DC Tom Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 I was afraid people might think I had dated Gator. You weren't here for the whole "Playing in Buffalo is hard on QBs because of the local differences in gravity" conversation in the Shout Box, were you? About the only positive thing I could say about that conversation is that it wasn't the absolute dumbest thing I've seen here.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 You weren't here for the whole "Playing in Buffalo is hard on QBs because of the local differences in gravity" conversation in the Shout Box, were you? About the only positive thing I could say about that conversation is that it wasn't the absolute dumbest thing I've seen here. Have you checked out post 206 in this thread yet? Cause this might take the cake:http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/186546-whaley-is-now-on-the-hot-seat/page-11
Joe Miner Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 Have you checked out post 206 in this thread yet? Cause this might take the cake:http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/186546-whaley-is-now-on-the-hot-seat/page-11 Global warming increasing the mass of the moon which causes gravitational anomalies in Buffalo which will disrupt the surgery being performed on Shaq's shoulder, which will cause the surgeon to mistakenly perform a surgery on his spleen akin to a botched procedure on the shah of Iran 37 years ago. I have to really think the Bills are cursed.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 Global warming increasing the mass of the moon which causes gravitational anomalies in Buffalo which will disrupt the surgery being performed on Shaq's shoulder, which will cause the surgeon to mistakenly perform a surgery on his spleen akin to a botched procedure on the shah of Iran 37 years ago. I have to really think the Bills are cursed.
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 Have you checked out post 206 in this thread yet? Cause this might take the cake:http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/186546-whaley-is-now-on-the-hot-seat/page-11 What the !@#$? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Whaley is doomed because Shah Palavi had a splenectomy and died of non-Hodgkins lymphoma? I do miss the old days, though, when "Shah's Spleen" would have responded to that post within five minutes.
GG Posted May 17, 2016 Posted May 17, 2016 What the !@#$? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Whaley is doomed because Shah Palavi had a splenectomy and died of non-Hodgkins lymphoma? No, it was because Lloyds didn't underwrite his insurance policy.
Azalin Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 You weren't here for the whole "Playing in Buffalo is hard on QBs because of the local differences in gravity" conversation in the Shout Box, were you? About the only positive thing I could say about that conversation is that it wasn't the absolute dumbest thing I've seen here. I'm truly sorry that I missed that.
Tiberius Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 I was afraid people might think I had dated Gator. The Gatorman paradox! I see my gravity is so great that I attracted you
3rdnlng Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 The Gatorman paradox! I see my gravity is so great that I brought you down. Fixed.
B-Man Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 Does an Accurate Climate Model Exist? Global warming alarmism is predicated not on observation and empiricism, but on models and religious faith. The problem is that the models have now been around long enough to be either confirmed or falsified, and they are refuted by observation. The alarmists have tried to blur this fact by surreptitiously changing land temperature records to make the past look cooler and the present warmer, but this is at best a holding action. Our one accurate, transparent and un-tampered with set of data–satellite temperature measurements–is now 37 years old. That is enough time to test the alarmists’ models, which rely on fanciful positive feedback effects to magnify the small and almost certainly beneficial consequences of increased atmospheric CO2 into a nightmare scenario. So how do the alarmists’ models stack up against observation? Let’s go to Ken Haapala of the Science and Environmental Policy Project: Continued at the link..............
DC Tom Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 Does an Accurate Climate Model Exist? NO. Because they're models. They're abstractions, and inherently inaccurate to some significant and measurable degree. If they were accurate, they wouldn't be models. They'd be reality.
4merper4mer Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 NO. Because they're models. They're abstractions, and inherently inaccurate to some significant and measurable degree. If they were accurate, they wouldn't be models. They'd be reality. Don't get into symantecs with the guy about the name of it. You understand his question. If you need it asked your way then fine: Does an accurate climate reality exist?
TH3 Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 Does an Accurate Climate Model Exist? Global warming alarmism is predicated not on observation and empiricism, but on models and religious faith. The problem is that the models have now been around long enough to be either confirmed or falsified, and they are refuted by observation. The alarmists have tried to blur this fact by surreptitiously changing land temperature records to make the past look cooler and the present warmer, but this is at best a holding action. Our one accurate, transparent and un-tampered with set of data–satellite temperature measurements–is now 37 years old. That is enough time to test the alarmists’ models, which rely on fanciful positive feedback effects to magnify the small and almost certainly beneficial consequences of increased atmospheric CO2 into a nightmare scenario. So how do the alarmists’ models stack up against observation? Let’s go to Ken Haapala of the Science and Environmental Policy Project: Continued at the link.............. Article written by a bunch of lawyers for the American Enterprise Institute?
4merper4mer Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 Article written by a bunch of lawyers for the American Enterprise Institute? American Enterprise must be undercut at every opportunity. Good work Comrade.
Greg F Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 Article written by a bunch of lawyers for the American Enterprise Institute? When you can't address the merits of an argument just attack the messenger. How convincing.
TH3 Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 (edited) When you can't address the merits of an argument just attack the messenger. How convincing. Whelp - Seeing as the nature of this thread is that the messengers of the Theory of Global Warming are wrong - not because of the maths - but because they are not credible because they are self serving money grabbers and they want government to take over and redistribute wealth....and to augment this "discredit the messenger" positon that this thread is built on...the poster augments it with an article that is not written by scientists or experts in the field...but by lawyers... So there is that.... Edited May 18, 2016 by baskin
KD in CA Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 Article written by a bunch of lawyers for the American Enterprise Institute? Perhaps someone will post a fair and balanced article from the Scripps Institute.
B-Man Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 Whelp - Seeing as the nature of this thread is that the messengers of the Theory of Global Warming are wrong - not because of the maths - but because they are not credible because they are self serving money grabbers and they want government to take over and redistribute wealth....and to augment this "discredit the messenger" positon that this thread is built on...the poster augments it with an article that is not written by scientists or experts in the field...but by lawyers... So there is that.... Well, when you actually open the link that is being criticized you get three paragraphs of quotes from Dr. John Raymond Christy, who is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville So there is that. I can make it easier for the closed minds, if you like. In his written testimony submitted to the US House Committee on Science, Space & Technology on February 2, John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville presented the results of a basic empirical test. Do the climate models simulate what has occurred in the atmosphere since the advent of comprehensive satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures in the last few weeks of 1978 – the only comprehensive global measurements of temperatures existing – and independently supported by four datasets from weather balloons, which are not comprehensive. The test period includes the entire satellite record from 1978 through 2015 – 37 years. As Christy wrote: I was able to access 102 CMIP-5 rcp4.5 (representative concentration pathways) climate model simulations of the atmospheric temperatures for the tropospheric layer and generate bulk temperatures from the models for an apples-to-apples comparison with the observations from satellites and balloons. These models were developed in institutions throughout the world and used in the IPCC AR5 Scientific Assessment (2013). There were a total of 32 models represented in these 102 simulations. Of these 32 models only one tracked well against global mid-tropospheric temperature variations – the Russian INM-CM4. On average, the models overestimated global warming by 2.5 times that measured. When comparing mid-tropospheric temperature variations as simulated by the 32 to models with actual observations in the critical tropics, the models did worse. On average, they overestimated warming by 3 times that measured. Again the Russian INM-CM4 outperformed the others. As Christy fully recognized, such a test is not suitable for prediction or for public policy. For example, the results from the Russian INM-CM4 model came from one simulation. Multiple simulations may produce different results. The model may not capture the various influences on climate correctly, and may fail in the future. But the test clearly shows that long-term projections/predictions from the group of models, ensemble, are unsuitable for public policy that has a dramatic, destructive effect on the economy as proposed by many western governments. Conversely, the Russian model is a start.
Greg F Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 Whelp - Seeing as the nature of this thread is that the messengers of the Theory of Global Warming are wrong - not because of the maths ... Hold on there sparky. I and others have posted plenty of evidence that contradicts the hypothesis in this thread. I would suggest you go back and read it before running off on your little ad hominem attack. Try addressing the merits.
Azalin Posted May 19, 2016 Posted May 19, 2016 This article was written 19 years ago, and pretty much ignores any political elements associated with the topic, probably because it was written 19 years ago. "Through a million year period, the average amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is affected by four fluxes: flux of carbon due to (1) metamorphic degassing, (2) weathering of organic carbon, (3) weathering of silicates, (4) burial of organic carbon. Degassing reactions associated with volcanic activity and the combining of organic carbon with oxygen release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Conversely, the burial of organic matter removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html
Recommended Posts