re: Glacial melt has tripled in the Amundsen Sea

Keep proving you're illiterate. I'm enjoying watching you make a fool out of yourself......again.

Chegrad

The models aren't as far off as you think.

quote:

---

I'm going to turn all the lights off in my house forever and walk everywhere to do my part. Your post scared me.

---

if the rest of us don't get on board you'll just be paying for agw twice.

quote:

---

I can fit past data if I adjust enough parameters. That is what climate scientists have done. They look at past data, adjust the model to fit. Then when future data doesn't conform, they readjust and go back and rerun for the past data and get one that fits past data and new data.

---

Which parameters have they adjusted to fit past data?

BTW - I thought you said the models don't fit the past data.

quote:

---

Not only do they adjust their models, they adjust the temperature data itself.

---

We don't want non-climate signals in our data. If a weather station changes the time of its daily temperature measurements from 4 pm to 8 pm - that doesn't mean the Earth has cooled.

quote:

---

I would say when you would like us to significantly harm our economy to reduce warming by 0.1 C, and your models are not within close to 0.1 C, the risk isn't worth the reward.

---

The economic damaged caused by AGW is an ongoing expense that is only to get worse every year. The cost of moving from fossil to non-fossil is a one time expense. Try thinking long term.

quote:

---

BTW - I thought you said the models don't fit the past data.

---

I will confess to not being clear. Models run in 1998 did not predict the long pause in temperature rise. New models looking at past data can be adjusted to fit the data. I can find a polynomial, logarithmic function, or combination thereof, to fit almost any data.

What these models can't do is predict the future.

quote:

---

the private sector has zero financial incetive to reduce carbon emissions

---

So what you're admitting here... is that emitting CO2 has very little consequence to "the private sector".

If the consequences aren't financially damaging (by your own admission) , what do you want them to pay higher taxes for?

quote:

---

So what you're admitting here... is that emitting CO2 has very little consequence to "the private sector".

---

that's the problem sherlock. They get to pollute for FREE

quote:

---

If the consequences aren't financially damaging (by your own admission)

---

they are damaging, just not to the comapnies doing to emission. It is an externalized cost. [/quote]what do you want them to pay higher taxes for? 
[/quote] I don't. Thays josh you are thinking of. Paying to use someone else's property isn't a tax.

quote:

---

I can find a polynomial, logarithmic function, or combination thereof, to fit almost any data.

---

u could. But then you wouldnt really have a model you'd just have fitted data. I would surely love to know the name of the climate model that abandons the laws of physics in favor of just fitting a polynomial to past data.

quote:

---

What these models can't do is predict the future.

---

. Actually Hansen's 87 model predictex the 90s pretty well. He must have built a time machine otherwise I dunno how he could have fitted to future data .

quote:

---

Which is of course EXACTLY what the "models" you reference are.

---

quote:

---

that's the problem sherlock. They get to pollute for FREE

---

Whoooosh! That wasn't the point. The point is that it isn't economically damaging.

quote:

---

they are damaging, just not to the comapnies doing to emission.

---

Thats a nice try. But "the companies" aren't the only part of the transaction. The consumers, and everyone else participate. Consumers aren't going to buy damaging products-just as significant portions of the market have shunned pesticides in food dolphin-safe tuba, or any number of things.

Even though those example hold very little economic benefit, they have moved entire markets. No taxes required. Just consumer demand.

It's pretty obvious why that isn't happening with energy supplies.

quote:

---

Paying to use someone else's property isn't a tax

---

Indeed. But you have no claim to CH4+O2 as your property because it turns into CO2.