Brant Gaede

Members
  • Content Count

    24,607
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    41

Blog Comments posted by Brant Gaede


  1. 6 hours ago, merjet said:

     

     
    Here's your chance to improve or mutilate Wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_rotation_paradox  Edit the page to explain why the phenomena happens.  I bet you can't do so correctly and without help. But you can show your stupidity to many people not on OL.

    I don't see any phenomenon. It's just one active coin and one passive. One discrepancy leads to another.

    Now that's just off the top of my head. I've not actually explained it except, maybe, philosophically.

    --Brant

    Science? I don't have to show you any science! I don't need no stinkin' science!


  2. 7 hours ago, Jonathan said:

    Exactly.

    Brad is sniping. He's trying to force the discussion in a direction where he hopes that he'll be able to find chinks in my armor. He is refusing to identify his foundation -- the definitions, terms and conditions that I'm asking him to identify -- and he's focused on trying to target what he hopes might be my beliefs.

    J

    That'd be a theological discussion.

    --Brant


  3. 9 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    True, a bit sloppy. The energy balance of any object has to do with how much it receives (in this case Earth receives energy from the sun) and how well it dissipates that heat (in this case Earth sheds heat to space). Greenhouse gases impede that lots of heat, causing the state to reach a equilibrium temperature with the heat source. Without greenhouse gases, the planet would be a snowball, with possibly a bit of liquid water at the equator.

    Without water vapor . . .

    --Brant


  4. 14 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    Not avoiding or dodging, it's about establishing a conversation based on understood and agreed upon points. You agreed Arrhenius hypothesized increasing co2 would cause warming. Do you agree that humans have increased co2 from 280-~415? There's no point in discussing things any further unless you can answer the question. After all, if you say they haven't, it's on you to offer a source of co2 that is causing levels to rise and let us know where fossil fuel emissions have gone. Or cry conspiracy that co2 levels aren't actually rising. So which is it?

    1.Rising caused by humans

    2.Rising caused by unknowns

    3.All a conspiracy

     

    On 2/8/2020 at 7:23 AM, Brant Gaede said:

    Maybe. Maybe probably. But we just don't if not can't KNOW.

    Science is a slow path to some certainty. Certainty is a fast path to ignorance, for that's where most of it starts. For instance, bleeding as a cure for a multiplicity of ills.

    "Arguments involved in each side." Brad, qua science you don't have a side. You've refused to argue that. Or know that. When the proponents of AGW ran out of pseudo science they bait and switched to CC. 

    --Brant

    I'm ego driven to quote myself. The first sentence is my response to Brad's CO2 question.

    --Brant


  5. 2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    It's not about being "worthy". If there's disagreement then we can focus on that point of disagreement to try to better understand the arguments involved in each side. 

     

    Have humans driven concentrations from 285-~415?

    Maybe. Maybe probably. But we just don't if not can't KNOW.

    Science is a slow path to some certainty. Certainty is a fast path to ignorance, for that's where most of it starts. For instance, bleeding as a cure for a multiplicity of ills.

    "Arguments involved in each side." Brad, qua science you don't have a side. You've refused to argue that. Or know that. When the proponents of AGW ran out of pseudo science they bait and switched to CC. 

    --Brant


  6. 11 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    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.

    Most peer reviewed literature isn't worth the paper it's printed on. We found that out by all the non-repricatable experiments found therein. Regardless, the accumulator obviously went article shopping.

    Yes, it's my  opinion. But I'm not going deeper into politics on this thread.

    --Brant


  7. 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

    • Like 1

  8. 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

    • Like 1

  9. 11 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

    Maybe you missed the paper and the direct questions of whether or not burning fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric co2 concentrations. Do you care to insert your thoughts or just sit on the sidelines making accusations?

    Who is disputing that? Of course burning fossil fuels is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. As the astro-physicist from Spitsbergen told me several days ago, that means we aren't going to have a new ice age. That would be wonderful if true. However, I don't know that. That was just his opinion.

    --Brant

    if you can't deal with me you've no chance with Jonathan