Study Reveals Stunning Acceleration of Sea Level Rise

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bladerunner44

Thanks random internet guy #19343 for telling me the science isn't settled, but I think I'll trust ACTUAL scientists on the matter not some guy who doesn't know how science works on the internet. I mean this?

The models they are using today can't even model current weather systems more than 3 days out with precision

Lol, the models to predict weather isn't the same science as the models used to predict climate...

You are tilting at windmills.

You are denying reality.

So lets try this again, the mods censored me for my last response so I'll take another crack at it.

Krazy guy, the scientists and their models you revere are essentially the same models used for short term weather prediction and are inherently inaccurate based on their inability to account for all of the important drivers of weather over time. The fluid dynamic models have been improving as computing power has increased, but still have a loss of predictability at time frames over a couple of weeks.

This from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics laboratory "Climate models are important tools for improving our understanding and predictability of climate behavior on seasonal, annual, decadal, and centennial time scales. Models investigate the degree to which observed climate changes may be due to natural variability, human activity, or a combination of both. Their results and projections provide essential information to better inform decisions of national, regional, and local importance, such as water resource management, agriculture, transportation, and urban planning. The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory has been one of the world leaders in climate modeling and simulation for the past 50 years"
The link is below.

While I am loath to reference NOAA's site, it proves my point on fluid dynamic modelling use. NOAA's inability to grasp the significance of missing variables, gross data manipulations (satellites vs terrestrial) and politically driven AGW stance essentially invalidates their conclusions on AGW.

Your assertion that the models for predicting AGW and current global weather are not the same, is incorrect. I would encourage you to grasp the flaws behind the so called settled science of AGW before you embark on breathless assertions of global apocalypse.


www.gfdl.noaa.gov...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I stopped reading after "5 inches of sea level rise they detected during the 20th century".

"5 inches" , "they" , "20th century"

"climate central" website

lol

the scientists must be laughing their way to the bank

a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

Stopped reading? Therefore how are you going to digest all the information and make an informed decision on its merits? Are you telling me that you are dismissing it because it doesn't correspond with your preconceived notions, THUS it doesn't merit a full reading? Or are you just lazy? I surmise that it is both.

Also, which scientists are laughing their way to the bank? Care to name names? Or are we just going with the vague, "they" here and pretending like that can possibly be a real entity?

originally posted by: bladerunner44

While I am loath to reference NOAA's site, it proves my point on fluid dynamic modelling use.

That climate models include fluid mechanics on a spheroid? OK, sure.

NOAA's inability to grasp the significance of missing variables, gross data manipulations (satellites vs terrestrial) and politically driven AGW stance essentially invalidates their conclusions on AGW.

So you assert that their stance is politically driven? And therefore invalid?

What evidence is there?

Your assertion that the models for predicting AGW and current global weather are not the same, is incorrect. I would encourage you to grasp the flaws behind the so called settled science of AGW before you embark on breathless assertions of global apocalypse.

Just because two models use fluid mechanics on the globe and equations of motion do not mean they are the same.

Operational short-term weather models ARE different. Climate models include effects which are observed inputs to weather models.

Weather models take in current observations, like sea and land surface temperature, pressure and winds from satellites and balloons and use those to integrate forward equations of motion. They are designed to predict those things directly interesting to operational weather forecasts and uses, which are different from climate. They are not designed to be stably free-running for hundreds of years, or incorporate ocean flows, or substantial models of sea ice, or biology, or carbon cycles or anything which are critical to climate modeling. They don't have to obey long-term conservation laws. They are tied intimately to ongoing current observations by a statistical/dynamical process called "data assimilation", which is not necessary in the same way for climate models.

e.g. www.ecmwf.int...

originally posted by: bladerunner44
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Krazy, just put the shovel down. You know what they say about being in a hole. The science is not settled. The zealots such as yourself wish to convince the world it is so but we're a long way from understanding all of the variables.

Climate denialism trope #6:

www.skepticalscience.com...

The models they are using today can't even model current weather systems more than 3 days out with precision, and you believe these frauds can tell us what is happening over decades past and future. The contradictory data is staggering.

That's false climate denialism trope #61:

www.skepticalscience.com...