I doubt their climate expertise because their pre-eminent climate scientist made a considered climate scientific prediction that something was going to happen because of the climate regarding global warming … and … um … er … IT DIDN’T! Not even remotely right. Way off. Fantasy. Tin foil hat stuff.
The trouble with “climate science” is that it is infested with zealots inculcated in groupthink that their careers in their fields depend upon for their income and advancement.
No doubt there are very clever people in NASA, but when did they last trust themselves to put humans in space? What’s their plan to do so? Where’s the ‘right stuff’?
So I predict another tiresome climate change thread will bite the dust.
Climate panic is the only form of science where publishing fake news in the form of “models” ( none if which are even close to reality) guarantees you a job.
Yes just like the crusades, death to the un believers…
The universe goes around the earth
Hard to believe governments are in it as well, so why is that??
They smell tax income as the solution to fix it.
Do all the other things the EPA does in various countries to reduce pollution etc get so much front page news and politicians talking about it?
Did we tax lead in fuel, no just legislated it away over a few years.
We did the same for sulfur.
Cant legislate away Co2 so its a perfect to source of tax for many years to come.
As Michael Moore points out without even arguing if Co2 is a problem, its a money making scam hence robbing the poor ( power cost skyrocketing- how is that possible with free fuel?) and making some people rich whilst doing nothing to reduce total pollution or Co2
NOAA and NASA are the agencies who make possible the weather predictions that the world’s mariners rely on to not die. We trust our lives to these agencies every day. The weather data coming through the weather app that we obsess over to avoid typhoons and hurricanes, all the stuff Bon Voyage and other weather apps display, comes from NOAA and NASA’s efforts, and from agencies like NOAA and NASA.
You trust your lives to their data as mariners. You cherish the satellites, supercomputers and expertise that brings you that data. You treat that data like the Tablets brought down the mountain by Moses.
But when those same agencies tell you the Earth’s atmosphere is getting warmer because of CO2, you call them idiots, and fools, and woke!
Predictions are by nature not possible to prove since they are about something in the future.
To check the accuracy of the Weather forecast for tomorrow you just have to wait one day. But you should still take actions based on the available forecast.
To check the accuracy of predictions about the average temperature of the earth in 2050 you have to wait until 2051. That doesn’t mean that you wait until 2051 to take action.
Smart people take action NOW, based on best available predictions.
If NOAA told any captain on this forum that satellites operating on NASA tech showed a typhoon bearing down on their ship, every single captain would run like a bunny rabbit. Every single one. What captain is gonna think, NOAA is woke, NASA are fools? Maybe the typhoon will change course. Nothing is predictable, and what’s more, I think NOAA does diversity training, so you know they can’t be trusted. I saw a scientist once say typhoons don’t exist. A lot of people are saying…So I’ll just keep doing what I’m doing.
No. Every skipper is gonna turn bunny rabbit and run. Because of the respect mariners put in agencies like NOAA and NASA.
NOAA and NASA are telling you a world of hurt is coming at you. It’s going to ruin your day. It’s gonna make a typhoon feel like a fart. And you call them fools and woke.
Because … wait for it … not yet … a little longer … pause … go
Oh, and you must be sick of being reminded of the difference between weather and climate.
Weather forecasts are generally very accurate and they need to be for the reputations of those organisations because every man and his dog now knows what was forecast and can check if it’s true … all day, every day.
On climate, they are much more sinister, and consistently and provably wrong. Fewer people go back and check the predictions (projections, they call them), and so their reputations don’t suffer as they would if they got the weather wrong every day.
They want to make the case that the world is warming because of CO2 rather than bother to scientifically prove the world is warming because of CO2. They are wrong because they fiddle the data and create models (not one validated yet) that just predict higher temperatures no matter what, but mostly related to CO2 levels. The models have yet to accord with observations (of the weather, you know).
Hint; refer to why I doubt their climate expertise - and that’s only one example. I have many more.
You mean draw Sharpies around the data? No, NOAA and NASA don’t do that. Other people do that. NOAA and NASA get magnificent things done because they don’t fiddle with data.
Conspiracy theories and character assassination are the only tools left to those who can’t propose an alternate explanation to the data NOAA and NASA are coming up with. Don’t like their models? Propose alternate models, not conspiracy theories.
In the end it comes down to, Who do you trust? I trust the people who keep me, and every other mariner on this forum, alive, day by day.
The issue is, Is the earth’s atmosphere getting warmer because of increasing CO2? Here’s a part of the details:
Those are findings from a trustworthy source. If NASA isn’t trustworthy, do us all a favor and stop looking at your weather app.
Find someone to refute the data and/or model behind these findings from NASA. That’s all you have to do. Big Oil can hire the scientists to do it (just like Big Tobacco hired scientists to determine smoking was safe).
But you don’t have the data, and you don’t have the models. And I don’t think Big Oil will be releasing a kraken of secret data anytime soon.
Every time you resort to attacking personalities and venting feelings you just reinforce the weakness of your position.
Nope. I watched the video. In the video, Will Happer, among other things, expresses his views on the concept of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and why he believes increasing CO2 won’t lead to an increase in heat energy in the atmosphere. He doesn’t comment on the data in NASA 's study–because the data had not come out yet.
Happer has his opinions on the matter, which he is entitled to. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society, but that Society disagrees with his opinion on CO2. Because the society disagrees with him, Happer apparently takes it as evidence he is right, since any scientist who agrees with another scientist must be wrong, and only scientists who disagree with others can be right. It’s a strange sort of philosophy–to be right you only have to disagree --but to each their own.
In the end, it comes down to trust. I trust NOAA and NASA. I trust my life to them, and the lives of my people. I don’t know Will Happer. He’s a nice guy I’m sure, but I’m not going to trust the lives of my descendants to him.
its science, and consensus doesnt prove one theory over another, thats religion where those people believe in make believe and will fight that to the death.
Nice to see you make some concessions. Well done. Perhaps more attention to the physics (ie science) of WHY “increasing CO2 won’t lead to an increase in heat energy in the atmosphere.”
Your final word now. Let’s see if I have this right.
You don’t trust Professor Will Happer (who to my knowledge has not made any climate predictions/projections that didn’t come true), but you do trust Dr James Hansen who will himself admit his seminal prediction was totally wrong about climate, his specialty … because he was formerly Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, an unimpeachable authority whose work cannot be faulted … and they make accurate weather forecasts.
I don’t think you have a very clear idea of the various weather models and why everyone switched from NOAA to Windy. NOAA’s model has a somewhat poor accuracy record so that might not be the best example to use…
Look at Windy’s website. They list 12 models they use. Four of them are National Weather Service/NOAA models. Here they are a few (this info and wording are directly from Windy’s website):
## GFS27 — Global
** Name: Global Forecast System*
** Source: The United States National Weather Service*
** Headquarters:*
** Type (region): Global*
## NAM — North America
** Name: North American Mesoscale Forecast System*
** Source: The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the US (NOAA)*
** Headquarters:*
** Type (region): Regional — North America*
## HRRR — North America It provides a great forecast for the continental US based with radars’ data — the unique advantage of HRRR. It is assimilated every 15 min over a 1 h period. It gives short-range weather forecasts with pretty good accuracy.* Name: High Resolution Rapid Refresh Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the US (NOAA) Type (region): Regional — North America
So your statement
is factually incorrect, because Windy itself uses NOAA models. Moreover the data those models use is derived from NASA satellites. In fact, much of the data used by foreign weather agencies to crunch their owns models is from NASA satellites. So the rest of the world trusts data from NOAA and NASA. And since you trust Windy, you must by extension trust models made by NOAA, and data derived from NASA. Or is there a flaw in that logic?
Let me get this straight…