Hot Climate Model Predicts Weather

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 9
Topic's author
#1
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,914
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4

..."Climate Change Sensitivity with Sabina Hoffensteader.  She states how she gets more thumbs down on her Climate Vids than the other types of vids.  She states she bellieves this noot just erratic climate change denier, but people been hearing this for years, and yet humans still doing just find. So old news. She understands that and so do I.

If your short on time, I recommend just going to 12:00 and start there. Concerned about end of the world ex collapse of banking systems and much more }. Well this could be what leads to that ending, and she points out why with this high 5.0 value from 2019 paper, that doesnt agree with all historical data  --i.e.before there was data documents by the dinosaurs and subsequent millions of years---. 

Before 12:00 there is info about only one group {  MetUK }, that used these hot models, --with some adjustments---in order to try   predict short term weather predicitons  --not long term climate change--- and their weather predictions in real time  here on Earth,  ---using the 2019 hot model findings { 5.0 Celsious } of Climate Sensitivity Values-- were **more accurate than our current normal weather predicting programs.  ALERT!  Duhh!

#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 356
Posts: 10,596
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Maximum temperatures increased by 10 degrees in past 20 years. Not good at all for Earth or humans.
#3
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,158
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
nonsense
#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,587
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc
Yes, she takes her role as a science communicator seriously, aiming her videos at an audience seeking context. "People can go to my channel and get the brief, 20-minute summary," Hossenfelder says. "They don't have to read a whole book or download a review article, which they won't understand anyway."
#5
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,164
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
If no one can understand the science and it cant be explained simply , I contend the science is worthless.
#6
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,587
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@sadolite

Quantum Mechanics cannot be explained simply.
#7
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,164
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Cant it? I bet Einstein could explain it simply if he was still alive.
#8
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,158
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@sadolite
Cant it? I bet Einstein could explain it simply if he was still alive.
What is simple to some is not simple to others, but no one who understands a valid concept thinks themselves incapable of explaining it. In all cases if someone refuses to explain (because you are too ignorant in their opinion, not because of lack of time) they are ignorant or dishonest.

The more field specific jargon they put into their abstract the more likely the publication is to be bullshit written solely to keep someone's sad career going rather than novel information or analysis of any use.

The reason nobody knows how these climate models work is because they keep them secret. It's a black box computer simulation that they claim is based on a few premises they will gloss over when asked (and they rarely take questions).

Science (like voting software) is not something that can be legitimately kept secret. Anyone who is not preemptively sharing all data, experimental procedures, and detailed analysis (with all work shown) is not doing science and if they withhold these intentionally they are not scientists.
Topic's author
#9
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,914
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Less and less glaciers, melting perma-frost, erratic climate change, rising ocean levels, etc.

Growing human population that takes from Earth and puts nothing back to replenish what is taken ex loss of plane and animal species.

Somethings are simply obvious to who are looking and not to those whose head not stuck in butt.

Some things --like creating models to more accurately predict the future-- is more complex.

The hardest challenge is humans cooperating to address truths, --ex more education and less intentional false narrative--- so as to better address those truths, as best presented from the simply obvious science in front of our eyes,

and the more complex scenarios, based on modeling scenarios for our future existence on Earth, with least amount of suffering to the least amount of humans.

Got  milk?

Got clean, non-toxic milk?

For how many more years will our milk remain toxic free, if it remains at all?