“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.
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?
XLNT. That would be analogous to acting on the conclusions of an investigation while the investigation is still underway.
They are wrong because they are based on one simple, but limited and faulty assumption. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere the temperature will increase a set amount in response. The problem is the climate is nowhere near that simple. CO2 has been increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The problem is that temperatures have gone up and down during this time, but never as high as the models have predicted,
My overall point is that we live in a solar SYSTEM...meaning one change effects all! One elliptical orbiting planet’s orbit/position/gravity affects all of the others! If Michael Mann can provide empirical data of the planetary orbits dating back to the period of time he thinks is the baseline on judging whether or not the Earth’s warming or cooling, I’ll listen to him. If not...bugger off!