Why are global climate models suddenly reliable when they tell you what you want to hear?

Question

I've seen many global warming skeptics/deniers raving about this paper:

"Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System"

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Because it concludes that if the atmospheric CO2 levels double, it will only lead to a ~1°C global warming. However, as a member of RealClimate notes:

"Even if his result is correct (which it isn’t), it by no means “kills AGW theory.” It simply changes the numbers. In fact, Schwartz’s analysis implicitly assumes that the planet *is* warming, and that the primary cause is man-made greenhouse gases."

post #30 here - http://realclimate.org/index.php?p=467#comment-49237

The author of the Brookhaven paper is also pretty clearly skeptical of his own results, and notes that his model is rather simplisic.

What puzzles me is how GW deniers can say that climate models are unreliable, then claim that this climate model's results are the final nail in the coffin?!

Why I was suspended:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ah19nn1NwE1BeVoKgn9fv.MAAAAA?qid=20070821123003AA7ghsU

Jello - as always, you've got the facts wrong. RealClimate is not "written" by anyone. Many climate scientists contribute to it. That's like saying your answer was written by a Y!A employee. I sure hope they're not as ignorant as you.

Answer 1

All they do is cherry pick, they have a new global warming theory every week: solar activity, cosmic rays, microbial activity, outgassing, natural cycles,al gore, ocean variations, "the earth is really cooling", increased/ decreased volcanic activity (apparently both can lead to global warming)," global warming is good anyway", or the best one of all: "we don't know, but it can't be human activity" .

Once one theory is disproven they simply come up with another that gets disproven.

Meanwhile the real scientists have stuck with the same theory for more than 20 years (really over 100 years) and it has yet to be disproven.

Answer 2

Generalized scientific data is really only useful in pointing out where future research should take place.

People (including scientists) are protective of their personal opinions, and repeated studies have shown where personal bias can effect the interpretation of data.

For every global warming denier, there is a GW believer. However, this has no real meaning whatsoever... the scientists will present their results, and the administrators will craft policy from that... policy which may or may not reflect the input from the scientists.

Answer 3

you will be able to desire to re-readd the item which you sited. What your asserting isn't what the item and scientific learn is asserting. sure the remarks of the water vapor in the better ecosystem led to much less warming than envisioned over the final ten years. So, incredibly of .25 F upward thrust which replaced into envisioned, it replaced right into a .18 F upward thrust. out of your article: yet Solomon factors out it incredibly is not an illustration that predictions on worldwide warming are overstated: "this does not mean there is not worldwide warming," notes Solomon. "there is no significant debate that it incredibly is warmer now than it replaced into one hundred years in the past, by way of anthropogenic (guy-made) greenhouse gases." and how will this water vapor impression destiny worldwide warming? "we actually don't comprehend the answer to this," says Solomon. "If the water ameliorations are because of the specific way the sea-floor temperature trend seems suitable now, then it could desire to correctly not be linked to the universal warming. it could desire to easily be a source of variability from one decade to a diverse because of the fact the sea trend slowly ameliorations. Or it could desire to be linked to the universal warming of the tropics, wherein case it could desire to proceed to 'positioned the brakes on.' in hassle-free terms time will tell, and greater records." attempt to comprehend the technological know-how Jello.

Answer 4

The Planet's temperatures fluctuate naturally. They have since the creation. Earth has had four Ice ages, according to science, all of which happened prior to man's existence. Why?
The only constant is change.

Answer 5

If somone finds a source that says what they want to here then it is realiable becasue they want it to be. It is even reliable to them if they made an edit to wikipeida to make them be right.

Answer 6

Realclimate is written by Dr. Mann, who's bogus hockey stick started this controversy.

You can't find anything more skewed to your personal viewpoint?

I bet no one ever accuses you of being objective.

Added Note: Sorry buy "Dr.Mann and eight other climatologists have created a new website, www.realclimate.org" so yes, it is his website no matter how much you cherry pick the data.

Answer 7

Climate models are unreliable and variation of result only demonstrates that unreliability.

Answer 8

Lemmings.

Answer 9

You know why; you just wanted to point it out. It's because they think they are right, just as you think that you right. It is hard for anyone to remain truly unbiased.

Answer 10

reliability is a function of need. if you find something helpful and reliable, it's likely you need it. we can all find a study that will back up ANY position... experts come in all flavors. i still prefer mine green.