Nobel in physics: Climate science breakthroughs earn prize

BBC News ^ | October 5, 2021

[from occupied ga]

Computer models show whatever you want them to show.

[Flick Lives]

Add the Nobel Prize in Physics to the pile of institutions infected by terminal wokeness.

[Brooklyn Attitude]

In future news, Dr Fauci wins the Nobel Prize in Medicine.

[Tax-chick]

Yes and no. Programmers set up the model, and if it doesn’t generate the “right” result, they can go back and change the initial data or a function or a parameter to “correct” it.

[EQAndyBuzz]

There are those two words again... Can and Could.

Amazing how you can get a Nobel Prize today for expressing in your award winning thesis the word “could.”

[Tax-chick]

Can, could, may, might, possibly ... all the weasel words.

[Brian Griffin]

https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/sites/all/themes/nca3/interactive/chart-toggle/carbon-emissions-industrial-age/img/data-coal.png

Around 1950, the US and Europe relied on coal.

As of 2021, coal for energy use has pretty much been phased out in Europe and the USA.

Coal is about 50% of CO2 emissions. India and China have work to do.

Widespread replacement of ICE vehicles with electric vehicles will cut oil-based CO2 emissions.

[from occupied ga]

I’ve been writing computer models for a living for the the last 20 years. Believe me when I say you can get them to do whatever you want. The trick is to get them to predict what is going to actually happen.

[Tax-chick]

The trick is to get them to predict what is going to actually happen.

Indeed, that would be the trick!

[Brian Griffin]

The main thing Westerners need to be concerned about is the ice of Greenland.

The elimination of air travel between Europe and the USA is probably important, most especially in the peak season.

Air travel leaves CO2 high in the sky, where it lingers.

On the eastern seaboard, power plants might have to be moved inland so trees can soak up their CO2 emissions.

[Brian Griffin]

In the Third World, the time to plant trees to keep temperatures down is now.

[Brian Griffin]

“The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 25% since 1958, and by about 40% since the Industrial Revolution.”

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data

[no_go_lie]

Did any of these researchers account for the volcanoes that have been erupting lately? They are spewing into the atmosphere all kinds of gases in volumes exceeding any man-made emissions. Enough of these eruptions and we will experience another ice age instead of this global warming scare.

[Brian Griffin]

“Global mean sea level has risen about 8–9 inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880, with about a third of that coming in just the last two and a half decades. The rising water level is mostly due to a combination of meltwater from glaciers and ice sheets and thermal expansion of seawater as it warms. In 2019, global mean sea level was 3.4 inches (87.6 millimeters) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). From 2018 to 2019, global sea level rose 0.24 inches (6.1 millimeters).”

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

If you own a Malibu beach house, panic, otherwise don’t.

[Thermalseeker]

This is hilarious. Shouldn’t we wait a few decades and see if their model actually works? These folks can’t say what the weather will be with any accuracy 8 hours out. A week ago I checked the forecast on a Friday evening. NWS and local meteorologists predicted a 30% chance of rain the following day after 2:00pm. The next morning it was pouring rain (over 5”) and the forecast had changed to a 100% chance of heavy rain after 8:00am and flash flood warnings. These people actually expect me to believe their model predictions 50 - 100 years in the future when they can’t reliably say what the weather will be 8 hours into the future?

[Thermalseeker]

Air travel leaves CO2 high in the sky, where it lingers.

Patently false! CO2 is a colorless, odorless HEAVIER THAN AIR molecule. It does not "linger" in the upper atmosphere. It sinks. Gravity is a law, not a suggestion.

[ScaniaBoy]

Can, could, may, might, possibly ... all the weasel words.

Almost all the global temperature models are way above the real data....but there is one model that follows the measurements. That is a Russian(!) model. It was published in 2010. Thus, so far it is better at hindcasting than forecasting, but we'll have to give it some time.

What is the difference between this and th'other models?

The Russian model:

1.INM-CM4 has the lowest CO2 forcing response at 4.1K for 4XCO2. That is 37% lower than multi-model mean.

2.INM-CM4 has by far the highest climate system inertia: Deep ocean heat capacity in INMCM4 is 317 W yr m^-2 K^-1, 200% of the mean (which excluded INM-CM4 because it was such an outlier)

3.INM-CM4 exactly matches observed atmospheric H2O content in lower troposphere (215 hPa), and is biased low above that. Most others are biased high.

So it is different - and so far better!

In (other fields of) science one would have taken note of this and started to adapt to what seems the better solution, but not in climate "science". Why is that? Your guess is as good as mine....

[EEGator]

GIGO

[bobbo666]

They have been getting it wrong, totally wrong, for last 20 years. Nonetheless, making strides in creating complex models and in discovering what features need to me modeled is an accomplishment.

That said, all the work so far is a misleading waste of time and money. Every model is incapable of mimicking nature. Too simple. Every model has to be tweaked, and is, in order to agree with the demanded and lucrative narrative.
E.g., there are models that show that increasing CO2 has no impact upon temp when >400ppm, where we are now. Free publication of that is forbidden.

[Captain Jack Aubrey]

Let me know when they announce the Nobel Prize for bullsh*t.