Daniel Turner Contributor June 01, 2020 11:34 AM ET
It’s curious … SpaceX has all the money in the world, and they didn’t hire someone who could have accurately predicted the afternoon weather in Florida on May 27, 2020. Seems like a huge oversight, doesn’t it? And to think there are scores of nonprofit leaders and academics in Washington, DC who can accurately predict global temperatures 10, 15, even 50 years into the future.
Oh, stop it with the “climate isn’t weather” rebuttal. It’s trite and silly. The guys who says “food isn’t cuisine” is a food critic, and by default, haughty and obnoxious.
How about this one: science isn’t semantics.
We all wish we could predict the future. Intellectually, empirically, rationally, we know we can’t, but some still try. Throughout Washington, DC where I live, in addition to the elite intelligentsia, the kind who read their own books on the NY-bound Acela, are multiple Tarot Card readers and psychics offering their services of clairvoyance.
And we hear the stories. The buddy who picked a good stock because “he was sure” it would go up. Or the other guy who proclaims, “I just knew the Nationals would win the World Series.” It’s not true. Not possible. Not even logically defensible. It’s syntax, not truth.
We make decisions for the future, not based on preternatural intelligence, but data. Market trends and balance sheets guide stock picks, but there’s no certainty the price will go up. Wouldn’t we all be rich if that were the case? In baseball, injuries, rotation and roster, and team loyalty form our hunches, but there’s no guarantee your team will win.
No one “knew” the weather would cancel the SpaceX flight, but rather scientists used data to make the best educated guess which is part of the scientific method we learned about in third grade. And similarly, no one “knows” what will happen to the earth in 5, 10, 15, 50 years because of climate change. So quite frankly I’m tired of hearing about it.
Now I’ll answer that next question before you ask it: no, there is no data which says the world temperatures will rise to an uninhabitable level. There are models, and models are very, very human.
Climate change models are computer generated and the code is written by biased individuals. It’s not scientific following rigorous methodology; it’s prediction, based on available data, which may or may not be accurate. Remember the model which predicted 2.2 million deaths from Coronavirus?
Whoopsie.
Garbage in, garbage out, just like in every other computer-generated scenario. Maybe one day the Artificial Intelligence will actually be intelligent and correct the programmer, but for now, it’s just following the program as written by the very fallible human.
This is why the outrage at Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s comment “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Not because it’s stupid (it is), not because it’s wrong (it is), but because it’s so deliberately misleading. It is a perfect example of speculation turned into fact, and for the sole purpose of pushing a political agenda, which just makes it an affront to my wallet. It dumbs down discourse. It turns off reasonable people like me who do this for a living. There’s little point in having a conversation about climate change or mankind’s contribution or lack thereof to it. Yet, more and more government policy is crafted and tax dollars are spent based on this type of illogical thinking.
Climate is the great unknown, and politicians and the media love to scare the crap out of regular Americans by feigning some great insight into tomorrow making us quiver in our seats. Climate change will kill us. Paul Ehrlich in the 1970’s said that overpopulation would mean England would cease to exist by 2000. England! Poor Queen, like she doesn’t have enough on her royal plate. Al Gore 20 years ago predicted no Arctic ice, and he got an Oscar for it.
Last I checked both the UK and the Arctic ice are fine, shapes of both changing constantly. These were predictions of fact. They were models, based on data, meant to scare and push an agenda.
We can’t even predict a few weeks into the future. March 20th of this year the Washington Post predicted an “abnormally warm spring” across the entire country using models based on data (winter temperatures, polar vortex) presented as fact including an ominous “this may be a first.” Scary global warming type stuff. Yikes.
A month after that article ran, the same author in the same publication pointed out that DC had already been experiencing below average temperatures for two weeks, meaning the doomsday article couldn’t’ even foresee 2 weeks ahead. A few days later, the same publication acknowledged weather 1-2 degrees below average that was likely to continue.
Huh.
Then the same Washington Post puts out an article with the title “Exceptionally Cold Weather for May Arrives Tonight with Near Freezing Temperatures and Bitter Wind Chills.” The following day they wrote about Washington, DC hitting its coldest day in more than a decade and Baltimore its coldest day on record saying May had temperatures 25 degrees below average.
What gives? It’s simple: the first article, the scary, scary climate change article, was based on models (but presented as fact). The subsequent “holy crap it’s cold” articles were based on…facts. Which are not as scary, and not as much fun.
Will the world end because of climate change? I don’t know. Will the seas rise and the lakes boil? I don’t know. And you know what, neither does anyone else.
Thanks, Daniel, that was a fun read, what many of us have been saying for decades, but written so to be much more entertaining. And thanks, Charles, for cross posting it here at WUWT.
Stay safe and healthy, all.
Bob
This kind of sloppy thinking is part of the problem. We may not be able to predict next week’s weather, but can say with certainty that the northern hemisphere will be cooler in December than July. While we may not be any good at predicting climate trends, the argument in this post is nonsense.
I don’t think you realize what the argument in this post is! The author is claiming that the predictors of scary futures have nearly a perfect track record of being wrong! You claim that our ability to predict some future events with accuracy makes his argument nonsense, but your argument actually supports the authors argument. We know some future events with accuracy because of experience and a solid understanding of the physics involved. Neither of those things are present with climate change, so your argument does not apply.
We do, however, have a lot of experience dealing with predictors of a dismal future , especially when they are vested in that future. They are uncannily wrong; often diametrically wrong! So why do we keep listening to them, and believing as if they are likely correct? That is the argument the author is making, and it is simply brilliant!
In the words of Donald Rumsfeld (Former US Secretary Of Defense) “There are things we know. There are things we don’t know. There are things we know we don’t know. And there are things we don’t know that we don’t know.” Add all these variables to a complex Climate Change model and you can predict that the future will be either colder or warmer.
I had forgot about Rumsfeld’s “There are things” quote! Pretty much shut down that roomful of “journalists”, he smiled that “Cat that just ate the canary” smile of his and handed off the rostrum to a press secretary. Not quite as good as the new chick silencing the whole room and then giving them a homework assignment for the weekend. THAT rocked!
sdr – Sorry but the argument in your post about the argument in the article is nonsense.
Yes, agreed. ‘sdr’ – ‘sloppy drivel’
sdr – June 2, 2020 at 6:29 am
GEEEEZZZE, …. sdr, ……. the “truths & facts” presented in the above article by Daniel Turner must have really gave your “chain” an extra hard “jerk”, …….. right?
“YUP’, me thinks your ego was severely “bruised” when you realized your long-term science “claims & beliefs” were incorrect.
Beat me to it…The title displays horrible logic (was going to say childish).
This sort of sloppiness is not helpful for getting to the truth.
It paints skeptics in a bad light. It is not good if skeptics remain silent about nonsense skepticism. Climate Alarmists allow any bit of trash science support their positions. Actual scientists should not. I won’t.
You say nonsense? While your comment doesn’t even rise to the level of a sophomoric argument sdr. I am not sure it even warrants middle school “Nuh uh! My dad can beat up your dad” status. Your non-argument condescension is formulated by Big Government tools to be passed around by Big Education fools. They are snarky yet really say nothing of consequence.
Just like we can assure any object when dropped will fall to the ground we know that solar exposure causes seasonal fluctuations, hence warmer in July than December. Flip the script for the southern hemisphere. But to Daniels point we are so completely ignorant of the forces that make up climate/weather we can’t predict conditions for any location 7 days out and can’t be sure what tomorrow will actually bring.
I have observed, for decades now, the “Experts” with computers (Big Tell: nearly all government funded) making wrongful predictions only to pick up today’s newspapers and read that this time, today’s headline, is going to be correct without ever acknowledging or explaining why they have consistently failed in the past. Where is AlGore ex-politician and non scientist to explain what went wrong with his inconvenient BS (required viewing in U.S. Public Schools and consider that when the politicians talk up Common Core) He simple doubled down with a 2nd Documentary shoveling more of the same fertilizer.
“Never mind our past failures, trust us this time.” should be the first sentence in every alarmist communication, article, docudrama and they all should be concluded with “oh we still need you to abandon your freedoms and liberties for higher energy costs and more Government (our benefactors) regulations. We won’t talk about how that will translated into a lower quality of life for a higher cost of living to you. While we know its not true we want you to think we are saving you from yourself”
sdr,
You talk about slopping thinking, and then commit the same sin yourself. Claiming that “the northern hemisphere will be cooler in December than July” is not a prediction, it is closer to a tautology. If you were to tell us exactly how much cooler and state relevant conditions like the average temperature difference or in a specific place, then you will have made a prediction. In that case, the OP’s point would be relevant. All he says is that we can’t make specific predictions about the outcome of complex systems like the stock market or the climate. We can make some very general “predictions” about future states based on well observed and understood cycles, but these types of “predictions” are limited in their usefulness; we can only make very general plans based on them (like buying a winter coat). The more specific a prediction is, the more specific our plans can be, but also the less likely they are to come true.
sdr
We know from empirical data that Winter will be colder than Summer because the climate is cyclical. We also know from empirical data that the atmosphere may have been warming for decades (although, there is some uncertainty about that). However, the crux of the problem is how much warmer the atmosphere will be x years into the future and whether it will rain in a particular place on a given day. Knowing about the seasons is no help in predicting future average precipitation or future average temperatures precisely because the climate is cyclical, with chaotic overtones. Thank you for the example of sloppy thinking.
We have a lot of empirical evidence to back up that prediction. Still, I have been outside with just a T-shirt on in July in Australia (mid winter) and rugged up in front of a heater at Christmas. These models are averaging these large swings in weather to an increase of a few degrees that leads to Thermaggeddon.
Not necessarily, I have recorded years when the longest day has been colder than the previous shortest day.
Bob
Usually in this situation, arguing semantics with an end-of-the-world type, when discussion comes to the climate 100 years from today i state;
“I don’t know. Neither do you. But only one of us is smart enough to admit it”.
Not trying to hijack the thread but I didn’t immediately see any comments to tag on with. In FL we’re getting to the afternoon thunderstorm season aka Willis’ emergent events, which I expect would be very difficult to predict the where and when. The east and west coast sea breezes (also emergent) are primary drivers in the summer (excepting hurricanes). Forecast for both launch attempts was for the breezes to collide somewhere in the middle. Day of the launch radar was showing a line of storms from the west headed toward the cape. To appearances it bounced backwards and headed back to the west to clear up in time for the launch window. I never would have bet on getting the launch off.
What??
That’s absolutely misleading
You can’t predict that air stream will make that exact kind of cloud at that exact city
But general patterns are very clear
Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
No – he’s right. You CAN make general statements about observed long-term trends, while predicting the precise path of rainstorms has a limit of about a week.
Given it takes longer than a week to prepare a space shot with current technology, it is appropriate to prepare and then delay for a while if the weather is temporarily against you. The fact that you can’t predict the weather in a year’s time does not mean that you can’t make general climate statements. This kind of attack on the Climate Change scam is wrong.
Where we should be attacking them is in their predictions. These ignore observational data, and are frankly wrong. When this is pointed out they double down, alter the observational data and make predictions that are even more in error.
Dodgy, as a fellow “geezer” your point is well taken! Amazing that our so-called “leaders” would gladly destroy our energy infrastructure at a time, the upcoming solar minimum, when we will need every bit of fossil fuel that we can muster. And the fear of a little ice age due to solar variability is actually based on the most predictable weather driver – historically observed cycles of the sun and planetary orbits! Also, the most ridiculous reaction of world governments is that they believe that they could substantially reverse climate change effects if they were accurately forecast! What a joke!
At the moment, the best reading of Climate data is that the Earth is undergoing slow swings between warm and cold, driven mainly by oceanic cycles such as the AMO. I don’t know much about the interaction between these and orbital cycles – but then even the people who study them don’t know a lot more!
So a reasonable prediction might be that we had a cold spell in the 1970s, swung to a warm period in the 2000s, and are probably swinging back to a colder period at the moment.
You can identify and existing “trend” – assuming you have reliable data. The problem comes when you think you can predict the future of a chaotic, non-linear system by extrapolating a “trend” arbitrarily into the future.
That the same reason why they did not know 5h before blast off whether they would be able to fly or not. They had the “trends” but were not able to have the certainty to make a go / no-go decision until just before launch.
That is exactly the same problem with variability at all timescales. Pretending it all becomes linear at some point in the future is a fools game.
Interesting that one of the foremost people using solar cycles and historical records to predict future weather is the British astrophysicist Piers Corby – now that surname should ring a bell! It is of course the brother of the former British Labor Party leader, Jeremy, he of the rabid left and Global Warming prophecy, has a brother who actually has qualifications that are applicable who is sure that changes are cyclical and natural. Piers in fact so embarrassed the British Met Bureau in a challenge to make long range forecasts, that they no longer make them. Piers on his laptop comprehensively defeated the meteorologists and programmers with their huge super computer.
What??
So, Miki, stand on your principles and make a bold statement, for all here on WUWT to see and keep in mind: what are the “general patterns” that are very clear to you, and based on those what do you see as the status of the Earth’s weather, extent of polar ice caps, global land and surface temperature, and rate of global sea level change 6 months, one year, and 3 years from now. An answer of “pretty much the same as now” is inadmissible.
Waiting . . .
That’s why the weathermen always talk about the uncertainities of their predictions.
You have models from the one telling about a flood the next days, and the second is making you fear the next draught. But you tell, the patterns are very clear 😀
Change you job, make the weatherman !!
As we saw for the lift-off that couldn’t happen, because of not foreseen weather patterns 😀
I guess you missed the part about the Washington Pravda declaring we would experience a warm spring, only to have to report – again and again – how it actually turned out to be quite cold. That had NOTHING to do with a specific line of storms.
Please try harder or stop trying altogether. Thanks!
Chit Not News ????????CNN
“Oh, stop it with the “climate isn’t weather” rebuttal.” Daniel, I agree. One thing you could add is that both weather and climate models use most of the same GCM models. So if they can’t work a week out for weather, when they extrapolate them out years for climate they are total fiction by that point.
They both use GCMs, but they aren’t the same ones.
Weather models try to predict the movement of warm/cold fronts and individual storms.
Climate models ignore those because they aren’t relevant to climate.
Weather models ignore changes in ocean currents because they change too slowly to matter.
Climate models don’t work unless you can figure out how ocean currents are going to change.
Weather models ignore seasonal changes in plant coverage because they change too slowly to matter.
CLimate models don’t work unless you can figure out how changes in climate impact plants.
Weather and climate models aren’t the same because they don’t look at the same things.
“Climate models don’t work unless you can figure out how ocean currents are going to change.”
Should read
Climate models don’t work unless you GUESS how ocean currents are going to change.
MarkW – You are correct, but your accuracy is not relevant. Weather models fail because of incomplete sampling, less than perfect equations and the unavoidable ballooning errors inherent in iterative computational processes. Still, they are pretty good in the short term because of the improvements in the first two factors. Nothing can ever be done about the third factor.
Climate models are different, but still subject to the same problems. Plus they have the rather extraordinary problem of predicting the future of human progress and development, which no one has ever done successfully. Granted, the first two issues, sampling and equations, are a bit different in the climate models. There is no need to perfectly sample the current climate to run the models. But it is still important to sample all the factors that make the Earth’s climate and then describe them accurately with mathematical equations. We are not even close to doing that, although modelers like to pretend they are by simply ignoring everything they do not understand.
The truth in that last statement is revealed when we start to ask them questions. That is why they proclaimed that the science was settled and the debate (which never happened) was over. They don’t like questions that reveal their profound ignorance. It also becomes obvious that the climate models are not there to predict future climate accurately. They are their to protect and promote the climate industrial complex, and, by extension, the socialist dystopian future that our ‘betters’ are constantly fighting for. But I digress…
The point is that weather and climate models are different, but fail for the same reasons. At least the weather models are good for their stated, short term purpose. The climate models have no usable skill for climate prediction. They are just expensive propaganda.
James
I can’t help but wonder if the presence of geostationary weather satellites and Doppler radar isn’t more important in improving short-term weather predictions than any supposed improvements in weather prediction models.
I thought the UKMO claimed that they were using their day to day weather model to predict the weather ten years ahead. Their chief scientist said so a few years ago. Mind you, they have received some £300 million for new computers since then so perhaps they can get the wrong answer quicker
Careful now. GCM can represent “general circulation model,” in which case you are correct to some degree because there is a GCM component in climate models. In other cases, GCM represents “global climate model,” in which case…that’s a great big no.
Some people like to confuse the situation by not describing what they mean by GCM.
“TURNER: Models Can’t Accurately Predict Next Week’s Weather, So Why Should We Trust Them To Predict Climate Change?”
That’s like saying that since modelers can’t predict climate, therefore no models work.
Other than both of them dealing with the atmosphere, there is no commonality between climate and weather models.
Both near-term and longer-term predictions are limited by chaos, incomplete or insufficient characterization and computationally unwieldy processes.
There are lots of things that climate models have to concern themselves with that aren’t relevant to weather models.
Changes in ocean currents occur way to slowly to matter to weather models, but unless you can understand and predict those changes, the climate models will be useless.
Changes in plant coverage occur way to slowly to matter to weather models, but unless you can understand and predict those changes, the climate models will be useless.
Many things change when the climate changes, climate models have to be able to accurately predict all of them.
“Many things change when the climate changes, climate models have to be able to accurately predict all of them.”
And they don’t; even the ones we know about.
Are you suggesting that since climate models are more complex and trying to model something that we don’t even know very well, that they should be trusted more than weather models? It seems like you are making a better argument for not believing the climate models than Danial Turner did in his article.
Where did I say that either weather or climate models should be trusted.
I’m just pointing out that anyone who claims that climate models are bad because weather models are bad, doesn’t know a thing about models in general.
MarkW, one thing that weather and climate both have in common is that they are chaotic on many scales; and since we currently do not have the mathematical insight* to effectively predict chaotic phenomena, predictions for climate is limited just as predictions on weather is limited.
*(I don’t know — has it been mathematically proven that chaotic phenomena at a given scale is not predictable beyond certain time bounds?)
#1 Rule of modeling: All models are wrong. Some models are useful. The climate models aren’t useful.
It’s important to understand a climate model is an hypothesis. It makes a prediction based on what we think we know. The experiment the proves or disproves the hypothesis (the model) is the actual climate.
It’s easy to conclude the modelers don’t understand how the climate actually works.
Models Can’t Accurately Predict Next Week’s Weather, So Why Should We Trust Them To Predict Climate Change?
Is this what this site has descended to? Recycling shameless, partisan clickbait?
When the alarmists stop recycling their shameless, partisan clickbait, maybe we can stop recycling ours.
The standard format of climate change “journalism” has a headline like this:
Climate Change Making [fill in the blank] Worse
But the body of the article says:
Scientists say that climate models indicate that [fill in the blank] will get worse in the future.
David Middleton wrote: “When the alarmists stop recycling their shameless, partisan clickbait, maybe we can stop recycling ours”.
Interesting, so DM acknowledges that he recycles partisan clickbait?
Only he justifies his actions with the ‘they did it first’ argument. As my old mother used to say: ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’.
It’s called sarcasm.
right over his head
wiff
again
Lol, thats what Trump said, he was wrong too. A ‘splaination that lame procludes sarcasm.
The further back in time you go with WUWT the less partisan, the less strident, the less imbalanced it is. I’m not saying it wasn’t any of those things but now quite a bit is just recycled political opinion – as this particularly trashy example demonstrates. You get a fig-leaf of genuinely interesting sciencey articles put up in good faith (I include some that David posts in that category) but still just a fig-leaf.
If there is a motive to be overtly partisan and not really focussed on the science then admit it so that the colateral damage being done here to real science can be averted. Unless of course that’s the intention, which frankly makes more sense.
What science?
Loydo – do you see all the comments calling out the author for his glaring errors?
You know what happens to comments calling our glaring errors at RealClimate? They are deleted out of hand. CNN closed their comment section on climate because they couldn’t keep up with the deletions. SkS, also deletes. I could go on…
Like most alarmists, Loydo is trained to only see those things that support her argument.
As per his usual, Loydo offers no facts to refute the lede assertion, just recycles his own shameless partisan strawman non-argument.
Anthony and the other moderators don’t view their role as being gatekeepers.
If the science is bad, the readers here are more than capable of shredding anything.
Unlike climate scientists we don’t need to be protected from things we might disagree with.
MarkW
“Unlike climate scientists we don’t need to be protected from things we might disagree with.”
Really? This is coming from MarkW whose go to argument is to accuse those he disagrees with of being “trolls” or “leftists” or “socialists” who are trying to steal his money. Too funny….
Simon, I know that your nickname is Simple, however do you really need to work so hard to earn that name?
Is calling someone a troll the same as trying to have them banned?
The fact that leftists and socialists goal is to steal money from those who have earned it isn’t relevant either.
Regardless, do you have anything to contribute for once, or do you just want to whine about how I’ve been mean to you and hurt your feelings?
I rest my case…..
In the beginning, skeptics made arguments and asked questions. Those arguments were pronounced invalid by authority and the questions were left unanswered with no explanation.
Today, skeptics make arguments and ask questions, but now we get an explanation as to why the arguments are ignored and the questions are unanswered. “We have ignored you before. Why do you keep bringing this up? We have dealt with this in the past by ignoring it. Case close! Do you want us to ignore you with bigger insults this time? Okay.”
Climate models are different than weather models, but they also have many things in common which contain the seeds of their failures. The difference between the two is irrelevant, and the question about trusting the models is completely accurate and relevant. Pointing out their differences has never invalidated the question of trust, no matter how much you would like it to.
Is this what your comments have descended to? Sanctimonious tripe that doesn’t address the points made in the post?
Oh wait. This comment doesn’t represent a descent on your part. You’ve been trudging along on the same low plateau all along.
I will make a prediction, I just can’t guarantee when it will happen; Ice at both poles will melt completely.
How come I can be so confident in predicting this? Someone on this website pointed out to me that we are still in an ice age, reason being that there is still ice at the poles, and that is the definition of an ice age.
Ergo, there have been periods where the poles were ice-free, else there would have been one continuous ice age. Since human carbon dioxide emissions in the past have not been considered to be responsible for this, it should follow that the causes are natural, most likely volcanic activity. We are now seeing a substantial increase in worldwide volcanic activity, so can they accurately predict this in their models? If not, how can they predict climate change?
If the models had skill at accurately predicting the future, then you would see an alignment of plots of past model predictions with the observational data somewhere in the middle of multiple models’ predictions. That is not, what we see however. All but one or two of models run hot. All the error is on the hot side. The models are neither accurate nor precise. As such they are worthless.
there’s no data to feed into the computer games…that says….the weather will get better
From my perspective the models can never be accurate as they do not include the prime driver of climate on this planet which is the connection between excess hemispheric sunspots and the ENSO regions shifting in and out of positive/negative phases.
I can’t predict tomorrow’s temperature accurately, but I am confident in my prediction that it will be colder than the majority of days next February (being in the southern hemisphere). I am even more confident to predict that in the next hundred or so years there will not be an ice cap over Alice Springs in central Australia. Seasonal patterns are easier to predict that than daily patterns. Climate is easier to predict than daily or seasonal weather.
Tom,
But your predictions lack the specificity that would make them particularly useful. I can also predict that the stock market will go up and down, but generally over time it will go up. All that tells me is that if I spread my money out across lots of investments and wait a couple of decades, I’ll probably generate positive returns. But it won’t make me rich overnight. Very specific, accurate predictions have enormous value, but the more specific predictions are, the less accurate they tend to be, especially as the systems involved get more complex.
Tom Foley =>
Baloney! Your “seasonal predictions” are based on observations of a very consistent yearly cycle that is well understood based on the earths orbit, axial tilt and length of day. Weather predictions are typically only accurate for the next day or two and typically fall below 50% for primary weather features (temperature, precipitation, wind speed) 3 to 4 days out. Climate has shown no consistent cycles over millennia even though several significant drivers (solar, AMO, PDO, ENSO) do. Climatologists still have no validated explanation for previous century scale warming and cooling periods. We have no idea what actually caused previous climate changes. Unless and until we do, we have little chance of accurately predicting future ones.
One thing that does appear to be clearly true is that CO2 concentration does not correlate with previous climate change. While “correlation does not prove causation”, lack of correlation does disprove causation.
I’m taking all the words used in this article, tossing them into my homegrown code and producing a predictive model!!!
One small quibble, the weather forecast they had issue with was over the Atlantic and pretty far north from the Cape, otherwise right on. If the models can not accurately predict the weather in 48-72 hour time frame how can it predict what will happen in 50-100 years. Right here in PA we had 5 TV weather reports from 3 different cities totally get our current weather completely wrong.
Climate models don’t work, so how can they possibly model the behavior of airplanes.
Tom Brady is a lousy center fielder, so how could he have won a Super Bowl?
And yet we still perform lots of actual flight tests on those airplanes before putting paying passengers on them – and sometimes we get surprised during those test flights by unexpected behavior. Airplanes are much simpler systems than the climate, so of course it is possible to make more specific, accurate predictions about their behavior, but even that is limited. And although the mechanics of the stock market or a sporting event are simple, the outcomes are almost impossible to predict because of the involvement of irrational human beings.
So, you agree with the idea that because one type of model isn’t perfect (weather models) that therefore all models are crap?
Of course not. And as far as I’m concerned, neither was 2hotel9. I was trying to make the point that not all modeled systems are the same. Apparently I was being too subtle. The more complex the system, the more difficult it is to model them. But systems that are largely the same, like weather and climate, are going to be at roughly the same level of complexity and will likely present the same problems to the modelers.
That said, the saying “All models are wrong; some are useful” is true for all models. In the case of climate models, it might be more appropriate to replace “useful” with “fit for purpose”.
Take the mask off, you aren’t getting enough oxygen.
Just pointing out your logical flaws. Sorry if it offends you.
Feel free to purchase a ticket on a new airplane that was only “tested” with models.
It really amazes me how tiffed people get when you point out the stupid things they believe.
Where did I ever say that we should build planes after only testing with models?
Your meaning is lost. Don’t know what your point is. Suggest you be less obtuse and proofread before posting.
Admit it, you have no idea whether Tom Brady is a lousy centerfielder, or not.
But, while I have you, what portion of the code used to model the behavior of airplanes was written to mollify the activists that paid for it? Thanks in advance!
You can absolutely predict a fiery end of the Earth. All you have to do is wait a few billion years, until then nah. The only question is how many of these dopes will be there to say “I told you so”, my guess we all will have gone the way of the dodo, Though Keith Richards has proved that self embalmment works so anything is possible.
Exactly! More money, time, and effort has been spent on trying to predict the weather than possibly all other models combined. Yet we still can’t get a 2-day forecast that’s 99% accurate.
How about … the sun will rise in the east … summer will follow spring … there will be two solstices and two equinoxes each year. I predict that I can drive to the church and back and survive the trip.
Some things are reliable. Science has found many things that are so reliable they become engineering.
Thank Gaia for a semi-stable, albeit variable, sometimes catastrophic, system.
1) Climate is an average. It is much easier to predict a fuzzy average than a specific weather event, at least to a reasonable amount of time into the future – say 20 to 30 years.
