"The science is settled."
Posted on 05/17/2018 8:31:31 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The scientific community is working to make its predictions more accurate, but there's still a long way to go.
As debate in Washington heats up over climate change and transparency in science, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine held a quiet meeting last week to discuss just how consistent the results are across climate studies.
The verdict, for those who follow the science, wasn't too surprising. They are still seeing a wide range of results. "The spread has gotten tighter, but it hasn't gotten super tight," is how NASA climate researcher Gavin Schmidt puts it.
Scientists have several ongoing strategies for improving climate change predictions. They compare results from different methods of estimating the Earth's prehistoric climates. They also share the data and computer programs used in climate studies online so other research groups can verify the findings and spot bugs. And they run past climate data on computer models built to predict the planet's future - because if the model works for the future, then it should work for the past too.
At last week's meeting, Andrea Dutton, a scientist at the University of Florida who studies the Earth's past climates, noted a silver lining to the hostile attention the field has received from folks who deny the reality of human-driven climate change: "This public scrutiny has, I think, helped us to up our game in all these areas and be better about being transparent."
(Excerpt) Read more at psmag.com ...
"The science is settled."
“This public scrutiny has, I think, helped us to up our game in all these areas and be better about being transparent.”
There is no Science of the Climate yet developed.
The weather guys are getting pretty good at looking out 10 days though.
What a biased article. There are significant uncertainties about how much warming is occurring, how much is caused by human activity, whether the effects are positive or negative, and what an “optimal” climate might be.
Computer models cannot answer these questions.
The assumptions about motivations for the call for transparency in the EPA science is staggering. Apparently the writer is a mind reader.
“The weather guys are getting pretty good at looking out 10 days though.”
Move the timeline to 30 days and it’s a complete crap shoot. Yet they can tell us with absolute certainty what the overall climate of an entire planet will be 20 years from now.
They’re frauds.
L
btt
At last week’s meeting, Andrea Dutton, a scientist at the University of Florida who studies the Earth’s past climates, noted a silver lining to the hostile attention the field has received from folks who deny the reality of human-driven climate change:
...
Climate is driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit and the positions of the continents. If humans have an effect on climate it’s behind the other two.
:: because if the model works for the future, then it should work for the past too ::
To quote Thomas Dolby: “Science!”
I deny it.
Computer models have answered many of the questions, but the answers don't fit the narrative.
The most repeatable studies are those that focus on cosmic rays, solar surface activity, and surface cloud cover. When scientists testing these studies report their results, they are panned, and the studies are quickly buried.
Man-made global warming, climate change, pick your trope, is untrue, untestable, not repeatable across any hypotheses, and it is being consistently shown to be an inconsistent indicator of anything related to climate.
It has become almost impossible to watch those creeps. They are SO into themselves and it’s SO all about them and NOT the weather... that they can barely speak properly.
They ALL speak WAY too much and WAY too fast ...trying WAY too hard to be ‘cool. It is hopelessly personalized so that when you tune in, you hear and see about everything EXCEPT the weather
It makes them sound like they garble their words ... sometimes I can not even tell what they just said
What’s that, Sir?
Sorry-the weather announcers... they’re a joke
“And they run past climate data on computer models built to predict the planet’s future - because if the model works for the future, then it should work for the past too”
The sentence is intentionally distorted. It should say that the model should reflect the past so that results concerning the future can have confidence.
Any time simulation should be able to show that (within acceptable bounds), especially a CFD run that is attempting to model stochastic events.
But the cop out will be that “we don’t have data that goes that far back with sufficient resolution” and then we’re supposed to take it on faith, or some crap statistical model that just regurgitates tree ring data sans underlying rationale.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
Exactly. None of their models can accurately reproduce past known climate data. Until they come up with one that does, nobody can have any confidence as to the predictions of their computer models about what the future climate will look like.
There never will be. The climate of a planet is a complex and dynamic system that is extraordinarily dependent upon initial conditions. Chaos theory precludes any long term projections. The scientific double mouthful is "sensitive dependence upon initial conditions. We knew once we understood the chaotic Lorenz equations that control of the weather was impossible. That is why you saw that particular meme disappear from science fiction by the 80s.
This is an interesting piece about the causes of seal-level rise.
The Mandelbrot set!
Knowing that your research will be thoroughly gone over by critics will force you to do better science.
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.