The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[PMZ]

We will, of course, have to move to sustainable energy at some rate. The only question is, how much should we add AGW mitigation and extreme weather recovery costs to the bill for the priviledge of moving slowly?

More carbon in the ground means less in the oceans and atmosphere. Should we take it out, then outfit fossil fuel plants for CO2 sequestration to put it back?

What will be the impact on civilization of having no carbon based feedstocks for plastics, roads, pharmaceuticals, etc?

So many big expensive questions for the Flat Earth Society to ignore.

 

[itfitzme]

You are the dummy, walleyed, and your profound misunderstanding of science is once again apparent. While it is true that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it is also true that events that have a causal link are almost always strongly correlated.

Correlation does not imply causation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.[1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

Usage

In logic, the technical use of the word "implies" means "to be a sufficient circumstance." This is the meaning intended by statisticians when they say causation is not certain. Indeed, p implies q has the technical meaning of logical implication: if p then q symbolized as p → q. That is "if circumstance p is true, then q necessarily follows." In this sense, it is always correct to say "Correlation does not imply causation."

However, in casual use, the word "imply" loosely means suggests rather than requires. The idea that correlation and causation are connected is certainly true; where there is causation, there is likely to be correlation. Indeed, correlation is used when inferring causation; the important point is that such inferences are made after correlations are confirmed to be real and all causational relationship are systematically explored using large enough data sets.

Edward Tufte, in a criticism of the brevity of "correlation does not imply causation," deprecates the use of "is" to relate correlation and causation (as in "Correlation is not causation"), citing its inaccuracy as incomplete.[1] While it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply stating their nonequivalence omits information about their relationship. Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is one of the following:[4]

"Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."

"Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."

Use of correlation as scientific evidence

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[21] – they are observed to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is often not accepted as a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not suggest causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[21]
In conclusion, correlation is a valuable type of scientific evidence... But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causative relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause and effect relationship...


****************************************

You confused me with a bunch of fonts. (Or I got confused).

Correlation is, inherently, empirical. Two quantities are measured with respect to time. This is as basic as it gets. *The two are then correlated. There is no theory, simply that they are correlated.

The same two quantities are maniputated in a laboritory test tube. *They are correlated and shown to be causal.

The first correlation is demonstrated to be causal by the second correlation.

AS CO2 ABSORBES IR RADIATION IN THE LABORATORY, IT ABSORBS IT EVERYWHERE. CO2 DOESN'T MAGICALLY CHANGE IT'S PROPERTIES OUTSIDE. IT IS A TWO STEP EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION. *THIS IS A FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF SCIENCE. IT IS CALLED REALITY.

1 + 1 = 2

It is that simple. *The whole thing is based on empirical evidence. *The second empirical causal correlation relationship demonstrates that the first is causal.

It is that simple. *Anything simpler, and we just abandon science as having no application.

The fonts, following my post, felt like I was being yelled at.

And this statement, "That is correlational, not empirical" is about as fundamemtally stupid as they come.

Sorry if you got confused about that but, in fact, I was talking to the walleyedretard, not you. He's the ignorant fool who imagines that correlation somehow denies causation just because correlation doesn't necessarily mean that there is a causal link. He is very ignorant about science but, like many of the denier cultists who post on this forum, he is a sad victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, so he falsely imagines that he understands way more than he actually does.

Yeah, perhaps if we use the proper noun, first letter capitalization format, "Walleyed".

Excellent, I have been aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect since grammer school. Now I've got a name for it. *I didn't know it was a specific case of the illusion of superiority. *As originally described to me, *it is that, given a little knowledge, they consider themselves to be smarter than the expert in the subject.

The sheer magnitude of Walleyed's arrogant ignorance, stupidity, so exceeds random chance that it must come from decades of practice. It is stunning.*

His saying that correlation is not empirical demonstrates he has absolutely no clue, has never collected data and validated a principle. *

I've met a few simple folks, ones who are aware they are simple, keep things simple because they are still functional. *Like Forest, they are admirable in being smart about being simple.*

I had a mathematics genius prove the equality of correlation. He resolved it to A/|A|=B/|B|. Those are vectors, any abstract set. *That would be, of course, for 100%. I didn't ask for partial correlation, so I got what I asked for. He was a social boob, but not arrogant. He wasn't even dismissive.

