Comments by "Jim Luebke" (@jimluebke3869) on "John Anderson Media"
channel.
-
263
-
178
-
136
-
66
-
58
-
40
-
36
-
36
-
29
-
24
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
The problem here is, climate models are wrong. They have been comically so in the past ("25 degrees warming by 2020!" according to the BBC in 1990), and there is every reason to believe, based on the theoretical underpinnings of computer modeling itself, that they will remain meaningless in the future.
The difficulty is in the sort of modelling they are trying to do. Climate models are modelling convection cells, hundreds of thousands of them, all of which are "sensitive to initial conditions". Their behavior is, formally, chaotic - and therefore not amenable to future prediction.
Even in simple stochastic computer modeling, it's extremely difficult (often impossible) to determine what model parameters will have what effect on the output of the model, especially far-future predictions. With a chaotic system, that determination is firmly on the "impossible" side of that spectrum.
Without the theoretical support of these computer models, we're left with simple back-of-the-envelope radiative heat transfer calculations about how much CO2 (and H2O, and CH4) is transparent to solar radiation, but opaque to Earth's blackbody radiation. Doing this math, we find that the increase in much-demonized CO2 "emissions" only causes a few hundredths of a degree of warming.
Global warming hysteria is a tempest in a teapot.
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4