Manmade Computer Climate Models That Spell Doom and Gloom a Century From Now

[bripat9643]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Yeah, let's destroy the global economy because of a wild ass guess.

You stupid fuck, the very measures which will prevent the increase in GHGs are also bringing us cheaper electricity. Wind and solar are both cheaper than fossil fuels in utility scale installations. And grid scale batteries will make them 24/7. A virtual utility like the state of South Australia and Tesla are building will make solar and wind 24/7.

If that's the case, then why do they need to be subsidized?

 

[bripat9643]

Did you really read what he wrote?

He never said don't try at all, he was talking about how little we know and that the science of weather forecasting is still in the early stages.

Daily Satellite coverage of weather events came on in the mid 1960s, but not for regional coverage until the 1970's.

LINK

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

What's the point in making a hypothesis?

If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.

We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.

Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.

Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.

How about we increase our understanding of climate by a couple orders of magnitude before we start bankrupting whole economies. That is the bottom line.

How about assholes like you catching up to current technology? Wind and solar are already cheaper than fossil fuels.

How can that be when wind and solar need 100% backup from a reliable source of energy?

 

[Andylusion]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

By all means try. By all means learn. By all means research and study.

What we have a problem with, is that with your tiny bit of knowledge, you want to make edicts about the future of the entire planet, and put in place terrible economic policies that will damage and / or destroy civilization.

No. Just saying it out loud.... no. You don't know even a tiny fraction enough about our planet, to assume you have credibility on fixing the globe.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

By all means try. By all means learn. By all means research and study.

What we have a problem with, is that with your tiny bit of knowledge, you want to make edicts about the future of the entire planet, and put in place terrible economic policies that will damage and / or destroy civilization.

No. Just saying it out loud.... no. You don't know even a tiny fraction enough about our planet, to assume you have credibility on fixing the globe.

Well, so, you think we should only implement something if we're 100% sure of something, and not otherwise?

We shouldn't eat healthily unless we're 100% sure we won't die?

I could give plenty of examples.

Bomb Syria.... for example....

 

[sparky]

How can that be when wind and solar need 100% backup from a reliable source of energy?

haven't been around many off grid homes i see.....


~S~

 

[Andylusion]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

By all means try. By all means learn. By all means research and study.

What we have a problem with, is that with your tiny bit of knowledge, you want to make edicts about the future of the entire planet, and put in place terrible economic policies that will damage and / or destroy civilization.

No. Just saying it out loud.... no. You don't know even a tiny fraction enough about our planet, to assume you have credibility on fixing the globe.

Well, so, you think we should only implement something if we're 100% sure of something, and not otherwise?

We shouldn't eat healthily unless we're 100% sure we won't die?

I could give plenty of examples.

Bomb Syria.... for example....

Completely different thing altogether.

Does changing what you eat, affect the lives of other people across the entire planet? No.

Does changing the economic system, to avoid a completely unsupportable theory, that could lead to millions of deaths if actually implement? Yes.

Before we do things to destroy the economy of the world, yeah we had better be 100% sure.

Or even 50% sure.

At this point in time, we are not even 1% sure that our tiny fraction of a fraction of 'green house' gasses is the cause of global warming.

As for Syria, I have no idea what you think we need to be sure about.

Whether or not Assad was directly involved in a gas attack..... I just don't even know if that is important.

Whether he used gas or not, Assad has been slaughtering his people for years now. Whether a bullet goes through the head of a 2 year old, or if they cough from gas.... does that change that Assad is responsible for it?

The only question is whether we think we should intervene or not. I don't even know the answer there.

 

[Andylusion]

How can that be when wind and solar need 100% backup from a reliable source of energy?

haven't been around many off grid homes i see.....


~S~

No one has.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

By all means try. By all means learn. By all means research and study.

What we have a problem with, is that with your tiny bit of knowledge, you want to make edicts about the future of the entire planet, and put in place terrible economic policies that will damage and / or destroy civilization.

No. Just saying it out loud.... no. You don't know even a tiny fraction enough about our planet, to assume you have credibility on fixing the globe.

Well, so, you think we should only implement something if we're 100% sure of something, and not otherwise?

We shouldn't eat healthily unless we're 100% sure we won't die?

I could give plenty of examples.

Bomb Syria.... for example....

Completely different thing altogether.

Does changing what you eat, affect the lives of other people across the entire planet? No.