This math genius's social ineptitude was interesting as it would make you cringe when displayed in a normal social setting, like everyone going out for lunch or a cocktail party. *He'd just manage to say the wrong thing, the wrong way, to the wrong person, repeatedly. He knew it, he just couldn't help it. *Yet, when on stage for open mike night, at the local comedy bar, it actually came off as funny.

The arrogance is a seperate quality, even quantifiable. Walleyed is internally self-reinforcing. Faced with dissonance, he grabs ahold of whatever will change the feeling, then manipulates his perception of reality so the feeling will hold. *Ergo, "That is correlational, not empirical", completely abandoning even the most basic grasp of reality, that of making two sets of empirical measures and then correlating them. *

It just amazes me as his insanity goes all the way to the most basic connections to reality, things that are so simply obvious that we wouldn't normally give them a second thought. *They are simple and fundamental postulates that the likes of Plato and Aristotle philosophised about and are presented, in passing, to a fifth grader.

Walleyed is literally dumber than a fifth grader.

 

[itfitzme]

Many would like to believe that because correlation alone does not prove causation, it denies it. Not at all. Correlation plus theory strongly supports causation. A very inconvenient fact for many who are hoping for a different truth for AGW.

Then you'll have no problem explaining the pause in the temperature rise. *Or telling us the mechanism for the cold trend we're about to enter.

Though I am no climate scientist, I will venture a posible explanation.*

If you have a glass with ice and put it in the sun, you will get a temperature rise at first. But then as the ice Melts the colder water from the melting will bring the temperature down for a while. Eventually, as the ice gets thinner and thinner the temperature will go up again.*
So my hypothesis here is that temperature has stabilized in part due to the ice melting. 344 billion tons of ice melting might be doing the trick of keeping down the temperature a bit.*

So far , all the chart's I've seen show that glaciers continue to melt despite the "temperature stabilization", and of course , I could be totally wrong. But I think the idea is plausible enough to make further research.

You are on the right conceptual track. *I can't find the term that labels the heat absorbed by ice as it changes phase to water.**It is the seems to be the opposite of the*heat of fussion. "Latent heat" is an associated term.

Obviously, the correlation between the demonstrated phase change of water, plateau of temperature rise, melting of the Earth's ice, and recent appearance of a plateau in the global mean temperature is a solid association.

Testing the hypothesis then becomes a matter of counting the heat added and the ice melted. It isn't a matter of whether the process you define is correct. *It is correct. *It is a question of the magnitude of the effect. We can guarantee that the climate guys have checked your hypothesis.

The only detail that you need to adjust is that, during the phase change,

&#916;T=0 rather than*&#916;T<0.

The temperature stops rising, in your glass of water, during the phase change. *It stops at exactly the freezing point of water. *Thermometers may be calibrated using an ice bath. Simply, you fill a thermous, or other insulated container, with an mixture of crushed ice and water. *You let the temperature stabilize and put the thermometer in it. *The thermometer better read 0 degrees C, or within the range of error given how well you have designed your ice bath.

Making a Proper Ice Bath | ThermoWorks

Of course, the ocean is salt water, so the phase change temperature for Earth ice is a bit different. And who knows, maybe the difference in the make up of sea water and Earth ice could give some &#916;T<>0. *

What is that system, fresh water and salt water glaciers and ice shelfs along with salty sea water? *We could expand the ice bath and experiment with different combinations. *Or we can go theoretical. *My hypothesis is that*&#916;T=0, regardless.

The devil is in the details.

 

[tjvh]

The global warming thread. Is it for real?

The thread is definitely real, as for global warming... Not so much.

 

[itfitzme]

Though I am no climate scientist, I will venture a posible explanation.*

If you have a glass with ice and put it in the sun, you will get a temperature rise at first. But then as the ice Melts the colder water from the melting will bring the temperature down for a while. Eventually, as the ice gets thinner and thinner the temperature will go up again.*
So my hypothesis here is that temperature has stabilized in part due to the ice melting. 344 billion tons of ice melting might be doing the trick of keeping down the temperature a bit.*

So far , all the chart's I've seen show that glaciers continue to melt despite the "temperature stabilization", and of course , I could be totally wrong. But I think the idea is plausible enough to make further research.

Since about 1950-60, the heat that has been absorbed by the earth has gone into heating the ocean (~90%), heating the atmosphere and land surface, and melting sea and land ice.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

So, yeah, melting land and sea ice is taken as large enough to be considered.

Total heat absorbed is the difference between heat in and heat out.

The total heat absorbed goes into four basic places. Earth atmosphere and land, sea and land ice, upper ocean, and deep ocean. We have been measuring three of the four directly, and with increasing precision. *Any remaining heat is in the remaining location. *It is because energy is conserved.*

So the deep ocean is.

The rest is in the realm of figuring out the dynamics that govern how the heat is transfered between the four constituent components. (Earth core not included, which makes five)

It is literally as simple as A=B+C+D+E. And as A, B, C, and D are known, then E=A-(B+C+D). *The climate guys can worry about how to calculate it precisely. *The oceanographers can worry about how to measure it accurately.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ears-new-study-of-oceans-confirms/?mobile=wp*

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/full

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...ming-actually-still-accelerating-no-lull.html

 

[skookerasbil]

So many big expensive questions for the Flat Earth Society to ignore.

Yup....thanks,.....we flat earthers believe only stupid ass mental cases think it feasible to spend 76 trillion ( UN $ estimate ) to go green. Too.....we think going back to candles, horse and buggy and having no cell phones or air conditioning is gay. Yeah......lets all go back to the Pony Express!!!

Indeed....we flat earthers think it a bit more reasonable to wait for advanced technologies to be developed and be used to meet our energy needs, while the climate crusaders are all in on 19th century technologies of solar power and windmills.

Ummm.......which begs the ?. Who exactly are the flat earthers here?

 

[Oddball]

Then you'll have no problem explaining the pause in the temperature rise. Or telling us the mechanism for the cold trend we're about to enter.

Though I am no climate scientist, I will venture a posible explanation.

If you have a glass with ice and put it in the sun, you will get a temperature rise at first. But then as the ice Melts the colder water from the melting will bring the temperature down for a while. Eventually, as the ice gets thinner and thinner the temperature will go up again.
So my hypothesis here is that temperature has stabilized in part due to the ice melting. 344 billion tons of ice melting might be doing the trick of keeping down the temperature a bit.

So far , all the chart's I've seen show that glaciers continue to melt despite the "temperature stabilization", and of course , I could be totally wrong. But I think the idea is plausible enough to make further research.

Your theory has some problems. Number one being the Antarctic has been above the 20 year average for almost two years now. Number two is of course that the Arctic is trending along at pretty normal.



http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

Has another BIG problem.

The planet's ecosystem is not a glass of ice water...It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions.

 

[itfitzme]

Then you'll have no problem explaining the pause in the temperature rise. Or telling us the mechanism for the cold trend we're about to enter.

Though I am no climate scientist, I will venture a posible explanation.

If you have a glass with ice and put it in the sun, you will get a temperature rise at first. But then as the ice Melts the colder water from the melting will bring the temperature down for a while. Eventually, as the ice gets thinner and thinner the temperature will go up again.
So my hypothesis here is that temperature has stabilized in part due to the ice melting. 344 billion tons of ice melting might be doing the trick of keeping down the temperature a bit.

So far , all the chart's I've seen show that glaciers continue to melt despite the "temperature stabilization", and of course , I could be totally wrong. But I think the idea is plausible enough to make further research.

Your theory has some problems. Number one being the Antarctic has been above the 20 year average for almost two years now. Number two is of course that the Arctic is trending along at pretty normal.



http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

Wrong again, Walleyed!! You can't read a graph.

 

[itfitzme]

Then you'll have no problem explaining the pause in the temperature rise. *Or telling us the mechanism for the cold trend we're about to enter.

Though I am no climate scientist, I will venture a posible explanation.*

If you have a glass with ice and put it in the sun, you will get a temperature rise at first. But then as the ice Melts the colder water from the melting will bring the temperature down for a while. Eventually, as the ice gets thinner and thinner the temperature will go up again.*
So my hypothesis here is that temperature has stabilized in part due to the ice melting. 344 billion tons of ice melting might be doing the trick of keeping down the temperature a bit.*

So far, all the chart's I've seen show that glaciers continue to melt despite the "temperature stabilization", and of course , I could be totally wrong. But I think the idea is plausible enough to make further research.

Your theory has some problems. *Number one being the Antarctic has been above the 20 year average for almost two years now. *Number two is of course that the Arctic is trending along at pretty normal.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

You simply can't get anything right.*

*2013 Wintertime Arctic Sea Ice Maximum Fifth Lowest on Record

*"The new maximum &#8212;5.82 million square miles (15.09 million square kilometers)&#8212; is in line with a continuing trend in declining winter Arctic sea ice extent: nine of the ten smallest recorded maximums have occurred during the last decade. The 2013 winter extent is 144,402 square miles (374,000 square kilometers) below the average annual maximum extent for the last three decades."

The graph says no such thing.

1) *This graph says that the area is less in 2013 than in 2001. *So, it doesn't say, "trending normal.

2) Energy going into the phase change of Earth ice is for ALL of it, Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland, ice sheets, sea ice, glaciers, etc.

2a) This says*Arctic sea ice extent has trended down.

Arctic Sea Ice Extent

"June 2013 was the 11th lowest June in the 1979 to 2013 satellite record, 760,000 square kilometers (293,000 square miles) above the record low in 2010. The monthly trend is -3.6% percent per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average (also -3.6% per decade relative to the old 1979 to 2000 baseline)."

GRAPH: URL HERE

2b) *This says Arctic ice volume is down.

Arctic Sea Ice Volume

"The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure. *Monthly averaged ice volume for September 2012 was 3,400 km3. This value is 72% lower than the mean over this period, 80% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 2.0 standard deviations below the 1979-2011 *trend"

2c) *Nasa has Artic sea ice down.

Nasa Arctic sea ice

2d) *Nasa says Antarctia and Greenland land ice volume is down.

Anarctica sea ice volume

In short, sea ice in extent and volume are down. Land ice volume for both Greenland and Antarctica are down.

How do you manage to have unknowledge? Perfectly correlated wrong, negative IQ?

 

[PMZ]

So many big expensive questions for the Flat Earth Society to ignore.

Yup....thanks,.....we flat earthers believe only stupid ass mental cases think it feasible to spend 76 trillion ( UN $ estimate ) to go green. Too.....we think going back to candles, horse and buggy and having no cell phones or air conditioning is gay. Yeah......lets all go back to the Pony Express!!!

Indeed....we flat earthers think it a bit more reasonable to wait for advanced technologies to be developed and be used to meet our energy needs, while the climate crusaders are all in on 19th century technologies of solar power and windmills.

Ummm.......which begs the ?. Who exactly are the flat earthers here?

"...we flat earthers think it a bit more reasonable to wait for advanced technologies to be developed"

When do you expect the engineers of the world to run out of new ideas? How many lives and billions should we sink into AGW mitigation and extreme weather recovery while we're waiting? Sun and solar and hydro get energy more directly from our only source, the sun, than millions of years old life that failed to rot. Yet you call them obsolete technologies.

I think that the Flat Earth Society is a very apt name for your cult.

You think that politics speaks the truth and science lies. How clever is that?

 

[PMZ]

Though I am no climate scientist, I will venture a posible explanation.

If you have a glass with ice and put it in the sun, you will get a temperature rise at first. But then as the ice Melts the colder water from the melting will bring the temperature down for a while. Eventually, as the ice gets thinner and thinner the temperature will go up again.
So my hypothesis here is that temperature has stabilized in part due to the ice melting. 344 billion tons of ice melting might be doing the trick of keeping down the temperature a bit.

So far , all the chart's I've seen show that glaciers continue to melt despite the "temperature stabilization", and of course , I could be totally wrong. But I think the idea is plausible enough to make further research.

Your theory has some problems. Number one being the Antarctic has been above the 20 year average for almost two years now. Number two is of course that the Arctic is trending along at pretty normal.



http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png

Has another BIG problem.

The planet's ecosystem is not a glass of ice water...It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions.

Where did you get the idea that negative feedbacks are more likely than positive feedbacks?

 

[Oddball]

Where did you get the idea I said that?

 

[itfitzme]

Where did you get the idea I said that?

This is why I warn against making vague and overly general statements like, "It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions."

Not only is what you say incomprehensible to others, you don't even know what you're talking about.

Do list, for us, a fraction of the trillions of potential feedback, both positive and negative, and compensatory reactions.

Because, if you can't list a reasonably large number to back up "trillions", that is more than 2,000,000,000,000 of them, then you're just throwing words together out of pretense.

Just .0000001% of them, and you can group identifiable, similar, yet reasonably different sets. Say sets no larger than 1000 items.

Or are you just saying "trillions", as in "gadzillion". "Trillions" is, after all, the one word that you used which is specific, a number.

And I have to wonder, if you can't be specific, add something meaningful and intelligent, why bother posting at all. What use are you?

 

[Oddball]

Where did you get the idea I said that?

This is why I warn against making vague and overly general statements like, "It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions."

Not only is what you say incomprehensible to others, you don't even know what you're talking about.

Do list, for us, a fraction of the trillions of potential feedback, both positive and negative, and compensatory reactions.

Because, if you can't list a reasonably large number to back up "trillions", that is more than 2,000,000,000,000 of them, then you're just throwing words together out of pretense.

Just .0000001% of them, and you can group identifiable, similar, yet reasonably different sets. Say sets no larger than 1000 items.

Or are you just saying "trillions", as in "gadzillion". "Trillions" is, after all, the one word that you used which is specific, a number.

And I have to wonder, if you can't be specific, add something meaningful and intelligent, why bother posting at all. What use are you?

Right....Against making vague statements like what Goebbels warming could-may-might-possibly end up portending for humankind....Oh wait, that's your hustle.

Nonetheless, there are trillions -yes, trillions- of possible interactions and compensatory reactions to what you claim is happening, which render your inflexible and, yes, STUPID computer models completely irrelevant.

I'm not the one whose hypothesis stems from the proposition that the planet's ecosystem is basically static....You are.

Jam that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[PMZ]

Where did you get the idea I said that?

This is why I warn against making vague and overly general statements like, "It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions."

Not only is what you say incomprehensible to others, you don't even know what you're talking about.

Do list, for us, a fraction of the trillions of potential feedback, both positive and negative, and compensatory reactions.

Because, if you can't list a reasonably large number to back up "trillions", that is more than 2,000,000,000,000 of them, then you're just throwing words together out of pretense.

Just .0000001% of them, and you can group identifiable, similar, yet reasonably different sets. Say sets no larger than 1000 items.

Or are you just saying "trillions", as in "gadzillion". "Trillions" is, after all, the one word that you used which is specific, a number.

And I have to wonder, if you can't be specific, add something meaningful and intelligent, why bother posting at all. What use are you?

Right....Against making vague statements like what Goebbels warming could-may-might-possibly end up portending for humankind....Oh wait, that's your hustle.

Nonetheless, there are trillions -yes, trillions- of possible interactions and compensatory reactions to what you claim is happening, which render your inflexible and, yes, STUPID computer models completely irrelevant.

I'm not the one whose hypothesis stems from the proposition that the planet's ecosystem is basically static....You are.

Jam that in your pipe and smoke it.

Anyone who calls science, "subversive", puts himself squarely in the category of ignorant.

 

[itfitzme]

Where did you get the idea I said that?

This is why I warn against making vague and overly general statements like, "It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions."

Not only is what you say incomprehensible to others, you don't even know what you're talking about.

Do list, for us, a fraction of the trillions of potential feedback, both positive and negative, and compensatory reactions.

Because, if you can't list a reasonably large number to back up "trillions", that is more than 2,000,000,000,000 of them, then you're just throwing words together out of pretense.

Just .0000001% of them, and you can group identifiable, similar, yet reasonably different sets. Say sets no larger than 1000 items.

Or are you just saying "trillions", as in "gadzillion". "Trillions" is, after all, the one word that you used which is specific, a number.

And I have to wonder, if you can't be specific, add something meaningful and intelligent, why bother posting at all. What use are you?

Right....Against making vague statements like what Goebbels warming could-may-might-possibly end up portending for humankind....Oh wait, that's your hustle.

Nonetheless, there are trillions -yes, trillions- of possible interactions and compensatory reactions to what you claim is happening, which render your inflexible and, yes, STUPID computer models completely irrelevant.

I'm not the one whose hypothesis stems from the proposition that the planet's ecosystem is basically static....You are.

Jam that in your pipe and smoke it.

So you really don't know of any, but you know there are trillions. So many, you can't even begin to count then. Not even begin.

 

[Oddball]

Anyone who calls science, "subversive", puts himself squarely in the category of ignorant.

Which science did I call subversive?

 

[Oddball]

This is why I warn against making vague and overly general statements like, "It has literally trillions of potential feedback and compensatory reactions."

Not only is what you say incomprehensible to others, you don't even know what you're talking about.

Do list, for us, a fraction of the trillions of potential feedback, both positive and negative, and compensatory reactions.

Because, if you can't list a reasonably large number to back up "trillions", that is more than 2,000,000,000,000 of them, then you're just throwing words together out of pretense.

Just .0000001% of them, and you can group identifiable, similar, yet reasonably different sets. Say sets no larger than 1000 items.

Or are you just saying "trillions", as in "gadzillion". "Trillions" is, after all, the one word that you used which is specific, a number.

And I have to wonder, if you can't be specific, add something meaningful and intelligent, why bother posting at all. What use are you?

Right....Against making vague statements like what Goebbels warming could-may-might-possibly end up portending for humankind....Oh wait, that's your hustle.

Nonetheless, there are trillions -yes, trillions- of possible interactions and compensatory reactions to what you claim is happening, which render your inflexible and, yes, STUPID computer models completely irrelevant.

I'm not the one whose hypothesis stems from the proposition that the planet's ecosystem is basically static....You are.

Jam that in your pipe and smoke it.

So you really don't know of any, but you know there are trillions.

Knowing basic math (i.e. exponents) and knowing that there are hundreds of various and sundry interactions and possible compensatory outcomes all interacting with one another, one doesn't need to name all the various individual potential mitigating factors to come up with trillions.

You Goebbels warming zombies couldn't win Powerball in 500 years, yet seem to be able to say for certain what the entire planet's ecosystem is going to be like (well, might-maybe-could-may) in 50.

 

[itfitzme]

Right....Against making vague statements like what Goebbels warming could-may-might-possibly end up portending for humankind....Oh wait, that's your hustle.

Nonetheless, there are trillions -yes, trillions- of possible interactions and compensatory reactions to what you claim is happening, which render your inflexible and, yes, STUPID computer models completely irrelevant.

I'm not the one whose hypothesis stems from the proposition that the planet's ecosystem is basically static....You are.

Jam that in your pipe and smoke it.

So you really don't know of any, but you know there are trillions.

Knowing basic math (i.e. exponents) and knowing that there are hundreds of various and sundry interactions and possible compensatory outcomes all interacting with one another, one doesn't need to name all the various individual potential mitigating factors to come up with trillions.

You Goebbels warming zombies couldn't win Powerball in 500 years, yet seem to be able to say for certain what the entire planet's ecosystem is going to be like (well, might-maybe-could-may) in 50.

Yeah, but you don't know the "sundry interactions". And the combinations of zero take zero at a time is zero.

 

[Oddball]

So you really don't know of any, but you know there are trillions.

Knowing basic math (i.e. exponents) and knowing that there are hundreds of various and sundry interactions and possible compensatory outcomes all interacting with one another, one doesn't need to name all the various individual potential mitigating factors to come up with trillions.

You Goebbels warming zombies couldn't win Powerball in 500 years, yet seem to be able to say for certain what the entire planet's ecosystem is going to be like (well, might-maybe-could-may) in 50.

Yeah, but you don't know the "sundry interactions". And the combinations of zero take zero at a time is zero.

Yeah, and neither do you.....Which makes your stupid computer models stupid.....Stupid...