[Splorf22]

Originally Posted by Hasbinlulz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, except that a simulation only needs to be as complex as will produce consistent and predictive results, you fucking tool.

Read the last paragraph, and see if your fancy letters can help you ferret out the reason why this study is valid rather than invalidated by lack of infinite complexity, as you seem to desire:

Congratulations, you managed to download the article, find the copy and paste tool, and even minimize the font. If you work hard over the next 10 years, you might achieve the vocabulary of Koko the gorilla.

Now let me try to explain something very simple to you. Statistical models predict based on correlation. CO2 and global temperature have both increased over the past 150 years. Hence you can build a nice statistical model that predicts the global temperature will zoom off to infinity if the CO2 level continues to go up. However, if you were paying attention in stat 101 you would know that correlation does not imply causation. I can build the exact same statistical model for obesity causing global warming (both have increased in the past 150 years). The mathematics is the same. The problem with both climate scientists and economists is that they are putting too much trust in the ability of simple mathematics to model very complex systems and not engaging their brains.

Originally Posted by daldoma

I'm not religious re: Jesus, I'm not even a Christian. I think Jesus was born to a mother that was exactly 0% virgin and impregnated by a man that was exactly 100% human. I simply trust the opinions of the vast majority of scholars when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, and I'm not interested in getting into the details with someone less qualified and less informed than those scholars.

This is a reasonable position and I don't think I've stated otherwise. I'm not against expert opinions per se, just those of climate "scientists". The only reason I brought you up was because the same people who were skewering you for trusting expert opinion are blathering on about the scientific consensus and how thats the second best thing to God's word.

Originally Posted by splorf22

What most people do not know is that that carbon dioxide has a very small effect on temperature. Its like 1C tops or something; I don't know the numbers off of the top of my head. The theory is this: that 1C will warm the planet, causing more water to evaporate from the oceans. Water is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (I guess it isn't as politically convenient to demonize water though). And it is this 'forcing' that creates the 5-10C increases you read about. There are tons of computer models which generate very different answers depending on their initial parameters.

You might want to read that again Alarti - I even mentioned methane too. Sure some of my post was opinion but hey its RnF. Anyway I think I am getting tired of playing in this mudhole, good day gentlemen and you too Hasbinbad.