12 Apr 15
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
"If you are not implying by the above that there is some kind of logical inconsistency in the two different lags"
If I was implying a logical inconsistency I would not be asking for your source of information. If I was implying a logical inconsistency I would not have implied both could happen. You failure to provide a source of information in the con ...[text shortened]... curate. It also shows how little your physics background helps you with this particular subject.
If I was implying a logical inconsistency I would not have implied both could happen.
I think you have a weird way of saying things but, OK, I apologise for misunderstanding your quote there.
You failure to provide a source of information
I have explained my source many times now. I won't repeat myself yet again.
How long is the estimated lag time?
Irrelevant. What difference does it make? I only remember once reading somewhere that it is “many” years but don't recall how many is “many”.
If you want to know, look it up yourself.
Do you deny that there IS a time lag? Yes or no?
If no, how would the estimate help you here? Lets say it is ~40 years ….so now what?
If yes, I can explain the physics of why there must be a time lag -just look up heat capacity.
And what is YOUR source of information that the scientists are all wrong about there being such a time lag?...
It also shows how little your physics background helps you with this particular subject.
Really? So you have a greater physics background than I? Have you done university physics courses for several years like I have?
Tell us all here, what are YOUR physics credentials and then I tell you mine so we can compare.....
Your shameless condescending arrogance is just appalling, not only to me, but to everybody here including all the SCIENTISTS that are here that know and understand vastly more about it than you could ever do.
Nobody takes you seriously here. Nobody is convinced by your opinionated claims. Perhaps you are under the delusion that they are convinced? I cannot think why else you persist with them here unless it is just to be condescending to us.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by humy"Irrelevant. What difference does it make? I only remember once reading somewhere that it is “many” years but don't recall how many is “many”."If I was implying a logical inconsistency I would not have implied both could happen.
I think you have a weird way of saying things but, OK, I apologise for misunderstanding your quote there.You failure to provide a source of information
I have explained my source many times now. I won't repeat myself yet again.
...[text shortened]... I cannot think why else you persist with them here unless it is just to be condescending to us.
Either climate models can predict the lag you claim exists or it cannot. If climate models cannot it is another failure of climate models, the only thing that supports your alarmist views.
It is far from irrelevant and you know that full well. This is more evasiveness on your part because your position is so weak. I know it must pain you to even think of admitting that, so you resort to the obfuscation instead. You are amusing.
😏😏
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonhouseYou and humy both have been trying to goad me into revealing my education level for a long time. It isn't working. I know how much it bugs you both not knowing. It is one of the few things that makes me laugh.
I have asked you several times what YOUR physics or other science background you have and you have not deigned to answer. Is it because you have none but instead only rely on other people to do your thinking for you? Just like certain fundamentalists I know.....
Does it surprise you that I am doing so well challenging your silly assertions? If I have a poor educational background it must make you and humy feel really stupid. There was a time you thought I had a degree in physics and/or meteorology. You probably were just trying to get me to reveal something about my education though. Why else would you speculate so widely to each extreme? Be honest. You don't have a clue and it bugs you big time. Admit it.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo you don't have a degree in physics and meteorology. And you feel embarrassed about it.
You and humy both have been trying to goad me into revealing my education level for a long time. It isn't working. I know how much it bugs you both not knowing. It is one of the few things that makes me laugh.
Does it surprise you that I am doing so well challenging your silly assertions? If I have a poor educational background it must make you and h ...[text shortened]... so widely to each extreme? Be honest. You don't have a clue and it bugs you big time. Admit it.
You discuss climate and pretend you have a degree and therefore equal to humy and sonhouse. But you are not.
You show it only to often that you have not a degree in any science field because you don't know anything about scientific methodology. You call it junk science of the very reason that it doesn't share your personal opinions. And therefore you dismiss it.
Your lack of scientific education doesn't bug anyone. Your false insinuation does.
13 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal Brain"revealing"? More like "admitting" the complete absence of. Don't flatter yourself; we already worked out your obvious education level of science a long time ago from your many ignorant moronic posts on the matter.
You and humy both have been trying to goad me into revealing my education level for a long time.
13 Apr 15
7 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59EXACTLY! 🙂
It is not the fact that there are "too many variables" or even that measurements are not accurate. Climate is a chaotic system
so it will never be predictable
however, it is possible to allocate probabilities to outcomes and see general trends.
And while different models differ in their detail the overall picture from all
respected sources is approximately the same.
I think you have just about hit the nail on the head there although I think you should have pedantically said "it will never be predictable with both infinite accuracy and infinite reliability" rather than just "it will never be predictable" but, that said, I get your obvious intended meaning so that is just fine.
It is precisely this simple point he chooses to not understand -good and valid science very often (if not usually ) deals with probabilities rather than absolute certainties.
(somehow, I had missed your excellent post last time)
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyLOL!!!!
"revealing"? More like "admitting" the complete absence of. Don't flatter yourself; we already worked out your obvious education level of science a long time ago from your many ignorant moronic posts on the matter.
You sure do think you know more than you do. The thing I find most hilarious is your refusal to provide your source of information and telling me to look it up myself. Trying to burden others with proving a negative shows how weak you are. You are incapable of debating on even ground so you must attempt to unfairly shift the burden on others as if anybody thinks that is reasonable.
You have lost this debate and all your trolling friends that have nothing to contribute are not helping you. They are here to support your refusal to provide your source of information. You are just a loser with a few losers to help you through it. I would ask you for your source of information again, but you either lack confidence in that source of information or don't have one. FAIL!
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainHere's one of those "rarest of species, a republican climate scientist with an open mind", saying that climate models are indeed not entirely reliable, but that most evidence for man made global warming predicted in the future doesn't in fact rely on climate models, as you've claimed several times. How do you respond to this?
"When the majority of the scientific cllimate society come up with results that doesn't fit you"
I challenge that assertion. The majority of climate scientists do NOT support predictions from climate models. A lot of people seem to think since a majority of climate scientists accept that man is contributing to global warming that they can believe alar ...[text shortened]... re NOT! This is the lie being pushed on people. You apparently were duped into this lie as well.
What We KNOW About Climate Change - Kerry Emanuel:
Please note what he's saying about "alarmist" views. I think he's essentially right. What do you think? If you don't have time to watch this, I completely understand, and when I have the time I could maybe distill it all into a written post.
13 Apr 15
Originally posted by C Hess"most evidence for man made global warming predicted in the future doesn't in fact rely on climate models, as you've claimed several times.
Here's one of those "rarest of species, a republican climate scientist with an open mind", saying that climate models are indeed not entirely reliable, but that most evidence for man made global warming predicted in the future doesn't in fact rely on climate models, as you've claimed several times. How do you respond to this?
What We KNOW About Climate Cha ...[text shortened]... ompletely understand, and when I have the time I could maybe distill it all into a written post.
Here is an excerpt from the link below:
_________________________________________________________
"But it is increasingly clear that the models are the linchpin of the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming theory. They are not just a piece of the evidence for future catastrophes, they are the only evidence."
__________________________________________________________
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/06/09/model-behavior-in-climate-science-its-all-about-the-computers/
Feel free to prove Warren Meyer wrong. Humy had plenty of chances to do that and failed despite his rhetoric to the contrary. Everyone reading posts on here have, including you. Nobody has specifically proven that here though. All you have to do is show me something other than climate models that is evidence of for future catastrophes. If you can do that you will be the first and gain my respect for it.....if you can do that. Don't just say it...talk is cheap. Show me the proof.
13 Apr 15
1 edit
Originally posted by humyApparently you do not know physics well. Seasonal weather changes show a lag time (if a significant one exists) cannot be years merely because of heat capacity. Your assertion is ridiculous. The education system in the UK must be over rated.
That's one of the things I have been trying to tell him. There is this thing called 'basic physics'.