see from CO2 alone. Your linear extrapolation also ignores that the fact that the rate in any one decade only reflects transient temperature change and not equilibrium temperature change.

We aught to at least listen to the "skeptics".

The idea o science is to make a set of observations, and by an analysis of the data, see if some explanation for the observations can be deduced.

We aught not to automatically negate every statement. It is not reasonable that one side can be right all of the time.

The fact is that data exists showing that the world is currently in a warming phase. The last 100 years show a rise of 1 degree Fahrenheit. Now that may be a blip that will end in 2011. But again, evidence of elevated CO2 in our air points to a continuation of global warming.

We aught to keep an open mind on the issue though.

And referring to the nether regions of this planet and its inhabitants probably is NOT going to aid the debate.

Denialist logic would have us spending all of the rent money on lottery because we do not know for an absolute fact that the number on tickets are not the winning numbers, and yet if anyone who questioned the logic of buying all of these lottery tickets does not know the exact winning number, he/she is the bad guy.

Ottawa Mike

"By the way, Spencer and Christy made their data available, admitted the error which took TEN years to find, corrected it and now have accurate reliable data. Compare that to the "hockey team" who never admit to anything and still refuse to release critical raw data for other scientists to verify their work"

James Hansen did the same as Spencer and Christy when an error was found in his work. I am sure that Michael Mann and Phil Jones would do the same if such errors were found in their work. As yet, that has not happened.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hottest-year-...

edit for CP

"On the other hand, why should you believe those who say global warming is happening? A lot of their data has been proved wrong as well."

You produce no examples and no links. But you do mention Al Gore.

Ottawa Mike said "By the way, Spencer and Christy made their data available, admitted the error which took TEN years to find"

NO, it was not 'their' data, it was NASA's data which they misprocessed and trumpeted a sweeping theory to the world based on false data. Their results were inconsistent with all of NASA's other data sets. They refused to look for an error. NASA finally assigned a 'Tiger Team' which reviewed their data processing and found an elementary error. (Elementary by NASA standards). Christy and Spencer keep dining out on their sweeping theory, despite the fact they have NO data now to support it.

Dana, how do you explain the above to people who have no science training? Christy was just on NPR. Why wouldn't they believe him?

The Heartland Institute are a humorous tale they do no longer seem in a position to place forward something that dosen't fall to products whether that's this record ~10% interior 24 hours of its launch asserting they new no longer something approximately being on the record sounds very similar to the Oregon Petition which used an identical tactic. that's Heartland Institute inventory & commerce the convention they held in great apple those days claimed a number of hundred scientists yet grew to become out to have purely a handfull and that that they were paid to attend.

Skeptics don't claim to know what the temperature will be 5-10 years from now.

We admit that we don't know.

Because it's unknowable.

By the way, having different AGW groups / advocates make different predictions so that, when you take all of their predictions combined, there's a story to cover any eventuality, is a tacit admission that your side doesn't know either.

It's real, all right? Elementary physics can tell you that. I'm in first year physics, and I've already learned everything you need to calculate the effects of CO2, CH4, etc on temperature. The data is simple astounding. People who are skeptical need to go see ANY climate scientist's discussion, where the human factor in temperature increase is proven again and again, infallibly.

Basically, because we are not dealing with skeptics, but deniers they have no interest in facts or history and constantly change the theory they support as the mood takes them, these are not the actions of any sort of skeptic. The answer provide by CP is a prime example, the usual empty unsupported statements

"On the other hand, why should you believe those who say global warming is happening? A lot of their data has been proved wrong as well."

Try listing the actual mistakes (make sure you leave out the ones that have been shown to be correct) you will actually end up with a quite short list, compared to the total amount of data collected on AGW, almost nothing in fact.

But then I don't think CP is even really trying to present real reasons and has to fall back on the rather sad "they changed the name" as always the IPCC has been called the IPCC since it was formed in the 80s, guess what 'CC' stands for "climate change" do deniers honestly think this sort of nonsense fools anyone.

The best examples are the three gate theories they still reference

Climategate, Amazongate and Dutchgate

The first was cleared up by and inquiry, the second was actually withdrawn by the very paper that released it (deniers ignore that) and Dutchgate denier claim it was yet another example of the IPCC lying, even the dutch govt bought into denier spin on this and launched an investigation only to embarrassing find it was they who had supplied incorrect data to the IPCC, whoops.

So with the above three history for one reason or another what exactly do deniers have left, a couple of statistical errors affecting a small part of the total temperature record and an incorrect reference to a date for the possible loss of the Himalaya ice sheet, although even this still shows the glaciers there are melting just not as quickly as was expected. As far as I can see the rest of there case seem to be them repeating statements like "the hockey stick has been disproved" over and over and over and over till they believe it is true, while they simply ignore the fact actual research from multiple sources that showed (and continues to show) it was by and large correct.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climat...

i reasonably doubt all of you. there have been times when the average climate has been both much, much warmer than now, and much, much colder.

there are so many things that are unknown on both sides of the debate, that any "conclusion" is extremely premature.

shoveling 6 inches of extra global warming or sweating through 3 weeks of extra global cooling can convince anybody that nobody is entirely right.

the only valid conclusion that can be reached is that we don't know enough yet.

despite that, it doesn't hurt to reduce energy consumption, the major cause of additional atmospheric CO2, for economic reasons. i have saved vast(for me) sums of cash by doing so. how about you?

Well, I think any scientific theory should be analyzed on its merits, not necessarily who is presenting it. Very few scientists have perfect track records. Einstein was wrong about quantum mechanics, and got into trouble with the cosmological constant also. Linus Pauling announced to the world that he had discovered the structure of DNA and what he showed was not even an acid! Sir Harold Jeffreys was a great geophysicist and mathematical physicist but I don't think he believed in plate tectonics. So just being wrong about one thing should not lead us to dismiss other work without examining it. However if someone is repeatedly and demonstrably wrong I do tend to begin to stop paying less attention to what they say.

Although when someone makes a really egregious error, like Tsonis does in his atmospheric thermodynamics book, and then does not really understand what the problem is when it's explained to him--then I REALLY start to doubt them. He's popular with the "skeptics," though.