Climate change policy being driven by bad computer models

Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere. Wall Street Journal has an interesting article about how difficult it is to model clouds with a supercomputer. Computer models are useful. They can help with decision making in finance and in business 'what if' scenarios, but climate models have a poor track record when it comes to modeling complex systems because the relationship between the many interactions is very often poorly understood. Climate models are often wrong and cannot validate if different data elements are tied by causation or simply correlations. We know that in periods of greater temperatures there were usually higher CO2 levels, but there is surprisingly little evidence that carbon capture will slow down temperature rise. Policies are being implemented that may do little or nothing to stop climate change but will very likely drive up costs and inflame resource scarcity. Computer models are risky. At best they can identify topics that should drive further practical research. They are misleading digital tarot cards at worst.

Before anybody accuses me of being pro corporation, the fastest, surest, and safest way to stop contributing to climate change and improve your own life is to stop paying corporations for stupid s#*t you don't need.

www.wsj.com...

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

I can't speak with any authority on climate change, but as a layman, I can say that if you sincerely believe that the Earth is being damaged by carbon emissions, and you are imposing rules based on that concept, then flying in a private jet around the world to talk about how bad flying private jets flying around the world are, you are likely an idiot. That is all.

Actually,

Bad computer models are being driven by Climate Policy

originally posted by: sraven
Actually,

Bad computer models are being driven by Climate Policy

More than likely, that model doesn’t take contrails into account. I noticed that during the first few months of the Covid lockdown the temperature seemed to drop. Perhaps we ground all of the idiots in jets and everything will be fine.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

Sh!t in, sh!t out

and

Lies in, lies out.

Recently in Australia the Bureau Of Meteorology adjusted their modelling. The modelling now shows the climate much hotter than all of the thermometer readings for recent data, and colder for older data. Manufactured climate change.

Yep, It's True.

This is interesting but i think it goes deeper than this, and can actually be explained easily. Hold on here because it gets crazy, but its necessary to understand what we are facing today.

This is going to sound like conspiracy theory, because thats the way this narrative has been purposefully structured, but climate change is directly connected to the WEF and the agenda to eventually create a New World Order. Dont get lost here because I have some good sources, which will inevitably lead you down the correct rabbit hole eventually.

I found this on another ATS thread and this podcast is great. Please check it out. It lays it out in a fairly coherent way.
rumble.com...

If you watch this podcast in the link above there is a clip where Clinton shouts out "Professor Carroll Quigley." There is a book you can buy ( or torrent as I did ) called Tragedy and Hope. You should absolutely read this book.

Carbondioxide is literally the base of everything we metabolize. It creates the food we eat and the oxygen we breathe. We are carbon based organism who feed directly off the atmosphere of this planet. If you have ever grown a crop hydroponically you would have definetly added CO2 to your environment because it greatly increases your yield. A higher level of atmospheric carbon directly blooms the baee of every food chain, and by creating O2 boosts the metabolisms of everything that breathes ( this includes plants which breathe through their roots)

It is very hard for humans to influence CO2 levels in either direction, but in my uneducated opinion we are carbon starved. I would prefer more rainfall and dragonflies with three foot wingspans because our oxygen is higher.

Lets not forget O2( oxygen ) is the only thing making 03( ozone ) which we argued about for a decade regarding the importance of this gas being present in the upper atmosphere.



a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

Clima change is a lie, earth is reversing to pre ice age clima, but most people never really gave two rat ases about old geology.

Yep we are going to reverse back to the steamy, wet and green earth. Soo get used to guys, unless we get another ice age that is what is going to happen.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

This all because they only fund work to prove climate change is caused by humans. So they have to intentionally ignore other evidence to the contrary. Because of this, its like the flat earth theory being presented without any evidence the earth is round. Hard to argue against it if you are ignorant of the other data.

If you can convince people the earth is flat, convincing climate change is primarily caused by humans and going to kill us all is a piece of cake. Of course the only solution to this dilemma is a carbon tax and complete control of all industries by the government.

Pie in the sky just like renewables replacing oil.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

Those crappy computer-models are crappy !!

Those models that predicted 200 million dead from Covvy-19™ ; that New-York and Miami would be underwater by 2002 ; that couldn't find a jumbo-jet ; and that get the weather forecasts wrong 60% of the time !! LoL !!

Made by ' Experts™ ', and show to us like they are the very words of Truth™.

Computer models can't be trusted because the people entering the information and algorithms into these computers absolutely can not be trusted.

