4 ms·

Wow, I am sorry but this is the perfect example of discursive pre-modern era way of analysing nature. Frankly the only excuse is if you're a time traveller just

Wow, I am sorry but this is the perfect example of discursive pre-modern era way of analysing nature. Frankly the only excuse is if you're a time traveller just landed from the 1780's. Nowadays we do computer models, is yours on github? I will reuse your post it's just perfect. If you want to learn: https://youtu.be/7IbyiOoVgnQ https://youtu.be/7IbyiOoVgnQ

graycat 9y ago
First, you found nothing factually wrong with what I wrote. Your "pre-modern" maybe be relevant in, say, English literature but says nothing wrong with what I wrote. Besides, the 1780s knew next to nothing about the ice core data. Second, for your video clip, it references a paper from the 1800s that claims to predict the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere on the temperature of the atmosphere and mentions that that prediction agrees with what we get from our climate models. Okay: But as I pointed out and gave a reference, the climate models predicted temperatures that now we can compare with actual tempertures and see that nearly all the predictions were way too high. I wrote this; I did that. It's silly to have to write it again simply because you didn't read it the first time. The talk goes on, mentions greenhouse gasses, and then concludes that the greenhouses gasses are warming the atmosphere. He concludes "simple". I thoroughly debunked that claim. Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, this time just for you, maybe you will actually read it this time, (1) the ice core and other historical records show NO, zip, zero, zilch, times that significant cooling was closely preceded by significantly lower CO2. So, the cooling had another cause. And the records show at most only one time when significant warming was closely preceded by significantly higher CO2, and that was as we were pulling out of the Little Ice Age. For (2), as I showed with the modeling predictions compared with actual temperatures, the modeling failed massively. So, net, from this data, we have to reject the claim that CO2 has a significant effect on temperature and, instead, conclude that so far it appears that CO2 has no significant effect on atmospheric temperature. That's what the ice core and other historical data says, and the failed models don't change that. Here's one more: In your video clip, he shows ice core data for the last 400,000 years. There can see temperature and CO2 going up and down roughly together. But, as has been observed and explained many times, the CO2 went up about 800 years AFTER the temperature went up, and, as I mentioned, not even once was significantly higher temperature closely preceded by significantly higher CO2. So, no way can we conclude from that data that higher CO2 caused higher temperatures. Instead, from that data, higher temperatures caused higher CO2 800 years later. Moreover, as I mentioned, not once in that data were lower temperatures closely preceded by significantly lower CO2. So, lower CO2 didn't cause the cooling. Indeed, the higher CO2 from the warming didn't stop the cooling! From that data, we have to conclude that CO2 has essentially no significant effect on temperature at all and that the temperature changes have causes other than CO2.. The video has the guy looking right at the data that contradicts his claims, and he still makes his claims. Maybe he is an idiot, is getting paid, is in some quasi-religious quest, or some such. But his lecture content is junk. His video clip is long, but already we know that he has made some debilitating mistakes. Your video clip should get you to read, pay attention to, understand, and accept what I wrote. Read it again.
- dagss 9y ago
  I think the reference to "pre-modern" is referring to your (over-)confidence in having realized something very simple, simple enough that a 10 paragraph post on HackerNews can possibly put things straight, and then the arrogance in assuming that hundreds if not thousands of climate researchers are, consciously or unconsciously, overlooking these very simple things. If a question of research can indeed be settled in a 10 paragraph post on HackerNews, then that question is, in a sense, pre-modern, out of its simplicity alone. In the modern world: For each of your paragraphs, I can be almost sure to find a long trail of researchers having carefully evaluated it. The story is never as simple as you make it out to be. If anything, your over-confidence sets off my anti-vaxxer flat-earther alarm. But show me sources and I'll read them (then for each of those I can go and find the 10 papers proving those wrong, then the 10 papers proving those papers wrong again; and so on...). In the modern world, the story is never as simple as you make it out to be. PS: Your concrete arguments is the least interesting part of what you write. The interesting part is that you think something is simple enough that you should be able to convince us about it in a HackerNews post, yet IPCC is either consciously or subsconsciously overlooking it. You must be aware that this is basically a conspiracy theory (that doesn't make it false of course, it is possible for a conspiracy theory to be correct). I bring you the Wikipedia page for Heartland institute to show how oil is funding the sceptics; also it is deeply human to want to believe there is no disaster coming. Do you on your side have anything concrete for why so many climate researchers today are sacrificing their integrity?
  - graycat 9y ago
    To debunk the global warming claims needs only my little post here. The IPCC, Al Gore, Paris Accords, etc. are all just that stupid. You found nothing wrong with what I wrote. The debunking is easy, needs only very simple arguments, and I gave some.
  - graycat 9y ago
    > Do you on your side have anything concrete for why so many climate researchers today are sacrificing their integrity? The video clip I gave answered that in very clear terms from some fully credible people. The answer is that those people want to keep their jobs; that is, they are getting paid. I'm not getting paid. The IPCC? It's about money and power.

