I'm not convinced climate alarmists care that much about ecology.
"Ecology... Nature is only model we have that has survived climate change with STUN..." @RestorationAgD http://bit.ly/1ohVqpE
"Invasive species: Name one organism on the face of the planet that has an intellectual concept called invasion." @RestorationAgD http://bit.ly/1lM3PFS
"The 21st century version would be a rule forbidding government regulation of encryption. A government that has no way of knowing what who is saying to whom lacks the most powerful weapons for winning an information war. " http://bit.ly/2IRKIZZ
No, not "Planet X;" rather, the missing fifth planet - where the asteroid belt now lies... possibly related to whatever event(s) caused Mars to get dusted with Xenon 129 a few hundred million years back?;)
As far as math I've taken classes up to differential equations so it's not like I'm math illiterate but maybe the math you keep alluding to is something I'm not familiar with.
You're still just dancing around the issues without ever getting specific enough to actually name what it is you think is the problem.
You claim to have studied differential equations, but you don't seem to understand the relevance. In particular, again I repeat: coupled systems cannot be magically decoupled. The Earth's climate is coupled to the output of the Sun. That is, in order to model the Earth's climate, you have to first accurately model the Sun. That's the correct and scientific way to model the climate. Assuming the Sun as constant is decoupling the coupled system. It is unscientific to misuse mathematics, the tools of science. Somehow, I find it hard to believe you actually studied differential equations in any rigorous way, if at all. Doing a web search doesn't count as studying. People who have studied at least up to ODEs don't make the comments you have made when I remind them about coupled systems.
Stop lying to yourself and go study more math.
The mysterious js290 (or should that be "bs1000"). You can't even articulate what you're implying well enough to give us a clue what you're talking about. Thinks minor changes in the sun's output will have outsized effects on the temperature of the Earth, something that has not been evident so far. Thinks since CO2 is only 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere it couldn't possibly have an effect even though the science behind that effect has been known for over 100 years. Like I said before if you really think you're so smart you should be publishing your results and gathering the accolades you deserve.
The bullshitters: deniers who believe climate is constant and predictable, and alarmists who also believe it's controllable but don't understand the limitations of the climate models due to lack of math knowledge.
Science is built on falsification, not proof. When you lose that insight, the humility of the genuine skeptic is replaced by the arrogance of scientism.
You keep suggesting that variations in global mean temperature drives solar output, but you haven't provided any evidence. Please show us the physics and we will gladly solve the math.
Please keep up: I'm suggesting solar output drives global mean temperatures. You haven't studied enough mathematics to understand the physics.
Science is built on falsification, not proof. When you lose that insight, the humility of the genuine skeptic is replaced by the arrogance of scientism.
It feels to me like you're projecting. You appear to have a pretty strong faith that you know better than climate scientists who have been studying the climate for a long time. But so far all you've done is make some vague claims about coupled systems with no solid evidence to back them up. Let's hear some hard evidence from you. What specifically is the coupling you are talking about? How does it apply in this situation? Give me some hard evidence then we might have something to talk about.
Can you prove your theory? If not, why are you promoting it as fact? In my book, that, along with homeopathy comes under heading 'Behaving with an intent to deceive'.
Stop looking in your book and open up some math books.
Some denialists are denialists because their gullibility makes them easy to dupe.
Others do the duping.
It's the latter group that I'm interested in identifying - fixing climate change will cost a sum, and the extra damage directly attributable to the delay caused by denialists also translates to a sum. That sum will come from the pockets of deceivers.
You don't understand the problem well enough to "fix" anything. That makes you a deceiver and a dupe, an useful idiot as it were.
Sorry, are you some bot built to promote Mark Shephard? Otherwise what was the point of that?
Point is "climate change" is a faith based political issue for most people. It's bad ideology, but that's never mattered to ideologues hell bent on coercing other people into your preferred behaviors based on "evidence" that you don't fully understand. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/te...
Studying mathematics is hard, being an ideologue is easy.
I know what a coupled system is. It's a system where the various components interact and affect each other.
No, it's pretty obvious you don't know what a coupled system is or how to properly solve a simple one, much less a really complicated one like climate. Go study more math. If you're going to take things on faith, pick one of the old religions; they've been around longer and will keep you out of trouble.
So if the preponderance of scientific evidence supports something, a scientist saying so can only be politically motivated? That's an odd assertion, and an odd view of scientists. I am not a climate scientist, but I know some.
I knew a PhD student in climate science, and he told me their climate models assumes constant output from the Sun. I didn't study climate science, but I studied enough math to know you can't solve a coupled system that way. They cannot violate mathematical principles. Study a lot of math so you don't have to take these models and "scientific evidence" on faith.
Yes, so you've said: the Sun is emitting something that can't be measured, but does have a measurable impact. Yes you haven't explained what this thing is.
Try to keep up here... what I've said is any climate model must first have an accurate model of the Sun. That is, a model of the Sun that predicts what's being observed/measured. Does there exist a model of the Sun that accurately predicts sun spots and solar flares, not just surface temprature? What else about the Sun and the rest of Nature do all these models conveniently omit? If you account for all the variables that matter, do we even have the computing power to properly crunch through it? Nature is happening in real time.
If one didn't make it through grad level math classes, it's best not to focus on these predictive models. You simply don't know enough about the tools of science to know whether you're being lied to. Your best bet is to reconnect with Nature and understand ecology. Figure out how you can use less resources. Otherwise, "climate change" is just bad ideology.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not convinced climate alarmists care that much about ecology. "Ecology... Nature is only model we have that has survived climate change with STUN..." @RestorationAgD http://bit.ly/1ohVqpE
Change food production from annuals to perennials as Nature intended.
"Invasive species: Name one organism on the face of the planet that has an intellectual concept called invasion." @RestorationAgD http://bit.ly/1lM3PFS
"The 21st century version would be a rule forbidding government regulation of encryption. A government that has no way of knowing what who is saying to whom lacks the most powerful weapons for winning an information war. " http://bit.ly/2IRKIZZ
Price list... http://bit.ly/25Au4TG
http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am...
Watch “Pleistocene Re-wilding: Lions in a Den of Daniels?” on #Vimeo https://vimeo.com/35978505?ref...
#852. John Anthony West is an author, lecturer, guide and a proponent of Sphinx water erosion hypothesis in geology. http://podcasts.joerogan.net/p... Why The Sumerian Civilization is Way Too Controversial for Mainstream History https://youtu.be/ogw6BJRL_rQ JRE #961 - Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson & Michael Shermer http://podcasts.joerogan.net/p...
No, not "Planet X;" rather, the missing fifth planet - where the asteroid belt now lies... possibly related to whatever event(s) caused Mars to get dusted with Xenon 129 a few hundred million years back? ;)
re: asteroid belt... https://youtu.be/ogw6BJRL_rQ?t...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There's no money to be made in health.
I got a C in diffy Q but it was one of the most difficult C's I ever got.
I suspect most people working on climate models were also C level or lower in DE.
...the observations or temperature line up pretty well with projections of climate models
That's called "Texas sharp shooter fallacy" http://www.fallacyfiles.org/te...
.
As far as math I've taken classes up to differential equations so it's not like I'm math illiterate but maybe the math you keep alluding to is something I'm not familiar with.
You're still just dancing around the issues without ever getting specific enough to actually name what it is you think is the problem.
You claim to have studied differential equations, but you don't seem to understand the relevance. In particular, again I repeat: coupled systems cannot be magically decoupled. The Earth's climate is coupled to the output of the Sun. That is, in order to model the Earth's climate, you have to first accurately model the Sun. That's the correct and scientific way to model the climate. Assuming the Sun as constant is decoupling the coupled system. It is unscientific to misuse mathematics, the tools of science. Somehow, I find it hard to believe you actually studied differential equations in any rigorous way, if at all. Doing a web search doesn't count as studying. People who have studied at least up to ODEs don't make the comments you have made when I remind them about coupled systems. Stop lying to yourself and go study more math.
Is your theory falsifiable?
What is this falsification?
Or by referencing the above, are you saying your theory is unscientific?
lol... you're funny in a dumb/pathetic kind of way. Go study some math. :-D
The mysterious js290 (or should that be "bs1000"). You can't even articulate what you're implying well enough to give us a clue what you're talking about. Thinks minor changes in the sun's output will have outsized effects on the temperature of the Earth, something that has not been evident so far. Thinks since CO2 is only 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere it couldn't possibly have an effect even though the science behind that effect has been known for over 100 years. Like I said before if you really think you're so smart you should be publishing your results and gathering the accolades you deserve.
The bullshitters: deniers who believe climate is constant and predictable, and alarmists who also believe it's controllable but don't understand the limitations of the climate models due to lack of math knowledge.
You keep suggesting that variations in global mean temperature drives solar output, but you haven't provided any evidence. Please show us the physics and we will gladly solve the math.
Please keep up: I'm suggesting solar output drives global mean temperatures. You haven't studied enough mathematics to understand the physics.
It feels to me like you're projecting. You appear to have a pretty strong faith that you know better than climate scientists who have been studying the climate for a long time. But so far all you've done is make some vague claims about coupled systems with no solid evidence to back them up. Let's hear some hard evidence from you. What specifically is the coupling you are talking about? How does it apply in this situation? Give me some hard evidence then we might have something to talk about.
Study math.
Irrelevant guff as far I'm concerned.
Can you prove your theory? If not, why are you promoting it as fact? In my book, that, along with homeopathy comes under heading 'Behaving with an intent to deceive'.
Stop looking in your book and open up some math books.
Some denialists are denialists because their gullibility makes them easy to dupe.
Others do the duping.
It's the latter group that I'm interested in identifying - fixing climate change will cost a sum, and the extra damage directly attributable to the delay caused by denialists also translates to a sum. That sum will come from the pockets of deceivers.
You don't understand the problem well enough to "fix" anything. That makes you a deceiver and a dupe, an useful idiot as it were.
Sorry, are you some bot built to promote Mark Shephard? Otherwise what was the point of that?
Point is "climate change" is a faith based political issue for most people. It's bad ideology, but that's never mattered to ideologues hell bent on coercing other people into your preferred behaviors based on "evidence" that you don't fully understand. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/te... Studying mathematics is hard, being an ideologue is easy.
I know what a coupled system is. It's a system where the various components interact and affect each other.
No, it's pretty obvious you don't know what a coupled system is or how to properly solve a simple one, much less a really complicated one like climate. Go study more math. If you're going to take things on faith, pick one of the old religions; they've been around longer and will keep you out of trouble.
That is a baseless assertion. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide some evidence.
If you don't want to be considered an ideologue, you need to study more math.
Mark Shepard on Restoration Agriculture - Observation vs Concept @RestorationAgD http://bit.ly/1lM3PFS
So if the preponderance of scientific evidence supports something, a scientist saying so can only be politically motivated? That's an odd assertion, and an odd view of scientists. I am not a climate scientist, but I know some.
I knew a PhD student in climate science, and he told me their climate models assumes constant output from the Sun. I didn't study climate science, but I studied enough math to know you can't solve a coupled system that way. They cannot violate mathematical principles. Study a lot of math so you don't have to take these models and "scientific evidence" on faith.
Yes, so you've said: the Sun is emitting something that can't be measured, but does have a measurable impact. Yes you haven't explained what this thing is.
Try to keep up here... what I've said is any climate model must first have an accurate model of the Sun. That is, a model of the Sun that predicts what's being observed/measured. Does there exist a model of the Sun that accurately predicts sun spots and solar flares, not just surface temprature? What else about the Sun and the rest of Nature do all these models conveniently omit? If you account for all the variables that matter, do we even have the computing power to properly crunch through it? Nature is happening in real time. If one didn't make it through grad level math classes, it's best not to focus on these predictive models. You simply don't know enough about the tools of science to know whether you're being lied to. Your best bet is to reconnect with Nature and understand ecology. Figure out how you can use less resources. Otherwise, "climate change" is just bad ideology.