- 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: Biden tapping Bill Nye the 'not really a' science guy
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:23 am to Peebles
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:23 am to Peebles
quote:Words have meaning.
Then you go distracted by the word "concern"? Remember?
It seems that meaning escapes your understanding at times.
E.g., Climate Flux Could Have Fostered Early Human Speciation, Diatom Study Suggests
Re: "concerns," the fact scientists would worry or be concerned about the challenge of a hypothesis speaks volumes to the state of the field in the 21st century. It's a simple undeniable fact. Hiding behind a feigned misunderstanding of the term "concern," or reinterpretation of the obvious associated message, speaks volumes as well.
Res ipsa loquitur.
This post was edited on 9/28/23 at 11:51 am
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:43 am to Peebles
quote:81 posts of deep thoughts by Jack Handjob.
Guess that answers my questions. Have fun with your crayons.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:47 am to Peebles
quote:Again, apparent ignorance regarding natural climate change causation combined with intimated thorough understanding of CO2 forcing impacts on the environment is a nonsensical position. It just is.
So far every question asked has been asked by someone who either has a particular answer they wanna hear or who has demonstrated a complete lack of initiative in trying to figure out the answer on their own.
Your refusal to speak to the former has nothing to do with others' "lack of initiative." It has to do with your own.
You seem to believe CO2 is an overarching planetary temperature driver. As such you fall in with what is described as "settled science" and "scientific consensus." That is fine. But with that as your premise, how do you explain Quaternary cyclical CO2 patterns?
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:49 am to NC_Tigah
quote:BWAA HA HAAA HAA
quote:
Then you go distracted by the word "concern"? Remember?
Words have meaning.
It seems that meaning escapes your understanding at times.
got a live one
Posted on 9/28/23 at 12:49 pm to Peebles
quote:You we’re the one that asked what a model perturbance was. You’ll have to explain why you asked that question.
Then why did you throw out the term as if there was something I might be missing?
quote:Was it? It wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to demonstrate you asked a generic question with no real answer. Kinda like asking if stock prices are too high. It’s depends on the stock. There is no singular “criticism” for a generic term.
Wow that's insightful.
quote:See above.
You used the term as if it pertained to some particular criticism of AGW you might have, but I guess not. What was the point then? Just to show us you know some jargon?
quote:Agan, you were the one asking about basic concepts.
But you don't. So again, what was the point of your statement?
quote:Indeed. Is your google broke? I build models every day. I don’t need “links”. If you want me to teach… i can send you over a rate sheet.
That's OK they have these things called "links"
Posted on 9/28/23 at 1:02 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:He’s trolling. Claims ants to have a meaningful conversation about boundary conditions, yet wants to argue about what the term ”flux” means.
Again, apparent ignorance
Posted on 9/28/23 at 1:16 pm to Jbird
quote:
In 1971, global cooling was the climate threat du jour. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated that the planet’s temperature had decreased by “one-half a degree Fahrenheit” since World War II in the 1971 article, titled “New Ice Age?” Claims of longer and harsher winters in Europe since 1940 were also cited. German meteorologist Dr. Martin Rodewald predicted that if this weather pattern continued, Europe “would be covered with the glaciers of a new ice age by the turn of the century.” In 1971, this was the science.
“American and Danish weather researchers in North Greenland, drilling down through 1400 meters of ice to read the weather record of 800 years, found that cold and warm cycles run for an average of 78 to 180 years,” the article stated. “On this basis, Dr. Rodewald does not foresee another warming trend before the year 2015.”
Scientists have a horrible record when it comes to making climate change predictions. Whether it was global cooling in the 1970s or the current cultlike behavior warning of global warming, the only consistency about climate science is its inconsistency. It’s time to stop treating it like it is an absolute truth. If they were wrong before, there’s nothing to suggest they will not be wrong again. LINK
It was the results of the cycles found in ice core histories that scared them. Twelve thousand years ago, NYC was under an estimated 4,000 feet of ice. Looking at the chart, we seem to be lucky that the interglacial has been going on for this long.
Maybe global warming got here just in time to stop the new ice age.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 1:56 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Climate Flux Could Have Fostered Early Human Speciation, Diatom Study Suggests
really? Nothing more recent than a 2005 magazine article title? Sounds like it must be a really commonly used term.
quote:I do not care. Like I said, write a book. Or here's an idea, be useful and send an email to the authors of the paper that got you so upset. I think it's still under review. Not too late to make minor changes. Lemme know how that works out.
Re: "concerns," the fact scientists would worry or be concerned about the challenge of a hypothesis speaks volumes to the state of the field in the 21st century. It's a simple undeniable fact. Hiding behind a feigned misunderstanding of the term "concern," or reinterpretation of the obvious associated message, speaks volumes as well.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 1:57 pm to Peebles
No wonder you cranked up your alter.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 1:59 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:We were discussing model errors.
