Climate simulations (Page 3): :sm24: :sm24: :sm24: Good post :sm24: :sm24: :sm02:...

debeda

AHO-C wrote:

Debeda.....the primary reason that you cannot mode... (show quote)

Good post

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

AHO-C wrote:

Debeda.....the primary reason that you cannot mode... (show quote)

"Debeda.....the primary reason that you cannot model the Climate is that ....believe it or not ....Climate is affected by anything and everything from the microbes ( numbers and types) in the soil/water/air to the intensity of the Sun activity ...and everything and anything in between, including the wobble in the earth ..there is no way to tabulate the given intensity of any/all of the various combinations and permutations that can and do occur in an 'orderly chaotic' paradigm.
The C****es never learn that printing a lot of fiat money makes you poorer...not richer...and that taking from the 'worker' and giving to 'da bum' leads to everyone being a bum ...and once everyone is a 'bum' you print the fiat money...which results in a wrecked economy...which leads to revolt...which brings in a new innovative Government , hopefully with an excellent founding Document...let's call it a 'Constitution'...Wait we already 'been there...done that'...let's skip all the stupid stuff !!
Well back to tending bar !!" - AHO-C

Fine summary;
Now back to trying to educate liberal socialists.

Smedley_buzkill

eagleye13 wrote:

"Debeda.....the primary reason that you canno... (show quote)

Educate Liberal Socialists? I have a better idea; go try and push a rope up a hill. You have a better chance of success.

debeda

eagleye13 wrote:

"Debeda.....the primary reason that you canno... (show quote)

AHO-C

eagleye13 wrote:

"Debeda.....the primary reason that you canno... (show quote)

Rose42

nwtk2007 wrote:

Here's the deal. G****l w*****g is essentially based upon computer simulations. What do these simulations say if we dont' tell them that CO2 is a green house gas? What do they say if we leave out the theoretical concept of CO2 causing warming??

I used to work on programs that calculated rates for health care. Thousands of claims were used to get the numbers. Yet we had to keep tweaking the programs until they got numbers that were acceptable to them. This happens in all fields.

Seth

debeda wrote:

WAIT.... Computer simulations? The same thing that meteorologists that are right about 20% of the time use? Lolololhahahaha

What do you mean? Those computer simulations are inspiring!

The product they lead to inspires one to snarl "don't they have a damn window to look out of at that weather office or wherever?"

My favorite was one afternoon in Reno when we were having a blizzard you couldn't see more than a couple of feet through, and according to the "Weather Channel" at the same time, it was "partly cloudy with visibility to 1000 feet."

Computer simulations, Yay!

debeda

Seth wrote:

What do you mean? Those computer simulations are ... (show quote)

Good GRIEF.

JoyV

nwtk2007 wrote:

CO2 is a part of normal motor vehicle emission. If it is clean combustion, the emissions are H2O and CO2, without carbon monoxide.

No it is not a normal part. The addition of a catalytic converter converts portions of the normal CO and C emissions to CO2. I would EXTREMELY surprised if you ever found a gasoline powered motor vehicle which did NOT produce CO. No catalytic converter is THAT efficient. Not even on the newest cars. Older vehicles without catalytic converters emit CO and C. Catalytic converters change some of the CO to CO2, but there is also still C emitted. More so with older vehicles.
https://www.abe.iastate.edu/extension-and-outreach/carbon-monoxide-poisoning-vehicles-aen-208/

But in any case, there is no way that 1/3rd of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from motor vehicles. There is far more emitted by plant decay. There are emissions by volcanoes, deforestation, oceans, and human and animal exhalations. Then there are many other man made sources of CO2 emissions other than motor vehicles.

JoyV

debeda wrote:

WAIT.... Computer simulations? The same thing that meteorologists that are right about 20% of the time use? Lolololhahahaha

Yup. So when scientist actually do a study in the field, it often contradicts the computer simulations. You would think someone would question the accuracy of the simulations. But what we see is the well established science agencies coming up with convoluted explanations which exonerate the computer simulation. Then the actual field study is ignored or buried.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

JoyV wrote:

Yup. So when scientist actually do a study in the field, it often contradicts the computer simulations. You would think someone would question the accuracy of the simulations. But what we see is the well established science agencies coming up with convoluted explanations which exonerate the computer simulation. Then the actual field study is ignored or buried.

Yep; as always - "follow the money", and hence the agenda.
Usually some pick-pocketing in play.

debeda

JoyV wrote:

Yup. So when scientist actually do a study in the field, it often contradicts the computer simulations. You would think someone would question the accuracy of the simulations. But what we see is the well established science agencies coming up with convoluted explanations which exonerate the computer simulation. Then the actual field study is ignored or buried.

Good GRIEF

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

JoyV wrote:

No it is not a normal part. The addition of a cata... (show quote)

Not to be argumentative, but the goal is complete combustion meaning that only CO2 and water would be the entirety of the exhaust. But we can't do that with gasoline so carbon monoxide, CO, is produced. It's poisonous, this the catalytic converter.

Considering the sheer number of motor vehicles operating, they may well be right about the 1/3 estimate.

But, I don't think CO2 is causing c*****e c****e.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

nwtk2007 wrote:

Not to be argumentative, but the goal is complete combustion meaning that only CO2 and water would be the entirety of the exhaust. But we can't do that with gasoline so carbon monoxide, CO, is produced. It's poisonous, this the catalytic converter.

Considering the sheer number of motor vehicles operating, they may well be right about the 1/3 estimate.

But, I don't think CO2 is causing c*****e c****e.

CO2 is feeding our crops.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

eagleye13 wrote:

CO2 is feeding our crops.

And many areas are getting more rainfall as well. Believe me, there are big companies investing in land in the northern climes and looking are other varieties of crops which can deal with a shorter growing season.