User Tag List

First 917181920 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 192

  1. #181
    Senior Member professor goodstain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7~7
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post

    I suppose we should be adjusting our scientific knowledge to reach the prescribed "right conclusion", and must learn to adjust our logic to achieve this feat
    We already did thanks to the school system, leftist media and a govt that ignores real scientists.
    everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?

  2. #182
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by professor goodstain View Post
    Did anyone mention sun spot and solar flare cycles. i think the earths temp is directly related to this. The reason i ask is that it could have been mentioned in terms that read like the tax code.
    They have an influence - the cooling period now, for instance. Unfortunately, they are noise that can mostly be factored out - but we don't have enough data to actually know how much of a contributing factor there is exactly (we need solar 'power' measurements and global measurements in order to regress the influence, but these are still fairly new developments). Work on various time scales gives us an idea of long-cycle solar influences, just as more precise information is giving us a closer idea of the 'direct' effect (short term). So we have information, but... it's tough sledding.

    Directly related is true, however it's just an input. The internal climate model is what we are looking at mostly, as the sun will increase and decease "output" randomly. Right now it is on the low end, but the climate itself has been adjusted to a higher "retention" of heat. When the sun returns, the heat will be magnified by the internal workings of the climate.

    Quote Originally Posted by professor goodstain View Post
    We already did thanks to the school system, leftist media and a govt that ignores real scientists.
    I'll be sure to complain to the 'leftist media' that wants to open up the debate over 'age of earth' and 'evolution'...

  3. #183
    Senior Member professor goodstain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7~7
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    They have an influence - the cooling period now, for instance. Unfortunately, they are noise that can mostly be factored out - but we don't have enough data to actually know how much of a contributing factor there is exactly (we need solar 'power' measurements and global measurements in order to regress the influence, but these are still fairly new developments). Work on various time scales gives us an idea of long-cycle solar influences, just as more precise information is giving us a closer idea of the 'direct' effect (short term). So we have information, but... it's tough sledding.

    Directly related is true, however it's just an input. The internal climate model is what we are looking at mostly, as the sun will increase and decease "output" randomly. Right now it is on the low end, but the climate itself has been adjusted to a higher "retention" of heat. When the sun returns, the heat will be magnified by the internal workings of the climate.



    I'll be sure to complain to the 'leftist media' that wants to open up the debate over 'age of earth' and 'evolution'...
    i've heard two conflicting views on PBS and The History channel. One sais the sun is in a heat emitting cycle and the other sais it's in a depressed cycle.

    Should i believe the one that also allows for debate on 'age of earth' or 'evolution'.
    everyone uses every function about evenly. take NE for example. if there are those who don't use it much, then why are there such massive amounts of people constantly flowing through Wallmart with 20 items or less?

  4. #184
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by professor goodstain View Post
    i've heard two conflicting views on PBS and The History channel. One sais the sun is in a heat emitting cycle and the other sais it's in a depressed cycle.

    Should i believe the one that also allows for debate on 'age of earth' or 'evolution'.
    I believe the sun is SUPPOSED TO be in a peak, but it is doing the opposite right now. Funny how our scientific models are always subject to being broken down.

  5. #185
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by professor goodstain View Post
    i've heard two conflicting views on PBS and The History channel. One sais the sun is in a heat emitting cycle and the other sais it's in a depressed cycle.
    It is pretty complex, and I don't have all the answers you'll want. There are different cycles for intensity, sun spots and so forth, so if two things disagree, be careful what they are talking about.

    It also depends on if you want to talk about astronomy, such as what generates the cycles and such, or if you want to just know what influence the sun has given our measurements (relevant regressing climate change). Why the sun is putting out the energy it is - we don't know. What it does to the planet, we have an idea.

    Should i believe the one that also allows for debate on 'age of earth' or 'evolution'.
    Ah.

  6. #186
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Question

    An Youtube Video regarding Global Warming, set up as a 2 x 2 contingency table. It's a bit long, around 9 something minutes, but, food for thought nonetheless (nothing terribly new, but a succint way of summarizing).

