olofscience

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    2,540

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

  • Feedback

    N/A

Everything posted by olofscience

  1. olofscience
    Well that's a pretty low bar, to be more realistic than arguments the liberal in your head made up.
  2. olofscience
    You assume price is the only issue because you can't fit more than one factor in your mind at a time. If price was the only issue, only one model of car would ever be sold. Edited to remove wording
  3. olofscience
    And once again, brent sets up another set of strawmen arguments that he then argues against... That climate alarmist living rent-free in his head must be really annoying.
  4. olofscience
    Contributing. I just answered your question on the other thread about natural variability. It was even a step-by-step guide. And you?
  5. olofscience
    This is the guy who says Ukraine is full of "Nazis"...
  6. olofscience
    Step 1: measure global temperatures in the pre-industrial period (say, 1700-1850ish) Step 2: average them per time point Step 3: for each data point, find the distance from the mean Step 4: get the variance of the data set. Step 5: get the square root of the variance - this is the standard deviation. I'd say the "range of natural variability" would be 2 standard deviations to cover 95% cumulative probability.
  7. olofscience
    Lol, you're the one repeating that graph, not me. The one you don't understand but keep posting again, and again.
  8. olofscience
    You posted the graph again. Do you know what the y-axis means?
  9. olofscience
    I thought you didn't like models, but preferred real data. Are you now a fan of climate models?
  10. olofscience
    He probably thinks that he knows what 'natural variability' is because he notices the daily temperature change at home. So he'd think a 1.0 degree C increase was small. But it just shows he doesn't know what "global mean surface temperature anomaly" means. None of the deniers have, actually...you'd think they'd know what it is by now, given they keep posting (distorted) graphs of it!
  11. olofscience
    To avoid moving goalposts (too frequently, he still does them lots), Brent's "range of natural variability" includes the biggest extremes in the past several million years. Slim King's "range of natural variability" includes numbers that he thinks are small.
  12. olofscience
    Was not aware of this rule, but noted.
  13. olofscience
    Just bumping this before it's forgotten. I explained my post, no rebuttal then? Thought so.
  14. olofscience
    Actually when electric planes are indeed feasible (when battery technology finally catches up) they can make skydiving MUCH cheaper than today. Maintenance and operating costs of an electric aircraft can be way, way less than a traditional fossil fuel one. No gearbox, no complex liquid fuel system, no high temperatures or pressures. They're actually a big hit with flying schools because of this.
  15. olofscience
    Rhys: "billvon, the graph I posted was ACTUAL temperature, your graph was just showing the CHANGE in temperature" Me: Rhys your graph literally says "T DEPARTURE FROM" in the y-axis, departure meaning change from a baseline. So what makes me say that? I know english. You don't know your graphs.
  16. olofscience
    I thought you were against subsidies anyway?
  17. olofscience
    This is funny considering you didn't know what the y-axis of the graph you just posted was
  18. olofscience
    But that convoy still got you pretty excited didn't it And yes, the usual 5D chess explanation. Draw forces to Kyiv, leave 1000+ burned russian vehicles and 10,000 russian corpses for an extremely successful "trap". /s Anyway...is there anything actually new in loony land? You're just repeating the same old stuff.
  19. olofscience
    Slim King says he's read the emails. But he's not going to post what he read here, because that would just prove he's lying. But what he'll do is, "here, have a dozen more dodgy links and crappy videos instead!"
  20. olofscience
    Yup, like the flagship of the Black Sea fleet, they wanted to get rid of that anyway right? And if they were winning, why'd they retreat from the Kyiv region? Don't they have to take that to win? If not, why were they there in the first place?
  21. olofscience
    No you don't, because you predicted the invasion "would be over by the weekend" (the week of February 24th! It's September now...) Then "there's a 50km Russian convoy" about to surround Kyiv, it's game over! Your "predictions" aren't very reliable at all
  22. olofscience
    Looks like the loony institution just had a mass breakout...
  23. olofscience
    But, but, what about repeating them? IN ALL CAPS?? And Al Gore has lived rent-free in his head for...20 years now? I bet none of us lefties has mentioned Al Gore for almost as long. But it looks like their brain got stuck in a loop for years.
  24. olofscience
    "Pychological operations usually work for a couple of reasons" - then offers ZERO reasons and just rambles incoherently. This is what I sometimes call "the lights are on but there's nobody home".
  25. olofscience
    nice way to misinterpret what was said here...you know it's recorded right? You can just go back and read it. 50 mm of sea level rise can definitely be seen by the naked eye. Just not by people who are wilfully blind like you.