1. It's a hoax
2. Al Gore bought beach front property (or anything Al Gore)
3. Socialism
4. One World Order
5. Liberalism
6. Socialism again
7. A communist plot
8. Wealth distribution
9. Mitigation efforts destroy economies
10. CO2 is plant food
11. Weather=Climate
12. Here is a 15 year period where the rate of warming has slowed a bit. Let's put that in
13. Man is too puny to alter the climate
14. Hey!, the climate has changed before man even came along!
15. Anthony Watt's reasoning capabilities
The reason that the skeptics have not produced their own climate models that are based on the "knowns" within their skepticism is because Senator Inhofe cannot get any more spending past Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz. ... In Ted Cruz's defense, he said he would consider it once Inhofe is capable of showing his work with the math. Now there is an endless loop! Inhofe cannot show his work and Cruz wouldn't know if it was correct if he did!
****Added
Climate Realist
I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Roy Spencer in the sense that he is an actual climatologist and he did put forth a valid, science based hypothesis. However, there were some flaws with Dr. Roy Spencer's work on this and they are highlighted in these articles by Dr. Barry Bickmore's critique of Dr. Roy Spencer's climate model:
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/2...
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/2...
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/03/0...
Who is Dr. Barry Brickmore?
Dr. Barry Bickmore - http://www.geology.byu.edu/employee-prof...
I do not know the answer to this, so does anyone know if Dr. Spencer removed the CO2 from his climate model?
There are some. Roy Spencer has made some, though I am skeptical of those as well.
In addition, many skeptics take the position that the climate is too complex and chaotic to model. To quote Donald Rumsfeld, there are known knowns, known unknowns, things you know that you don't know, then there are unknown unknowns, you don't know what you don't know.
However, many standard climate models can also count as skeptic models if they accept many parameters for inputs. If you change the cloud effect in the model, it has more of an effect than the Kyoto Protocol or other carbon reduction schemes, lowering warming to below 1C. The IPCC reports make a passing mention of this as there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding clouds.
Ocean heat uptake has a similar effect, and has been known about for over a decade, but that was considered not worth mentioning until atmospheric temperatures went against the narrative.
That's a good question. I did find one paper that somewhat addresses your question: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/13592/2/M...
The authors are not climate scientists but rather experts in forecasting: http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/
I think their main point is this: "There is little room for improving the accuracy of forecasts from our benchmark mode." In other words, models forecasting climate changes decades into the future have no real accuracy and thus no real use.
I also believe the two main skeptics being Lindzen and Spencer have estimated a low climate sensitivity so I would expect the assumptions and parameters using their estimations to produce much lower future forecasts than the IPCC models.
Also note that predicting future climate would require you to also accurately know natural variability. And I don't mean short trends but rather decadal and century cyclic fluctuations. As far as I can tell, the IPCC models simply assume a flat natural trend (with short term variability). To me that's odd because their are obviously long term natural fluctuations. What the future holds, I do not know. And I'm skeptical of those who think they do.
Skeptics mostly have little faith in the output of models as being any reliable indicator of what is actually going on.
The climate is a chaotic system. Only a naive novice would believe modelling it has any useful predictive quality.
What bull sh*t school are you attending? There are no skeptic climate models, because there is real science behind the findings, unlike the models that were produced by the UNIPCC and proven false.
The only climate data skeptics use to base their opinions on is empirical data collected from real world observations. Skeptics do not need computer climate models when they have the geological record that depicts the world's climate history.
To build a climate model, use a super computer would not be cheap, and as it is, there is zero funding available for skeptics, not even from big oil.
But they did using Modtran 4 http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/07/epic-...
Here's a model that's in place and in use NOW http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3c...
The current models might work better if they removed the strong bias that makes CO2 the bad guy.
Yup. The Earth.
While the temperature has gone down for over a decade, the CO2 level has risen. Good enough for me!
Have there been any attempts by "skeptics" to model the climate, but in a way consistent with their skepticism?
If yes, how do the models differ from those produced by climate scientists ?
How well do they reproduce the instrumental temperature record?
What predictions do they make?
Or, if there are none, why not?
Finally, what assumptions would you expect to see in a "skeptic" climate model?
I believe that Roy Spencer uses computer models to support his hypothesis that clouds are responsible for AGW.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
