How about a "nuclear cool down"?

[kyzr]

Pure unadulterated horse poo. It applies ALWAYS.
Uniformitarianism merely states that whatever happened in the past, will happen now, and will happen in the future. It's as simple as that.
The speed at which environmental change happens is immaterial.

I gave YOU examples WHERE IT WAS WRONG,
Its not a LAW of nature
Its describes slow changes, when they happen. It can't stop catastrophic changes when they happen.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No, what I have shown is that I am a scientist.

LOL.

Sorry but real scientists know better.


Here. Let's do a quick experiment.

Ho = Westwall is not a scientist
Ha = Westwall is a scientist

<Insert tests>

Oops! the p-value came out really, really high. p=0.99.

Sorry, westie. Looks like you failed.

 

[westwall]

I gave YOU examples WHERE IT WAS WRONG,
Its not a LAW of nature
Its describes slow changes, when they happen. It can't stop catastrophic changes when they happen.

Nothing stops catastrophic changes. But catastrophic changes still have to follow the laws of physics.

The theory of AGW doesn't follow the laws of physics.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

The theory of AGW doesn't follow the laws of physics.

Wow. It's amazing to see someone who lacks knowledge of the topic at such a dramatic level. Kudos.

 

[westwall]

Wow. It's amazing to see someone who lacks knowledge of the topic at such a dramatic level. Kudos.

Demonstrate where it does.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Demonstrate where it does.

What a stupid question.

Go download one of the "models" available for private use. There's a TON of "Physical" factors which are predicated on basic physics. There are TUNING parameters and a few "Empirical" parameters that are predicated on statistical analysis, but for the most part actual physics equations are used to characterize various components.

If you want to argue with reality, take it up with NASA. (Hint: NASA KNOWS MORE ABOUT THIS THAN YOU DO.)

Climate Models

Models help us to work through complicated problems and understand complex systems. They also allow us to test theories and solutions. From models as simple as toy cars and kitchens to complex representations such as flight simulators and virtual globes, we use models throughout our lives to...

www.climate.gov

 

[westwall]

What a stupid question.

Go download one of the "models" available for private use. There's a TON of "Physical" factors which are predicated on basic physics. There are TUNING parameters and a few "Empirical" parameters that are predicated on statistical analysis, but for the most part actual physics equations are used to characterize various components.

If you want to argue with reality, take it up with NASA. (Hint: NASA KNOWS MORE ABOUT THIS THAN YOU DO.)

Climate Models

Models help us to work through complicated problems and understand complex systems. They also allow us to test theories and solutions. From models as simple as toy cars and kitchens to complex representations such as flight simulators and virtual globes, we use models throughout our lives to...

www.climate.gov

Ahhhhh, yes. Models. Do you understand the difference between empirical data, and computer derived fiction?

 

[Likkmee]

'Cause radiation maybe?

C'mon man

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Ahhhhh, yes. Models. Do you understand the difference between empirical data, and computer derived fiction?

Far, far better than you.

In fact, right now, as we speak, I am working on a statistical model for my data.

 

[westwall]

Far, far better than you.

In fact, right now, as we speak, I am working on a statistical model for my data.

Oh? Do tell. What sort of computer do you use? Are you using a CFD, or something else? What EXACTLY are you modelling?

Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Oh? Do tell. What sort of computer do you use?

Laptop

I'm using JMP software. Do you think I need a SPECIAL computer to run SAS JMP software???? (JMP 16 in case you are familiar)

Are you using a CFD, or something else? What EXACTLY are you modelling?

I'm not going to tell you the exact technical details, but I'm characterizing data from a Mixture DOE (chemistry). I created a simplex DOE in JMP with 4 components. Created the model to capture interaction terms among all the components (second order fit).

I used the minimum number of runs (because I don't have all the time in the world). Just got the data back and started a "Stepwise" model fit. P-Value Threshold (prob to enter = 0.5, prob to leave = 0.25) and found out the factors that were most significant and created a response surface.

Enquiring minds want to know.

What do you usually use for YOUR statistical modeling?

