The climate science computer projections have been off for decades. The models tend to predict too high in terms of global warming. Based on the earlier models, that got the machine moving, polar caps should be melted by now and the ocean levels should be much higher. The false alarm and sky is falling tells me they were underestimating the impact of natural climate change and/or were over selling manmade.
I am not saying the earth is not warming. The earth has naturally warmed and cooled many times over the past billion years. There are lots of geological evidence even for the current warming. For example, we are still warming from the last ice age. When this current long cycle of warming began, the Glaciers were as far south as NYC. They melted back a few thousand miles worth of glaciers, before we even had modern science records. But now the marketers act like glacier melting is new. I am not saying that greenhouse gases do not add something to atmospheric heating, but the models over estimate this contribution.
The initial marketing from 20 year ago was global warning. This was not happening as fast as predicted, so one day the marketeers repackaged the sales pitch and called it climate change, since this was far more nebulous and less quantitative. This fuzzy approach has worked so far in terms of the layman. Everything new to you can be attributed to fuzzy variable climate change. Global warming was based on a hard number and not a fuzzy dice.
The main greenhouse gas on earth is not CO2 or Methane. It is water. Unlike CO2 and Methane which are gases, water can exist as a gas, a liquid and a solid all at the same time, both on the earth's surface and in the earth's atmosphere. As the earth's temperature increases, the water in the atmosphere will increase, as the ocean evaporate more water, adding to the water's share of the greenhouse affect. Unlike CO2 and Methane gases, water can change phase to solid, liquid or vapor due to weather with each having a different affect.
Ice; solid water, for example, has the opposite affect as water vapor. Ice reflects solar heat and acts like opening the window in the greenhouse, with this window not just in the polar caps, and mountain glaciers, but also in the atmosphere as ice crystals.
Another problem with the greenhouse gas model, is that CO2 is not a one way valve for heat. The current model assumes the CO2 heat capacity starts out empty and as heat rises, it get trapped by the CO2, filling its energy levels. But solar heat does the same thing from the outside when it hits the atmospheric CO2; moderates incoming heat. If you buy insulated windows, they will keep you cooler in summer; block solar heat, and warmer in winter; block heat loss to outside.
Another problem has to do with the normalization of data. When the first modern science records of weather and climate began about 1880, global temperature was measured by analog weather devices; mercury thermometer, averaging a very limited number of places, on the earth's surface.
Today we have so many more ways and methods for measuring temperature; from space, and have added many more measurement points, to get a better global average. The result is apples and oranges; 1880 to now, since the old way was much more limited.
My suggestion is there should be a parallel science project; ole timer science, that copies the placement and tools of 1880, before satellites, so we can normalize the current data, and see if all the modern bells and whistles is adding something extra, that puts a thumb on the data scale. If both do show the same thing, we can save money by not pretending we need so many extra things; science candy store. I suggest this normalization years ago and it still has not happened.