Does changing the economic system, to avoid a completely unsupportable theory, that could lead to millions of deaths if actually implement? Yes.

Before we do things to destroy the economy of the world, yeah we had better be 100% sure.

Or even 50% sure.

At this point in time, we are not even 1% sure that our tiny fraction of a fraction of 'green house' gasses is the cause of global warming.

As for Syria, I have no idea what you think we need to be sure about.

Whether or not Assad was directly involved in a gas attack..... I just don't even know if that is important.

Whether he used gas or not, Assad has been slaughtering his people for years now. Whether a bullet goes through the head of a 2 year old, or if they cough from gas.... does that change that Assad is responsible for it?

The only question is whether we think we should intervene or not. I don't even know the answer there.

Making a weather forecast only affects those who choose to let is affect them. It doesn't change the weather in any way at all.

The same with global warming, you can find stuff out and you can let it change your views or you can not let it change your views.

How many times have economic policies been implemented with a 100% knowledge that it will work? Never.

Here's the thing thought with global warming. You can either make the world a more sustainable place, a place where we're closer to nature, or you can treat it like a garbage can.

Surely the former is better.

The problem is those people who say it costs too much, don't care.

We don't know what will happen as a result of us pumping CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. You're saying we need to be 100% sure.

Are you 100% sure of what will happen if we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere?

 

[bripat9643]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

By all means try. By all means learn. By all means research and study.

What we have a problem with, is that with your tiny bit of knowledge, you want to make edicts about the future of the entire planet, and put in place terrible economic policies that will damage and / or destroy civilization.

No. Just saying it out loud.... no. You don't know even a tiny fraction enough about our planet, to assume you have credibility on fixing the globe.

Well, so, you think we should only implement something if we're 100% sure of something, and not otherwise?

We shouldn't eat healthily unless we're 100% sure we won't die?

I could give plenty of examples.

Bomb Syria.... for example....

Eating healthy doesn't cost $75 trillion. That's what the warmist cult wants to spend curing a non problem. If you expect the taxpayers to pony up that kind of dough, you better be 98% sure you're right. Instead you're really only about 10% sure.

 

[bripat9643]

How can that be when wind and solar need 100% backup from a reliable source of energy?

haven't been around many off grid homes i see.....


~S~

Nope, I have never seen one. What does that tell an intelligent person?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

By all means try. By all means learn. By all means research and study.

What we have a problem with, is that with your tiny bit of knowledge, you want to make edicts about the future of the entire planet, and put in place terrible economic policies that will damage and / or destroy civilization.

No. Just saying it out loud.... no. You don't know even a tiny fraction enough about our planet, to assume you have credibility on fixing the globe.

Well, so, you think we should only implement something if we're 100% sure of something, and not otherwise?

We shouldn't eat healthily unless we're 100% sure we won't die?

I could give plenty of examples.

Bomb Syria.... for example....

Completely different thing altogether.

Does changing what you eat, affect the lives of other people across the entire planet? No.

Does changing the economic system, to avoid a completely unsupportable theory, that could lead to millions of deaths if actually implement? Yes.

Before we do things to destroy the economy of the world, yeah we had better be 100% sure.

Or even 50% sure.

At this point in time, we are not even 1% sure that our tiny fraction of a fraction of 'green house' gasses is the cause of global warming.

As for Syria, I have no idea what you think we need to be sure about.

Whether or not Assad was directly involved in a gas attack..... I just don't even know if that is important.

Whether he used gas or not, Assad has been slaughtering his people for years now. Whether a bullet goes through the head of a 2 year old, or if they cough from gas.... does that change that Assad is responsible for it?

The only question is whether we think we should intervene or not. I don't even know the answer there.

Making a weather forecast only affects those who choose to let is affect them. It doesn't change the weather in any way at all.

The same with global warming, you can find stuff out and you can let it change your views or you can not let it change your views.

How many times have economic policies been implemented with a 100% knowledge that it will work? Never.

Here's the thing thought with global warming. You can either make the world a more sustainable place, a place where we're closer to nature, or you can treat it like a garbage can.

Surely the former is better.

The problem is those people who say it costs too much, don't care.

We don't know what will happen as a result of us pumping CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. You're saying we need to be 100% sure.

Are you 100% sure of what will happen if we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere?

Pissing into the ocean causes an increase in ocean levels too.

