Posted on 03/15/2017 7:37:49 PM PDT by MtnClimber
‘DO YOU believe,” CNBC’s Joe Kernen asked Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency’s new director, in an interview last Thursday, “that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate?”
Replied Pruitt: “No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no — I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
It was an accurate and judicious answer, so naturally it sent climate alarmists into paroxysms of condemnation. The Washington Post slammed Pruitt as a “denier” driven by “unreason.” Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii called Pruitt’s views “extreme” and “irresponsible” — proof of his unfitness to head the EPA. Gina McCarthy, who ran the agency under President Obama, bewailed the danger global warming poses “to all of us who call Earth home,” and said she couldn’t “imagine what additional information [Pruitt] might want from scientists” in order to understand that.
Yet for all the hyperventilating, Pruitt’s answer to the question he was asked — whether carbon dioxide is the climate’s “primary control knob” — was entirely sound. “We don’t know that yet,” he said. We don’t. CO2 is certainly a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, but hardly the primary one: Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of greenhouse gases. By contrast, carbon dioxide is only a trace component in the atmosphere: about 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04 percent. Moreover, its warming impact decreases sharply after the first 20 or 30 ppm.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonglobe.com ...
CO2 is the energy/food for the trees and plants of the earth.
No CO2 - no plants/trees
No plants/trees - no Oxygen
No Oxygen - no humans
So, as far as I’m concerned, the LEFT is totally stupid.
Scientific method demands a hypothesis first. The hypothesis must then be supported by scientific research. If the research does not support the hypothesis it is null and void. "Been there and done that." It kinda sucks to spend hundreds of hours in the lab to prove yourself wrong. Actually I was lucky as my research that proved myself totally wrong proved something else that I did not suspect so all was not wasted
If one changes the parameters of the original hypothesis to fit subsequent data that is scientific fraud.
If one changes the data to fit the original hypothesis that has been proven wrong he is no longer a scientist but a naught more than a damned liar.
If it’s known for sure to be true, we don’t need to spend any money for research then, do we?
No more than the government spends on researching the acceleration due to gravity.
I thought the science was settled.
------------------------------------------------
World Leaders Conspire To Keep Trump In The Paris Climate Agreement 3/13/2017, 11:19:50 AM
Cult Messiah 'JeZus' Rants About Global Warming Flood on CNN's 'Believer' 3/13/2017, 11:34:36 AM
Trump's War on the Climate 3/13/2017, 12:06:23 PM
U.S. Bishops indicate to Sec of State Tillerson Global Warming is their top foreign-policy priority 3/13/2017, 6:41:04 PM
British scientists face a ‘huge hit’ if the US cuts climate change research 3/14/2017, 1:22:06 PM
Rex Tillerson Allegedly Used An Alias Email To Discuss Climate Change While At Exxon 3/14/2017, 10:33:52 AM
Depression, anxiety, PTSD: The mental impact of climate change 3/14/2017, 1:15:19 PM
Al Gore: Every Night on the News We’re Seeing ‘A Nature Hike Through the Book of Revelation’ 3/14/2017, 4:45:30 PM
Trump to roll back use of climate change in policy reviews: source 3/14/2017, 5:05:41 PM
Defense Secretary Mattis: 'Climate change' is a national security threat 3/15/2017, 9:33:04 AM
California Official Tries To Poach Federal Bureaucrats Working On Climate Policy 3/15/2017, 12:33:14 PM
In challenge to Trump, 17 Republicans in Congress join fight against global warming 3/15/2017, 1:18:35 PM
Watch out: Mammals shrink when Earth heats up, study says 3/15/2017, 1:19:38 PM
Study: Stopping global warming only way to save coral reefs 3/15/2017, 1:27:24 PM
5 Ways to Teach About Climate Change in Your Classroom 3/15/2017, 3:02:45 PM
Study: Climate change research is without publication bias 3/15/2017, 1:56:23 PM
Doctor groups take up global warming advocacy 3/15/2017, 1:43:41 PM
US Sen. Ed Markey says expected withdrawal of fuel economy emissions standards 'wrong way to go' 3/15/2017, 1:57:16 PM
Climate Changes Health 3/15/2017, 3:57:21 PM
Pro-Abort Speaker at Vatican Conf: Pope has ‘Done More’ for Global Warming Movement than Anyone 3/15/2017, 6:48:49 PM
Why are climate-change models so flawed? Because climate science is so incomplete 3/15/2017, 8:37:49 PM
------------------------------------------------
Somebody hit the "Climate Hoax Media Flood" button.
I, for one, totally support serendipity. Let the wind blow through your hair.....
Did they use the pollsters from 2016 presidential election?
From the UN IPPC Chair the purpose of “Climate Change” is to destroy capitalism and to reduce the population of Earth.
Climate science really isn’t science when you can have an unpredictable even like an earthquake or volcanic eruption that creates total chaos. Climate change happens. Man doesn’t influence or control it, but can protect against it. That’s it.
That’s because climate science is political science.
Interestingly enough it is the same one employed by Mars and Venus and a few other planets.
Putting on my computer based modeler hat, I will say the climate models are useful tools, with two caveats. (hey, I told you I've some experience here, full disclosure of course I'm going to promote the modeling industry) One, that they are used for their intended purpose. Two, that they are used within reasonable constraints.
Unfortunately, what passes for "climate science" today meets neither of those criteria. The models should be used to further our understanding of climate. They should only be run/iterated out a relatively short time, say single digit level years... However, people with a money/power/political agenda are trying to use them to "prove" pet theories (that coincidentally shower themselves with money/power/influence) by running them out dozens or even hundreds of years into the future.
That just does not work. Well sure, you can do it. Sure, you can hack in artificial constraints on your model to keep it from spinning off into unrealistic regions like the entire planet freezes solid or becomes hotter than Venus... But the fundamental problem is, every step/iteration of the model depends on the preconditions (state) and produces post conditions (updated state). The updated state becomes the input for the next time-step iteration. For better accuracy, you want small time steps and a small "mesh" in order to capture those fine-grained interactions. But then you start running into precision problems with your numerical representations. Worse, slight inaccuracies or uncertainties in your results get magnified as they become the input to the next iteration. For a few hundred or even a few thousand iterations looking a couple of years down the road this is a manageable problem. After several tens of millions of iterations to look dozens or hundreds of years down the road you're writing fiction.
So fundamentally, what the models are being used for and how they are being used is just plain wrong. Wrong as in fantasy bearing little resemblance to reality. But there are three other fundamental areas where the models suffer from numerous individual problems.
One is simply our understanding of the climate. As the author points out, we really don't understand with certainty more than just the gross interactions. Unfortunately, the subtle interactions apparently also matter. They matter more and more the further into the future you iterate. This is where the climate models could and should help our understanding of the climate - if/when used realistically. Test a little, measure a little, correct ... lather, rinse, repeat. The models are useful tools for testing theories on what factors are significant, how significant, and how they interact. They are not yet predictive in any way, not even close.
The second fundamental problem is the models themselves. The number of variables that have meaning are at least in the hundreds, probably in the thousands or even millions. (this goes back to the problem above - we just do not know what is or is not important, or how important things are) The number of variables and possible combinations and interactions are basically mathematically and computationally intractable with existing technology. Even with our limited understanding, you have to make simplifications and assumptions in order to create something that will actually fit on and run to completion on existing hardware. Consider, if you want to make a 1 meter mesh over the entire "playing field" - say from the upper edge of the atmosphere down to the bottom of the ocean... That is roughly 5.7 times 10 to the 19th power cubic meters. That's 57 billion, billion data points. Oh, and at each one you need to keep track of hundreds, if not thousands of variables. Then virtually every one of these has to interact in complex ways with it's 26 neighboring cells for every time step...
The third issue is genuinely intractable and basically unsolvable. Even if people started using the models realistically. Even if we figured out all the thousands of variables and how they interacted. Even if we had the hardware to run the models on... There is still no way to predict the climate future dozens, even hundreds of years out. Random chance will, that is will, not may, shake things up. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, and other unpredictable events will almost certainly occur and will have some effect, slight or significant. We just don't know, can't know, and therefore cannot claim to know what will happen based on some computer model.
Yep. Agreed 100%.
What went on at the University of East Anglia was astounding. They were brazen enough to insert comments in their code for their computer modeling that specifically stated that a fudge factor was inserted here or a line of code commented out there because it didn’t provide the results they were hoping for.
They took a hypothesis first, then tried to manufacture the analysis to prove that hypothesis.
“Why are climate-change models so flawed? Because climate science is so incomplete”
The models are so flawed because the fraudulent degenerates that make the models produce desired results first, then attempt to backfill with perjured data.
Incomplete and mostly fraudulent.
They have ample evidence that if the correlation is causation it works the other way. First comes the warming then the oceans release the CO2. Warm water holds less dissolved CO2 than cold water does. Ice cores from everywhere the have pulled ice cores show that the warming precedes the CO2 rise. They are aware of the ice core evidence because there have been a couple of claims by “scientists” that the CO2. It is something that can be verified in any lab and probably has been many times.
Computer fantasy is not science.
Climate change does exist. It is a constant. Even man caused climate change locally is real. Stripping the vegetation from large areas of scrubland changes the rain pattern. The Moslem conquerors have demonstrated that in North Africa which used to be a bountiful grain producing area until the Arabs converted it to sheep pasture and the sheep vastly reduced the ground cover thus converting it to semiarid condition.
Climate change does exist. It is a constant. Even man caused climate change locally is real. Stripping the vegetation from large areas of scrubland changes the rain pattern. The Moslem conquerors have demonstrated that in North Africa which used to be a bountiful grain producing area until the Arabs converted it to sheep pasture and the sheep vastly reduced the ground cover thus converting it to semiarid condition.
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.