So that's it for the election.

[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.

[azeth]

Hasbinbad, just a tip to improve your future: don't ever finish a sentence with, "you fucking tool"

[Alarti0001]

[QUOTE=Splorf22;752323



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.[/QUOTE]

ITT I'm clueless - Loraen

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Way to ignore what I said and restate your original statement. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but a preponderance of evidence leads a reasoning person to certain conclusions. Probably you came to yours before the data was obtained, and will cling to it long after you're proven an idiot. I just hope you're not proven wrong in my lifetime.

Anyway I think I am getting tired of playing in this mudhole, good day gentlemen and you too Hasbinbad.[/QUOTE]

[Orruar]

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:

It's not difficult for a neural network to fit training data. It's a much different beast for it to actually be predictive. In fact, the low error they have achieved in training would make me suspect of overfitting the data, which is a common problem with such systems. They didn't even mention the training method they used for the neural networks. They should require all papers that model the environment to give some testable predictions of the future. At least then we'd be able to tell which ones are possibly valid after a few years.

[Alawen]

And you're absolutely correct.

You are, indeed, less informed.

[hatelore]

I will say this, what al gore did was really a stroke of genius. He created a new industry pretty much(green movement). Some things that have to do with global warming are infact true, but I wouldn't say it's all doom and gloom like al gorlioni tries to make it out to be.

But you have to admit, all of the concrete we are laying on this planet doesn't really help the planet. Think of it like a brick oven. The Italians used brick ovens forever to cook with, and other cultures of people of course. The reason they use them even to this day is because they retain heat. Now think about all the concrete we have layed on earth. At nightime, naturally the earth should cool off some since the sun is not beaming on that particular part of the earth. But since the concrete retains heat throughout the night, the earth doesn't cool off as much as it would have a thousand years ago. Now compound that with all of the factories and cars and such, and of course the planet will be warmer then it was a thousand years ago.

What al gore did was basically go to big business and say " what if I told you there was a way that I can make it to where you can charge more for a product, and do nothing other then label the product green etc". Al gore may sound stupid, but he's pretty damn good at business. Not to mention what he did has changed laws and regulations all over the world, plus created a plethora of new products for his green movement.

[hatelore]

But I would definitely say that it isn't all doom and gloom. When mother nature has had enough of us and our ways, she will turn things right again. She has an entire arsenal of hurricanes,tornadoes,earthquakes and tsunamis to work with [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[azeth]

fyi mitt's economic plan is as follows:

Stop Runaway Federal Spending And Debt.

Reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20 percent – its pre-crisis average – by 2016.

In so doing, reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases.

Reform The Nation’s Tax Code To Increase Growth And Job Creation.

Reduce individual marginal income tax rates across-the-board by 20 percent, whilekeeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Reduce the corporateincome tax rate – the highest in the world – to 25 percent.

Broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.

Reform Entitlement Programs To Ensure Their Viability.

Gradually reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluentseniors. Give more choice in Medicare to improve value in health care spending.

Block grant the Medicaid program to states, enabling experimentation to better fit localsituations.

Make Growth And Cost-Benefit Analysis Important Features Of Regulation.

Remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs toconsumers and limit job creation.

Repeal and replace the Dodd-Frank Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable CareAct. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health care reform

Stop Runaway Federal Spending And Debt.

Reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20 percent – its pre-crisis average – by2016.

In so doing, reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases.

Reform The Nation’s Tax Code To Increase Growth And Job Creation.

Reduce individual marginal income tax rates across-the-board by 20 percent, whilekeeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Reduce the corporateincome tax rate – the highest in the world – to 25 percent.

Broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.

Reform Entitlement Programs To Ensure Their Viability.

Gradually reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluentseniors. Give more choice in Medicare to improve value in health care spending.

Block grant the Medicaid program to states, enabling experimentation to better fit localsituations.

Make Growth And Cost-Benefit Analysis Important Features Of Regulation.

Remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs toconsumers and limit job creation.

Repeal and replace the Dodd-Frank Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable CareAct. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health care reform

[Alawen]

Gosh, that's an awesome 5 x 2 point plan.

Do you know the difference between desired outcomes and policy? I'd like everyone to live to the age of 100 in good health. Will you vote for me if I say I'll give you that but I don't tell you how I'm going to do it?