2) Climate change is slow, therefore safer to make predictions on – you will be retired before anyone can prove you wrong. That makes it useful for politics more than any practical use.
3) Weather prediction tries to be more precise, accurate, and is overall more useful.
4) Weather predictions are more cut and dry – they are accurate or they are not and you know within a week.
I really do not have a problem with the intellectual exercise of trying to predict climate trends, I just have a problem with basing policy on untested, unverified, and so far completely wrong climate predictions made through something they keep calling science, but isn’t.
For example, science would not take a wide range of climate models with various built-in assumptions and average them to get “science based”predictions. This is more like something a committee would do when they can’t make a decision. Science would test all the models predictions and keep those that are within some predetermined accuracy – then work to resolve the differences so that better assumptions can go into the new next model.
In science, models are useful for helping you to figure out what it is that you don’t understand.
Anyone who pushes them beyond that is asking to be made a fool of.
Oh, stop it with the “climate isn’t weather” rebuttal. It’s trite and silly.
It is not trite, it is not silly, it is 100% accurate. I can’t tell you if it will rain on this date next year, nobody can . But I can tell you that it will be warmer than 90 days previous and cooler than 90 days later. That’s climate and I can make those types of predictions with near 100% certainty.
Ah, But you cannot accurately predict how next year will be different to this year in temperature! The basic seasonal changes are science, the difference prediction is impossible ans it is not based on science. Simple really.
Sure I can. There are temperature records going back decades. I can find the average for a given location over the course of a year, graph it to see what trends there are , and make a prediction that is highly accurate. Because that is climate, not weather .
Can I predict how much temperature change is natural and how much is human caused? Not a chance. Not enough data. But I have a BETTER chance of getting that right than I do the weather on this day one year from now.
Umm, having a better chance of getting something right is not the same as knowing. I think there’s a pretty good chance you will realize that, if you think about it, but, who knows?
Umm, having a better chance of getting something right is not the same as knowing.
Ummm… faced with an example of how two things are totally different, one being completely unpredictable and one being very predictable, thus demonstrating that climate is NOT in fact weather, someone appears to have missed the point.
it is so easy criticising predictive models BECAUSE the are written by people on a mission.
How about all those gathered here writing a science based mode for the next 20 to 100 years that proves AGW is a fallacy?
Then of course publishing all the data and the “code” used to generate such models.
Why does no one criticise the code used by the warmists and perhaps suggest improvements using science based reasoning?
I’ve seen some stupid arguments before, but gfront has dedicated himself to taking stupidity to new levels.
Unless we can write a model that’s better than your models, we have to accept the output of your models?
Really?
It is not necessary to come up with a better theory in order to poke holes in an existing theory.
Most of us believe it’s a fool’s task.
But perhaps more importantly, somebody needs to pay for the work. The modelers get paid (except college students and post-grads) but I am going to volunteer to spend my free time unravelling somebody else’s spaghetti code?
Hard pass on that.
The modelers need to hire experienced Software Engineers to write their code, manage the source code repository, write Unit Tests, Acceptance Tests, etc.
Of course models cannot accurately predict climate change. If they would they would not be changed all the time and there would not be so many of them around. In economics there is a long tradition of modelling and models are updated regularly and competing models yield different results. They are more of a tool for simulations than anything else. There is by my knowledge not a single model predicting boiling seas and, as the seas have not boiled for at least the past 500 million years I am confident they will not do so for the next 50 million years.
Good rant, I like this one:
Al Gore 20 years ago predicted no Arctic ice, and he got an Oscar for it.
On the flip side, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas.
IPCC’s AR4 [url=https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter8-1.pdf]Chapter 8[/url] The Climate Models and their evaluation paragraph 8.6.2.3 page 631 What Explains the Current Spread in Models’ Climate Sensitivity Estimates?
Says this:
<I?[T]he climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 … with no feedbacks operating, would be [warming of] around 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006).
I haven’t seen anyone that you could believe say that’s not true. The issue is all the feed backs, methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2, dead polar bears, droughts, extreme weather, sea level rise, ocean acidification, extinctions and other bullshit that is heaped on top of it.
If co² is a GHG, whatever that means;
what would feel if you stood at the end of a tunnel filled with co² and someone put an IR emitter at the opposite end. Would get warmer, stay the or feel colder.
Remember, it’s a thought experiment.
Stephen, “CO2 is a GHG” just means it can absorb and emit IR photons, unlike O2 and N2 which are unaffected by IR photons, in other words, transparent.
So, assuming you were at the far end of the tunnel when the IR emitter was turned “on”….Some of the IR would get through to you, although you have not stated the length of the tunnel, concentration of CO2, frequency of IR, nor humidity in the tunnel, which would allow calculation of how much. The IR getting through would make you warmer. The CO2 would also absorb IR and warm up, also eventually warming you up. Of course, if the IR source is a candle, you aren’t going to feel diddly squat. If the IR source is the same temperature as the walls of the cave, you won’t feel warmer either. If the source is the glowing red temperature of volcanic lava, you should be toasty.
Steve,
Blankets are a greenhouse solid. They don’t warm back the source of their radiation. Why would gases?
http://phzoe.com/2020/04/08/do-blankets-warm-you/
By being an intermediate temperature between the sleeper and the cold walls of the bedroom, of course blankets emit photons back to the sleeper, more so than the cold walls and ceiling do. This allows the sleeper to emit fewer photons and stay warm. Although actually for a blanket, the main warming effect is due to hindering of convection which is more than an order of magnitude higher heat transfer at these low temperature differences.
Climate change is completely unpredicatable because we don’t have have a million deep boreholes equiped with sensors ready to tell us what’s coming out of the Earth.
Geothermal change is the primary cause of surface and atmospheric change, and yet we know so little about it.
http://phzoe.com/2020/03/11/40-years-of-climate-change/
Climate “scientists” made it worse by attributing geothermal to GHGs.
We don’t need to know what’s “coming out of the earth”. The amount of energy coming out of the earth is so far below rounding error that it can be safely ignored.
Mark – It’s pointless arguing with someone like Zoe who doesn’t even understand conservation of energy at the most basic level. She seriously believes that an upward geothermal flux of less than 0.1 W/m2 can BY ITSELF sustain several hundred W/m2 upward radiative flux from the surface – STEADY STATE!
She justifies this argument by asserting that the two are “different kinds” of power fluxes. Inspired by her logic, I am trying to get thousands of times more thermal power out of my furnace than is supplied by the natural gas input to it, which should be possible because they are “different kinds” of power fluxes.
Zoe is Exhibit A of why many universities use introductory thermodynamics as a “weed out” course – there are people who just cannot get these concepts.
Learn some science:
http://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/
http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/
Zoe – If you had ever taken an actual thermodynamics course, then very early in the course you would have learned how to perform energy balance calculations on a “control volume”. “Energy balance” is just the method for solving 1st Law conservation, and because the law is universal, it must work on any control volume defined.
So let’s define our control volume as a horizontal (“XY”) 1-meter by 1-meter piece of the surface, 1 centimeter thick. You say that it receives from the bottom an upward (+Z) geothermal conductive flux of about 0.09 watts, which is reasonable. You also say that the top surface is radiating upwards(+Z) about 340 watts (at 5C). Then you effectively claim that the geothermal input BY ITSELF is enough to maintain this temperature and this radiative output.
So let’s look at the 1st Law energy balance equation for this control volume in YOUR scenario in differential form:
dE/dt (CV) = Sum(PowerInputs) – Sum(PowerOutputs)
dE/dt = 0.09 – 340 = -339.91 Watts
(Any net transfers out the side are negligible.)
So this control volume for a square meter of the surface is horribly out of balance and its temperature would drop rapidly with just this input and output.
This is the kind of problem you would get in about the 2nd week of an introductory thermo class, and you get it completely wrong! No matter how you wave your hands around shrieking “different kinds” of fluxes, and “dimensional analysis”, you cannot get around the gross violation of the 1st Law in your analysis. End of story.
You claim in your post: “Geothermal provides a tremendous amount of energy, even more than the sun”. Again, you are simply demonstrating that you do not understand the very basic concept of energy.
The units of energy are Joules. The units of rate of transfer of energy (power) are Watts. We have good measurements of the power from the sun and from geothermal. The sun provides hundreds of Watts on average to our surface control volume, geotthermal less than one-tenth of a Watt. So contrary to your assertion, the sun provides THOUSANDS OF TIMES more energy to the surface than geothermal does.
You claim that we should look at the “temperature it delivers to the surface”. This is probably the root of your confusion. You are confusing the “potential” variable with the “flow” variable. This is equivalent to confusing pressure and mass flow in a fluid system, or voltage and current in an electrical system.
Your claim about what geothermal can do to this surface layer is equivalent to claiming you can have 0.09 kg/sec of water flowing through a garden hose and 340 kg/sec coming out the spray nozzle because those are different kinds of fluxes and because the water is delivered to the end of the hose at high pressure.
You simply have NO idea what you are talking about. And I say this as someone who has both taught engineering at the university level and has designed thermal systems for decades (and I would lose my job if they didn’t work).
Your ideological mathematics seems correct to you.
I’m not concerned with ideology, only actual physics.
