Radical climate change just around the corner: study

Earth may experience a radically different climate already within 34 years, forever changing life as we know it, said a study Wednesday.

"The results shocked us," lead author Camilo Mora-Wanker of the University of Hawaii's geography department said of the findings.

"Within my generation, whatever climate we are used to will be a thing of the past."

Even after all of that... it’s still just a model, and a new model at that. The ultimate test of any model is to see how well its predictions match the real world, but this one has no track record to check yet.

It's even simpler than that, my FRiend. They can take the models and pretend it's 1980. They can put in all the variables for a prediction that are actual observations between 1980 and 2013. Their "model" should spit out data that concurs with current conditions.

Guess what? There is not a model that's been created that has ever come close without "tweaking" some variables through creative "norming" or "hiding the decline" or .... you get the point. Their mission starts with using a model that they can manipulate to "prove" it works based on past data. The problem is, they have to manipulate the past data in a way that A) proves their model is accurate and B) shows catastrophic conditions for our future. This is why we haven't been hearing much about the models over the past few years. How do you build a model that will A) show no warming dating back to 1997 and B) using the same variables, prove that we are all gonna die in the future?

They are working on it and these guys must think they figured out how to creatively manipulate data to make the program work to fit their agenda.

“They can take the models and pretend it’s 1980. They can put in all the variables for a prediction that are actual observations between 1980 and 2013. Their “model” should spit out data that concurs with current conditions.”

Yeah, but I don’t think that is the best test, since they already know what that data is as they are designing the model, so they have every opportunity to game the model to produce the proper results somehow.

In 1963 Edward Lorenz wrote “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” which showed a proof that future weather can not be predicted in a non-trivial way. The Navier Stokes equations are non-linear, chaotic, and show sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That means that no finite set of past states can ever be sufficient to predict non-trivial future state

Excellent point. I heard something similar simplified this way. Theoretically, we should be able, through measurements and calculations, place a bouy at some depth in an ocean and predict exactly where it will be after some measure of time. The problem is the trillions of water molecules and how they are affected from trillions of other variables that are in a constant state of change. What sort of change you ask? Variables that you would need to consider for any close degree of accuracy would include everything from cloud cover to aquatic life activity in an oceanic current. Good luck predicting when and where whales might swim and surface.

Before we start to say, "Wait a minute. We CAN predict currents and where bouys will be." we need to understand the expectations of "accuracy". In the ocean, we are accurate to within a few miles or dozens of miles. With global temps, they are selling doom down to the tenth of a degree decades out. It would be like predicting where an oceanic bouy will be within a foot or a yard. At that point, the argument fails on itself as to be too insignificant to have a significant impact (as applied to the human contribution to climate change).

Finally, consider this: Using current Climate Change Science and logic, you personally can affect global see levels.. If you piss in the ocean, the sea level has risen. If you take a bucket of water out of the ocean, you have lowered the global sea level. How can anyone argue your impact on the global sea level? Science proves it! ...And this is the argument Climate Alarmist are trying to make about the human contribution to an otherwise natural process on THIS planet.

Correct. This is exactly what I am saying. They have to continually "add" variables to get the results to match up AND predict doom and gloom. I'm sure it starts to become a game like "I can predict the number in your head. Pick a number between 1 and... add 3, pick color, ..... TA-DA!"

Hell, the leaked e-mails a few years ago proved that they were tinkering with variables and data to get desired results in their modeling. "...can't explain the lack of warming and that's a tragedy... must hide the decline... norm the data..."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.