Global warming saves the day

[SkepticLance]

I came across the above heading in a New Scientist article and thought it was worth posting here, since it is thought provoking. Since it is based on yet another global climate model, I am sceptical of its accuracy - but hey - somebody has gotta be right!

 

The story is also found at :

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081112-ice-age-global-warming.html

 

It suggests that the world's climate is destined in 10,000 to 100,000 years, to go into a massive ice age, lasting tens of millions of years, and more severe than any of the glacial periods over the past million years. However, anthropogenic global warming saves the day! With human released greenhouse gases, we will remain safe and comfortable, at an equable temperature, which will, of course, preserve million of species from extinction, and maintain ecosystems in a state of health.

 

Again, I am sceptical. If there is a serious point to be made from this, it is to reinforce my doubts about the reliablility, accuracy, precision etc of global climate computer models.

[iNow]

I don't know if you're ever going to bother reading this post which I've now shared 3 times with you:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=441763#post441763

 

 

Plus, you're bitching that predictions are only minimally accurate for something 10,000 years away? Give me a break, already.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

There is nothing special about that post, which I have looked at. However, you have ignored my responses to your arguments so ...

 

The arguments fall into three categories.

 

1. Appeal to Authority. Someone who works with models tells you how good the models are, so it must be right.

2. 20:20 hindsight. After 30 years of tweaking models to make them simulate what has already happened, they manage to simulate what has already happened. That is a great argument!

3. Approximate nowsight. In dealing with things that carry no surprises, such as current weather, they manage, most of the time but not all, to come close to reality.

 

As I have said before, a model must meet the same criteria that a hypothesis in science meets. It must make predictions of a novel nature, that come true. In other words, it must correctly predict something surprising. If it predicts something obvious, such as continued warming, that is meaningless.

 

iNow, you said :

 

"Plus, you're bitching that predictions are only minimally accurate for something 10,000 years away?"

 

Careful, iNow. With wording like that, one might suspect that you are not exercising scientific dispassion.

 

I was not 'bitching' about anything. I was posting something I thought might be of general interest, and indicating my scepticism since it was based on yet another GCM.

[CaptainPanic]

About the prediction that there will be an ice age:

With 7 ice ages in the last 650,000 years, it is no rocket science to "predict" that there will be another one in the next 10,000-100,000 years. I also predict that the sun will go down and also come up in the next 12-36 hrs.

 

About the prediction that it will be the most severe:

That fits into National Geographic's standards (programs about super volcanoes, super storms etc). it just sells better.

 

Also, in the article, the study leader of the team that made the model says: ""It's hard to say what's going to happen," after which the National Geographic ignores that, and opens with a screaming headline. It's just typical 2008 journalism.

 

National Geographic is mainstream journalism, not science.

[SkepticLance]

Captain

 

This item I read first in New Scientist, and it is, apparently, about to be published in Nature. I just did a google search to find an easily accessible internet equivalent for people on this forum to check. As far as I can see, the National Geographic version is not much different in essential facts from the New Scientist version. Of course, I cannot yet comment on the Nature version.

 

The prediction of a new Ice Age differs from a rerun of the repeated glacial periods in that it is suggested that it will be far more intense, and last tens of millions of years. I am sceptical, and think it is unlikely. However, it will cheer up those who are sick of global warming catastrophe predictions to see a prediction that AGW will 'save the world'.

[iNow]

If there is a serious point to be made from this, it is to reinforce my doubts about the reliablility, accuracy, precision etc of global climate computer models.

 

You're such a good little choir boy, Lance, singing the praises of those who'd rather slow us down than help us along.

[Sayonara]

Again, I am sceptical. If there is a serious point to be made from this, it is to reinforce my doubts about the reliablility, accuracy, precision etc of global climate computer models.

Just to clarify (and stay on topic), are you sceptical about the ice age predictions, the aversion prediction, or both?

[SkepticLance]

Sayonara

I am most sceptical about predictions over a time period of 10,000 to 100,000 years. In fact, I am sceptical of predictions that run over decades. There have been too many attempts in the past to predict the future, which have become unstuck.

 

Some things are obvious and predictable. Less obvious predictions must be treated with the proverbial pinch of salt till proven correct.

[CaptainPanic]

The point I was trying to make is that National Geographic is mainstream media. The point still stands. Interested in attracting the masses. I thank SkepticLance for providing another source for the information, because New Scientist does have the disclaimer that a good study has:

 

Handle with care

 

None of the researchers contacted by New Scientist thought the model's predictions are worth taking seriously. It appears to have a bias to forming large and stable ice sheets, says Ridgwell. "So it does not come as a shock that they find a transition point to an even greater ice mass state."

 

Still, everyone agrees that it is an intriguing idea. "It is worth delving into deeper," says Ridgwell.[...]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026-humans-may-have-prevented-super-ice-age.html

 

That's the difference between science and mainstream media. Peer reviews.