Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Oahu is much smaller of course with lower mountains and less of a rain shadow, so it rains in Honolulu fairly often.

Two of the volcanoes on The BI are nearly 14,000 feet high.  Mauna Loa is truly massive, it's rare to see the whole thing, it's usually obscured.

Hope for better models??

https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2021/0122/Meet-the-team-shaking-up-climate-models

If scientists can create a new way to predict climate change – making it as accurate as, say, forecasting the weather – it would help people make everyday decisions: how high to build a sea wall or what crops to plant.

There are three main U.S. government-funded climate centers: in New York City; Boulder, Colorado; and Princeton, New Jersey. Rather than compete with the established centers for federal financing, CliMA turned to private money. Soon, it won a pledge from former Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt and Wendy Schmidt, whose philanthropy for the environment ranges from oil cleanup competitions to deep-sea submersibles. They pledged most of the funds needed for the first three years, and with smaller grants, CliMA launched on Sept. 11, 2018.

John Marshall, who developed the oceans model at MIT, says getting funds from outside the government is “a hugely important part of the project.”

“I see the project as a disrupter, like an Uber project,” he says. “Any organization which has been going for a long time, it kind of ossifies.”

this seems to be a bit different.

Using current data from the entire planet

possibly not worrying about checking against past history

also stating that it is too late and we need to calculate the height of a see wall or how far back to move buildings since the oceans will raise, regardless of what measures are taken

very possible it's all burffle and a way to make money

I like the idea of fleecing people outside the government

Using more data would be fine IFF the additional data are reliable and accurate, which is not the case.  Sat data is known to be off for example.

I'm not a fan based on this article (which could be misleading).  This is just one more model.  Yay.

We can't know which models are flawed, beyond the fact they are all flawed, until they are tested against future measurements.

This problem is inherent with any model that purports to predict the future aside from those based clearly on core scientific principles.

We know pretty clearly when the sun will burn out and how.  Climate change could be significantly worse, or better, than the models predict.

I suspect this "new model" will predict about the same future as the existing models, for the same reason.

I'm not sure we really know when the sun will burn out

It's not that hard a calculation, we know the amount of hydrogen left in the sun, how fast it is being "burned", and dot dot dot.  We know helium will start being fused at some point, and then give or take a few million years it will expand and then collapse.

It's easier to model than climate anyway, and who can argue with the output?

do we really know the amount of hydrogen in the sun?

or how fast it's being burned?

someone may discover that past measurements were inaccurate

give or take a few million years could be give of take a few billion years, and then why worry?