# Need proof of Global Warming **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 4, 2008, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-proof-of-global-warming/443879 "2008-04-04T02:39:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2008, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-proof-of-global-warming/443879/381 "2008-05-27T16:06:59Z")
**intention** : Well, that seems to conveniently get you out of having to defend the two scientifically-indefensible statements that you made with great confidence in your comment over at Briggs website. I don’t know why you are getting so huffy about what I said anyway. I had already given you and **brazil84** the reference to that Perspectives article from which you could have found articles that do calculations regarding past climates. If that wasn’t enough, I have now provided you with links to the abstracts of a couple of articles themselves that do the calculations. And, I have also now referred you to the specific chapters or sections of the IPCC report that discuss calculations regarding past climates. So, the only thing I can figure is that perhaps you just want all this manufactured controversy to distract from the fact that you made two statements that are simply wrong scientifically and that you would prefer not to have to defend. And, if I were you, I wouldn’t want to try to defend them either. My best to you. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-proof-of-global-warming/443879/382 "2008-05-28T00:50:06Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] I had already given you and **brazil84** the reference to that Perspectives article from which you could have found articles that do calculations regarding past climates. If that wasn’t enough, I have now provided you with links to the abstracts of a couple of articles themselves that do the calculations. [/quote] Why not just quote the actual “hard calculations”? And link to an actual document that contains the “hard calculations”? That would show that your claim is correct and that you weren’t just making stuff up because you thought it might help your argument. The more you make stuff up, the more it undermines what little credibility you have left. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-proof-of-global-warming/443879/383 "2008-05-28T14:30:25Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Why not just quote the actual “hard calculations”? And link to an actual document that contains the “hard calculations”? That would show that your claim is correct and that you weren’t just making stuff up because you thought it might help your argument. [/quote] Wow…I have to perform every little step for you, don’t I? [Here](http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/Schneider_etal_ClimDyn_2006.pdf) [PDF file] is the link to the full paper that I provided you the abstract of above. > [@](#): > > The more you make stuff up, the more it undermines what little credibility you have left. While I appreciate your concern, I don’t think it is my credibility that we have to worry about. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-proof-of-global-warming/443879/384 "2008-05-28T15:34:00Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] Wow…I have to perform every little step for you, don’t I? [/quote] Absolutely. As noted earlier, this is not a classroom, you are not a teacher, and I am not your student. It’s not my responsibility to go looking for references to back up the claims you invent. > [@](#): > > Here is the link to the full paper that I provided you the abstract of above. Funny, but I couldn’t find any “hard calculations” in that paper. What I mainly saw was a discussion of a good old fashioned global climate model. Which was put through a monte-carlo style ensemble of simulations. And which included assumptions and caveats too numerous to mention. Is that what you meant by “hard calculations”? Or am I missing something? > [@](#): > > While I appreciate your concern, I don’t think it is my credibility that we have to worry about. Of course you don’t think so. However, the fact remains that you presented a non-estimate as a “best estimate” and essentially conceded nothing even when it was shown to you that you were wrong. Further, in another thread you pretended to have knowledge of statistical hypothesis testing when you really did not. Both of these things undermine your credibility. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-proof-of-global-warming/443879/385 "2008-05-28T15:40:21Z")
[The U.S. Department of Agriculture is taking it pretty seriously.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052702639.html?hpid=topnews) ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-proof-of-global-warming/443879/386 "2008-05-28T16:15:47Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Funny, but I couldn’t find any “hard calculations” in that paper. What I mainly saw was a discussion of a good old fashioned global climate model. Which was put through a monte-carlo style ensemble of simulations. And which included assumptions and caveats too numerous to mention. Is that what you meant by “hard calculations”? Or am I missing something? [/quote] Yes, they actually took climate models that they could vary the sensitivity of and used them to simulate the climate using the estimated forcings and compared it to the actual estimated climate change during the LGM in order to get an estimate of the climate sensitivity. (And, all studies in science have assumptions and caveats.) They didn’t just wave their hands around and say something like “The temperature seems to have been remarkably stable over the past when there have been lots of forcings that have varied.” Somehow you seem to find this line of argument much more convincing than actually doing the calculations, presumably because it supports your preconceived conclusions. > [@](#): > > Of course you don’t think so. However, the fact remains that you presented a non-estimate as a “best estimate” and essentially conceded nothing even when it was shown to you that you were wrong. Further, in another thread you pretended to have knowledge of statistical hypothesis testing when you really did not. As near as I can tell, you seem to be the only one who actually believes this. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-proof-of-global-warming/443879/387 "2008-05-28T17:24:06Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] Yes, they actually took climate models that they could vary the sensitivity of and used them to simulate the climate using the estimated forcings and compared it to the actual estimated climate change during the LGM in order to get an estimate of the climate sensitivity. [/quote] Lol. Welcome to the Wonderful World of Climate Science, where a simulation, loaded with assumptions and uncertainties, is promoted to the status of a “hard calculation.” > [@](#): > > Somehow you seem to find this line of argument much more convincing than actually doing the calculations, If it were just a matter of “actually doing the calculations,” then all global climate models would return the same results. Which they don’t. > [@](#): > > As near as I can tell, you seem to be the only one who actually believes this. Lol. So what? It’s still true. You pretended to know something about statistical hypothesis testing when you didn’t. You presented a non-estimate as a “best estimate.” ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-proof-of-global-warming/443879/388 "2008-05-29T02:06:15Z")
[QUOTE=brazil84] Lol. Welcome to the Wonderful World of Climate Science, where a simulation, loaded with assumptions and uncertainties, is promoted to the status of a “hard calculation.” [/quote] Welcome to the World of Climate Science “Skepticism”, where any hypothesis, no matter how speculative and unsupported by any calculation of any sort, is held in high esteem if it supports the pre-determined conclusion…and where any actual numerical modeling to actually quantitatively test various hypotheses is derided. > [@](#): > > If it were just a matter of “actually doing the calculations,” then all global climate models would return the same results. Which they don’t. That has to be one of the more nonsensical things you have said. > [@](#): > > Lol. So what? It’s still true. You pretended to know something about statistical hypothesis testing when you didn’t. You presented a non-estimate as a “best estimate.” Well, your believing it is true doesn’t make it true. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-proof-of-global-warming/443879/389 "2008-05-29T10:09:00Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] Welcome to the World of Climate Science “Skepticism”, where any hypothesis, no matter how speculative and unsupported by any calculation of any sort, is held in high esteem if it supports the pre-determined conclusion [/quote] Not necessarily by me. > [@](#): > > …and where any actual numerical modeling to actually quantitatively test various hypotheses is derided. Not necessarily. But anyway, does your _tu quoque_ mean you agree that a simulation is NOT a “hard calculation.” > [@](#): > > Well, your believing it is true doesn’t make it true. Correct. It would be true regardless of whether I believed it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-proof-of-global-warming/443879.md?page=19)