I show two experiments at the bottom of this arricle that refute your ideology:
http://phzoe.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/
Even children know that the top of a frying pan will get to the same temperature as the bottom, i.e. CHF = ZERO, and CSR will be very high.
You should be at least as smart as a child, but I guess that is too much to ask for.
Zoe: Your so-called “experiments” demonstrate nothing. The video of an FLIR view of a frying pan just shows that its top side is hot, that’s all. The fact that you consider that an actual argument is very telling.
Yes, children understand that the top side of a frying pan is hot and they shouldn’t touch it. But if it is truly as hot as the bottom side and your “CHF” is zero, how the heck do I cook my eggs each morning?
Let’s look at a simple example. We have a stove burner putting out 1kW (1000W) of thermal energy. We have a steel frying pan with material thermal conductivity of 50 W/m/K. The pan has a cross-sectional area of 0.01 m^2 (10cm x 10cm) and a thickness of 5mm (0.005m).
So, applying the first equation everyone learns in their first heat transfer course:
1000 W = 50 W/m/K * 0.01 m^2 * DeltaT (K) / 0.005 m
Solving, we get DeltaT = 10K to conduct 1kW through the pan.
It’s not a lot, and the top of the pan is still very hot (as any child knows), but it is NOT zero, and the conductive heat flux is non-zero, so my eggs get cooked.
For decades now, my professional team and I have designed and tested metal heat sinks to keep our electronics from overheating. We use this type of equation (and fancier versions) to design them, and then we carefully test them in temperature chambers with multiple thermocouples.
And we always find that the actual experimental results match our analysis quite closely, and that there is a temperature gradient decreasing from the heat source to the other end. What about that???
I have done decades of “actual physics” on this topic. I doubt you have done ANY.
Translation: I can refute your logic, but since it doesn’t agree with my fantasies, it must be wrong.
Ed,
In my 1st video at 1:53 when the pan is removed from the stove you can take a screenshot and compare the pixel colors of top of the pan and top of the stove. I did, and they are the exact SAME. No it’s not a saturated white (#FFFFFF). The FLIR camera gets saturated at 1200C, which the pan is not.
You’re a liar, the top and bottom of the pan are equal, and CHF = 0.
You keep claiming that a textbook supports you, and yet you won’t tell me the few pages that shows what you claim.
I got a 7/7 on the Physics IB exam and aced 3 physics uni courses and 2 astronomy courses on top of being a certified Quant professionally.
No textbook supports you. I know that you’re lying.
Zoe: You show you are incapable of performing the most basic thermal analysis, even in a qualitative sense. So you keep going completely off the rails before you even get started on any quantitative step.
In the frying pan example, anyone with just common sense would realize that the bottom of the pan is receiving thermal energy (“being heated”) overwhelmingly directly from the flame, and not from the stove frame. Once again, I mistakenly overestimated your abilities.
So looking at the frame’s IR emissions to infer the temperature of the bottom of the pan’s is useless. In addition, what do you know about the frame’s radiative emissivity versus the pan’s? With metals, you cannot make an assumption of the emissivity as you often can with non-metals.
So I stand by my claim that your so-called experiment demonstrates nothing.
You say: “No textbook supports you.” Downthread, I provided you with a key excerpt from a typical textbook. I have seen many others that say the same thing. So it is more accurate to say that every textbook supports me.
“flame vs frame”
Hilarious nonsense.
Who ever said that the frame alone is supposed to be the input?
The flame and frame together make direct physical contact, the flame more so.
It’s not as if the flame can PHYSICALLY go through the pan to get to the other side. Oh no, it still conductively heats the top through the bottom. And top amd bottom reach same temperature.
Your ideological mathematics predicts a steep temperature gradient through the pan, and a much lower temperature emerging on the other side. MUCH LOWER. None of this nonsense is observed.
Get back to reality.
Zoe: You provided zero evidence for your assertion that the bottom surface of the pan is the same temperature as the top surface because YOU DID NOT TAKE ANY MEASUREMENT of the bottom surface of the pan.
You say: “Your ideological mathematics predicts a steep temperature gradient through the pan, and a much lower temperature emerging on the other side. MUCH LOWER. None of this nonsense is observed.”
No, if you actually read my scientifically based mathematical analysis that I presented just above, you would see that I predicted only a few K drop through the pan. (Do you even have basic reading comprehension?) My predicted difference means that it could easily be smaller than the resolution of the FLIR.
You claim that the “conducted heat flux” through the pan goes to zero. Then you need to explain how in the video YOU present shows the burger getting hot by conductive heat flux from the top surface of the pan.
Ed,
“You provided zero evidence for your assertion that the bottom surface of the pan is the same temperature as the top surface because YOU DID NOT TAKE ANY MEASUREMENT of the bottom surface of the pan.”
Use some logic. The bottom can’t be smaller than the top, and it can’t be greater than the stove.
There’s only one conclusion: It’s the same as the stove.
“Then you need to explain how in the video YOU present shows the burger getting hot by conductive heat flux from the top surface of the pan.”
Idiot, it’s not getting hot from the conductive heat flux, but from the stove. The stove is giving it KINETIC ENERGY.
The heat flux is a DIFFERENTIAL measure of kinetic energies at two diff locations. Thot of the stove is doing the cooking and sustaining this whole thermodynamic experiment.
“My predicted difference means that it could easily be smaller than the resolution of the FLIR.”
That’s a lie. The camera has 1024 different colors for ~1800 degree range. That’s ~1.76 degrees per color. That’s a maximum value. The color scheme is adjusted to the range of what it’s looking at. This experiment does not have more than a 400C range at best, and so you get 0.4 K/color.
Your calculation says 10 degrees, that’s easily 25 color difference. There is ZERO difference.
Secondly, your math doesn’t take into account that the pan’s surface area is also much greater than the stove, parhaps 3 times as great. You also didn’t take into account the air conduction and convection powered by the pan to the atmosphere. All these things reduce the top T even further, and yet the results show top T = bottom T.
Nowhere does “steady state” claim that you must conserve heat flow in and out. In fact, in your world, thermal equilibrium is not possible. No, really, not possible. Show where your equations could ever have any objects come to thermal equilibrium.
You are a crank that keeps cranking.
You have no textbook evidence. All you have is your misinterpratations of textbooks.
Zoe: Every time you post, you simply reveal that your confusion is deeper than I ever imagined.
You say, “[the burger is] not getting hot from the conductive heat flux, but from the stove. The stove is giving it KINETIC ENERGY.”
As the kids would say, OH…MY…GOD! WTF do you think conduction is???
On the very first day of an introductory heat transfer class, you would learn that there are only three modes of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation. That’s it! You seem to have missed that. So you are revealing that you have never even studied heat transfer at all. (You really need to be careful about flinging around insults when you are so, so wrong.)
If you were able to continue in the class after that awful error, you would learn that the very process of conduction comes from molecules with higher kinetic energy (so higher temperature) colliding with molecules of lower kinetic energy (so lower temperature), and transferring some of their kinetic energy to those molecules, thereby increasing their temperature.
Metaphorically, we call this process heat flux from hot to cold, even though there is nothing physically flowing. Anyone with the most basic understanding knows this.
You are completely oblivious to all of this.
Then you say, “Nowhere does ‘steady state’ claim that you must conserve heat flow in and out.”
What part of ‘Q + W = DeltaE’ don’t you understand??? In our example, W = 0 (which you finally got…) and DeltaE is 0 in the steady state. This means that Q — all of the heat flows in and out — must sum to 0. This is not difficult, but you cannot grasp it.
You obviously don’t understand the difference between a dynamic steady state condition (with constant non-zero heat transfers) and static thermodynamic equilibrium (with zero heat transfers). Rookie mistake!
On your video, with the main heat transfer path being from the flame to the bottom of the pan, you still have nothing to back up your claim that its temperature is the same as the top and not slightly hotter. All you have is a feeling that it should be the same as the stove frame. I would NEVER accept this type of analysis from one of my thermal test engineers!
So let’s review:
You have no idea what to do with the very first equation encountered in an intro thermodynamics class (conservation of energy).
You have no clue to the very first concept encountered in an intro heat transfer class (only three modes of heat transfer).
You don’t understand at all the nature of the first (and simplest) mode of heat transfer that everyone is taught: conduction.
You don’t understand at all the nature of radiative heat transfer (i.e. “radiative exchange”), even though it is in every engineering textbook on the subject.
In all my years of university teaching, I have NEVER come across a student remotely as confused as you are.
When are you going to cite an actual textbook as opposed to claiming your ideology is textbook knowledge???
I am still waiting …
Steady state doesn’t mean what you think it does. You can’t find one citation that shows CSR = CHF.
You’re a poser. I hope people don’t take you seriously.
Zoe – Months ago, I gave you a link to MIT’s introductory engineers heat transfer textbook, which can be found on-line here:
https://ahtt.mit.edu/
It backs up what I say completely. You dismissed it as completely wrong. So you claim to believe that MIT is teaching its engineers completely wrong thermodynamics and heat transfer (and has been for decades, because this is fundamentally what I was taught there many years ago).
And yet somehow they manage to design successful thermal systems. I wonder how that could be? How many thermal systems have you designed?
Just pulling an old text I have around off the shelf, “Engineering Thermodynamics” by Reynolds and Perkins, it backs up my claims about energy balance calculations COMPLETELY.
You are so far out of your depth here, it’s no longer funny.
Ed,
It’s extremely rude to send people on a wild goose chase.
Find the exact pages of a textbook that support you.
You can not, and so you resort to claiming something in it that doesn’t exist.
Your biggest mistake is thinking that the geothermal heat flux value is an INPUT. It’s not an input.
Did you even look at my two linked videos showing you are wrong?
Quit fronting, poser.
Wow, you really just don’t change, do you? You can very likely get that text in audio form, so you can learn without expending any effort. Seems right up your ally. I prefer to read, spoken word is just so, lazy.
Zoe: You acccused me wrongly (and therefore rudely) of never backing up my assertions with reference to a textbook. I pointed out that months ago I had cited and linked for you the Lienhard & Lienhard MIT textbook. When I cited it, I referred to specific pages and sections, specifically then on the topic of “radiative exchange”.
You summarily (and so rudely) dismissed these out of hand, without any serious consideration that maybe, just maybe, MIT is teaching their engineering students properly verified concepts.
So there really was no point in citing anything specific in that text — but you really would do well to spend a few months learning from that text.
If you cannot understand that the upward geothermal heat flux is an energy INPUT to the surface layer, just as much as the water flowing from your faucet is a mass INPUT to your sink, then you are so far being able to grapple with even basic issues in play that you are really beyond hope.
Zoe: Here’s an excerpt from the Reynolds and Perkins Engineering Thermodynamics text I cited. It’s from the first chapter past the intro: Energy and the First Law.
Section 2-10 Energy Balance for a Control Mass
We are now able to express the conservation-of-energy notion analytically for an important special kind of system, a control mass. A control mass is a system of specified matter. As our previous discussion indicates, we can change the energy of a control mass by transfer of energy either as heat or as work, and these are the only ways….
The total energy input to the control mass must account precisely for the increase in the control-mass energy; the algebraic statement of this accounting is called the energy balance… The energy balance is
W + Q = DeltaE
Here W and Q represent the amounts of energy transfer TO the control mass as work and heat, respectively, and DeltaE is the increase in the energy of the control mass.
***********************
So I simply defined the control mass as a 1 m^2 surface layer, 1 cm thick, with your geothermal heat flux from below and your radiative output from above. Using the energy balance equation over an infinitesimal time period so we are talking about power flows, we get
Geothermal conductive heat flux = +0.09 Watts (positive, as an input)
Surface radiative heat flux = -340 Watts (negative, as an output)
Work = 0 (no work done in this example)
So dE/dt = 0.09 – 340 = -339.91 Watts
But you claim these fluxes by themselves could yield steady-state conditions (dE/dt = 0).
Not even close!
Ed,
You’re a pathological liar.
While you did link me to a section on “radiative exchange”,
you never linked to the thing you asserted: CSR = CHF.
You are a filthy liar when you claim that you can set radiation to conductive heat flux to find a “steady state” solution.
“So dE/dt = 0.09 – 340 = -339.91 Watts”
This equation shows you have no idea what you’re talking about. Why are you using 1st LoT and claiming geothermal heat flux is work?
This equation makes absolutely no sense.
You’re being as silly as possible.
Geothetmal heat flux is not an INPUT, the input is Thot. OMG, you are pathetic.
2hotel9,
“Wow, you really just don’t change, do you?”
My critics don’t change. They claim textbooks support them, but they won’t provide the pages showing where geothetmal heat flux is equated with cold side radiation to figure out Tcold.
What they do is superficially link something related to the top at hand and then pretend they proved their case.
I show EMPIRICAL evidence of a frying pan getting to a CHF of ZERO, while CSR is gets high.
I actually show two such videos.
Who has better evidence?
Zoe: You are utterly incapable of following the simplest of arguments here. I went to the trouble of providing you with the core section of a representative textbook explaining how to apply 1st Law conservation of energy.
The fact that I had to do this for you BY ITSELF shows that you have no understanding of the subject at all. If you had EVER studied thermodynamics in even the most cursory way, you would already have been familiar with this. As I keep saying, this is the FIRST thing any starting student learns.
But as I should have realized, this simple concept would remain beyond your abilities to comprehend. I present you with an explicit textbook excerpt as you demand, and once again you dismiss it out of hand.
You ask “Why are you using 1st LoT and claiming geothermal heat flux is work?”
I did no such thing. What part of “Work = 0 (no work done in this example” don’t you understand??
You say, “This equation make absolutely no sense.” That means that you believe EVERY thermodynamics textbook is nonsensical, because they ALL include some form of “this equation”.
You say, “Geothermal heat flux is not an INPUT, the input is Thot.”
Again, you demonstrate that you don’t have the most rudimentary understanding of the most basic concepts. The 1st LoT concerns conservation of ENERGY, so you have to keep track of the ENERGY inputs and outputs, exactly as the excerpt I gave you demonstrates.
So it’s your turn now, Zoe. Find me a single textbook that supports your method of analysis, using the 1st LoT with temperature inputs and outputs. I won’t hold my breath…
So you admit that no textbook shows your equation.
How hard is it for a textbook to show exactly your case of equating conductive heat flux to outside radiation?
You can’t find one instance. Otherwise you’d show me the page or the equation number.
You only THINK you are doing it correctly. You have no support.
Zoe: You say “So you admit that no textbook shows your equation.”
Not at all. I now realize that a two-step argument is difficult for you to follow, so I will have to break it down into individual steps for you.
Step 1: Find a generally applicable (and universally recognized) equation. I did this with:
Q + W = DeltaE
This relationship is in every thermodynamics textbook I have ever seen. It has been the core of thermodynamic analysis for about 200 years now.
Step 2: Apply this equation to a specific case. I did this by defining a surface layer control mass with just conductive heat flux from below of 0.09W and a radiative heat flux to above of 340W. No work, no other fluxes. So to solve for this VERY simple case:
DeltaE = 0.09 – 340 + 0 = -331.09
Your assertion is that DeltaE = 0 is shown to be completely wrong.
You claim to have studied physics. One of the first equations you would have encountered is the general relationship: f = ma.
Your job as a student was to apply this general equation to a whole variety of specific cases. The textbook would not have shown every possible individual case.
Your arguments are increasingly reeking of desperation.
There is no science on your site.
Heck, even the math is flawed.
yet point out about using this site to drive traffic to her (I assume going off name) site and comment gets deleted.
oh well, their call not mine. I noticed the issues raised the point, all I can do.
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.
In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
My podcast:
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
James McGinn / Genius
President, Solving Tornadoes
Very interesting, and that makes sense to me after observing daily changes from mid to upper levels of the atmosphere over the last 3 years.
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.
In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Genius
President, Solving Tornadoes
Hurricanes aren’t caused by warm water?
I guess that explains why hurricanes are only found over warm water.
If wind shear causes hurricanes, why is it that in the real world, wind shear prevents hurricanes from forming.
Great question. However, you are missing my point. I agree that warm waters and the moist air they create are a causal factor in storms/hurricanes. However, the role of water in storms has been misunderstood. Water is not the source of the energy of storms. It is a source of the structure, as manifested in vortices. Water’s role in storms is a result of its surface tension, which is maximized on moist/dry wind shear boundaries to produce the structural component viewable as the sheath of a vortice (and/or tornadoe).
The jet stream is the source of the low pressure energy of storms. Vortices are the mechanism that delivers it. And vortices are structural as a consequence of the H2O-based plasma that spins up on wind shear boundaries.
Vortices are essentially tubes of wind shear (wind shear itself being instrumental as the source of the plasma that allows the tube be a tube). So, there is no shortage of wind shear in a hurricanes since there is no shortage of vortices. However, the wind shear will tend to be at higher altitude due to the fact that vortices interact with each other–literally using each other as the basis of leverage–at high altitude. This will result in a lack of wind shear at lower altitudes.
Under stagnate conditions in the Gulf of Mexico air laden with micro and nanodroplets of H2O gets really high. When multiple vortices approaching from different directions from the tropopause target the same body of moisture laden air a hurricane can form. Consequently, only when the jet stream flows far north of the GoM is it possible to form hurricanes because there will not be as much stagnation when the jet stream is close to the GoM.
As I stated above, water in moist air is not the source of the energy of storms. This is a horrible misconception. It is, however, the source of the structure that focuses the energy of storms. This is the reason people make the mistake of assuming that water (ie buoyancy/latent heat) as the source of the energy of storms.
Much of Science Involves Models That Have Been Dumbed-Down to Pander to the Public
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Much-of-Science-Involves-Models-That-Have-Been-Dumbed-Down-to-Pander-to-the-Public-e9c1vd
James McGinn / Genius
” I agree that warm waters and the moist air they create are a causal factor in storms/hurricanes. However, the role of water in storms has been misunderstood. Water is not the source of the energy of storms. It is a source of the structure” It is both, they are not mutually exclusive one from the other. As the warm water creates the humid air above it winds put the whole “structure” in motion. Without the heat it never becomes a structure. I mean come on, how many hurricanes form above 50 degree water?
