Comments by "Mosern1977" (@Mosern1977) on "Did scientists get climate change wrong?" video.

@coreyander286 - so I program my computer model in such a way that human C02 emissions cause global warming over time. Then I run my computer model, and publish the fact that in 100 years time, the computer model predicts that we will have global warming. Can I get a Nobel Price now please, like Al Gore did?
20
Everyone knows that migrants from Africa are fleeing because of bad climate. They go to places like - UK, Germany and Sweden. Because countries like Portugal, Norway and Poland are much more likely to be hit by climate change than UK, Germany and Sweden. Riiiight...
4
They have models using formulas for how the CO2 warms the atmosphere. Now they run these models, and the result shows that CO2 affects the temperature. Solid science right there!
4
Well, higher tree and plant growth, as the atmosphere is less starved of C02.
4
Yes, and estimating a chaotic system with resolutions of 100kms, limited data, and very limited knowledge of the actual physics at play and then using that to predict the result for 100 years in the future.... Yeah... I'm sure there is a reason why the uncertainty of the individual runs are not accounted for (as they would easily be in the +- 200 degree range).
4
CO2 is a trace gas - and only therefore humans can (to a very small degree) affect it. Oxygen is so plentiful that humans have no way to affect it in any measurable way.
3
@lawrencejwinkler - well, my predictions for future climate on earth is like today +- 2 degrees. How many billions of dollars will you give me? But if your trip is more than A to B, but rather A to B to C to D to E to F, and there are 4 random events that may or may not occur (like your car braking down) - can you give me a good estimate on your arrival time?
3
grindupBaker - Water vapor is the biggest one. However, that again is out of reach for puny humans to affect.
2
@Mevlinous - I'm a "denier" (curious wording - usually "denier" is used in religious debates), and I did find this interview interesting. It didn't make me less of a "denier" but it rather supported my views.
2
My computer model for calculating Pi is 1 + Rand(0,3) - After 5 runs the values are all over the place, now with 100 runs seem to agree to be somewhere between 3.3 and 2.7. At 1000 runs I'm at 2.95 to 3.05. I can therefore deduce that Pi = 3.00. 1000 runs of a computer model cannot be wrong!
2
Mouse peeing in Pacific Ocean - increases volume of water yes (100%), effect???
2
Polar bears are having a great time. No problems with snow and ice in the arctic. Venice has built a city in the water, and that might not be the best place for one.
1
Oh, if you are looking for the religion of climate change, there is a Swedish Girl spreading it somewhere now. This was a talk between grown up scientists, uncertainty is the name of the game.
1
I saw one scientist, and one semi-corrupted scientist.
1
You know, since mid day today - the temperature has dropped 3 degrees. 3 degrees in 8 hours. That is 9 degrees in 24 hours. In 10 days, we are at -90 degrees. If my model is correctly predicting the future that is. See the issue?
1
What do you mean? The climate models that have been programmed with these 3 axioms show that the 3 axioms are valid :)
1
@koczisek - no I cannot. But I'm sure a data-model, that is programmed in such a way that human made CO2 causes global warming - will show that in 100 years time, human CO2 emissions will cause a warmer climate.
1
@LearningWithSuj - I was going to say you sound more reasonable than the average proponent of climate change. Some of them do follow the cult of Thunberg and believe the world is going to end in a few years time. The media has an enormous part in this, as they would report from this debate: "Climate Scientist predicts 6-7 degrees of warming" Real scientists (like the person in this video) will never say such things, without a lot of caveats.
1
@coreyander286 - oh, I understand just fine what he is saying. I also understand that these climate models are doing what they have been programmed to do. Do note, that he is not talking about the uncertainty in a computer model, but rather the results these (slightly) different models end up at. Say I'm trying to find the true value of Pi (3.14) and one model is doing 1 + Rand(1,3) and another one is doing 2 + Rand(0,2) they will with enough runs, both probably land on Pi being about 3.0. Can we conclude that Pi is 3 because the models converge on this number? Of course not. (He would mention that both models actually predict Pi as high as 4 but that's not likely). It is incorrect methodology - he knows it, but it is the only methodology they have - so he plays along.
1
I think he wants a bigger budget for better super-computers, so he can do weather forecasting for decades. Maybe they should get more than 1 week correct in places with more advanced weather than Saudi Arabia.
1
Antartica
1
Good news, you should put as much faith in these models as any weather prediction 3 months forward in time. I'm sure they'll get the season right.
1
@mudslinger888 - of course it is. All weather is global warming. Nice falsifiable claim then, sounds like science if I ever heard it. (Peer reviews only means people in the same field, all having interest in the current dogma being true, is vouching for what is written. Its better than nothing, but not really scientific evidence).
1
In the long run, the only thing that matters is how many kids you get.
1
And there is a 78% you have the percentages wrong.
1
@O. M. - the problem is that if your model assumes CO2 has a measurable effect on climate, then your model will show that increasing CO2 levels will cause warmer climate in the future. It doesn't really prove anything. Models can not tell anything that isn't already encoded in the premise. Note: None of these charts show the actual uncertainties in the runs, because it is enormous. Therefore they rather show 50 runs, and say that the answer is somewhere in that neighborhood. What if I'm trying to find Pi with data models, and all my models are saying it is 2 + (Random(0,1)) - I get numbers between 2 and 3 and most of the models land at about 2.3-2.7. Does running these models 100 times help? No.
1
You are correct - but I can for free tell you that the future global temperature will be like today +- 3 degrees. But no-one can predict the weather exactly at my current location in 3 weeks.
1
@latitudeash - I wish he was. But it seems there is a lot of "adjusting" and "calibration" of older data sets going in this field. As the quality of older data has been so-so, there is good reason to do this. And when there is billions of dollars and life long careers involved - then adjusting it in the "correct" way might be beneficial.
1