Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Warming (Too Much Warming) Vs. Cooling (Too Much Cooling)


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#18 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8805 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 08:54 AM

You're acting as if you did not read the "interpretation" that I am referring to, ...

Who's acting?


Thank you for being honest enough to admit that you didn't bother to read it.

That's the first step to recovery.


One day at a time, :phones:
Buffy

#19 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 01:21 PM

.
Who's acting? You showed zero comprehension of my sentence that underlined and set into bold, italics, respectively, the key elements to aid in the comprehension--though I forgot to type slowly. I had no clue that you would have trouble with "invented." Who could have expected that?
...

.

Thank you for being honest enough to admit that you didn't bother to read it.
...

.
I wasn't truthful. I did read it. I don't know the reason I typed that. I appologize.

Here is what I, "set into bold, italics, respectively":
 

"BanterinBoson" did not choose one of my options and, instead, invented an option that has no basis in Earth's history.

Do I have to state the obvious? Unfortunately, yes: there have been actual, factual ice-ages ...

.
What I assert has never happened given the current state of Geophysics is, "runaway heating until the earth reaches the temp of the sun and beyond." You failed to comprehend my objection to HIS invention, his invented OPTION.

Dangerous is as dangerous does. :help:

#20 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8805 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 01:45 PM

What I assert has never happened given the current state of Geophysics is, "runaway heating until the earth reaches the temp of the sun and beyond." You failed to comprehend my objection to HIS invention, his invented OPTION.


I certainly understand that you think that is an invented option, but it's still an absolutely logical interpretation of your options. Both Banter and I, quite sincerely thought that you meant "monotonically increasing," because you expressly disallowed a third "oscillation around some pleasant average temperature." Since you didn't specify any standard deviation size around that average, that is actually the most accurate description of the history of climate on earth, which has obviously gone through colder and warmer periods but you didn't specify that either.

 

His response of "runaway heating" is a reasonable interpretation of your option 2: "Continued warming in a direction away from 1 [your ice age option]" which does not indicate any time limits or end point for interpretation. You didn't provide much other context for interpretation and your whole question was puzzling because it didn't say what you were trying to get at, so it's kind of hard to find him at fault.

 

So, yes, "runaway heating" has indeed never been observed in the historical record, but what we've tried to point out here is that that's kind of a moot point if you've disallowed the only answer that does have a basis in history, oscillation around a mean unending over time.

 

That's not such a big deal, but just realize that the problem here is that the question wasn't well-formed, and it was hard to interpret without the context of what conclusion you were trying to promote in asking it in the first place.

 

The more information you provide, the more likely any answers you get will indeed be logical within the context of your thesis. We just need to know what your thesis is.

 

 

He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how, :phones:

Buffy 



#21 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1235 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 02:35 PM

We are now up to 20 posts on this thread, of which 15 have been exclusively preoccupied with whining from Scherado and moderation responses to it. No science has been discussed at all. 

 

Unbe-bleeping-lievable. Ooh, and, er, dangerous. 

 

Apparently. 


Edited by exchemist, 18 September 2017 - 02:36 PM.


#22 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 800 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 03:41 PM

We are now up to 20 posts on this thread, of which 15 have been exclusively preoccupied with whining from Scherado and moderation responses to it. No science has been discussed at all. 

 

Unbe-bleeping-lievable. Ooh, and, er, dangerous. 

 

Apparently. 

X, forum fleas are hard to get rid of, but once they feel they have gathered enough attention denied to them as a child, they look for other places to disrupt. The best thing to do is not give him/her this attention and continue on with the amiable adult conversations.



#23 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 709 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 05:18 PM

We are now up to 20 posts on this thread, of which 15 have been exclusively preoccupied with whining from Scherado and moderation responses to it. No science has been discussed at all. 

 

Unbe-bleeping-lievable. Ooh, and, er, dangerous. 

 

Apparently. 

This is exactly how the "climate change" and "global warming" issue has been playing out in the media, which is why we are not achieving any solutions to anything.  Instead of focusing on the argument, science should be focusing on and promoting cost effective alternative energies, highlighting the cost effective aspects more than the environmental effects.

 

If you are just trying to keep warm on a cold winter's night, you aren't going to worry about "global warming", but if you can save a pile of money by using a carbon neutral method of keeping warm, you will jump at the chance.



#24 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1235 posts

Posted 19 September 2017 - 01:34 AM

X, forum fleas are hard to get rid of, but once they feel they have gathered enough attention denied to them as a child, they look for other places to disrupt. The best thing to do is not give him/her this attention and continue on with the amiable adult conversations.

Sound advice. Thanks for the reminder. 



#25 BanterinBoson

BanterinBoson

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 04:30 PM

"BanterinBoson" did not choose one of my options and, instead, invented an option that has no basis in Earth's history.

 

Yes I did.  There was no stipulation regarding a basis in earth's history.  The options were:

 

 

 

1. A return to an "ice age"--the most recent being about 10,000 years ago; no offense to Young Earth Creationists;
2. Continued warming in a direction away from 1?

