Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade?

[RobDownSouth]

And your mistake is in thinking that he thinks much at all.............he doesn't. He doesn't have the first clue about hysteresis, amplification, damping, or feedback. If he had the first clue about what was presented in the videos he'd be asking halfway intelligent questions.

Any third year EE undergrad understands the consequences of open ended, or positive, feedback. The system becomes unstable and runs away with itself. And the graph of that process is Hansen's "Hockey Stick." If that 3x amplification factor that they apply to the model is correct the Earth would have burned up eons ago. Obviously that factor is wrong, and the proof is that we didn't burn up eons ago. As a matter of fact ANY amplification factor, or an open ended process, will drive the system into instability and a runaway state. The curve of such a process is ALWAYS exponential and the only variable is the scale of the X axis, ie. time.Because the Earth DIDN'T burn up long ago (and from CO2 concentration to boot) is that there has to be a negative feedback component to the system. Without that negative feedback component we wouldn't be here to run around in circles, wringing our hands, screaming "the world is ending soon", because the world would have ended long before we ever evolved.And in the end it comes down to the fact that if the model supporting a thesis does not match reality, the the thesis itself is flawed. And the further the model diverges from reality, the more fatally flawed the thesis is. But for more than a few here making such declarations is tantamount to declaring, "there is no God." Because to them it IS a religion and they are the followers of the cult.Ishmael

National Center for Atmospheric Research refudiates "Doctor" Ishmael

 

[islandman]

That happened on Venus. There's hardly any water any more. But their CO2 is still causing greenhouse effects.

Venus has lots of clouds, too.

Earth can kick Venus' ass anytime.

Believe that!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

And your mistake is in thinking that he thinks much at all.............he doesn't. He doesn't have the first clue about hysteresis, amplification, damping, or feedback. If he had the first clue about what was presented in the videos he'd be asking halfway intelligent questions.

Any third year EE undergrad understands the consequences of open ended, or positive, feedback. The system becomes unstable and runs away with itself. And the graph of that process is Hansen's "Hockey Stick." If that 3x amplification factor that they apply to the model is correct the Earth would have burned up eons ago. Obviously that factor is wrong, and the proof is that we didn't burn up eons ago. As a matter of fact ANY amplification factor, or an open ended process, will drive the system into instability and a runaway state. The curve of such a process is ALWAYS exponential and the only variable is the scale of the X axis, ie. time.

Because the Earth DIDN'T burn up long ago (and from CO2 concentration to boot) is that there has to be a negative feedback component to the system. Without that negative feedback component we wouldn't be here to run around in circles, wringing our hands, screaming "the world is ending soon", because the world would have ended long before we ever evolved.

And in the end it comes down to the fact that if the model supporting a thesis does not match reality, the the thesis itself is flawed. And the further the model diverges from reality, the more fatally flawed the thesis is. But for more than a few here making such declarations is tantamount to declaring, "there is no God." Because to them it IS a religion and they are the followers of the cult.

Ishmael

It's a shame that you're not able to discuss the facts that I brought up, and instead ascribe me positions that I've never adopted. It's a shame that you can't enter into an actual debate with someone who in your words, "thinks much at all". If I don't do much thinking you should have no problem refuting anything I say so clearly, that I join you in your cultish denial of basic science.

 

[1sickbastard]

I watched the vids, checked out the website.
1) The vids lay out a reasonable argument to the average youtube user. I should think if he had a truly valid case, he'd have his research published in a peer-review journal. Peer review is a self correcting mechanism for science. It may not be perfect, but it does seem to work overall.
2) Degrees in EE and Mathematics does not confer any particular authority on climate change or challenging AGW as a hypothesis. It doesn't mean he's wrong, but it doesn't mean he's right either.
3) He and his wife are running a private firm. I smell the scent of someone looking for investors, people who'll pay to have some research support a predetermined pov.
4) The vids have no links to any other supporting research.
5) There are more vids by the same guy going into the politics of AGW. IMO, scientists who decry politics are more often than not, playing politics instead of doing science.

Color me skeptical.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's a shame that you're not able to discuss the facts that I brought up, and instead ascribe me positions that I've never adopted. It's a shame that you can't enter into an actual debate with someone who in your words, "thinks much at all". If I don't do much thinking you should have no problem refuting anything I say so clearly, that I join you in your cultish denial of basic science.

Please use the hashtag #AscriptionAgain to document the atrocities. We're conducting a study for the next 90 days.

Grampa Ish is living proof that the fringe right is not content to espouse their own opinions, they want to espouse their own "facts" as well.

#CognitiveDissonance
#EpistemicClosure

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Please use the hashtag #AscriptionAgain to document the atrocities. We're conducting a study for the next 90 days.

Grampa Ish is living proof that the fringe right is not content to espouse their own opinions, they want to espouse their own "facts" as well.

