the problem with this point is that we know why the climate changed when it did in the past. by changing the absorption rate (albeto) of the planet, solar output, combined with greenhouse gases, explain all climate changes to date.

its a simple equation really, solar output (energy input) * albeto (energy absorption) * greenhouse gases (energy trapped) = climate

the troubled part for us today, is that we measure the suns output directly, and have not seen it change beyond the bounds of the 11 year solar cycle, albeto is largely a function of 1. land mass distribution (continental drift) and 2. ice coverage. the continents have not fundamentally shifted in the last 100 years, and ice coverage is down. that leaves greehouse gases as the main knob being turned right now. that knob being turned by humans.

as a scientist it is foolish to not question everything. that is the point and purpose of science.

it is also foolish to let ones political leanings influence there science. :rolleyes:

Which is exactly why it's ridiculous to say the science is settled.

Ahh, so now it's clear -

The one constant about the planet Earth since it formed some 5 billion years ago is that it has always been changing.

But suddenly you and your ilk have arrived (and in geological terms, your arrival certainly was sudden), and dammit, the Earth had better stop changing RIGHT NOW!

What monstrous hubris.

not at all. the science is settled. far and away enough to take real and concerted actions.

example: more folks than ever are questioning the fundamental nature of gravity, because of the recent discovery of the higgs using the LHC. does this mean we should not teach and use the theory of gravity to make decisions in our lives anymore?

of course not.

the earth will change, sure. it has and it will in the future.

knowing what we know now, the earth climate, sans human intervention should be stable for at least another 40,000 years. this is when the procession of the axis of the earth will have shifted enough to bring in an iceage.

so, you know, starting a mass extinction event about 40,000 years earlier than planned ... that can't go badly for us now can it?

It's precession. Something that undergoes precession doesn't shift. It precesses.

But why don't you enlighten us more about that scientifical stuff? Like how faked-up global warming numbers will cause a mass extinction.

typical.

have no counterpoint, so attack the spelling and grammar.

bleh. come up with a counterpoint or go away. i don't care.

A short story...
 

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1412181323.jpg


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1412181338.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1412181387.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1412181356.jpg

The end?

Oh really?

Then please explain this:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1412190477.jpg


That is, if rising CO2 causes rising temp's, then why haven't the temps risen?

The problem with "Climate Change" theorists is not the data but the interpretation.

LOL, might wanna double-check that statement about Copernicus.

Galileo affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but still, to Dant's point, these guys were in trouble by the ruling class for going against a form of settled science as it was then --"everbody knew" that the earth was the center of the universe - just like today, the 'everybody's' parrot "Climate catastrophe must be avoided...everybody knows the sky is falling the sky is falling..."

OOPS!!:eek:

That's what I meant! I just mis-spelled "Galileo". Honest!

I think I can explain it briefly: Solar and oceanic variability.

They vary in many ways that we don't yet understand and many scientists discounted their effect until the current pause in warming. Now many are re-thinking their positions on this. They understand the science of CO2 pretty well and they are right that at some point, atmospheric warming will resume. RT works 100% of the time so adding atmospheric CO2 does have a long term net warming effect. Personally I don't expect to see much warming over the next 20-50 years but eventually it will turn around. How much warming? That is still wide open to debate among many in climate science.

Climate is complicated and we still have a lot more questions than answers.

If global warming was as "settled science" as some would have us believe...they would not have had to rename it "climate change" and advocates would not feel so compelled to falsify data.

D'ya ever wonder what it was like, back in the days of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. Massive efforts and contortions were made by the mathematicians to explain how a geocentric system was the undisputable truth.

hmmm.... I wonder what that looked like? hmmm...

Now, back to <strike>Anthropogenic global warming</strike> climate change... So many models predicting warming ... so many (all) failed.

You say They understand the science of CO2 pretty well and they are right that at some point, atmospheric warming will resume.

Do they!? Do They Really understand the science of CO2 pretty well? They keep expecting to see warming air temp (due to increased CO2) and.... wait. What?!

And Will it!? Will it come back with a vengeance, to reclaim some properly calculated warming?

Okay, I do suspect that atmospheric warming will resume. ...but not due to the inflated claims of the modern day geocentrists and their magic CO2 bullet. - you know, that magic CO2 bullet that will cause Runaway warming and climate catastrophe.

I mean, really. These people are saying Trust us. Don't look at the lack of correlation. Just throw away all the machinery of the modern world OR ELSE!

