NewfoundlandFreeFrog

Members
  • Content count

    17,376
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

NewfoundlandFreeFrog last won the day on March 11 2016

NewfoundlandFreeFrog had the most liked content!

About NewfoundlandFreeFrog

  • Birthday 06/23/1951

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • TCU Class Year or School affiliation
    1980

Recent Profile Visitors

1,340 profile views
  1. For once I agree with crunch! There is in fact no argument at all. There is simply the fact that crunch pulled the typical science denial trick so beloved of climate, evolution, vaccination, tobacco, pollution, etc., etc, etc., deniers of throwing up (pun intended) a climate (etc.) science factoid completely without context with the supposed "obvious" inference then being that present day climate (etc.) science is somehow completely undermined. It creates confusion, uncertainty, and doubt. And, explaining the full context takes much more time and effort than simply mouthing the out of context factoid. Science denier types are fully aware of this which is why they love the technique so dearly and use it so much. This out of context factoid is all over the denial blog sphere and "conservative" "news" sites as we speak (e.g., Daily Wire: Scientists: Here's What Really Causes Climate Change (And It Has Nothing To Do With Human Beings) ) as a "new" fact to "explain" how climate "really" changes. Crunch obviously reads such sources for his "science" news. Note how subsequently even another scientifically trained person here was confused mainly because I did not take enough time to provide the full context myself. Deniers well know short answers work poorly. The study is scientifically very interesting. Specifically they note: "Solar System dynamic modelling predicts a disruption of the (s4 − s3) − 2(g4 − g3) [note: that is, the present 2.4 million year eccentricity] resonance in the geological past4, and the establishment of a new (s4 − s3) − (g4 − g3) resonance (1.2 Myr eccentricity: 1.2 Myr obliquity). However, the timing of the disruption is sensitive to model assumptions; it has been predicted to occur sometime between 50 and 100 Myr ago4," They then proceed to infer from the stratigraphic record exactly where this Milankovitch modulation occurs. Scientifically VERY cool! But NOT "cool" w.r.t. present day warming.
  2. WVU is beating Coastal Carolina 22-9 in the 9th.
  3. Trump is/will be unable to do anything involving money that is not filtered through the party system either. If you want to believe otherwise, go ahead.
  4. As I have already said, I haven't "dismissed" the theory in the least. I was speaking to crunch's hare-brained notion that this "explains" how climate science is all wrong. What the paper specifically states it would do is modulate Milankovitch cycles (specifically the Earth's eccentricity component) to some degree. Scientifically very interesting. Helps with things like telling which side of the Solar System Earth was on in northern hemispheric summer/winter--very important in Milankovitch forcings--80 million years ago which is something not directly calculable from straight orbital mechanics because of the chaos in the equations at that time remove/number of iterations in the equations. However, as a component in .01-.02 degrees C/yr climate change over decadal scales, it's not a factor at all. If you're into sediments which you appear to be, they have developed an "astrochron" package in R that you can download from CRAN to help with the stats here. Duq would be happy to know that Rayleigh numbers need to be set as part of the calculations.
  5. I read The Three Body Problem a while ago which interestingly foretold all this climate change due to chaotic orbits stuff. (Except in this case there were multiple suns.) Great sci-fi, btw, from China's most accessible sci-fi author. Deserving Hugo award winning book that rightfully transcended the sad puppy/rabid puppy rebellion going on in the sci-fi community at the time. All that said, no one with sufficient knowledge--admittedly a select group--has argued our solar system isn't subject to chaotic factors since about the 1700s or so.
  6. If you want to pretend that politics in the US above the municipal level isn't filtered very nearly 100% through the 2 party system, go ahead.
  7. To be fair, I think Obama tapped into a Bushist vein at the time more than any other vein. It was the most bulging vein by far. The most bulging vein(s) this time was(were) a bit different. Successful pols generally tap a bulging vein or veins.
  8. Suggest that to your party leaders and see how far you get.
  9. Some nice hitting late, but FOUR errors, drops, passed balls, etc.
  10. I didn't. I denied that the orbital parameters of Earth have made any sudden chaotic changes in the Holocene. The evidence of such a thing would be far more easily obtained than one 60 odd million years back and there isn't any in the record.
  11. What "chaotic orbits" actually mean. It's complex. The point is that chaotic orbits often aren't exactly chaotic in the everyday sense of the word. In math, chaos is completely deterministic though not necessarily predictable in practice. "Attractors" are preferred solution sets that may work for a while but then the system may suddenly flip to some other solution set for the next while. Again...it can be complex (little joke there!). Duq is far more competent with this stuff than I am as he does turbulent flow from time to time..
  12. Waiting for baseball saw that Casablanca was on. Almost every line in that movie is a cliche! No creativity at all!!! Also it is perhaps the most perfectly and tightly cut movie of all time.
  13. Get a Ducati!