Posted on 07/26/2018 9:49:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
All over the Northern Hemisphere, it's hot. It's summer, so of course it's hot. It's not unprecedented: the temperature record is hardly more than a century, and even so, the 1930s were far hotter. But any sort of weather invariably leads to screaming about "global warming," and so people are now screaming about global warming.
However -- and at the left-wing Slate, of all places -- some people are trying to temper that nonsense.
"The implication seems clear. Global warming isn’t some far-off hypothetical; It’s happening right here, right now, and we can see it in our thermometers," the article begins. However, it transitions: "Doling out blame for any single weather event is a tall order because weather is complicated. For one, it’s influenced by many factors: from planetary orbits to ocean currents to human activity."
Evidence is robust for two out of those three.
The global warming doom and gloom started back when climate "models" projected future temperatures to rapidly become unlivable. Universally, those climate models have since failed -- and they all failed far too high.
Unfortunately, this brief clarity from Slate faded into acceptance of the party line.
Climate is so complicated that some scientists believe it's simply not possible to construct an accurate climate model. Scientific conclusions are supposed to be reproducible: you drop sodium into water, you get a certain kind of reaction every time.
But with climate science, the models haven't simply failed to predict what will happen, they fail to accurately describe the past! The unavoidable truth is that warming alarmists don't understand the behavior of our planet's climate as intimately as they like to claim.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Climate is influenced by an infinite number of variables.
Climate “models” incorporate a tiny fraction of those variables.
Unless you incorporate every single variable your model will fail by a greater and greater margin as you extend your timeline.
Don’t know about “backing down”, it’s more like realizing they’re in a quagmire and trying to figure a way out of it.
Most legitimate peer-reviewed papers on climate science will always state something to the effect: “uncertainties are high” on most data.
However the conclusions are always very certain:
“Global warming is real and we have to do something” (i.e destroy America).
Typical conversation with a Leftist on Climate Change:
Leftist: It’s hot outside because of Climate Change.
Me: It’s hot outside because it’s Summer time.
Leftist: Climate and weather are different things.
Me: But you just equated the weather with Climate Change.
“Unless you incorporate every single variable your model will fail by a greater and greater margin as you extend your timeline.”
Which is impossible with climate because it’s a non-linear coupled chaotic system.
IOW nobody can predict the future.
So true.
Global cooling oops warming oops climate change is a Quagmire indeed.
The left will not escape it in one piece.
If it was not for “Global Warming” I would be sitting here typing under a mile of ice. So I am all for global warming.
It’s also made more complicated by politicization and rabid hysteria.
There is absolutely no doubt that attempting to model something as complex as the earth’s climate is an extremely complicated task. It is impossible. Especially with the required accuracy in order to make predictions about the future. Will this change in the future? Maybe. But I doubt it.
So, to imply the models and simulations are capable predicting future events one year, 5 years, 50 years from now is a lie and makes the whole theory suspect.
Plus, it is also clear to those of us paying attention, that there is a plan to make money from it — re: a carbon tax. Taxes that will forced on middle class Americans. Dontcha think that we should make absolutely certain that AWG is real before we create hardships for a large percentage of American folks?
Warm weather is proof of anthropogenic global warming.
Cold weather is proof of anthropogenic global warming.
Wet weather is proof of anthropogenic global warming.
Dry weather is proof of anthropogenic global warming.
All weather is proof of anthropogenic global warming.
Don’t they feed the simulation results back into the input — for example: state 0 result are fed back into the same model as initial conditions that generated it to generate state 1 and the results from state 1 is fed back into the model to generate state 2.... etc.
The problem with this methodology is that any error in the previous states is amplified. Errors from model approximations, raw data having errors, etc. all contribute to the accumulated error until you have garbage.
If the errors are significant enough, the system will go unstable and oscillate wildly. So the data and results have to be interpreted and adjusted.
Oh, it is worse than that. Even if they understood all of the phenomena that affect weather (which they don’t), and had a model that incorporate all of these phenomena (which none do), it still wouldn’t work.
Based on chaos theory, if one uses the same model I described above, but with slightly different starting conditions, the long-term results will be drastically different. The level of accuracy that you would need for an reliable 10-year prediction is well beyond the measuring precision currently available.
One of our local weathercasters is always trying to link warmer summer weather to man caused global warming. His graphs and charts are pure BS and have no scientific basis
Paging Lieutenant Obvious ...
(Captain Obvious was so stupid he got demoted.)
Even that won't help. Chaos theory put all thought of large-scale climate prediction and/or control firmly into the realm of science fiction. The key term is "sensitive dependence upon initial conditions". You don't hear much about the 'butterfly effect' any more, because it makes 'climatologists' look like fools.
I was going to mention chaos theory and initial conditions, but the very fact that you can only know a small fraction of the variables is reason enough to say computer models are bunk.
Oh, absolutely agree. However, the bigger issue is, that even if they did know of the other hundreds, if not thousands of variables that contribute to our climate, it simply wouldn't help one bit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.