graycat 9y ago

First, you found nothing factually wrong with what I wrote. Your "pre-modern" maybe be relevant in, say, English literature but says nothing wrong with what I wrote. Besides, the 1780s knew next to nothing about the ice core data. Second, for your video clip, it references a paper from the 1800s that claims to predict the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere on the temperature of the atmosphere and mentions that that prediction agrees with what we get from our climate models. Okay: But as I pointed out and gave a reference, the climate models predicted temperatures that now we can compare with actual tempertures and see that nearly all the predictions were way too high. I wrote this; I did that. It's silly to have to write it again simply because you didn't read it the first time. The talk goes on, mentions greenhouse gasses, and then concludes that the greenhouses gasses are warming the atmosphere. He concludes "simple". I thoroughly debunked that claim. Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, this time just for you, maybe you will actually read it this time, (1) the ice core and other historical records show NO, zip, zero, zilch, times that significant cooling was closely preceded by significantly lower CO2. So, the cooling had another cause. And the records show at most only one time when significant warming was closely preceded by significantly higher CO2, and that was as we were pulling out of the Little Ice Age. For (2), as I showed with the modeling predictions compared with actual temperatures, the modeling failed massively. So, net, from this data, we have to reject the claim that CO2 has a significant effect on temperature and, instead, conclude that so far it appears that CO2 has no significant effect on atmospheric temperature. That's what the ice core and other historical data says, and the failed models don't change that. Here's one more: In your video clip, he shows ice core data for the last 400,000 years. There can see temperature and CO2 going up and down roughly together. But, as has been observed and explained many times, the CO2 went up about 800 years AFTER the temperature went up, and, as I mentioned, not even once was significantly higher temperature closely preceded by significantly higher CO2. So, no way can we conclude from that data that higher CO2 caused higher temperatures. Instead, from that data, higher temperatures caused higher CO2 800 years later. Moreover, as I mentioned, not once in that data were lower temperatures closely preceded by significantly lower CO2. So, lower CO2 didn't cause the cooling. Indeed, the higher CO2 from the warming didn't stop the cooling! From that data, we have to conclude that CO2 has essentially no significant effect on temperature at all and that the temperature changes have causes other than CO2.. The video has the guy looking right at the data that contradicts his claims, and he still makes his claims. Maybe he is an idiot, is getting paid, is in some quasi-religious quest, or some such. But his lecture content is junk. His video clip is long, but already we know that he has made some debilitating mistakes. Your video clip should get you to read, pay attention to, understand, and accept what I wrote. Read it again.

dagss 9y ago
I think the reference to "pre-modern" is referring to your (over-)confidence in having realized something very simple, simple enough that a 10 paragraph post on HackerNews can possibly put things straight, and then the arrogance in assuming that hundreds if not thousands of climate researchers are, consciously or unconsciously, overlooking these very simple things. If a question of research can indeed be settled in a 10 paragraph post on HackerNews, then that question is, in a sense, pre-modern, out of its simplicity alone. In the modern world: For each of your paragraphs, I can be almost sure to find a long trail of researchers having carefully evaluated it. The story is never as simple as you make it out to be. If anything, your over-confidence sets off my anti-vaxxer flat-earther alarm. But show me sources and I'll read them (then for each of those I can go and find the 10 papers proving those wrong, then the 10 papers proving those papers wrong again; and so on...). In the modern world, the story is never as simple as you make it out to be. PS: Your concrete arguments is the least interesting part of what you write. The interesting part is that you think something is simple enough that you should be able to convince us about it in a HackerNews post, yet IPCC is either consciously or subsconsciously overlooking it. You must be aware that this is basically a conspiracy theory (that doesn't make it false of course, it is possible for a conspiracy theory to be correct). I bring you the Wikipedia page for Heartland institute to show how oil is funding the sceptics; also it is deeply human to want to believe there is no disaster coming. Do you on your side have anything concrete for why so many climate researchers today are sacrificing their integrity?
- graycat 9y ago
  To debunk the global warming claims needs only my little post here. The IPCC, Al Gore, Paris Accords, etc. are all just that stupid. You found nothing wrong with what I wrote. The debunking is easy, needs only very simple arguments, and I gave some.
- graycat 9y ago
  > Do you on your side have anything concrete for why so many climate researchers today are sacrificing their integrity? The video clip I gave answered that in very clear terms from some fully credible people. The answer is that those people want to keep their jobs; that is, they are getting paid. I'm not getting paid. The IPCC? It's about money and power.