Skip to comments.The Skeptic's Case
Posted on 02/28/2012 7:22:06 PM PST by metmom
We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.
The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.
Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models. The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
And that feedback mechanism is exactly what the heart of the article is about.
It's not whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That's a given. It's what the feedback mechanisms are and how much the models forecast vs what reality is showing and so far, reality is not matching up with the forecast models.
But the whole debate is centered around the inaccurate forecast models and not what we're in reality seeing.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
There are facts in this article that reality is not matching up to the forecast models. If people refuse to acknowledge that, there simply is nothing to do because you can’t.
It is unfortunate that the author does not know the correct use of the verbs “to damp” and “to dampen” in article in which water plays such a big role.
It's easy to slip into the hoax mode of argument, but CO2 is real and warming is real. The feedbacks are subject to debate but even if they are high, cap and trade does literally nothing to stop CO2. The scam is not CO2 warming, but the way CO2 warming which is mostly benign is being misused for political purposes.
Agreed. The misuse of models is especially egregious when used with paleoclimate data (temperate, CO2 and other data from the ice ages). It is well known that the climate data when transitioning from ice ages to the present is inapplicable to today’s climate. But the alarmists persist in presenting as “independent” evidence of high sensitivity. First, it is not independent because it uses the exact same models used to make modern alarmist predictions. Second, it should point to lower sensitivity since ice sheets and dust were much more important factors (for making it colder) than the lower amount of CO2 and lower solar during the ice ages.
I just wish I could get people to wake up to the POSSIBILITY that the AGW theories are not sound. Half of my friends and co-workers refuse to consider anything but the MSM official line of 100% consensus and settled science.
It’s insanely frustrating.
The MSM can’t even get the weather forecasts right.
Why do people think that they can predict beyond that?
Matter of fact, that is an argument that I regularly use and it often ends the conversation.