    I have some opinions about the premise and message of the video (going both ways), but I'd like to see what others think first. If interested:

    [Youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ]Global Warming[/youtube]

    ** has anyone already seen ^ before? Thoughts?

  7. #187
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    ** has anyone already seen ^ before? Thoughts?
    He may not want it called pascal's wager, but it is... and it has the same fallacy. It is the probability of outcomes that matters most.

    I haven't watched his updated video, but he cannot get around this basic issue. Catastrophic change he is talking about would only happen in a run away environmental collapse, such as the ending of permafrost, releasing methane, and so forth. So a table built on tail end events really doesn't do much for the argument.

  8. #188
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    They have an influence - the cooling period now, for instance. Unfortunately, they are noise that can mostly be factored out - but we don't have enough data to actually know how much of a contributing factor there is exactly (we need solar 'power' measurements and global measurements in order to regress the influence, but these are still fairly new developments). Work on various time scales gives us an idea of long-cycle solar influences, just as more precise information is giving us a closer idea of the 'direct' effect (short term). So we have information, but... it's tough sledding.

    Directly related is true, however it's just an input. The internal climate model is what we are looking at mostly, as the sun will increase and decease "output" randomly. Right now it is on the low end, but the climate itself has been adjusted to a higher "retention" of heat. When the sun returns, the heat will be magnified by the internal workings of the climate.
    You're right that we don't know how much of an influence the sun has on the climate. I think it's premature (and foolish) to call it noise. But I understand why people want to do it. If it turns out to be more than noise, that could mean we're powerless...all those years of research on carbon dioxide will have been a waste.

    How can you say solar output is "on the low end"? You don't know that. People assume that based on sunspot cycles, but we don't know much about other sun cycles.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #189
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    He may not want it called pascal's wager, but it is... and it has the same fallacy. It is the probability of outcomes that matters most.
    You're right, it very much so resembles Pascal's Wager, because it employs the same concept that Pascal built his 'wager' upon - in particular, decision theory (or, game theory ). Esp. decision theory where the premise is a 'choice under uncertainty', where we hope to resolve through insight into what we call, 'expected value'.


    As the whole premise of this thread is that we are unsure of global warming in terms of certain truths, then the only realm we can safely play within is probabilities. But, unlike God, which should not be equated with reason in terms of applying science, global warming can fully contend within this field. With "god", science makes no commentary either way on it, the 'yes' versus the 'no' side, on the other hand, for global warming (human and/or otherwise), scientific evidence can be applied to either side.

    This would first depend on (a) is global warming that big of an issue that, given we don't have concrete answers, we are willing to move on to the playing field of probability theories?

    Once that is established, i.e., worth giving a damn about global warming (existing or not, either way)....then, the only realm we're left with - chances, probabilities. As concrete evidence is too complex to assign direct causality to one phenomenon in isolation (i.e., humans).



    I haven't watched his updated video, but he cannot get around this basic issue.
    What is wrong with using game theory in dealing with this issue?

    Catastrophic change he is talking about would only happen in a run away environmental collapse, such as the ending of permafrost, releasing methane, and so forth. So a table built on tail end events really doesn't do much for the argument.
    Catastrophic changes are only the premise you start off with. He used as an example, the 'worst of the worse'. If we want to be a bit more conservative [?reasonable (rational)], we could work with intermediate levels of changes (probability of)...and weigh it out that way. The premise of the scenario chosen is independent of the application of the game theory. You can choose as 'worse' to as 'good' a condition and do the same 2 by 2 to it.

  10. #190
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    I'm glad to see I'm not the lone skeptic on AGW.

Similar Threads

  1. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  2. Socialism posts (moved from Global Warming.)
    By Anonymous in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-21-2008, 08:28 PM
  3. Global warming explained
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 08-20-2008, 04:30 AM
  4. Global Warming, Man made or Naturally caused (And other earth questions)
    By Didums in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 11:29 PM
  5. Global warming
    By Nocapszy in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO