Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[Ophiolite]

Its 1.5 C degrees warming, not 2. I watch Legit Utube docs not the scam/spam/fake news stuff.

Forget videos. Do some proper study.

1. Read this https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf
2. Read it again
3. Read it taking notes
4. Read it following up some of the references
5. Read it again
6. Read your notes
7. Reflect on what you have read and written
8. Come back here and apologise

 

[lordjeff]

I'm educated enough to discern between network news, cult news, & cash cow professors. As I said before there is a whole lot of controversey on the graphs & you can't use a computer model to predict climate. People are under the impression that there is an exponential or geometric series involved for every ton of co2 that goes into the air & in fact that is not the case.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm educated enough to discern between network news, cult news, & cash cow professors. As I said before there is a whole lot of controversey on the graphs & you can't use a computer model to predict climate. People are under the impression that there is an exponential or geometric series involved for every ton of co2 that goes into the air & in fact that is not the case.

And we're back to collage professors being the greedy rich and oil executives being the hard working common man.

 

[pitabread]

cash cow professors.

What? Is that a thing now?

 

[Hans Blaster]

And we're back to collage professors being the greedy rich and oil executives being the hard working common man.

Just about any university department of meteorology (that's where you find climatologists on faculty) could be funded by the salary of single CEO of a major oil company (w/o stock options/bonuses).

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm educated enough to discern between network news, cult news, & cash cow professors.

Clearly, you are not.

... you can't use a computer model to predict climate.

Of course you can!

Computer modelling is the ONLY real tool to predict future climate.

 

[sjastro]

Climate scientist on left explaining global warming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Clearly, you are not.



Of course you can!

Computer modelling is the ONLY real tool to predict future climate.

The proper interpretation of the sentence "you can't use a computer model to predict . . . " is "I can't use a computer model to predict . . . and I assume that you cannot do so either".

 

[lordjeff]

No-you can't use computers to predict climate. You use observations. Meteorological formulas are very intricate & lengthy. You can predict weather but you can't predict 20 years into the future what a given climate is going to be alike because you don't know the position of the jet streams that far in advance nor the activity of the tectonic plates. Entering a specific humidity # is not going tell you anything 20 years from now. Earth is still a pretty big place. Additionally it can be stated whether weather data responds to an arithmetic series, a geometric one, a Taylor series, a logarithmic series, or an exponential one.

 

[lordjeff]

The difficulty with computer models is that the math is non-linear & involves a lot of chaos theory. This is really high level math that one really has to be cut out for it. It's even beyond my degree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No-you can't use computers to predict climate. You use observations. Meteorological formulas are very intricate & lengthy. You can predict weather but you can't predict 20 years into the future what a given climate is going to be alike because you don't know the position of the jet streams that far in advance nor the activity of the tectonic plates. Entering a specific humidity # is not going tell you anything 20 years from now. Earth is still a pretty big place. Additionally it can be stated whether weather data responds to an arithmetic series, a geometric one, a Taylor series, a logarithmic series, or an exponential one.

Prove it. You made an affirmative claim. Here this explains it a bit more thoroughly than I can:

"A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.[10] The difference with a positive claim is that it takes only a single example to demonstrate such a positive assertion ("there is a chair in this room," requires pointing to a single chair), while the inability to give examples demonstrates that the speaker has not yet found or noticed examples rather than demonstrates that no examples exist (the negative claim that a species is extinct may be disproved by a single surviving example or proven with omniscience). The argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, it has been said whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[10][11]"
Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

EDIT: You appear to be conflating weather and climate. They are not the same thing. Chaos theory applies to weather. It does not apply so much to climate since that is more concerned with energy balances. It is easy to demonstrate that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes a general temperature increase. It is very similar to adding a blanket to one's bed on a cold night.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No-you can't use computers to predict climate. You use observations.

The computer models made decades ago agree quite well with the subsequent observations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The computer models made decades ago agree quite well with the subsequent observations.

If I remember correctly (and please forgive my incorrect terminology) they were first tested by back forecasting. They took the data of the past and predicted the climate up to that time. That it came out to the climate of that time was an indication that they were on the right track. And as you pointed out time has confirmed that even those early models were fairly accurate.

 

[lordjeff]

No actually the computer models don't. See Dr. Tim Ball, Tony Heller. There is a whole host of articles, particular from the big newspapers that predicted ice age one second, greenhouse the next, I mean it changed literally every day. The big one was the 2012 polar vortex that blanketed New England with mounds of snow never seen before. So the vortex issue put a damper on the warming title & they changed it to climate change. Another vortex followed in the winter of 2014-15. This past 2019-20, winter has been absent in the northeast.

 

[sjastro]

No-you can't use computers to predict climate. You use observations. Meteorological formulas are very intricate & lengthy. You can predict weather but you can't predict 20 years into the future what a given climate is going to be alike because you don't know the position of the jet streams that far in advance nor the activity of the tectonic plates. Entering a specific humidity # is not going tell you anything 20 years from now. Earth is still a pretty big place. Additionally it can be stated whether weather data responds to an arithmetic series, a geometric one, a Taylor series, a logarithmic series, or an exponential one.

Weather and climate are not the same.
It is harder to predict the weather as the weather evolves into a chaotic system far more rapidly than climate.
In fact "climate forcings" such as variations in solar radiation or Milankovitch cycles exist at much larger time scales than the time evolution of the chaotic system and are therefore "predictable".

 

[sjastro]

If I remember correctly (and please forgive my incorrect terminology) they were first tested by back forecasting. They took the data of the past and predicted the climate up to that time. That it came out to the climate of that time was an indication that they were on the right track. And as you pointed out time has confirmed that even those early models were fairly accurate.

That's correct as climate models are "time symmetrical".
They can be run backwards so one can compare past measurements with what the model predicts.

 

[pitabread]

There is a whole host of articles, particular from the big newspapers that predicted ice age one second

Newspapers aren't scientific sources. What is published in a newspaper is largely irrelevant in this context.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No actually the computer models don't. See Dr. Tim Ball, Tony Heller. There is a whole host of articles, particular from the big newspapers that predicted ice age one second, greenhouse the next, I mean it changed literally every day. The big one was the 2012 polar vortex that blanketed New England with mounds of snow never seen before. So the vortex issue put a damper on the warming title & they changed it to climate change. Another vortex followed in the winter of 2014-15. This past 2019-20, winter has been absent in the northeast.

Only a handful of scientists made the ice age prediction. That went against the consensus of the time. Newspapers need to find something different, not people that all agree with each other, to sell issues. Newspapers are one of the worst places to get one's science from. Not very many papers have good science writers.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No actually the computer models don't. ... There is a whole host of articles, particular from the big newspapers

If true, what does that have to do with computer models?

 

[greatcloudlives]

CO2 is good for life plants and animals thrive in the warming up that we are experiencing. Global cooling is not good for plants and animals most of the extinctions have been due to global cooling.