Increasing melting of West Antarctic ice shelves may be unavoidable – new research

submitted by ActuallyNot from (theconversation.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]iamonlyoneman 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

  • nobody knows why the ice melts
  • there is no way to predict melting
  • anyone who claims certainty in any direction regarding global weather in >2 weeks from now is full of shit

that is all anyone needs to know about this subject

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

nobody knows why the ice melts

If enough heat is transferred to it, it melts.

there is no way to predict melting

You can predict the transfer of heat with a coupled atmosphere and ocean model.

anyone who claims certainty in any direction regarding global weather in >2 weeks from now is full of shit

James Hansen predicted global warming in the 80s using an atmospheric model that nasa developed for Venus over a basic slab model of the ocean.

He was bang on the nose, wrt global mean surface temperature.

Models are much better now.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

weather models are trustworthy

LOL, LMAO even

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

https://i.imgflip.com/83pvsa.jpg

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

it's mockery darling, do try to keep up

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

With someone who claims that we don't know why ice melts?

The problem is spanning the gap in order to keep down:

You misquote me as saying "weather models are trustworthy". I was talking about climate models. In particular their output with respect to global mean surface temperature.

The thing about that parameter, is that it's not affected much by regional weather, because it's constrained by the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, and how quickly the extra heat is being absorbed into the ocean.

Do you know that climate and weather aren't the same?

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's not a quote, it's making actual mockery of your faith in clearly bad science.

The climate models are trash. Realize that, then realize all the climate doomers are basing their noise on the trash models, and you'll be a lot closer to both happiness and reality in general

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's not a quote,

I realize it's not a quote. That's why I said misquote.

it's making actual mockery of your faith in clearly bad science.

As you can see from the link in the link in this comment, that models were good science, even models from 40 years ago.

So trying to make mockery falls flat doesn't it?

This is how they were doing 20 years ago.

The climate models are trash.

This is exactly where you're going off the rails. If this claim of yours wasn't established as false, with evidence, for much worse models than we've got today, then you would be making some sense.

But, alas, you're not.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The models that all, drastically, wildly overstated future warming AND can't reconstruct variability in past data without fucking with the data to make the past fit the model, the models that have never dealt with the most powerful greenhouse gas even halfass? Those models, the ones that convinced you to be afraid of global warming, are trash.

All of them.

[–]ActuallyNot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The models that all, drastically, wildly overstated future warming

Not at all. They're pretty good lately, but if anything were underestimating in the past: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/

AND can't reconstruct variability in past data without fucking with the data to make the past fit the model

Nope. They're developed with accurate past climate data.

the models that have never dealt with the most powerful greenhouse gas even halfass?

Nope. All the significant gasses in the atmosphere are included.

Those models, the ones that convinced you to be afraid of global warming, are trash. All of them.

To be honest, you don't seem to know much about them.