New report on climate change released today

[angelo]

That's always been the problem with " Modeling." It's pure guess work at best. Computer modeling will produce whatever you input into it.

 

[lpetrich]

The pandemic is certainly not a solution to the world's environmental problems. I suspect many governments will prioritise economic recovery over any efforts to reduce emissions. "How can you worry about climate change", they'll say, "we're got to fix the economy first!"

The pandemic is also going to throw off the IPCC's projections. None of their CO₂ emissions scenarios accounted for a global economic shutdown.

It'll be a dip in CO2 emissions, but the modelers can estimate that dip and rerun their models with it. They are not dummies.

That's always been the problem with " Modeling." It's pure guess work at best. Computer modeling will produce whatever you input into it.

Illiterate nonsense.

 

[bigfield]

That's always been the problem with " Modeling." It's pure guess work at best. Computer modeling will produce whatever you input into it.

Remind us again how you are umable to differentiatr between mathematical models and model aeroplanes.

 

[George S]

That's always been the problem with " Modeling." It's pure guess work at best. Computer modeling will produce whatever you input into it.

I have done computer modeling for a living. Computer modeling can produce whatever the customer wants. Most customers want to understand the simplifying assumptions. When I did the models for the epidemiologists in the early 1980s. Their model for HIV had it a non-issue (at that time it was nearly certain death) by 2020 (+/- 5 yrs).

Models must not only predict the future but must 'predict' the past from the then-further-past data. The climate models I have seen fail this test.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's always been the problem with " Modeling." It's pure guess work at best. Computer modeling will produce whatever you input into it.

His Flatulence's ass is an even worse predictor.

 

[Elixir]

That's always been the problem with " Modeling." It's pure guess work at best. Computer modeling will produce whatever you input into it.

All models are wrong, some are useful.
YOUR problem is that it's not only modeling with which you are at odds, it's raw data. You are arguing with observations. They're not going to give in to you.

 

[bigfield]

Models must not only predict the future but must 'predict' the past from the then-further-past data. The climate models I have seen fail this test.

Show us, then.

 

[bigfield]

The pandemic is certainly not a solution to the world's environmental problems. I suspect many governments will prioritise economic recovery over any efforts to reduce emissions. "How can you worry about climate change", they'll say, "we're got to fix the economy first!"

The pandemic is also going to throw off the IPCC's projections. None of their CO₂ emissions scenarios accounted for a global economic shutdown.

It'll be a dip in CO2 emissions, but the modelers can estimate that dip and rerun their models with it. They are not dummies.

I know they're not dummies. The implication was that they will need to rerun their models.

My point was that climate scientists are perfectly capable of predicting warming for all manner of emissions scenarios, but it's very hard to know exactly which one will turn out to be true. There might be a global financial crisis, a pandemic, a spectacular breakthrough in clean energy technology, a big war, or some other deviation from business as usual.

When the IPCC published their first assessment report in 1990, they published accurate predictions based on a "business-as-usual' scenario: global economic activity continues to grow without meaningful action to reduce emissions. This scenario didn't eventuate, because several countries agreed to reduce emissions under the Montreal protocol, and growth in emissions was reduced (and temporarily reversed) by the 2008 recession.

No-one can predict the timing of future economic disruptions. If anyone could do that then they would be the most highly-sought-after economist in the world. And yet somehow, climate scientists are expected to do precisely that. The best they can, and the best we can expect them to do, is publish projections for a small set of likely scenarios which do a pretty good job of showing policymakers what's in store for the future.

 

[angelo]

The pandemic is certainly not a solution to the world's environmental problems. I suspect many governments will prioritise economic recovery over any efforts to reduce emissions. "How can you worry about climate change", they'll say, "we're got to fix the economy first!"

The pandemic is also going to throw off the IPCC's projections. None of their CO₂ emissions scenarios accounted for a global economic shutdown.

It'll be a dip in CO2 emissions, but the modelers can estimate that dip and rerun their models with it. They are not dummies.

That's always been the problem with " Modeling." It's pure guess work at best. Computer modeling will produce whatever you input into it.

Illiterate nonsense.

Of course it is according to some, actually a shrinking mob of the sheeple. So was " climate gate" pure nonsense!

 

[bigfield]

So was " climate gate" pure nonsense!

Yes, obviously.

The EPA summed it up pretty well: https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/56EB0D86757CB7568525776F0063D82F

The pearl-clutching from the right wing media was comical, especially with regards to the "trick" to "hide the decline".

Clearly, you've still got a firm hold on your pearls.

 

[angelo]

Is that why Global Warming just wasn't cutting it with the general population and a new all purpose title was rolled out. Climate Change was genius. Why it took so long to make it's mark is a mystery.

 

[bigfield]

Is that why Global Warming just wasn't cutting it with the general population and a new all purpose title was rolled out. Climate Change was genius. Why it took so long to make it's mark is a mystery.

Yawn. I've already got that one on the list.

@angelo claims that global warming was renamed to climate change as part of a conspiracy to hide failed predictions. He also fabricates some statistics.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ing-Kilodeaths&p=723282&viewfull=1#post723282

ETA:
If you're just going to repeat the same silly statements over and over again, then I'd like to you elaborate on this one:

You without realizing it , or in ignorance just admitted what the argument is all about. Modeling. I could input anything into my pc to get a desired outcome!

Jokodo nailed it: you've just got no clue how modelling works.

Do you have any idea how a model say, a Stuka plane is put together?

You and George should swap notes on climate modelling.

 

[TSwizzle]

Teh Gruaniad asks pressing questions on the climate crisis/change/apocalypse, can "climate grief be treated with psychedelic drugs?";

MH: Do those experiences and your other research suggest that psychedelic drugs can be an antidote to climate grief?

MP: The first person I talked to about this was Rachael Petersen, an environmentalist. She worked at the World Resources Institute developing software that allows you to watch fires around the world in real time to see whether deals to protect lands, specifically in the Amazon, were being honored or not. This was incredibly depressing work. She watched the Earth burn in real time and as a result entered into a serious depression. She received psychedelic therapy, and while it was not a panacea she felt it helped her, allowed her to reset and continue to do this difficult work.

Teh Gruaniad WTF is "climate grief" ?

And in other news, climate change denier Bill Gates and his wife drop $40+ on a beach front property;

The billionaire philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates have purchased an exquisite beach house outside San Diego-splashing out on $43 million for an oceanfront mansion in the coastal town of Del Mar, CA. The prodigious purchase price makes it one of the largest sales in the area's history.

News

What a waste of money, it will be submerged under water within 11 years. Or is it ten years ?

 

[ZiprHead]

Teh Gruaniad asks pressing questions on the climate crisis/change/apocalypse, can "climate grief be treated with psychedelic drugs?";

MH: Do those experiences and your other research suggest that psychedelic drugs can be an antidote to climate grief?

MP: The first person I talked to about this was Rachael Petersen, an environmentalist. She worked at the World Resources Institute developing software that allows you to watch fires around the world in real time to see whether deals to protect lands, specifically in the Amazon, were being honored or not. This was incredibly depressing work. She watched the Earth burn in real time and as a result entered into a serious depression. She received psychedelic therapy, and while it was not a panacea she felt it helped her, allowed her to reset and continue to do this difficult work.

Teh Gruaniad WTF is "climate grief" ?

And in other news, climate change denier Bill Gates and his wife drop $40+ on a beach front property;

The billionaire philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates have purchased an exquisite beach house outside San Diego-splashing out on $43 million for an oceanfront mansion in the coastal town of Del Mar, CA. The prodigious purchase price makes it one of the largest sales in the area's history.

News

What a waste of money, it will be submerged under water within 11 years. Or is it ten years ?

Beachfront property, Del Mar, California.

 

[angelo]

Teh Gruaniad asks pressing questions on the climate crisis/change/apocalypse, can "climate grief be treated with psychedelic drugs?";



Teh Gruaniad WTF is "climate grief" ?

And in other news, climate change denier Bill Gates and his wife drop $40+ on a beach front property;



News

What a waste of money, it will be submerged under water within 11 years. Or is it ten years ?

Beachfront property, Del Mar, California.

View attachment 27296

Okay, where's the water? 5-10-20 miles away? Or is it just a 1-2 hundred meters away! But then again, perhaps like many Pacific atolls that were supposed to be meters under water by now but in fact many have actually grown in size by many hectares! That beachfront property will also expand??

 

[George S]

Computer Simulations of Climate Discussed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/27/some-dilemmas-of-climate-simulations/

A great deal of the recommendation that the world should modify its energy infrastructure to combat climate change, costing tens to hundreds of trillions of dollars, is based on computer simulations. While this author is not what is called a ‘climate scientist’, a great deal of science is interdenominational, and experience from one field often can fertilize another. That is the spirit in which this opinion is offered. The author has spent a good part of his more than 50-year scientific career developing and using computer simulations to model complex physical processes. Accordingly, based on this experience, he now gives his own brief explanation of his opinion, on what computer simulations can and cannot do, along with some examples. He sees 3 categories of difficulty in computer simulations, where the simulations go from mostly accurate to mostly speculative. He makes the case that the climate simulations are the most speculative.

 

[bigfield]

Computer Simulations of Climate Discussed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/27/some-dilemmas-of-climate-simulations/

That's extremely lazy.

If you can't do better than a WUWT post and John Christy's junk science, then you've got nothing.

 

[angelo]

Computer Simulations of Climate Discussed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/27/some-dilemmas-of-climate-simulations/

That's extremely lazy.

If you can't do better than a WUWT post and John Christy's junk science, then you've got nothing.

Instead of attacking the messenger, as you're an expert at. Attack the message. Show us where it's wrong!

 

[bigfield]

Computer Simulations of Climate Discussed:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/27/some-dilemmas-of-climate-simulations/

That's extremely lazy.

If you can't do better than a WUWT post and John Christy's junk science, then you've got nothing.

Instead of attacking the messenger, as you're an expert at. Attack the message. Show us where it's wrong!

The blog post doesn't even agree with your views. Kindly fuck off and read it before you demand a refutation.

 

[angelo]

Did I at any point say the post agrees with my sentiments? But your failure at pointing out mistakes on the article is noted. By the way, I have never, ever told any member of this forum to fuck off even if I strongly disagree with their ideology or posts!