We don't control the climate. The climate is a non-linear dynamic system. There are dozens of natural cycles that control the climate (AMO, PDO, ENSO, solar cycles, to name a few). And all predictions of catastrophic, runaway warming have failed to materialize in the 21st century despite over 30 years of doomsday predictions. We've seen maybe a 0.13C per decade increase in temps. Well within cyclical norms. Our understanding of the climate has to be driven by facts on the ground and not computer models and hype.

We still do not have good models for understanding or predicting global low cloud cover. Clouds are hugely important to our climate system. There is no way to accurately predict the temperature in the future, especially 100 years into the future, without modeling fundamental and extremely complex systems. Our current models do not match reality or even closely approximate it.

> There are dozens of natural cycles that control the climate (AMO, PDO, ENSO, solar cycles, to name a few)

You don't think scientists are aware of these? You don't think they're already tracking solar cycles and the like?

For example, see this graph:

https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/1896/

from this NASA article:

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes

showing how solar input does not explain climate change.

NASA has a collection of scientists that believe a range of things about the climate. I watched a good video by JPL back in April discussing how lacking our models are of clouds and cloud cover and their influence on climate: https://youtu.be/ra9AFNco3lI

Solar cycles indirectly affect cloud cover not by variations in irradiance but by increases in cosmic rays from reduction in solar magnetic shield.

Some call this the Svensmark effect, after the Danish scientist who proved this influence in cloud chamber experiment from 2017 (https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSol...)

Finally, even the IPCC has acknowledged this and are in the process of altering their CMIP model for 2021, CMIP6, to include stronger solar forcing: https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2247/2017/

Climate science is not settled.

> Climate science is not settled.

No science really ever is.

The problem you run into, though, is that people who don't understand science confuse "we're continuing to refine our knowledge" with "we were completely and totally incorrect".

Discovering clouds play more of a role than expected is useful information, but it's a far cry from shaking the consensus on climate change as a whole.

The addition of solar forcing to CMIP6 means that they completely missed it for the first 5 models, so the consensus was wrong. Science is driven by observation and experiment not by consensus.

We should not expect their first iteration to accurately model clouds, but at least they are factoring it in now. How much did consensus override the concerns about cloud cover during the formation of climate models over the last few decades? Consensus is just a fancy word for groupthink.

We should be asking how much more accurate do our models need to be in order to predict future climate?

There are cycles such as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation that we still don't really know how to model with a high degree of accuracy. The AMO has dramatic effects on climate. So does the PDO.

We don't know how volcanic activity is going to play out over the 21st century.

We don't know how much cosmic ray flux will increase if we enter a prolonged solar minimum cycle like the Maunder Minimum.

There are a ton of factors that influence climate that our models don't account for.

Solar forcing was considered well before CMIP6. The idea that it was "completely missed" is false.

https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2247/2017/

> We compare the climatic effects of the CMIP6 solar forcing dataset to its CMIP5 predecessor by using time-slice experiments of two chemistry–climate models and a reference radiative transfer model... This solar-cycle response is slightly larger, but not statistically significantly different from that for the CMIP5 forcing dataset.

We may not know the exact values of cosmic ray, volcanic, etc. inputs into the systems, but we can make reasonable conclusions about their high and low end values and the likely impacts that result. A quick Googling will reveal plenty of research on (and mentions in IPCC reports) the things you assert are being ignored.

So going on 10 billion humans don't have anything to do with it? A large part of the habitable land covered in agricultural fields, polar caps melting, forecasts of 2 degrees increase in temperature by the end of the century, its just all a coincidence?

Genuinely curious why your posts are being downvoted?

Because it's the same bad-faith argument that people have seen dozens of times from climate-action-deniers before. The idea that scientists at NASA and dozens of the most prestigious and reputable institutions and journals in the world have all conspired to miss That One Thing That Explains Climate Change that isn't the obvious CO2 that has been known to contribute to global temperatures for about a century.

Eventually people tire of living in Groundhog Day and go through the same thing over and over again and they just click the downvote button and move on.

When you say "we" - are you speaking as one of the many who have puts years of work into these matters? If not shouldn't you at least say "they... do not have good models" etc ?

I don't mean suggest that you/we have no ability to look over experienced shoulders to cast judgement on their works, but to speak as them without having their full experience seems problematic.

Is this a parody of what the above two comments are worrying about?

The thing about cycles is, well, they're cyclical. That means on a long enough time scale they factor out. That's why it's easier to predict the long-term climate than it is to predict what the weather will be tomorrow, next week, or next year.

Honestly where do you get this stuff? It's like time-cube level of nuttery.

I started trying to write out a reply going point by point, but it's just exhausting. When someone is that far from reality it's just too much work to try to pull them back, and they're not going to do any of the work themselves.

Arctic sea ice has a third of the volume it had when I was young, smaller than at any point we've ever measured, can reconstruct from ships logs, or estimate from ice cores. You'd think that kind of absurd level of change would give some of these people pause, but it doesn't.

Which claim is nuttery?

1. Getting clouds right is extremely important for the climate models. 2. We still do not know how to get clouds right.

Well for one there's contradicting comments. First saying that there has been warming every decade, but then saying that's somehow cyclical (warming and cooling cycle) when it's really a trend (continuous warming). Then saying we need facts and not computer models, but then going on to saying we need computer models.

Anecdotal, but something an economist friend of mine said: there are currently better models for predicting economics than there are for predicting the weather tomorrow.

That's because predicting economics is like predicting climate, not weather.

Predicting weather is like predicting if the stock market will go up or down tomorrow. We can't, really. Like climate, though, we can predict with decent accuracy what it'll do over years.

It won't take decades, because we are not going to do anything.

Well, there might be a bit of corruption. Politicians have relatives who can make big money on environmental projects. The financial industry is all excited about carbon trading, with high-frequency trading and insider trading and intentional crashes and lots more fun. Political "donations" have to be generated somehow, and the lingering possibility of legislation does that well no matter which side a politician has chosen.

Crashing the economy to combat climate change seems like an abstract far-off concept until you lose your source of income. Most countries aren't about to crash their economies. The ones that do so will end up under new management after revolution or after being conquered in their weakened state.