Climate Models Predict Crossing Doomy Thresholds Or Something

Again and again and again, the models that the Cult of Climastrology uses have been shown to, at a minimum, perform poorly. Yet, they still trot them out as proof of future doom. Why? Because the friendly media is willing to publish these prognostications of doom without any hint of question

Computer model predicts the likelihood of crossing several dangerous climate change thresholds

A new computer model of accumulated carbon emissions predicts the likelihood of crossing several dangerous climate change thresholds. These include global temperature rise sufficient to lose the Greenland Ice Sheet and generate seven meters of long-term sea level rise, or tropical region warming to a level that is deadly to humans and other mammals.

“The model is based on idealized representations of societal, technological and policy factors,” said lead researcher Jeremy Fyke, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Theoretical Division, Fluid Dynamics and Solid Mechanics group. “It’s focused on climate-carbon sensitivities and is designed to reproduce both recent carbon emission trends and long-term future carbon emission projections.”

The research was published today in the Institute of Physics’ Environmental Research Letters.

Seven meters is a shade over 22 feet. When will this happen?

A unique part of the study is that it’s timing-agnostic. “Basically, think of the climate system as a ‘carbon bathtub,’” said Fyke. “What this study mainly does is assess how full the bathtub might get. It could get to the same level at different times. For example, the tap could go full-out for 20 years, or a drip for 100 years, but the end result—net warming—is essentially the same, and only depends on the level the ‘carbon bathtub’ gets to, before we turn off the tap completely.”

This is just fear mongering for the sake of fear mongering. And more government funding. Think I’m wrong? Notice that I put “published today” in bold above. Compare the article cited, with a date of February 22, 2017, with another one, published November 17, 2015

That’s right, they completely recycled the same article over two years later, which is on their front page (at this time). But, hey, this is science, not scaremongering, and there’s no agenda, right? Right?