52 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Suddenly, the thread has gone boring. Sorry  guys (and gal).

Brant,

I'm doing my best to tease out a gripping storyline, but, damn. So far, despite substantive challenges, the antagonist has shown to be vain, pedantic, and, frankly, kinda dumb. 

A story is only as good as the characters in it and the only interesting characters so far are the rubes.

A pulp fiction editor (I would have to look up the name, but this is true) once advised his writers: When you see your story lagging, you're boring the reader. How to fix it? Have a corpse fall through the ceiling.

I, too, wish something exciting would happen... Or at least substantive...

Maybe it's time for William to provide another pretty picture. But, man, does that get old...

Michael

23 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Well if you want now than opinions, there are papers discussing such topics. 

 

Glacial/interglacials follow the Milakovitch Cycles quite well. MC if simply a formula approximating insolation at 60N. The choice behind 60N is that Milakovitch hypothesized that because 60N has a relatively large portion of glaciers, it might influence the climate on long, gradual timescale. The reason for the change is a change in Earth's albedo, as 60N receives more sunlight, glaciers recede, albedo drops, system warms. The warming system has a positive feedback due to the release of co2 from the oceans, triggering more water vapor, which further warms the system. Keep in mind, these are quite gradual, with ice ages/thermal maximums occurring approx every 100k years. He hypothesized the cycle to be 40k. While the his frequency seems to be incorrect, the glacial cycles do still follow his mechanism, and it is the current accepted theory for how Earth's ice age cycle occurs.

I'm wondering, did you question him in the same way you question science behind AGW? After all, they are fully intertwined. If you think he's right (hint: he is), then you don't have any room to deny humans are impacting the climate currently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Oh, brother. You aren't addressing what I said. You just shifted the discussion.

I really thought you were a lot smarter. Let's just say you are, but you aren't using your smarts.

Looking for smarts.

--Brant

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Fight the next ice age! Burn fossil fuels!

--Brant

I don't think that will work, BTW

It will work if we are steadfast, (I have eight motor vehicles on the road right now) and if we silence the ice age deniers, that’s essential. For their own good.

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Oh, brother. You aren't addressing what I said. You just shifted the discussion.

I really thought you were a lot smarter. Let's just say you are, but you aren't using your smarts.

Looking for smarts.

--Brant

You said that someone mentioned to you the next ice age has been put on hold. I agreed with that statement, trying to give a bit of insight as to why. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. 

Read the paper if you are still confused:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494

When you are incapable of discussing science and incapable of even discussing your favorite nature.com article, just tell your interlocutor he is confused.

Billy, I really can see now what you see in Brad.

On 2/3/2020 at 11:54 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

From what I have seen so far, I believe this guy will always land beside the point in relation to your questions and constantly present a new set of half-baked issues that he will instruct you in and demand you analyze instead of answering your questions.

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Oh, brother. You aren't addressing what I said. You just shifted the discussion.

Brant,

That's the technique.

He's got nothing except that. 

It doesn't get any better.

14 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

... just tell your interlocutor he is confused.

Jon,

And that's the half-assed gaslight to go along with it.

That doesn't get any better, either.

Michael

21 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Billy, I really can see now what you see in Brad.

Jon,

I'm trying not to laugh, but damn that was funny.

LOL...

Michael

13 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Is or isn't the burning of fossil fuels driving up co2 concentrations in the atmosphere?

Define "driving up."

Or better yet, just answer the questions instead of working so hard to avoid them. How is it not clear to you yet that I'm not going to settle for your attempts at a workaround? 

Which single hypothesis, and it's resulting predictions and testing, do you want to discuss? That mankinds activities are responsible for 1.6 percent of warming that has been reported? Or 32 percent. Or 68? 97? Or that mankind's contributions are causing a catastrophe, an existential threat? The Statue of Liberty will be up to her chin in ocean by 2004 2028? Sharknadoes galore? What?

All that I'm asking for is that you define your terms and to then stick to them, instead of pulling all of the slippery shit of shifting between different hypotheses, predictions, cooditions of falsifiability, etc.

12 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

(2) tangentially warning Jonathan against accepting your description of material you linked.  (J, "97%"  Similarities.)

Ellen

Yeah, thanks. I know that everything must be taken with a grain of salt with this dude. Conversationally, I'm willing to momentarily entertain, for the sake of argument, some of Brad's assertions or sources, but I am aware that in the event that if he ever does attempt to answer my question, I'll have to go over his answers with a fine tooth comb. His game is what can he sneak past 'em. 

10 hours ago, bradschrag said:

And I've already stated, I'm not going to attempt to address all at once as it would be pointless.

How have you concluded that it would be pointless? By assigning to me traits that I don't possess?

Long ago, Billy asked what it would take to change one's mind. I answered. I identified what it would take. Like you, Billy doesnt like my answer. After hearing it, he decided that he wanted to convince me to accept a different method of changing my mind.

What is actually pointless is your constant attempted workarounds, and your shitty projections of yourself on to me (or us). Fuck you and your excuses and your baseless presumptions about what would or would not be "pointless." 

J

6 hours ago, bradschrag said:

You said that someone mentioned to you the next ice age has been put on hold. I agreed with that statement, trying to give a bit of insight as to why. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. 

Read the paper if you are still confused:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494

The article is a bunch of opinions with a whopper that if humans just stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere everything will be hunky dory. Billions dying of starvation while the ruling elites "protect" the planet is not mentioned.

The only significant alternative to fossil fuels for life sustaining energy production is nuclear.

--Brant

23 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

How have you concluded that it would be pointless? By assigning to me traits that I don't possess?

Because dismissal/disagreement somewhere early in the chain of logic throws out tall other answers. It's much simpler to step through the process until a specific point of disagreement is reached. As it is, I have trouble parsing what exactly you are asking for given the nature of your responses. 

52 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Define "driving up."

Humans have caused atmospheric co2 to go from 280ppm to ~415ppm currently. Yes or no?

55 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

That mankinds activities are responsible for 1.6 percent of warming that has been reported? Or 32 percent. Or 68? 97?

Mankind's contribution to warming is considered to be 100%. Actually higher by some because without increased co2 all indications are we would have cooled, so we've offset the cooling plus added warming.

You can falsify that humans are the cause of warming by delivering us a mechanism to explain the warming. 

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

You can falsify that humans are the cause of warming by delivering us a mechanism to explain the warming.

Hell, I can do that and my interest in this topic is very low considering it's always one piece of bullshit after another from the climate change fanatics, boring as all hell, and formatted in the same way every damn time, i.e., an opinion with an embedded political agenda (grab and cement power) all dressed up to look like something sciencey.

Here's a mechanism that easily explains both warming and cooling: nature.

Nature has caused the planet to go through all kinds of climate changes throughout all known history. Any fool can see that.

Boom. Falsified.

Helpfully.

Michael

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The article is a bunch of opinions with a whopper that if humans just stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere everything will be hunky dory. Billions dying of starvation while the ruling elites "protect" the planet is not mentioned.

The only significant alternative to fossil fuels for life sustaining energy production is nuclear.

--Brant

Not quite, the article is peer reviewed literature that is based on established theories and mechanisms. If you have something better to put forward, b please do so. It supports exactly what this individual told you. Why didn't you raise concerns with his comment but you insist this article is only "opinions".

Your second statement (billions dying) is an opinion, unless you of course have something more to back it up.

19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's a mechanism that easily explains both warming and cooling: nature

No it doesn't. There isn't mechanism that describes the current warming except for the change in the radiative properties of the planet, due to emissions of co2.

20 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Nature has caused the planet to go through all kinds of climate changes throughout all known history. Any fool can see that.

I already described Milakovitch Cycles and no one has claimed the climate hasn't changed. Do you always stuff your straw men with red herring?

4 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

No it doesn't.

Actually it does.

Nature can change co2 levels all by itself. It can change radiative properties of the planet all by itself. Nature does not need humans to change the climate. In fact, it constantly does so.

Once again, boom. Falsified.

Michael

11 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Nature can change co2 levels all by itself. It can change radiative properties of the planet all by itself. Nature does not need humans to change the climate. In fact, it constantly does so.

Once again, boom. Falsified.

Incidentally, this is the main reason this dude doesn't answer Jonathan's questions.

When the smoke is blown away, falsification becomes a bitch of a standard to use for obfuscation. It undermines the obfuscator.

Michael

49 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Actually it does.

Nature can change co2 levels all by itself. It can change radiative properties of the planet all by itself. Nature does not need humans to change the climate. In fact, it constantly does so.

Once again, boom. Falsified.

Michael

Again, that's a straw man. No is claiming the climate hasn't changed. No is claiming co2 levels haven't risen and fallen (I've already given a link connecting past climate to a mechanism, mainly orbital cycles). No one has claimed nature requires humans to change climate. Do you see how you are defeating arguments that no one has made? 

Emissions of co2 from burning fossil fuels has driven atm concentrations from 280-415. Yes or no? If no, please explain 1) what is causing the increase and 2) where is the co2 from burning FF going?

17 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

No one has claimed nature requires humans to change climate.

This is the crux of Jonathan's questions that you refuse to address.

Your entire premise is that humans, not nature, are changing the climate within the extremely limited inputs being measured. So in effect, you actually are claiming that nature requires humans to change the climate--for those limited cases.

I claim nature is always surprising scientists and cannot be dismissed as a cause. Not even in these limited cases.

Once again, boom. Falsified.

Without a single measurement.

You won't answer Jonathan because you can't. You have no case except a pile of disconnected data and a scientism crony tribe pretending it is more.

Michael

3 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Because dismissal/disagreement somewhere early in the chain of logic throws out tall other answers.

Bullshit. I’ve given no indication that I’m closed minded and would refuse to consider answers to my questions. Your false assumptions aren’t warranted, and are a copout. It really is amusing how upsetting my insistence on following the scientific method is to you, and the shit that you’ll invent in order to excuse yourself from complying with it.

3 hours ago, bradschrag said:

As it is, I have trouble parsing what exactly you are asking for given the nature of your responses. 

I’ve simply been asking that you demonstrate conformity to the scientific method. It doesn’t surprise me that you’re having trouble parsing it.
J

6 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

I’ve simply been asking that you demonstrate conformity to the scientific method. It doesn’t surprise me that you’re having trouble parsing it.

Ok, so let's keep working through this 1 step at a time. Yes or no, burning fossil fuels has driven atm co2 from 280-~415 currently?

3 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Mankind's contribution to warming is considered to be 100%. Actually higher by some because without increased co2 all indications are we would have cooled, so we've offset the cooling plus added warming.

Considered by whom? And which one is it? 100%, or more than 100%? They both can’t be right. Which one is the “settled science”?

See, you’re switching between hypotheses at will. This is why we need you to answer the questions and limit yourself to a non contradictory position, to define the terms and conditions minus all of the slither room that you’re trying to leave for yourself.

J

2 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Ok, so let's keep working through this 1 step at a time. Yes or no, burning fossil fuels has driven atm co2 from 280-~415 currently?

Asshole, how to many times do you have to be told? Answer my questions, or fuck off. I’m not doing it your way. I’m not going to play your games.