- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: AGW Deniers - Seems Kind of Hopeless
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:06 pm to AUbused
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:06 pm to AUbused
quote:You need to look at your posts. If you aren't claiming CO2 is driving the temperature rise... you're writing is very, very poor.
I've seen noone stating that carbon dominiates,
quote:Ummm. You have to model all significant state variables. Whether we have control over them or not.
only that its among our outputs we have control(to some extent) over.
quote:It's actually quite sound. If you're trying to say that other non-modeled variables are more powerful than CO2 -- that tells you something too -- that CO2 isn't driving the response.
I read his post as stating that models being inaccurate means conclusively carbon is not a driver. That's bad logic.
You're basically trying to argue that poor modeling results don't invalidate the model's validity. It's a laughable position (no offense). So I'll leave it to you... if poor modeling results don't invalid the model's validity... what does?
1
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:40 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
You need to look at your posts. If you aren't claiming CO2 is driving the temperature rise... you're writing is very, very poor.
Sorry if I was unclear, the general consensus seems to be that carbon is a driving factor.....not THE driver. I was trying to make that distinction
quote:Yes dude, Im a software engineer I realize how these things work. The clarification I was making was regarding the focus on carbon because its a factor we have control over.
Ummm. You have to model all significant state variables. Whether we have control over them or not.
quote:
It's actually quite sound. If you're trying to say that other non-modeled variables are more powerful than CO2 -- that tells you something too -- that CO2 isn't driving the response.
Goddamnit dude are you being intentionally obtuse? I have simply stated that there are a LARGE number of driving factors and that carbon is ONE of them. Just because a model we includes all of these as force variables turns out to be inaccurate does NOT mean that one or all of the variables dont contribute at all. It could also mean that one or more of the VALUES attributed to the input variables could be wrong. For example, they might have UNDER weighted one of the non-carbon variables, skewing the results.
quote:
You're basically trying to argue that poor modeling results don't invalidate the model's validity.
No thats not what Im arguing at all. See above.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News