 

[westwall]

Laptop

I'm using JMP software. Do you think I need a SPECIAL computer to run SAS JMP software???? (JMP 16 in case you are familiar)



I'm not going to tell you the exact technical details, but I'm characterizing data from a Mixture DOE (chemistry). I created a simplex DOE in JMP with 4 components. Created the model to capture interaction terms among all the components (second order fit).

I used the minimum number of runs (because I don't have all the time in the world). Just got the data back and started a "Stepwise" model fit. P-Value Threshold (prob to enter = 0.5, prob to leave = 0.25) and found out the factors that were most significant and created a response surface.



What do you usually use for YOUR statistical modeling?

Ok, so you, like climatologists everywhere are using a "SIMPLE COMPUTER MODEL".

How wonderful. You think you can model anything even remotely real regarding the atmosphere with a wimpy ass laptop.

No wonder you come across like a complete twerp.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

C'mon man

Radiation hormesis​

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Ok, so you, like climatologists everywhere are using a "SIMPLE COMPUTER MODEL".

How wonderful. You think you can model anything even remotely real regarding the atmosphere with a wimpy ass laptop.

No wonder you come across like a complete twerp.

And, praytell, what kind of modeling do YOU do?

(Hint: go ahead and lie if you need to)

 

[westwall]

And, praytell, what kind of modeling do YOU do?

(Hint: go ahead and lie if you need to)

I don't. I do empirical studies because.....well......you know............................they are accurate and measurable. Everything that climate models are not.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I don't. I do empirical studies because.....well......you know............................they are accurate and measurable. Everything that climate models are not.

LOL...I just told you I do STATISTICAL MODELS. Meaning I use real data and reproducibility etc AND YOU DIDN"T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT!

HILARIOUS!

If you don't use statistics YOU DON'T DO SCIENCE, my friend.

LOL


What a joke.

 

[ding]

LOL...I just told you I do STATISTICAL MODELS. Meaning I use real data and reproducibility etc AND YOU DIDN"T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT!

HILARIOUS!

If you don't use statistics YOU DON'T DO SCIENCE, my friend.

LOL


What a joke.

The models relied upon by the IPCC can't history match past climate changes. How can they? They routinely tune natural variation (i.e. drift) out of their models to focus on the effects of atmospheric CO2.

 

[mamooth]

No, what I have shown is that I am a scientist.

No, an old bachelors degree in geology makes you a stamp collector, not a scientist.

But that's not what makes you a crank.

You faking everything makes you a crank.

You always embracing the dumbest pseudoscience imaginable makes you a crank.

You constantly denying the laws of physics makes you a crank.

Go on, crank. Tell us more about how IR doesn't heat the oceans, because conservative of energy doesn't hold if you don't want it to.

(Yes, everyone, that really is the kind of hot garbage pseudoscience that Westwall believes.)

 

[westwall]

No, an old bachelors degree in geology makes you a stamp collector, not a scientist.

But that's not what makes you a crank.

You faking everything makes you a crank.

You always embracing the dumbest pseudoscience imaginable makes you a crank.

You constantly denying the laws of physics makes you a crank.

Go on, crank. Tell us more about how IR doesn't heat the oceans, because conservative of energy doesn't hold if you don't want it to.

(Yes, everyone, that really is the kind of hot garbage pseudoscience that Westwall believes.)

Ummm, Longwave IR can't penetrate through the skin of water, first. And heat RISES. So whatever mixing does occur the heat leaves within seconds.


DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR


But that is called physics. We all know you don't do physics.

 

[mamooth]

Ummm, Longwave IR can't penetrate through the skin of water, first. And heat RISES. So whatever mixing does occur the heat leaves within seconds.

Got it.

You've finally abandoned your lunatic "the IR isn't absorbed" theory, the pseudoscience garbage that you spent years pushing.

Now, you've switched to ... the mainstream science position that I've been trying to explain to you for years.

That makes me feel good. My attempts to educate you have been successful. It seems that, given enough time, I can educate even the most fanatical denier cult cranks.

Yes, the energy from the IR does leave quickly. However ... here's the big part ... in doing so, it prevents energy further down from leaving, and thus it indirectly warms the oceans.