Science isn’t always the answer.

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
⁜→ RetiredGySgt, et al,

BLUF: Uncertainty is driven by the significant influence of particular data, the number of significant variables, the sheer number of variables that can be tracked simultaneously, - and - the rate of change in the value of these variables, make the probability analysis (what is most likely to happen in the prediction of the future) extremely difficult and subject to errors. That is why there are constant updates to weather forecasts on any giver developing weather patterns.

Go ahead link to a computer model test that recreated a weather disaster in 1960 1970 or 1980? Hell I will settle for 1990.

By the way NOT ONE computer model they have used as actually predicted the future they have all been way off.

If one can not do weather one can not do climate dumb ass. Name ONE of the computer models that got it right link to it with the predictions and the facts.

(REFERENCES)

◈ Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP)​

​

◈ Supercomputers: Machine Meteorologists That Help Issue Your Forecast​

​

◈ Weather Maps and Computer Models​

(COMMENT)

OK, to a certain degree, you are correct. To date, there is no such thing as a near-certain (that is a very high probability) in the prediction of weather much beyond blatantly obvious conditions 120 to 170 hours in advance. Except in the huge pattern of weather (Tropical Storm and Hurricane size) predictions get tricky. That is (obviously) because of the extremely large number of variables that need to be considered and rapid changes in these various.

Having said that, there are improvements being made in the algorithms and systems used to make such predictions easier. And, as you can see (by the references, supra) the tools being brought to bear in meteorology and the processing of data on the various phenomena of the atmospherics, are huge. And forecasting has constantly improved over the last half-century with the advent of these new tools.

Uncertainty affects nearly every branch of science; some more than others. And each branch of science has methods for determining the best value of an unknown quantity relating one or more sets of observations or measurements when searching for that which best fits the known data. The study of meteorological · atmospheric · and climate conditions and forecasting (all of which are characterized by constant change, activity, or progress) are every bit as dynamic as cosmology.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,

BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

why be the elephant in the room ...

(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

View attachment 345095
​

In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter. ​

Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars ​

and galaxies we see today."​

​

So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."​

◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"​

​

Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª​

◈ Electromagnetism​

◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)​

◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)​

​

Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:

​

View attachment 345135​

​

✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy? (RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.

FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no symmetry because the universe did not begin with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation. The CMB also tells us that how much matter and anti-matter the universe originally started with. We can literally calculate it using the residual background radiation. And lastly the motion was created by the release of energy when the matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. It was this force which created the expansion of the universe.

We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation.

.
your certainty overwhelms you - the CMB is a fragmentary relic, what makes you believe a light beam travels in a straight line just hold your flashlight long enough and the beam will return to you ...

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

 

[BreezeWood]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,

BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

why be the elephant in the room ...

(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

View attachment 345095
​

In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter. ​

Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars ​

and galaxies we see today."​

​

So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."​

◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"​

​

Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª​

◈ Electromagnetism​

◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)​

◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)​

​

Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:

​

View attachment 345135​

​

✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy? (RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.

FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no symmetry because the universe did not begin with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation. The CMB also tells us that how much matter and anti-matter the universe originally started with. We can literally calculate it using the residual background radiation. And lastly the motion was created by the release of energy when the matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. It was this force which created the expansion of the universe.

We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation.

.
your certainty overwhelms you - the CMB is a fragmentary relic, what makes you believe a light beam travels in a straight line just hold your flashlight long enough and the beam will return to you ...

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

.
does the boomerang ever change direction on its return path ...

in a vacuum all matter is traveling at a finite angle of trajectory from a single point of origin and will return as a mirror image of the initial event the impetuous from its origin directing the forces for the new recompaction till dissipated as the matter is pressed into energy.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

.
you did not answer that question - isn't that the reason there are most likely muti-universes and is a mind staggering concept. that is why there is a metaphysical Almighty guidance not a being of image however not the same as spiritual being the physiological component and can have a physical means of existence presently the human body.

 

[ding]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,

BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

why be the elephant in the room ...

(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

View attachment 345095
​

In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter. ​

Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars ​

and galaxies we see today."​

​

So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."​

◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"​

​

Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª​

◈ Electromagnetism​

◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)​

◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)​

​

Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:

​

View attachment 345135​

​

✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy? (RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.

FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no symmetry because the universe did not begin with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation. The CMB also tells us that how much matter and anti-matter the universe originally started with. We can literally calculate it using the residual background radiation. And lastly the motion was created by the release of energy when the matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. It was this force which created the expansion of the universe.

We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation.

.
your certainty overwhelms you - the CMB is a fragmentary relic, what makes you believe a light beam travels in a straight line just hold your flashlight long enough and the beam will return to you ...

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

.
does the boomerang ever change direction on its return path ...

in a vacuum all matter is traveling at a finite angle of trajectory from a single point of origin and will return as a mirror image of the initial event the impetuous from its origin directing the forces for the new recompaction till dissipated as the matter is pressed into energy.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

.
you did not answer that question - isn't that the reason there are most likely muti-universes and is a mind staggering concept. that is why there is a metaphysical Almighty guidance not a being of image however not the same as spiritual being the physiological component and can have a physical means of existence presently the human body.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If one can not do weather one can not do climate

A very stupid and wrong comment that shows you have no understanding of any of this and should not even be trying to comment on it.

 

[BreezeWood]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,

BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

why be the elephant in the room ...

(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

View attachment 345095
​

In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter. ​

Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars ​

and galaxies we see today."​

​

So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."​

◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"​

​

Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª​

◈ Electromagnetism​

◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)​

◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)​

​

Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:

​

View attachment 345135​

​

✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy? (RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.

FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no symmetry because the universe did not begin with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation. The CMB also tells us that how much matter and anti-matter the universe originally started with. We can literally calculate it using the residual background radiation. And lastly the motion was created by the release of energy when the matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. It was this force which created the expansion of the universe.

We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation.

.
your certainty overwhelms you - the CMB is a fragmentary relic, what makes you believe a light beam travels in a straight line just hold your flashlight long enough and the beam will return to you ...

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

.
does the boomerang ever change direction on its return path ...

in a vacuum all matter is traveling at a finite angle of trajectory from a single point of origin and will return as a mirror image of the initial event the impetuous from its origin directing the forces for the new recompaction till dissipated as the matter is pressed into energy.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

.
you did not answer that question - isn't that the reason there are most likely muti-universes and is a mind staggering concept. that is why there is a metaphysical Almighty guidance not a being of image however not the same as spiritual being the physiological component and can have a physical means of existence presently the human body.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

.
how dense can a person be ...

finite angle of trajectory is a loop - cyclical bb.


you still have not answered roco's question.

 

[ding]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,

BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

why be the elephant in the room ...

(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

View attachment 345095
​

In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter. ​

Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars ​

and galaxies we see today."​

​

So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."​

◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"​

​

Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª​

◈ Electromagnetism​

◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)​

◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)​

​

Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:

​

View attachment 345135​

​

✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy? (RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.

FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no symmetry because the universe did not begin with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation. The CMB also tells us that how much matter and anti-matter the universe originally started with. We can literally calculate it using the residual background radiation. And lastly the motion was created by the release of energy when the matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. It was this force which created the expansion of the universe.

We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation.

.
your certainty overwhelms you - the CMB is a fragmentary relic, what makes you believe a light beam travels in a straight line just hold your flashlight long enough and the beam will return to you ...

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

.
does the boomerang ever change direction on its return path ...

in a vacuum all matter is traveling at a finite angle of trajectory from a single point of origin and will return as a mirror image of the initial event the impetuous from its origin directing the forces for the new recompaction till dissipated as the matter is pressed into energy.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

.
you did not answer that question - isn't that the reason there are most likely muti-universes and is a mind staggering concept. that is why there is a metaphysical Almighty guidance not a being of image however not the same as spiritual being the physiological component and can have a physical means of existence presently the human body.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

.
how dense can a person be ...

finite angle of trajectory is a loop - cyclical bb.


you still have not answered roco's question.

Do you have any links, nutjob?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If one can not do weather one can not do climate

A very stupid and wrong comment that shows you have no understanding of any of this and should not even be trying to comment on it.

LOL God you prove just how stupid you are with every post with out weather there is no climate, tell me genius why and how do clouds form.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

with out weather there is no climate

Not what you claimed, crybaby. You made the idiotic claim that, if scientists cannot accurately predict individual weather events years ahead of time, they cannot make accurate predictions about climate.

That, of course , is an idiotic statement. And you are too ignorant and rabid to understand why.

Don't try your childish bait and switch on me. You are far over your depth in this topic, both in terms of specific knowledge of the material and in terms of your intellectual abilities. Your childish tricks won't work here.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

with out weather there is no climate

Not what you claimed, crybaby. You made the idiotic claim that, if scientists cannot accurately predict individual weather events years ahead of time, they cannot make accurate predictions about climate.

That, of course , is an idiotic statement. And you are too ignorant and rabid to understand why.

Don't try your childish bait and switch on me. You are far over your depth in this topic, both in terms of specific knowledge of the material and in terms of your intellectual abilities. Your childish tricks won't work here.

They do not know when or how clouds form they do not know more then they know about climate or weather and you have yet to link to any successful model with accurate predictions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

hey do not know when or how clouds form

Another silly lie. And again, that's weather, not climate.

they do not know more then they know about climate or weather

Empty, meaningless whining. They know what they know. And you don't know what that is, because you are an ignorant, cackling, uneducated moron who thinks he outsmarted career scientists using his gut feelings and a case of PBR.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

hey do not know when or how clouds form

Another silly lie. And again, that's weather, not climate.

they do not know more then they know about climate or weather

Empty, meaningless whining. They know what they know. And you don't know what that is, because you are an ignorant, cackling, uneducated moron who thinks he outsmarted career scientists using his gut feelings and a case of PBR.

Still no link to any actually predictions that came true I see.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

hey do not know when or how clouds form

Another silly lie. And again, that's weather, not climate.

they do not know more then they know about climate or weather

Empty, meaningless whining. They know what they know. And you don't know what that is, because you are an ignorant, cackling, uneducated moron who thinks he outsmarted career scientists using his gut feelings and a case of PBR.

Still no link to any actually predictions that came true I see.

It's not my job to prove wrong every stupid, ignorant lie that dribbles from your mouth. Do you think you can take a shit in a science thread, and everyone else is supposed to then spoonfeed to your lazy, ignorant ass why you are wrong? Everyone already knows you are wrong. This is your problem, not mine.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

hey do not know when or how clouds form

Another silly lie. And again, that's weather, not climate.

they do not know more then they know about climate or weather

Empty, meaningless whining. They know what they know. And you don't know what that is, because you are an ignorant, cackling, uneducated moron who thinks he outsmarted career scientists using his gut feelings and a case of PBR.

Still no link to any actually predictions that came true I see.

It's not my job to prove wrong every stupid, ignorant lie that dribbles from your mouth. Do you think you can take a shit in a science thread, and everyone else is supposed to then spoonfeed to your lazy, ignorant ass why you are wrong? Everyone already knows you are wrong. This is your problem, not mine.

You claimed there were computer models that accurately predicted warming and now you can not link to one to prove your claim, I accept your acknowledgement you either lied ir were duped.

 

[BreezeWood]

hey do not know when or how clouds form

Another silly lie. And again, that's weather, not climate.

they do not know more then they know about climate or weather

Empty, meaningless whining. They know what they know. And you don't know what that is, because you are an ignorant, cackling, uneducated moron who thinks he outsmarted career scientists using his gut feelings and a case of PBR.

Still no link to any actually predictions that came true I see.

It's not my job to prove wrong every stupid, ignorant lie that dribbles from your mouth. Do you think you can take a shit in a science thread, and everyone else is supposed to then spoonfeed to your lazy, ignorant ass why you are wrong? Everyone already knows you are wrong. This is your problem, not mine.

You claimed there were computer models that accurately predicted warming and now you can not link to one to prove your claim, I accept your acknowledgement you either lied ir were duped.

You claimed there were computer models that accurately predicted warming and now you can not link to one to prove your claim, I accept your acknowledgement you either lied ir were duped.

.
- and you are just waiting to show yours, who would guess.

Siberia experiences hottest spring on record, fueling wildfires

A few hundred miles south of the Arctic Circle, the small town of Boguchany in Siberia, Russia, had its hottest April on record. On April 25, the temperature soared to 31° Celsius (87.8° Fahrenheit), even though it should be much cooler at this time of the year. Other parts of Siberia, and the...

news.mongabay.com

A few hundred miles south of the Arctic Circle, the small town of Boguchany in Siberia, Russia, had its hottest April on record. On April 25, the temperature soared to 31° Celsius (87.8° Fahrenheit) -

.
no matter what's one planet among the many.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

hey do not know when or how clouds form

Another silly lie. And again, that's weather, not climate.

they do not know more then they know about climate or weather

Empty, meaningless whining. They know what they know. And you don't know what that is, because you are an ignorant, cackling, uneducated moron who thinks he outsmarted career scientists using his gut feelings and a case of PBR.

Still no link to any actually predictions that came true I see.

It's not my job to prove wrong every stupid, ignorant lie that dribbles from your mouth. Do you think you can take a shit in a science thread, and everyone else is supposed to then spoonfeed to your lazy, ignorant ass why you are wrong? Everyone already knows you are wrong. This is your problem, not mine.

You claimed there were computer models that accurately predicted warming and now you can not link to one to prove your claim, I accept your acknowledgement you either lied ir were duped.

You claimed there were computer models that accurately predicted warming and now you can not link to one to prove your claim, I accept your acknowledgement you either lied ir were duped.

.
- and you are just waiting to show yours, who would guess.

Siberia experiences hottest spring on record, fueling wildfires

A few hundred miles south of the Arctic Circle, the small town of Boguchany in Siberia, Russia, had its hottest April on record. On April 25, the temperature soared to 31° Celsius (87.8° Fahrenheit), even though it should be much cooler at this time of the year. Other parts of Siberia, and the...

news.mongabay.com

A few hundred miles south of the Arctic Circle, the small town of Boguchany in Siberia, Russia, had its hottest April on record. On April 25, the temperature soared to 31° Celsius (87.8° Fahrenheit) -

.
no matter what's one planet among the many.

And STILL no link to a computer model that actually has predicted the future in climate change.

 

[BreezeWood]

hey do not know when or how clouds form

Another silly lie. And again, that's weather, not climate.

they do not know more then they know about climate or weather

Empty, meaningless whining. They know what they know. And you don't know what that is, because you are an ignorant, cackling, uneducated moron who thinks he outsmarted career scientists using his gut feelings and a case of PBR.

Still no link to any actually predictions that came true I see.

It's not my job to prove wrong every stupid, ignorant lie that dribbles from your mouth. Do you think you can take a shit in a science thread, and everyone else is supposed to then spoonfeed to your lazy, ignorant ass why you are wrong? Everyone already knows you are wrong. This is your problem, not mine.

You claimed there were computer models that accurately predicted warming and now you can not link to one to prove your claim, I accept your acknowledgement you either lied ir were duped.

You claimed there were computer models that accurately predicted warming and now you can not link to one to prove your claim, I accept your acknowledgement you either lied ir were duped.

.
- and you are just waiting to show yours, who would guess.

Siberia experiences hottest spring on record, fueling wildfires

A few hundred miles south of the Arctic Circle, the small town of Boguchany in Siberia, Russia, had its hottest April on record. On April 25, the temperature soared to 31° Celsius (87.8° Fahrenheit), even though it should be much cooler at this time of the year. Other parts of Siberia, and the...

news.mongabay.com

A few hundred miles south of the Arctic Circle, the small town of Boguchany in Siberia, Russia, had its hottest April on record. On April 25, the temperature soared to 31° Celsius (87.8° Fahrenheit) -

.
no matter what's one planet among the many.

And STILL no link to a computer model that actually has predicted the future in climate change.

,

And STILL no link to a computer model that actually has predicted the future in climate change.

.
I gave you mine in the beginning - the asphalt juggle, item no.1 ...

.
where's yours, too afraid ...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

hey do not know when or how clouds form

Another silly lie. And again, that's weather, not climate.

they do not know more then they know about climate or weather

Empty, meaningless whining. They know what they know. And you don't know what that is, because you are an ignorant, cackling, uneducated moron who thinks he outsmarted career scientists using his gut feelings and a case of PBR.

Still no link to any actually predictions that came true I see.

It's not my job to prove wrong every stupid, ignorant lie that dribbles from your mouth. Do you think you can take a shit in a science thread, and everyone else is supposed to then spoonfeed to your lazy, ignorant ass why you are wrong? Everyone already knows you are wrong. This is your problem, not mine.

You claimed there were computer models that accurately predicted warming and now you can not link to one to prove your claim, I accept your acknowledgement you either lied ir were duped.

You claimed there were computer models that accurately predicted warming and now you can not link to one to prove your claim, I accept your acknowledgement you either lied ir were duped.

.
- and you are just waiting to show yours, who would guess.

Siberia experiences hottest spring on record, fueling wildfires

A few hundred miles south of the Arctic Circle, the small town of Boguchany in Siberia, Russia, had its hottest April on record. On April 25, the temperature soared to 31° Celsius (87.8° Fahrenheit), even though it should be much cooler at this time of the year. Other parts of Siberia, and the...

news.mongabay.com

A few hundred miles south of the Arctic Circle, the small town of Boguchany in Siberia, Russia, had its hottest April on record. On April 25, the temperature soared to 31° Celsius (87.8° Fahrenheit) -

.
no matter what's one planet among the many.

And STILL no link to a computer model that actually has predicted the future in climate change.

,

And STILL no link to a computer model that actually has predicted the future in climate change.

.
I gave you mine in the beginning - the asphalt juggle, item no.1 ...

View attachment 346761
.
where's yours, too afraid ...

You did NOT link to a computer model at all. Go figure

 

[onefour1]

Science is a good thing until it is controlled by a political agenda

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: CLIMATE PREDICTION
⁜→ RetiredGySgt, BreezeWood, et al,

BLUF: Science Writer (Alan Buis) might touch upon something.

(REFERENCES)

◈

◈

◈ Model Analyses and Guidance

(COMMENT)

◈ Global Climate Change

◈ Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
By Alan Buis, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, January 9, 2020

I'm not sure what you are looking for, exactly, but I think that Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) climate model simulation work might fit your inquiry.

Most Respectfully,
R