- 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
0
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:02 pm to CptBengal
quote:
blithering tart
Ohh you SO mad.
Are you like a 75 year old english dude?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:06 pm to AUbused
"mad"? Nah, champ. You've routinely proven your ineptitude in science and math in this thread. It's actually sad you were unable to learn. quote:
Are you like a 75 year old english dude?
No, like my knowledge of math and science...I have a large vocabulary as well.
Again, dude, it's sad that you chose to squander your educational opportunities.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 9:07 pm
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:08 pm to CptBengal
quote:
it's sad that you chose to squander your educational opportunities.
quote:. . . . . well
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:11 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:17 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
. . . . . well
Thats wrong bro!!
Honestly you guys missed a golden opportunity to point out the fact that I MUST be lying about being a software engineer because libz don't work at anything but gettin dat government dollah.
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
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:19 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
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.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:21 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
it's sad that you chose to squander your educational opportunities.
quote:
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:25 pm to AUbused
quote:
Thats wrong bro!!
quote:You actually did that to yourself here. Not sure you recognize the extent. It's significant though..
Honestly you guys missed a golden opportunity to point out the fact . . .
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:26 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Few actaully write modeling software. I cannot believe you are one of them from your posts.
You dont have to write modeling software to understand what a big arse system of equations is.
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.
I didn't state that explicitly, I argued that the model being wrong didnt NECESSARILY prove that carbon isn't a contributing driver. The difference there is quite significant.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:31 pm to AUbused
quote:
I argued that the model being wrong didnt NECESSARILY prove that carbon isn't a contributing driver. The difference there is quite significant.
But here is where you keep shifting the argument. The models were developed that the MAIN driver is CO2. I'll even agree that if other model relationships, particularly boundary conditions, arent handled properly it may alter the proposed effect of even their primary variable.
However, we are talking about ALL of the models. ALL OF THEM. All of them so bad that reality has fallen out of the 95% CI.
Listen, nobody doubts that CO2 has some effect on climate, but the reality is that it is nowhere near as strong as the acolytes would like it to be for their doomsday scare tactics. It is a minor contributor at current concentrations.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:32 pm to AUbused
quote:It would help if you had a clue what a state variable, causality, and which way heat flows.
You dont have to write modeling software to understand what a big arse system of equations is.
quote:
I didn't state that explicitly, I argued that the model being wrong didnt NECESSARILY prove that carbon isn't a contributing driver. The difference there is quite significant.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:37 pm to AUbused
Maybe you just missed my questions on the previous page. So, I'll ask them again here;
Testing hypotheses are a necessary part of science, agree? Global warming advocates' hypotheses are that CO2 creates global warming and has been for decades now, correct? So, can you point me to forecasts based on these hypotheses that have turned out to be correct?
One final question, you would agree that science depends on hypotheses being tested over and over and coming up w/ the same answers time after time, correct?
Testing hypotheses are a necessary part of science, agree? Global warming advocates' hypotheses are that CO2 creates global warming and has been for decades now, correct? So, can you point me to forecasts based on these hypotheses that have turned out to be correct?
One final question, you would agree that science depends on hypotheses being tested over and over and coming up w/ the same answers time after time, correct?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:51 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
It would help if you had a clue what a state variable, causality, and which way heat flows.
Ohh, I get it, you're one of those dudes that tries to trot out impressive sounding phases and terms as if to boost your authoritative presence and intimidate people into not pushing you. Are you the guy that I fricked up so bad on the "appeal to authority" argument???
YOU ARE ARENT YOU.
Dude your schtick is lame. I fricking use state variables every day. I could declare a state variable with my dick. What I am stating is very simple.
The following assertion was made:
Assertion : Because climate models are inaccurate and include carbon as a force variable, we must therefore declare that carbon cannot be a valid force variable.
This does not hold up to scrutiny because a system of equations involving the climate would involve a large body of variables which are dependent upon each others state. An invalid X input might invalidate the result of this particular model, but does not mean that C doesn't belong in the system or that its value was even incorrect.
So save your bullshite terms and your appeal to authority jive for someone who doesnt know better.
Now Im getting off here and finishing the 4th qtr of this game without thinking bout you frickers.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 9:56 pm to AUbused
quote:
Assertion : Because climate models are inaccurate and include carbon as a force variable, we must therefore declare that carbon cannot be a valid force variable.
that wasnt the assertion, clown.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:04 pm to CptBengal
posting to revisit later, thanks to the last 10 or so posts
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:38 pm to 90proofprofessional
No way we should modify our economy because of a mere theory that is far from settled science.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:55 pm to NC_Tigah
This thread(and this board) gives me hope that there are still rational people out there that can see through BS and think logically. There might be a small minority of such people in this country but it's nice to know they are there.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 11:43 pm to AUbused
They are paid to find the data the govt needs so scientists can get their funding and corporate interests can ripoff the public.
Page 15 of 16
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News