CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 148,629
- 71,937
- 2,330
Once you add in the "Warming 'trapped' in the deep ocean" it all adds up, well, more or less
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
it had to melt the ice to get there though.Once you add in the "Warming 'trapped' in the deep ocean" it all adds up, well, more or less
it had to melt the ice to get there though.Once you add in the "Warming 'trapped' in the deep ocean" it all adds up, well, more or less
it even fks with 401K's now!!!! holy fk!!!it had to melt the ice to get there though.Once you add in the "Warming 'trapped' in the deep ocean" it all adds up, well, more or less
CO2, most amazing molecule evah!!! It warms, it cools, it make hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and look at that shine!
First of all, they are not modeling a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere. The whole point of the troposphere is that greenhouse gases prevent radiation of heat, because they turn radiant heat into vibratory heat that has to conduct instead of radiate.
You cant make this stuff up. Now NOAA is admitting their climate modeling programs run 5+ degrees C hotter than reality. And they DON'T KNOW WHY...
The Warming Meme is collapsing and cooling in all records is now evident by empirical observations. They can no longer hide their AGW failure. There is panic in the AGW political gamer's and they are now desperate to explain it away.
Climate Modellers Waiting for Observations to Catch Up with Their Predictions
The why is easy...they are modeling a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere that simply does not exist.
Wrong.
First of all, they are not modeling a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere. The whole point of the troposphere is that greenhouse gases prevent radiation of heat, because they turn radiant heat into vibratory heat that has to conduct instead of radiate.
Second is that the reason models predict more heat than we are feeling is because of all the ice melt. Phase change absorbs huge amounts of heat. It is still there, but you don't see it reflected in temperature readings when there is a phase change.
are you saying ice never melted before?They don't know why? I'm no computer expert but I know one thing, faulty information leads to faulty conclusions.
If you include the massive heat energy consumed by ice melting phase change, then the temperatures we are recording are exactly as predicted.
Models have always been expected to not be accurate.
First of all, they are not modeling a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere. The whole point of the troposphere is that greenhouse gases prevent radiation of heat, because they turn radiant heat into vibratory heat that has to conduct instead of radiate.
This is where all of current modeling goes wrong. They want to believe that it is radiative but in reality it is simply vibratory and trapped in water vapor that is ascending and cooling in the atmosphere. By the time it is again radiative (after phase change back into a water droplet) its wavelength is much longer than 16um and CO2 can not do anything to it. It is lost to space.
You cant make this stuff up. Now NOAA is admitting their climate modeling programs run 5+ degrees C hotter than reality. And they DON'T KNOW WHY...
The Warming Meme is collapsing and cooling in all records is now evident by empirical observations. They can no longer hide their AGW failure. There is panic in the AGW political gamer's and they are now desperate to explain it away.
Climate Modellers Waiting for Observations to Catch Up with Their Predictions
The why is easy...they are modeling a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere that simply does not exist.
Wrong.
First of all, they are not modeling a radiative greenhouse effect in the troposphere. The whole point of the troposphere is that greenhouse gases prevent radiation of heat, because they turn radiant heat into vibratory heat that has to conduct instead of radiate.
Second is that the reason models predict more heat than we are feeling is because of all the ice melt. Phase change absorbs huge amounts of heat. It is still there, but you don't see it reflected in temperature readings when there is a phase change.
Maybe you should look at what climate science claims...they do in fact claim, and model a radiative greenhouse effect...of course there is no such thing which is why the models fail so miserably...if they modeled an atmospheric thermal effect driven by conduction, convection, and auto compression the models would be far more accurate...of course, that would take CO2 and other so called greenhouse gasses off the demon list and all the money and political power that comes with "crisis" would dry up...can't have that so they continue to promote a radiative greenhouse effect even though no such thing exists...
Then what, precisely, would be the point of modeling?
Models have always been expected to not be accurate.
Then what, precisely, would be the point of modeling?
What about the concept of modeling do you fail to grasp?
Then what, precisely, would be the point of modeling?
"All models are wrong, but some are useful" said somebody.
Aircraft are designed using models. The models aren't perfect, but they are very good, so the aircraft fly well.
Climate models aren't perfect, but they are very good, so useful results are obtained from them.
Modeling is an iterative process.
You try a hypothesis, and when it fails, you look for a correction.
When that works better, you keep that correction, and move on to the next smaller tweak.
When modeling is inaccurate, that does not mean you are totally wrong.
But with climate, we have actual data so do not rely on modeling to tell us we have a problem.
Modeling is only to project an extrapolation into the future, beyond the global warming we already know about for sure.
Then what, precisely, would be the point of modeling?
"All models are wrong, but some are useful" said somebody.
Aircraft are designed using models. The models aren't perfect, but they are very good, so the aircraft fly well.
Climate models aren't perfect, but they are very good, so useful results are obtained from them.
No one puts passengers into a plane until a full-sized version has been thoroughly flight tested.
You're making end-of-the-world prognostication and deliberately defrauding taxpayers of Trillions of dollars using models that you know full well aren't accurate? I would agree ... in perpetrating massive fraud, the models have been very useful indeed.
We use real life data for that.
Modeling is an iterative process.
You try a hypothesis, and when it fails, you look for a correction.
When that works better, you keep that correction, and move on to the next smaller tweak.
When modeling is inaccurate, that does not mean you are totally wrong.
But with climate, we have actual data so do not rely on modeling to tell us we have a problem.
Modeling is only to project an extrapolation into the future, beyond the global warming we already know about for sure.
If you make a model and the prediction that model makes don't match reality then either...
a) you don't understand the process you're attempting to model
b) deliberately failing to include factors that affect the output of model
c) both of the above.
I don't buy that in the least.
Water vapor can not get anywhere near the upper troposphere in any quantity because it is like -50 degrees, and much too cold.
but no one is trusting or using models for any legislation, yet.