Climate crisis (European Physical Journal)

[brenthutch 383]

More disaster porn from the IPCC

[brenthutch 383]

On 2/23/2022 at 5:25 PM, olofscience said:

There's currently a gap between the global climate models and modelling local weather events (like cyclones), but with supercomputers getting faster and faster the gap is getting narrower and narrower. 

Actually the more sophisticated they get the more they diverge from reality.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200430113003.htm

“The researchers used the CESM2 model to simulate temperatures during the Early Eocene, a time when rainforests thrived in the tropics of the New World, according to fossil evidence.

But the CESM2 model projected Early Eocene land temperatures exceeding 55 degrees Celsius (131 F) in the tropics, which is much higher than the temperature tolerance of plant photosynthesis -- conflicting with the fossil evidence. On average across the globe, the model projected surface temperatures at least 6 C (11 F) warmer than estimates based on geological evidence.”

 

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by brenthutch

[olofscience 421]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Actually the more sophisticated they get the more they diverge from reality.

As usual, you didn't read the article. The article didn't say that, the authors didn't say that. It's just your excuse for not being able to understand anything remotely sophisticated.

Anyway, for the rest, the article said of the authors: 

Quote

"They say their study shows how geological evidence can be used to benchmark climate models and predictions of future warming."

So they can keep improving the models, and not deny that they work at all 

[brenthutch 383]

2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

As usual, you didn't read the article. The article didn't say that, the authors didn't say that. It's just your excuse for not being able to understand anything remotely sophisticated.

Anyway, for the rest, the article said of the authors: 

So they can keep improving the models, and not deny that they work at all 

They didn’t say they didn’t work at all they said they ran unrealistically hot.  
 

From NASA

“Evidence is emerging from multiple directions that the models which show the greatest warming in the CMIP6 ensemble are likely too warm,” explains Dr. Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

[brenthutch 383]

https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos/applying-the-scientific-method-shows-why-climate-models-run-hot
 

Don’t get a thrombosis from a messenger/message inversion.

[olofscience 421]

9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

They didn’t say they didn’t work at all they said they ran unrealistically hot.  

And...I didn't say that they said it didn't work at all. I think you've gotten a thrombosis in your reading skills somewhere.

But your conclusion that model sophistication was the cause for more divergence was just wrong.

[brenthutch 383]

38 minutes ago, olofscience said:

But your conclusion that model sophistication was the cause for more divergence was just wrong.

It wasn’t a conclusion, it was an observation…shared by NASA.

[olofscience 421]

12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It wasn’t a conclusion, it was an observation…shared by NASA.

Nope, it wasn't. Did NASA say "brent was right, the more sophisticated models get, the more they diverge from reality!"

As usual you'll provide a quote from them that says something completely different, so I won't wait around.

Stop hanging on NASA's coattails. Their reputation and credibility will never rub off on you and your misinterpretations.