- 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 10/1/23 at 4:02 am 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.
Whut? I'm pretty sure natural climate change is primary driven by orbital cycles. What am I missing?
Did you think climate scientists claim natural climate change is driven by CO2 and that their theories rely on that claim? Nahhh! You've done your research why would you think something that dumb?
Posted on 10/1/23 at 4:05 am to Taxing Authority
quote:You made a generic statement.
you asked a generic question
Posted on 10/1/23 at 4:23 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
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
I seriously can't figure out if you are being deliberately obtuse or are just completely ignorant. I will assume the latter and educate you. ALL models of anything that is continuous in space or time have errors, even if every input is accurate and the model faithfully includes all relevant physics. This is because digital computers cannot represent the mathematics of continuous variables. They can only do discrete mathematics. This includes every single non trivial fluid model in existence: climate models, models of blood flow, models of airflow around an airplane, models of neutron stars, and the models they used to come up with those fins that some 18 wheelers have hanging off their rear ends. Numerical modellers like to be able to quantify these errors so they can know how precise their models are, so they spend a lot of time writing papers on the matter.
You're welcome.
Posted on 10/1/23 at 4:25 am to Auburn1968
quote:
You weren't born then were you?
Depends on what part of the 70's you are talking about, but either way, it don't matter, they wrote it down.
Posted on 10/1/23 at 4:32 am to NC_Tigah
New Scientist?
Forgive me if I don't trust a source that prints headline like "Darwin was wrong".
Forgive me if I don't trust a source that prints headline like "Darwin was wrong".
Posted on 10/1/23 at 4:37 am to dafif
That's nice you think I'm intelligent but lotsa people are. Possession of a PhD is much more an indicator that a person wanted to study a particular scientific question to death for 5 years while everyone else they graduated college with is off making money.
Depends on who you wanna believe. A bunch of taxpayer funded leach scientists who live in their Ivory towers promoting a predetermined narrative decided by woke politicians or the hard working free market scientists who work for the people that know tobacco better than anyone because they sell it and they make a lot of good jobs too how many jobs does government make zero so no thank you. If only the sheeple would wake up!
quote:
Does smoking cause cancer?
Depends on who you wanna believe. A bunch of taxpayer funded leach scientists who live in their Ivory towers promoting a predetermined narrative decided by woke politicians or the hard working free market scientists who work for the people that know tobacco better than anyone because they sell it and they make a lot of good jobs too how many jobs does government make zero so no thank you. If only the sheeple would wake up!
This post was edited on 10/1/23 at 4:44 am
Posted on 10/1/23 at 4:57 am to Peebles
quote:Normally, if that's the case, one doesn't put his fingers in his ears and scream la-la-la-la-la like a little child. Normally, one would verify or falsify the information with what he assessed as a more trustworthy source.
I don't trust a source
But since you chose not to do that, and since you issued the factually ignorant earlier contradiction, I'll just inform you that when the author stated "the early 1970s also saw the first analysis of Greenland ice cores," his reference was to the GISP, and his statement was spot on correct.
Posted on 10/1/23 at 5:23 am to Peebles
quote:You may be afflicted with the worst case of messageboard NSSI that I've ever seen.
I seriously can't figure out if you are being deliberately obtuse or are just completely ignorant. I will assume the latter
How has that assumption thing worked for you so far?
quote:All is relative.
ALL models of anything that is continuous in space or time have errors,
Some things are less of a near miss than others.
This post was edited on 10/1/23 at 5:52 am
Posted on 10/1/23 at 5:47 am to Peebles
quote:Well, let's see.
Whut? I'm pretty sure natural climate change is primary driven by orbital cycles. What am I missing?
Does this correlate with orbital cycles:
Posted on 10/1/23 at 6:44 am to Jbird
Bill Nye likes penis in and around his mouth and anus.
Posted on 10/1/23 at 8:54 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Normally, if that's the case, one doesn't put his fingers in his ears and scream la-la-la-la-la like a little child. Normally, one would verify or falsify the information with what he assessed as a more trustworthy source.
oK. Some how come you never do that?
Posted on 10/1/23 at 9:00 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Why do we care?
Well, let's see.
