Dr. Judith Curry, climate scientist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, joins us once again today to discuss her comprehensive new report, “Climate Models for the layman.” We discuss the history and purpose of climate modeling, their uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity, and what we can or cannot learn from their study.
SHOW NOTES AND MP3 AUDIO:
▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
of course models predicting something in 23rd century cannot be taken too literally, but that is a strawman you fabricated. But if you claim that digging millions-years-old fossils, burning them for 100 years, adding all that CO2 to our atmosphere cannot possibly do any harm, then you must be dissociated with reality... you don't need any model for that.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Millions of jellyfish spew ammonia into the atmosphere for millions of years.....Earth benefited somehow and life as we know it evolved anyway. CO2 isn't the boogeyman that it's made out to be.
I studied this garbage in the early 2000's. Every model, while some still beneficial, disastrously inaccurate. Wasted 4 years of my life....Lots of gasses/elements are "added", or more accurately "recycled", in and out/ back and forth for as long as Earth had an atmosphere. To single out CO2 is asinine. "Oh what about Methane!!!" smh.....
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes methane is worse. But the main problem because of quantity is CO2. Assuming you have a scientific education and background, I am asking you why are the models all disastrously inaccurate? And what is your scientific background?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Marine Biology. Specifically marine mammal proliferation/reproduction. I don't know specifically why they are so inaccurate. Probably because they are dry algorithms based on past data. Many in this field are in severe denial and keep cranking out new models that better serve them and their dogma. They don't admit they were wrong (which is okay to a point in research) but many rely so heavily on funding that finds results that support the narrative and these models are easiest to serve that end. There comes a time to move on and be honest w/what you are really trying to accomplish....
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
what are you talking about? as you mentioned, jellyfish spewing gasses are part of the natural processes, which are balanced and "recycled". But humans digging out huge quantities of millions-years-old fossil fuel and burning it all in short period of time (100 years) is completely out of any natural balance, so there is no natural process to recycle this. And we are surely not recycling it ourselves. Therefore - problem. It doesn't matter if we do this with CO2, methane, or oxygen, or even water vapor, it's the sheer amount in such short time that threw off the balance. If jellyfish did something like that millions of years ago, they would die which would put the balance back. But we don't want to die, do we?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What am I talking about? What are you talking about "natural balance". The Earth itself has overthrown and changed what was "natural" literally millions of times throughout it's history. If you want to be a Nihilist then there is no changing your mind for it is made-up that people are just evil and that's that. And what is natural development of mankind? Is it not to better use it's environment to better it existence? Should we still be cooking on open campfires spuing CO2 in a different way that would make you happy? Imagine if that were the case now given our population! Should we run and scream when forest fires break out (most of which are "naturally" occurring) or should we attempt to extinguish them?
The argument for the continuation of burning fossil fuels would better be aimed at reducing POLLUTION that it causes, but the global warming/anthropogenic climate change hoax is just another hoax attempt to get Earth's people to fall in line w/a more global, easier to control system of ideologies that will follow.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Agree
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
18:20 aerosol particles, sulfur, carbon black
https://climateviewer.com/2018/10/07/carbon-black-dust-the-chemtrail-secret-for-weather-warfare-geoengineering-and-ozone-destruction/
25:15 (2 degrees) some German economist somehow came up with this value and then it got accepted internationally
29:30 all models are wrong but some are useful
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah just keep ignoring that we’re part of a much bigger system , our solar system . And it has its own seasons and changes . Don’t forget our system is moving through space at 514,000 miles per hour and space isn’t clean . Like traveling a waterway you might encounter debris , well space is no different . We could fly right into gases that make our star hotter . Maybe conjecture , but we must keep in mind the awesomeness of our universe and especially our tiny little planet 🌎 with our medium sized star . We have to start talking in these terms , because even me being an amateur can see very little attention being payed to the much greater picture = OUR SOLAR SYSTEM . All I’m saying is that IF there is any warming , then we might also want to include in our conversations the SUN 🌞 ☝️ Yeah up there that big ball of a nuclear furnace . Just thought I’d mention it 🤷♂️ .
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit