They only work when you use data that cherry picks weather stations to produce a desired result.
Clearly, you did not bother reading the papers. The Science commentary is a 1-page summary of a 5-pages paper that is free access. It is not much effort.
BTW, the climate models are public domain and 1970 models can probably run on your smartphone if you do not believe the scientists and really want to test them out.
They only work when you use data that cherry picks weather stations to produce a desired result.
Clearly, you did not bother reading the papers. The Science commentary is a 1-page summary of a 5-pages paper that is free access. It is not much effort.
BTW, the climate models are public domain and 1970 models can probably run on your smartphone if you do not believe the scientists and really want to test them out.
I read the summary which admits they tweaked the numbers and I'm aware that they cherry pick the data points from the weather stations which fit the narrative.
If the models worked there would be a handful or less. There's dozens of models which all spit out different predictions.
And all of the warming is based on an imaginary baseline temperature. There are zero weather records for the overwhelming majority of the planet. There is sparse data anywhere outside of the US or prior to 1880 and minimal data from anywhere else up until 1950.
There's a reason all the models start in the 70s which were colder than most decades prior especially the 1950s and 1930s.
They only work when you use data that cherry picks weather stations to produce a desired result.
Clearly, you did not bother reading the papers. The Science commentary is a 1-page summary of a 5-pages paper that is free access. It is not much effort.
BTW, the climate models are public domain and 1970 models can probably run on your smartphone if you do not believe the scientists and really want to test them out.
Here's an academic paper explaining why the study you didn't read is garbage.
I read the summary which admits they tweaked the numbers and I'm aware that they cherry pick the data points from the weather stations which fit the narrative.
If the models worked there would be a handful or less. There's dozens of models which all spit out different predictions.
And all of the warming is based on an imaginary baseline temperature. There are zero weather records for the overwhelming majority of the planet. There is sparse data anywhere outside of the US or prior to 1880 and minimal data from anywhere else up until 1950.
There's a reason all the models start in the 70s which were colder than most decades prior especially the 1950s and 1930s.
I am not sure what you mean by "tweaked the numbers", you probably refer to using actual emission data rather than projections to test the model. This is not "tweaking", but rather a much more rigorous way to assess the model accuracy. The models predict sea surface temperatures, that are measured by satellites. There are no "weather stations" involved. There are different models because the science and computing power evolved; also, they are based on different approaches. Mostly, they all spit out very similar predictions that are in good agreement with the temperatures observed 50 years later. The quality of the data before 1970 is kind of irrelevant, as the paper compares the predictions to the temperatures actually observed AFTER the model was published. There are no accurate models before the 1970 because they require a computer to perform the calculations. The fact that models created in a decade where temperatures were kind of unusual are so accurate 50 years later is actually kind of impressive. Again, read the paper and test the models yourself if you think the paper is bogus. If you could show that the paper is wrong, write a letter to the journal and ask for a retraction.
I actually spent a little time reading the full paper and now also wasted some time with this one. This is not an academic paper, rather it is a note written by some rando, named Daniel Goldman. Regardless, the note does not even say that the paper is garbage, rather that Daniel Goldman thinks that it is inconclusive.
Most of the criticism is based on rather strong assumptions (like that each model has 50% chance to be correct or wrong) or that the authors do not sufficiently explain their choices. Writing an email to the authors could have cleared up some of the doubts and a serious scientist could have asked the authors for their models and run the simulations themselves to see if the results hold, which is not something Daniel Goldman was keen to do, possibly because it takes some effort.
Tell me you suck at critical thinking without telling me you suck at critical thinking. Tick population has exploded; more mosquito-borne diseases; severe flooding; air quality last summer was dismal . . . .
No one ever said that if vaccinated you couldn't get COVID or pass it along to others. They said the virus would be more mild with the vaccine.
The bodies stored outside of a number of hospital because there was no room is something I have never seen before. We have colds and flu epidemics around for a long time but never saw that before.
Now you people who don't believe COVID is serious and vaccinations don't work, and don't believe in global warming and believe Trump about the stolen 2020 election;
Now be honest did you believe Q actually existed? Be honest.
I read the summary which admits they tweaked the numbers and I'm aware that they cherry pick the data points from the weather stations which fit the narrative.
If the models worked there would be a handful or less. There's dozens of models which all spit out different predictions.
