Comments by "Jim Luebke" (@jimluebke3869) on "Back Off, Oh Masters of the Universe" video.

  1. There is a distinction between climate and weather, fair enough. But there is a critical similarity between climate MODELS and weather MODELS. As it turns out, the same issue that makes it impossible to predict the weather long-term, also makes it impossible to predict the climate long-term. You may have heard of the "butterfly effect". That applies to both types of model. Weather models rely on computers calculating and predicting the behavior of fluids within convection cells. This is impossible, because the behavior of those convection cells is (formally speaking) chaotic. It is sensitive to small changes in initial conditions, making long-term prediction utterly impossible without infinitely precise variables, and infinitely precise and accurate measurements to feed it. Not only that, both the boundary values and the interior of these convection cells contain every tree, leaf, building, power line, flag, car, rock, bird, plane, insect, and animal under the open sky. Determining where each of these items may be and where they may be going, is not possible over a single second, much less over days, years, or centuries. Climate models are ALSO built on convection cells -- hundreds or thousands of them, depending on the model. This means that they have inherited all the problems, inaccuracies, and unreliability of weather models. Further, any hypotheses that the modelers make as to how sensitive the model may be to any given element in the model (CO2, water vapor, etc) is UNTESTABLE by these models, because their predictions are by nature inaccurate. Climate change isn't a hoax, for what that's worth. Every single climate change PREDICTION, on the other hand, IS -- advocates are wildly overstating the applicability of their approach, to the salient problem.
    1