Just outlaw weather, bro.
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (19)
sorted by:
When you are talking about global average air temperatures, yes it fucking its. When you start calculating historical temperatures, it is also very hard.
Yeah, why would anyone try to model data? Clearly the problem with the data is that someone tabulated it.
Exactly, water simulations are easy, any idiot could do it.
Right, and since data was added to a model, then we know that all of the conclusions are inaccurate. Thank you for debunking all of science.
Your entire criticism of the models comes down to an ignorance of how modeling works. You build a model, using known data to come to conclusions that reflect known results, until you refine the model to be consistent enough so that it gives reliable results within your margin of error. Models also only work within their resolution, meaning that some models work under larger more abstract environment, and some other models work under heavy specificity. The more you insist on something to become 100% perfectly accurate, the more difficult the calculations for that model become. It's why physics uses pulley problems at basically every level. You start off in an abstract simple pulley, but you'll still be doing the same pulley problems using discrete mathematics when you start being asked to identify how a chain pulley works at each link, or how a rope pulley works as it's tinsel strength is tested and rotates.
Your criticism is that: "If a pulley problem is so hard to model, then it's must be impossible to model something as complex as a vehicle." No.
You ignored the part where I said that plant life would likely be a mitigating factor. You've decided to throw that out entirely and assert that I said that all climatology is a positive feedback loop.
I didn't. Positive feedbacks aren't a surprise, and nor are negative feedbacks. Chemistry and Biology have both of them.
I think you might have missed the point about models. Sure, you can use models to very accurately describe complex systems -- as long as the basic equations of the model are well understood and tested. Finite element modelling of Maxwell's equations are wonderfully accurate, for example.
With global warming, though, the assertion is that the trace amounts of extra carbon allegedly being pumped into the atmosphere will cause a positive feedback loop with water vapour -- a much more prevalent and effective 'greenhouse gas'.
The problem is that no one knows the strength of that positive feedback. In fact, you literally can't come up with a reasonable theory that would predict that strength. So you're left with two options. (1) guess; (2) use past CO2/Temperature data to determine the strength. Of course, if you look at the temperature record, there has been literally zero accelerated warming -- meaning that the warming trend has been linear -- so there's not really a basis for any of this modelling.
Furthermore, as Lord Monckton of Brenchly is fond of pointing out, the warming takes massive hiatuses. Right now there's been no warming for the last 8 years.
Also, the data sets involved are themselves mostly garbage, largely because: who ever cared about a number as pointless as 'global average temperature'?
I don't know whether I'm more disappointed in global warming 'physicists' or vaccine-pushing doctors.
And methane, and a few dozen other greenhouse gas emissions that cause warming, which cause more gas releases.
Then Lord Monckton is saying something that is absolutely stupid. It's like saying "hurricanes take massive hiatuses" because I don't get any in the winter.
What you're referring to is that there's been no further breakthroughs from the highest recorded average surface temperature on record. Okay, cool. All of the yearly average surface temperatures are still the highest within 200 years.
It would be more odd if the temperature increases never stopped surpassing the previous high each year for 20 years. I'd be pretty fucking worried about that.
No, it's been exponential, If you seclude yourself to only the past 8 years, it doesn't look linear, it just looks like a block of different temperatures, but this isn't abnormal for the past 100 years of warming.
I don't mean to belabour a point here... but can you really look at the Alabama-Huntsville data (available at Dr Roy Spencer's website ) and call that exponential growth?
The growth seems stepwise, like the ninos/ninas occasionally dump heat into the atmosphere.
The problem with using HADCRUT is that the data from different time periods is collected using different methods. For instance, there wasn't too much thermometer coverage of the ocean back in 1921! The Alabama data gives us a 43 year window of consistent data. HADCRUT also gives us a similar number of years of consistent data.
On the other hand, if you trust HADCRUT back to 1850 or 1900, then I suppose there are any number of functions that you could fit to that data! Then we'd be in a situation where we'd have to agree to disagree.
Your link is broken.
I'm aware of the difficulties of measuring temperature prior to WW2, especially when the reason they use the late 1800's, is because that is when the first measurements were done, by throwing buckets into the ocean at different points.
It sucks, but you can't just drop the data, you have to make an analysis of the data and establish an error for it.
I'm already going to tell you that if you're pointing to one city, then you're missing the entire point. Climate Change doesn't happen the exact same way everywhere.
In fact, one of the best examples of this is Canada, where Climate Change has benefited them dramatically by making a lot more western places in Yukon Territory inhabitable. Although the Watermelons scream about Polar Bears, the reality is that Polar Bears are increasing in population due to Climate Change making food more available for them in the warmer temperatures.
My point is that the situation in Huntsville, Alabama is not the same as Yukon Territory. Climate Change describes a phenomenon that effects different places differently.
This is why we can't disprove Climate Change with a snowball from Texas, or confirm it with a single hurricane in Cuba.