Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I completely disagree. 

I think you have completely misunderstood my position because you read what you think I am saying instead of what I have actually said, so your arguments go astray into things like "It's clear we have man made warming", which is fine, I've never asserted otherwise.

I had 40 years of working with pretty complex models for naturalistic events.  I have seen many cases where we thought we had a pretty good model because it aligned with the PAST and it turned out it missed something critical and could not predict the FUTURE, at all.

All models are wrong, all of them.  And the more complex  the phenomenon one is trying to model, the greater the chances they are critically wrong.

Our climate is horrendously complex.  Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't read enough about climate.

In bold:  That's bulljive.  We have been incredibly accurate modeling global warming. Remember, we aren't looking for perfection.  There are always tweaks and new things to add/change, but at this point they are minute adjustments to very accurate and well defined models.

In Italics:  It absolutely is, and we know it.  Natural variability has been ruled out.

1.  We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  We know it retains heat, and we know about how much it retains.  It's physics, and can be duplicated in a lab in closed environment.
2.  We know that CO2 levels have risen dramatically since the industrial age, and we can use physics to determine how much more energy will be absorbed by the sun as a result. 
3.  We know this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels due to the unique carbon isotope found in fossil fuels.
4.  We know that warmer air holds more water vapor, which itself is a greenhouse gas.  We know that ice reflects the sun's energy, and as ice recedes the earth will absorb more heat.  We know that as the tundra melts it releases methane, another greenhouse gas.  We know that the rain forest is shrinking every year, and that is additional carbon released into the atmosphere.  All of this is factored into our climate models, along with other factors.  This means that all models will show some variability, but that isn't the point.  The point is that ALL of them show continued significant warming due to the burning of fossil fuels.
5.  You should absolutely have confidence in the models, since they all say the same thing, have been very accurate, and have actually slightly underestimated global warming.

The "natural variability" thing is absolutely ridiculous at this point, because science has been searching for this for years.

1.  We are actually slowly heading into an ice age based upon our stage in the Milankovitch cycle.  So global warming wouldn't fit with the typical causes of previous periods of warming and cooling.  I can describe Milankovitch cycles in more detail if you'd like. 
2.  The sun's output has been at unusually low levels, and yet we still continue to warm.

Just like this 2 options above, every other theory for a "natural" global warming cycle has been systematically ruled out.

Man made climate change is real, it is predictable, and it is measurable.

My statement about models is a common and oft cited quip used in science.

"All models are wrong, some models are useful."

AS for predicting "with amazing accuracy", in my view, that assertion is not supported by facts.  We can't explain the Little Ice Age, of it's end, or the warming in the early 20th century, and we have at least seven models.  Why so many?  If one is "amazing", why not use that one? 

They are all force fit to past "data".  There is no other way to devise a model.  You take the data available, find a CORRELATING EQUATION, and hope it predicts.  Someone else finds a different CORRELATING EQUATION using a different set of assumptions and it too fit existing data, and you hope that predicts.  And there are SEVEN of them, last I counted.  Seven different models.  And then the IPCC gives a range of SAT of 2°C to 7°C in prediction, which is not what I'd call amazingly accurate.  The lower range means things will be difficult, the upper range is effectively catastrophic.


This really is a classic story of misapplication of scientific tools, in my view.  I've seen it many times.  I've done it a few times myself.

Cincydawg might like this about how wine-growing may adapt to a hotter climate.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/wines-israel-negev-desert-represent-future-viticulture-180974590/