Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Climate Scientologists have a plan
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Poptech
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 0
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
Poptech wrote:
Maybe you should go to the gym more?

No. I am going to stand my ground until I need to be winched out of the house.

Maybe you should consider a smart phone. I use mine at the gym and when playing basketball.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
I stand corrected. Big deal. Your statement was of no consequence anyway; it just comes off the ever-growing strawman list.


I know most of this goes way over your head but, if you remember, you have been arguing that another glacial is imminent, and that this is the greater threat. If the "plateau" is not anthropogenic, then that leaves us with the influence of celestial mechanics and a current situation which has more in common with the prolonged interglacial of T5, half a million years ago, than it does with the previous three. In other words, in the absence of anthropogenic effects, another glacial would not be a short term, or even a long term threat. It would probably not be due for another 20,000 years*. That's many times longer than the entire span of human civilisation. We don't need to worry about that. We do need to take drastic action here and now in order to deal with the catastrophe threatened by AGW.

*Of course warming will have a pretty dramatic effect on glacial cycles, probably leaving us stuck in an interglacial for half a million years.

It's imminent in a probabilistic sense. We're already past the middle of the probability curve on when the current interglacial maximum should have naturally ended. It also could be another couple thousand years. On the scale of the glacial cycle, that is "imminent".

While the temperature minimum would not be reached for possibly 10 or 20 thousand years, we're still talking about an inexorable decline, and a drop of several degrees could occur within a thousand of the onset of the decline. Couple with other natural variation due to higher-frequency forcing mechanisms, we would likely experience long periods of temperatures several degrees colder than they are now within that same time frame. This is a change on the same order as being forecast for AGW (assuming mitigation), but in the "bad" direction (cold, which kills everything). So, it's not so much an issue of how soon it would occur, but that fact that it WILL occur and, as far as we know, there's nothing we can do about it -- that is, unless we did something like AGW.

Good God, man, even Spock reverted to cave-Vulcan behaviors when he and Bones went through the wrong door into an ice age (TOS episode All Our Yesterdays).

Again, it's purely conjecture -- one idea that I think makes AGW a little less scary that it might otherwise be. It might well be something we ended up needing to do anyway.

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
we are interested in temperature changes, which are reflected on the vertical axis. Time is on the horizontal axis; how can time reflect temperature change? Hello? Anybody in there? Please stop saying moronic things. It's especially bad when you repeat them, insisting that they are right.


You were talking about an anthropogenic signal...

Oh, and that is expressed solely in terms of the horizontal axis? We are talking about temperatures, shown vertically, and change in temperatures, which is that vertical measure shown over time (on the horizontal).

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
We didn't become billions over 12,000 years. We became billions in the last century. The first billion was only reached around 1800.

This statement is logically incoherent. When we reached the first billion has no bearing on the fact that our population grew from a few million 12,000 years ago to billions today. More pathetic quibbling.

The strong asymmetry, not to mention the industrial revolution (!), confines the anthropogenic signal to an invisibly small region, given the scale of your graph.

If you assume salient anthropogenic effects to be limited to the period since the industrial revolution. It's possible that these, while highly salient, are not the only anthropogenic effects. It's possible that the human population explosion over the past 10,000 years (accompanied by carbon-producing technologies associated with civilization) have had an effect. One would expect that to roughly parallel human population growth, effecting a temperature increase rather than a plateau, but statistically, the interglacial maximum should have ended (i.e. begun to decline) around 2,000 to 4,000 years ago, and it didn't, and we don't really know how much of a lag there is in the processional effects of GHG. It's possible that AGW has been keeping us temporarily in a stable climate by offsetting other natural forces, and that it has only recently (post-industrial age) reached the point where it has overwhelmed them.

There have been some similarly-shaped interglacial maxima, but they were a long, long time ago. The last one was some hundreds of millions of years ago. If you think the "plateau" is due to highly infrequent celestial forcing events, then I'd be interested to know what they are.

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
You were also wrong - possibly even clueless - to make the assumption that the current interglacial should follow the same pattern as the last three on the basis of a quick glance at a graph.

No I'm not.

If you think I am, then offer some kind of logic. All said is, "you are wrong," with zero substantiation, so all I needed to say was, "no I'm not".

I've mentioned this before.

Yes, and it's still just as irrelevant. The length of an interglacial period and the prolongation (or shape) of its maximum are two entirely different things. Also, the probabilistic assessment I offered you earlier incorporates these findings; we are still past the statistically "most likely" end of the current maximum (by a couple thousand years).

More importantly, you are still trying to pursue, as a red herring, this unimportant discussion of some peripheral conjecture I made. This is not the topic of this thread. We were discussing what might be done to mitigate AGW. Some were laughing at the idea in the OP, and you made a sensible defense of it. I agreed that at least people are thinking about it.

I know you are in a panic trying to stay away from serious discussion, since you failed in your malicious attempt to get PT banned and you're afraid he's going to continue to ass-own and humiliate you in front of everybody, but you could at least make an effort to stick to the topic.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
It's imminent in a probabilistic sense.


WTF does that mean? You're simply taking an average of all the previous interglacials?! As Mr Slave likes to say, jeezkrise! You can't simply ignore the influence of celestial mechanics on climate when it doesn't agree with you.

BoneKracker wrote:
While the temperature minimum would not be reached for possibly 10 or 20 thousand years, we're still talking about an inexorable decline, and a drop of several degrees could occur within a thousand of the onset of the decline.


None of the interglacials on your graph do this, and certainly not the relevant one at T5.

BoneKracker wrote:
Couple with other natural variation due to higher-frequency forcing mechanisms, we would likely experience long periods of temperatures several degrees colder than they are now within that same time frame.


Higher frequency forcing mechanisms are irrelevant to glacial cycles, but what other forcing mechanism do you claim is threatening us with a temperature drop of several degrees?

BoneKracker wrote:
Again, it's purely conjecture -- one idea that I think makes AGW a little less scary that it might otherwise be. It might well be something we ended up needing to do anyway.


OK then: pure fantasy. Clutching tightly to your blanky will probably make AGW seem less scary too.

BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
we are interested in temperature changes, which are reflected on the vertical axis. Time is on the horizontal axis; how can time reflect temperature change? Hello? Anybody in there? Please stop saying moronic things. It's especially bad when you repeat them, insisting that they are right.


You were talking about an anthropogenic signal...

Oh, and that is expressed solely in terms of the horizontal axis? We are talking about temperatures, shown vertically, and change in temperatures, which is that vertical measure shown over time (on the horizontal).


It's invisible because of the scale of your graph in the horizontal axis. As you like to say: "stop saying moronic things".

BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
We didn't become billions over 12,000 years. We became billions in the last century. The first billion was only reached around 1800.

This statement is logically incoherent. When we reached the first billion has no bearing on the fact that our population grew from a few million 12,000 years ago to billions today.


I'm sorry it went over your head, but this (and the timing of the industrial revolution) means that the AGW signal is invisible because of the scale of your graph. Haven't we established this already?

BoneKracker wrote:
mcgruff wrote:
I've mentioned this before.
Yes, and it's still just as irrelevant. The length of an interglacial period and the prolongation (or shape) of its maximum are two entirely different things.


No: we can see a similar interglacial to the one we're in: a rapid rise out of the glacial period, a prolonged period where temperatures are at an unusually high level and tightly constrained within a narrow range, then a steep plunge back towards glacial conditions. This contrasts with the previous three interglacials which were straight up and straight back down. The glacials themselves are a bit like a ball bouncing down stairs: drop, rebound, drop, rebound - all the while dropping and rebounding to lower values, until another interglacial breaks the cycle.

BoneKracker wrote:
More importantly, you are still trying to pursue, as a red herring, this unimportant discussion of some peripheral conjecture I made.


Stop talking crap about climate, and other posters, and I won't have to correct you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poptech
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 0
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
I'm sorry it went over your head, but this (and the timing of the industrial revolution) means that the AGW signal is invisible because of the scale of your graph. Haven't we established this already?

I fail to see a "signal". I see a mild warming since the end of the LIA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
It's imminent in a probabilistic sense.


WTF does that mean? You're simply taking an average of all the previous interglacials?! As Mr Slave likes to say, jeezkrise! You can't simply ignore the influence of celestial mechanics on climate when it doesn't agree with you.

If you had an education or knew anything about science (as you are fond of saying) then you wouldn't have any confusion of what this means, and of course it isn't just a raw average of the timing of past glacial cycles oblivious to the timing of forcing mechanisms (Captain Kneejerk Strawman strikes again! What a surprise!)

As to the rest of the sophomoric content your asinine post, you have faded into simply repeating the same nonsense over and over again, and you continue to try to use this as a red herring to avoid your richly-deserved pillorying and public humiliation. I will not enable this avoidance on your part. No, this isn't "running away", it's ignoring the misbehaving handicapped child in the corner. If you want to engage in further conjecture about AGW potentially serving as a means to prolong the interglacial maximum and avoid or delay the next glacial period, you'll have to do so in the thread in which I originally mentioned it.

Now please try to stay on topic, Scyents Boy.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.


Last edited by Bones McCracker on Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
No, this isn't "running away"


Why of course not. It's pure coincidence that your argument about an impending ice age has been shown to be incorrect (again).

PS: don't expect pop to do your dirty work. He doesn't know any more than you do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcgruff wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
No, this isn't "running away"


Why of course not. It's pure coincidence that your argument about an impending ice age has been shown to be incorrect (again).

You haven't shown squat, other than your own ignorance (e.g., putting up graphs that obviously show you're wrong). But your typical "I teh Scyents! Only I teh Scyents! fapping" is not convincing anyone except, apparently, yourself. It's pathetic.

mcgruff wrote:
PS: don't expect pop to do your dirty work. He doesn't know any more than you do.

You should see a therapist about this before it gets any worse.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul Laff
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Apr 2013
Posts: 0
Location: New York State/US

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poptech wrote:
sugar wrote:
You mean it might encourage the forestry industry to expand their forests?

God, what a nightmare.

What benefit does the forest industry have by depleting the forests? How does driving themselves out of business benefit them?

Myth: We Are Destroying Our Forests (ABC News) (Video) (4min)


Too bad Stossel has been criticised so much that he ended up on Fox Business. They have a viewership that can sometimes be counted on one hand.

A bit on why Stossel was criticised...

Quote:
Criticism and controversy

Global warming
Stossel challenges the notion that man-made global warming would have net negative consequences, pointing to assertedly warmer periods in human history. Central to his argument is the idea that groups and individuals get much more public attention, donations, and government funding when they proclaim "this will be terrible" than groups that say "this is nothing to worry about." He points to groups like the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and to activists such as Rachel Carson and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore as examples of environmental scaremongers.

In 2001, the media watchdog organization FAIR criticized Stossel's reportage of global warming in his documentary, Tampering with Nature, for using "highly selective...information" that gave "center stage to three dissenters from among the 2,000 members of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which recently released a report stating that global temperatures are rising almost twice as fast as previously thought."

In a 2006 discussion hosted by the Fraser Institute, Stossel stated that he accepts that global warming has occurred in the past century, that it has been about one degree Celsius, and that man-made emissions "may be part of the cause." Nevertheless he groups environmental groups with astrologers and psychics in his second book, Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity. He stated that the "myths" come in with the debate about proposed solutions to reduce global warming, which he argues will not solve the problem at all and will restrict people's freedom.


Pity. It did seem that you had a point.

Stossel suspect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stossel#Criticism_and_controversy


Last edited by Paul Laff on Thu May 09, 2013 6:38 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Akkara
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 5214
Location: &akkara

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul Laff wrote:
... [lots of stuff] ...

Care to add anything else?

Such as, what prompted you to sign for this forum, among all the many out there, find this particular thread from nearly a year ago, and post that incredibly long missive copied straight out of Wikipedia without so much as taking the time to edit out all those [edit] anchors, leaving all the references hanging, and then add a very brief comment that only fills the reader with WTF? The link to Wikipedia along with your brief commentary would have sufficed, no?

Surely there's more to add? I mean, why would someone sign up, copy-paste these humongous posts, if there wasn't some urgent, driving thoughts behind them.

Please enlighten us.
_________________
echo 'long long long x;' | gcc -x c -c -
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll add this: I think Stossel is a bit of an ass, cut right out of the Geraldo Rivera pattern. However, a bunch of "criticism" from left-wing talking heads, propaganda houses, lobbyists, and cause-du-jour zealots is rather meaningless, despite the volume of text.

Argumentum verbosium, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad populum.... fail.

I hope you're not darting around the interwebs like a seagull, leaving a random trail of such stercoraceous excretions. :roll:
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, such bold ejaculations of text.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you mean "bold ejaculations!" or bold ejaculations?
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Do you mean "bold ejaculations!" or bold ejaculations?

LOL. Damn you infidel swine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I need to fix that, because I actually admire Sikhs in many ways.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul Laff
n00b
n00b


Joined: 24 Apr 2013
Posts: 0
Location: New York State/US

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Akkara wrote:
Paul Laff wrote:
... [lots of stuff] ...

Care to add anything else?

Such as, what prompted you to sign for this forum, among all the many out there, find this particular thread from nearly a year ago, and post that incredibly long missive copied straight out of Wikipedia without so much as taking the time to edit out all those [edit] anchors, leaving all the references hanging, and then add a very brief comment that only fills the reader with WTF? The link to Wikipedia along with your brief commentary would have sufficed, no?

Surely there's more to add? I mean, why would someone sign up, copy-paste these humongous posts, if there wasn't some urgent, driving thoughts behind them.

Please enlighten us.


Just setting the record straight. These contentions of his seem to be so far off base as to be laughable. Misinformation pure and simple.

I have trimmed it, edited out the spurious edits and yes, it is from Wiki, but then I do like to source to something a bit more reliable than hack sites, blogs and opinions... which I will usually back up with the link.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul Laff wrote:
...drivel...

Oh do go away, there's a good chap.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Akkara
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 5214
Location: &akkara

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you.

We frequently get spammers here that'll copy-paste text from other places to try to sound like they belong, then come back later to edit their post and fill it with spam links. Your post had many of the trappings of such, hence my inquiry. Thanks for clarifying.

In the future, it is usually sufficient to post a link to wikipedia, particularly when the quote is extremely long, like in this case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John-Boy
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 439
Location: Desperately seeking moksha in all the wrong places

PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You didn't ask the question about gladiators.
_________________
It's later than you think
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 3:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John-Boy wrote:
You didn't ask the question about gladiators.

*Clears throat* Paul, do you wear leather and sandals to post on here? If not, do you like watching people fighting while wearing a leather thong and sandals?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John-Boy
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 439
Location: Desperately seeking moksha in all the wrong places

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well done that man.
_________________
It's later than you think
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wealthy and powerful Patrician Marcus Licinius Crassus (played by Laurence Olivier) has taken as a slave young Antoninus (played by Tony Curtis, who was too old for the part).
Quote:
Crassus is luxuriating in a bath in his villa, being gently washed by Antoninus.

Crassus: Do you steal, Antoninus?

Antoninus: No, master.

Crassus: Do you lie?

Antoninus: Not if I can avoid it.

Crassus: Have you ever dishonoured the gods?

Antoninus: No, master.

Crassus: Do you refrain from these vices out of respect for the moral virtues?

Antoninus: Yes, master.

Crassus: Do you eat oysters?

Antoninus: When I have them, master.

Crassus: Do you eat snails?

Antoninus: No, master.

Crassus: Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral... and the eating of snails to be immoral?

Antoninus: No, master. Of course not.

Crassus: It is all a matter of taste, isn't it?

Antoninus: Yes, master.

Crassus: And taste is not the same as appetite... and therefore not a question of morals, is it?

Antoninus: It could be argued so, master.

Crassus: That will do. My robe, Antoninus.

My taste includes... both snails and oysters.

Antoninus, look. Across the river.

There is something you must see.
[Gesturing at the Roman Legion, on the march, against the backdrop of the City.]

There, boy, is Rome!

The might, the majesty... the terror of Rome.

There is the power that bestrides the known world like a colossus.

No man can withstand Rome.

No nation can withstand her.

How much less... [turning to Antoninus] a boy!

There's only one way to deal with Rome, Antoninus.
[Turning back to the scene across the river.]

You must serve her.

You must abase yourself before her.

You must grovel at her feet.

You must... Iove her.

Isn't that so, Antoninus?
[Turns to Antoninus, to find he has vanished in a 'homophobic' panic..]


In the original script, Antoninus then commits suicide, although in the movie, he escapes and joins Spartacus with the slave army.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 
Jump to:  
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