« First « Previous Comments 193 - 232 of 240 Next » Last » Search these comments
Heraclitusstudent saysReally? Why?
Do you think you have to solve the Shroedinger equation's of all molecules in the atmosphere?
The climate is essentially static. A steady state system. All you have to do is analyses the effects of small changes on various subsystems by modeling such subsystems.
For ex: What percent of the ice sheet melts depending on temperature. -> 1 sub model.
What is the difference in sunlight absorption between icesheet and open sea. You don't care which areas of the ice sheet are melted, just take vast chunks of the arctic ocean as 1 unit.
Because it is aggregate, it is far easier to do. Because it is just incremental you don't have to model the entire process of how the climate works, only what changes.
What is the effect on cloud.
What is the effect on vegetation.
You just have to detail it sufficiently so it will match 50 years of actual data and refine it constantly.
Such model is essentially a quantitative description of everything we know DID happen at a physical level. .
If you think projecting this in the future is abusive, then you need to ...
umm...I'm about to give up trying to prove a point to you. The point was, the Shroedinger equation to get the zero point energy of a 200 body problem is insanely complex. But less complex than trying to model climate.
This is the problem....all these things you've described are oversimplifying a complex system by a wide margin. We do the same thing in quantum mechanical calculations for molecules or molecular dynamics simulations. And what we find is...that it invalidates the validity of the model as you make more and more assumptions. And no, you can't assume the models to be quantitative. The world's best quantum mechanics professors still have not developed a model to get quantitative results for the zero point energy for larger molecules. Their results are purely qualitative.
The fact that you think they are quantitative would mean...they just about have everything figured out. They don't. That's why the literature will predict anywhere from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. The models are woefully invalid at this point...and the temperature data is overly noisy to draw any real conclusions at this point. But again....you seem to give the field much more credit than they've earned. Like I said...this field, and others like economics try to piggy back on the reputation of fields like Physics and Chemistry....where we actually have laws in place that are infallible.
I am left feeling less than confident in their precision
I'm not saying we can't model the future of climate.
The climate is essentially static. A steady state system
"Oxygen dropped from its highest level to its lowest level ever in only 20 million years," Huey said today.
NASA came out with the annual anomaly and 2019 was the second hottest year EVER!
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20200115/
CBOEtrader saysI am left feeling less than confident in their precision
It is amazing to think that they think they can measure worldwide yearlong global average temperature down to hundredths of a degree.
What you will also find is that only a small percentage of all time temperature highs occur in the past 20 years
Onvacation saysI'm not saying we can't model the future of climate.
I do! I think humans can model the climate 20 years from now about as well as they can model insurance for Mortgage Backed Securities over a 20 year period.
I never said we could model the climate but I have bitched about the weatherman being wrong so often.
They can vote against deniers whether they are right or wrong.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xgqymn/exclusive-poll-80-of-young-voters-think-global-warming-is-a-major-threat-to-life-as-we-know-it?utm_source=reddit.com
Yeaaaaahhhh.... clearly
According to Peter Wadhams, a Cambridge professor interviewed in the Guardian in 2013, Arctic ice would disappear by 2015 if we didn’t mend our ways, while Gordon Brown announced in 2009 that we had just 50 days to save the Earth. Then again, playing the long game can also catch up with you. In 2004, Observer readers were told Britain would have a ‘Siberian’ climate in 16 years’ time. We’re supposed to be in the midst of that now.
Most scientists have claimed for decades that the earth would warm between 0.5 and 5 degrees C before 2100.
Giving the Kommie Kommishin centralized control won't make any difference, except for the exploiters on top.
Heraclitusstudent saysMost scientists have claimed for decades that the earth would warm between 0.5 and 5 degrees C before 2100.
Could you kindly share the name of at least one of these "most scientists"?
In other non virus news, the north pole ice pack ended up the tenth lowest in recorded history (since 1979). Only 9 years have had less ice than the 2020 maximum.
Fuck the church GW - we need GW now! And a real globull warming not this hoax of changes within the margin of error. Bring a good summer already and let's eradicate CV. FFS it's almost snowing in the bay area.
The climate is essentially static
No. The climate is a dynamic system that is constantly changing. Ever hear about the medieval warming period, the little ice age, or the American dust bowl? If the climate is static what happened to the Anasazi?
97% of scientists and you won't name one. I continue to call fraud.
Several prominent climatologists are interviewed in this episode where they were predicting an impending ice age.
« First « Previous Comments 193 - 232 of 240 Next » Last » Search these comments
The extreme alarmism of climate change lunatics — best personified by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ insistence that humanity will be destroyed in 12 years if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels — is all based on nothing but fearmongering media propaganda and faked science. (The IPCC and NOAA both routinely fudge temperature data to try to create a warming “trend” where none exists.)
It’s all a massive, coordinated fraud, and the mainstream media deliberately lies to the public about climate change to push anti-free market schemes that would destroy the U.S. economy while transferring literally trillions of dollars into the pockets of wealthy globalists as part of a “carbon tax” scheme.
Yet carbon isn’t the problem at all. And the “war on carbon” is a stupid, senseless policy created by idiots, given that humans are carbon-based lifeforms, meaning that any “war on carbon” is a war on humanity.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-12-climate-change-hoax-collapses-new-science-cloud-cover.html?fbclid=IwAR1YBhLRbjz72RoT9foEI4nkXq9XsDhe0dQAtuJrm2UJkPOxuCxFlKd9h1w