Nobody believes your lies, especially those pushing the lies.

 

[skookerasbil]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

By all means try. By all means learn. By all means research and study.

What we have a problem with, is that with your tiny bit of knowledge, you want to make edicts about the future of the entire planet, and put in place terrible economic policies that will damage and / or destroy civilization.

No. Just saying it out loud.... no. You don't know even a tiny fraction enough about our planet, to assume you have credibility on fixing the globe.

Well, so, you think we should only implement something if we're 100% sure of something, and not otherwise?

We shouldn't eat healthily unless we're 100% sure we won't die?

I could give plenty of examples.

Bomb Syria.... for example....

Completely different thing altogether.

Does changing what you eat, affect the lives of other people across the entire planet? No.

Does changing the economic system, to avoid a completely unsupportable theory, that could lead to millions of deaths if actually implement? Yes.

Before we do things to destroy the economy of the world, yeah we had better be 100% sure.

Or even 50% sure.

At this point in time, we are not even 1% sure that our tiny fraction of a fraction of 'green house' gasses is the cause of global warming.

As for Syria, I have no idea what you think we need to be sure about.

Whether or not Assad was directly involved in a gas attack..... I just don't even know if that is important.

Whether he used gas or not, Assad has been slaughtering his people for years now. Whether a bullet goes through the head of a 2 year old, or if they cough from gas.... does that change that Assad is responsible for it?

The only question is whether we think we should intervene or not. I don't even know the answer there.

Making a weather forecast only affects those who choose to let is affect them. It doesn't change the weather in any way at all.

The same with global warming, you can find stuff out and you can let it change your views or you can not let it change your views.

How many times have economic policies been implemented with a 100% knowledge that it will work? Never.

Here's the thing thought with global warming. You can either make the world a more sustainable place, a place where we're closer to nature, or you can treat it like a garbage can.

Surely the former is better.

The problem is those people who say it costs too much, don't care.

We don't know what will happen as a result of us pumping CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. You're saying we need to be 100% sure.

Are you 100% sure of what will happen if we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere?

Once again a bozo progressive who consistently conveniently ignores the obvious question to everybody else, which is, "At what cost?"

It's fascinating to me.

Thankfully for the rest of us the people who make public policy do make cost considerations the highest priority.

 

[skookerasbil]

God I love this forum

I mean... where else can you go and publicly provide instruction to people on how utterly absurd the thinking of a progressive is?

 

[Weatherman2020]

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

By all means try. By all means learn. By all means research and study.

What we have a problem with, is that with your tiny bit of knowledge, you want to make edicts about the future of the entire planet, and put in place terrible economic policies that will damage and / or destroy civilization.

No. Just saying it out loud.... no. You don't know even a tiny fraction enough about our planet, to assume you have credibility on fixing the globe.

Well, so, you think we should only implement something if we're 100% sure of something, and not otherwise?

We shouldn't eat healthily unless we're 100% sure we won't die?

I could give plenty of examples.

Bomb Syria.... for example....

Completely different thing altogether.

Does changing what you eat, affect the lives of other people across the entire planet? No.

Does changing the economic system, to avoid a completely unsupportable theory, that could lead to millions of deaths if actually implement? Yes.

Before we do things to destroy the economy of the world, yeah we had better be 100% sure.

Or even 50% sure.

At this point in time, we are not even 1% sure that our tiny fraction of a fraction of 'green house' gasses is the cause of global warming.

As for Syria, I have no idea what you think we need to be sure about.

Whether or not Assad was directly involved in a gas attack..... I just don't even know if that is important.

Whether he used gas or not, Assad has been slaughtering his people for years now. Whether a bullet goes through the head of a 2 year old, or if they cough from gas.... does that change that Assad is responsible for it?

The only question is whether we think we should intervene or not. I don't even know the answer there.

Making a weather forecast only affects those who choose to let is affect them. It doesn't change the weather in any way at all.

The same with global warming, you can find stuff out and you can let it change your views or you can not let it change your views.

How many times have economic policies been implemented with a 100% knowledge that it will work? Never.

Here's the thing thought with global warming. You can either make the world a more sustainable place, a place where we're closer to nature, or you can treat it like a garbage can.

Surely the former is better.

The problem is those people who say it costs too much, don't care.

We don't know what will happen as a result of us pumping CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere. You're saying we need to be 100% sure.

Are you 100% sure of what will happen if we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere?

