- 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: 32 degrees at North Pole; Louisiana gulf waters rising?
Posted on 12/25/16 at 8:59 am to Cruiserhog
Posted on 12/25/16 at 8:59 am to Cruiserhog
That may be, but accounting for differences in daytime and nighttime temps still says something about what is happening. That's why time stamps, location, altitude and other such data are kept along with the temperature reading. It's not a single variable analysis. And averages are not a very scientific way of drawing inferences from data.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:08 am to jawnybnsc
quote:
Information about the differences between satellite and surface measurements is easy to come by. Educate yourself.
Satellites measure surface temps and lower atmosphere temps. So what is your point supposed to be?
Do you think that fixed ground based temperature stations can provide an accurate measurement of temperatures on a global basis when dealing with the randomness of two fluid systems (the atmosphere and the oceans) which, in there interactions, are products of chaos theory?
Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:10 am to Dale51
quote:
products of chaos theory?
Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:12 am to Dale51
Neither stands alone. Please educate yourself and stop worrying about what other people on a bulletin board know on this subject. There are lots of people that know a whole lot more about this than you and I put together.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:14 am to LSUTigersVCURams
Yes. Obviously. The interaction of two massive fluid systems are chaotic and can never be predicted. You doubt this?
Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:38 am to jawnybnsc
quote:
Neither stands alone
Thats part of my point. The other part is that those two massive fluid systems, whose internal changes are governed by completely separate stimuli, are, and will most likely always be, the product of unpredictability and chaos.
Do you disagree with this?
Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:41 am to Dale51
No, I don't agree with that.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:44 am to jawnybnsc
quote:
There are lots of people that know a whole lot more about this than you and I put together.
I agree.....and often times those experts arrive at completely different conclusions.
My point is this. "experts" be damned, the massive unpredictable systems that govern weather will, not only be unpredictable, but any effort by man to alter or control it will fail at a great cost.
We are living in a time of mass hysteria where some people will demand the cows fart less and people be genetically altered to product shorter humans (this is actually a thing) to lessen their carbon footprint and need for resources.
The Global Warming shtick is a bizarre and destructive religion.
This post was edited on 12/25/16 at 9:52 am
Posted on 12/25/16 at 9:52 am to jawnybnsc
quote:
No, I don't agree with that.
Of what I've said, what do you disagree with?
Posted on 12/25/16 at 10:30 am to Dale51
quote:
If I had to guess, bmy is completely unaware of how dumb and lacking in self awareness that comment is
I forgot that you're educated trust me it's not hard to do with your whole hardline anti-environment stance
I agree with you about climate modeling but.. that wont last. In a few years we'll have the processing power to reliably do those calculations
This post was edited on 12/25/16 at 10:32 am
Posted on 12/25/16 at 10:45 am to matthew25
quote:
This is why I am a skeptic on global warming. If more than 1/3 of ice has already melted, and Miami is not underwater, then the earth is just going through another cycle.
Oh, it's supposed to be -20 at the North Pole.
Just as an FYI, the north pole could melt completely and not raise sea levels an inch.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 11:47 am to bmy
quote:
I agree with you about climate modeling but.. that wont last. In a few years we'll have the processing power to reliably do those calculations
So why should anyone buy the shtick they're peddling now?
That said, when you say "In a few years we'll have the processing power to reliably do those calculations", that sound eerily like the same old shite coming from the "scientists" that are carnival barking "Its right around the corner....environmental collapse is coming! DO SOMETHING!!"
It's always "right around the corner". Its been "right around the corner" for at least 50 years, and "it" is still not here. Their prediction have been wrong. All of them...unless you know of some that have been accurate? If so, could you share them?
Thanks.
It's a con. You fell for it.
This post was edited on 12/25/16 at 3:53 pm
Posted on 12/25/16 at 11:55 am to bmy
quote:it's not a lack of processing power. Even the most detailed of weather models don't hold much long term accuracy. There's too little order in the system to do it.
agree with you about climate modeling but.. that wont last. In a few years we'll have the processing power to reliably do those calculations
Posted on 12/25/16 at 1:20 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
You would have to be a real idiot not to believe in manmade climate change.
I'm a real idiot then, it's called weather.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 1:44 pm to Dale51
I don't agree that the climate system is well described by the rules of chaos theory.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 1:55 pm to PorkSammich
One day maybe you will wake up and realize how wrong you have been.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 2:14 pm to jawnybnsc
quote:
That may be, but accounting for differences in daytime and nighttime temps still says something about what is happening. That's why time stamps, location, altitude and other such data are kept along with the temperature reading. It's not a single variable analysis. And averages are not a very scientific way of drawing inferences from data.
they dont use averages to do science, just see trends. These people do very good science, by your post you make it sound like they dont. Climatologist still get out and use precise and accurate equipment to acquire the actual data points to plot a visual reference for whatever trend they want to understand at/from every single collection spot on the globe....the average im talking about is the amalgamation of all that information.
the 24hr cycle has absolutely no bearing on the analysis other than nitetime and daytime provide the high and lows at that collection point...They would take the low point measurements at night to get the average temperature at that spot for that 24 hr period which would then factor into the global averages. and record the high, then the low....etc.
your concern about the differences in nite and day cycles is already considered into the global temperature average.
Posted on 12/25/16 at 3:11 pm to Dale51
quote:
So why should anyone buy the shtick they're peddling now?
That said, when you say "In a few years we'll have the processing power to reliably do those calculations", that sould errily like the same old shite coming from the "scientists" that are carnival barking "Its right around the corner....environmental collapse is coming! DO SOMETHING!!"
I'm on the "man is contributing to climate change but it will not result in the collapse of society" team. I think between our ingenuity, advances in technology, and the logical shift to alternative energy sources (while still heavily utilizing oil and gas) we (USA) will be just fine.
I think there's very good evidence that suggests man plays a role. I think the current models are valuable. I think that as we continue to learn more and technology advances we'll quite easily be able to model the climate accurately.
tl;dr i think man plays a role and alternative energy sources should be a nation wide focus
This post was edited on 12/25/16 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 12/25/16 at 3:14 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
it's not a lack of processing power. Even the most detailed of weather models don't hold much long term accuracy. There's too little order in the system to do it.
it boils down to physics.. nothing more. it's just ridiculously complex and we're ~10-15 years off of having the required computing power. that doesn't mean it will be done in 10-15 years.. just that we'll have the raw power required.
i say let artificial intelligence handle it anyways
This post was edited on 12/25/16 at 3:18 pm
Posted on 12/25/16 at 3:57 pm to jawnybnsc
quote:
I don't agree that the climate system is well described by the rules of chaos theory.
Take formal chaos theory aside. The point is that 2 separate and massive fluid systems governed by different forces of physics and forces of nature, can never be predictable.
Do you agree with that?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News