How to stop doubting and love the climate models

OregonLive ^ | October 17, 2009 | JULIANE FRY, PHD

[LearnsFromMistakes]

This warming can only be explained when including human contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide

Wouldn't it be fun to see her pony up $1000 to any of her students that could, by any stretch of the imagination, find ANY other POSSIBLE explanation.

If I sent a kid to that college, I might want some money back...

[Hank Kerchief]

“This guy” is a woman. ;>)

[KarlInOhio]

This warming can only be explained when including human contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2 ).

I think proper grammar requires the use of "may" or "must" rather than "can" when indicating the permission or mandate of a higher authority, especially government.

Climatologists require government money to do research, or else they can only buy two thermometers and a barometer out of their own money. No government money = no research = no publication and promotions = academic poverty and being laughed at by all the climatologists with multi-million dollar research grants to prove that Antarctica will melt and Penguins will catch on fire by April.

[r-q-tek86]

ping

[gcraig]

Before the Industrial Revolution, CO2 concentrations were less than 280 parts per million (ppm) for at least 1 million years; current atmospheric concentration is 385 ppm.

I am in calculus 2215 this semester at UNCC. The mathematical model given on pg. 78 in the textbook describes the Keeling curve (function used to predict global warming by estimating the quantity of CO₂ in the atmosphere at time t years after 1950):

A(t) = 0.010716t² + 0.8212t + 313.4

The graph of this function appears as a positive region parabola curve with upward concavity (typical quadratic function graph). This mathematical model predicts 387 C0₂ ppm in the atmosphere in 2010 so it is almost as though she is simply using the Keeling curve and sounding haughty about it.

This model does not factor in solar activity, nor does it factor in volcanic activity. I want to see these computer models. I want to see the calculus they are using. I want to see the source code. They think they are so smart, so they attempt to baffle us with bs. Show us the math Miss PhD.

[jpsb]

I do not think the "math" is know to the detail necessary to accurately explain the interaction between the Earth and the Solar as it pertains to the Earth's climate. And since the Sun is the primary driver of climate on Earth, until that relationship is known in detail, nothing is known, it's all guesswork.

[TChris]

And since the Sun is the primary driver of climate on Earth, until that relationship is known in detail, nothing is known, it's all guesswork.

Awww... Don't be so mean.

Just learn to LOVE the models, and all will be well!

[r-q-tek86]

Their graph:

Question for ya, doc... now I ain't all sceincetifical like you smart people, but why does your graph stop at the year 2000? Wasn't that about the same time that the current cooling trend started?

You are careful to note the dates of volcanic eruptions that account for earlier cooling in your models.... did I miss the eruption in 1998 that caused the current trend?

I notice that your model does not track the warming that occured in the late 30's and early 40's. What caused that?

[r-q-tek86]

and one more thing...

Warming is evident in other indicators as well, including rising sea level and decreasing polar sea ice and glaciers.

So if those indicateors do not track with your predictions, does that mean that your models are necessarily wrong? or are they due to:

The model results have some spread, corresponding to remaining uncertainties in the details of the climate system.

Exactly what are those "uncertianties"?

[gura]

How do scientists establish consensus, and what is the role of consensus documents like the IPCC reports?

Consensus has nothing to do with science.

[Reeses]

What follows is a no-frills, nonpartisan explanation

Alarm bell number 1. Nonpartisan explanations never assert this.