Does this correlate with orbital cycles:
Posted on 10/1/23 at 9:01 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Some things are less of a near miss than others.
I'm glad you admit you have no friggin clue what "error" means in the context of CFD.
Posted on 10/1/23 at 10:43 am to Peebles
quote:Because you're pretty sure natural climate change is primary driven by orbital cycles. What are you missing?
Why do we care?
Posted on 10/1/23 at 11:00 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Because you're pretty sure natural climate change is primary driven by orbital cycles. What are you missing?
When you're ready to tell a story that stitches all your supposed evidence together in a self consistent manner, go for it. Thats how normal people convince other people they're right. They don't just throw up random plots and say "I bet you don't understand this!" because that's infantile and pointless and only convinces the mindless sheep who already think that way that they're right.
Posted on 10/1/23 at 11:15 am to Peebles
quote:you literally know NOTHING about which you are speaking. NOTHING.
I seriously can't figure out if you are being deliberately obtuse or are just completely ignorant. I will assume the latter and educate you. ALL models of anything that is continuous in space or time have errors, even if every input is accurate and the model faithfully includes all relevant physics. This is because digital computers cannot represent the mathematics of continuous variables. They can only do discrete mathematics. This includes every single non trivial fluid model in existence: climate models, models of blood flow, models of airflow around an airplane, models of neutron stars, and the models they used to come up with those fins that some 18 wheelers have hanging off their rear ends. Numerical modellers like to be able to quantify these errors so they can know how precise their models are, so they spend a lot of time writing papers on the matter.
You're welcome.
Your orbital cycles is pretty moro.. interesting...
This post was edited on 10/1/23 at 11:17 am
Posted on 10/1/23 at 11:19 am to NC_Tigah
Here, look, I'm gonna help you out since I'm such a nice guy, This is a talk given by a skeptic at the tail end of "the pause". You probably remember "the pause" since your argument probably shifted from "it's not warming" to "the temperature record is not accurate" around about the time "the pause" ended.
A lot of his arguments aren't really good and the sources he cites are kinda questionable at places, but the talk wasn't without it's good points.
You will have to at a minimum, exceed this standard to convince me. Because this is the last guy that had me having any doubts, but like I said, "the pause" ain't there no more!
LINK
Astronomer's recently coined the term "noctalgia" to describe the feeling of grief associated with the loss of dark skies to light pollution. I think you flat Earthers should come up with your own term like that, about "the pause".
A lot of his arguments aren't really good and the sources he cites are kinda questionable at places, but the talk wasn't without it's good points.
You will have to at a minimum, exceed this standard to convince me. Because this is the last guy that had me having any doubts, but like I said, "the pause" ain't there no more!
LINK
Astronomer's recently coined the term "noctalgia" to describe the feeling of grief associated with the loss of dark skies to light pollution. I think you flat Earthers should come up with your own term like that, about "the pause".
Posted on 10/1/23 at 11:22 am to JJJimmyJimJames
quote:
you literally know NOTHING about which you are speaking. NOTHING.
You can't explain how even *one* thing I said was inaccurate though, can you? That's ... interesting.
quote:
Your orbital cycles is pretty moro.. interesting...
Ok well here you go start at the wikipedia level it will blow your mind,
LINK
This post was edited on 10/1/23 at 11:31 am
Posted on 10/1/23 at 11:29 am to Peebles
quote:Nah, you've made it clear that an "Armchair scientist" couldn't convince you the sky is blue, ice is cold, or the sun is warm. So you'll have to convince yourself.
convince other people they're right
My role here is to point you in the direction of water, not to drink it for you.
quote:You are a scientist, right? A least you play one on the internet.
only convinces the mindless sheep who already think that way that they're right.
So you laid out a one hypothesis. Orbital cycles drive climate, Milankovitch and whatnot. It's certainly a more reasonable premise than cowfarts and volcanoes, especially when isolated to the quaternary. But of course, climate change enjoys no such isolation.
In fact whereas by definition, orbital cycles would need be the norm rather than the exception, our quaternary climate is the exception rather than the norm. Hence the question, does the Cenozoic climate appear compatible with a Milankovitch premise?
Page 13 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News