Of course, giving them mounds of money and control over all of that machinery of the modern world will ... meh ... maybe forgive you of your climate catastrophe sins - we'll see.

Really, what I am saying is, the burden of proof is on those who demand that they are right about their settled science.

'Science' that fails to accurately predict events is not science.

Going on decades of failing to accurately predict events does not get fixed by those who stomp their feet and demand it's science, it's settled. ...and you're not a climate scientist so you can't understand the complexity of why we are right even though we've been wrong for decades now. Now give us control over all economies and no polar bears get hurt!

Again, that's not science.

At the end of the day it is not science at all any more, it is politics, funding and spin....

Tree scientists have also changed their tune over the years.

The early outcry was not to chop down trees because they absorb those gasses and our earth will kill us if we chop down trees.

Now, some scientists have come out and said that the science was wrong. Trees process more gas when they are growing than when they are mature. They need the fuel to grow.

A new forest coming back from clear cutting is a big atmospheric sponge or something like that.

Ice Growth at Accelerated Rates!?
 

They're doing their job, the world is saved!!http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1412254349.jpg

Yes they do, but don't get it twisted. The models, the catastrophic predictions, the 20' sea rise are all based on very broad assumptions about climate response to CO2. None of this has been tested and error bars in their assumptions are as wide as the pacific ocean. Ignore them because the science is beyond weak here.

The science of CO2 tells us that increased CO2 concentrations must cause warming through radiative transfer. It is very certain and can be demonstrated, tested, and measured by any college student. It works 100% of the time. Warming? Yes absolutely. How much warming or when? We have no idea. Maybe .5 degrees over the next 100 years (non-issue), maybe 3 degrees over the next 100 years (significant issue). Anyone who tells you they know how much warming will take place in a global climate is blowing smoke up your tailpipe.

The key difference here is that you can accept well-proven science about CO2 without swallowing the whole CAGW pile of misinformation. Ignoring well known and tested RT gives the appearance of ignorance while accepting the "settled science" of CO2 at the same time rejecting the clearly bogus climate model predictions leaves the door open for rational discussion.

When climate models can reasonably account for solar and oceanic variability, we will have a much clearer picture of what warming is coming. At this point, they don't and we don't. It all amounts to a bunch of wild ass guesses.

Oh, I get that CO2 has opacity to some spectrum. I'm just saying that atmospheric CO2 absorption models are WAY off. Empirical evidence, ya know.

Of course, I am also leaning heavily on my understanding of chemistry and atmosphere gotten prior to the AGW hysteria.

This idea that a few percent of CO2 added to a CO2 cycle (CO2 is eaten by plants on land and in water) ...that those few percent added by man, to what already exists as trace gas (again, plants work hard to scrub CO2 from the atm as their basic building block) ... that 0.04% total atmospheric CO2 (measured at sea level) is going to drive runaway global warming (be afraid and pay me - implied) . . is just ridiculous.

CO2 has existed in MUCH higher global concentrations ... and the planet did not burn up. (surprise)

What is disturbing for me is that people tried to pitch this carbon tax based on bribed 'science.' And, had the correlation been there --temp's just happened to rise for a couple decades-- they likely would have gotten away with it.

What will be their next "give us your money / let us control your life / it's settled science" scam be?

It's a brave new world. Yet one thing has never changed - human nature. (lying control freaks abound)

For 21 years my work has been in mathematical and numerical modeling. During that time I have learned that there is only one thing that you can rely on:

"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful."
-- George E. P. Box

Add money as a corrupting factor, and you can change that to "none are useful."

Why is it that I used to be quite happy lining garbage cans with paper grocery bags, but then they stopped giving me paper bags and moved to plastic. Then started charging me if I needed a plastic bag (because I need to pay if I have an environment hurting bag in my possession), but then I couldn't put my garbage out anymore regardless of which bag I used, and then had to buy plastic recycle bins (which freeze up into a solid block that won't come out of the plastic bin until spring)?

Finally, in the name of global warming prevention, some enterprising companies now sell paper grocery looking bags to line my green bin so that my contents can be thrown out again.

There is lots of money to be made in saving the earth ;)

I haven't seen those yet. Are they in the hardware aisle next to the incandescent light bulbs?

I think that they are near the leaf bags, where the fire starter used to be kept.

So what made it snow there 112 years ago?

I teach a course on this topic and similar quote by Box is on one of my first slides:

"All math models are false...but some are useful"
"All experiments are designed...mostly poorly" Box