Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Pics and Videos Buffet
Climate Change & Why I Am Such A Cynical Bastard
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BOOGIE MAN" data-source="post: 16318522" data-attributes="member: 26082"><p>Models rely heavily on input parameters. So, how accurate are our input parameters? CONUS: temp accuracy is pretty legit, but still not 100% accurate (besides accuracy, we can talk about resolution too with less than 200 grid points for the entire CONUS). How accurate are the world wide temp inputs at PRESENT? (They're not accurate). This goes in to how and where the sensors are set up - there are VERY strict regulations for how sensors must be set up, and even in the US, the standards aren't met 100% of the time. And that's insitu obs over land, let alone the utter lack of insitu obs over water.</p><p></p><p>Climate models CANNOT resolve clouds (well) and as [USER=96225]@weather man[/USER] will tell you, cloud coverage severely affects incoming/outgoing radiation which severely affects temp. Even our weather models (much finer resolution, much shorter time steps) can't resolve precipitating clouds that well, let alone "fair weather" cumulus clouds.</p><p></p><p>Climate models CANNOT resolve precip (well), it's too variable, too small of a scale. Precip drastically affects temp at all atmospheric heights.</p><p></p><p>Climate models CANNOT resolve severe impact events (well) like volcanic eruptions (just one example)</p><p></p><p>Climate models rely heavily on (heat) fluxes, especially over water. In order to accurately resolve those fluxes within models we have to be able to MEASURE and then input those measurements in to the models on a scale of 5W/m^2 AT THE VERY LEAST (with the most "accurate" models requiring accuracy on the scale of 0.1W/m^2) and the best our measuring tools can do right now is a maximum of ~10-15W/m^2 (AT LEAST an order of magnitude off).</p><p></p><p>Solar radiation is not constant and the changes are not accounted for in climate models (well)</p><p></p><p>Climate models cannot resolve differences in vegetation and how that vegetation will change over time (well).</p><p></p><p>Climate models cannot resolve differences in populations (well), how they affect climate, and how those populations will change.</p><p></p><p>Climate models are just now starting to consider atmospheric chemistry. (By now I mean within the last few years).</p><p></p><p>Climate models are now starting to consider ice formations (better than they ever did before)</p><p></p><p>Besides horizontal resolution and time steps of the models, we can talk about if the models are coupled or not with the ocean (they're not coupled well). We can also talk about vertical resolution of the models (vertical res of climate models = shit). One of the reasons why the euro wx model is so much better than the American (gfs) is because there are twice as many vertical levels accounted for (~60 vs ~120) where climate models split the atmosphere in to way less layers.</p><p></p><p>To give you guys an idea of how important initial conditions are I have included some images that show A VERY VERY SIMPLE model I ran over less than 1min, (less than 1000 time steps) with initial conditions of ONE VARIABLE varying by 0.001</p><p></p><p>I can go on and on, but to keep it simple, stupid, short: anyone that says climate models are true is more than likely trying to sell you something. Until models can resolve every single particle within the atmosphere (which will NEVER happen in our lifetime), they will be inaccurate. Too many variables, too big of a data field, too much misunderstood or simply unknown phenomena, and too many time steps.</p><p></p><p>FINAL DISCLAIMER</p><p>CLIMATE HAS CHANGED AND WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE FOREVER, TO THINK THAT WE CAN MODEL AND FORECAST, LET ALONE CONTROL IT IS BEYOND NAIVE. I am not a climate change "denier" but I am saying that the science is nowhere near being able to tell us what our climate is going to be like on a decadal or centurial time scale</p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1608098[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]1608099[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]1608100[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>Sent from my SM-N975U using the <a href="http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92568" target="_blank">svtperformance.com mobile app</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BOOGIE MAN, post: 16318522, member: 26082"] Models rely heavily on input parameters. So, how accurate are our input parameters? CONUS: temp accuracy is pretty legit, but still not 100% accurate (besides accuracy, we can talk about resolution too with less than 200 grid points for the entire CONUS). How accurate are the world wide temp inputs at PRESENT? (They're not accurate). This goes in to how and where the sensors are set up - there are VERY strict regulations for how sensors must be set up, and even in the US, the standards aren't met 100% of the time. And that's insitu obs over land, let alone the utter lack of insitu obs over water. Climate models CANNOT resolve clouds (well) and as [USER=96225]@weather man[/USER] will tell you, cloud coverage severely affects incoming/outgoing radiation which severely affects temp. Even our weather models (much finer resolution, much shorter time steps) can't resolve precipitating clouds that well, let alone "fair weather" cumulus clouds. Climate models CANNOT resolve precip (well), it's too variable, too small of a scale. Precip drastically affects temp at all atmospheric heights. Climate models CANNOT resolve severe impact events (well) like volcanic eruptions (just one example) Climate models rely heavily on (heat) fluxes, especially over water. In order to accurately resolve those fluxes within models we have to be able to MEASURE and then input those measurements in to the models on a scale of 5W/m^2 AT THE VERY LEAST (with the most "accurate" models requiring accuracy on the scale of 0.1W/m^2) and the best our measuring tools can do right now is a maximum of ~10-15W/m^2 (AT LEAST an order of magnitude off). Solar radiation is not constant and the changes are not accounted for in climate models (well) Climate models cannot resolve differences in vegetation and how that vegetation will change over time (well). Climate models cannot resolve differences in populations (well), how they affect climate, and how those populations will change. Climate models are just now starting to consider atmospheric chemistry. (By now I mean within the last few years). Climate models are now starting to consider ice formations (better than they ever did before) Besides horizontal resolution and time steps of the models, we can talk about if the models are coupled or not with the ocean (they're not coupled well). We can also talk about vertical resolution of the models (vertical res of climate models = shit). One of the reasons why the euro wx model is so much better than the American (gfs) is because there are twice as many vertical levels accounted for (~60 vs ~120) where climate models split the atmosphere in to way less layers. To give you guys an idea of how important initial conditions are I have included some images that show A VERY VERY SIMPLE model I ran over less than 1min, (less than 1000 time steps) with initial conditions of ONE VARIABLE varying by 0.001 I can go on and on, but to keep it simple, stupid, short: anyone that says climate models are true is more than likely trying to sell you something. Until models can resolve every single particle within the atmosphere (which will NEVER happen in our lifetime), they will be inaccurate. Too many variables, too big of a data field, too much misunderstood or simply unknown phenomena, and too many time steps. FINAL DISCLAIMER CLIMATE HAS CHANGED AND WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE FOREVER, TO THINK THAT WE CAN MODEL AND FORECAST, LET ALONE CONTROL IT IS BEYOND NAIVE. I am not a climate change "denier" but I am saying that the science is nowhere near being able to tell us what our climate is going to be like on a decadal or centurial time scale [ATTACH=full]1608098[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]1608099[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]1608100[/ATTACH] Sent from my SM-N975U using the [URL=http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92568]svtperformance.com mobile app[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Pics and Videos Buffet
Climate Change & Why I Am Such A Cynical Bastard
Top