[Lindsyburnsy]

Global warming or not, fossil fuel is polluting our air and water.

[MartinSE]

Horror of Horrors!

Originally Posted by Lindsyburnsy

Global warming or not, fossil fuel is polluting our air and water.

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Have to wonder how many of those countries report accurately

Probably none of them. Except the USA of course!

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Have to wonder how many of those countries report accurately

I am sure we can trust China and Russia to be accurate. As the old saying goes as far as you can throw them

[TrapX]

Science can predict outcomes based on physics, such as Volts = Current * Amps
Science can predict the speed an aircraft will stall based upon aerodynamics.
Science invented math.

For other things that are more complex, science first attempts to understand how things work. Once all variables can be discovered, their behaviors identified and understood, cause and effect relationships are documented, then predictions can be made.
If you have a small set of inputs, then reasonable predictions can be made for the short term.
For large sets of inputs, making short term predictions become more difficult and inaccurate. Longer term predictions compound the collective series of short term predictions. The further out you predict, the worse the confidence will be as it becomes more inaccurate. Soon it becomes a guess because you cannot account for the subtle effects of all the variables over long time spans.
Even one input that is not accurately known, or has random properties, or a false cause/effect correlation, destroys the prediction.

Watch weather forecasts and notice the probability of rain. 40%, 50% or 60% means they have no clue. What is the probability of rain in 4 weeks? 50% LOL.

I've looked at weather estimates made in the spring for the upcoming summer. Simple short term guidance. Those predictions have all been saying it will be a lot hotter than actually happened. That is for one year. They reset the baseline for the next year and repeat. But what happens if that baseline is not reset for 10 years? 10 years of prediction stacked in order predicted this summer would have been been dozens of degrees warmer than it was.

The math is called Model Predictive Control. It's a matrix inversion that relates all inputs to all outputs. Change an input and see what happens to the output. Pick an output you want and see what inputs need to change to get there.
In weather terms, they say the more co2 causes higher temperatures. It's a over-simplification to a single linear cause/effect. Ignoring all other inputs is bad science. What if cloud density begins to increase at a higher level of co2 causing global cooling? What if clearing forests and other vegetation is an input that is being ignored, and things will change from that? Is that ignored because it will reduce the global warming prediction?

Perfectly said "it is a unsteady fluid problem with an enormous number of degrees of freedom."
Many more than just co2.

The spaghetti models are a perfect example of predicting the future based upon the previous prediction. Each predicts where storms goes in the next few minutes, and then the next, and so on. They were created by scientists who believed their model was right. They all had slight errors that compounded over time. That compounding error is the most serious problem with making long term predictions. We are only seeing how the error effects compound over a few days, not multiple years.


Music is not science. Music is an art that involves creativity, imagination, skills. Oddly, the absolute frequency of musical notes is a completely made up thing. Someone, long ago, picked those note frequencies because they thought it sounded right to them. Humans are raised to think those notes are "correct". That's not science


Two days in advance Tampa was predicted as landfall with the eye going over The Villages. People in Fort Myers were eating ice cream. So much for that prediction. A very tiny change that was shifting trajectory made a huge change in outcome. The models missed that input source. What other tiny element are global warming models missing?

I wish they would stop using every weather event as global warming proof.
Snowstorm = global warming? Heatwave = global warming?
Drought = global warming? Floods = global warming?
Sunny 72deg low humidity = global warming?

Originally Posted by MartinSE

So, something isn't perfect enough to predict absolute accuracy and so it doesn't exist or is BS.
WOW.
Please provide us with ANYTHING that sicence can predict absolutely, and I will exclude light switches.
Sigh...
WOW. Just WOW.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

TrapX:
Musicians can all perform music. <TRIM> It's called perfect, or absolute pitch, and it's incredibly rare. <TRIM>
The same for weather folks. Being 100% accurate is not a reasonable expectation.
They have graphs and trends and computers and technology to help them figure it out, but the weather will do what the weather does.

Originally Posted by tuccillo

<SNIP>Two days in advance, Ian was very well simulated and the landfall was very close. <SNIP> This event had fairly large variations in the results until about 2 days before landfall. Some events are more predictable than others. Numerical Weather Prediction is a difficult problem because it is a unsteady fluid problem with an enormous number of degrees of freedom.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Horror of Horrors!

Of course, that assumes bankruptcy is "better"

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Keefelane66

You are missing an awful lot of hurricanes here's another one
Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest, second costliest, and most intense hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed at least 469 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina as a Category 4 hurricane.
Hurricane Gloria was a powerful hurricane that caused significant damage along the east coast of the United States and in Atlantic Canada during the 1985 Atlantic hurricane season.
1944 Great Atlantic hurricane
The 1944 Great Atlantic hurricane was a destructive and powerful tropical cyclone that swept across a large portion of the United States East Coast in September 1944
Hurricane Camille
Hurricane Camille was the second most intense tropical cyclone on record to strike the United States, behind the 1935 Labor Day hurricane.
I can go further I listed to Tucker he also said something similar.

Well, he specifically said he was talking about "Florida" hurricanes... So...

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Keefelane66

You are missing an awful lot of hurricanes here's another one
Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest, second costliest, and most intense hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed at least 469 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina as a Category 4 hurricane.
Hurricane Gloria was a powerful hurricane that caused significant damage along the east coast of the United States and in Atlantic Canada during the 1985 Atlantic hurricane season.
1944 Great Atlantic hurricane
The 1944 Great Atlantic hurricane was a destructive and powerful tropical cyclone that swept across a large portion of the United States East Coast in September 1944
Hurricane Camille
Hurricane Camille was the second most intense tropical cyclone on record to strike the United States, behind the 1935 Labor Day hurricane.
I can go further I listed to Tucker he also said something similar.

This isn't my list. It's from WorldAtlas.com. And we're talking about "Florida Hurricanes" specifically. Please keep on point.

[graciegirl]

BUT what to do to change it is very elusive, if at all possible since it appears it must have the cooperation of the world's population.

And so it continues as a political football.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

BUT what to do to change it is very elusive, if at all possible since it appears it must have the cooperation of the world's population.

And so it continues as a political football.

Hey! Long time, no see.

[tuccillo]

There is so many incorrect things in his post I don’t even know where to begin so I won’t bother. Sigh ….

Originally Posted by TrapX

Science can predict outcomes based on physics, such as Volts = Current * Amps
Science can predict the speed an aircraft will stall based upon aerodynamics.
Science invented math.

For other things that are more complex, science first attempts to understand how things work. Once all variables can be discovered, their behaviors identified and understood, cause and effect relationships are documented, then predictions can be made.
If you have a small set of inputs, then reasonable predictions can be made for the short term.
For large sets of inputs, making short term predictions become more difficult and inaccurate. Longer term predictions compound the collective series of short term predictions. The further out you predict, the worse the confidence will be as it becomes more inaccurate. Soon it becomes a guess because you cannot account for the subtle effects of all the variables over long time spans.
Even one input that is not accurately known, or has random properties, or a false cause/effect correlation, destroys the prediction.

Watch weather forecasts and notice the probability of rain. 40%, 50% or 60% means they have no clue. What is the probability of rain in 4 weeks? 50% LOL.

I've looked at weather estimates made in the spring for the upcoming summer. Simple short term guidance. Those predictions have all been saying it will be a lot hotter than actually happened. That is for one year. They reset the baseline for the next year and repeat. But what happens if that baseline is not reset for 10 years? 10 years of prediction stacked in order predicted this summer would have been been dozens of degrees warmer than it was.

The math is called Model Predictive Control. It's a matrix inversion that relates all inputs to all outputs. Change an input and see what happens to the output. Pick an output you want and see what inputs need to change to get there.
In weather terms, they say the more co2 causes higher temperatures. It's a over-simplification to a single linear cause/effect. Ignoring all other inputs is bad science. What if cloud density begins to increase at a higher level of co2 causing global cooling? What if clearing forests and other vegetation is an input that is being ignored, and things will change from that? Is that ignored because it will reduce the global warming prediction?

Perfectly said "it is a unsteady fluid problem with an enormous number of degrees of freedom."
Many more than just co2.

The spaghetti models are a perfect example of predicting the future based upon the previous prediction. Each predicts where storms goes in the next few minutes, and then the next, and so on. They were created by scientists who believed their model was right. They all had slight errors that compounded over time. That compounding error is the most serious problem with making long term predictions. We are only seeing how the error effects compound over a few days, not multiple years.


