No matter how much $$$$ you throw at data crunching you cannot show the future demise of seasons.

NormanAg said:

---

Quote:

---

There has to be an accurate climate model . . .

---

Sadly, an "accurate" climate model it is near nigh impossible for many reasons that I have posted on this board for almost 20 years.

Our land temp database is very, very short.

Our sea surface temp database is completely unreliable before the advent of weather satellites.

Before the advent of weather satellites there are HUGE gaps in our global temperature data records, especially over the polar regions, oceans and underdeveloped parts of the world like Africa, the Middle East, etc.

The accuracy of our temperature measuring devices, while vastly improved in recent years, is still lacking. And until just recently in our historical temperature data records it was HUMAN EYEBALLS that read the thermometers. Think about that for a second.

The practices of how often and WHEN "official" temperatures are recorded and how often (once a day/twice ad day/more often) has varied GREATLY over time and and between countries. "Standardization" worldwide is much better RECENTLY, but still not anywhere near perfect.

Climate modelers OFTEN use sketchy statistical methods that can make professional statisticians heads explode.

I'm sure I could list more reasons, but I've had one two many Merlots tonight and MY head is about to explode.

---

Well, there's your problem Norman, switch to Carmenere, it'll give you a more pleasant ride.

Casillero del Diablo is pretty good...

I want someone to explain what happened to the ozone hole over our southern pole?

NormanAg said:

---

Quote:

---

There has to be an accurate climate model . . .

---

Sadly, an "accurate" climate model it is near nigh impossible for many reasons that I have posted on this board for almost 20 years.

Our land temp database is very, very short.

Our sea surface temp database is completely unreliable before the advent of weather satellites.

Before the advent of weather satellites there are HUGE gaps in our global temperature data records, especially over the polar regions, oceans and underdeveloped parts of the world like Africa, the Middle East, etc.

The accuracy of our temperature measuring devices, while vastly improved in recent years, is still lacking. And until just recently in our historical temperature data records it was HUMAN EYEBALLS that read the thermometers. Think about that for a second.

The practices of how often and WHEN "official" temperatures are recorded and how often (once a day/twice ad day/more often) has varied GREATLY over time and and between countries. "Standardization" worldwide is much better RECENTLY, but still not anywhere near perfect.

Climate modelers OFTEN use sketchy statistical methods that can make professional statisticians heads explode.

I'm sure I could list more reasons, but I've had one two many Merlots tonight and MY head is about to explode.

---

Note that I did say we may never actually figure out an accurate climate model, but the climate follows physical laws which is represented by a set of equations. It must be predictable given adequate knowledge of the current state. Again, no need to go on a rant of how hard/impossible it would be to get the initial condition data because I did say that there's no guarantee of figuring out the model or input data.

For example: Let's say humanity is forever too dumb to figure out General Relativity. All we have to go on is Newtonian gravity and can't figure out why Mercury's orbit precesses around the sun. But this (or the mathematical concepts despite the unused notation) exist waiting to be discovered as a model that predicts Mercury's motion:


Cheers

3 Toed Pete said:

---

We all died in 2000 as al gore predicted. Don't fight the science.

---

I died because of net neutrality

Quote:

---

. . . but the climate follows physical laws which is represented by a set of equations. It must be predictable given adequate knowledge of the current state.

---

Problem is, we have an extremely POOR understanding of the physical laws and the "set of equations" which they follow. Our knowledge of feed back mechanisms involving sea surface temperatures, cloud cover at ALL levels, solar output, ice cover at the poles, etc, etc is extremely limited.

Remember the "coming ice age" scare in the 70's? Know what it was based on? Particulates from burning fossil fuels rising high in the atmosphere and reflecting sunlight away from the earth's surface. At the time, that theory encompassed the "physical laws" and "set of equations" that were widely accepted.

When I worked as an AF Climatologist (thank you A&M for my degree) in the late 70's/early 80's my boss had a PHD in Climatology from U Wisconsin and his dissertation was based on this theory. He had MANY published papers on the subject and was invited to speak at "climate change" conferences all over the country. He also was invited to address the World Meteorological Organization in Zurich, Switzerland three times on his "research".

Fossil fuels were the boogey man of climate change for the coming ice age folks and now for the "we are all gonna die" from global warming folks.

Sorry for my "rant", and sorry in advance if you think THIS post is also a rant.