Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
There's a bunch of different fields in maths and science. Orbiting satellites is simple rocket science that can be calculated to an order of precision, whereas weather is mathematically chaotic. I'm happy for someone to say human's 'may' be causing global warming, or could even hold the view that they are 'probably' causing it if that is what you think, but anyone who says it's 'definite' is really just a religious climate change zealot. Once you have people who hold that position playing around with calculations that are chaotic, you can pretty much draw any conclusion you want.
I think the only person here who's certain about anything is Tony Abbott. He appears to be convinced it's natural variability.
The scientific method tests hypotheses. At present, all the evidence and observations match the hypothesis that the current changes are human induced. Of course this is not 100% certain like any scientific theory, but it is far more certain than holding a wet finger in the wind.
So yes, you are correct in the sense that you are basically backing the best science of the day and that equals AGW.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..It's odd that people claim to think it is only models.Harrow said..
There's a bunch of different fields in maths and science. Orbiting satellites is simple rocket science that can be calculated to an order of precision, whereas weather is mathematically chaotic. I'm happy for someone to say human's 'may' be causing global warming, or could even hold the view that they are 'probably' causing it if that is what you think, but anyone who says it's 'definite' is really just a religious climate change zealot. Once you have people who hold that position playing around with calculations that are chaotic, you can pretty much draw any conclusion you want.
There are also OBSERVATIONS.
It is a combination of models, and observations that are proving some models more accurate than others.
It is not just models in isolation. That would be stupid. Of course.
Well, when people haven't got any observations to back their quackery the only tool at their disposal is to attack the models and observations of the carefully established science.
Any conspiracy theory will do, like all the climate scientists of the world are only in it for the money, or that more meaningful action will lead to the collapse of Western Civilisation. Creative theories I grant you, but ultimately quackery.
The scientists and medical professionals telling the world that smoking causes cancer and heart disease and asbestos causes lung disease were ridiculed in much the same way by the same type of paid hacks and shill quacks. Many anthropogenic climate change denial hacks working today were once on the tobacco/asbestos payroll and on think tanks who supported tobacco and asbestos until the end.
Attacking and sewing doubt is all the quacks have. Nothing odd about it.
Maybe one day they'll actually provide some evidence but that's far less interesting than being shill quacks.
Select to expand quoteboofta said..Chris 249 said..boofta said..
if any crazy climate change hysteric was asked the same question that Jim Molan got I.E.where's the evidence, the answer
would be the same. a hollow load of crap about the science being settled, 97% agree blah, blah
Both sides of the argument have nothing except opinions, models, calculations, bushfires are not caused by climate change.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED except a bunch of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, get over yourselves, seriously
The funny thing is that the very form of power you advocate was entirely the product of "models and calculations". Mietner, Frisch, Oppenheimer, Teller - they relied on "models and calculations" to create the first nuclear reactions. Cockcroft and others who created nuclear power all relied on "models and calculations".
Without the approach that you abuse, we wouldn't have the power source that you advocate. It's illogical therefore to abuse that approach like you do.
Is this an attitude that's been passed down to you? I can imagine old grandfather Boofta Snr in 1945, sitting in a pub and ranting; "bah! nothing but models and calculations.....imagine how stupid to imagine that a bit of refined rock could blow up or power a city. Einstein and his friends are nothing but a bunch of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, they should get over themelves".
And I can imagine Great Grandfather Boofta saying the same thing in 1900, if he'd heard about a couple of brothers filling their notebooks with calculations based on Smeaton and Lilienthal ....."nothing but models and calculations. Those Wright Brothers are nothing but a pair of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, they should get over themselves; heavier than air flight is obviously impossible!"
My grandfather was involved with the development of the first helicopter, worked with Sikorsky, and you are a full time troll
lost in a demented belief system, as twisted as ISIS, full time monitor of anything against your twisted ideas.
1- Sikorsky used "models and calculations" - the very things you deride. So why do you slur people who do what Sikorsky and perhaps your grandfather did?
2- They are not my ideas - they are ideas of people who have spent a lifetime studying the area.
3- Believing in science is not a demented belief system.
4- Your childish insults cannot obscure the fact that the same sort of scientific models and calculations that you abuse created the things that you like such as nuclear energy.
When you deny such a simple fact with such childish abuse, you lose the argument. It's also rather bizarre that you claim to teach science at uni - how the hell do you do that without teaching scientific models?
Well we've got Co2 sorted. You can put it in a bottle shine radiation in one end and see what gets through. And your absorption spectrum can be checked by other scientists in their own little lab.
Then it gets a little complicated. The wavelengths that interact with Co2 rattle around the atmosphere until a photon is sent off from high enough up that it escapes into space without colliding with another Co2 molecule. But with more Co2 that's now higher up where it's colder so photons are slow off the mark. So now there's more solar energy coming in than reflected/re-radiated energy going out. So earth heats up from below to try and re-establish equilibrium. Heat in has to equal heat out in the long run.
