Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Posts
- 1,449
How Global Warming Really Works
- Thread starter Frisco_Slug_Esq
- Start date
coachdb18
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Posts
- 9,366
Sweet.
But I thought I was on iggy?
You’re still ignorant, fear not!
coachdb18
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Posts
- 9,366
Scientists when dealing with physical data determine accuracy and precision, sociologists can deal with bias, and put their thumb on the scale to their hearts delight.
Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Posts
- 1,449
Oh, you're an idiot. Do look up instrument and/or systemic bias.
LIVINRFANTASIES
In a Cornfield Near You
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Posts
- 11,156
Dollie
The sky is still falling.
According to most USA weathermen it's getting colder each day and will continue until spring. So global warming is over for a few months.
The sky is still falling.
According to most USA weathermen it's getting colder each day and will continue until spring. So global warming is over for a few months.
coachdb18
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Posts
- 9,366
Global warming can only be confirmed or denied through both accurate and precise data ... Sociology cannot supply the tools necessary for a study of the physical elements of temperature, it's simply not the right science. Bias is introduced to a study in the form of preferences of the researcher, instrumentation is inanimate, and inert. It is merely a tool, incapable of any preference. It is for the purpose of verifying and validating the readings supplied by our instrumentation that we can rely on 'good data'.
The biggest reason we have a controversy about 'Global Warming' is due to the belief that sociologist and the liberals who rely on them for 'Feelings science' try to push their conclusions and speculation for the real science that comes only from adherence to true scientific principles.
Misspent_Ute
Loves Spam
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2017
- Posts
- 245
Frodo-style "research:"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ng-sea-levels-two-years-amidst-media-blackout
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ng-sea-levels-two-years-amidst-media-blackout
SgtSpiderMan
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 25,602
There's no controversy, climate scientists are in overwhelming agreement over it.
coachdb18
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Posts
- 9,366
Well I'm glad that's settled, so when the funding for it goes away, nobody will be bitching then. (Climate scientists are in fact in overwhelming agreement that it's a hoax, while the climate pseudoscientists have tried to keep promoting it.)
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
Statements like that one are becoming increasingly amusing. That colossal misrepresentation gets trotted out by desperate polemicists and propagandists.
First off, what exactly is it that you think they are in "overwhelming agreement" about ?
After you finish with that, why don't you cite the basis for your hilarious claim? (hint: John Cook and Naomi Oreskes aren't proper sources; they have been discredited so many times that both they and the people who cite them have become a standing joke).
coachdb18
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Posts
- 9,366
We've all got the memo that back in the day, the 'overwhelming agreement' was that the Earth was flat, and the Sun revolved around it. Sometimes, people in large numbers is just not encouraging.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
I'm going to start with a general observation. We're in an inter-glacial period and what happens during an inter-glacial is that the earth warms up. It does so, and has done so, without any intervention on the part of man. On top of that it appears that we've entered into a cooling period. Whether that is going to continue is anyone's guess.
Now to some facts;
1. HadCRUT and Mann, the progenitors of this whole fiasco, have either conveniently lost all of their original data (HadCRUT) or refuse to disclose their data (Mann).
2. Not one of their models have come anywhere near hitting the target.
3. Atmospheric CO2 has historically been a lagging indicator during periods of warming, just as it is today. (Could something else be at work here?)
4. Early Earth's CO2 concentration was 10% to 25% (scientists are still arguing about that but 10% is still the low number) and the Earth didn't turn into a Venus, why not? Our CO2 concentration today is approx. 375 ppm (.038%).
In the end there is no "proof" that the Earth is doing anything other than what it's always done. There is no "proof" that man can do anything about the cycle. There is NO agreement, or benchmark, as to exactly what is the 'normal' temperature. There is every evidence from the archeological record that higher temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations are a boon to bio-diversity.
And one last question. If the Earth is on the verge of entering a new Ice Age, and it will eventually, wouldn't all of the prescriptions those that are sucking on the teat of government grant monies be exactly the WRONG thing to be doing?
Ishmael
Misspent_Ute
Loves Spam
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2017
- Posts
- 245
What should give FroDOH! pause was the confession, just a few short months ago by the Glow Ball Warning community that their models were wrong, and badly wrong, but then again you and I have trying to explain why the models were wrong and bound to fail for over a decade now.
But that is never going to fly with a guy who thinks that ocean levels can rise in some places and not others...
But that is never going to fly with a guy who thinks that ocean levels can rise in some places and not others...
Hypoxia
doesn't watch television
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Posts
- 28,080
Edu-ma-cated folks knew Terra to be fairly globular way back around year zero. Those who thought otherwise mostly hadn't looked very closely. Other edu-ma-cated folks figured out heliocentrism somewhat over half a millennium ago. I'll point out that opinions held by those who haven't studied that upon which they opine, ain't really worth much. Some who study take odd or wrong paths too but further data tends to self-correct old misapprehensions.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
The man has committed frickin' heresy on NPR!!
They'll never let David N. Schwartz on NPR again !!
From NPR's 13.7 Cosmos & Culture:
Commentary on Science and Society
What Would Enrico Fermi Think of Science Today?
by David N. Schwartz
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2...hat-would-enrico-fermi-think-of-science-today
December 5, 2017
"...At the intersection of science and public policy, on issues like climate change and genetic engineering, Fermi would almost certainly be more reticent. He never enjoyed debating the complex issues of his own day involving science and public policy. He served reluctantly as a government adviser on science policy, but he was always happier in the lab or in the classroom where the physics issues were simpler and answers were either right or wrong.
It's hard to say whether Fermi would be persuaded by the science behind climate change. The models used to simulate climate change are extremely complex and have embedded within them uncertainties that have made some very bright physicists, like Princeton's Freeman Dyson, skeptical of the models themselves..."
It's hard to say whether Fermi would be persuaded by the science behind climate change. The models used to simulate climate change are extremely complex and have embedded within them uncertainties that have made some very bright physicists, like Princeton's Freeman Dyson, skeptical of the models themselves..."
coachdb18
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Posts
- 9,366
I rather enjoyed his scholarly logic on the ability of water to stack itself, so as to reach those different levels in different places, no longer seeking its own level nor much concerned for the law of gravity.
Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Posts
- 1,449
Water can stack itself under the influence of air and underwater currents, for example, and sea level is affected by local topography.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Sure *nods*
. . .all those big mountains underwater pushing the water up. Just imagine how low the sea level is over the Marianas Trench. . .
Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Posts
- 1,449
Educate yourself, Queef.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2318/just-5-questions-sea-surface-topography/
Que
aʒɑ̃ prɔvɔkatœr
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Posts
- 39,882
Educate yourself on gravity.
Topography can an impact the duration of a tide but there is not going to affect the ultimate mean sea level. Sea level is located at "sea level."
Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Posts
- 1,449
coachdb18
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Posts
- 9,366
You’ll have to forgive them their educational shortfalls, because for ‘Progressives’, math is just plain hard!
Thanks to their efforts, I’ll be requesting the FAA include the presence of these ‘water mountains ‘ on all VFR and IFR (high and low routes) aeronautical charts so aircraft don’t run into them, perhaps including obstruction beacons (like TV towers)! Bwahahaha
Last edited:
Richard_P_Feynman
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Posts
- 1,449
You should go back to perving on the college girls volleyball team. You're not smart enough for this discussion.
