re: Biden tapping Bill Nye the 'not really a' science guy

quote:

---

You can't make a comment on your beliefs.

---

I try to avoid beliefs as much as possible.

quote:

---

it's your field.

No it isn't.

---

Ah, that explains your confusion with the paper then.

quote:

---

And apparently facts questions and links.

---

What facts am I avoiding ?


Do you get that forming an argument for or in favour of something is a little more involved than just listing random facts? Do I really gotta explain to you that you need to a) say what you are arguing b) list evidence and c) explain how the evidence supports your argument ? You are great at b), congratulations, A+. F on the other two

quote:

---

You wouldn't even know a fluid dynamics model if it hit you in the face.

---

I warned you about assumptions as to what I know. Didn't I? I thought I did.

Blood is a complex fluid with unique rheological properties. FDMs consider the viscosity, density, and shear-thinning behavior of blood to accurately simulate its flow.

Insofar as I have been occasionally hit by blood in the face under difficult circumstances, you probably should guess again.

quote:

---

How much blood do you have to get hit with to become an expert on computational fluid dynamics ?

---

None, certainly.
But those moments do teach a bit about life, and the hazards of guesses and assumptions.

Cardiology
LINK ]Systematic review on the application of computational fluid dynamics as a tool for the design of coronary artery stents

Neurosurgery
LINK ]Clinical application of image-based computational fluid dynamics for cerebral aneurysms

Nephrology
LINK ]Impact of side-hole geometry on the performance of hemodialysis catheter tips: A computational fluid dynamics assessment

Infectious Disease
LINK ]Airborne and aerosol pathogen transmission modeling of respiratory events in buildings: An overview of computational fluid dynamics

I could go on citing CFD work in a dozen other medical fields, hundreds in each.

But the question you really need to ask yourself at this stage, as you try to pick yourself up from the canvas, is "Did I learn something here?"

quote:

---

Um

You

Are

A

Liar

---

K. I mean, there isn't any evidence that what you say is true. But if pretending like I'm a liar makes you feel better, I don't care.

67 posts of drivel.

Alter trolls truly suck arse.

quote:

---

When you have something of value to say I'm ready.

---

You first.

quote:

---

There are over 200 computer models that predict a catastrophic future. None have been validated with real data. None

---

This is the real "inconvenient truth." Despite input of verified historical data, none of these models have ever correctly "predicted" current conditions. Of course, that doesn't even scratch the surface.

The entire AGW/climate change grift is based upon an extremely abbreviated (and narrow) data set. Despite the assertion "weather =/= climate," it's historical weather data that goes into these models. There's only been what could be considered "global" weather data since the late 1880s. So about 150 years of 5 billion. Statistically insignificant by any measure.

Then, when you did down into that data, you see the flaws. BIG flaws.

Take a look at a map of global reporting stations. Africa, Russia, Central Asia have a paucity of stations considering their size - to the point that the data for these regions is ESTIMATED by models. Yep, you heard right...guesses are already part of the analysis.

Then, look at reporting stations in Europe and USA. Many used to he in the middle of nowhere, gar outside of the cities or at the periphery of airfields. Many have had cities (and airports) expand to envelope them - literally surrounding them with heat island effects from concrete/asphalt or reflected sunlight. Hell, a number of years back they found one that had a heat exhaust within 10 feet of it.

The axiom "garbage in/garbage out" is so on the nose for climate change "science" it is laughable - or would be, if this "science" was not being used to fundamentally alter economies and lives.

Of course, the nagging question - and one that none of the zealots can (or will) answer - is: What is the "global" temperature supposed to be?

Because if the appropriate natural (non-man influenced) "global" temperature is not known, then how can you know whether any proposed solution is correct?

If "global" temperature with man's influence is A. And the "answers" to address it are B, then that means the "global" temperature without man's influence (i.e, with the "solutions" to address it) is C.

A + (-B) = C

You MUST know what C is to determine what B should be. If C is unkmown, B could be anything (and could be too much or too little).

So...what is C?

And, lastly, perhaps more attention should be paid to that massive fusion reactor 93 million miles away from Earth because there is more (and more scientifically supported) evidence that indicates sunspot activity and solar maximum/minimum phases are the warming "culprit."