**Air turbulence** This would be a great place to inject some physics, but they can't. The article calls it 'clear air turbulence' not 'Clear air convection'. This was big in the 70's and now is big again. All due to the ice cycle. Had they stuck to the studies they were doing in the 70's, we'd have an easy answer now. However, all this was killed when nasa decided to ride the bandwagon of the popular mob-thought. Fasten your seatbelt!
@freemo I agree. They have been tested by those who did them. My models were always extremely accurate...
🇳🇱
@hasmis Uhh no.. th3e models predict a number, anyone can check how close the real number is to what the model claims.. its hardly exclusive to scientists.
@freemo Are we talking the world temperature models, or clear convection models?
@freemo Thank you for showing me yours, now I'll show mine. The great accuracy was for the run-up to 2016. This plot below is taken from noaa and has to be constructed, like a prompt to MrChat. The red line is the models. Being in Canada, I wish the fantasy to be true, I really, really, do.... In 2016 I went up to the remote cabin in April, and we could stay until November. Now, we'll have snow in April....bummer.
@hasmis The redline is clearly **not** a model, it wouldnt be a straight line. Models are by definition adaptive, they define how temperature would change as the response of the public changes.. if its a straight line it is very clearly not a model you are showing.
@freemo No, it's just my freehand of the general UN models. A model is for extrapolation, the UN models are straight lines. I've seen another model (trend) going through the peak of 2016, and landing on another peak. Those peaks are El Nino surging forth.
A model is a hypothesis -- it works or it doesn't. It is not a trend line that follows the data after the fact. There is no model that predicts this horrible trend of going down.
Anyway, I honourably contest your graph of actual temperatures. I humbly submit mine for consideration....
@hasmis See this is why you should be asking scientists and not just making assumptions. Everything you just said is wrong.
Models make predictions, the prediction of a model changes day by day as the inputs to the model changes. Lets makeup some arbitrary placeholder numbers to show what I mean..
Say some model claims Y = X*2. then Y will only be a straight line when X doesnt change.
Models about weather claim things like "If we keep pumping CO2 at the current rate into our atmosphere then the temperature will rise by X degrees a year"... that is a prediction the model makes at the **current** state of things... **obviously** if people actually make an effort to improve our CO2 emissions then temperature will rise by **less** than the model predicted back when we were producing more CO2.
So any model will change year by year based on how people change year by year.. as we improve our emissions the model will predict less, as we do worse it will predict more.
Again if you are showing a straight red line you are **not** showing a model, you are showing a fixed prediction of a model at a fixed point in time, the model itself is only claiming that prediction to be true if we do not change our behavior, which we do, and therefore you are blatantly wrong in your interpritation,.
@freemo Yes, I am wrong. I was having fun channeling the great scientific letters of Newton and Darwin. I had to put my brain on the shelf in the afternoon, in order to sleep, but still was up for a long time.
You are stating that a model is a 'living thing' that adjusts with the current facts. I am stating that a model is a hypothesis which remains static, and must be proven right or wrong. Thanks for the debate.
@hasmis No thats not what your saying.. the model is a static thing that can be proven wrong... its **prediction** is of a "rate of change" not of a value at a point of future... it claims "the rate of change will be X so long as the input is Y".
The model never changes, it always states a relationship between X and Y and that relationship doesnt change... X and Y (the real world) does change, and thus the prediction for the future does.
Do you not fathom how idiotic what your arguing sounds like to anyone with any degree of common sense here.
"The model predicts if we keep pumping CO2 levels at the rate we are temperature will raise by 5 degrees! .. (5 years later after reducing emissions by 20%)... See the model was wrong! Temperature didnt increase by 5 degrees"... that sounds like a level of idiocy I cant even argue with, OBVIOUSLY the temperature isnt what the model said 5 years ago, we reduced emissions and prevent the outcome it warned against! But guess what, if you plug in what the temperature should be into that same model with a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions all of a sudden the model is right, AS EXPECTED... to use that as an argument that model is wrong is just so idiotic I have to think it is intentional.
Me: If you keep eating mcdonalds in 5 years you will be fat!
You: Oh in that case I will stop eating McDonalds...
<five years later>
You: Clearly eating McDonalds doesnt make me fat because you predicted 5 years ago when I was eating McDonalds I would be fat, and look im not! I can go back to eating McDonalds now!
It amazes me you cant see the idiocy in this line of thinking.. Of **course** models adapt as the conditions adapt, if they dont their not a model.
@hasmis The average of of models accepted by scientists at the time 30 years ago have performed remarkably accurately.