Then it gets more complicated. A little heat ramps up the hydrological cycle. More clouds. Are they high clouds or low clouds? And then rainfall causes more erosion and nutrients run off into the ocean, aiding Co2 uptake. Or maybe with more rain there is more vegetation and erosion slows down? And then with all the air conditioners going flat out a new virus emerges that shuts down aviation. How much heat is reflected by contrails?
Whatever happened to Gaia? She doesn't seem to get much of a mention these days.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
"The Gaia hypothesis posits that the Earth is a self-regulating complex system involving the biosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrospheres and the pedosphere, tightly coupled as an evolving system. The hypothesis contends that this system as a whole, called Gaia, seeks a physical and chemical environment optimal for contemporary life.[13]"
Yep, it's complicated. Yep, one can agree that there may be less than 100% certainty about the effects. No issue; I enjoy discussing things with you because you are smart, educated and reasonable and give us food for thought.
If we take action and the science is wrong - and IMHO that is highly unlikely - we will have spent a lot of money cleaning up the earth. If we take action and the science is right, we'll have saved ourselves from catastrophe. If we take no action and the science is right, we'll suffer much more. Arguably it's like our mechanic telling us that the timing belt may fail, or our doc telling us to take anti cholesterol medication - yes maybe the experts are wrong and we can get by without fixing the apparent problem, but is that sensible?
Australia is just about the richest country that has ever existed in the history of mankind. Take a look around Sydney Harbour - the boats are vastly bigger than they were a few years ago because of the amount of money going to the top 20% and top 5%, and to many of the others. We can't pretend we are too poor to play a leading role.
The fact that there's a small chance the climate science consensus is not totally correct does not mean that the stupid arguments such as the claim that we shouldn't believe "models and calculations" or "the climate scientists who earn less than most people in the fossil fuel industry are in it for the money" are anything but ludicrous. It doesn't mean that we have to listen to abusive conspiracy whackos, and it doesn't mean that the abusive people who swallow and repeat lies about "climate warriors getting stuck in the ice" without doing a shred of checking shouldn't be called on their gullibility and hate - especially when that contempt is thrown at a bunch of people who weren't even "climate warriors".
Here's one glaring example of what drives the sceptics:
Ol Boris Johnson stated that by 2035 (15 years time) the UK will no longer allow new petrol/diesel/hybrid motor vehicles to be sold in the UK. ( so far he hasn't Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland on side yet)
Overnight Tesla shares jump 40 odd percent 
Now who would be on that bandwagon of share increase in wealth one would ask.
Who had a reasonable share portfolio of Tesla shares well prior to that announcement . ?
Had extended business interest, purchase a bunch of shares prior to the announcement. ?
The biggest issue with bullcrap policy's such as his claim, is the goal is well stated, however, the road map "how" is never clear and usually a load of hot air.
The mainstream media is running about menzeling Boris's tyres, and completely ignoring no road map stated. 
That's not what is driving Tesla stock up
www.smh.com.au/business/companies/why-tesla-s-share-price-has-jumped-36-per-cent-in-two-days-20200205-p53xup.html
It boils down to good old irrational optimism and gambling on stock prices
And Boris Johnson, like Bill Shorten before the election is only stating what looks to be the future of cars. In Australia's case a target of 50% battery cars looked likely by 2030 just because Asia and Europe are heading that way and they make the cars that we buy. Johnson might legislate it, and that gives the car and fuel industry 15 years to adjust.
Select to expand quoteboofta said..Chris 249 said..boofta said..
if any crazy climate change hysteric was asked the same question that Jim Molan got I.E.where's the evidence, the answer
would be the same. a hollow load of crap about the science being settled, 97% agree blah, blah
Both sides of the argument have nothing except opinions, models, calculations, bushfires are not caused by climate change.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED except a bunch of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, get over yourselves, seriously
The funny thing is that the very form of power you advocate was entirely the product of "models and calculations". Mietner, Frisch, Oppenheimer, Teller - they relied on "models and calculations" to create the first nuclear reactions. Cockcroft and others who created nuclear power all relied on "models and calculations".
Without the approach that you abuse, we wouldn't have the power source that you advocate. It's illogical therefore to abuse that approach like you do.
Is this an attitude that's been passed down to you? I can imagine old grandfather Boofta Snr in 1945, sitting in a pub and ranting; "bah! nothing but models and calculations.....imagine how stupid to imagine that a bit of refined rock could blow up or power a city. Einstein and his friends are nothing but a bunch of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, they should get over themelves".
And I can imagine Great Grandfather Boofta saying the same thing in 1900, if he'd heard about a couple of brothers filling their notebooks with calculations based on Smeaton and Lilienthal ....."nothing but models and calculations. Those Wright Brothers are nothing but a pair of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, they should get over themselves; heavier than air flight is obviously impossible!"
My grandfather was involved with the development of the first helicopter, worked with Sikorsky, and you are a full time troll
lost in a demented belief system, as twisted as ISIS, full time monitor of anything against your twisted ideas.
I love it when conservatives implode. Who would have thought ISIS would get an airing. Haha!
Select to expand quotemineral1 said..
Here's one glaring example of what drives the sceptics:
Ol Boris Johnson stated that by 2035 (15 years time) the UK will no longer allow new petrol/diesel/hybrid motor vehicles to be sold in the UK. ( so far he hasn't Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland on side yet)
Overnight Tesla shares jump 40 odd percent
Now who would be on that bandwagon of share increase in wealth one would ask.
Who had a reasonable share portfolio of Tesla shares well prior to that announcement . ?
Had extended business interest, purchase a bunch of shares prior to the announcement. ?
The biggest issue with bullcrap policy's such as his claim, is the goal is well stated, however, the road map "how" is never clear and usually a load of hot air.
The mainstream media is running about menzeling Boris's tyres, and completely ignoring no road map stated.
Okay, fair point. But then it has to be balanced by asking the same sort of questions about the fossil fuel lobby;
* when a government decides to open a new road instead of promoting public transport, who gains?
* when a government doesn't charge for the pollution created by fossil fuels which damages OUR air, who gains?
* when a government goes to war in an oil producing country in the middle east, who gains?
* when a government says that electric vehicles are too short ranged for Australia, who gains?
One can also point out that you've given no evidence at all that Boris or his friends have Tesla shares.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..mineral1 said..
Here's one glaring example of what drives the sceptics:
Ol Boris Johnson stated that by 2035 (15 years time) the UK will no longer allow new petrol/diesel/hybrid motor vehicles to be sold in the UK. ( so far he hasn't Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland on side yet)
Overnight Tesla shares jump 40 odd percent
Now who would be on that bandwagon of share increase in wealth one would ask.
Who had a reasonable share portfolio of Tesla shares well prior to that announcement . ?
Had extended business interest, purchase a bunch of shares prior to the announcement. ?
The biggest issue with bullcrap policy's such as his claim, is the goal is well stated, however, the road map "how" is never clear and usually a load of hot air.
The mainstream media is running about menzeling Boris's tyres, and completely ignoring no road map stated.
Okay, fair point. But then it has to be balanced by asking the same sort of questions about the fossil fuel lobby;
* when a government decides to open a new road instead of promoting public transport, who gains?
* when a government doesn't charge for the pollution created by fossil fuels which damages OUR air, who gains?
* when a government goes to war in an oil producing country in the middle east, who gains?
* when a government says that electric vehicles are too short ranged for Australia, who gains?
One can also point out that you've given no evidence at all that Boris or his friends have Tesla shares.
Never indicated that anybody actually had shares, just asked the question, on who may or may not have well before, or just prior.
Read slowerrrr, it will help.
People screaming off half cocked, no idea on any logical solution that would gain any traction world wide.
Not much is ever going to change here in Australia, no matter how much noise is made.
Australian impact is a fart in the wind at best on any front 
Many people would only bring up the shares if there was an implication there was insider trading going on.
FWIW as a former corruption investigator, I'd think that any such corruption would relate to a lower-profile decision. There are many decisions made very quietly or routinely that offer scope for corruption of various forms.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
Lovely indeed.
But unless I could catch up on this chaos theory,
I am unable to improve upon, then apply for these free tickets to somewhere.
Can you IanK?All I cold see in my 30s analysis is false initinal formula for the population growth.
If I could now see false in 30s I usually give up.
A quick google search is all that is needed to win free tickets. CERN .
It does make you wonder. If something as simple as a dripping tap goes into weird modes of oscillation why wouldn't the climate?
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
A quick google search is all that is needed to win free tickets. CERN .
It does make you wonder. If something as simple as a dripping tap goes into weird modes of oscillation why wouldn't the climate?
Been to CERN , thanks, even below in tunnels . I could give you my tickets if you like.
I want to have a grip in this tap leak model. Need more time I am afraid,
Dont you think happy guy above need more scrutiny, before getting accepted?
Extrapolating fractals is interesting veneu but doesn't get as far as you hope for ,.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..Ian K said..
A quick google search is all that is needed to win free tickets. CERN .
It does make you wonder. If something as simple as a dripping tap goes into weird modes of oscillation why wouldn't the climate?
Been to CERN , thanks, even below in tunnels . I could give you my tickets if you like.
Did you fix it for them and give them advice on how they could have done it better?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Macroscien said..Ian K said..
A quick google search is all that is needed to win free tickets. CERN .
It does make you wonder. If something as simple as a dripping tap goes into weird modes of oscillation why wouldn't the climate?
Been to CERN , thanks, even below in tunnels . I could give you my tickets if you like.
Did you fix it for them and give them advice on how they could have done it better?
Yep, usual.
But usually there are all died before I have my grip on them
Einstein, Hawking , Tesla I am happy to get one stil alive to interrogate.B TW . I had some arragements made with Hawkings before he disappear. Hope to attend his Bitrhday Party soon.
mashable.com/2018/03/14/stephen-hawking-time-travel-party/
Can you see Macro on the picture?
Then wait a bit
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Did you fix it for them and give them advice
Dont worry Formula,
This is is your once in lifetime opportunity to speak to person IQ 300+
www.facebook.com/WorniesComedy/videos/1409916012519946/
all I need is 30 s to improve , otherwise give up
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Did you fix it for them and give them advice on how they could have done it better?
When you have to get a plumber in to fix a leaky tap on the east coast you'll wish you had Macro living next door to hit up for a favour.
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.862.460&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..Ian K said..FormulaNova said..
Did you fix it for them and give them advice on how they could have done it better?
When you have to get a plumber in to fix a leaky tap on the east coast you'll wish you had Macro living next door to hit up for a favour.
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.862.460&rep=rep1&type=pdf
yes may first 30s impression will be questioning
" where A is the cross sectional area of the water " variable
unless experiments designers assumed those constant
It looks like A is the cross section of the tank feeding the tap, not the cross section of the tap. The flow rate drops off exponentially with time as as the tank empties. ... ( Co2 emissions also should drop off exponentially after we hit peak oil/peak coal )
Select to expand quoteIan K said..If something as simple as a dripping tap goes into weird modes of oscillation why wouldn't the climate?
OK, so you have your hypothesis.
Perhaps now try and demonstrate that the current warming is not primarily due to human activity, sufficient to dismiss the leading scientific work.
I'm keen to see your calculations and peer reviewed papers.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
OK, so you have your hypothesis.
Perhaps now try and demonstrate that the current warming is not primarily due to human activity, sufficient to dismiss the leading scientific work.
I'm keen to see your calculations and peer reviewed papers.
Do you have any evidence
Empirical evidence
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said...Do you have any evidence. Empirical evidenceholy guacamole said..
OK, so you have your hypothesis.
Perhaps now try and demonstrate that the current warming is not primarily due to human activity, sufficient to dismiss the leading scientific work.
I'm keen to see your calculations and peer reviewed papers.
Evidence of what?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Did you fix it for them and give them advice on how they could have done it better?
Sure, the best will be closing the shop underground and going into space.
The problem is that with particle accelerator around Earth orbit they could succseed with Black Hole creation, that will suck in all us eventually.
When thats happen, I could not help you much.
BTW One of my least famous theories state that each alien civilistation will eventually reach this critical development moment.Succeeding in BH creation.
It may explain absolute lack of sign of intelligent life in contrast to abudance of planets discovered.
Obviously humanity may choose different path of civilsation ultimate destruction- by burning themself in bushfires to death.
www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/mice-brings-muon-collider-closer-to-reality?fbclid=IwAR3NCBJAeMWIWS2da9IomI9B_ZVJFelJ7J1LUgdrI4ORDa-h78j4Sar9b6A
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..than we could blame dh definitely for oscillation.We need to take into account dripping drop effecting h constantly changing. Then cant see where surface tension is hiding in equation
You've made my day Macro. Didn't think anyone gave more than than a passing click to the random links I stumble on late in the evening.
The dh/dt is part of the flow rate equation, the surface tension is hiding in equation 1. , as k the spring constant. It seems to me that the rebound of the drop after letting go the drip sets up an oscillation that persists and affects when it lets go. I checked out his reference to Shaw. Gets a bit heavy going on after a couple of pages but he does quote Stephen Hawking, your favourite scientist, in the intro.
"It is a tribute to how far we've come already in theoretical physics that it now takes enormous machines and a great deal of money to perform experiments whose results we cannot predict. However systems made up of a number, even a small number, of subunits can behave in ways which completely transcend our present understanding"
Stephen Hawking
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
However systems made up of a number, even a small number, of subunits can behave in ways which completely transcend our present understanding"
Stephen Hawking
It will be interesting to see what methodology AI will utilize to resolve complex systems.
If that will be brute force of computing power, smashing across all possibilities and combinations ?
or rather
Dividing complex problem into smallest analytical/logical increments and synthesize the answer (the human's way)
BTW,
I rarely try to memorize given equations, rather create my own ad hoc that in most cases looks similar and do same job.
