Climate change and record low temps lol

[stjames1_53]

The problems are twofold. First the business as usual model used is the least likely/worst case RCP 8.5 which observed science is not tracking. Second is these models are iterative so a small error at the start gets amplified each iteration.

A model of earth is not earth, in fact far from it as computational limitations means very complex climate cannot be modeled so are parameterized.

Here's the rub. They treat the earth as if it were static and unchanging, then they fail to take in to account the constant changes of the earth itself.
Then they fail to take in to account our solar system and how it affects our ball of dirt.
And lastly, they cannot accurately predict solar flares until they start to form.
This planet has seen much worse and survived.
All of these climate screamers think that Man and this planet are immortal. WE and IT are not.............

[Hoosier8]

And they get paid the same no matter what they produce.

If you're not lying, you can surely name the scientists that were fired for not backing AGW theory. Go on, list them here. If your claims are true, there must be vast numbers of them.


We do. All the bribe money flows to your side, so all the corruption is on your side.

Not getting a position and getting out of the game is not the same as getting fired. Climate alarmism is a big money game.

I will ask again, why are those ‘labeled’ by the alarmists mostly retired?

https://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/

[Chris]

Here's the thing, private industry is simply not going to pay a climatologist for predictions unless those predictions pan out in real-world dollars and cents profits. Science can be much more sloppy because any predictions will be compared with others and corrected over time, but they will not be funded unless their prediction comply with the consensus of politics and politicians. Mamooth is simply a nutso trolling.

[carolina73]

Here's the rub. They treat the earth as if it were static and unchanging, then they fail to take in to account the constant changes of the earth itself.
Then they fail to take in to account our solar system and how it affects our ball of dirt.
And lastly, they cannot accurately predict solar flares until they start to form.
This planet has seen much worse and survived.
All of these climate screamers think that Man and this planet are immortal. WE and IT are not.............

And there extremism brings the fight so fr away from any common ground that they destroy their own cause.

I don't know many people that will argue with pollution = bad, and that we should reduce emissions.

Instead we have these billionaires running around crapping all over the earth answering back that they bought carbon offset or credits. Kerry, Gates and pals are just clowns having fun laughing at idiots that listen to them.

[skepticalmike]

Here's the rub. They treat the earth as if it were static and unchanging, then they fail to take in to account the constant changes of the earth itself.
Then they fail to take in to account our solar system and how it affects our ball of dirt.
And lastly, they cannot accurately predict solar flares until they start to form.
This planet has seen much worse and survived.
All of these climate screamers think that Man and this planet are immortal. WE and IT are not.............

Climate scientists take into account everything that affects the Earth's surface temperature which obviously includes the sun. Gravitational effects on the Earth's equatorial bulge by the planets

and sun change the angle of the Earth's axial tilt and cause that tilt's precessional motion. These are very slow effects taken into account by climate scientists.

Other changes in the earth including volcanic eruptions, continental drift, and ocean circulation changes are taken into account.

Solar flares don't have any significant effect on the Earth's climate.

"this planet has seen much worse and survived" - true, but irrelevant

[skepticalmike]

Here's the thing, private industry is simply not going to pay a climatologist for predictions unless those predictions pan out in real-world dollars and cents profits. Science can be much more sloppy because any predictions will be compared with others and corrected over time, but they will not be funded unless their prediction comply with the consensus of politics and politicians. Mamooth is simply a nutso trolling.

Private industry might pay a scientist to conduct research and write a report that supports the position that burning fossil fuels does not significantly warm the planet or cause harm. That would pan out

as real world dollars to an oil or coal company.

Your statement about science can be much more sloppy assumes that scientists don't care about accurate predictions or that this is not a high priority. Scientists who do sloppy research are

going to be criticized by other scientists and that could affect their livelihood and certainly their prestige. A scientific study is funded prior to the study and therefore the study's results.

They do not know what the results will be until after the study is completed and long after it has been funded. If the results of the study don't conform to what politicians want to

hear, that won't affect what gets published, and this assumes that politicians want to hear bad news on the climate so they can implement socialistic policies.