The first sentence of this article is totally bogus. So who knows what to make of the following quote:
Climate Collapse Could Happen Fast
James Hansen, one of the early voices on climate, says that measures to mitigate the crisis may now, ironically, be contributing to it. He published a working paper this spring suggesting that a reduction in sulfate aerosol particles—or the air pollution associated with burning coal and the global shipping industry—has contributed to warmer temperatures. That’s because these particles cause water droplets to multiply, which brightens clouds and reflects solar heat away from the planet’s surface. Though the paper has not been peer-reviewed, Hansen predicts that environmentally minded policies to reduce these pollutants will likely cause temperatures to rise by 2 degrees Celsius by 2050.
Assuming it is true, I find it amusing that if we do have global warming problems we can blame it on the environmentalists and truthfully insist the cure is to crank up the coal fired power plants.
The problem is we are dealing with an incredible complex, non-linear, system with variables and values we not only don’t know about, but are unknowable, and interact with unknowable effects.
Ya, So they are admitting that it’s the sun/lack thereof, that controls temperatures on the planet?
I thought it was manmade CO2?!?!?!?!
That we’ve spent billions trying to control. What the hell?
We spend thousands in solar panels only to have them want to block the sun now?
And everyone seems to have forgot about the ice core studies up in Greenland?
They proved two very valuable things.
1) For the first 6,000 years of the last 10,000. It was hotter than it is now.
2) Recorded temperature measurements started approx. in 1870’s. Which just happened to be the coldest time in the last 10,000 years.
It is going to go way up to get back to earths true “normal”. (If one could actually call it that.)
What seems to be a true normal/constant you can count on, is getting the results one is willing to pay for from the peer reviewed science community.
It’s all much ado about something no one is ever going to control. But they will spend your last dime and murder your family to get there!
F–k’in insane.
More interesting part of climate science. Latinx weather girls?
Maybe we could have contest or something? (You won’t even need a translator.)
I believe there was a science fiction book written using a similar premise – we got the sign wrong on global warming / cooling / humidity change, and tipped into an ice age.
…
Found it. “Fallen Angels,” Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. it has many plot aspects that resonate 30 years later; they were scarily prescient in extrapolating some of the nonsense the eco-loons would come up with. I should reread it.
I’m in the middle middle of reading Kenneth Green’s book, “The Plague of Models” which explains how our regulatory agencies have largely supplanted hard science with computer models. The recent COVID debacle can be traced to faulty modeling as can climate change, overreaching environmental regulations, etc.
Amazon has banned the book which, in and of itself, is a great recommendation for the book. I bought mine on Barnes & Noble.
I find the book a bit contradictory. Mr. Green will find all manner of instances where modeling failed. Yet he defends the practice.
Newtonian Physics is a model and works great for most things. You just need to know the limitations.
As Joe says. And also with the understanding that there are many different types of models and modeling, and knowing their limitations is key.
I expect, for instance, a decent electromagnetics modeling code (CST, COMSOL, HFSS, etc.) to accurately predict the far-field pattern of an antenna that’s isolated in space. I expect it to be a reasonable approximation when I try to include things like ground. And I expect its performance prediction to be no better than a very good guess when I actually build the antenna and try to use it in an urban environment.
The greater the complexity, the greater the expected uncertainty, all else equal. And ultimately, the purpose of a model is insight.
The thing about those EM models is that they apply a very simple set of equations — Maxwell’s four equations. But even that turns out to be hard in real 3D systems. If you throw in components whose properties are not well understood (“real ground”) it gets worse.
Now consider climate modeling. Are there equations that rigorously describe the atmosphere? I don’t think so. What are the inputs, and are those precisely known?
At this point, it’s clear that climatology is no longer a science, though in the past it probably has been. Maybe some day it will be again.
A good test of any purported climate model is to start it at 7000 BC and see if it reproduces the wild temperature swings shown in the GISP2 data set (temperature data as captured in the Greenland ice, 40,000 BC to 1920 AD). A computer model that doesn’t explain why it was warmer in the days of Caesar than it is today or even in the warmist high priests’ “worst case” forecast, one that doesn’t show why it was warmer in the days of Leif Eriksson than today, isn’t a meaningful model. And the people who play with those things are not scientists.
The other day I saw some comments (on Sarah Hoyt’s blog) about central planning and why it can’t work — the systems are too complex. The same, perhaps more so, applies to climate modeling. A climate “five year plan” isn’t going to make any more sense than any other “five year plan”.