Why Do We Still Pay for Climate Models?
Apr 14, 2015 10:13:07 #
Fair, rational people should want to have some answers for the five questions posed in this article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/14/open-letter-to-u-s-senators-ted-cruz-james-inhofe-and-marco-rubio/
To me, this is the best discussion:
"WHY ARE TAXPAYERS FUNDING CLIMATE MODEL-BASED RESEARCH WHEN EACH NEW GENERATION OF CLIMATE MODELS PROVIDES THE SAME BASIC ANSWERS?
IPCC-related climate model-based research provides the same basic answers today as they did 2+ decades ago. From the IPCCs first assessment report in 1990 to their fifth assessment report in 2013, there have been few changes in the climate model-based projections of global surface temperatures caused by assumed future increases in emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide). As additional examples, all five reports fundamentally also told us:
(1) Sea levels will continue to rise regardless of whether we cease or slow our emissions of greenhouse gases and there are still wide ranges of uncertainties with best-case scenarios overlapping with worst-case ones.
(2) Glaciers and ice sheets will melt, providing their mass contribution to rising sea levels but that is simply a continuation of the melting that has been occurring since the end of the last ice age, when temperatures rose to the point that ice on land melted. Glaciers and ice sheets will continue to melt until the temperatures drop and we head toward the next ice age. And that continued melting of glaciers and ice sheets will, of course, add to rising sea levels.
(3) Some regions of the globe will experience drought, others floods but even the current state-of-the-art climate models cannot tell us where or when those floods or droughts will occur because they still cannot simulate the annual, decadal and multidecadal variations in coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that impact precipitation globally. Ill expand on this in an upcoming section.
The United States has been investing billions of dollars in climate model-based science over the past 2 decades. Yet the reports keep telling us the same thing, over and over: temperatures will warm, sea levels will rise, etc. Theyre not furnishing anything new of value and havent for some time."
Do we not have higher-priority needs that are being underfunded? Such as controlling malaria in Africa and South America?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/14/open-letter-to-u-s-senators-ted-cruz-james-inhofe-and-marco-rubio/
To me, this is the best discussion:
"WHY ARE TAXPAYERS FUNDING CLIMATE MODEL-BASED RESEARCH WHEN EACH NEW GENERATION OF CLIMATE MODELS PROVIDES THE SAME BASIC ANSWERS?
IPCC-related climate model-based research provides the same basic answers today as they did 2+ decades ago. From the IPCCs first assessment report in 1990 to their fifth assessment report in 2013, there have been few changes in the climate model-based projections of global surface temperatures caused by assumed future increases in emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide). As additional examples, all five reports fundamentally also told us:
(1) Sea levels will continue to rise regardless of whether we cease or slow our emissions of greenhouse gases and there are still wide ranges of uncertainties with best-case scenarios overlapping with worst-case ones.
(2) Glaciers and ice sheets will melt, providing their mass contribution to rising sea levels but that is simply a continuation of the melting that has been occurring since the end of the last ice age, when temperatures rose to the point that ice on land melted. Glaciers and ice sheets will continue to melt until the temperatures drop and we head toward the next ice age. And that continued melting of glaciers and ice sheets will, of course, add to rising sea levels.
(3) Some regions of the globe will experience drought, others floods but even the current state-of-the-art climate models cannot tell us where or when those floods or droughts will occur because they still cannot simulate the annual, decadal and multidecadal variations in coupled ocean-atmosphere processes that impact precipitation globally. Ill expand on this in an upcoming section.
The United States has been investing billions of dollars in climate model-based science over the past 2 decades. Yet the reports keep telling us the same thing, over and over: temperatures will warm, sea levels will rise, etc. Theyre not furnishing anything new of value and havent for some time."
Do we not have higher-priority needs that are being underfunded? Such as controlling malaria in Africa and South America?
Apr 14, 2015 10:57:55 #
Very astute, Dave; we have a left-leaning, demigod e*****rate that only see the world how it might be - not how it really is. If they can't tax it, control it, or play chicken little, then they have no platform. Billions wasted.
I'm sure Hillary will have so many "solutions!!"
I'm sure Hillary will have so many "solutions!!"
Apr 14, 2015 12:56:36 #
user47602
Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32
yeah, why bother? who really wants to know how climate works anyway... also we might as well not bother with space, either...
matter of fact, we really don't need science anymore.. we have all the technology we'll ever need, and we make no impact on this planet anyway...so we can pretty much do what we want, right? that's what freedom is all about!
matter of fact, we really don't need science anymore.. we have all the technology we'll ever need, and we make no impact on this planet anyway...so we can pretty much do what we want, right? that's what freedom is all about!
Apr 14, 2015 16:51:01 #
Apr 14, 2015 16:59:48 #
user47602
Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32
davefales wrote:
That did not quite reach the level of discussion I was hoping for.
That's because it's obvious. humans are curious, they want to know how their world works. The climate models accurately predict the past 200 years of weather (easier than the future, I know).
The climate models, like all scientific pursuits, are getting better as our understanding increases. In any case, our climate IS changing, while the anthropogenic argument still goes on. With sea level rise of 20 feet (predicted by the end of the century) 90% of our planet's wealth will be re-distributed... this is a massive undertaking, and the better we understand climate, the less chaotic and devastating this change will be.
Apr 14, 2015 18:24:27 #
Apr 14, 2015 20:49:07 #
user47602
Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32
davefales wrote:
So, you are saying the article is wrong?
I think it's wrong to say that the 5 taxpayer-funded models don't work because their politically based, and not scientifically based...
The models don't work because we are dealing with a very large non-linear chaotic system... future models will work better...
I'm sorry but I cannot believe that EVERY climate scientist is bought off and working on a political agenda.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.