Once again a bozo progressive who consistently conveniently ignores the obvious question to everybody else, which is, "At what cost?"

It's fascinating to me.

Thankfully for the rest of us the people who make public policy do make cost considerations the highest priority.

Because the left don't care about the cost. Western Civilization must be brought down at any and all costs in their opinion.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It pains me that you don't either. If I make such an "empirical forecast" using an obvious selection from the graph below as my basis, I can project a global temperature for 2100 over four Centigrade degrees higher than today's. Is that okay with you?

And, looking at these data, do you really think we can assume that an 'empirical forecast" that shows ZERO warming is valid?

Second request, WHERE IS THE LINK SOURCE FOR THE CHART?

 

[abu afak]

It pains me that you don't either....

Second request, WHERE IS THE LINK SOURCE FOR THE CHART?

Virtually Nobody here from either side posts Links for charts, INCLUDING YOU, as I have documented previous.
Part of me calling your not Linking quotes.. either.
Bad
`

 

[Sunsettommy]

Talk about someone posting crap for years... jesus, dude, get a fucking life.

You posted a chart without a source, a likely copyright violation. You have been asked for the link and you stay quiet.

Maybe I should report this copyright violation, to wake you up?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Meanwhile this LINKED chart shows that AGW is a failure, lets see if the warmists understand this chart at all.

Time series of monthly (black) and annual mean TOA net downward flux. (Climate Data Guide; D. Shea)

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Weather fronts are a basic phrase we hear used in every weather forecast. Per Wiki: "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena. In surface weather analyses, fronts are depicted using various colored triangles and half-circles, depending on the type of front. The air masses separated by a front usually differ in temperature and humidity."

We have all seen the weather maps, blue and redlines representing weather fronts.

80 years ago mankind had no idea that this basic natural event even existed. There was no such thing as a weather front prior to 1941. Zero knowledge. And I'm not even going to get into all of other variables of climate and solar influences that we are just starting to learn about in the last few decades. This is just about one aspect that we now know is a common basic event in nature.

The point is, we are like ants crawling out of the hole for the first time. We are infants in our knowledge of the climate engines of nature. We know very, very little how things work. Yeah, we have basic theories, but we do not KNOW all of the variables involved. That is why your 3 day weather forecast rarely hits what actually occurs 3 days from now. It will be close, but rarely exact.

So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works.

So, we shouldn't even try... because....

Yeah, let's destroy the global economy because of a wild ass guess.

Treat for the Elite

And a global oligarchy to pass out artificially scarce products!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yes, I read what he wrote thank you very much.

I also read this bit "So for some computer geek to write lines of code to mimic how climate works when we know so little is futile. Especially when that person has financial incentives to skew how the model works."

It's not futile at all. He's basically saying don't try because we're not going to get it perfect.

Problem is, if you don't try now, you won't progress. It's a fucking idiotic statement to make.

Research that can't be verifiable is a complete waste of time. There is a reason why good thinkers keep in mind if this particular hypothesis is testable to continue the research or change the hypothesis if possible or drop it completely.

Surely you knew this?

What's the point in making a hypothesis?

If you know everything already, you don't need to make a hypothesis.

We can't predict the weather 100% accurately, but we can predict it accurately enough to tell people what might happen.

Some people take weather forecasts as solid, others realize the limitations. Being able to understand this is important in effectively utilizing this information.

Simply said, Science would have got nowhere had everyone waited until they were 100% sure of something before testing it.

You are apparently clueless on this since you show no understanding on what is Falsifiable in research.

Climate Models to year 2100 is a good example of failing the Falsifiability test, since there is negligible data to work with.

From Wikipedia
Falsifiability

A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability or refutability if there is the possibility of showing it to be false. It is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an empirical observation which could refute it.[1]

For example, the universal generalization that All swans are white is falsifiable since it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single swan that is not white.[2]

The concern with falsifiability gained attention[according to whom?] by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology referred to as "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

Ah yes, come out with the attacks.

Sorry, I really can't be bothered with people who can't even make their point without attacks. Try again, or don't. I don't care.

Hey s0n.... still waiting on those links showing us where the consensus science is mattering in the real world. C'mon now.... all we ask for is a single link.

Walter Mitty, PhD

Scientists are childish escapist nerds who want to make up for their lack of manhood by posing as comic-book superheroes saving the world.