 

1. is simply a return to an ice age.

 

2. is continued warming in a direction away from 1.  "Continued warming" necessarily implies "no end" to the warming and that necessarily means the earth would exceed the temperature of the sun and would never stop warming.  Why would I pick that answer?  Humanity could survive option 1, but not option 2.

 

You think I'm being silly for not reading your mind?  Ok, so if I suppose there is a limit to the warming, then what limit shall I assume you meant?  Is the limit any less catastrophic than infinite temperatures?  If not, then what is your point by complaining about my exaggeration?  If so, then is the limit less catastrophic than an ice age?

 

Whatever cataclysmic choices you give me, I'm going to pick the less-catastrophic one, but I am curious as to what sort of similarly-conceived trap the poorly-contrived bait lie before, so I'm apt to play along just for kicks.



#26 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 06:34 PM

Yes I did.  There was no stipulation regarding a basis in earth's history.  The options were:
 
 
1. is simply a return to an ice age.
 
2. is continued warming in a direction away from 1.  "Continued warming" necessarily implies "no end" to the warming and that necessarily means the earth would exceed the temperature of the sun and would never stop warming.  Why would I pick that answer?  Humanity could survive option 1, but not option 2.
 
You think I'm being silly for not reading your mind?  Ok, so if I suppose there is a limit to the warming, then what limit shall I assume you meant?  Is the limit any less catastrophic than infinite temperatures?  If not, then what is your point by complaining about my exaggeration?  If so, then is the limit less catastrophic than an ice age?
 
Whatever cataclysmic choices you give me, I'm going to pick the less-catastrophic one, but I am curious as to what sort of similarly-conceived trap the poorly-contrived bait lie before, so I'm apt to play along just for kicks.

.
You

are

insane.

#27 BanterinBoson

BanterinBoson

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 10:33 PM

This is exactly how the "climate change" and "global warming" issue has been playing out in the media, which is why we are not achieving any solutions to anything.  

 

Every debate I've seen has the deniers calmly presenting facts while the pushers fervently launch ad hominems and other fallacies in order to appeal to tribal tendencies for the rallying together in a witch hunt.

 

Have a look at 16:00 here:

 

https://youtu.be/2cssne9Q5KM?t=15m58s

 

The guy presents facts which a congressman refutes by drawing attention to the fact that he isn't a Lord.  Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) is a fallacy https://en.wikipedia..._from_authority

 

Claim: 2+2=4

Rebuttal: You're not a Lord, therefore you're wrong.

 

But people are rallied by that sort of nonsense and it's exactly how the witch hunts proceeded in the past: appeal to emotion; not reason.

 

Evidently, that's what scherado is trying to do.

 

 

 

Instead of focusing on the argument, science should be focusing on and promoting cost effective alternative energies, highlighting the cost effective aspects more than the environmental effects.

 

There are no cost-effective alternatives because, without the government money, alternative energies cannot compete in the free market.  They are too expensive, inefficient, and prone to failure to be a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels and the insistence upon using green energy results in millions being without power.  I've heard some estimates that 6 million die annually from lack of cheap electricity that coal-fired power could provide.  http://news.national...energy-poverty/

 

And for what are they dying?  Just to push a narrative with no basis in fact?

 

That said, there may be a good outcome to this which is essentially-free power one day because of the investment the governments are making, but it's costing untold lives to accelerate the process.  I can't tell if it's part of the plan or if it's unintended side-effect from honestly fighting a paper tiger (ie co2).



#28 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 21 September 2017 - 01:00 AM

...
The guy presents facts which a congressman refutes by drawing attention to the fact that he isn't a Lord. Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) is a fallacy https://en.wikipedia..._from_authority

Claim: 2+2=4
Rebuttal: You're not a Lord, therefore you're wrong.

But people are rallied by that sort of nonsense and it's exactly how the witch hunts proceeded in the past: appeal to emotion; not reason.

Evidently, that's what scherado is trying to do.
...

.
Really? "Evidently, that's what..." Point to the evidence.

With respect to your statement: "Claim: 2+2=4"

1. Where is that claim stated? Give me mm:ss in the video.

2. What's the reason you haven't contributed to Perils of 2+2 logic?

#29 BanterinBoson

BanterinBoson

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 23 September 2017 - 06:41 PM

.
Really? "Evidently, that's what..." Point to the evidence.

 

This thread.  If this site manages to attract more participants in spite of the deterrent of your existence, then the evidence will be self-evident to them.



#30 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 24 September 2017 - 01:12 AM

This thread. If this site manages to attract more participants in spite of the deterrent of your existence, then the evidence will be self-evident to them.

.
Do you realize that this thread was started by a member of the admin/moderator team and was continued by myself?

Do you think it would have follow-up posts had I not decided to continue the thread?

Can you be so kind and point to the content in this thread corresponding to your sentence?:
.

...
Claim: 2+2=4
...