3 ms·

What are you talking about? Do you really think all you need to accurately predict global climate trends hundreds of years into the future is the chemical prope

by nvm0n2 3y ago

What are you talking about? Do you really think all you need to accurately predict global climate trends hundreds of years into the future is the chemical properties of a single gas? If you do actually believe that then your knowledge of climatology is very poor indeed. The problems with the science here are legion, starting with the fact that the climate is far too complicated to predict given only knowledge of the chemical properties of CO2! Consider the thousands of factors you need to also fully understand. Climate models don't properly handle the effects of clouds, they don't understand how energy is absorbed by the ocean, and they aren't even calibrated against reliable temperature measurements which is one reason estimates of the core ECS variable (the key to the whole thing) have been getting wider over time, not narrower. As in, literally, the constant you want to see scientists agree on has been losing consensus, not gaining it. Your problem is that you think reality is very simple, and that's why you struggle to understand why anyone could possibly disagree with your views. Go spend a few months trying to explain why the models are diverging both from observation and each other - a scientific fact - and then you may start to find it possible to understand "talk show yappers" or whoever else you imagine is your enemy.

kristopolous 3y ago
This is beyond useless. That's all wrong. Plenty of GCMs deal with cloud cover. You're pretending like extremely small nuances and details are ground shifting giant fundamental questions. That's another right wing FUD game
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  They attempt to deal with it, but there are still massive problems with their simulations of it. Go read the papers, the model authors talk about the issues themselves. Nothing right wing about climatological papers, is there, far from it. Re: ocean warming. These aren't small details. For over a decade climatologists reported that there had been a long term pause in global warming. Thousands of papers were written about it, wondering where the heat went. They started to argue that it had disappeared into the ocean, in an event not anticipated by the models. Literally that all global warming had been absorbed this way since ~2000. That's a huge detail to miss! Around 2015 or so they resolved the problem in a different way: they modified the temperature databases to erase the pause from the record. All those papers, apparently studying and trying to explain something that had never even happened. So the uncomfortable fact remained that by their own telling, either: 1. They didn't understand heat absorption of the oceans. or 2. They didn't know how to measure global temperature despite their entire field being based around these measurements. But actual history is just "right wing fud", right? It's impossible for pure minded academics to ever be corrupted by power, pride or a lust for status. They're just born better than right wing people.

by nvm0n2 3y ago

kristopolous 3y ago

This is beyond useless. That's all wrong. Plenty of GCMs deal with cloud cover. You're pretending like extremely small nuances and details are ground shifting giant fundamental questions. That's another right wing FUD game

nvm0n2 3y ago
They attempt to deal with it, but there are still massive problems with their simulations of it. Go read the papers, the model authors talk about the issues themselves. Nothing right wing about climatological papers, is there, far from it. Re: ocean warming. These aren't small details. For over a decade climatologists reported that there had been a long term pause in global warming. Thousands of papers were written about it, wondering where the heat went. They started to argue that it had disappeared into the ocean, in an event not anticipated by the models. Literally that all global warming had been absorbed this way since ~2000. That's a huge detail to miss! Around 2015 or so they resolved the problem in a different way: they modified the temperature databases to erase the pause from the record. All those papers, apparently studying and trying to explain something that had never even happened. So the uncomfortable fact remained that by their own telling, either: 1. They didn't understand heat absorption of the oceans. or 2. They didn't know how to measure global temperature despite their entire field being based around these measurements. But actual history is just "right wing fud", right? It's impossible for pure minded academics to ever be corrupted by power, pride or a lust for status. They're just born better than right wing people.