Ping.
Here is the link to the Prager U. video
https://www.prageru.com/playlists/what-science-reveals-about-climate-change#1
“They’re wrong because even the most powerful computers can’t solve all the equations needed to accurately describe climate.”
—
Seems to me that in order to construct “all the equations needed to accurately describe climate”, you would first have to know everything there is to know about climate. So when did all climate research end with the conclusion there is nothing more to learn?
There is further albeit obscure the possibility that the atmosphere consists of hexagonal cells linked one to the other and they communicate. Until someone does further research to prove or disprove that idea, then climate will never be successfully modeled among many other reasons.
Climate Change fraud bump for later....
Well, if the observed data fails to match the models, they can just wait a few years and adjust it then. Problem solved. /s
If the mesh is too dense then you quickly run out of computing resources.
If the mesh is too sparse then the predictions you get from running the model are worthless.
Not to mention the amazing variety of boundary conditions that have to be included... boundary conditions that are changing and moving around to boot like:
- Cloud cover
- Sea temps
- Sea emissions
- Plant cover
- Snow/ice cover
- Volcanic venting
.
.
.
- Human generated emissions
Does a great job of boiling down a voluminous debate into a five minute video.
A model is a small-scale imperfect reproduction of a full-sized original.
The model runs equations that imperfectly describe the actions of the small-scale model.
The equations are a guess as to how things actually function in real life. The equations take short cuts, and make assumptions where no one knows how things function.
Collection of data is far from perfect. The Earth is huge, and there is no way to take enough measurements to obtain usable readings.
Small errors in the input data lead to major errors in the results. This is the meaning of the stupidly-named “butterfly effect.”
Lorentz: Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
Best video on climate change at Post #21
While Dr. Prager is undoubtedly correct in his analysis, there is another analysis that explains this:
The climate “scientists” start with the desired conclusion and then create the model that supports it. Data, whether actual or made up, is selectively fed into the model to get the result. It should be no surprise that the actual conditions don’t align with the model.
I don’t like his computers not powerful enough comment.
Computers don’t have anything to do with it other than it is a tool.
People have to build the programs that create the models that analyze the data we feed it.
Saying they’re “not powerful enough” indicates some day they will be.
Regardless of if we have a computer powerful enough to process a billion trillion instructions per second, any model or program is only as good as its creator.
And until we know “everything” about weather, their projections will always be off.
I really need to read through that book again to pull out some good quotes from it.
>> one climate prediction after another — based on computer models — has been wrong
Grammar question. Is it “has” and not “have” because the subject is singular where ‘after another’ serves as a preposition?
I figured ‘one after another’ would be plural.
Happer!
I love that this guy is walking the halls at Princeton and they haven’t drawn and quartered him. They may post his head above the Yankee Doodle Tap Room.
Happer is killing their sacred cow, and leftists get very angry when you touch their cows. They stole those cows, and they demand that their expropriations should be respected, even by an egghead, rogue, physicist who is refusing to behave like a true academic.
Face it, CO2 is up 13% in the atmosphere and the temp has flatlined! The models don’t work, and the oceans are not coming to Ohio. The sacred bogus 97% of all sentient scientists are too arrogant to say they really don’t understand it.
The sensitivity of climate to CO2 is not well understood.
I thought the science was done.
How dare you question Al Gore.
Hey, you know what, warm is better than cold anyway.
Scientists have no idea of the range of factors that control long-term climate, let alone the specifics of the relationships between the factors and the climate or the nature and extent of the interactions of the factors with each other - they fudge their models to get the predictions they want, but then can’t accurately portray what’s actually going on today with the same models....
Are you saying that, like we've suspected all along - they're faking it?
Hard to believe someone like Al Gore who never aced a science or math class in his life would make this stuff up... /s