And all of the warming is based on an imaginary baseline temperature. There are zero weather records for the overwhelming majority of the planet. There is sparse data anywhere outside of the US or prior to 1880 and minimal data from anywhere else up until 1950.
There's a reason all the models start in the 70s which were colder than most decades prior especially the 1950s and 1930s.
I am not sure what you mean by "tweaked the numbers", you probably refer to using actual emission data rather than projections to test the model. This is not "tweaking", but rather a much more rigorous way to assess the model accuracy. The models predict sea surface temperatures, that are measured by satellites. There are no "weather stations" involved. There are different models because the science and computing power evolved; also, they are based on different approaches. Mostly, they all spit out very similar predictions that are in good agreement with the temperatures observed 50 years later. The quality of the data before 1970 is kind of irrelevant, as the paper compares the predictions to the temperatures actually observed AFTER the model was published. There are no accurate models before the 1970 because they require a computer to perform the calculations. The fact that models created in a decade where temperatures were kind of unusual are so accurate 50 years later is actually kind of impressive. Again, read the paper and test the models yourself if you think the paper is bogus. If you could show that the paper is wrong, write a letter to the journal and ask for a retraction.
I don't think you're very well read on the models. Satellites are used yes but there are buoys and weather stations all over the globe which provide the bulk of the data.
"Through the years, the main data sources for the NOAAGlobalTemp dataset have been the Global Historical Climatology Network - Monthly (GHCNm), which uses weather stations across the land surfaces, as well as the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST), which uses ships, buoys, surface drifters, profiling floats, and recently other uncrewed automatic systems, over the ocean surfaces."
How is the quality of the data before 1970 irrelevant? If you don't know what "warm" actually looks like there's no basis to compare current temperatures to.
I actually spent a little time reading the full paper and now also wasted some time with this one. This is not an academic paper, rather it is a note written by some rando, named Daniel Goldman. Regardless, the note does not even say that the paper is garbage, rather that Daniel Goldman thinks that it is inconclusive.
Most of the criticism is based on rather strong assumptions (like that each model has 50% chance to be correct or wrong) or that the authors do not sufficiently explain their choices. Writing an email to the authors could have cleared up some of the doubts and a serious scientist could have asked the authors for their models and run the simulations themselves to see if the results hold, which is not something Daniel Goldman was keen to do, possibly because it takes some effort.
It's a paper written by a scientist. It's an academic paper.
He's not a "rando" he's a PhD from Dayton University.
And you don't come right out and say someone's study is garbage. Pointing out their methodology is flawed is about as close as it gets.
"global warming" lol as if there's never been a mild winter in the north east. People do know that the weather is never the same every year, right?
..and scientists have tracked average temperatures around the world every year. Three out of the last four have been the highest since temperatures were accurately recorded over 100 years ago. What is the statistical probability of that happening?
"global warming" lol as if there's never been a mild winter in the north east. People do know that the weather is never the same every year, right?
..and scientists have tracked average temperatures around the world every year. Three out of the last four have been the highest since temperatures were accurately recorded over 100 years ago. What is the statistical probability of that happening?
Only problem being there is not useful data for the last 100 years.
Covid wasn't serious. Look up the hard data and do the math yourself. It was as deadly as the common cold. Don't read some sensationalized article written by a journalist. Actually pull the numbers and read the studies. The math will not match what they claim. Keep in mind that even the hard data has a ton of limitations to it. For example, many covid deaths early on were never verified to be covid, but instead assumed covid and that people who had covid at the time of death, but died for unrelated reasons like a motorcycle accident or fentanyl overdose were also counted in the total.
So why did so many more people than expected start dying when right when Covid showed up?
(and if you claim it was because of the lockdown you'll just prove you're completely ignorant on the subject)
Not saying covid isn't real. It is. And it's mortality is no different than the common cold. Hence why you saw only an increase in deaths of very old people. Look into the data a little more. People weren't dropping dead. Old people who are immunocompromised died
No one ever said that if vaccinated you couldn't get COVID or pass it along to others. They said the virus would be more mild with the vaccine.
The bodies stored outside of a number of hospital because there was no room is something I have never seen before. We have colds and flu epidemics around for a long time but never saw that before.
Now you people who don't believe COVID is serious and vaccinations don't work, and don't believe in global warming and believe Trump about the stolen 2020 election;
Now be honest did you believe Q actually existed? Be honest.
There is no evidence that covid is more mild or would be more mild because of the vaccine. It's complete conjecture. And I'm not talking about studies that have come out recently, I'm talking about at the time they made these claims. I know this because this is my job to follow vaccines and infectious diseases
I read the summary which admits they tweaked the numbers and I'm aware that they cherry pick the data points from the weather stations which fit the narrative.
If the models worked there would be a handful or less. There's dozens of models which all spit out different predictions.
And all of the warming is based on an imaginary baseline temperature. There are zero weather records for the overwhelming majority of the planet. There is sparse data anywhere outside of the US or prior to 1880 and minimal data from anywhere else up until 1950.
There's a reason all the models start in the 70s which were colder than most decades prior especially the 1950s and 1930s.
I am not sure what you mean by "tweaked the numbers", you probably refer to using actual emission data rather than projections to test the model. This is not "tweaking", but rather a much more rigorous way to assess the model accuracy. The models predict sea surface temperatures, that are measured by satellites. There are no "weather stations" involved. There are different models because the science and computing power evolved; also, they are based on different approaches. Mostly, they all spit out very similar predictions that are in good agreement with the temperatures observed 50 years later. The quality of the data before 1970 is kind of irrelevant, as the paper compares the predictions to the temperatures actually observed AFTER the model was published. There are no accurate models before the 1970 because they require a computer to perform the calculations. The fact that models created in a decade where temperatures were kind of unusual are so accurate 50 years later is actually kind of impressive. Again, read the paper and test the models yourself if you think the paper is bogus. If you could show that the paper is wrong, write a letter to the journal and ask for a retraction.
What he is referencing by "tweaked the numbers" is that they revised their reference data for temperatures before 1950 and made them cooler claiming the instruments used were not accurate and calibrated incorrectly. So the adjustment is "justified".
It's all nonsense. "We didn't get the result we want? Must be because the reference data was bad. Let's change it. Oh wow now we get the result we wanted". If you believe this garbage you're a moron
I have a question for someone who is very intelligent.
Why is it that the people who for years haven't believed scientists about global warming (these people claim its a hoax)
Are the same people who didn't believe the medical officials when they were told Covid was serious and you need a vaccination (these people claim it was a hoax)
Are the same people who really believe Donald Trump when he tells them that he won the election in 2020?
Could someone smart explain that to me?
They are scared. Someone like Donald Trump offers comforting, easy answers to things they are scared about. Its also why people follow religions, or if you prefer, every religion save the correct one...
When something terrible is happening slowly and there is little they can individually do about it ala a pandemic or global warming, its easier to reject the science - this provides comfort.
Climate change has become a religion. You must tithe to your government in the name of climate. They are the only saviour. They are the only one that can save us from climate change. You must convert your fellow brethren, without their conversion climate change will never be defeated. Greta is the messiah. In the beginning, was government. Created roads and public works. With the roads came an evil called climate change.
I can do covid is deadly pandemic next if you need the analogy
I read the summary which admits they tweaked the numbers and I'm aware that they cherry pick the data points from the weather stations which fit the narrative.
If the models worked there would be a handful or less. There's dozens of models which all spit out different predictions.
And all of the warming is based on an imaginary baseline temperature. There are zero weather records for the overwhelming majority of the planet. There is sparse data anywhere outside of the US or prior to 1880 and minimal data from anywhere else up until 1950.
There's a reason all the models start in the 70s which were colder than most decades prior especially the 1950s and 1930s.
I am not sure what you mean by "tweaked the numbers", you probably refer to using actual emission data rather than projections to test the model. This is not "tweaking", but rather a much more rigorous way to assess the model accuracy. The models predict sea surface temperatures, that are measured by satellites. There are no "weather stations" involved. There are different models because the science and computing power evolved; also, they are based on different approaches. Mostly, they all spit out very similar predictions that are in good agreement with the temperatures observed 50 years later. The quality of the data before 1970 is kind of irrelevant, as the paper compares the predictions to the temperatures actually observed AFTER the model was published. There are no accurate models before the 1970 because they require a computer to perform the calculations. The fact that models created in a decade where temperatures were kind of unusual are so accurate 50 years later is actually kind of impressive. Again, read the paper and test the models yourself if you think the paper is bogus. If you could show that the paper is wrong, write a letter to the journal and ask for a retraction.
I linked the article which showed you were mistaken about satellite data.
This video is an example of how the tamper with the data.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
