- 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 7:40 pm to Taxing Authority
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.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:52 pm to AUbused
quote:Okay, so just how is this supposed to make all of us believe that CO2 IS a primary forcing variable?
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.
But don't worry, I'm sure you will be able to stick to your thesis indefinitely. Until all the matter in the universal is accounted for in the models you will be able to point to other variables that need to be controlled for.
So long as 77 out of 79 scientists tell you to.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:18 pm to AUbused
quote:So... if you think there are other drivers... what portion do you believe is due to CO2? And what do you suppose are the other drivers?
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:Few actaully write modeling software. I cannot believe you are one of them from your posts.
Yes dude, Im a software engineer I realize how these things work.
quote:Sorry. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
The clarification I was making was regarding the focus on carbon because its a factor we have control over.
quote:Indeed. It means the model is structurally inaccurate, presuming any sort of sensitivity analysis was done. (poor assumption with climate models, though)
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.
quote:And CO2 is ONE OF THOSE INPUT VARIABLES THAT COULD BE WRONG.
It could also mean that one or more of the VALUES attributed to the input variables could be wrong.
quote:The most likely candidate is cloud and water vapor--as those parameters are by even the most ardent AGW supporters admit--poorly modeled with very low fidelity.
For example, they might have UNDER weighted one of the non-carbon variables, skewing the results.
quote:It's exactly what you're saying. Your saying modeling state inputs are wrong--but somehow excluding CO2 as being on of the incorrect ones.
No thats not what Im arguing at all. See above.
Feel free to show us your regression analysis isolating CO2 leading you to that conclusion. Pick any IPCC model of your own choice. I'd love to see it.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 9:23 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News