Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »

0
2

"Climate Models Are Running Red Hot, and Scientists Don’t Know Why"

By HEYYOU follow HEYYOU   2020 Feb 9, 10:06pm 167 views   13 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


"The scientists who hone these systems used the same assumptions about greenhouse-gas emissions as before and came back with far worse outcomes. Some produced projections in excess of 5°C, a nightmare scenario."

No problem for deniers solar minimum.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-03/climate-models-are-running-red-hot-and-scientists-don-t-know-why
1   VINCENT   ignore (0)   2020 Feb 12, 8:28pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Doubling down on the scam, that's why.

Ppl more afraid of dying now from the coronavirus don't give a shit about virtue signaling over the global warming fraud bullshit anymore.
2   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2020 Feb 13, 6:33am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Some produced projections in excess of 5°C, a nightmare scenario."

A "model" can produce any results you like, just need to tweak the parameters. How do any of these models compare with actual measured results? Perhaps the people who worked on this model also helped with the Iowa Caucus app.
3   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2020 Feb 13, 6:53am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
A "model" can produce any results you like, just need to tweak the parameters. How do any of these models compare with actual measured results?

This graph shows the adjustments made to the actual temperature readings.

See any correlation?
4   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2020 Feb 13, 7:08am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ok, I am dumb here. What is meant by "adjustments." I would expect to see something like "Actual Predicted Temps" compared to "Actual Measured Temps." Also, what is the scale on PPP CO2? And how do you measure "atmospheric CO2? CO2 is heavier than air and would vary with altitude and proximity to sources.
5   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (49)   2020 Feb 13, 10:21am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

A colleague from Tufts - right near Boston - reports that for the second year it is raining in February which is unheard of for the region. Not rare but just not seen in his lifetime. The age of the kids tell me he is in his fifties or sixties and has seen enough Februaries to make a call on what is odd weather. Could he also be deep state libby conspirator jihadi who hates freedom? Should I ask him?
6   HEYYOU   ignore (46)   2020 Feb 13, 11:14am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
CO2 is heavier than air and would vary with altitude and proximity to sources.


I heard the winds mixes the air & that's what is read to get the CO2 content.;-)

All one can do is read everything science says about AGW. Individually none of us know more than we are told or read,with the exception of HEYOU who was born a genius.
7   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2020 Feb 13, 11:49am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I heard the winds mixes the air & that's what is read to get the CO2 content.;-)

So, the best measures are taken in the jet stream?
8   zzyzzx   ignore (2)   2020 Feb 13, 11:58am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
A colleague from Tufts - right near Boston - reports that for the second year it is raining in February which is unheard of for the region. Not rare but just not seen in his lifetime. The age of the kids tell me he is in his fifties or sixties and has seen enough Februaries to make a call on what is odd weather. Could he also be deep state libby conspirator jihadi who hates freedom? Should I ask him?



Did you ask them if they would have preferred a shitload of snow instead?
It wasn't that long ago that they had so much snow that it didn't melt until June. Just ask Rin, I'm sure that he remembers that.
I hate the constant rain we have been having lately, but them I remind myself that at least it's not snowing!
9   rd6B   ignore (1)   2020 Feb 13, 12:00pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

People, we are arguing about the wrong things.

1. Some of us agree that CO2 changes climate substantially.
2. Others disagree, but most of those who disagree, think that it would be good to get off fossil fuels because FUCK YOU SAUDI BARBARIA and RUSSIA!

If we pick 1, 2, or both, then working towards elimination of fossil fuels makes sense. The we come to question: what should we do, and how to do that in a way that does not make 90% of country poor and destitute?

The only rational answer is nuclear power, and research into more nuclear power. Everything else will be piecemeal solutions suitable, at best, in some localities, but not universally.
10   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2020 Feb 13, 12:15pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

1. Some of us agree that CO2 changes climate substantially.
2. Others disagree, but most of those who disagree, think that it would be good to get off fossil fuels because FUCK YOU SAUDI BARBARIA and RUSSIA!


Add to that the idea that resource depletion and plain old pollution can be curtailed also. But the AGW crowd does not want solutions other than everyone has the "original sin" of being a polluter and must fund big government as contrition. Any talk of solutions, like nuke power, will only get diverted back to arguing with deniers.
11   rd6B   ignore (1)   2020 Feb 13, 12:34pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
But the AGW crowd does not want solutions other than everyone has the "original sin" of being a polluter and must fund big government as contrition

They (Greta and Co) are funded by so-called alternative, green energy companies which want to suck on gov't teat, as most of them can not compete in free marketplace.
12   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2020 Feb 13, 4:17pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
Ok, I am dumb here. What is meant by "adjustments." I would expect to see something like "Actual Predicted Temps" compared to "Actual Measured Temps." Also, what is the scale on PPP CO2? And how do you measure "atmospheric CO2? CO2 is heavier than air and would vary with altitude and proximity to sources.




The temperature record has been adjusted for "reasons".. This graph shows how much the record has been adjusted. The rise in co2 has been fairly linear over the last century rising from 310 ppm to 410 ppm so the x axis represents the time over the last century. You can see the co2 ppm scale in the middle of the chart.

The y axis, plotted with the little blue boxes, shows all of the adjustments that have been made to the raw temperature records over the last century. notice that in order to show warming they had to subtract a small anomaly from the early 20th century and then add a small anomaly to the later temperatures.

By manipulating the temperature record they are trying to erase history, the dust bowl never happened.

As far as how they measure earth wide co2 levels and worldwide yearlong temperature anomalies down to hundredths of a degree, that is beyond my understanding.

Below is a graph of co2 ppm vs temp anomaly. Scary warming, with adjustments the temperature warmed almost a whole degree in a century.


Charts can be manipulated to show whatever you want. I have a lot more faith in humanity's ability to adapt to the climate than to change how we change it.
13   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2020 Feb 13, 6:14pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Charts can be manipulated to show whatever you want. I have a lot more faith in humanity's ability to adapt to the climate than to change how we change it.

Yes, even primitive humans live worldwide in extremes from the Arctic to the Sahara. It is asinine to think a 2 degree increase anywhere will wipe out humanity.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions