guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Unbelievable how much you guys let yourself get trolled. There is no way finshaggy is a real person or is being serious. He is laughing his ass off that this thread is 620 posts long.
Is Time An Illusion?
- Thread starter mindphuk
- Start date
Doer
Well-Known Member
Doer
Well-Known Member
Oh, he's real alright. And he loves to push our buttons. Seems frustrated and disdainful. But, I agree with much of it
and not so judgmental as to required a certain style from him.
I see the content. Much easier to not fight. Can always close my
eyes to the rest. I don't see this a competition of some kind.
620 posts? Shrug>. So?
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
620 posts. Of the same thing.
Finshaggy: I'm a certified retard.
Everybody: OMG I can't believe you don't believe in science.
Finshaghy: Black holes don't exist.
Everybody: OMG I can't believe how stupid this guy is!
*600 posts later*
Finshaggy: Yep, still certified retard. It's amazing no one has questioned my ability to actually exist and use a computer with such a lack of intelligence.
everybody: science science science!
Finshaggy: I'm a certified retard.
Everybody: OMG I can't believe you don't believe in science.
Finshaghy: Black holes don't exist.
Everybody: OMG I can't believe how stupid this guy is!
*600 posts later*
Finshaggy: Yep, still certified retard. It's amazing no one has questioned my ability to actually exist and use a computer with such a lack of intelligence.
everybody: science science science!
Doer
Well-Known Member
Come with me, my friend. You know the place. This forum is Spirituality & Sexuality & Philosophy.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Argument from personal incredulity, just because you can not fathom a person this dumb, does not mean they don't exist.
researchkitty
Well-Known Member
Doer does bring up a good point, the Science and Technology folks like us now have our own home.............
www.rollitup.org/technology-science/
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Doer, the mandate of Icecap.US is to be contrarian. They have an agenda.
The list ypou posted smacks of cherry-picking, and as Mindphuk pointed out ... weather is not climate!
I've retained one of your points because I could easily provide a counterfact that lends heft to my suspicion of cherrypicking: above and beyond the red flag that volume was being counted in an area measure. So, if we're talikng about extent ... here is a graph that shows something other than the bullet point in your post.
The trouble with using blogs to argue any point about climatology is that there aren't any that are reliably neutral, and with suitable bias one can find a fact to fit any model one wishes to champion. I don't have good access to the primary, peer-reviewed data, so I am in a bad position to say Yea or Nay to a presented factoid.
Since the "global warming is a hoax" position is being promoted by very interested parties (meaning: selling out potentially works both ways!), I am prejudiced against it ... i will admit this. I am always willing to listen to good science to the contrary, but sourcing matters (no Kool-Aid blogs!), as does completeness of presentation.
Take the last bullet, "temperatures are still declining". Completeness would require, at a minimum,
- showing not only this year, but the last 100, or since records were kept.
-showing November 2008 not only in the USA, but for all regions worldwide
- extending the all-regions dataset as far back as practicable.
Otherwise, how can I be sure that the bloggers haven't highlighted a contrary microtrend and fluffed it into a long-term global argument? cn
cannofbliss
Well-Known Member
wait.... i thought this thread was whether or not time is an illusion??? how did it transfer over to global warming etc...???
anyways lol
the answer is time is both instantaneous and eternal at the same moment in space...
it is our perception of it and may i say our lack of ability physically to perceive the true nature of the universe due to the conditions of relativity...
we lack the ability to both visually and conceptually perceive what time is beyond what we can perceive currently which what we currently view time which is to put it quite simply the movement of matter in any dimensional reference up down left right in out etc... through space...
anyways lol
the answer is time is both instantaneous and eternal at the same moment in space...
it is our perception of it and may i say our lack of ability physically to perceive the true nature of the universe due to the conditions of relativity...
we lack the ability to both visually and conceptually perceive what time is beyond what we can perceive currently which what we currently view time which is to put it quite simply the movement of matter in any dimensional reference up down left right in out etc... through space...
Doer
Well-Known Member
You can believe your scientists and I can believe mine. The jury is still out, so I'm
not in any movement or any cult of deny. How can I be sure of anything with so
much money and blame game going on. Luddites are running the movement, IMO,
with no solution proposed. Just hysteria about sea levels. Solyndra is just the tip
of the iceberg. How can I be sure this is not what it seems? A shill for the
Carbon Credit market.
I think the peer reviewed crowd is in the pocket of the research grant crowd.
And we just don't have enough of a real data collection period to know what is a
contrary microtrend, fluffed it into a long-term global argument for Carbon
Credit liquidity, or not.
not in any movement or any cult of deny. How can I be sure of anything with so
much money and blame game going on. Luddites are running the movement, IMO,
with no solution proposed. Just hysteria about sea levels. Solyndra is just the tip
of the iceberg. How can I be sure this is not what it seems? A shill for the
Carbon Credit market.
I think the peer reviewed crowd is in the pocket of the research grant crowd.
And we just don't have enough of a real data collection period to know what is a
contrary microtrend, fluffed it into a long-term global argument for Carbon
Credit liquidity, or not.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
I knew it.... he's a conspiracy nut.
You posted a bunch of facts from non-scientists.
They were refuted.
Then you chalk it up to the "conspiracy". There's no way to argue against someone with that type of mind-set because everything just fits into their big conspiracy master plan. I bet the NWO and Illuminati get brought up within 10 posts.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
This is not an option we have in science. We must believe the evidence, which most scientist interpret as a warming trend. A scant few intepret it differently, in which case you would have to say, "you can believe the majority of scientists and i'll believe the rest", which ignores the fact the the 'rest' are not believed because they are in error.
This statement does not reflect reality. The most recent study, funded by climate change deniers, shows the same as all the other studies.
Not only are you a denier, you are using a shotgun method under the umbrella of conspiracy. Despite your science sounding words, your method suggests pseudoscience thinking.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Name calling...cheap shots.
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
1Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U. S. A.
2Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea
Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 DOI:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x
Some highlights:
However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1°C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007).
This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5°C to 5°C and even more for a doubling of CO2
As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K 1.3 K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than than the possibilities estimated from the observations.
Our analysis of the data only demands relative instrumental stability over short periods, and is largely independent of long term drift.
This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5°C to 5°C and even more for a doubling of CO2
As a result, the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is estimated to be 0.7 K (with the confidence interval 0.5K 1.3 K at 99% levels). This observational result shows that model sensitivities indicated by the IPCC AR4 are likely greater than than the possibilities estimated from the observations.
Our analysis of the data only demands relative instrumental stability over short periods, and is largely independent of long term drift.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...I thought all planets were said to be heating up. (?) Can someone clarify?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
were said ... by whom? cn
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...I'm trying to find where I found that. 2500+ bookmarks, wtf?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well, there is a lot of money at stake. And somehow here on RIU, folks don't understand
that gov't get to say what is researched and what isn't. Oh, it's not so blatant. It's 1984.
Is cannabis researched very well? There's your answer. Who gets the grants? If you are
employed in climate research, what excoriation to do get from your colleges to
get something published on this? Look what I got here, just to suggest it's not a done deal.
Burn those that deny. Much money is at stake. There is a stampede against fossil
fuel mess, that's just pushing us into to atomic power. Wind, solar, and tide are
not the money slope. Nukes are. So, folks can stick their nose in the air and their
head in the sand. How smug. The road to hell is paved with good
intentions.
that gov't get to say what is researched and what isn't. Oh, it's not so blatant. It's 1984.
Is cannabis researched very well? There's your answer. Who gets the grants? If you are
employed in climate research, what excoriation to do get from your colleges to
get something published on this? Look what I got here, just to suggest it's not a done deal.
Burn those that deny. Much money is at stake. There is a stampede against fossil
fuel mess, that's just pushing us into to atomic power. Wind, solar, and tide are
not the money slope. Nukes are. So, folks can stick their nose in the air and their
head in the sand. How smug. The road to hell is paved with good
intentions.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
...here's the closest thing I could find for now, but it goes back to '07.
"Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.
Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon.
While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species."
http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
...and from National Geographic:
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
I'm comfortable in saying it's some of both scenarios.