#CognitiveDissonance
#EpistemicClosure

And try to espouse opinions for other people.

 

[Que]

It's a shame that you're not able to discuss the facts that I brought up, and instead ascribe me positions that I've never adopted. It's a shame that you can't enter into an actual debate with someone who in your words, "thinks much at all". If I don't do much thinking you should have no problem refuting anything I say so clearly, that I join you in your cultish denial of basic science.

It is a shame that despite your apparent earnestness, you're unable to actually participate in a meaningful way in any discussion.

You come across pretty sincere but your line of questioning is always just bullshit circular reasoning. I can't decide if you're simply full of it or unable to follow reason and logic.

 

[Que]

Thank you for asking for clarification instead of outright ascribing positions to me. Baby steps....

The answer to your first question is yes.
Your opinion that "Mushroom" (whoever that is) asks for continual clarification could most likely be resolved by you not attempting to pass your opinions off as "fact".

Insofar as hashtags go, I use them for aggregation purposes. I can, for example, do a query on "#AscriptionAgain AND Query" to quickly locate your 200 most recent ascription attempts.

This is a tremendous efficiency aid when pointing out your various lies, fallacies and other intellectual shortcomings.

And to clarify, you think this is a meaningful exercise?

 

[RobDownSouth]

And to clarify, you think this is a meaningful exercise?

Absolutely! The fewer people that take what you have to say seriously, the better off the General Board as a whole will be.

Nothing personal, by the way. This is simply my way of giving back to this board.

 

[Que]

Absolutely! The fewer people that take what you have to say seriously, the better off the General Board as a whole will be.

Nothing personal, by the way. This is simply my way of giving back to this board.

To clarify, you think as the smartest guy on the board you are the only one able to see through my bullshit?

What would happen to the time space continuum if people did happen take me seriously?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

To clarify, you think as the smartest guy on the board you are the only one able to see through my bullshit?

I'll jump in here to say quite a few people see through your bullshit. I can't speak for everyone, but I do appreciate that you've admitted you post bullshit.

 

[Que]

I'll jump in here to say quite a few people see through your bullshit. I can't speak for everyone, but I do appreciate that you've admitted you post bullshit.

Thanks for jumping in...it's only through quality feedback that I can grow and learn to agree with incomprehensible, liberal positions.

 

[RobDownSouth]

To clarify, you think as the smartest guy on the board you are the only one able to see through my bullshit?

Well first of all, I never claimed to be the smartest guy on the board. Sure, I'm smarter than you, but that's not a claim to be particularly proud of. Hell, even Botany boy is smarter than you and he left a sizeable portion of his brain in the sand in Iraq!

What would happen to the time space continuum if people did happen take me seriously?

It's always interesting to indulge in "what if" scenarios, the wilder the better. Having said that, the likelihood of that happening is, shall we say, infinitesimal.

 

[Que]

Well first of all, I never claimed to be the smartest guy on the board. Sure, I'm smarter than you, but that's not a claim to be particularly proud of. Hell, even Botany boy is smarter than you and he left a sizeable portion of his brain in the sand in Iraq!



It's always interesting to indulge in "what if" scenarios, the wilder the better. Having said that, the likelihood of that happening is, shall we say, infinitesimal.

To clarify: You think that though it is extremely unlikely that anyone will take me seriously you consider it the most important thing after making anti-semitic remarks aimed at miles to hashtag my posts? This is your mission in life?

 

[Ishmael]

It's a shame that you're not able to discuss the facts that I brought up, and instead ascribe me positions that I've never adopted. It's a shame that you can't enter into an actual debate with someone who in your words, "thinks much at all". If I don't do much thinking you should have no problem refuting anything I say so clearly, that I join you in your cultish denial of basic science.

You didn't bring any facts up.

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

To clarify: You think that though it is extremely unlikely that anyone will take me seriously you consider it the most important thing after making anti-semitic remarks aimed at miles to hashtag my posts? This is your mission in life?

I never claimed people take me seriously.

I'm not sure what my disagreements with Miles has to do with your credibility here, but I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you.

 

[DooleyDarter]

I never claimed people take me seriously.

I'm not sure what my disagreements with Miles has to do with your credibility here, but I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you.

The only time I take you seriously is when you have donuts

 

[ishtat]

Hardly.


What is this "settled science" you speak of? That there may have been an extremely modest increase in sea surface temperatures ( well within the boundaries of measurement error and statistically insignificant) on the order of 0.25°C over a 35-year period?

​

I don't see the point in getting hot under the collar about whether climate change is man made or not. I do think, however, that if at all possible we should minimise pollutants in the atmosphere anyway. The problem with the argument you support Trysail is that it is used as an excuse not to keep our global backyard clean.

One undeniable fact is that the area of sea ice and most glacier lengths have decreased enormously over the last 30 years. That may be an aberation , it may be within the normal range; but in neither event can we merely ignore it.

My training was as a mathematician and what I will assert is that when you get very slow possibly episodic changes, if you wait until the results are in to your scientific satisfaction, it will be far too late to rectify anything - whether you want to or not.

 

[Que]

I never claimed people take me seriously.

I'm not sure what my disagreements with Miles has to do with your credibility here, but I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you.

#AscriptionAgain...

Let me clarify, you claim that I am claiming that you claimed people take you seriously?

You can't think anyone seriously might?

"Disagreement?

#Obsession.

Then you display either you own self-loathing of latent homosexual tendencies, or your over homophobia (you pick) when you insist on "baiting" me with Queerbait...as if YOU think #AccurateAscription that I must needs be insulted by such a sophomoric appellation.

Not exactly tolerant or progressive.

You constantly rail on your ascribed motives of "hatred" when other disagree with your ill-informed world-view, and spew nothing but hate.

You simply reveal yourself to be a sad, pathetic little man, frankly.

Neither I, nor anyone else gives a shit about your stupid feud with miles.

About once a day you contribute actual content to a political thread, then you hop over and smooooze with "teh ladies"

If that life appeals to you, ~shrug~ knock yourself out.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You didn't bring any facts up.

Ishmael

1. The Earth is warming.
2. C02 acts as a greenhouse gas.
3 conservation of energy.

 

[ryan8558]

I don't see the point in getting hot under the collar about whether climate change is man made or not. I do think, however, that if at all possible we should minimise pollutants in the atmosphere anyway. The problem with the argument you support Trysail is that it is used as an excuse not to keep our global backyard clean.

One undeniable fact is that the area of sea ice and most glacier lengths have decreased enormously over the last 30 years. That may be an aberation , it may be within the normal range; but in neither event can we merely ignore it.

My training was as a mathematician and what I will assert is that when you get very slow possibly episodic changes, if you wait until the results are in to your scientific satisfaction, it will be far too late to rectify anything - whether you want to or not.

Please stop trying to bring sanity and reason to this thread.

 

[Que]

1. The Earth is warming.
2. C02 acts as a greenhouse gas.
3 conservation of energy.

1. Not lately, and not in correlation to CO2 output.

2. To what degree, Climate Scientist Mushroom?

3. A law, not a random 'fact' and you have by no means tied it into, much less explained the problems that poses for all of the Climate Models proposed so far.
If anything #3 is a PROBLEM for the point of view that you don't seem to know enough about to meanigfully contribute.

--------------------------------------------

1. Some cows are brown.

2. Cows consume grass, produce milk, meat and shit.

3. Law of conservation of matter.

-just as meaningful.

Let me save you the trouble of responding by #AccurateAscription of your position on this post.

Um, we aren't talking about cows, if you want to talk about cows start a separate thread and I will respond inanely there. Why can no one answer to my satisfaction in a way that agrees with me about my irrelevent non-questions about not facts?

 

[phrodeau]

Maybe someday query will decide to "meanigfully" contribute. Not today, it seems.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

1. Not lately, and not in correlation to CO2 output.

2. To what degree, Climate Scientist Mushroom?

3. A law, not a random 'fact' and you have by no means tied it into, much less explained the problems that poses for all of the Climate Models proposed so far.
If anything #3 is a PROBLEM for the point of view that you don't seem to know enough about to meanigfully contribute.

--------------------------------------------

1. Some cows are brown.

2. Cows consume grass, produce milk, meat and shit.

3. Law of conservation of matter.

-just as meaningful.

Let me save you the trouble of responding by #AccurateAscription of your position on this post.

Define "lately", because the overall trend since we have been keeping track has been steadily upward.

I do hope you're not going to put forward ala Trysail that there has been "no warming in the past 17 years".

 

[Que]

Define "lately", because the overall trend since we have been keeping track has been steadily upward.

I do hope you're not going to put forward ala Trysail that there has been "no warming in the past 17 years".

Why would you hope that? 17 years ago, your "scientists" didn't know to the tenth of a degree, but they knew FOR SURE that by TODAY it would be "SIGNIFICANTLY" warmer...but it isn't.

Must be nice to be so sure of yourself in every belief that you have that whether it is the war on poverty, stimulus or global warming, being completely wrong in your prognostications is meaningless...you will of course be 'proved right' in another 17 years, if not, 34 years, for sure within 68 years....

Thats the problem with snake-oil salesmen and progressives.

The prescription to poor results is always "much more of the same."

The trend the last century IS warming. The fear USED to be another mini-ice-age.

That could STILL happen. we have zero impact on solar cycles.

Real scientists say they don't know and present their concerns in a calm, clear manner with reservations and assumptions clearly stated.

Climate Cultists play chicken little about a projection of a possible couple of degrees average in 100 years.

Should we do nothing?

Of course not.

Until you say to me that you INSIST we take a serious look at nukes, I know you are a dilettante on the subject.