What Will You All Do If Something Happens To The Food Supply?

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
When hurricane forecasters attempt to predict a hurricane's path, they run numerous models that predict similar, but different paths based on each models' programming, input data and assumptions. Each run of a set of models is called an ensemble. As the hurricane moves, each model starting point is reset to the hurricane's current position and another ensemble is run. This image shows how the starting position for each model is reset to the hurricane's current position (feedback). All of those lines represent 51 different model runs. Without the realtime feedback the models would be garbage. Continuous feedback anchors a model in reality and gives it predictive ability.

uploads%252Fcard%252Fimage%252F589768%252Fcf49e067-4932-4c20-9ff1-e0e9819bbb9d.gif%252Ffit-in__1200x9600.gif


Climate forecasters do the same thing with one exception: they never reset their model run starting points to current temperatures. They just let the models rip and then average all of them together, which becomes the forecast. In the image below the thick black line represents the average of the 73 model runs. But notice how far it is from reality, which is represented by blue and green circles and squares (satellite and balloon measurement data). Since it doesn't incorporate feedback, it's not anchored in reality and is just junk science with no forecasting ability.

CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
 
Last edited:

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,363
Location
USA
President Donald J. Trump knows what's up with the fake news and fake science regarding global warming propaganda of lies and deceit to steal your money, freedom, and joy.

 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
When hurricane forecasters model the projected path of a hurricane they continuously readjust their model runs with real-time data. Climate modelers never do that, and consequently their predictions drastically diverge from reality.
Adjusting and incorporating the developing data can and does lead to updated forecasts in climate science. The complexity of the systems and feedbacks involved leaves some uncertainties in exact magnitude and speed, though not in overall trend.

Please watch the documentary.
That video is not a serious informative documentary. It has graphs with made up data, misrepresented its more credible sources (some of them objected strongly), and generally misrepresents the science to mislead the audience. The false claims have been refuted.
Here they explain that CO2 is lagging behind temperature by hundreds of years and what the oceans have to do with it.
There are feedback loops that can and have increased GHGs in the past, and can again. (Just because there have at times been other causes of increased CO2 doesn't refute that:
1. CO2 is increasing more rapidly in the current period than in any period in the past.
2. Human activity such as burning fossil fuels and destroying biodiversity has been driving this.
3. GHGs trapping more heat means more unstable and extreme weather.

Remember that in the geological record, other causes of climate change involving changes in CO2 have taken orders of magnitude longer. We are in an extremely rapid rise measured in decades - not the slow ones over tens of thousands of years.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
I hope any of you in north america are OK in the current cold storms.
Extreme warmth in the Arctic may be driving it.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Adjusting and incorporating the developing data can and does lead to updated forecasts in climate science. The complexity of the systems and feedbacks involved leaves some uncertainties in exact magnitude and speed, though not in overall trend.

Climate modelers do continually update their models, but the way models are executed for forecasting purposes does not use feedback at all.

As an example, this is one of the initial forecasting runs for hurricane Irma. As I mentioned before, hurricane forecasters reset their model run starting points to the hurricane's actual position each time they re-run their programs. This is called feedback, and keeps the model anchored in reality. In reality, Irma hit the southern tip of Florida, which only one model got close at the beginning of forecasts after the storm formed near the Azores.

iu


If climate modelers were forecasting hurricane Irma, they would simply average all of those initial runs together and use the average as their track forecast, which would put Irma's landfall no further south than North Carolina or Virginia. That would be their forecast that would never change because they wouldn't incorporate positional feedback in each successive model run. But it would be a wildly inaccurate forecast because Irma hit the southern tip of Florida, hundreds of miles away from their projection (see below).

1200px-Irma_2017_track.png


That's why we see a wide divergence from reality in climate model forecasts. The red line below represents the average of all climate model runs (ie, their temperature forecast) and the blue squares and white circles represent actual temperature observations, ie, measurement data (satellites, weather balloons). If climate scientists actually knew how to forecast like hurricane forecasters do, they would reset their models to match actual observed temperatures at each model run. But as we can see they never do that. If the graph below was a track prediction for hurricane Irma, the red line would represent climate modelers' projection for hurricane Irma to hit around NC/VA and the circle/squares line would represent Irma's actual path. Not even close, and not even science.

cmip5-models-vs-observations.jpg
 
Last edited:

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
I hope any of you in north america are OK in the current cold storms.
Extreme warmth in the Arctic may be driving it.

Actually extreme cold in the Arctic is driving it. The jet stream has become weakened and wavy from low solar activity, which is allowing Arctic air to plunge farther south than usual in places, and warmer air from lower latitudes to move farther north in other places.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Actually extreme cold in the Arctic is driving it. The jet stream has become weakened and wavy from low solar activity, which is allowing Arctic air to plunge farther south than usual in places, and warmer air from lower latitudes to move farther north in other places.

Dallas, Texas was colder than Anchorage, Alaska on Monday. That can happen when the jet stream gets weak and wavy (meridional). According to NASA the same thing happened during the Maunder Minimum causing a colder US and Europe, and a warmer N Pacific/Alaska, N Atlantic and parts of the Arctic.

maunder_minimum_temperature.gif


 
Last edited:

Inaut

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
3,620
Was weather manipulation already talked about in this thread? I have a hard time determining if changes in weather are natural or man- induced...
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
That video is not a serious informative documentary. It has graphs with made up data, misrepresented its more credible sources (some of them objected strongly), and generally misrepresents the science to mislead the audience. The false claims have been refuted.
This is lazy.

3. GHGs trapping more heat means more unstable and extreme weather.
Low solar activity makes the jetstream more wavy causing extreme weather.
 

David90

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
386
Location
Germany
Just a hypothetical question. I'm not asking because I think it will probably happen (although after the past few weeks I'm realizing that nothing is ever truly out of the question), but what would you do if there are prolonged shortages of fruits, fruit juices, milk, supplements, Peat essentials in general? Peat's favorite milk for example has already been discontinued and something similar may happen with other staples.

For the past several days I've been trying to consume less juice, less liver/oysters, a moderate amount of milk as opposed to close to a gallon, more rice and vegetables and beans. I'm still avoiding refined vegetable oil, but basing my meals predominantly on starch opposed to sugar is definitely lowering my metabolic rate and cognitive ability.

More of certain brands of vitamin E, aspirin, and coffee seems to offset the slow down to some degree, but I wonder if it's possible to increase baseline metabolic rate without requiring specific foods or supps daily?

I Personally do Monthly Grocery Shops. I go once, mostly every Beginning of the Month and Buy Stuff that i use quite often (OJ, Grass-Fed-Milk, Chocolate Milk, Cheese, Frozen Fruits and Veggies, Gummy Bears, Gelatin Powder and so forth) ahead of Time. It Cost's me Around 150-250€ per Month but it saves me a LOT of Fuel from my Car and i only have to go every once in a while in a Store again (for Things like Oranges, Raw Carrots and so forth). Sometimes i buy like 20-30 Packages alone of OJ or Milk which is giving me nearly a Month Supply in Terms of Food.

Yes, nothing is truly out of the Question at the Moment.
I would personally advise to buy the Staples as much as Possible (stock piling them) Like:
-Milk
-OJ (not from Concentrate)
-Canned Fruits (WITHOUT Added Sugar)
-Applesauce
-Eggs (YES you can also freeze eggs. You have to put the Whole Liquid Egg in a Ice Cube Tray and it should hold for at least 6 Months)
-Beef or Calf Liver (put them in the Freezer)


Also i see some shortages of supplements right away. There was a good Methylene Blue Supplement on our German Amazon Website which was discontinued to buy. Also i can't get Milk of Magnesia anymore. Thankfully, from the latter, i have three bottles in Reserve, just in case.....
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
A great example of how scientists are not able to accurately forecast weather conditions beyond 7-10 days (much less climate in 10 -100 years) . Notice the heat in Texas. The Weather Channel got this model forecast from the NOAA Climate Prediction Center.

NOAA's model forecast for warmer weather in February




Reality hits three weeks later

 
Last edited:

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Ooof! Some Texans rolled the dice on unregulated cost electric service and ended up having to pay $5000 for 5 days of electricity due to the record ice/cold.

 
Last edited:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
This is lazy.
What were you hoping for?
Climate scientists shown in the video reject its message, say it misrepresents reality, and is harmful.
If you want a scientific view on reality, you could read the IPPC reports and references.
Or you could go to Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined website and see some shorter descriptions of the science around some common denial errors.


That's why we see a wide divergence from reality in climate model forecasts.
Reality is largely confirming the climate scientists predictions.
A great example of how scientists are not able to accurately forecast weather conditions beyond 7-10 days (much less climate in 10 -100 years) .

Climate = average weather. Climate is easier to predict than a particular day's weather.
But I expect you know that.
Average dice rolls are easier to predict than individual ones, too.

Climate scientists predict instability and an increase in extreme weather events. Unfortunately, recent US storms have been consistent with this.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Climate scientists shown in the video reject its message, say it misrepresents reality, and is harmful.
If you want a scientific view on reality, you could read the IPPC reports and references.

The way you phrased it - "Climate scientists" - makes it sound like all climate scientists think that way. Some climate scientists reject what mainstream climate scientists say.

The IPPC is a political organization; much like the WHO.

Reality is largely confirming the climate scientists predictions.

Name some examples. Literally every prediction they've made has failed.

Climate = average weather. Climate is easier to predict than a particular day's weather.
But I expect you know that.
Average dice rolls are easier to predict than individual ones, too.

This is just a specious talking point with no connection to reality. Their models make it obvious that their projections are already way off. They predicted 40 years ago that the world would be warmer than it is now. If they were actually doing legitimate science, they would incorporate that feedback into their models, which would cool their predictions, but they don't.

Climate scientists predict instability and an increase in extreme weather events. Unfortunately, recent US storms have been consistent with this.

That's like predicting market instability and increase in extreme trading. It's going to happen because it always happens, just as US weather was (more) unstable and (more) extreme decades and centuries ago (eg, the Dust Bowl, flood of 1862, etc). The US is currently in a rather mild phase compared to what it has seen in the past.
 
Last edited:

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Colder weather has far more hazardous potential than warmer weather does, so a wise person will prepare more for colder weather. Warmer weather may make a person more uncomfortable, but it will almost always make crops grow better. But colder weather is more likely to directly kill people as well as crops.

 

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,345
Location
HI
Colder weather has far more hazardous potential than warmer weather does, so a wise person will prepare more for colder weather. Warmer weather may make a person more uncomfortable, but it will almost always make crops grow better. But colder weather is more likely to directly kill people as well as crops.

Have you ever looked into this? I just ran into it but with my knowledge of HAARP tech and geoengineeringwatch.org I don't doubt the radar can do something unexpected.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
8,186
Have you ever looked into this? I just ran into it but with my knowledge of HAARP tech and geoengineeringwatch.org I don't doubt the radar can do something unexpected.


No I have not looked into it. It seems plausible that radar could heat water vapor in the atmosphere. That might be part of the urban heat island effect. But the doppler blips he was referring to were just noise (false echoes). I've seen them before on local radar animations.

 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom