Climate Change Realities

[WillBrink]

Climate scientists on realty of climate change models we don't hear as it's not the narrative pushed. Balanced and objective discussion here, and the truth, per usual, falls between hyperbole and panic and denial:

[hotbiggun42]

Recently watched joe rogan pee his pants when a geologist explained to him that 2 degrees change in tempreture is nothing.it was based on deep drilling core samples from iceland, i think. He also explained that TEMPRETURE CHANGES VERY QUICKLY AND NOT OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME. It was one of the better Rogan shows ive seen.

His name is Randall Carlson.

[tn1911]

Mathematical forecast modeling isn’t magic. In fact, when used to attempt to predict the future, it’s more of a magic trick...

I’ve done a lot of work with the National weather service during my undergrad days where I helped with modeling the 36 and 72 hour short-term stuff. The amount of data we took in to just get to the medium resolution models was staggering. From satellite data all the way down to good ole fashioned ground-based observers and private citizens with personal weather stations who uploaded their local data to NWS servers.

Even with this level of actual live activity up to and including a beautiful hires photo from space of the weather system coming together we still only managed 80 to 85 percent accuracy for the 36 hour and 70 to 75 percent accuracy on the 72.

Toss in the fact that no real long range historical data exist for anything close to a climate study of the size and scope these guys are debating, and I just don’t see how they are claiming the accuracy at the future time frames they are discussing.

Just look at the mess that’s hurricane prediction. Even with real-time data being sent back via the hurricane hunters we still need literally thousands of ensembles being ran by supercomputers to get anywhere even close to basic predictions such as landfall times and rainfall amounts...

[glocktogo]

GCC is nothing if not a giant Ponzi scam, with the goals being both money and power. Anyone wringing their hands over it is either an idiot or a grifter.

[flenna]

GCC is nothing if not a giant Ponzi scam, with the goals being both money and power. Anyone wringing their hands over it is either an idiot or a grifter.

This^^^sums it up nicely.

[markm]

Climate change is so transparent it's laughable. It's the classic formula of scare idiots into supporting bad policy... and to the point above give evil more power.

The sad thing is that there's no shortage of pea brains, and this crap works.

[fedupflyer]

GCC is nothing if not a giant Ponzi scam, with the goals being both money and power. Anyone wringing their hands over it is either an idiot or a grifter.

I prefer calling it a wealth redistribution scheme masquerading as environmentalism.

[WillBrink]

Mathematical forecast modeling isn’t magic. In fact, when used to attempt to predict the future, it’s more of a magic trick...

I’ve done a lot of work with the National weather service during my undergrad days where I helped with modeling the 36 and 72 hour short-term stuff. The amount of data we took in to just get to the medium resolution models was staggering. From satellite data all the way down to good ole fashioned ground-based observers and private citizens with personal weather stations who uploaded their local data to NWS servers.

Even with this level of actual live activity up to and including a beautiful hires photo from space of the weather system coming together we still only managed 80 to 85 percent accuracy for the 36 hour and 70 to 75 percent accuracy on the 72.

Toss in the fact that no real long range historical data exist for anything close to a climate study of the size and scope these guys are debating, and I just don’t see how they are claiming the accuracy at the future time frames they are discussing.

Just look at the mess that’s hurricane prediction. Even with real-time data being sent back via the hurricane hunters we still need literally thousands of ensembles being ran by supercomputers to get anywhere even close to basic predictions such as landfall times and rainfall amounts...

Many of the comments in this thread would suggest they didn't watch the vid, already convinced they know what's happening, door closed to nuance (a seemingly lost idea...) and learning. Anyway, the number of variables they have to plug into those models, run on super computers, to get rough estimates on even a current storm only a few days out, is massive beyond comprehension. Obviously the models are getting better, but they are still just slightly above a WAG beyond even short periods of time as you point out. We need to get passed the BS agendas and back to objective science per that vid and make decisions and policy based on that, but that too now a topic of the culture wars that has creeped into the science domain to the point people, understandably, don't trust it, and that's the true danger we all face.

But, there's been real push back in the scientific community and related to this suppression of objective debate on these all important topics that impact us all, so maybe there's hope yet.

[tn1911]

Climatology and climatologist are a mixed bag of education and skills, not as focused as say someone with a degree in meteorology, atmospheric sciences or physics.

In my very amateur opinion a basic undergraduate meteorologist is better trained to research “climate change” than most of the political charlatans that pollute the academic field of climatology.

If y’all remember the scandals that engulfed the IPCC some years back? the director at the time was a guy named Rajendra Kumar Pachauri. What was his credentials to head up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

None...

He was an industrial engineer who built diesel locomotives for a living...

[HKGuns]

No, I watched it and it debunks ALL of the climate models used to create the debunked hockey stick that was the subject of my post and the academic fraud comitted by Michael Mann. In fact he is mentioned in the video as claiming the satellite data sets have been "debunked." Only further proof he and his fellow alarmists are frauds.

Bottom line, it is normal for temperatures to fluctuate and a graudual warming can and likely will be followed by an oppositite cooling trend.

"These models, 100% of them by the way, are warming the planet more than it actually is."