Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
joker
seeker



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7542 | TRs
Location: state of confusion
joker
  Top

seeker
PostMon Jun 17, 2019 9:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Right. Godel's incompleteness theorem as I understand it makes it clear that even seemingly airtight sets of  postulates may be flawed - i.e. that  one can't prove that two conflicting theorems can't be derived from  them. So even math is just our best description, not "truth."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6321 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostMon Jun 17, 2019 9:51 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
My high school geometry teacher did a nice job of explaining how even rigorous proofs have an irreducible amount of circular interdependency.

Even with simple 2d Euclidean geometry "absolute truth" doesn't exist.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9770 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((>
PostTue Jun 18, 2019 12:31 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
9.5 years
537000 views
9661 posts

will this thread self-destruct when it hits 10,000 posts?

inquiring minds want to know.

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1281 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostTue Jun 18, 2019 10:53 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
will this thread self-destruct when it hits 10,000 posts?

The high numbers are artificial in a way. It could easily have been 1000 posts with 10 responses each if the admins hadn't decided to make it all stay in one post, which I think was a good call.

If all the Mt Si posts ever done were combined, how many entries would it have by now? Same for any other popular area.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10879 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostTue Jun 18, 2019 10:55 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
My high school geometry teacher did a nice job of explaining how even rigorous proofs have an irreducible amount of circular interdependency.

Even with simple 2d Euclidean geometry "absolute truth" doesn't exist.

True.

But we can know what is *not* true, and therein lies the problem for catastrophic GW claims.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 14033 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
  Top

Member
PostTue Jun 18, 2019 4:20 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
And at least 95% by the same 5 perps embarassedlaugh.gif

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10879 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Jun 19, 2019 6:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
There's something wrong with discussion between interested parties?

What's the beef?

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6321 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Jun 19, 2019 7:16 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
But we can know what is *not* true, and therein lies the problem for catastrophic GW claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

You throw a lot of rocks at the scientific consensus -- where is your compelling evidence to the contrary?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10879 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Jun 20, 2019 7:58 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
The fact that consensus is not evidence, for one. The fact that claiming it is, has been a known logical fallacy for several millennia, for two.

The fact that models are not evidence, for three.

The fact that it has already been much warmer for far longer in this interglacial, in fact most of it, for four.

The falsified claims about more hurricanes, the disappearance of snow by 5 years ago, the long string of failed predictions from 10, 20 years ago.

And so on. Remember, it is the falsification, not the positive evidence, which is actual science and actual logic. Falsification is the ultimate compelling evidence of not truth, which as we discussed, is the only thing actually completely knowable.

There's nothing extraordinary about following standard method and logic to observe that there's no there there when you dig into the claims about catastrophism and warming by strictly applying standard method and logic. Correlation is causation, consensus as evidence, then circle around to the first again. It's plate juggling, only with broken plates.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6321 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostFri Jun 21, 2019 8:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
The fact that consensus is not evidence, for one. The fact that claiming it is, has been a known logical fallacy for several millennia, for two.

The fact that models are not evidence, for three.

The fact that it has already been much warmer for far longer in this interglacial, in fact most of it, for four.

The falsified claims about more hurricanes, the disappearance of snow by 5 years ago, the long string of failed predictions from 10, 20 years ago.

And so on. Remember, it is the falsification, not the positive evidence, which is actual science and actual logic. Falsification is the ultimate compelling evidence of not truth, which as we discussed, is the only thing actually completely knowable.

There's nothing extraordinary about following standard method and logic to observe that there's no there there when you dig into the claims about catastrophism and warming by strictly applying standard method and logic. Correlation is causation, consensus as evidence, then circle around to the first again. It's plate juggling, only with broken plates.

The "fact" you reference is debunked as issue #337 here:

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

If one inspects the summary listing of the most popular "Global Warming & Climate Change Myths"

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I'm not recalling any argument you've made that isn't in the "most popular" of debunked climate myths.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
CC
cascade curmudgeon



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 482 | TRs

CC
  Top

cascade curmudgeon
PostFri Jun 21, 2019 9:35 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
will this thread self-destruct when it hits 10,000 posts?

I'm pretty sure MG has already reached more than 10,000 instances of the use of the word falsify and it variants on this thread.

--------------
No matter how cynical you become, it's not enough to keep up.  Jane Wagner/Lily Tomlin
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10879 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Jun 24, 2019 8:31 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
The "fact" you reference is debunked as issue #337 here:

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

If one inspects the summary listing of the most popular "Global Warming & Climate Change Myths"

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I'm not recalling any argument you've made that isn't in the "most popular" of debunked climate myths.

That's interesting, I didn't realize 'debunking' had some falsifying power over assertions which it doesn't actually falsify.

