What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HarryStotle said:
The following image gives some hint as to the problem. Listed are all of the known energy (name removed by moderator)uts into the earth’s atmosphere/biosphere. The problem for the modellers is that the only (name removed by moderator)uts actually counted in the models as having an effect on the climate are those bounded by the red box. ALL THE OTHERS ARE IGNORED or NOT INCLUDED and not measured.
Click to expand...
How do you know those (name removed by moderator)uts are not properly accounted for in the models?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
The following image gives some hint as to the problem. Listed are all of the known energy (name removed by moderator)uts into the earth’s atmosphere/biosphere. The problem for the modellers is that the only (name removed by moderator)uts actually counted in the models as having an effect on the climate are those bounded by the red box. ALL THE OTHERS ARE IGNORED or NOT INCLUDED and not measured.
Click to expand...
How do you know those (name removed by moderator)uts are not properly accounted for in the models?
Click to expand...
They haven’t been included at all. The TSI (total solar irradiance) counts only the UV (name removed by moderator)uts. Apparently the new IPCC Model CMIP6 that is coming in 2021 will begin to include Cosmic Rays and M.E.E. (Medium Energy Electrons) in that modelling scenario. That will still leave out a number of the (name removed by moderator)uts from the chart above: highest energy particles, proton events, geomagnetic storms, interplanetary magnetic fields and daily flux of solar wind.
 
Ender said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
The following video makes the case for why those other (name removed by moderator)uts are important contributing factors.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t know where you find these things but they are tremendously interesting.
Click to expand...
I find the topic very interesting and rarely a day goes by when I don’t read or view something related to it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
How do you know those (name removed by moderator)uts are not properly accounted for in the models?
Click to expand...
Basic research, like done at CERN?

CERN cloud research has shown basic assumptions about clouds in the models are very wrong. Big impact.

 
I’m supposed to look at this video and somehow conclude that the climate models do not properly account for the (name removed by moderator)uts mentioned before? Sorry, but this can only be done by looking at the models themselves and how they are constructed. If one cannot do that personally, then find someone who is responsible for constructing the models to support that claim. But to put myself in the position of a climate scientist, but without access to all the needed data to draw the conclusion stated is arrogance.
 
Leaf,
You would be required to actually listen to the video
I know that’s a lot to ask, of you, but they do discuss how their research results contradict basic assumptions in all the climate models about H2O.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
Leaf,
You would be required to actually listen to the video
I know that’s a lot to ask, of you, but they do discuss how their research results contradict basic assumptions in all the climate models about H2O.
Click to expand...
Unless the video is narrated by somebody who actually is responsible for the construction of the models, they cannot prove what the model do or do not take into account.

(By the way, I have watched this video before. It is old.)
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
Unless the video is narrated by somebody who actually is responsible for the construction of the models, they cannot prove what the model do or do not take into account.
Click to expand...
You’re much too focused on reading scientific papers as research. Watch YouTube videos.
 
Actually its 416 PPM as of February - its climbing and considering land plant life removes about 25 % of the CO2 and the ocean about 30 % . Wow that sure leaves a lot of CO 2 - we can’t Plant enough trees to fix it now and we are killing the oceans - but as you say there are no issues everything is fine let just keep doing what were doing.
 
I’m quite impressed by this thread, a lot of posts and so far I dont think anyone’s changed their mind.
 
I think the scientists at CERN are well versed in the climate models

You’re deflecting again
 
Theo520 said:
I think the scientists at CERN are well versed in the climate models

You’re deflecting again
Click to expand...
I expect the scientists a CERN are well versed in the climate models, but in the video cited they do not specifically say that all climate models used to predict global warming are deficient in the manner claimed. That is a leap of logic that is expected of the (not expert) viewer.
 
I challenge all people to watch this video as you have time…no matter what side you land on.

 
Petro_Man said:
I challenge all people to watch this video as you have time…no matter what side you land on.

Click to expand...
Well presented and thoughtful. The lesson here is that if we a truly concerned about the impact of human beings on the environment but equally concerned about human beings alive and flourishing in the environment then the solutions are workable.

If we are inordinately concerned about the environment over human flourishing or human flourishing over the environment then we are more likely to gamble on a “winner takes all” scenario. Selecting one or other of those two end up as environment absent humanity or humanity absent a proper environment.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
The following image gives some hint as to the problem. Listed are all of the known energy (name removed by moderator)uts into the earth’s atmosphere/biosphere. The problem for the modellers is that the only (name removed by moderator)uts actually counted in the models as having an effect on the climate are those bounded by the red box. ALL THE OTHERS ARE IGNORED or NOT INCLUDED and not measured.
Click to expand...
How do you know those (name removed by moderator)uts are not properly accounted for in the models?
Click to expand...
Well, for one, the IPCC is going to include some Cosmic Ray (name removed by moderator)uts and M.E.E.s (Medium Energy Electrons) in the CMIP6 modelling scenario in 2021, so the IPCC itself acknowledges that those are not currently included.
Why would the IPCC begin to include what is already “properly accounted for?”
 
HarryStotle said:
Well, for one, the IPCC is going to include some Cosmic Ray (name removed by moderator)uts and M.E.E.s (Medium Energy Electrons) in the CMIP6 modelling scenario in 2021, so the IPCC itself acknowledges that those are not currently included.
Why would the IPCC begin to include what is already “properly accounted for?”
Click to expand...
The models are always being improved to make them more accurate. That does not mean they were grossly inaccurate before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top