maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:27 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


It's the Gulag of Fun



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 20  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:20 am 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 7589
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 8132
Quote:
Why not discuss about my findings/answer question number two?

You first.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 12:17 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 7589
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 8132
Here's a role model for you Sneero. Follow his advice. Sell your shoes and everything else you own: keep one outfit.

Walk barefoot across Europe to raise awareness and funds save Earth from Climate Change

Anything less is mere lip service to the Church of Green.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 12:36 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 11477
Reputation points: 2348
Anthropoid wrote:
Quote:
Why not discuss about my findings/answer question number two?

You first.

Hey, what did Doggie tell you about faking quotes? :roll:

Bu careful, next time, I suppose your vacation will be longer. And it is not polite to alter what other people write. ;)

Anyway that is the topic you want to discuss? Not referring some ordinal numbers, but name it.

So what is your challenge?

Waiting...

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:07 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 7589
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 8132
nero wrote:
Hey, what did Doggie tell you about faking quotes? :roll:

Bu careful, next time, I suppose your vacation will be longer. And it is not polite to alter what other people write. ;)

Anyway that is the topic you want to discuss? Not referring some ordinal numbers, but name it.

So what is your challenge?

Waiting...


Answer question number two you tedious troll-wannabe fail.

Anthropoid wrote:
1. How do anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions explain the end of the last Ice Age (roughly 11,700 years ago).

Neo-Puritan fascist's natural response: "It doesn't you troll! It is only in historic times that evil corporations and white male oppressors have enslaved the forces of mother nature and brought about the decline of harmony and peace in the world . . . Climate Change models do NOT have to account for the Ice Ages, those are prehistoric phenomena. What we are seeing with modern global warming is much more abrupt and clearly (based on correlation being equivalent to causation) are caused by emissions!"

2. Ah, so then, how do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for whatever forces DID cause the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly . . . cricket's chirping . . .

Fools in a state of religious denial should not be allowed access to keyboards, much less the internet. They need to be re-educated I tell you.


Until you do that to the common satisfaction of those reading this thread, that is the only response you will get from me:

"Answer question number two you tedious troll-wannabe fail."

I consider my experiment to be complete. You flunk. Go back to science school.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:54 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 11477
Reputation points: 2348
Anthropoid wrote:
nero wrote:
Hey, what did Doggie tell you about faking quotes? :roll:

Bu careful, next time, I suppose your vacation will be longer. And it is not polite to alter what other people write. ;)

Anyway that is the topic you want to discuss? Not referring some ordinal numbers, but name it.

So what is your challenge?

Waiting...


Answer question number two you tedious troll-wannabe fail.

Anthropoid wrote:
1. How do anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide emissions explain the end of the last Ice Age (roughly 11,700 years ago).

Neo-Puritan fascist's natural response: "It doesn't you troll! It is only in historic times that evil corporations and white male oppressors have enslaved the forces of mother nature and brought about the decline of harmony and peace in the world . . . Climate Change models do NOT have to account for the Ice Ages, those are prehistoric phenomena. What we are seeing with modern global warming is much more abrupt and clearly (based on correlation being equivalent to causation) are caused by emissions!"

2. Ah, so then, how do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for whatever forces DID cause the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly . . . cricket's chirping . . .

Fools in a state of religious denial should not be allowed access to keyboards, much less the internet. They need to be re-educated I tell you.


Until you do that to the common satisfaction of those reading this thread, that is the only response you will get from me:

"Answer question number two you tedious troll-wannabe fail."

I consider my experiment to be complete. You flunk. Go back to science school.

:lol:

That number two. I was thinking that it was already covered. But again I am pretty certain the current climate models do not include the Milankovic cycles, tectonic plate movements, do not correctly predict volcanism and comet hits on the Earth.

Anyway the climate models can predict what will happen, just like my linear model does. ;)

Climate models are even more accurate than you thought

Happy now? :roll:

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:44 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 11477
Reputation points: 2348
Hey Anthro, seriously, do you want to engage a discussion or spread denialist agit-prop?

While accepting the physical properties of the CO2 molecule, I had my doubts about the warming. Mainly because I was skeptical about how to reduce emissions of aerosols like SO2.

