maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Tue Nov 20, 2018 2:44 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


It's the Gulag of Fun



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Ignorance is Bliss.
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:37 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15913
Reputation points: 720
Image

: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: Ignorance is Bliss.
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:35 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20882
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 15552
Anthropoid wrote:
Skepticism: what about an alternative source (terrestrial) for the presumed causal effect in the study?

And frankly, that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Does it not strike you as curious that: this was clearly a BIG study, and yet all it warrants is a "letter?"

Yes, I'm a skeptic. I'm not convinced by any of the arguments for anthropogenic climate forcing I've ever read. I am open to being convinced, and I have read the arguments aplenty, but none of them convince me. Moreover, many of them CONCERN me for (a) taking obvious short-cuts/making logical or empirical fallacies; (b) having clear agenda-driven structure.

The ONLY legitimate agenda for a scientist is to: serve humanity by revealing truth, no matter what that truth might be.

Feel free to proceed with whatever ranting and raving you wish. It matters not and you know it. The "Climate Change" movement is slowly dying, and you know it.


I never rant. I'm not the least bit concerned about the life of movements. As a scientist who is currently employed to do science and who often works with climate data and who knows many climate scientists, my observation is that skepticism is not the same as denial. You seem to be in denial.

There is no credible alternative source for the well-established empirically documented observation of global warming other than CO2 forcing. Climate variation is complex and there are multiple inputs. In the end, however, we know that the following "traditional" sources of major climate change are NOT involved:

1. Solar output variation. The trend is too long to be explained by known decadal solar cycles and does not coincide with any of the other longer-period solar cycles.

2. Orbital dynamics. The Earth is not in a Milankovic Cycle warming period. Indeed, the Earth *shoud* be undergoing detectable cooling as a result of orbital dynamics.

3. Volcanoes. Not enough CO2 output, and major eruptions anyhow produce short-term to multidecadal cooling because of SO2 upper atmosphere particulate scattering of solar radiation.

4. Continental drift. Not enough drift in the last century to change ocean currents.

5. Unicorn farts or other imagined sources such as unknown terrestrial sources that have not yet been discovered. Because they have not been discovered, they are not credible alternative explanations. They are imaginary and fictitious and nothing more. If someone FINDS a real credible alternative source, then that explanation is in play.

Then there is this:

1. CO2 is a known, powerful greenhouse gas whose mechanics with respect to uv and ir are extremely well known.

2. There is much more CO2 in the atmosphere and concentrations covary very closely with fossil fuel combustion.

Therefore, the only CREDIBLE explanation on the table right now is anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2 emissions resulting from fossil fuel combustion.

As a scientist, I have a duty to be skeptical of so-called "alternative explanations" that are imagined but for which no evidence exists. No "undiscovered terrestrial sources," no "unicorn farts," no "divine judgment" can account for the current observed warming trend. Therefore, I accept the best explanation given the evidence presently available.

It is another thing entirely to then decide what, politically or economically, the US ought to "do" about it. Possibly we should "do" nothing. And in any case, the argument for the USA converting to renewables to the maximum extent possible seems to me to have strong basis in US economic and military security, and in reducing the number of American adversely affected by air pollution. I honestly do not give a rat's hind end if half a billion Asians die of desertification of China because of CO2-forced global warming. If the PRC and India want higher per-capita energy consumption they can damned well stop trying to fuck their way into global economic supremecy, rather than demand that the USA subsidize their economies or that the USA reduce American economic competitiveness in order to allow Chinese consumers to have more energy or wealth.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ignorance is Bliss.
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:41 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11968
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 16086
Why did every pre-Industrial climate fluctuation occur? How does the "Industrial-CO2" model mathematically control for those pre-existing, and presumably ongoing, natural cyclic forces?

I have asked those two simple questions hundreds of times and I have never heard one of you "climate scientists" provide even a shred of a real answer.

Impress me: give me a simple, concise, clear, non-evasive, direct, succinct, fact-based answer.

Or accept that skepticism just got the last word, and will continue to do, until you and your ilk can answer those two questions.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ignorance is Bliss.
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:28 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20882
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 15552
Pre industrial climate variation occurred as a consequence of several known interacting forcing mechanisms, and one passive mechanism that alters the earth's ability to redistribute heat.

Those forces were and continue to be, absent human CO2 forcing, the following, at least for the last 400 million years or so:

1. Solar variation. There are something like four solar cycles. Sometimes, but very rarely, they all peak or trough at once. One is decadal. One is on the order of centuries. One is on the order of millennia, One is on the order of every 200 millennia or thereabouts. Most of them are inferred by studying elemental composition in corals, ancient ice cores, etc.

2. Orbital mechanics. Generally speaking, when the earth's orbit is such that the northern hemisphere winter occurs during apogee, the earth can get pretty cool. Ice sheets accumulate. If that is coupled with a solar trough (1 above), ice ages happen.

3. Continental drift. Basically, over many millions of years, changes in the position of continents result in changes to the earth's convection system because oceanic and atmospheric currents change as the land pushes them in different ways. Of course, continental drift is very slow... on the order of millimeters per year. Therefore, it cannot account for anything in the last 150 years nor, indeed, for the last 30 million years at least.

There are also a few specific "one-offs."

The Elder and Younger Dryas both appear to coincide with the sudden collapse of continental ice dams that held back ridiculous amounts of water. One of them formed that which is now the St. Lawrence Seaway. A lake roughly three times the size of Lake Superior that was held back by an ice sheet broke loose and formed the St. Lawrence River. It stopped the Atlantic Conveyor currents dead in their tracks.

There are these other local, contingent things that can affect currents. Heinrich events and Dansgaard Oeschger events have to do with the sudden collapses of huge ice sheets in ways that can alter currents. These are not posited to have collapsed due to melting but rather to have collapsed under their own accumulated weight.

No D-O or Heinrich Events, and no major freshwater lake ice dam collapses or sudden capture of water has occurred in the last 150 years in ways that could alter ocean currents to cause apparent warming.

So that's the deal. It's CO2 forcing as the only identifiable current source, and all of the other known past sources do not account for the current warming trend. In fact, we should be *cooling.* That is where the popular press ice-age hysteria from the 1970s came from. Someone said "Hey we're entering a Milankovich null and it should align with some solar nulls in ways that we may get some cooling" and the press ran with sensationalism.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ignorance is Bliss.
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:11 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11968
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 16086
Quote:
So that's the deal. It's CO2 forcing as the only identifiable current source, and all of the other known past sources do not account for the current warming trend. In fact, we should be *cooling.* That is where the popular press ice-age hysteria from the 1970s came from. Someone said "Hey we're entering a Milankovich null and it should align with some solar nulls in ways that we may get some cooling" and the press ran with sensationalism.


CO2 models are "mathematical" and/or "simulated" in nature correct? It isn't like we can even come close to an "experiment" that models the Earth system and perform controlled experiments, right? In sum, the CO2 model is an inferential mathematical model. The forces you just described (which are all, btw, and I'm sure you know this, HYPOTHESIZED, not "proven" at least not in the sense that things like Newtonian physical "laws," or Quantum mechanical or Relativistic hypotheses/laws are proven) are also of primarily mathematical/simulatory structure, i.e., not direct-observational, nor experimental.

And yet, you cannot tell me HOW the forces you just described in general terms are "plugged in" to the "CO2 model?" All you got are "do not account for the current warming trend?" I find that quite lacking from an empirical and a logical standpoint and until you can actually address that, all we are doing is going over the same ground we have both gone over dozens of times.

Once again, you evade the actual question and imply that you answered it. Once again, I point it out. Once again, you will likely come back ranting and raving and flinging ad homimens and once again, I will sit here on my end of the network grinning from ear to ear.

