Climate continues to change.

[Luk]

"Alas." They have been "testing their assumptions." Thus far all, of their assumptions are demonstratively wrong. There are no climate models that have worked even when you plugged in historical data much less going forward. Obviously, there are variables that are not understood and are not accounted for.

Good news though, is that the science is settled, Hey?

Cool word salad, bro. Got anything to back up your claims of lack of back up of claims? Got any facts? Ever? About anything? Ever?

 

[Que]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/climate-change-models-fail-to-accurately-simulate-droughts/

From the right-wing, petro-funded, non-scientists at Scientific American. Just one small part of "Climate Models Continue to Fail."

 

[Luk]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/climate-change-models-fail-to-accurately-simulate-droughts/

From the right-wing, petro-funded, non-scientists at Scientific American. Just one small part of "Climate Models Continue to Fail."

Cool cherry-picked op-ed piece from 4 years ago, bro.

Are you super stalking now?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/ashutosh-jogalekar/

Richard Feynman, sexism and changing perceptions of a scientific icon

The text of this post has been removed because it did not meet Scientific American‘s quality standards.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...nd-changing-perceptions-of-a-scientific-icon/

I bet googling Richard's name was the only thing that even took you to your op-ed.

 

[Que]

You'd be wrong.


Now your turn to Google for confirmation bias go ahead and find a climate model that actually predicted future results.

The argument isn't that climate models failures prove that there is no climate change. The point is there is so little that his known about extremely complex systems of weather that result in climate.

 

[Luk]

You'd be wrong.


Now your turn to Google for confirmation bias go ahead and find a climate model that actually predicted future results.

The argument isn't that climate models failures prove that there is no climate change. The point is there is so little that his known about extremely complex systems of weather that result in climate.

Me: Just post some facts for once.
Q-Bert: Google something

Everyone: Duh, Luk. You knew what was going to happen.

 

[Que]

Let me see if I have this right when I write down facts that I have in my head there's a problem with that because there's no link. When I link something there's a problem with that because you have to Google to find the link. What would you propose would be a better way to satisfy your disingenuous demands?

I specifically linked that particular article because you cannot refute it or wine that it is a biased source or author. It is not written by a climate skeptic it is written by an actual scientist with experience in computer modeling. He's just mentioning as an aside the difficulty in modeling in general and in no way is demeaning the entire field of climate study.

If I had simply wanted to dizzle you with bullshit I could have simply looked up the underlying drought study and linked the full abstract. Linking the abstract for a study on drought though would be rather dry don't you think?

since you don't want to do any actual work I went ahead and Google that for you. I Googled climate model that was accurate. I found an interesting article out of MIT that tends to support the idea that models are helpful and learning about climate change and points out that they are becoming slightly less in accurate as we learn and develop more understanding of the various variables involved.

Wanna see?

 

[LiamAnthony]

Fact: You guys have spent 95 pages pissing on each other like school kids, which speaks for itself.


Here's the meat from the OP, which also speaks for itself.

Global temperatures began climbing in the late 1960s, a phenomenon that has been tied to heat-trapping greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.

the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is higher now than at any other time in the last 800,000 years.

Carbon dioxide levels were about 285 parts per million in 1880, the first year in the global temperature record. By 1960, levels reached 315 parts per million. In 2013, the amount of carbon dioxide peaked at more than 400 parts per million.

 

[Que]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/543546/why-climate-models-arent-better/

“The models are getting more accurate in the sense that they simulate many processes more realistically,” explains Reto Knutti, a professor at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich who was one of the lead contributors to the Fifth Assessment Report. “But having said that, all of that has not really helped in decreasing the uncertainty in future projections.”

 

[Que]

Fact: You guys have spent 95 pages pissing on each other like school kids, which speaks for itself.


Here's the meat from the OP, which also speaks for itself.

Oh.

Well, then.

That certainly settles that.

 

[Luk]

Let me see if I have this right when I write down facts that I have in my head there's a problem with that because there's no link. When I link something there's a problem with that because you have to Google to find the link. What would you propose would be a better way to satisfy your disingenuous demands?

I specifically linked that particular article because you cannot refute it or wine that it is a biased source or author. It is not written by a climate skeptic it is written by an actual scientist with experience in computer modeling. He's just mentioning as an aside the difficulty in modeling in general and in no way is demeaning the entire field of climate study.

If I had simply wanted to dizzle you with bullshit I could have simply looked up the underlying drought study and linked the full abstract. Linking the abstract for a study on drought though would be rather dry don't you think?

since you don't want to do any actual work I went ahead and Google that for you. I Googled climate model that was accurate. I found an interesting article out of MIT that tends to support the idea that models are helpful and learning about climate change and points out that they are becoming slightly less in accurate as we learn and develop more understanding of the various variables involved.

Wanna see?

Nope. You were stalking Richard and stumbled upon an article that confirmed your bias.

See how that works? And you "dizzle" us with bullshit all of the time.

 

[Luk]

Fact: You guys have spent 95 pages pissing on each other like school kids, which speaks for itself.


Here's the meat from the OP, which also speaks for itself.

It's even simpler than that;

People who deny climate change need shooting in the face.

The climate has always changed. We've swung between ice ages and tropical periods, and various other crazy climates, since the earth was formed. It's not suddenly become rigid since humanity invented monitoring.

The only possible debate is over the major cause of the changes, whether humanity impacts them, and what direction and rate we're looking at in the future.

Trying to argue that it's not changing is a politically based stance, denying reality for the sake of your ideals. Stop trying to prove that it's not changing. It's silly and childish.

Yes, I've posted this before.

Sane people have always stated this. Why is it on the Lit people try to argue against this - it's asinine.

 

[LiamAnthony]

Oh.

Well, then.

That certainly settles that.

Happy to help; you're welcome.

http://www.chesapeakequarterly.net/sealevel/main13/

 

[phrodeau]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/climate-change-models-fail-to-accurately-simulate-droughts/

From the right-wing, petro-funded, non-scientists at Scientific American. Just one small part of "Climate Models Continue to Fail."

Here is another opinion piece from four years ago that counters the view of your molecular biologist with that of an actual climate scientist.

http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.WjkpPYX9pPo

Now, what have you got to demonstrate that the models are "demonstratively" (or even demonstrably) wrong?

 

[Que]

Here is another opinion piece from four years ago that counters the view of your molecular biologist with that of an actual climate scientist.

http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.WjkpPYX9pPo

Now, what have you got to demonstrate that the models are "demonstratively" (or even demonstrably) wrong?

"Have improved" so that the models are less wrong doesn't mean that any have been right. Still.

Discussing the accuracy of climate models with you is exactly the same as discussing the accuracy of the Bible with FrodoBaggins.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

Nope. You were stalking Richard and stumbled upon an article that confirmed your bias.

See how that works? And you "dizzle" us with bullshit all of the time.

Que and Lance are two birds of the same feather. *nods*

 

[Luk]

Que and Lance are two birds of the same feather. *nods*

Of all the gin joints, he stumbled across your name by accident

 

[phrodeau]

"Have improved" so that the models are less wrong doesn't mean that any have been right. Still.

Discussing the accuracy of climate models with you is exactly the same as discussing the accuracy of the Bible with FrodoBaggins.

Oh, do the models have too many significant figures for you to count?

 

[Que]

Of all the gin joints, he stumbled across your name by accident

I'm such an effective stalker that in the what are you reading thread I posted Feynman's biography long before "Skiddles" chose that particular name for for this one of his incarnations.

Feynman is one of the most often quoted scientists of the modern era, because of his fantastic sense of humor and keen insights. Something the both of you lack.

320,000 Google results for "Feynman Climate." That's a lot of gin joints.

"Feynman Quotes" returns almost one million results.

"Feynman Science" has 660,000.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

"Alas." They have been "testing their assumptions." Thus far all, of their assumptions are demonstratively wrong. There are no climate models that have worked even when you plugged in historical data much less going forward. Obviously, there are variables that are not understood and are not accounted for.

Good news though, is that the science is settled, Hey?

LMAO. You just can't help yourself, can you, Queef Quavin?

 

[Que]

LMAO. You just can't help yourself, can you, Queef Quavin?

Ok Fagman, go ahead- explain, in your own words, why CO2 which I think everyone agrees is rapidly increasing, has not yet had the magnitude of impact computer simulations have predicted?

 

[richard_daily]

LMAO. You just can't help yourself, can you, Queef Quavin?

He has impulse control issues.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

Ok Fagman, go ahead- explain, in your own words, why CO2 which I think everyone agrees is rapidly increasing, has not yet had the magnitude of impact computer simulations have predicted?

The next time you're inclined to impugn anyone else's character, I want you to go back and count how many times you used the word 'fag' as an insult.

 

[Que]

The next time you're inclined to impugn anyone else's character, I want you to go back and count how many times you used the word 'fag' as an insult.

Why do you find that insulting, Dick? Is it because of your great fear of teh queers "baiting" you into teh gheysex?

Also why do you have no answer as to the lack of corresponding correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperature? The actual Richard P Feynman would have something to say about that I'm quite sure.

I think he would talk about the vast quantity of pseudoscience in that particular field.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

Why do you find that insulting, Dick? Is it because of your great fear of teh queers "baiting" you into teh gheysex?

Also why do you have no answer as to the lack of corresponding correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperature? The actual Richard P Feynman would have something to say about that I'm quite sure.

I think he would talk about the vast quantity of pseudoscience in that particular field.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo

As we've seen so many times before, when you're confronted with science information you tuck tail and run away, never to be heard from on that topic again. So why would anyone play that disingenuous game with you?

How about instead you tell us how Thus far all, of their assumptions are demonstratively wrong? I'm especially looking forward to your corrections of radiative forcing.

 

[Que]

As we've seen so many times before, when you're confronted with science information you tuck tail and run away, never to be heard from on that topic again. So why would anyone play that disingenuous game with you?

How about instead you tell us how Thus far all, of their assumptions are demonstratively wrong? I'm especially looking forward to your corrections of radiative forcing.

You keep saying that about anyone who you have engaged in this thread. Yet, you continue to engage people in the thread and you continue not to have anything at all to illustrate why they are "wrong."

RDS never was able to put any of these concepts into his own words either but at least he had his handy climate change cheatsheet to refudiate various points. Why don't you contact him and see if you can borrow it?