Fun fact: did you know George Soros and other Nazi "elites" take their orders from an AI computer? Its a yellow cube that was reverse engineered from an alien yellow cube that they found but couldn't fully understand how to use it. (some say its what was in the arc of the covenant)

These computer models that were made told these tools that the world would be destroyed from climate collapse because of a rising population. It went on to put stats out that the population would need to be greatly reduced to save earth. It was wrong. Despite the fact it is wrong they still move forward with their plan.
The human variable cannot be accurately factored......ever. Just the variables from one individual and their actions and thoughts are to much to be put in a predictable model.

Oh, also every planet in the solar system is going through a rise in temperature. While our carbon emissions et al have a small affect on our atmosphere, it is definitely not the problem the lying cabal tells everyone using propaganda. The same idiots whining about it also just bought 10 million dollar homes on the coast, the Obamas have a nice place where they throw satanic pedo parties on a freaking island (Martha's Vineyard I believe) The Paris climate accord is a corrupt joke too.

We are around 400ppm CO2 or so. People who want to eliminate all CO2 don't realize that below about 200 ppm, plants are in trouble. At the other end, say above 1500ppm, other bad things start to happen. Given that range, 800 or so is about the middle ground. NASA says the Earth has been greening since the 1950's because of the increases in CO2 levels. Plants like it.

As to the models, they are exceptionally complex and generally wrong. The greenhouse gas with the greatest effect, water vapor, is exceptionally difficult to model because of phase changes from vapor to liquid. Clouds reflect and trap heat while reflecting sunlight. Historical data says global temperature cycles occur on a regular basis and we are just completing a warm cycle. CO2 is a non-issue. The problem is really the scare mongering media driven by those with agendas and "scientists" being funded by the panicked and complicit governments.

Science is never "settled."

originally posted by: pteridine
We are around 400ppm CO2 or so. People who want to eliminate all CO2 don't realize that below about 200 ppm, plants are in trouble. At the other end, say above 1500ppm, other bad things start to happen. Given that range, 800 or so is about the middle ground. NASA says the Earth has been greening since the 1950's because of the increases in CO2 levels. Plants like it.

As to the models, they are exceptionally complex and generally wrong. The greenhouse gas with the greatest effect, water vapor, is exceptionally difficult to model because of phase changes from vapor to liquid. Clouds reflect and trap heat while reflecting sunlight. Historical data says global temperature cycles occur on a regular basis and we are just completing a warm cycle. CO2 is a non-issue. The problem is really the scare mongering media driven by those with agendas and "scientists" being funded by the panicked and complicit governments.

Science is never "settled."

Nobody wants to eliminate carbon dioxide, they want to stop excess emissions from burning fossilized carbon which has been out of the ecosystem & physics system for millions of years. Life was great at 270. 200 is too low. 450 is too high and 800 is way way way too high, particularly in a short time interval.

Models are exceptionally complex but generally right. Global temperature proxies showed a slight cooling since 6000 BC but since the industrial period of carbon emissions a very sharp rise without any other natural cause---and they've been looked for thorougly.

a reply to: mbkennel

"Life was great at 270. 200 is too low. 450 is too high and 800 is way way way too high, particularly in a short time interval."

What is the basis for the above statement?

Models are generally wrong because of complex feedbacks that they don't account for plus the variability of the sun's output and insolation. Volcanism will greatly reduce temperatures because of aerosols.

Consider the plots of global mean temperature over time where interglacial warm periods occur about every 100,000 years or so. Our interglacial temperature now is about 12 C and the curve is starting to peak. During glacial periods, we average 4-5 C. Anthropogenic CO2 is not doing much if anything at all.
If carbon is really a problem, we should start developing advanced nuclear plants.

Climate on the planet is, quite simply, a non-linear MIMO (Multiple Input / Multiple Output) control system. It operates on inputs (solar energy of varying wavelengths and intensities, planetary positioning, internal stresses, reflection, refraction, black body radiation, atmospheric dynamics, etc., etc., etc.) and produces outputs which then act as inputs to other parts of the system.

We understand SISO (Single Input / Single Output) control systems pretty well; they are used in almost every electronic device made as voltage regulators. We understand MISO control systems to a large degree; we use them to land spacecraft on other planets and to guide missiles. We even understand MIMO control systems to some degree, although to a much lesser degree. However, when that descriptor "non-linear" comes into play, things get a lot hairier.

