Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I’ve tried that before. It didn’t help.
Their climate models are fucked up.
In my profession models - whether it is a reservoir simulation or a CFD model - must be able to history match. And even then that doesn’t mean they are always right. Just better than models that can’t history match.The computer results are as good as can be expected ... it's statistics ... just because you use these correctly in your profession doesn't mean commercial media does too ... generally they don't, unless you think deceiving the public for commercial gain is a correct use of statistics ...
Statistics are useful ... for both good and evil ... but aren't all the creations of man fraught with folly? ...
In my profession models - whether it is a reservoir simulation or a CFD model - must be able to history match. And even then that doesn’t mean they are always right. Just better than models that can’t history match.
Weather models include "history match" ... I believe, and some years ago, these "precipitation" forecasts were strictly history ... and only accurate to 10% ... that's different from applying gravity to a body of toxic bilge fluids and calculating the pressure on that pathetically cheap dam ... the model is sound ... program a computer to simulate torrential rainfall and the effect on pressure and the chemical reactions going on in the toxic bilge fluid ... then have lawyers tell you if that "100-year flood estimation" is defensible in court ...
And prey we don't see a 200-year event ...
Bottom line .. climate models are perfectly accurate to within 10ºC ... just like toxic bilge fluid reservoirs from the fossil fuel industry only murder 100,000's of people ... give or take a million ...
10C? What’s not to love with that accuracy?Weather models include "history match" ... I believe, and some years ago, these "precipitation" forecasts were strictly history ... and only accurate to 10% ... that's different from applying gravity to a body of toxic bilge fluids and calculating the pressure on that pathetically cheap dam ... the model is sound ... program a computer to simulate torrential rainfall and the effect on pressure and the chemical reactions going on in the toxic bilge fluid ... then have lawyers tell you if that "100-year flood estimation" is defensible in court ...
And prey we don't see a 200-year event ...
Bottom line .. climate models are perfectly accurate to within 10ºC ... just like toxic bilge fluid reservoirs from the fossil fuel industry only murder 100,000's of people ... give or take a million ...
No, climate models are not accurate to within 10 degrees.
They ALL will generate a warming trend no matter what numbers you input.
That means their fundamental ALGORITHMS are flawed, which makes the models useless.
T^4 = S ( 1 - a ) / 4oe ... [where T = Temperature, S = Solar Constant, a = albedo, o = SB constant and e = emissivity]
Hey STUPID ... increasing albedo decreases temperature ...
Ignores the effect of water vapor completely.
DURRRRRR
e = emissivity ... a ratio between 0 and 1 where 1 = transparent and 0 = opaque ... more water vapor and/or carbon dioxide lowers emissivity, which in turn raises temperature ... this is quite literally the mathematical expression of the greenhouse effect ... and why we model climate with SB ... we model weather as a heat engine (specifically cyclones, like the Iowa State Cyclones, where Brock Purdy played, who just kicked ass on the pussy Dallas COWBOYS ... WHAT A BUNCH OF LOSERS) ...
Who would I have to kill to get you to work a sample problem for me with units?T^4 = S ( 1 - a ) / 4oe ... [where T = Temperature, S = Solar Constant, a = albedo, o = SB constant and e = emissivity]
Hey STUPID ... increasing albedo decreases temperature ...
Yes, their models bear no relation to reality. Thanks for showing that.
Okayyyyyy ...
Ten degrees C is accurate to you? You want to run with that?
I did ... one significant digit in albedo gives two significant digits in temperature ... we use kelvins in "science" in case you didn't know ... so that's ± 5 K (or ± 5ºC) ...
I'm sorry ... if the math only gives us accuracy within ten degrees, why would I say any different? ... or do you agree with Alarmists that we can tease 0.01ºC accuracy out of a ten dollar Walmart thermometer? ...
