Would you agree or disagree that the model predictions have been, for lack of a better word "toned back" since the late 70's? If you agree, why? If not I'll have to dig up some papers and go from there.
I don't agree. So get digging.
Do you know what super sensitivity is? I don't think you are.
I suggest you use Preview Post and read through it before you post.
I suggest you read up on it and get back to me.
I might suggest
you read up on it. I'm no stranger to Chaos Theory, and this is what you're alluding to, isn't it?
I don't think you fully understand how they input data into the models.
I know full well that you don't undertand what physical models are at all.
Most likely because you're only concerned with the results.
Well, yes. What else does one look for in a physical model other than the
output results?
Where they differ from actual results they reveal areas where the physics is not well understood, the focus for further research. If they differ wildly (by, say, "running out of control") they probably need abandoning. But climate models don't run out of control, any more than the climate does.
I'll bookmark any interesting papers I find and post them in this thread as I see them. I'll search for the ones I've read and try to post them here as well.[
Please do.
And clouds, convection, albedo...I'm sure there are others that I can't think of right now.
I'm not so sure. Make an effort.
Land-use change?
I realize researchers never want to admit anything is complete, that closes the flow of funds. But there are many areas that need much, much more study before the models have the fidelity we need to make important decisions on what to do and where.
So lets do nothing in the meantime and wait to see what the big bad analogue model throws up. Then try to cope.
Doesn't that attitude encourage defeatism?
Aside from the fact that I heard this mantra preached 15 years ago? No there isn't a good reason to think we aren't on the verge of a catastrophe. The research indicates it's very unlikely, but not zero.(Sandia 2010)
The Arctic didn't look like this fifteen years ago, did it? Droughts and severe precipitation events weren't nearly so common as they are now. All predictions.
What do you define as the "verge" of catastrophe? Whatever that period might be, subtract fifteen years and here we are.
I'm just no convinced the money isn't better spent on researching mitigation techniques instead of simply raising the kWh rates.
Policy is for the Politics Forum.
The transportation sector needs to substantially reduce CO2. I don't see a lot of research in this area. I know Cummings is researching Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) in trucks, but aside from that I just don't see them making any headway.[
What you don't see is not at issue.
What's at issue is
your claim that climate models "run out of control" when "fed with the real data", which you've made no attempt to justify. There's a good reason for that failure.
.