A non-linear feedback is one where the value of that feedback does not cause a corresponding like change in the output. For example, what is the relationship between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (the input) and planetary temperatures (the output)? That's a good question, because an increasing input might cause a corresponding increase in the output at one input level, but still cause a completely different increase, or even a decrease, in the output at another level. The amount of this increase or decrease can also be dependent on any of a thousand other inputs, and the effect each of those inputs have can change based on their level as well. We call that a "chaotic" system, because the output cannot be calculated using present technology. Even the most massive supercomputer, quantum computer, or whatever kind of computer one can dream up, cannot perform those calculations; they are simply too complicated.

We can make guesses, sometimes educated guesses, as to the effect a change in an input might cause in an output. We know that, all things being equal, a sunny day is likely to be warm because more energy is coming through the clouds from the sun. However, I have seen quite a few bright, sunny days where the air temperature was pretty darn cold! I have also seen some sweltering days when the skies were overcast. So it is obvious that, while one can reasonably guess that a sunny day will be warmer than a cloudy day, that guess will be wrong quite often.

Every single computer model out there, bar none, is over-simplified. Every single one. No one has come up with an algorithm to date that can accurately predict even weather more than 10 days out with any degree of accuracy. Since climate is the summation of all weather, that means that no algorithm has been developed to predict climate either.

Now, what we can do is observe, theorize, and test. We're doing that. I am actually doing some personal observation on a scientific basis here, and have been for the last decade or so. Here is the data from NOAA weather stations spanning the time period from 1950 to present day, correlated to show average monthly temperatures of average daily temperatures. I have some trend line in here just to satisfy my own curiosity, so please ignore them; they have proven themselves to be quite inaccurate.

The screenshot is too large for a post to show it all. Right-click on the pic above and select "view image" to see the full graph. If I tried to scale it down to fit in a post, it wouldn't be large enough to be seen.

As one can tell, we are seeing a general trend that now shows over half of a sine wave... which is a fluctuation that normally appears in non-linear stable control systems. There is no evidence from this graph that the sine wave is increasing in intensity, therefore it is considered a stable system. Ergo, all the hype over Global Warming is exactly that: hype. Until and unless someone can show me evidence of an unstable climate, I will go by the results I have obtained independently based on the same official data that others who claim evidence of Global Warming have claimed to be accurate.

"The science is settled" is a statement that indicates blind ignorance of science even in the best of conditions. Saying "the science is settled" when discussing space flight trajectories (something we can calculate pretty accurately) is bad enough; it is saying that no more information needs to be obtained because we already know everything there is about space flight trajectories. But when discussing a scientific field such as climate, where new discoveries are made on almost a daily basis, and where each new discovery tends to give rise to 10 new questions, it is worse than simply inaccurate and ignorant of how science works; it is intellectually criminal.

So any proponents of Global Warming, now's your chance. You have the unique opportunity right now to show someone who works in a scientific field your evidence. I'll be waiting right here.

TheRedneck

a reply to: mbkennel

Nobody wants to eliminate carbon dioxide, they want to stop excess emissions from burning fossilized carbon which has been out of the ecosystem & physics system for millions of years. Life was great at 270. 200 is too low. 450 is too high and 800 is way way way too high, particularly in a short time interval.

I have to ask: how is it that some carbon dioxide is beneficial for plants while different carbon dioxide is harmful to the climate? Carbon dioxide is one atom of carbon covalently bonded to two atoms of oxygen. Period. That's all it is, whether it comes from coal, a volcano, breathing, or cow flatulence. There is no physical difference between one atom of carbon dioxide and another.

So what does it matter where that molecule originated?

Also, like pteridine asked above, what evidence do your have that "life was great at 270ppm"? What evidence to you have that "450 is too high"? What evidence do you have that "800 is way way way too high"?

200 ppm, based on plant response testing, is too low for plants to thrive. They likely would not go extinct at 200 (at least not most; I'm sure a few species would die out), but their growth rates will suffer. We know that; we have tested it. But 450 ppm too high? 800 ppm "way way way" too high? Are you aware that many commercial greenhouses use carbon dioxide concentrations of up to 1500 ppm to improve growth rates and plant health? Are you aware that you have likely already survived concentrations of over 1000 ppm? That's what is typical in an enclosed office space; it's why the air feels "stuffy." 800 ppm would be at the extreme lower end of the "stuffy" range, likely not even noticeable by most people. 450 ppm certainly would not be noticeable. But both would improve plant yields and increase plant growth substantially, 800 ppm moreso than 450 ppm. This much is known, provable science with decades of empirical data to back it up.

So what is your basis for all these statements?

TheRedneck