Search results

Liar. Try making your own graphs here: Wood for Trees: Home

Plants do not create matter from energy. They require more than a photon to make a sugar. The photon hits the pigment and an electron starts the reaction. Part of that reaction uses up other matter. Plants convert.

Yeah, in particle accelerators with massive amounts of energy involved, or high energy wavelengths like gamma rays. The solar energy coming in as infrared? Not high enough energy to create an electron-positron pair, let alone the more exotic particles.

Nope. All I know is energy goes in, some less goes out. The deniers can't explain that. Funny thing that.

Let's see if you can figure out what the value of the exponent is, then we'll see how that compares to variability.

Even more to the point, in your analogy take multiple measurements of the bacterial culture. They won't all be the same. In fact, if you take multiple samples over 5 minutes or even 10 minutes, you could end up showing a pause, even knowing that your bacterial culture shouldn't reach stationary...

Employers are being cracked down on by State and Federal regulators more than at any time in the past. In some cases, overtime hours are not being paid out by payroll. In other cases, the employer forced employees to sign blank time sheets so that they could record 'minimal' hours of work...

If you thought the excise taxes here are bad, well it's about to get a lot more expensive to smoke in Australia. Cigarette taxes will jump by a hefty 13.7 per cent on Monday, the second of four outsized increases in as many years. The excise on a pack of 20 will climb from $8.13 to $9.25, an...

This is pretty ingenious and elegant stuff. Suppress the type of protein expression that the virus requires. A combination of the inactivated virus and a living adjuvant (live bacteria) stimulated a protein of a new class. The new major histocompatability molecule suppresses another which the...

No, you think they don't work. I said none are complete, but I never said they don't work. You ignore that I say things like, some are useful. Folks like you might lump them all together, I don't. You refuse to even say what would level of accuracy would be required for an acceptable model...

Ahh, much. I didn't.

^Note on nomenclature :lol: By the way, still waiting for the clarification on the dropping models thing.

Hence why they are also called global climate models...

So, just say you don't know. Accurate enough has to be a measure, and you can't say what is accurate enough without having a benchmark. I've not changed my stance on models and their utility, so you're going to have to elaborate further. Remember, I use models at work.

Yes, you've said that already. I'm asking you to define your 'accurate enough'. All sorts of businesses and sciences use models, there is benefit and utility to using models in some circumstances. Do you have an objective criteria, or not?

How would you define a model that works Pete? In other words, how accurate? Not just for a general circulation model.

Which study? There were two mentioned, one a modeled result, and one observations. Do you understand the difference, or perhaps you're like the rest in here and think it's all models. All models are incomplete. Some are useful. And ocean models don't work unless coupled to atmospheric models...

There are functional ocean models. They're just incomplete.

That the physics determine where the climate trajectory goes. Unless you have a more specific question? You can ask whatever you like... Though I noticed you skipped over the reply to your dilemma. Petros responded that the models are incomplete. That's true, and we have actual observations...

Of course we are. There is ice that is many hundreds of thousands of years old in our ice sheets...though the fact that we are doesn't change the fact that the climate responds to forcings, like enhanced greenhouse effects.