You we’re the one that asked what a model perturbance was. You’ll have to explain why you asked that question.
He cited a paper touting past Climate Models as "skillful" projectors. I responded with a list of ~35-40 papers identifying modeling errors. Some were technical.
The first in the list was a comparison of perturbed physics and multi-modal ensembles. He may have found the paper's lexicon daunting and, I guess, assumed it was above "armchair scientist" level. Sometimes assumptions morph to bad gambits.
Anyway, I think that's why he asked.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 2:02 pm to Peebles
quote:Oh dude, you are a really slow learner. Really slow.
Nothing more recent than a 2005 magazine article title?
Climate flux matched Europe's social rise and fall
Posted on 9/28/23 at 2:55 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
It was the results of the cycles found in ice core histories that scared them.
Actually it was man made aerosols they were most worried about. They didn't know whether those would be the dominate effect or if greenhouses gases would win. What you are saying doesn't really make sense as ice core samples had been around since the late 50's and science had known about the existence of ice ages for several decades already.
Posted on 9/28/23 at 3:21 pm to Peebles
quote:
Actually it was man made aerosols they were most worried about.
You weren't born then were you?
Posted on 9/28/23 at 3:39 pm to Peebles
quote:Again, why the dismissiveness and attitude?
Actually it was man made aerosols they were most worried about. They didn't know whether those would be the dominate effect or if greenhouses gases would win. What you are saying doesn't really make sense as ice core samples had been around since the late 50's and science had known about the existence of ice ages for several decades already.
You're both right ... which d/t your ice core retort, renders you equally right, and unnecessarily wrong.
quote:
In Schneider’s early calculations, published in Science in 1971, the cooling effect was dominant. He said aerosols might have doubled since 1900 and could double again in the coming 50 years. Even allowing for warming from CO2, this could still mean a 3.5 °C drop in global temperatures, which “if sustained over a period of several years… is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age”.
quote:The ice age that never was
The early 1970s also saw the first analysis of Greenland ice cores and with it the suggestion that climate could change very fast: the last ice age may have taken hold within as little as a century. So the cooling in the mid-20th century might not have been a short-term blip but the start of a rapid slide into the next global freeze.
A little less of the snarky BS, and you still might actually learn something here.
This post was edited on 9/28/23 at 3:44 pm
Posted on 9/28/23 at 9:30 pm to Powerman
I’m a ME grad from LSU. I didn’t learn a thing about the climate in school, but I took Physics & Chemistry so I guess I’m a climate expert. Or maybe not cause I don’t have a kids show on Saturday mornings,
Posted on 9/28/23 at 11:34 pm to NC_Tigah
The new ice age threat was quite the thing in my early college days. However, unlike today, not everything was at the fingertips of anyone curious. It took hours to dig stuff out of serious libraries with access to scientific journals, not 5 minutes on an internet search engine.
However, the ice core studies filtered down and kept coming. They still stand as a serious warning and should we enter a new ice age due to the sun's output, celestial mechanics or other cyclical processes, a very large part of this old world's population will die.
Of note in this hard science chart, CO2 follows temperature change typically by a lot. That's the tail wagging the dog.
However, the ice core studies filtered down and kept coming. They still stand as a serious warning and should we enter a new ice age due to the sun's output, celestial mechanics or other cyclical processes, a very large part of this old world's population will die.
Of note in this hard science chart, CO2 follows temperature change typically by a lot. That's the tail wagging the dog.
Posted on 9/29/23 at 5:25 am to Auburn1968
quote:It's Henry's Law* in effect.
Of note in this hard science chart, CO2 follows temperature change typically by a lot. That's the tail wagging the dog.
93% of terrestrial CO2 is in the ocean.
The warmer the water, the higher the partial pressure of a gas contained in liquid.
Warm the ocean and oceanic CO2 exits to the atmosphere. The reverse occurs with cooling.
That is why CO2 lags temps in the ice cores. It doesn't drive the ice core temps. It responds to them. It is an indicator rather than a cause.
* Scientific Law = actual "settled science"
Posted on 9/29/23 at 8:12 pm to Peebles
Simple question for your so called intelligence
Does smoking cause cancer?
Does smoking cause cancer?
Posted on 9/29/23 at 8:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Again, apparent ignorance regarding natural climate change causation combined with intimated thorough understanding of CO2 forcing impacts on the environment is a nonsensical position. It just is.
Does he understand that CO2 is finite ? It will never increase or decrease
Posted on 9/29/23 at 8:30 pm to dafif
quote:
Does he understand that CO2 is finite ? It will never increase or decrease
Carbon is finite. CO2 is variable. Plants break down CO2 as plant food and release oxygen, but not all of that plant reverts to CO2 even after the plant dies.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News