Your pseudo-scientific religion is dying. Maybe what can emerge from its death will actually benefit science and humanity and pin down exactly how if at all anthropogenic atmospheric pollutants have influenced the Earth's ongoing climate fluctuations. It seems pretty damned obvious there are plenty of much more firmly and clearly established anthropogenic ecological catastrophes, and the death of your religion would, IMHO be a great boon to the denizens of Earth in that it might free up some of the $BILLIONS wasted on the political agenda driven nonsense you consider "good science" and "unquestionable," etc.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ignorance is Bliss.
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:05 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15913
Reputation points: 720
Anthropoid wrote:
Quote:
So that's the deal. It's CO2 forcing as the only identifiable current source, and all of the other known past sources do not account for the current warming trend. In fact, we should be *cooling.* That is where the popular press ice-age hysteria from the 1970s came from. Someone said "Hey we're entering a Milankovich null and it should align with some solar nulls in ways that we may get some cooling" and the press ran with sensationalism.


CO2 models are "mathematical" and/or "simulated" in nature correct? It isn't like we can even come close to an "experiment" that models the Earth system and perform controlled experiments, right? In sum, the CO2 model is an inferential mathematical model. The forces you just described (which are all, btw, and I'm sure you know this, HYPOTHESIZED, not "proven" at least not in the sense that things like Newtonian physical "laws," or Quantum mechanical or Relativistic hypotheses/laws are proven) are also of primarily mathematical/simulatory structure, i.e., not direct-observational, nor experimental.

And yet, you cannot tell me HOW the forces you just described in general terms are "plugged in" to the "CO2 model?" All you got are "do not account for the current warming trend?" I find that quite lacking from an empirical and a logical standpoint and until you can actually address that, all we are doing is going over the same ground we have both gone over dozens of times.

Once again, you evade the actual question and imply that you answered it. Once again, I point it out. Once again, you will likely come back ranting and raving and flinging ad homimens and once again, I will sit here on my end of the network grinning from ear to ear.

Your pseudo-scientific religion is dying. Maybe what can emerge from its death will actually benefit science and humanity and pin down exactly how if at all anthropogenic atmospheric pollutants have influenced the Earth's ongoing climate fluctuations. It seems pretty damned obvious there are plenty of much more firmly and clearly established anthropogenic ecological catastrophes, and the death of your religion would, IMHO be a great boon to the denizens of Earth in that it might free up some of the $BILLIONS wasted on the political agenda driven nonsense you consider "good science" and "unquestionable," etc.

Now you write something very blissful, something very apt for the title of this thread. :lol:

Congrats.

_________________
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: Ignorance is Bliss.
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:09 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 27715
Reputation points: 20000
1) It's real

2) It is chiefly anthropogenic

3) Some serious dumbasses purposely sexed it up to achieve their idiotic philosophical goals of either ridding the Earth of pesky humans or ending capitalism

4) Partly as a consequence of number 3 there is justifiable mistrust.

5) The Paris Climate Accord was a steaming pile of internationalist, left wing horse shit which screwed American consumers and taxpayers, surrendered sovereignty, unfairly limited US economic growth and rewarded the Chicoms and Indians.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ignorance is Bliss.
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:20 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11968
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 16086
jack t ripper wrote:
1) It's real

2) It is chiefly anthropogenic

3) Some serious dumbasses purposely sexed it up to achieve their idiotic philosophical goals of either ridding the Earth of pesky humans or ending capitalism

4) Partly as a consequence of number 3 there is justifiable mistrust.

5) The Paris Climate Accord was a steaming pile of internationalist, left wing horse shit which screwed American consumers and taxpayers, surrendered sovereignty, unfairly limited US economic growth and rewarded the Chicoms and Indians.


Given the geological record it seems safe to conclude that "climate change" has occurred, is occurring, will always occur, and would be occurring right now even if human beings had never managed to learn to control fire, much less build coal burning power plants. But the extent to which what is observed over the past few decades (or a century if one is willing to accept the highly imperfect data that is available from earlier) is something "novel" relative to the well-established ongoing natural cyclic fluctuations in climate is apparently still a matter of scientific inquiry, i.e., not some sort of religious gospel from on high which must be accepted as a fact or law like gravity.

Thus, I find even the pronouncement of "its real" to be quite problematic. I am very confident that our models of evolution are satisfactory, but that is not the same thing as saying "it is real." Our models may be deficient in many ways, and we may never be in any position to know for certain. So even for a natural phenomenon like evolution (or even gravity!) which has inordinate quantities of empirical support, and very little if any structured falsification of explicit hypothetical predictions, saying "its real," is in my opinion, premature. I would go so far as to say that, anyone who goes around deeply believing that science puts any of us into a position to proclaim that any given theoretical model or empirical model "is real" does not fully understand either what science is, nor what the human mind is and why therefore science is and always will be a history of errors corrected, perhaps always moving toward truth, but without any real hope of ever arriving there with finality . . .

In order for me to be convinced of (2) I seriously need to see how the mathematical industrial-CO^2 model incorporates and "controls" for, or at least accounts for the ongoing natural cyclic processes which have always caused climate change. These forces did not just STOP in 1820 when the first factories started to be built and all the models I have ever examined seem to rest quite clearly on the assumption that the "background" forces are more akin to homeostasis if not actual stasis than what the reality of paleoclimatology reveals: fluctuations at multiple overlapping time-frames and with potentially critically important interactive effects between major elements of the Earth system (terrestrial land masses and flora and fauna, ocean currents, flora and fauna, atmospheric conditions) and the more inclusive systems in which the Earth exists (proximate solar system, extended solar system, galactic neighborhood).

Apparently it is impossible for me to be convinced of (2) for the simple reason that: none of the actual models include any actual quantified estimates of the ongoing natural cyclic processes which have always caused climate change. There is really no precedent for this sort of fallacious, poorly founded pseudo-science in the entire history of humanity, though some religious fallacies come fairly close. About the best analogy I can come up with: imagine a model of how a particularly stressful lifestyle worsened senescence rates in a particular organism that assumed that the organisms didn't age at all naturally! :lol:

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ignorance is Bliss.
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:07 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20882
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 15552
Quote:
CO2 models are "mathematical" and/or "simulated" in nature correct?


Depends on what you're talking about. No one has an "Earth sized experimental laboratory" where they can quickly change the CO2 concentrations, run some time series measurements, and come up with a planet-sized simulation. But laboratory models involving varied amounts of CO2 concentrations in closed systems exposed to varying amounts of ultraviolet light have been run for over 100 years. So the general premise that CO2 traps heat is empirically well-established to the point that it's accepted.

Quote:
It isn't like we can even come close to an "experiment" that models the Earth system and perform controlled experiments, right?


Well, in a word, "no" not right. Such experiments have been run for a hundred years. But there are some aspects of earth sized models that can't be run experimentally. For example, oceans are a heat-sink. One can run experiments (and people have done it) where closed system with pool-sized bodies of water are exposed to varying CO2 concentrations and varying UV input to see how the atmosphere and water respectively heat up. To no one's surprise, the water, which is cool, becomes a heat sink that cools the rest of the system until the water cannot continue to do it. Also not surprisingly, the general facts of oceans acting as heat sinks in the same fashion as pools in experimental systems has been empirically established.

In sum, the CO2 model is an inferential mathematical model. The forces you just described (which are all, btw, and I'm sure you know this, HYPOTHESIZED, not "proven" at least not in the sense that things like Newtonian physical "laws," or Quantum mechanical or Relativistic hypotheses/laws are proven) are also of primarily mathematical/simulatory structure, i.e., not direct-observational, nor experimental.

Quote:
And yet, you cannot tell me HOW the forces you just described in general terms are "plugged in" to the "CO2 model?"


Well, yes I can and I have done so many times.

Quote:
All you got are "do not account for the current warming trend?" I find that quite lacking from an empirical and a logical standpoint and until you can actually address that, all we are doing is going over the same ground we have both gone over dozens of times.


Meh. Science is always about the "best current available explanation." The point is, your point of view requires that one assume the existence of a force never detected. You might as well just claim that "God is causing global warming" for all the evidence that you have for your supposition. So you've got nothing other than "disbelief."

Quote:
Your [extended ad hominem gibberish and various forms of narcissistic self-indulgent whining]


Shrug. OK. You're wrong. Continue to wallow in it.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Ignorance is Bliss.
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:17 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11968
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 16086
You are as tedious, pedantic and useless as you always were!

But seriously: the way you interact on this board reminds me regularly of why I detest the typical academic! I appreciate that :D

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


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