Princeton Study Tosses Cold Water On Method Used For Measuring Climate Change

[rangerrebew]

Princeton Study Tosses Cold Water On Method Used For Measuring Climate Change

Posted By Chris White On 3:34 PM 01/11/2018 In | No Comments

Climate scientists grossly underestimate the effect cloud cover has on global temperatures, according to researchers at Princeton University’s environmental institute.

Climate models factor in too much of the sun’s daily heat into their projections about what the Earth’s land temperatures could look like long-term. Inaccuracies in accounting for daily cloud cycle distorts the effectiveness of a tool scientists use to measure climate change, according to a study published in the journal Nature Communications.

 

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/11/princeton-study-tosses-cold-water-on-method-used-for-measuring-climate-change/

[dfwgator]

But....but.....I thought the science was settled.

[Joe Wooten]

That is just ONE of the factors all the climate models either underestimate or completely ignore. Another one (and the biggest one of all) is that the basis for all models is the set of 6 partial differential equations weather forecasters use to predict weather for the next week. What is not said by the climate forecasters is that the uncertainty of these equations doubles for every 5 days you extend the forecast beyond 3 days from the day you run them, so that by you go a month or so into the future, the uncertainty approaches 100%.

[Smokin Joe]

That is just ONE of the factors all the climate models either underestimate or completely ignore. Another one (and the biggest one of all) is that the basis for all models is the set of 6 partial differential equations weather forecasters use to predict weather for the next week. What is not said by the climate forecasters is that the uncertainty of these equations doubles for every 5 days you extend the forecast beyond 3 days from the day you run them, so that by you go a month or so into the future, the uncertainty approaches 100%.

Just get a copy of The Old Farmer's Almanac.

[truth_seeker]

If is a good thing, we have a resident that is skeptical about the financial rip off of America, which "Climate Change," really boils down to.

It is a shitty thing, so many gullible types would have America shell out money, change our economy and our lifestyles over such shitty science.

[dfwgator]

That is just ONE of the factors all the climate models either underestimate or completely ignore. Another one (and the biggest one of all) is that the basis for all models is the set of 6 partial differential equations weather forecasters use to predict weather for the next week. What is not said by the climate forecasters is that the uncertainty of these equations doubles for every 5 days you extend the forecast beyond 3 days from the day you run them, so that by you go a month or so into the future, the uncertainty approaches 100%.

So why don't we finally say, that Man has no impact on climate and just admit that Nature is going to do what it's going to do, with or without us.

[Fishrrman]

dfwgator asks:
"So why don't we finally say, that Man has no impact on climate and just admit that Nature is going to do what it's going to do, with or without us."

Because if the greenie leftist-communists admit that they can't control the climate, they loose the foundation of their argument as to why they should control US...

[Smokin Joe]

So why don't we finally say, that Man has no impact on climate and just admit that Nature is going to do what it's going to do, with or without us.

No grant money in that! No opportunities to sack up a trillion trading carbon credits, either!