New Study: Climate Models Get Water Vapor Wildly Wrong – A ‘Major Gap In Our Understanding’

submitted by iamonlyoneman from (notrickszone.com)

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Oh! Oh! u/ActuallyNot and u/Questionable, it's your favourite!

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

LOL

[–]GuyWhite 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Not surprised. These models can’t take past data and predict conditions today. Why would I trust their future predictions?

We can predict weather about 1 week out with acceptable accuracy. No so with much longer term climate.

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

These models can’t take past data and predict conditions today.

That's one of the myths that the fossil fuel industry has paid for.

But if you look at them, they've been pretty good.

We can predict weather about 1 week out with acceptable accuracy. No so with much longer term climate.

That's right. It's the climate that climate models have been getting right decades out. Not the weather on a certain day.

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

The temperatures have been “adjusted” too many times to know the bases for those graphs.

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

Then you've got no proof that the models can't take past data and predict conditions today.

For the rest of us the reason that there's a certain amount of trust in the instrumental temperature record is that there are many independent groups who have done it. There's small differences, mostly due to how they treat parts of the earth with no data. But it's one of those things that is also pretty good.

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

LOL

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

This paper finds some of the high-cost high-casualty impacts have been underestimated in arid regions: Wildfire, ecosystem functioning and temperature extremes.

If confirmed, this increases the economic benefit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The "major gap in our understanding" implied is that the availability of moisture in arid/semi-arid regions is lower in reality than in models.

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

So you're saying the models are wrong because GIGO? Cool, thanks for agreeing!

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

What I'm saying is that this article managed to take a paper showing increased need to act on greenhouse emissions, and spin it 180°. You get that with these climate denial blogs. They're pushing fossil fuel industry talking points, not science.

Models are improving all the time as little increases in understanding like this are incorporated.

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

garbage sucks less over time

is not really a flex

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

Neither is lying about climate models to support the fossil fuel industry and harm consumers.

Climate models have made good predictions since their very beginnings in the 1970s.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The climate models

are shit

They predict catastrophe and we don't see it. That's not "well projected" it's shit. Look, I too have a link for you to ignore https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=model+failure

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

There may be no other branch of physical science with model-observation discrepancies (failures) this profound, this fundamental.

Apparently they have never heard of vaccine "science" or astrophysics. Otherwise, the article looks pretty accurate.

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

What model-observation errors are there in immunology?