Music is not science. Music is an art that involves creativity, imagination, skills. Oddly, the absolute frequency of musical notes is a completely made up thing. Someone, long ago, picked those note frequencies because they thought it sounded right to them. Humans are raised to think those notes are "correct". That's not science


Two days in advance Tampa was predicted as landfall with the eye going over The Villages. People in Fort Myers were eating ice cream. So much for that prediction. A very tiny change that was shifting trajectory made a huge change in outcome. The models missed that input source. What other tiny element are global warming models missing?

I wish they would stop using every weather event as global warming proof.
Snowstorm = global warming? Heatwave = global warming?
Drought = global warming? Floods = global warming?
Sunny 72deg low humidity = global warming?

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by TrapX

Science can predict outcomes based on physics, such as Volts = Current * Amps
Science can predict the speed an aircraft will stall based upon aerodynamics.
Science invented math.

For other things that are more complex, science first attempts to understand how things work. Once all variables can be discovered, their behaviors identified and understood, cause and effect relationships are documented, then predictions can be made.
If you have a small set of inputs, then reasonable predictions can be made for the short term.
For large sets of inputs, making short term predictions become more difficult and inaccurate. Longer term predictions compound the collective series of short term predictions. The further out you predict, the worse the confidence will be as it becomes more inaccurate. Soon it becomes a guess because you cannot account for the subtle effects of all the variables over long time spans.
Even one input that is not accurately known, or has random properties, or a false cause/effect correlation, destroys the prediction.

Watch weather forecasts and notice the probability of rain. 40%, 50% or 60% means they have no clue. What is the probability of rain in 4 weeks? 50% LOL.

I've looked at weather estimates made in the spring for the upcoming summer. Simple short term guidance. Those predictions have all been saying it will be a lot hotter than actually happened. That is for one year. They reset the baseline for the next year and repeat. But what happens if that baseline is not reset for 10 years? 10 years of prediction stacked in order predicted this summer would have been been dozens of degrees warmer than it was.

The math is called Model Predictive Control. It's a matrix inversion that relates all inputs to all outputs. Change an input and see what happens to the output. Pick an output you want and see what inputs need to change to get there.
In weather terms, they say the more co2 causes higher temperatures. It's a over-simplification to a single linear cause/effect. Ignoring all other inputs is bad science. What if cloud density begins to increase at a higher level of co2 causing global cooling? What if clearing forests and other vegetation is an input that is being ignored, and things will change from that? Is that ignored because it will reduce the global warming prediction?

Perfectly said "it is a unsteady fluid problem with an enormous number of degrees of freedom."
Many more than just co2.

The spaghetti models are a perfect example of predicting the future based upon the previous prediction. Each predicts where storms goes in the next few minutes, and then the next, and so on. They were created by scientists who believed their model was right. They all had slight errors that compounded over time. That compounding error is the most serious problem with making long term predictions. We are only seeing how the error effects compound over a few days, not multiple years.


Music is not science. Music is an art that involves creativity, imagination, skills. Oddly, the absolute frequency of musical notes is a completely made up thing. Someone, long ago, picked those note frequencies because they thought it sounded right to them. Humans are raised to think those notes are "correct". That's not science


Two days in advance Tampa was predicted as landfall with the eye going over The Villages. People in Fort Myers were eating ice cream. So much for that prediction. A very tiny change that was shifting trajectory made a huge change in outcome. The models missed that input source. What other tiny element are global warming models missing?

I wish they would stop using every weather event as global warming proof.
Snowstorm = global warming? Heatwave = global warming?
Drought = global warming? Floods = global warming?
Sunny 72deg low humidity = global warming?

Are you a climatologist? Where do you study and practice?

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

BUT what to do to change it is very elusive, if at all possible since it appears it must have the cooperation of the world's population.

And so it continues as a political football.

Welcome back!!! You were missed!

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

BUT what to do to change it is very elusive, if at all possible since it appears it must have the cooperation of the world's population.

And so it continues as a political football.

Good to see you here again.

[MorTech]

The planet has been ice/desert-free for 90% of the last million years. Atmospheric CO2 has almost never been as low as it is today at 400 PPM. Climate change is the cause of my bad breath, however.