Goldman Sachs analysis of the impact of climate change. The result are terrifying

Its over for chuck. Everytime he posts something, that NASA article will follow.

Read the article closer. It states further down that the models cant even replicate low alititude cloud cover. That means a major variable is not even in the models. Its garbage. But they will probably keep working on it for decades to come.

Will he go the way of austanamsnda and tge dodo bird ? Lol

[AlbertaFarmer5]

What a piece of work you are chuck. You bash us for not accepting NASA and NOAA as gospel and then I give you their own admission that the models are way off like I said before and they cannot even account for certain variables that are known to affect the climate.

And you now want us to believe some guys blog? You need serious help about being able to think and judge fact for yourself. Its over. I killed your entire narrative with that article. Basically under NASAs own admission, they have no clue what they are even modelling. 25% error should be tossed right into the garbage.

Why not just admit you got panels because you are virtue signaller. Fine we can live with that. But as Greta said Don't You Dare tell us there is a climate emergency.

Jazz, as usual, you are reading the situation all wrong, this is excellent news for Chuck and his consensus.

Now that NASA can no longer be called on as an authority on the subject, it makes the CAGW theory almost bullet proof. As Chuck keeps reminding us, only studies from a very small ( and quickly shrinking) set of institutions can be accepted as evidence against he and Greta's little theory, everyone else is a denier, and their science isn't acceptable as evidence to disprove the theory. With one more heavy weight falling off the list, the certainty that any other organization who disagrees will also be dropped from the list, and considering that the IPCC doesn't do any science (only communications) it becomes virtually impossible to find any "credible" evidence against CAGW, so the theory will progress into settled science and then accepted fact completely unopposed by conflicting evidence.


As for the 25% error, that is not what it said. It stated that for temperature and wind, the models are accurate to about 5%. Which is a 2000% error. As in, I estimated Chucks canola crop to be 2 bushels/acre, and it ended up being 40 bu/acre.

For clouds, they are accurate to 25 to 35%, only a 300% to 400% error.

Which makes sense, that an error of predicting clouds of that magnitude would quickly propagate to an error of thousands of percent in the resulting conditions.

But remember to always repeat the mantra:
The science is settled

[jazz]

Well their is uncertainty about what degree of impact clouds will have in a warming world, hind sight show clearly that the world is warming due to increases in greenhouse gases.

There may be uncertainty as to the degree of warming that will occur in any particular period but there is certainty that humans are impacting the climate. On the ground, ocean and satellite observations are clear about this.

There is no major scientific organization in the world that says that human caused climate change is not occurring. Regardless of the issue of uncertainty of cloud models, NASA is in agreement. If you are not convinced look at their website on climate change.

Are you serious? The ground measurements have been totally off and fudged for 20 yrs. They agree with nothing and now not even their bogus models can agree on anything.

So the thesis is now to put the conclusion first and force the models to fit. We know humans are causing climate change but we cant tell how much and our models aren't working. That's not science. Stop defending the indefensible.

[chuckChuck]

Well their is uncertainty about what degree of impact clouds will have in a warming world, hind sight show clearly that the world is warming due to increases in greenhouse gases.

There may be uncertainty as to the degree of warming that will occur in any particular period but there is certainty that humans are impacting the climate. On the ground, ocean and satellite observations are clear about this.

There is no major scientific organization in the world that says that human caused climate change is not occurring. Regardless of the issue of uncertainty of cloud models, NASA is in agreement. If you are not convinced look at their website on climate change.

[jazz]

Clouds’ cooling effect could vanish in a warmer world

Did you stay up all night looking for that article.

From NASA, models are inaccurate, do not include a major variable at all, 25% off, need 100 fold improvement to be in the realm of useable. Low alt cumulus clouds infer cooling effect that is unmeasured.

Are you refuting NASA? Don't 97% of scientists always agree?

[chuckChuck]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00685-x

Clouds’ cooling effect could vanish in a warmer world

High concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide can result in the dispersal of cloud banks that reflect roughly 30% of the sunlight that hits them.
For decades, clouds have remained the leading source of uncertainty in climate-change predictions, including in the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says Matthew Huber, a palaeoclimatologist at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. This means that many models might be underestimating future climate change.

The model proposed by Schneider and his colleagues has similar issues, says Huber. Although the findings point to a warmer world, there’s still a fair amount of uncertainty in those predictions. Some of the large-scale interactions, including how oceans exchange heat and energy with the atmosphere, were simplified or neglected, he says. This makes it hard to know the precise carbon dioxide levels at which stratocumulus clouds become unstable.

[sumdumguy]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

...at least we can eat the babies

Instead of beef 🐄

[A990]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

...at least we can eat the babies

[Radical]

While I agree that farming under pasture, or zero till can capture some carbon, as an organic component it is continually volatilizing, so after a while it is just a stasis. The sad fact is that our modern agricultural system consumes roughiy 10 calories of fossil fuel energy per calorie of food. That's just a fancy way of eating oil. Draft animal farming typically took one calorie of food and feed energy to produce 2 of food. Otherwise farming never would have existed. Our modern farming actually starts down oil and gas wells.
Same guy and looks like he with Green Party.

[Radical]

Planting trees is another greenwashing issue. Trees historically have grown well on their own. Unfortunately now practically all north American forest biomes are giving up carbon, because they are stressed by climate change, drought, fires, and adverse insect and weather events. There's enough biomass tied up in permafrost ground to more than double CO2, and it is thawing, I've seen it myself on the ground. It seems likely that a sleeping giant is awaking, a feedback loop that we can't control.
Garry tait talking on ndp site ebrandon .