Started By
Message

re: BREAKING: IPCC Climate Models Proven to Lack Predictive Ability

Posted on 5/23/25 at 9:49 am to
Posted by concrete_tiger
Member since May 2020
7277 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 9:49 am to
Why don't climate models every take into account settling, sinking, erosion, construction... when showing us coastal lowlands that flood with high tides?

Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
47325 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:02 am to
quote:

The fundamental problem with these models is climate scientist rely mostly on measured data (which has error) and statistics and less on the properties of matter.

The problem is also that they were tendentious from the start, with scientists faking data to lower temperatures in the past and raise temperatures in the present.

In the 1990s some scientists were pointing out that when surface temperatures were collected from weather stations some were compromised by being in the shade of a new building or tree, or many other kinds of changes that caused elevation or lowering of the temperatures and thus spurious results. Scientists corrected for these, but other scientists noticed that only the suppressed temperature readings were thrown out, never the spurious elevated temperatures.
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
120533 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:07 am to
quote:

BREAKING


This is maybe the least “BREAKING” new story of any “BREAKING” news story ever posted here. And that’s saying something.
Posted by LSUnation78
Northshore
Member since Aug 2012
13506 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:11 am to
I felt like pushing the boundaries of Tongue-In-Cheek.
Posted by CastleBravo
Rapid City, SD
Member since Sep 2013
547 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:13 am to
The purpose of the climate models is to help marxists take over the west.

The climate has nothing to do with it.
Posted by ithad2bme
Houston transplant from B.R.
Member since Sep 2008
3538 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:27 am to
I mean anyone paying attention knew when they first started this that the model used hundreds of worst case assumptions that were never going to be a reality.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
108208 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:29 am to
Ive been saying this for 30 fricking years.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
133471 posts
Posted on 5/23/25 at 10:43 am to
quote:

The problem is also that they were tendentious from the start, with scientists faking data to lower temperatures in the past and raise temperatures in the present.

In the 1990s some scientists were pointing out that when surface temperatures were collected from weather stations some were compromised by being in the shade of a new building or tree, or many other kinds of changes that caused elevation or lowering of the temperatures and thus spurious results. Scientists corrected for these, but other scientists noticed that only the suppressed temperature readings were thrown out, never the spurious elevated temperatures.


Right. You are just mentioning some problems with making conclusions based on measured data rather than properties of matter.

For example, I can tell you exactly how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of a pot of seasoned water to boil crawfish. I'm not using historical measured data to make that determination. I'm using the properties of mostly propane and water to make the determination.

This the same deal with energy of the sun and the gas mixture and pressure of our atmosphere.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 2Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram