Bridenstine, Climate Scientists Are Not Noble, Stop Paying Them

As I said before, if you do not have the knowledge to create a model that is accurate, evidencing your theory is correct, and if you were in physics, you would be attacked by your peers. Why is this not happening in climate science? This incoherence is a red flag.

 

A few novice comments;

First, a hurricane is not climate...it's weather.

Second, even though they cannot be 100% accurate about the hurricane's projected path, they come close enough to allow humans and society to take notice. Absolutely critical information!

Three, if we are charting actual data, like average temperature, CO2 levels, etc. and they present a trend, from this trend it can be stated that on the current path at time intervals in the future, we have the 'potential' for 'x' to happen.

Lastly, there is no precise science in any discipline that can unequivocally state that they possess absolute knowledge that can be tested in future time. ALL science is subject to new data, new events, new models, etc. into perpetuity.

I'd say it's more beneficial to mankind and society if we study climate science instead of ignoring it...

 

Closely related in exactly the same way that a spreadsheet and a word processor are. Same o/s and GUI, some shared core function code and then a totally different application layer, requiring a specialized tools and techniques.

I'll be happy to discuss differences in computional models and their underlying software and hardware requirements. I have a modicum of experience in enterprise level computational intensive applications and the platforms required to run them.

 

So what? Go look up the terms "global climate models", the "general circulation model", and the Navier-Stokes equations.

I never said otherwise. However, the error factor in the hurricane track forecasting *is* an indicator of the error factors in the global climate models since they both use the same techniques today. Yet you *never* see a "cone" given for a climate model. Everyone just assumes they are 100% accurate!

What does the trend tell you exactly? The global mean temperature is going up. Why? Are summers seeing more and higher maximum temperatures? Are winters seeing fewer cold temperatures? Are we seeing more moderate warm days in summer, i.e. a longer growing season?

All three of these can cause the global mean temperature to go up. But only ONE of them is bad.

Do *YOU* know which one is causing the global mean to go up?

So you think Newton's Law of Gravity is subject to new data, new events, new models, etc? You think Gauss' Law is subject to new data, new events, new models, etc?

I beg to differ with you!

I never said otherwise. But it *would* be nice to know what the climate is actually doing! We have about 13% more green area on earth today than in 1980 when we began taking satellite photo's. How does increased CO2 play into that? Don't we have to know in order to make a good judgement on our environment? Why do the areas on the globe with the highest CO2 concentrations also show up as global warming holes when independent observational data is analyzed. Why are the number of cooling-days going down in places like Pennsylvania, Ecuador, and Central Africa?

The climate models don't tell us any of this! So why do politicians think they can use the climate models for telling us we need to reduce our standard of living?

 

Oh, MALARKY! Why do you come on here and try to fool everyone!

This isn't an issue of *PLATFORM* or *OS*. It is an issue of the analysis techniques being used. And both climate models and hurricane models today are using general circulation models based on the Navier-Stokes equations.

You didn't even bother to go do any research, did you? You *never* do. But you try so hard to sound so knowledgeable. It's pathetic!

 

So what...hurricanes are weather and not climate...that's so what.

Never see a cone?? What you never see is precise climate change predictions!

Fact is data which shows trend can be used to suggest certain events in the future...based on the continuation of the trend.

You can beg all you wish and you will be incorrect or righteous or arrogant...your choice. Science is now and forever always exposed to new information...



I never said otherwise. But it *would* be nice to know what the climate is actually doing! We have about 13% more green area on earth today than in 1980 when we began taking satellite photo's. How does increased CO2 play into that? Don't we have to know in order to make a good judgement on our environment? Why do the areas on the globe with the highest CO2 concentrations also show up as global warming holes when independent observational data is analyzed. Why are the number of cooling-days going down in places like Pennsylvania, Ecuador, and Central Africa?

The climate models don't tell us any of this! So why do politicians think they can use the climate models for telling us we need to reduce our standard of living?[/QUOTE]

 

Clean energy is now employing more people than Coal is.

And, that comes with an administration that is pushing for more coal and fossil fuel, NOT clean energy - and in spite of the fact that the US is not the leader in clean energy.

 

I don't know of any scientist who is suggesting we have to lower our standard of living.

They also do not suggest that every place on earth will get warmer.

I suspect you are looking at models that project earth's average temperature.

 

I like his style.

 

I thought china made our solar panels. SO, you talking about installers? Sales? We may make the batteries, not sure.

Regardless it is a fact right now, that other sources than fossil fuel cannot supply our needs. Wind and solar will never supply our needs, and we need a new source, a new discovery, like zero point energy extraction. And we are not even close. What is left? Nuclear? That is even more dangerous than fossil fuels.

If and when places like africa ever develop, they will need our coal, so trump isn't that stupid. He would rather sell it than someone else. It employs our people. But of course the globalist neoliberalism of both parties could not care less about our people. That much is clear. For the only way our people can live decently is for them to supply all goods and services. But that is no longer the case. And what it created was easy to predict. A carbon tax would create more suffering for so many of our people. Who cares? Who gives a hoot? Not DC. And IMO, neither will trump as he continues to give in to the sold out congress. The boys owned by special interests.

 

It's not necessary to quit using fossil fuel. Nobody has suggested that as a rational goal. Nobody.

Today, solar is efficient enough that there are companies who will put solar panels on your roof and do all the wiring, etc., for free. They then share with the homeowner the value of the cheap electricity. That depends on ensuring that power companies accept power back onto the grid - which in some places may require legislation.

Today, even without carbon tax, it pays to insulate. And, many companies are finding that they can reduce fuel costs through conservation or through their own power generation, sometimes from sources such as excess heat generated in their processes. Again, we need to allow these companies to put their power back on the grid if they want to, rather than requiring them to waste that resource.

Internalizing the cost of carbon (through carbon tax, for example) makes creative ideas more cost effective. And, the increased demand for clean energy components brings the cost down.

Our Paris goals are within reach without trying to decommission our megawatt generators - at least the ones that are reasonably efficient in terms of greenhouse gasses. Everybody knows we will continue to depend on that generation power.

 

All we can talk about is average temperatures although data is collected for millions of places.

I always remember climate change potential creating hotter and dryer conditions in current hot and dry areas and wetter and cooler conditions in current wet and cool areas and ultimately the entire Earth is warmed. I think this is one reason climate change potential is confusing when someone on Earth experiences colder and wetter weather the idea of global warming is not intuitive.

Unless I have misread stuff, it appears to me Earth's ecosystem is not only complex but reasonably fragile. We don't need to change ocean and land temps by 10-30 degrees to have problems...we only need 1-2 degrees change to see problems in some areas.

 

Sure they do. That's the whole reason for saying we will see widespread crop failures. The more the temperature exceeds about 90degF the worse crops do.

 

There is a reason why these installations have to stay hooked up to the grid. It's because the grid gets loaded when the sun doesn't shine, meaning the power companies have to continue providing for the peak loads that can happen -- which, in turn, means continuation of fossil fuel power plants!

 

Please cite.

I think water is more of an issue for agriculture.

 

Nobody is suggesting we'll stop having fossil fuel power plants.

Also, such plants can modulate the power they produce.

Also, solar power plants (such as the one in Morocco) produce electricity around the clock. That one happens to be based on liquid sodium, and there is enough heat content that they don't stop for night.

 

Fossil fuel plants can *NOT* easily modulate the power they produce! Where did you get that idea?

It takes time to bring additional generators up to speed, temperature, and frequency when the load goes up. And it takes time to remove load from generators in order to idle them, you can't just switch them off!

Liquid sodium solar plants sterilize the soil underneath them and around them. Do you want one in *your* backyard? Remember, you were talking about *residential* installations, not commercial ones!

 

Modern power plants (fossil fuel, hydroelectric, nuclear) modulate their output based on need. In fact, controlware does much of this work automatically.

That's not the same as bringing a whole new generator on line - something that is done when a region is predicted to have unusual loads. For normal operation, management has various methods of keeping the load extremes within a range where modulating output works. For example, power can be cheaper for particular industries, times of day, etc., affecting the load. If we all go to electric cars, we may charge them at night for cheaper rates. Networks get improved.

Liquid sodium is a strategy for moving massive amounts of heat from collectors to the generator. That's not needed in anything you're going to have in your back yard.

Remember, NO power generation strategy is going to depend on just one technology. It doesn't now, and it won't in the future. In fact, the cheapest energy today is provided by conservation. If people use less energy (through insulation, etc.) more power becomes available without increasing generation!

 

why do you consistently feign to misunderstand what I am saying? Or are you notfeigning and are merely rhetorically misrepresenting.

what part of "closely related" and "difference in computational models" did you fail to understand?

OF COURSE both applications share algorithms and both by necessity would use navier stokes equations.

But those equations are merely one piece of the overall model.

Now, as for research, please let me assist you in expanding your knowledge base.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_04/

your welcome.

 

The speed of that modulation is *NOT* immediate! Nor does it matter that the control is done automatically! Ask an electrical engineer what happens when you remove a load instanteously from a high voltage, high current generator. I know you won't believe me but you can cause the generator to speed up to a destructive level and/or you can cause enough armature current to actually melt. Power plant generators just can't be switched on and off.

How do you predict when an unusual load is going to happen in a region? Or do you just keep the power plants running at base load capacity all the time in case they are needed?

Then why did you bring them up when the issue at hand was residential power production?

While this is true it is just one more red herring. The fact is that fossil fuel base load generation will be with us for a long, long time.

 

I don't misunderstand anything!

I said: "Hurricane track prediction and climate models are *closely* related. If they weren't then the models wouldn't be very useful!"

You said: "Closely related in exactly the same way that a spreadsheet and a word processor are."

Spreadsheets do numbers. Word processors do words. They are *different* things used for different purposes!

Hurricane prediction and climate models both use General Circulation Models. That's the same thing used for the same thing!

You can't even understand what *you* say!

You said: "then a totally different application layer, requiring a specialized tools and techniques."

GCM's are GCM's. They are based on the Navier-Stokes equations. They are solved in the same manner for both hurricane and climate models. The application layer is the *SAME* for both hurricane projection and for climate model projections!

The major difference is the time intervals and the number of time steps each are run for!

WHICH IS *NOT* WHAT YOU SAID INITIALLY!

Do you have even the faintest of clues as to what the other pieces *are*?

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_04/

Take this from your reference: "Climate modeling is also fundamentally different from weather forecasting. Weather concerns an initial value problem: Given today's situation, what will tomorrow bring? Weather is chaotic; imperceptible differences in the initial state of the atmosphere lead to radically different conditions in a week or so. Climate is instead a boundary value problem — a statistical description of the mean state and variability of a system, not an individual path through phase space. "

This is totally misleading to a novice. The solution to the partial differential equations which are the Navier Stokes equations require setting both initial conditions AND boundary conditions whether you are weather forecasting or climate modeling. You simply cannot set one in one case and set the other in the other case!

go here: http://zone.ni.com/reference/en-XX/help/371361G-01/lvanlsconcepts/conditions_pdes/

"To solve a partial differential equation (PDE), you need to specify the domain for the equation. To find a unique solution, you also need to specify the boundary condition and initial condition because PDEs have infinitely many solutions."

"Boundary Condition
The boundary condition is a set of constraints that define the behavior of unknown functions on the spatial boundary of the domain. A PDE with a boundary condition is also called a boundary value problem. Three main types of boundary conditions exist: the Dirichlet Condition, the Neumann Condition, and the Robin Condition."

"Initial Condition
For an evolutionary equation, a boundary condition does not guarantee a unique solution. You also need to define the initial condition, which specifies the value of unknown function u at the initial time on the domain. If the evolutionary equation contains the higher order derivatives with respect to time t, specify the additional values of derivatives up to the highest order of the derivative of t.

A well-defined initial condition for the wave equation does not only contain the initial value but also the initial derivative with respect to t."

For what? For you showing that you *still* have no idea what you are talking about?[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Hahahaha.



You started by claiming that climate models shouldn't be believed when predicting climate change over the next few decades and you used the accuracy of hurricane track predictions more than a day or two out as evidence. I

I pointed out they were two different animals but that share some algorithms and foundational stuff. Now just so we are clear - you do know that algorithms include equations, don't you?

Then you use a para from MY reference - "Climate modeling is also fundamentally different from weather forecasting." - which in case you forgot supports my original contention.

I've heard of moving the goal posts, but swapping ends in mid game? Intellectual prowess of quantum proportions.

 

Perhaps one day the climatologists will have a depth of understanding in order to create an accurate model which actually predicts the cause/effect future, of the degree of climate change, sea level rise, average temps, etc.

This would go a long way in convincing some of those who deny co2 is primary in contribution. And perhaps then, we will pronto indulge in land management worldwide, to add flora, co2 extractors, and stop rainforest deforestation, using a military if necessary. Which to date does not seem important at all, to the hysterical, and to factions in gov't and outside of gov't who only want carbon taxes with middle men sporting pelican sized beaks to dip into the flow of trillions. And who are already set up to do just that.

In addition to this, we would need a team of economists, to tell us how much suffering is involved to people, in this attempt to stop an unstoppable warming planet. What would this cost a nation, like america, in economic depression and losses? What would it do to quality of life for the average person. And then find out if it is really worth it, to fight an unwinnable battle with climate?

 

The models do *not* match with satellite and weather balloon data. But that does *NOT* mean they don't use GCM models!

Remember, the satellite data is CURRENT data, it can't collect data decades ahead of time! If the models are deviating from current data then it means the models are not correct. QED!

ROFL! They are different but they are the same????

Were you looking in the mirror or down the rabbit hole when you typed this?

The Navier Stokes equations are the Navier Stokes equations. There isn't one set for one model and another set for another model! You can change initial conditions and boundary conditions and even the parameterizations used in the model but the models all must solve the same basic equations.

And I went ahead and gave you references showing how wrong the statement in your reference IS! And you won't admit that for anything!

Your reference also said that one uses initial conditions and the other uses boundary conditions -- which is as wrong as it is possible to get. Yet you continue to believe in that reference?

You are now down to having to argue that white is actually black! And you won't even accept it! Like I keep saying, willful ignorance is not a survival trait!

 

non-squitar.

I provided you with a refence that clear explains the three different compenents that makeup a CMS.

for some reason you seem to be having a great deal of difficult following the plot.

You mean the reference that explains the rather substantive difference between climate modeling and weather forecasting?

You do know that hurricane track forecasting IS weather forecasting?

Sadly you think you are making sense.