That was the reality in the 80's (travelled by bus from East Germany to Czechoslovakia 1986).

Image

And five years later soviet union collapsed. Perhaps there is really a correlation between warming and soviet union?

But it seems that you don't accept the fact that warming is real. :(

It makes intelligent, civilized discussion impossible.

Pity.

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:27 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 7589
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 8132
Quote:
That number two. I was thinking that it was already covered. But again I am pretty certain the current climate models do not include the Milankovic cycles, tectonic plate movements, do not correctly predict volcanism and comet hits on the Earth.


I'm stunned. A reasonable response? *Applauds!*

Even if you're just yankin' my chain that is real progress!

So, we are in agreement: there are preexisting and unaccounted for dynamics of change in Earth (both climatic and most all the other "divisions" of the processes that comprise Earth). There are many distinct patterns in Earth's billions years long history, but we need not belabor that point.

The most important sum point: Earth's climate has always been subject to change, including radical change, rapid change, and "long" periods of stasis too. Since our first ape ancestor's arose during the Miocene Epoch some 23 million years ago the world has changed dramatically: mountains have LITERALLY come and gone, oceans have literally spread and ebbed, species most wondrous have come into existence and persisted, while countless others have gone extinct.

Certainly there some persistent themes, but on the whole change and variability have been the rule of thumb, and even restricting to the last 23 million years or so (the Ape Era) the magnitude of the swings of change have often been literally orders of magnitude larger than even the most controversial measures of climate during the last 100 years.

There are likely thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of discrete "forces" that will eventually have to be accounted for to understand how, when, and why Earth's physiographic, geologic, hydrologic, biological and climatic systems have undergone the wild fluctuations it has undergone . . . well, that is more true for some of those classes of natural process than others.

Plate tectonics for example: 100 years ago the model was only being developed and it was not until the 1950s that the model received strong empirical validation. It is one of those wonderful models which has withstood the withering "attacks" of science, i.e., rigorous and concerted efforts to falsify the hypothesis, and which has come out of every examination stronger than when it went in. These sorts of models are actually the exception in science, not the rule as you and so many other seem to think. Many models wait for centuries to have their assumptions proven empirically or even to have their predictions validated by observation and efforts to falsify them foiled with supporting evidence.

Plate tectonics is probably one of the most successful models in the natural sciences, at least if we assess the term "success" in a holistic manner: how revolutionary was it at the time it was proprosed, how coherent and self-contained is the model, how rigorous is the model, i.e., does it rest on few unproven assumptions, does it generalize well and not require many context-specific caveats, have repeated efforts to falsify the hypothesis' predictions instead yielded effectively supportive evidence?

The mere joining of the isthmus of Panama between North and South America (which only happened some 12 to 15 million years ago) was a moment of such tremendous importance to Earth (and all the subdivisions of its workings which I outlined above) and yet the role which that watershed (LITERALLY!) played in Earth's climate and subsequent patterns in the cyclicity of Earth's climate has (as far as I know, which I admit may be a bit dated and uninformed) barely been considered.

The joining of two enormous continental land masses that effectively divide the planet east-to-east along nearly the full extent of longitude is an enormous Earth event, one of such magnitude that I doubt its occurrence is "regular." But there are others as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologica ... nozoic_Era

You have acknowledge Milankovic cycles, but seem to be under the impressions that (a) those cycles are perfectly understood and the model is perfect for explaining past events, as well as (b) Milankovic cycles are the only "cycles" of interest. In fact, the solar system itself wobbles as it orbits the Milky Way, and the other celestial objects in the solar system and its extended neighborhood are also engaged in a complex dance wherein relative positions, alignments, orientations and encounters fluctuate rhythmically if not spasmodically.

All this to say: the state of Earth prior to humans large scale burning of fossil fuels and the growth of human populations (and our animal herds) beyond 1 billion is one that is best regarded as CHANGE. This applies to climate, physiography, biology, ecology, effectively the whole of the Earth system. There are literally innumerable "factors" at play, some of which are obvious as constant cyclic patterns, others which lurk at the boundaries of our detection capabilities may also be in constant cyclic patterns but with such long periodicities that may as well be "random" as far as any "models" we humans might come up with. And then of course there are factors which which effectively ARE random, like the joining of the Isthmus of Panama.

If we imagine the pattern of Earth's "climate change" over the past 23 million years or so as a "trajectory" that trajectory is not a unilinear one. It is arguably not even a spline pattern for the simple reason that: periods of regular cyclicity (which might be well-described by a single spline) are also punctuated for various reasons by periods of irregular cyclicity (which would require the introduction of one or more additional splines that are effectively INDEPENDENT of the pre-existing maths, and which may or may not exhibit recurrence). These matters are further complicated by the fact that, climate appears to be highly subject to feedback effects: a topic of sufficient scope that it is really best left for at least a separate post if not a separate thread.

Thus the pre-existing trajectory of Earth's climate from 23 million years ago to say 200 years ago is in fact, only very partly "explained" by existing models and existing observations, all of which leads to the point that: no one can say with any certainty whether a sudden dramatic rise in temperature (and assuming the observations we have do indeed support that clearly, which I remain somewhat skeptical about, though it seems many whose views I respect have come to acknowledge that it is probably there has been clear increase) is or is not an artifact of pre-existing climatic process.

Of course humans are having an impact on climate! We spew smoke, toxins, particulate matter, water vapor, various gases and myriad waste products into the environment. We cover enormous tracts of land in concrete and bitumen. We build billions of wooden, metal and concrete boxes and run machines to maintain constant environmental conditions inside those boxes. We cut down forests, drain wetlands, extend landmasses into the ocean and tamper with the ocean floor and coastal shelves. We run hundreds of millions of machines which expel various exhaust round the planet. We breed and multiply (both ourselves and our animals). We transform ecosystems, etc. etc.

The question is: how big an impact are we having, and especially how big an impact relative to pre-existing patterns, and what can we "do" to mitigate our impact (assuming that a rational analysis suggests clearly that we NEED to mitigate our impact).

Using you as an exemplar of "climate concernists" (a more polite way for me to say "hysterics"): I see virtually no consideration of ANY of the factors I have outlined above.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:22 pm 
Offline
Gunnery Sergeant

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:23 pm
Posts: 5965
Reputation points: 2280
Quote:
But again I am pretty certain the current climate models do not include the Milankovic cycles, tectonic plate movements, do not correctly predict volcanism and comet hits on the Earth.


Are you sure that current climate models do not include Milankovic cycles? I would be surprised if this was the case because the physics "celestial mechanics" is quite predictable and easily to program.
By the way, here is a 40 year old model from 1976 which actually uses Milankovich cycles to make predictions about climate change (without taking in consideration anthropocentric effects).



http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10. ... 11-00044.1



Quote:
A model of future climate based on
the observed orbital-climate relationships,
but ignoring anthropogenic effects,
predicts that the long-term trend
over the next several thousand years is
toward extensive Northern Hemisphere
glaciation.

_________________
I have blocked mdhiel and will do the same to any person who may decide to alter my quotes in the future
(see thread viewtopic.php?f=5&p=273210#p273210)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:45 pm 
Offline
Gunnery Sergeant

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:23 pm
Posts: 5965
Reputation points: 2280
and here is an even earlier attempt

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1270

Quote:



REPORTS
Milankovitch Radiation Variations: A Quantitative Evaluation
David M. Shaw1, William L. Donn1
+ Author Affiliations
Science 13 Dec 1968:
Vol. 162, Issue 3859, pp. 1270-1272


Abstract

A quantitative determination of changes in the surface temperature caused by variations in insolation calculated by Milankovitch has been made through the use of the thermodynamic model of Adem...

_________________
I have blocked mdhiel and will do the same to any person who may decide to alter my quotes in the future
(see thread viewtopic.php?f=5&p=273210#p273210)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Questions to Shut Up Nauseating Global Warming Proslet
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:51 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 7589
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 8132
I would add that, the single most effective way for we human beings to reduce our ecological footprint, is not to fetishize any specific compound or pollutant, but to consider long-term culture change which can lead not only to slowed population growth in those societies where it remains rapid, but to declining human population size.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group