The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[lynn63]

We have many polluted lakes, rivers, etc here in the U.S. that we could do something about it and fix that problem but we don't. So what makes anyone think that we would do something about making changes to reduce global warming? At the point that temperature is rising and noticed its already too late to stop it.

All life since the beginning has an affect on climate due to their daily activities, it cannot be helped as we are all in one big fishbowl of chemical interactions.

 

[westwall]

"If the earth is a few degrees warmer we'll all be just fine. There will be no biblical catastrophes."

I understand why you would want this to be true. We all do.

If it wasn't for all of the evidence to the contrary, I'd be right aboard.

But EVIDENCE, man! It's much more compelling than the cult can ever be.

Kool Aid is good but EVIDENCE is addictive in the real world.

So much better than the opinions of entertainers issued for money.

Yes ALL evidence says that warmer is better. MUCH better. You live your life in a world of computer models but the real world, and the historical record shows, that it was MUCH warmer during many times in the very recent past. And in ALL of those times it has been better for ALL LIFE on this planet.

Read a book sometime mr. science and history denier....

The essence of conservative thought. We should have never left the caves. Progress is just so scary.

Yours is the essence of stupid thought. Your method of "thought" has led to the collectivization of the farms in Russia with the attendant millions of dead. Your brand of thought leads to death and destruction and little else.

And that is a simple unarguable fact.

 

[westwall]

"Stupid" computer models. That says it all, doesn't it? I think that being a climate reactionary fits you like a glove and was inevitable from birth.

Yes, they are "stupid". And they are simplistic. The computer models they use for aircraft design are thousands of times more capable than the best computer climate models and they are dealing with ONE aspect of physics.

Stupid doesn't even begin to come close to how worthless and incompetent the computer climate models are.

I know how you like to pretend that you can fly. Flying though requires intimate knowledge of weather. Pilots are almost addicted to computer models predicting weather, which are the basis for climate models. in fact pilots today wouldn't think of battling gravity without a whole host of computer models. In fact there are many planes that couldn't even fly with only a person at the controls. More computers.

I'm thinking that the only thing that flies for you are your superhero underpants.

Yes, computer models that are outdated in HOURS. Weather models have no relation to climate models in the slightest. they are far more complex than even the best of the climate models. And they are only good for at most 24 hours. In the mountains, where I live, they are good for at most 10 hours. Sometimes not even that long.

You are so full of poo I wonder how you can walk....

 

[westwall]

Location, velocity, acceleration... l, dl/dt, d^2/dt^2(l).

Even small, sustained acceleration means future high velocity. Even small, sustained, velocity means future high location.

When your standing on the edge of a cliff, even small velocity or acceleration means falling off the cliff.

That is how we predict the future, measuring rate of change.

That is high rate of change.

"In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene"

Now we look for the canary in the coal mine and hope it isn't dead yet because this is one coal mine we're not walking out of.


The Scariest Climate Change Graph Just Got Scarier | Mother Jones

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

Climate Desk

Oh looky....yet more fictional computer models.

 

[westwall]

Add airplane design to the growing list of things that you know nothing about. Complex mechanisms today begin life as 3D CAD models with finite element analysis.

Climate models are much the same. If this happens what changes does it cause in its immediate locale and how does that spread over time. Only denyers use paper and pencil guesses to keep alive hope for a different answer.

Science is objective. Hoping for a particular outcome is voodoo.

Computer Assisted Design is not a model.......idiot. It is a drafting table in a computer. Have you always been this stupid are did you have to have to have pharmaceutical help?

The state of the art is not much better when you apply a simulator to the output of your CAD... Mostly a waste of time that gives management a false sense of comfort. Just like the enormous number of bogus Excel spreadsheets I have shoved in my face every year -- I've witnessed monumental failures of engineering modeling to certify the performance of a large design. For small pieces or circuits or physical phenomena it's OK. For hurricane tracking -- OK.. For the climate of a planet --- dubious.

Even for hurricane tracking it's very iffy beyond 10 hours...

 

[Oddball]

"If the earth is a few degrees warmer we'll all be just fine. There will be no biblical catastrophes."

I understand why you would want this to be true. We all do.

If it wasn't for all of the evidence to the contrary, I'd be right aboard.

But EVIDENCE, man! It's much more compelling than the cult can ever be.

Kool Aid is good but EVIDENCE is addictive in the real world.

So much better than the opinions of entertainers issued for money.

Evidence ?

Show me concrete conclusive evidence that a catastrophe was caused by human activity.

The only cultist in our conversation is you.

If we all waited for "concrete conclusive evidence" for anything, much less everything, to act, we'd all be in the belly of the beast early in life. But don't worry. We won't leave you behind.

There you have it....No science.

Were there science, you could physically reproduce the results in context...But you can't.

 

[flacaltenn]

We have many polluted lakes, rivers, etc here in the U.S. that we could do something about it and fix that problem but we don't. So what makes anyone think that we would do something about making changes to reduce global warming? At the point that temperature is rising and noticed its already too late to stop it.

All life since the beginning has an affect on climate due to their daily activities, it cannot be helped as we are all in one big fishbowl of chemical interactions.

It IS a shame that the GWarming scam has sucked all the air out of environmentalism for over 2 decades now.. It has greatly defocused our efforts to further pursue wildlife conservation and toxins cleanup.

I think many TRUE environmentalists are coming back to basics and ignoring the hysteria of a 1degC doubling for CO2 into the atmosphere. The theory and the modeling has failed to provide any evidence that the warming from feedbacks will EVER approach the 5 or 6degC that got everyone excited in the first place..

To paraphrase Al Gore ---- "They played on your fears"...

 

[itfitzme]

Evidence ?

Show me concrete conclusive evidence that a catastrophe was caused by human activity.

The only cultist in our conversation is you.

If we all waited for "concrete conclusive evidence" for anything, much less everything, to act, we'd all be in the belly of the beast early in life. But don't worry. We won't leave you behind.

There you have it....No science.

Were there science, you could physically reproduce the results in context...But you can't.

Yeah, applied science isn't a strong concept for you.

 

[itfitzme]

Oh, I know. *

All we have to do is modify the atmosphere of Mars so it's exactly like the Earth. *And, we can do the same to the Moon. *But we will want to move them both into the same orbit around the Sun. *Gotta be exact. The Moon, in its new orbit, can be the control.*

Then we change the Mars atmosphere by adding more CO2.*

Yeah, that'll do it.

 

[SSDD]

Add airplane design to the growing list of things that you know nothing about. Complex mechanisms today begin life as 3D CAD models with finite element analysis.

I suppose you could be more wrong, but I am not quite sure how. If I am patient, however, I am sure you will show how it might be done. Do you honestly think that an aircraft manufacturer actually spends the money on a model of a potential project right off the bat? Well, apparently you do given your stupid comment.

Contrary to what you may have seen on the comercials, staying at a Holiday Inn Express does not make you an expert at anything.

If you would stop and use your brain for just a second, you wouldn't look half as stupid. Just think for a second about the requisite steps that must be considered before a model could even be seriously consided.

a) before even the most basic shape of an aircraft can be considered, one must first consider what one wants the aircraft for. Fighter? Cargo? Passenger? Private? Performance? Aerobatic? You really think an aircraft goes right into the modelling process before even considering what sort of aircraft it will be?

b) Once you have determined what the aircraft will be used for, then you must consider the actual job it will be expected to perform. For that, one must consider the various wing configurations and lifting surfaces available

c) Next you begin the process of selecting and or designing airfoils. Fixed or perhaps variable wing geometry? You think it is time for a model yet? I don't think so.

d) At this point, you will probably do a 3 view drawing of the aircraft either on paper or in a cad program...but you still aren't to the modelling phase.

At this point, months and hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent and you still aren't ready for modelling yet.

e) Now you are ready to start making an inborard profile of the aircraft...roughing out where the major components will be...engine position, hydraulics, cables, resivors, fuel etc., etc., etc.

f) Once you have decided where the components will be, long before you ever put a skin on the drawings, you perform a weight and balance analysis....and perhaps a rudimentary stability analysis to determine if some rearrangement is necessary.

g) make an isometric drawing.

h) And now, at long last, you have enough data on the aircraft in question to begin to model it...

But even now, you are a long way from having a completed model

And you can bet your ass that if the computer model fails at any point or doesn't jibe with wind tunnel observations, the design is scrapped and they go back to the drawing board before any more money is thrown down the toilet after a flawed project.


Climate science has failed at the modelling process. The models don't work and rather than go back and reexamine the hypothesis...they insist that their heat is just hiding...

 

[Oddball]

If we all waited for "concrete conclusive evidence" for anything, much less everything, to act, we'd all be in the belly of the beast early in life. But don't worry. We won't leave you behind.

There you have it....No science.

Were there science, you could physically reproduce the results in context...But you can't.

Yeah, applied science isn't a strong concept for you.

All you've applied is a bunch of garbage masquerading as science.

1) Not reproducible in real life, in context...Not testable.

2) No physical static control.

3) Not falsifiable.

4) Not tentative..."The science is settled".

And those are only for of the traditional acid tests of Goebbels warming pseudo-science that it fails.






GIGO.

 

[SSDD]

What you consider "their spectacular failure" is the fact that they concluded things different than your wild ass guesses. If the 97% of qualified scientists that accept AGW as the explanation for what can be measured weren't competent and objective way beyond you, the world would be sitting on a precipice fat dumb and happy while doing all of the wrong things instead of preparing for the inevitable future.

No what I consider a spectacular failure is their inability to produce output that matches observations in the real world....which is undeniably the case.

 

[SSDD]

You keep claiming that it is true, and that all the evidence points to it but when asked for that evidence, you never fail to fail to provide it. That should tell you something.

Well, it's a DD and here comes the SS.[/QUOTE]

And like every other day, you can't produce the first bit of hard, empirical evidence proving that X amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere produced X amount of warming. When talking to you guys it is really SSDD. I keep asking for evidence and you keep being unable to provide it.

 

[itfitzme]

There you have it....No science.

Were there science, you could physically reproduce the results in context...But you can't.

Yeah, applied science isn't a strong concept for you.

All you've applied is a bunch of garbage masquerading as science...GIGO.

Ah, yeah, Newton's Second Law of Motion. Garbage in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an externat force. But can you PROVE, that it's garbage. Cuz if you can't... well then It's like a lack of a sign is a sign. Signentific...

 

[SSDD]

Computer Assisted Design is not a model.......idiot. It is a drafting table in a computer. Have you always been this stupid are did you have to have to have pharmaceutical help?

Yes, he really is that stupid. It becomes more evident the more he talks.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, applied science isn't a strong concept for you.

All you've applied is a bunch of garbage masquerading as science...GIGO.

Ah, yeah, Newton's Second Law of Motion. Garbage in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an externat force. But can you PROVE, that it's garbage. Cuz if you can't... well then It's like a lack of a sign is a sign. Signentific...

Well, you've described perfectly the bullshit pseudo-science of anthropogenic Goebbels warming.

Waytago!

 

[SSDD]

If we all waited for "concrete conclusive evidence" for anything, much less everything, to act, we'd all be in the belly of the beast early in life. But don't worry. We won't leave you behind.

Well then lets see some empirical evidence that is more than the most simplistic correlation. How about some observed evidence that adding X amount of CO2 to an open atmosphere will cause X warming. Surely that has been proven experimentally....no?

 

[SSDD]

No, it's not, you ignorant fool. It is a drafting program in a computer. It has no modeling capabilities at all. It Can make cute little animations that show exterior views and the better programs can give you artists views of how it should LOOK. But they have zero engineering capabilities.

Go to school. You KNOW nothing.

And it shows....

He thinks that is a model. He thinks a model is like the plastic replicas you built as a kid. If it looks like the finished product might look...it is a model. Never mind that it has no relationship to what an actual model is. Understanding what an actual computer model is is so far past his knowledge base that there really isn't even a place to start.

Hell, he probably has "models" hanging from fishing line in his mom's basement where he lives.

 

[SSDD]

We have many polluted lakes, rivers, etc here in the U.S. that we could do something about it and fix that problem but we don't. So what makes anyone think that we would do something about making changes to reduce global warming? At the point that temperature is rising and noticed its already too late to stop it.

All life since the beginning has an affect on climate due to their daily activities, it cannot be helped as we are all in one big fishbowl of chemical interactions.

That sort of important conversation doesn't happen because the AGW hoax sucks all the air from the room and all the treasure from the coffers. Hundreds of billions that could have been spent cleaing up the environment have been wasted on the AGW hoax.

 

[itfitzme]

Computer Assisted Design is not a model.......idiot. It is a drafting table in a computer. Have you always been this stupid are did you have to have to have pharmaceutical help?

Yes, he really is that stupid. It becomes more evident the more he talks.

Well, yes it is a model. A model is everything from a small physical representation of an object to a dynamic mathematical computer simulation. A model may be a simple equation, a drawing, the digitized representation of an object in a CAD system or the dynamic fluid flow equations in a finite element analysys.