Climate Change thread

[Annie Bynnol]

9 minutes ago, trastrick said:

I'm curious.

 

Which "model" are you referring to?

It is in the nature of modern science that there are multiple factors in action which cannot be untangled, at least at first. It might be star formation, evolution,  viruses, continental drift, it might be electromagnetism, light etc. One of the most difficult to untangle is climate. An overwhelming amount of current and historical data is available from which a group will create a 'model' pertaining to their field of interest.

The 'model' is the vehicle by which hugely complex systems can be tested and predictions obtained. If the 'model' does not work that it must be refined or ditched. If new observations come along and an established 'model' fails to cope it must be refined or ditched.

As a 'model'  evolves it will butt into and overlap with other 'models' again this requires that all the 'models' work together and a new  combined 'model' is worked

 

For example you have fixed on one limited effect of climate change -the sea ice and land ice coverage at the poles. The year to year variations and the different magnitude of the trends North and South are expected and within the range of short term predictions so the 'model' works in relation to sea ice 

 

The predictions from the any 'model' becomes more inaccurate with time and number of variables, however they become more accurate as they are gradually refined and the variables better understood.  However the trends in every model are towards warmer seas, higher sea levels and a more energetic energetic atmosphere. Secondary and more difficult to predict are sea current, seasonal weather patterns, jet stream and cyclone tracking and changes to weather patterns. This is the land of deniers, activists. journos and politicians and which the scientists are less willing to commit, instead pointing out the range of the predicted outcomes.

 

 

 

 

 

[trastrick]

28 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

It is in the nature of modern science that there are multiple factors in action which cannot be untangled, at least at first. It might be star formation, evolution,  viruses, continental drift, it might be electromagnetism, light etc. One of the most difficult to untangle is climate. An overwhelming amount of current and historical data is available from which a group will create a 'model' pertaining to their field of interest.

The 'model' is the vehicle by which hugely complex systems can be tested and predictions obtained. If the 'model' does not work that it must be refined or ditched. If new observations come along and an established 'model' fails to cope it must be refined or ditched.

As a 'model'  evolves it will butt into and overlap with other 'models' again this requires that all the 'models' work together and a new  combined 'model' is worked

 

For example you have fixed on one limited effect of climate change -the sea ice and land ice coverage at the poles. The year to year variations and the different magnitude of the trends North and South are expected and within the range of short term predictions so the 'model' works in relation to sea ice 

 

The predictions from the any 'model' becomes more inaccurate with time and number of variables, however they become more accurate as they are gradually refined and the variables better understood.  However the trends in every model are towards warmer seas, higher sea levels and a more energetic energetic atmosphere. Secondary and more difficult to predict are sea current, seasonal weather patterns, jet stream and cyclone tracking and changes to weather patterns. This is the land of deniers, activists. journos and politicians and which the scientists are less willing to commit, instead pointing out the range of the predicted outcomes.

 

 

 

 

 

So no "The  Model!

 

Just any number of models that are "refined or ditched"at will.

 

It doesn't bode well for being able to predict the Earth's temperature in 2100, by a few tenths of a degree. 

 

So is which is the latest model, which needs to be "refined or ditched'?

[trastrick]

Update No. 3

 

Extreme Weather

 

Here I was going to post my take on the Media hype about the weather and "global warming", but I just came across this, as reported on RealClearPolitics yesterday.

 

Aside from his lack of discussion of the Bell Curve which usually visually represents data such as frequency, he pretty much sums up the current state of the issue from a sceptical point of view, which saves me the trouble.

 

(In any Bell Curve, there are ALWAYS extremes at both ends of the diagram)

 

Media Lying About Climate Change and Hurricanes

"It's Time to State the Obvious"

 Michael Shellenberger, Substack

https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/media-lying-about-climate-and-hurricanes

 

Make of it what you will!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2022 by trastrick

[El Cid]

Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers, and the expansion of seawater as it warms. The first graph tracks the change in global sea level since 1993, as observed by satellites.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

So no "The  Model!

 

Just any number of models that are "refined or ditched"at will.

 

It doesn't bode well for being able to predict the Earth's temperature in 2100, by a few tenths of a degree. 

 

So is which is the latest model, which needs to be "refined or ditched'?

Do not misquote me.

Or is it the just bad grammar?

Is this really a reply:

"So no "The  Model!

Just any number of models that are "refined or ditched"at will.

It doesn't bode well for being able to predict the Earth's temperature in 2100, by a few tenths of a degree. 

So is which is the latest model, which needs to be "refined or ditched'?"

 

You and the activists are as bad as each other- just opposite extremes. You want to stick to your political beliefs and your climate extremism fine, I'll sick to the science. 

One day make an effort to understand modelling in science which includes weaknesses, strengths and limitations, instead of being spoon fed dialogue to backup your beliefs by Michael Shellenberger -darling of the far-right.

 

 

[Annie Bynnol]

Michael Shellenberger does not talk about a "bell curve".

 

Even if he did mention This bit really does shows that you really do not understand:

"In any Bell Curve, there are ALWAYS extremes at both ends of the diagram".

That is blindingly obvious, but how does this apply to hurricanes?

There is not one 'bell curve' in his article.

Not quite sure why hurricanes making landfall in 2020 appear in a graph published in 2018?

 

This is the kind of comment such articles attract and you are promoting with your links:

"As I said above Nazism morphed into Ecofascism after WW2. And WEF, the Davos crowd, the Central Bank Psychopath Club-of-Rome Malthusian Parasites all promote Ecofascist Ideology or Religious Crackpotism. They are THE menace to humanity. And Mother Nature also. Sick, demented people."

 

As I said you stick with your extremists and I will follow the science.

 

 

[top4718]

12 hours ago, El Cid said:

Are any taxes voluntary?

The one scientific fact that people should look at when assessing climate change is sea level.

If the sea level is rising, something is causing that, or the land is shrinking.

Melting ice in the Antarctic and ice on land(mountain peaks) is causing sea levels to rise.

The sea level isn't rising, not at all.

[The_DADDY]

6 minutes ago, top4718 said:

The sea level isn't rising, not at all.

Yeah but.......Al Gore 🤪🤣

[top4718]

Just now, The_DADDY said:

Yeah but.......Al Gore 🤪🤣

Yeah, shouldn't we be under water by now according to his predictions 20 years ago, absolute nonsense. 🤣

[The_DADDY]

Just now, top4718 said:

Yeah, shouldn't we be under water by now according to his predictions 20 years ago, absolute nonsense. 🤣

Ah but at least Al made a tidy bundle of cash from it all bless his heart. Every cloud and all that  😁