We're told that AGW warms the arctic first and most, and that the rises foretold in the runes will be catastrophic.

Yet when I point out it has already been hotter for longer in Greenland, one of the places our certain doom is continuously talked about because of rising seas from melting ice sheets..an article which does not actually falsify what I stated to be true, but merely disagrees with a researchers work, is somehow 'debunking'.

Quote:
We estimate that air temperatures were 2.53.0 C higher during the Holocene Thermal Maximum than the local 19601990 average.

Iceland proxy studies show higher temps earlier


Quote:
Using the recently developed peat-specific MAATpeat temperature calibration we find that NE China experienced a relatively warm early Holocene (∼57 C warmer than today), followed by a cooling trend towards modern-day values during the mid- and late Holocene.

China early holocene temps much warmer than present...

Quote:
Our reconstructed Tmax [temperature maximum] for these warmer conditions peaks around 1390 CE at + 0.8 C above the 196190 mean, similar to the peak Tmax during the RWP [Roman Warm Period]. These results are aligned with the findings that show the period from 1150 to 1350 CE to be the warmest pre-industrial chronzone of the past 1000 yrs for southeast Australia.

Temps consistent with higher premodern temps in Australia as well. PDF
There are abundant studies and refererences concerning the higher temperatures previous in the era.

The thing is, you have to be open to finding and accepting them when they falsify the hysterical claims we are subject to today. The idea that it was actually warmer for longer already in the current interglacial, by some reports *much* warmer for far longer than the few decades of hyperventilation over a trace gas, undermines the AGW narrative being pushed on a fundamental level from multiple directions.

- current temps are not highest ever
- it was hotter for longer without plastic bags, Expeditions, or coal fired power
- people with stone or bronze or iron age tech survived and thrived
- as did all the critters on today's post modern worry beads
- we still don't have a clue what temperature the Earth 'should' be
- modern changes are neither unique nor catastrophic

As for the latter point, I'm not sure why anyone would expect something 'new' in arguments concerning this topic. Newness has zero bearing on the validity of ongoing arguments.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10879 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Jun 24, 2019 8:35 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
CC wrote:
I'm pretty sure MG has already reached more than 10,000 instances of the use of the word falsify and it variants on this thread.

In discussions concerning science, this is to be expected....if you're actually arguing science, that is, and not groupthink or religion of some kind.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 10879 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Jun 24, 2019 9:52 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It's simply amazing how many studies show the non real higher for longer temps....

Quote:
The record demonstrates a warming during the Roman Warm Period (~350 BCE 450 CE), variable bottom water temperatures during the Dark Ages (~450 850 CE), positive bottom water temperature anomalies during the Viking Age/Medieval Climate Anomaly (~850 1350 CE) and a long-term cooling with distinct multidecadal variability during the Little Ice Age (~1350 1850 CE). The fjord BWT [bottom water temperatures] record also picks up the contemporary warming of the 20th century, which does not stand out in the 2500-year perspective and is of the same magnitude as the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Climate Anomaly.

pdf


The one below is consistent with the 'debunked' Easterbrook findings, he must have bamboozled measurements and non 'skeptical science' researchers ....

Quote:
The Holocene climatic optimum was a period 85 kyr ago when annual mean surface temperatures in Greenland were 23C warmer than present-day values...

pdf

Those darned Estonians...

Quote:
The Holocene coldest temperatures were observed during the Early Holocene, but temperature followed a gradual rise (from ca. 11.7 to 8 kyr cal. BP) to reach its maximal value during the Holocene Thermal Maximum (from ca. 8 to 4.5 kyr cal. BP). Holocene Thermal Maximum was characterized by summer air temperatures about 2.5 C degrees higher than present.


Hotter for longer long before anything we're told will doom us, unless we give the doomsayers untold power and money because panic. Remember, some of them openly advocate for and *want* people to panic, panic reduces and impedes proper judgment.

There are a lot more references to hotter for longer already in this interglacial, prior to the church of climate sanctity's encyclicals condemning  'overconsumption' (always someone else's) and air travel (someone else's also, it's amazing how it's always someone else that needs to be restricted).

I took a few minutes to find some more, listed above, and didn't even do more than skim the many references.

Our woodland and oceanic friends we're concerned about *already* survived worse than we're told will kill us, and so did our horse and buggy, at best, predecessors. The idea our adaptability is *worse* now, is a joke...unless we let the 'planners' plan, in which case it won't be.

The fact that it was hotter for longer already fundamentally undermines most if not all of the doomsayer narrative, and this is why evading the reality is so important for the narrative.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5126 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostMon Jun 24, 2019 3:15 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
40% of India's population will be without water by 2030, 100 million by 2020, but I wouldn't worry about it - shouldn't cause emigration issues....
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday cascadianwarrior!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

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 vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy