SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
02-22-21, 03:52 PM | #946 |
Ace of the Deep
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Near the Dutch mountains
Posts: 1,147
Downloads: 85
Uploads: 0
|
Absolute nonsense. Any modeling, no matter if simple stochastic models or sophisticated numeric models are considered, involves multistep recalibration procedures with the most complete data sets available.
__________________
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.” (Douglas Adams) |
02-22-21, 04:47 PM | #947 | |||||||
Dipped Squirrel Operative
|
Quote:
Quote:
Science works exactly the other way round, and it has nothing to do with cherry picking. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then there are the "creationists" of course, but i take it you are not one of them. Quote:
If you want to get back to before human civilisation existed there are other methods. Quote:
Monocultures and killing species in a number unheard of except from mass extinctions eras ago, may not necessarily end in more diversity. What i find arrogant is to not understand the past, scientific methods, but tell the world "how things work". This is "arrogant", and dumb. And if mankind follows it it will be its end.
__________________
>^..^<*)))>{ All generalizations are wrong. |
|||||||
02-22-21, 04:55 PM | #948 | ||
Rear Admiral
|
Well yes, it may have been cherry picked.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9864 Quote:
Quote:
Arrogance is when Godwizard Science and his disciples promote one single theory, AGW. There are other just as valid theories and reasons as to why a climate can and will change. None of which should prevent anyone from cleaning up their act.
__________________
Extradite Deez Nutz in your mouth Commissioner Mark Rowley you fascist pig. Make 1984 fiction again. Last edited by Rockstar; 02-22-21 at 06:26 PM. |
||
02-22-21, 05:22 PM | #949 | ||
Grey Wolf
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 955
Downloads: 247
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Quote:
Any scientist worth the title should continue to welcome questioning of the science, the production of ever more objective quality evidence, and refinement of their models. When those models are tested and found to not actually conform to reality, they need to be revised. Instead, we get "burn her, she's a witch" in response. I'll continue being a heretic when it comes to the cult of global warming. |
||
02-22-21, 06:23 PM | #950 |
Fleet Admiral
|
I found the article. I tried to find the English version in Nature Geoscience-without any luck, so the Swedish article will be translated
" New research: The Gulf Stream has slowed down by up to 20 percent The northern part of the Gulf Stream is weakening and global warming is the cause. In a forthcoming issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, another group of researchers confirms that so far it has been a 10-20 percent slowdown. The Gulf Stream system is weaker than it has been in 1600 years. If global warming continues, researchers warn that it could stop completely. Warmer seas and the fact that the ice at the North Pole is melting faster than expected are behind it. The Gulf Stream gives us mild winters and warm, green summers in the Nordic countries. Without it, the average temperature would drop by 5-10 degrees, according to studies at the Met Office Hadley Center. It may not sound like much, but then you should know that it is six degrees that separates our current climate from the previous ice age. Parts of Sweden could have winter temperatures of minus 50, just like in Alaska which is at our latitudes but which is not covered by the warm currents. The disaster film "The Day after Tomorrow" which came out in 2004 and showed a ragged and flooded Manhattan did indeed exaggerate the speed of the course of events, but was not entirely wrong about what the consequences could be of a stopped Gulf Stream. " End of article The rest of it is how the Gulf stream works and what it do. Markus
__________________
My little lovely female cat |
02-22-21, 07:29 PM | #951 | ||
Ace of the Deep
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Near the Dutch mountains
Posts: 1,147
Downloads: 85
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Best is known for causing a lot of turbulence and at least he gets the math right most of the time. Don't know if most of his results still come from that free to download model and are still computed on his iMac. Funny thing is Best is elaborating on a systematic error because of changes in data acquisition still all of the graphs show a 0.5°C increase from 1995 to 2020. Quote:
__________________
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.” (Douglas Adams) |
||
02-23-21, 03:16 AM | #952 | |||
Dipped Squirrel Operative
|
Quote:
Quote:
A better theory does not mean that some conspiracy nut cries that his theory is better just because it is his one. Quote:
Unfortunately it seems we are not able to openly call out liars anymore because they are so touchy, thin-skinned snowflakes. Remember Trump fired anyone who did not support his personal opinion? Why believing him then without ever questioning? That is the real dumb cult. And the real problem is that it takes a lot of time to debunk lies, because when you do it properly you have to present evidence, books, graphs, and common sense. But the time this takes is out of proportion in comparison to spread a dumb lie. So someone debunked your lie? Spout out ten fresh new ones, give them something to do and divert from the real issues. Has been perfected in the last 5 years, not only in the US of course. In the time they debunk those myths you can create a dozen new lies, and no one can and will catch up ever. The major consensus is temperatures are rising. And no "quanon shamane" or oil boss, or Trump with his own agenda of greed and power (to fill up his bank account and give a sh!t about the future) will convince me of the contrary. Evidence, provided by scientific methods will.
__________________
>^..^<*)))>{ All generalizations are wrong. Last edited by Catfish; 02-23-21 at 05:25 AM. |
|||
02-23-21, 03:41 PM | #953 | |
Born to Run Silent
|
Quote:
Ummm... everyone does that. Surprise.
__________________
SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web |
|
02-23-21, 04:48 PM | #954 |
Dipped Squirrel Operative
|
^ True. But this was my reaction to 3catcircus assertion
"The issue I have is the claim that people are warming the planet at a faster rate based upon data that has been cherry-picked to fit a model - rather than updating the model to fit the data." No, the model is not fixed, and it is being discussed back and forth, and updated constantly, and 98 percent of scientists agree. It is that obvious. All i can say i cannot understand how people willingly want to believe something that 98 percent do not agree with, without understanding the background. Now if you are one of the 98 percent, should one look at their arguments? Yes. Should one put them to the test? Of course. So you do this and you find the data wrong, the new theory or model unproven. So you dismiss this as unpoven, without evidence, going only along the tests, and the theory. While you could also see that all this is done to somehow help an obscure theory pretending that communists/Biden lovers/liberal snowflakes/the swamp want to shut down the economy because oil is evil. You never said this so you try reason, does not convince. You present data, does not matter since Alex Jones has other data. But from which source? Hah all sources that disagree with Trump are fake news. And roughly 50 percent believe this. Yes, it is hopeless. However in this context i can say that after studying all this boring stuff and having done some probing myself, the scientific consensus is that earth's climate is warming. Could be sun's radiation cycles, but not in this case. This is one side, the other side is that CO levels are skyrocketing since around 1950. Now you explain to me how this can be, and what the causes are. Two of hundreds of links https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
__________________
>^..^<*)))>{ All generalizations are wrong. Last edited by Catfish; 02-23-21 at 04:59 PM. |
02-23-21, 05:18 PM | #955 | |
Grey Wolf
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 955
Downloads: 247
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Fact of the matter is that the IPCC is still the authority that governments look to, and they have most assuredly cherry-picked data and massaged it over the years to support their narrative with one goal - a carbon tax on wealthy nations while China and India continue on as the biggest polluters on the planet - the intent is to continuously keep the populace alarmed and begging to be led to a solution - and some folks will be getting rich in the process. It's not just climate studies - ALL science is tainted by politics and finance to some degree because academics are in a publish-or-perish situation where they're always in a search for more grant money. |
|
02-24-21, 03:00 AM | #956 | ||
Dipped Squirrel Operative
|
Quote:
Second, he did not listen to advice, we all saw what happens if an advisor kept trying to explain something to him, energy, climate or else. Third during his presidency he succesfully drove a wedge between a consensus of science and politics. That a lot of people now rather believe in conspiracies than facts is definitely his work. The IPCC, yes .. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations[1][2] that is dedicated to providing the world with objective, scientific information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced[3] climate change, its natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options." Trump made it look as if it was an organisation founded to personnally annoy him, support the left and be anti-capitalistic. NONSENSE. It is not there to lick the boots of politicians, unfortunately this climate discussion has of course reached political dimensions. I personally find the idea of a carbon tax and trading with it(!) idiotic (the EU does it ), but hey if there's money in it why don't some Americans like it? I also think that electric cars are not the future, at least not now. I say this because the emissions being produced by loading a giant fleet of electric cars (and buiding them and the batteries) has a very bad cumulative energy balance. You have power line losses, batteries have to be renewed every some years; in all you just transfer the exhaust to where you not directly see it, cheating yourself. Electric energy produced by coal is not clean. Nuclear energy is debatable, (since the cooling efforts are heating rivers and lakes, let alone radioactive waste problem), but that's not the point here. If we can build better, faster-loading batteries without using dirty resources like mercury or rare earths this could become something. China and India do not care for anything, yes. Smaller nations can do what they want, those big ones will always out-pollute them, this is the usual argument. China has shown a bit of insight with the the Beijing smoke pollution, but for them it is nationalist politics, hegemony and "China first", and ignore other consequences. If a nation like the US acts like that, i think there is reason for concern. Quote:
It can all be bent, manipulated, twisted, but it is my honest opinion that most scientists are less prone for bribery than politicians, or the industry. This is why they are so useful idiots, too reluctant to say what's really on the table, always cutting back logic in favour of idiots. Some politicians need a punch in the face, just to get grounded again.
__________________
>^..^<*)))>{ All generalizations are wrong. Last edited by Catfish; 02-24-21 at 05:49 AM. |
||
02-24-21, 05:26 PM | #957 | ||
Born to Run Silent
|
I love how all us untutored experts in climate change, epidemiology, economics, public policy, and motor oil rely on the experts to form our unstaunched opinions. But the experts, well, there's a bit of ego and personality there too.
Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues https://www.nature.com/news/2010/101....2010.577.html Quote:
Quote:
__________________
SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web |
||
02-24-21, 05:39 PM | #958 | |
Grey Wolf
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 955
Downloads: 247
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
|
|
02-25-21, 04:59 AM | #959 | ||
Dipped Squirrel Operative
|
Quote:
What is also written in the article is that Quote:
@Neal: re the "untutored experts" i beg to differ, we did indeed inspect drilling cores for evidence and change in earth's history (including climate changes etc.), as well i can hold Skybird-long monologues on motor oils, or oil in general. (Though i better spare you all that )
__________________
>^..^<*)))>{ All generalizations are wrong. Last edited by Catfish; 02-25-21 at 05:09 AM. |
||
02-25-21, 09:59 PM | #960 |
Born to Run Silent
|
Hahaha, yeah, I love you, man. Always great discussions. I threw in the motor oil category, as you may know, if you start an oil thread on a motorcycle or performance car forum, it will reach max crazy faster than any other topic. Bar none! In fact, if you are doing your daily visit of the mc forum and you see a new topic with something like "I just got this new bike, what kind of oil should I run?" .... brace yourself, it will be wild.
__________________
SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web |
Tags |
climate, climate change, drought, global warming, hurricanes |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|