JMcG:
Water is not the source of the energy of storms. It is a source of the structure”
2hotel9:
It is both,
JMcG:
Both? How so? Please explain?
2hotel9:
they are not mutually exclusive one from the other.
JMcG:
Not possible. I can explain how structural properties emerge under wind shear conditions. Nobody (yourself included) can explain how H2O provides the energy of storms because it is a complete BS notion. It’s science fiction.
2hotel9:
As the warm water creates the humid air above it winds put the whole “structure” in motion.
JMcG:
Winds? What happened to your assertion that water provides the energy? (What and where is the mechanism thereof?)
2hotel9:
Without the heat it never becomes a structure.
JMcG:
Meaningless, vague, convoluted. You are dodging the fact that you never explained your assertion that water provides energy. I suggest that you make the effort to get the fundamentals right/clear first before you go speculating and making all encompassing statements.
2hotel9:
I mean come on, how many hurricanes form above 50 degree water?
JMcG:
Relevance?
James McGinn / Genius
Ask Any Meteorologist
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Ask-Any-Meteorologist-ebuh5q
Thanks for the link! Without the energy of the warming water a hurricane is very unlikely to form. And there it is. What people want to know is where and when a hurricane is going to strike land, how it formed is rather esoteric to people who face property damage and possible injury/death from an oncoming storm. Modeling which can accurately predict landfalls at least 48 hrs out or more is what most people would be interested in hearing about. Come up with it and a man could make a pile of honest money. Help out fellow man and what not.
2hotel9:
Thanks for the link! Without the energy of the warming water a hurricane is very unlikely to form.
James McGinn:
I agree. However, the misconception that has been incorporated into the current paradigm of storms is that the uplift and strong, gusty winds of the actual storm/hurricane is caused by the energy of warming water. This is wrong. This is the mistake. Actually, the source of the energy that powers the uplift and strong, gusty winds of storms/hurricanes is the jet stream and vortices are the structural components that deliver this energy, sometimes spanning hundred or even thousands of miles from source to point of delivery at the location of the storm/hurricane. The role of water in storms is not as the source of the energy that powers the storm but as the source of the structure (due to the surface tension properties of H2O being maximized on wind shear boundaries) that delivers the energy to the location of the storm.
2hotel9:
And there it is. What people want to know is where and when a hurricane is going to strike land, how it formed is rather esoteric to people who face property damage and possible injury/death from an oncoming storm.
James McGinn:
My priority is to get the theory right. Through the correct understanding of what causes storms the Achille’s heel of hurricanes/storms is revealed: plumbing. By way of throwing a rag into the plumbing, clogging some of its pipes, we can steer a hurricane back out into the Gulf of Mexico. (I am currently working on designs for the ‘rag’.)
Storm theory is the marketing arm of meteorology. It is agenda driven. It is dedicated to two things: 1) convincing the public that it understands the physics of storms; and 2) alienating anybody and anything that will reveal that it does not really understand the physics of storms.
Meteorologists don’t do experiments and they don’t debate theory. Maintaining the pretense that they understand what they don’t is the main focus of their efforts. As such, and as is so often the case in science, the biggest obstacle to progress is political.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=210#p122351
In the 1950s they considered ways to potentially stop or steer a hurricane . . .
I believe hurricanes can be steered and even stopped. And the way to do so involves attacking them where they are most vulnerable, at the boundary layer in the tropopause that is the raw material for the vortices that deliver the energy of storms.
James McGinn / Genius
Wish you had started with this,”I believe hurricanes can be steered and even stopped.”, would have saved a bit of time. Have a nice weekend.
2hotel9:
Wish you had started with this,”I believe hurricanes can be steered and even stopped.”, would have saved a bit of time. Have a nice weekend.
JMcG:
Be patient. The delusion that you understand what you don’t will slowly wane. And then learning can begin.
James McGinn / Genius
Without warm water, there is no energy. If all it took was wind shear, then you would be having hurricanes all over the world, not just those places with lots of warm water.
The low pressure systems come from rising air caused by convection.
MarkW:
Without warm water, there is no energy.
James McGinn:
The energy of storms and of all atmospheric flow is differential pressure. Not only does H2O does not provide any energy but as it rises in the atmosphere and smaller droplets combine into larger droplets, its heat capacity increases. This causes cooling–absorption of energy. It is the surface tension properties of water that are maximized on wind shear boundaries that is the basis of the structural components of the atmospher–vortices–that concentrate the energy/flow.
MarkW:
If all it took was wind shear, then you would be having hurricanes all over the world, not just those places with lots of warm water.
James McGinn:
There’s a lot more to it than just wind shear.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p125466
I discovered the empirical shortcomings of meteorology after I discovered them in climatology. My reasoning was very simple. Knowing that the origins of climatology are in meteorology, I reasoned that if AGW is as bad as it appears then meteorology must also have skeletons in its closet. So I did something that nobody has done before, I looked at the convection model of storm theory with scrutiny. I found numerous fatal flaws and I found that meteorologists have long ago established a tradition of ignoring these fatal flaws.
My point is that you/we cannot defeat a conversational science based on empiricism because conversational sciences are based on allegories that appeal to the base sensations of the public. The only way to defeat a conversational science is to reveal it as such to the public. And the best way to reveal it to the public is to start with meteorology since this is the spring from which it sprang (or is it sprung?). The conversational tradition is the problem and its roots are in meteorology, not climatology.
The low pressure systems come from rising air caused by convection.
Interesting comments, as always (well, maybe not always–that would be a possibly inaccurate generalization–but commonly).
But here’s a question: If everyone is agreed that we can’t predict weather, and all are agreed that climate is the average of weather–is it logical to maintain that we can predict climate? If we can’t predict weather, can we still claim the ability to predict its average?
The analogy to an orebody would be for me to say that although I can’t predict the assays of any samples that I’m going to drill day after tomorrow, I can still predict what the grade and size of the orebody is going to be. So far, the only way to make that happen is the way de Guzman and Bre-X did it.
I wonder if Climate Science is generating a Busang.
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-bre-x-gold-scandal-1439098
The fact that we can’t predict climate has nothing to do with the fact that long range prediction of weather isn’t possible.
Two completely different problems with two completely different failure modes.
The historical data, and long term temp studies afford some basis for forming rudimentary future outcomes, imo. Much of the above data is of high quality, and shows that nature repeats itself to some degree as it moves between warm and cool trends. So that gives some level of predictability.
I really don’t have time for this.
Scientists say I have to go out and buy two more pairs of shoes.
Seems I “must maintain 6 feet”
If you have a house with a front yard and a back yard you can just mow them once a week then you don’t have to buy any more shoes.
Two yards equals six feet.
In the first “Climate Change – The facts” book chapter 12 by Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong there’s an expert analysis about ‘forecasting’ and how it should be done. The corrupt IPCC follows only 17 of the 89 relevant principles of forecasting. The Golden Rule requires forecasters to be conservative . The corrupt IPCC’s performance in this area as in others is shameful.
All climate models are based on numerically integrating partial differential equations for very long periods of physical time. For those who believe these models are valid, usefully predictive and accurate, please list for me these differential equations along with the applicable boundary and initial conditions. Then prove that these equations have valid, unique physical solutions for the boundary/initial conditions employed over the time period of integration. Also note that the boundary conditions and all physicals submodels (including thermodynamic source/sink terms) are functions of time, so please show those formulations as well. Thanks!
Well, there is a thing which you can call global climate.
We are currently in an icehouse climate. You could call it an Ice Age.
I like to call it icebox climate or the Ice Age.
An Icehouse climate has a cold ocean and has polar ice caps.
A cold ocean is a ocean with an average temperature of between 1 to 5 C.
Our ocean currently has average temperature of about 3.5 C.
Next, there is some pseudo science and related what is called the greenhouse effect theory.
One thing you say about greenhouse effect theory is there is no author.
Most theories have authors. The idea or myth of greenhouse effect theory was developed by a
committee and as all ideas of committees it is idiotic.
The group of idiots explain Earth is 33 K warmer than what model would predict, and only reason
they can imagine why Earth is 33 K warmer is due to greenhouse gases.
And guess that water vapor causes a lot of this 33 K of warming but increase or decrease of water vapor follows rather than causes, and greenhouse gases such as CO2 or methane force increase in temperature.
And ways it is nonsense written by people who are uneducated.
But one say the ‘theory” is supported by the planet Venus, which has huge atmosphere of mostly CO2.
It’s not really supported by Venus, but idiots think it is.
The science is that we are in an Ice Age. And in our Ice age we have periods called interglacial periods and glacial periods. And scientists wondered what cause these glacial periods and some thought the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere caused cooling.
What is true is that during Ice Ages there does tend to be low levels of CO2.
Now this religion calls people, fathers of things. And the father of greenhouse effect is John Tyndall and father of greenhouse effect theory is Svante Arrhenius. Arrhenius predicted that industrial revolution would cause more CO2 to be in atmosphere, and the added CO2 would cause a significant amount warming. He regarded as another benefit of the industrial revolution. So he thought cause about 5 C of warming within relatively short time period, and he was wrong. And he thought the answer of what caused glacial and interglacial periods was changes in global levels of CO2. And was wrong about that.
As is known, now, what is “related” to glacial and interglacial period is what is called Milankovitch cycles:
Wiki:
“There is strong evidence that the Milankovitch cycles affect the occurrence of glacial and interglacial periods within an ice age. The present ice age is the most studied and best understood, particularly the last 400,000 years, since this is the period covered by ice cores that record atmospheric composition and proxies for temperature and ice volume.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
To keep it short, what predictive of global climate is the temperature of the ocean, and since our ocean is cold, we will continue to be in an Ice Age.
This is simply known.
Some think the elevated CO2 level that we have or could have in the future, will delay the eventual return to glacial period. Some claim it could delay it by 50,000 years.
Not say anything about such claims, other than it’s known we in Ice Age.
Or said differently only people clueless would say Earth is going to become too hot.
So the clueless like AOC probably don’t even think it could become too hot, but they might say it- because they are lying. Or AOC wants political power, and want promote idea that action is needed to prevent “climate change”.
Anyhow, the general idea of global warming is not about becoming too hot.
If you were worried about it becoming too hot, you might worry about Urban Heat island effects.
You could imagine UHI effect are caused by CO2, but you wrong.
Though water vapor can factor in UHI effects- but not radiant effect. And UHI effects are not global effect, they local effect. And mostly about the poorly designed build up of infrastructure of cities. So, politicians of cities could do something about UHI effects but they don’t seem to have much concern about it.
UHI effects are a long known problem related to how measure air temperature. Or if measure air temperature in asphalt parking lot, the air temperature can be higher- due to UHI type effects. Or trying to measure a city’s air temperature, you don’t measure it asphalt parking lot, because you measuring the temperature in an asphalt parking lot, rather an average temperature of a city.
If one wanted to measure temperature in asphalt parking lots, or say in cars with their windows rolled up, that might useful to know, but they aren’t the city’s or a region’s average temperature.
There is a reason why climate models work longer into the future than weather models do. Both are analogies to predicting what will happen with the output switching transistors of a Class D amplifier. The analog of a climate model is predicting the duty cycles of the switching transistors as a function of input signal and component values. The analog of a weather model is predicting a microsecond-by-microsecond schedule of their states.
The main problem with climate models is groupthink of ignoring multidecadal oscillations. The CMIP models are largely tuned to hindcast the 30 years before their hindcast-to-forecast transitions. With the CMIP5 ones, they’re largely tuned to hindcast 1975-2005. And they were tuned without consideration of multidecadal oscillations, which were upswinging and responsible for about .2 degree C of the warming from 1975 to 2005. So these models were tuned to have positive feedbacks to warming from increased GHGs accounting for about .2 degree C more warming than was actually caused by these positive feedbacks. As a result, they’re predicted more warming to have since occurred than actually happened, and they’re predicting more future warming than is going to occur.
My department. Our department. The one of many industries dealing with weather first hand.
Good thing weather forecasts have certainly somehow improved their accuracy, admitted without fight.
However, as those perpetually grumpy steam-gauges training captains never failed to thunder, we have very precise knowledge of how weather kills, the only unknown being when and where.
Followed by a well illustrated tirade on the utility of bulletins as diaper-liners when Zeus says “And now, hold my beer”.
And face it, that’s about all we know on how unpredictable weather is. Now, tell me how based on the same laws of physics that make weather, climate predictions could eventually work for events centuries ahead in time ?
Greetings
Can someone refer me to the best articles that destroy the 97% of scientists agree about man made climate change myth.
Thanks
97% of scientists agree that you shouldn’t wear face masks.
The “scientific study”was flawed.
And more flawed then most “scientific studies”.
Scientists rarely agree with anything.
If they appear to be agree about anything, it’s likely related to “political matters”.
Don’t ask scientists about political matters or Joe the Plumber knows more about it and he can say more valid things about it.
If you don’t know we are living in Ice Age, you lack education.
If think global warming is bad, you don’t understand that we living in Ice Age.
Whenever you in a Ice Age, global warming is a good thing.
Whenever you living on Earth, global warming is good thing.
15 C is cold.
Ocean average temperature is 3.5 C
India’s yearly average temperature is about 24 C
If you are tropical animal, 24 C is perfect.
The human is a tropical animal.
Canada is far too cold for tropical animal, as is Europe.
Are worried about polar bears?
Don’t worry.
Tropics have high average temperature- they aren’t hot.
Deserts in the daytime can be hot.
Hottest daytime temperature:
“highest temperature ever recorded was 56.7 °C (134.1 °F) on 10 July 1913 in Furnace Creek (Greenland Ranch), California,” in a desert- far from the tropics. And that highest air temperature more than 100 years ago, does not disproves global warming. Rather it’s a bit of evidence of global warming in last 100 years.
We currently having global warming- be happy.
I thought a big issue was predict vs project getting mixed up.
Short term weather is more about projection.
Long term climate is more about prediction.
“We project the current El Niño will get stronger.”
Vs
“We predict there will be stronger el ninos in the future”
Part of the problem here is that the alarmists models are *NOT* climate models. They are AVERAGE TEMPERATURE models.
The models can’t tell us what the temperature envelope will look like at any point in time and it is the ENVELOPE that determines the climate. A cooling maximum plus a warming minimum produces a far different “climate” than does a warming maximum and a cooling minimum even though both will give the same average temperature.
The temperature models can’t tell us what the sub-soil temperature and moisture will be a decade from now let alone at the end of the century. Yet both have a large impact on the climate. The temperature models can’t tell us what food production will be five years from now let alone at the end of the century. Average temperature doesn’t determine crop harvests, minimum and maximum temperatures do! And crop harvests are a big factor in climate, at least from a survival point of view.
Freeman Dyson pointed this out years ago. He was correct. It’s a shame that those who call them “climate scientists” don’t understand what climate is at all. They are no better than temperature wizards trying to scry something in their crystal ball.
“Part of the problem here is that the alarmists models are *NOT* climate models. They are AVERAGE TEMPERATURE models.”
Average surface air models, I would imagine.
Global average surface air, is controlled by global average surface water, which is 17 C.
Which is an average of tropical ocean surface water temperature of about 26 C and surface of rest of the ocean {40% tropical and 60% rest of ocean} of about 11 C.
Ocean warms land and mostly night time land surface air. Average land surface air is about 10 C.
Air surface land daytime temperature has small regional warming affect of upon nearby surface ocean air temperature. Global ocean surface dominates global air temperatures.
And high average tropical ocean surface temperature makes the tropical ocean the engine of the world.
Or you turn off this global engine by making the tropical ocean surface have a lower temperature.
But in terms of what occurs naturally, the tropical ocean surface maintains a near constant temperature whether in glacial or interglacial periods.
But interesting question is what happens if human were to deliberately cooled the tropical surface water?
All one have to do is mix warm ocean surface water with the cold ocean {water 1000 meter below the surface]. Doing this would be “global warming” and it results colder global surface air temperature.
In terms just numbers, if made the average of 26 C cool to 5 C:
40% at 26 C becomes 4 C
60% remains at about 11 C
660 + 160 = 820 giving an average surface ocean temperature of 8.2 C rather than 17 C
But most significant thing is the heat engine is dead. And turned off global air circulation.
Hadley cells stop, ie:
‘The Hadley cell, named after George Hadley, is a global scale tropical atmospheric circulation that features air rising near the Equator, flowing poleward at a height of 10 to 15 kilometers above the earth’s surface, descending in the subtropics, and then returning equatorward near the surface.”
That seems like an interesting thing to model. But in terms of not modeling it. If you could immediately cool the tropical surface- say cover entire tropical ocean surface with plastic and then put a 1 meter of cold water on top of plastic {or that should be quicker mixing the water}. Then you immediately changed global average air temperature, before it, globally actually cools.
Though one can imagine natural processes which could do something like this, say, 1 km diameter space rock impacting in the tropical ocean. Human could also detonate underwater nuclear bombs- but 1 km diameter space rock dwarfs the power [100,000 Megatons of TNT] of all existing nuclear weapons. And other natural events {volcanic} which exceed explosive power of 100,000 Megatons of TNT.
Thank you for your comment. Can I be a nuisance and ask that you share your source for the volcanic events, also whether it must be a single event or cumulative, and if cumulative, over what time period? I have noticed a marked increase in volcanic events being reported, inclusive of concerns over the Yellowstone super volcano…
I trust my weather rock. It may not predict the weather but it is 100% accurate.
The problem is climate scientists can’t distinguish between climate and weather. The first is a supposedly constant or a long-term or man-made trend. The latter is random – but over what timescale or distance?
The assumption is that the weather will average out over time and space, so if you average a single station record over a long enough time period, or average enough different station records over the same time, the random fluctuations should cancel. The problem is this does not happen as fast as climate scientists think. They do not appreciate that the fluctuations are chaotic, the temperature is a fractal and its dimension is less than 0.25. This means it averages to zero very slowly.
The result is that random fluctuations in mean temperatures per century are six times larger than most climate scientists would predict. Natural fluctuations in mean decadal temperatures are 3.5 times greater than they expect. So what they think is a warming trend is just long-term noise. See here:
https://climatescienceinvestigations.blogspot.com/2020/05/9-fooled-by-randomness.html