Shrinking ice proved climate change. Now growing does too?

[911SauCy]

They're doing their job, the world is saved!!

[Cajundaddy]

Originally Posted by island911

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 Anthropogenic global warming 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?

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.

[island911]

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)

[BlueSkyJaunte]

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."

[wayner]

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

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by wayner

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.

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

[wayner]

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

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by speeder

There is overwhelming evidence that man-made causes in the last 100 years have drastically changed the ecological balance of earth. The ozone layer is greatly affected, sea levels are rising, the oceans are warming, species dying-off and otherwise having habitats altered, etc., etc., etc...

Scientists who study the data, (and are not on the payroll of some polluting industry), agree to an indisputable degree. Here's all you need to remember:

"Science is not a debate between scientists and non-scientists. It never has been and it never will be. Science is decided by scientists, not idiots."

So what made it snow there 112 years ago?

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

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."

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