Posted on 02/07/2022 4:15:46 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Please define/explain your formula and values.
GIGO is still true, even for a super-duper computer.
Sorry, was distracted at time…
Te = 58 + Log2(CO2/280) * 1.8
Average temperature of earth (according to all democrats)
Is 58 degrees (F) - temperature of earth before industrial revolution
Plus log base 2 of current CO2 ppm concentration in atmosphere divided by the pristine earth CO2 atmospheric concentration before industrial revolution times the current accepted value of how much the temperature increases per doubling of CO2.
The point is to show that the average earth temperature is a function of CO2 and only CO2 and has little or nothing to do with thousands of other factors
Clouds affect the weather? Who could have guessed.
Next someone will say that the sun affects the weather.
FTA: “A climate model able to capture the subtle effects of individual cloud systems, storms, regional wildfires and ocean currents at a more detailed scale would require a thousand times more computer power, they said.”
Q. How do you power all of those supercomputers?
A. With electricity.
Q. Where do you get the electricity?
A. Rainbows and unicorn farts.
Yep - been saying the same thing for about the same amount of time. The earth is self-balancing. Man, in his self-deluded “scientific” wisdom, cannot understand this.
Its not the supercomputer thats the problem
Its their fatally flawed, incorrect, inaccurate computer models.
Theyve known for years their models are not right
They will run data from the 70s and 80s and they cant forecast and match the acrual known data from the 90s and 2000s, for example.
“We’re, like, the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”
Amazing how AOC can be so wise, prescient, and scientific at such a young age. /s
"The Science is Settled"TM
So all those eco nazi regs get wiped out and we can get our money back right?
Would you take a medication that had only been tested in a computer model of human drug effects and had never been given to actual humans in a clinical trial?
After having worked in IT for 30 years and developed many programs I can tell you that a modeling program is only as good as the logic that the programmer can devise, the data that is fed into it, and the people interpreting the results. Software is a tool - not a crystal ball or an omniscient being. It amazes me how people that don’t understand this just swallow this propaganda down.
See Dr. Roy Spencer’s take on this from over ten years ago.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/13/spencer-clouds-dominate-co2-as-a-climate-driver-since-2000/
His research is still the most formidable about this subject, I believe.
I can tell you with absolute fact that if CO2 goes below 180 parts per million then plants die.. This has been proven in closed greenhouses. Furthermore greenhouses pump extra CO2 into them to make plants grow faster.
We are at one of the lowest levels of CO2 ever recorded and are in the midst of a 2 million year old ice age. Coincidence?
Without CO2 in the atmosphere we would all be dead. CO2 is Fundamental to life on earth as the only molecule that plant photosynthesis is based on so trying to contain it at its present anemic, unhealthy levels is pure insanity.
Not flawed data, flawed minds.
Claw back all the grant funds for the last six decades...
the flawed minds created the flawed models which generated the flawed predictions
Patently obvious. They can’t tell us accurately if it will rain 3 days from now. How the hell can they model future climate? The best proof is that no current models can describe actual past climate. They were all wrong. It is painfully obvious that the input paramaters are too vast for our current technology.
This is just on the surface - this knowing that climate change models are useless and therefore inaccurate.
Beyond that, once you realize this all began with the Club of Rome, tie into UN Agenda 21, and that the strategy of using Environmental Alarmism to control population and starve the US of cheap energy, everything else makes sense.
Models will get better... Bulltaco. Not in the next 100 years they won’t.
I would bet that climate models are as poor with oceans as they are with clouds. So even if they could model clouds reasonably well (LMFAO at that), they would still have to master modelling oceans for climate models to be of any use.
The challenge appears insurmountable. A massive leap in real time planet wide data collection would be needed along with computing power to process it. I won’t say “never”, but it seems like cold fusion will be a reality long before we can model long term climate.
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.