Warming up

What the Main Stream Media don't tell you about the climate models is that they don't actually model climate.

By this statement, I mean that NONE of the existing models can be started from some known point in the past, allowed to run forward in time, and arrive at another known point in the more recent past. Nor can any of them be run backwards, starting from known conditions in the now, and working backwards to the climate at a known point in the past.

In every other field, this is the Gold Standard Acid Test of a model. Does it match known reality? If it cannot be made to match known reality, then it is, by definition, Garbage.

Note: High-energy physics includes models that must be "renormalized", scaled to fit experimental data. Those models include a factor that is the exponential of an unknown quantity. Renormalization amounts to finding a value for that unknown quantity that allows the model to generate results that match the experimental data. Now, when you have an exponential factor like that, you are saying that you might be multiplying by ANYTHING, from infinitesimally small to astronomically large. This is still acceptable, because you CAN get the model to match the real world. The climate models can't even do it under those conditions.

Yet the Global Warming, uhhh, excuse me, Climate Change crowd (the change happened when they figured out that some areas were COOLING) tell us that we must immediately spend skyzillions of dollars because their models say so.

And that's BEFORE they tell us how they arrive at one number to describe the temperature of the entire planet, so they can say that the entire planet is warming... Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Your point is?

As somebody who studied renormalisation theory at graduate level, your description is a little simplistic, and I don't see the connection.

GOD the Father and Mother Nature are working on this. Sit back and enjoy the RIDE...fuckers

Exactly, UB91B6!

The volcanic ash that causes a nuclear winter effect is partially made up of larger particles (unlike the CO2 emitted in many of our daily human offerings) and as such eventually settles to earth and poses no more airborne risk! Originally Posted by Little Stevie

And Little Stevie opens his mouth again, and inserts his foot, right up to his knee, yet again.

Stevie, you really do need to learn how to READ what other people WRITE, if you expect them to continue to pay you the same courtesy.

I did not say ANYTHING about volcanic ash. I pointed out that volcanic eruptions, like forest fires, emit carbon dioxide, in quantities that dwarf human industrial activity.

Since you insist on mentioning volcanic ash in the same sentence as global warming, you need to show how the carbon dioxide from the volcanic eruptions during The Year With No Summer did NOT trigger significant warming.

You also need to explain how it is that the fossil record shows that the earth has had higher and lower CO2 levels, contemporaneous with higher and lower global temperatures. The net effect is that total CO2 level and global temperature sure LOOK to be wholly uncorrelated - which of course DESTROYS the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, since anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 is only about 10% of the total.

You also have to explain where you get the assumption that Mother Nature's Feedback Loops, that regulate the planet's temperature and CO2 levels, are so fragile that the diverge if the CO2 level goes more than about 10% off of the nominal level. That assumption is also at the heart of the AGW hypothesis.

Your point is?

As somebody who studied renormalisation theory at graduate level, your description is a little simplistic, and I don't see the connection. Originally Posted by essence

My point is that renormalization allows a VERY wide range of data to be fit to the equation, but the climate models CAN'T be made to fit, even with that wide a range of fudge factoring applied.

Consider a computer model of freshman mechanics, that has at its heart the assumption that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Such a computer model is trivially invalid, and no amount of normalization or other fudge factoring will make it valid. The "validation" (devalidation, actually), was done several centuries ago, by a guy named Galileo in a town called Pisa. (The experiment was repeated by David Scott, in lunar gravity, during Apollo 15. To nobody's real surprise, today, Galileo's result was confirmed.)

I'm sure you know more about renormalization than I do: my exposure was a brief throwaway discussion during a lecture that was WAY over my head during my undergrad days.

A discussion of renormalization on this board? Doesn't that require that you have been normal first?

If the government was really concerned about deforestation by logging, alternative fuels, and a host of other ills, they would legalize the production of commercial hemp. It is such a versatile crop, but since it cuts into the profits of other, more well funded industries with higher paid lobbyists, it is not allowed.

http://www.nemeton.com/static/nemeto...atis/hemp.html Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I did my ROTC summer camp @ Fort Riley and I had never seen maryjuna. We got off a copter and form a circle and this cadet from Texas A&I says, "maryjuna, maryjuana, it is every where". So being a liberal back then, I took a pillow case home and put it in my trunk, months latter, I was cleaning my car, took it out and it was a pale green and I said this does look like tobacco and I threw it away

point is, they grew it during WWII for rope, and COG all hills in Kansas only go up

hell, when I saw the title of this thread, I thought you were talking about Oklahoma, 113 twice last week and 20 homes burned 3 miles from me

GOD the Father and Mother Nature are working on this. Sit back and enjoy the RIDE...fuckers Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

That's a retarded statement , Iffy.
Even you know that.