Globull warming ended? Maybe LOL
- Thread starter skookumchuck
- Start date
Science figured out already , the substantial severity of global warming is human caused.
I don't know what you guys personally have to gain by being supportive tools of the billionaire corporate pigs who would rather we drown in our own pollution than hurt a fraction of their own profits.
I don't know what you guys personally have to gain by being supportive tools of the billionaire corporate pigs who would rather we drown in our own pollution than hurt a fraction of their own profits.
Nope. Not one IPPC report has the balls to flat out say it's man. Not f-cking one.
That was the point of the study, they were not "incomplete", they simply did not work. When you consider yourself an expert and fail so loudly, it is lovely.
Money and pensionable hours. Also to pay the taxes that the anti work crowd live off of.
Also we want to leave the world a better place for our children and grandchildren.
how does ignoring the obvious and huge impact humans have on global warming help you with any of that..
Which study? There were two mentioned, one a modeled result, and one observations. Do you understand the difference, or perhaps you're like the rest in here and think it's all models. All models are incomplete. Some are useful.
And ocean models don't work unless coupled to atmospheric models. To say none work is wrong. None are perfect representations of reality, and likely never will be.
How would you define a model that works Pete? In other words, how accurate? Not just for a general circulation model.
Yes, you've said that already. I'm asking you to define your 'accurate enough'. All sorts of businesses and sciences use models, there is benefit and utility to using models in some circumstances. Do you have an objective criteria, or not?
Accurate enough is being developed and is several years away. Until then models are as good as guessing.
GCMs are great for predicting weather but not climate.
Why was it you dropped the model cheerleading like the hot potato it was?
GCMs are great for predicting weather but not climate.
Why was it you dropped the model cheerleading like the hot potato it was?
So, just say you don't know. Accurate enough has to be a measure, and you can't say what is accurate enough without having a benchmark.
I've not changed my stance on models and their utility, so you're going to have to elaborate further. Remember, I use models at work.
gen·er·al
ˈjenərəl/
adjective
1.
affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.
"books of general interest"
synonyms: widespread, common, extensive, universal, wide, popular, public, mainstream; More
antonyms: restricted, localized
not specialized or limited in range of subject, application, activity, etc.
"brush up on your general knowledge"
synonyms: miscellaneous, mixed, assorted, diversified, composite, heterogeneous, eclectic
"general knowledge"
(of a rule, principle, etc.) true for all or most cases.
normal or usual.
"it is not general practice to confirm or deny such reports"
synonyms: usual, customary, habitual, traditional, normal, conventional, typical, standard, regular; More
2.
considering or including the main features or elements of something, and disregarding exceptions; overall
Another "general" model failure.
Declining Humidity Is Defying Global Warming Models - Forbes
They are called general CIRCULATION models.
General Circulation Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oopsies
General Circulation Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oopsies
It's not nomenclature and you know it
Why did you drop CLIMATE models like a hot potato? Better?
Why did you drop CLIMATE models like a hot potato? Better?