Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Off Topic > Off Topic - General


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 01-20-2018, 08:53 PM   #226
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzy View Post
All the BS that’s thrown around in this thread ..,visual evidence is conclusive.. there is no doubt about climate change

https://youtu.be/N_ZbAf_U7_c
The universe is full of change. So what?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-20-2018, 10:20 PM   #227
buzzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 208
boxcar
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzy View Post
All the BS that’s thrown around in this thread ..,visual evidence is conclusive.. there is no doubt about climate change

The universe is full of change. So what?


Evidence, besides your word..
buzzy is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-20-2018, 10:28 PM   #228
Lemon Drop Husker
Veteran
 
Lemon Drop Husker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 11,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzy View Post
boxcar
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzy View Post
All the BS that’s thrown around in this thread ..,visual evidence is conclusive.. there is no doubt about climate change

https://youtu.be/N_ZbAf_U7_c
The universe is full of change. So what?


Evidence, besides your word..
You should turn off your laptop/PC to conserve energy and save the planet.
Lemon Drop Husker is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 12:30 AM   #229
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by davew View Post
Most agree the climate is changing, the question that is being debated is how much (if any) is anthropogenic.
Only debated by climate deniers
hcap is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 08:16 AM   #230
davew
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap View Post
Only debated by climate deniers
why is that? because people like you KNOW ?
davew is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 08:33 AM   #231
tucker6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap View Post
Only debated by climate deniers
You know that statement isn't true. It makes everything else you type suspect when you make silly arguments like this.
tucker6 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 08:37 AM   #232
Inner Dirt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Beaverdam Virginia
Posts: 12,396
There were all kinds of climate changes and species thriving and then going extinct before man came, what caused those and why aren't those things in play now?
Inner Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 09:21 AM   #233
zico20
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: st louis
Posts: 2,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevecsd View Post
From: http://libertyunbound.com/node/1317

I agree with Pascal Bruckner, that CAGW is just another ideological meme to control people. And, the good news, I hope, is that more & more facts are coming out that rebut CAGW. Most people are just not aware of some basic facts about climate & CO2. Here are some I have learned over the last few years.

1. Currently carbon dioxide amounts to about 0.04% of the atmosphere. (4 / 100ths by percentage or 400 parts per million.)
2. From all of the reading I have done it appears that human caused CO2 generates somewhere between 3-7% of all global carbon dioxide. (For one source see http://www.manhattan-institute.org/e...ths/myth10.htm ) Even if it as high as 10% per cent, natural causes dwarf human generated CO2. And if humans double their CO2 output, global concentrations go up 10%. (400 current ppm all sources minus 10% by humans [40 ppm] when doubled gives 360 ppm natural sources + 40 (current human caused) +40 [doubling] which is 440 ppm.)
3. There is proof that over the history of the earth there have been times when temperatures climbed first, then an increase in CO2 appears.
4. There have been times when CO2 concentration was as high at 7,000 ppm, one of those during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago.
5. If the level of CO2 in the atmosphere goes too low (somewhere around 200 ppm) it will be very detrimental to growing crops.
6. There has also been some research about CO2 “climate sensitivity”. Which means how sensitive is global climate to increases or decreases in CO2. Recent research is showing that climate may less sensitive to CO2 increases than earlier studies showed.

Now some comments on the computer climate models used by the people who support CAGW. Not one of them predicted the current temperature “hiatus”. They call it a “pause”, but that assumes global temperature will go up in the future. They all predicted a much higher global temperature average by now. I think there are a couple of major issues with modeling climate and temperature. I don’t think climate scientists know all of the factors that affect climate and global temperatures. One of their latest theories is that the heat has been hidden in the oceans. But recent studies show that the oceans are stable or cooling slightly. The other issue with the models is I don’t think they take “chaos” theory into consideration. The people building models assume that there are knowable & predictable outcomes from a specific set of inputs. But the current failure of the climate simulation models argues against that. Climate could be “chaotic” where it is not “knowable” with our current human knowledge base. And it is possible that it can never be predicted.

There is also quite a bit of “smoothing” (read “changing”) of historical data to fit their models. Climategate showed that certain people are not above fudging data or outright lying. Having done software design and programming on large data sets for many years, I am very skeptical that they are working with the data with any kind of integrity.

Here’s a web site for a more balanced picture than the “sky is falling” CAGW crowd:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot...ticism-of.html

Interview with Canadian scientist Tim Ball
http://thestagblog.com/qa-with-timot...imate-skeptic/
Careful there my friend, do you not know that it is taboo to talk about the climate before 1880. If you do it ends their BS crap about temperatures being the hottest ever and CO2 being the highest ever.
__________________
You will never achieve 100% if 99% is okay!
zico20 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 09:27 AM   #234
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap View Post
So now the PA amateurish climatologists pretend one of the greatest scientific minds of all times warning us about AGW dangers and evidence of approaching tipping points can't be taken seriously because they have no clue to his physics. Why not criticize his work on black holes or gravity?

Youse guys need to study theoretical physics. I have

https://ny.pbslearningmedia.org/reso.../#.WmBwYXlrwsU

What is time? Is time travel possible? Today, we know that time travel indeed exists beyond myths, science fiction, and Hollywood movies. According to Stephen Hawking, time travel is possible, and not just in the way we might think. Backward time travel is not supported by Hawking’s theories, because new matter (a new you) would need to be created – one existing in the past and one in the present, traveling back in time. This doesn’t hold up, because matter cannot be created. However, time travel to the future is possible if gravity warps the space-time continuum. Anytime you climb a mountain, fly in a jet from place to place, or even ride in an elevator, you alter the speed at which you get to the future because you are encountering a change in gravity’s pull. Time goes faster when there is less gravitational force at play.

Too bad Einstein is not around so the PA amateurs can ALSO irrationally mangle his work on velocity, gravity and time

Albert Einstein proposed that time is a relative concept and the higher you live above sea level the faster you should age. Einstein's theory of relativity states that time and space are not as constant as everyday life would suggest.

This OLD news.

When people refer to time travel they are not talking about the effects of fast travel or gravity on time. They are talking about the ability to bounce back and forth THROUGH time like "Back to the Future".

I want to go forward in time, get a sports book with the results of all the Kentucky Derbies between 2018 and 2040, then I want to come back.

I want to go back in time and warn my friend Jim that a drunk driver is going hit and kill him so he can avoid it.

That's "time travel".
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"

Last edited by classhandicapper; 01-21-2018 at 09:32 AM.
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 09:38 AM   #235
tucker6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
This OLD news.

When people refer to time travel they are not talking about the effects of fast travel or gravity on time. They are talking about the ability to bounce back and forth THROUGH time like "Back to the Future".

I want to go forward in time, get a sports book with the results of all the Kentucky Derbies between 2018 and 2040, then I want to come back.

I want to go back in time and warn my friend Jim that a drunk driver is going hit and kill him so he can avoid it.

That's "time travel".
The consequences of time travel are fun to think about. You provided an altruistic reason for going back in time, but failed to mention the downside. Maybe if Jim doesn't die, he ends up killing a young mom by accident who would eventually produce another Einstein if she had lived. By the same token, if you go into the future for the sports book, how do you know your presence in the future doesn't alter the timeline, thus making the sports book meaningless.


We'll never know the answer.
tucker6 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 09:43 AM   #236
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6 View Post
The consequences of time travel are fun to think about. You provided an altruistic reason for going back in time, but failed to mention the downside. Maybe if Jim doesn't die, he ends up killing a young mom by accident who would eventually produce another Einstein if she had lived. By the same token, if you go into the future for the sports book, how do you know your presence in the future doesn't alter the timeline, thus making the sports book meaningless.


We'll never know the answer.
I'll take my chances with that book.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 09:47 AM   #237
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
This OLD news.

When people refer to time travel they are not talking about the effects of fast travel or gravity on time. They are talking about the ability to bounce back and forth THROUGH time like "Back to the Future".

I want to go forward in time, get a sports book with the results of all the Kentucky Derbies between 2018 and 2040, then I want to come back.

I want to go back in time and warn my friend Jim that a drunk driver is going hit and kill him so he can avoid it.

That's "time travel".
Hawking was criticized as out there and irrationally deemed not qualified speak to climate change by the extremely amateurish uneducated PA critics not understanding WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID about time travel.
Who cares what you want about time travel. That is not the discussion nor is it "old news" or relevant to this absurd debate
hcap is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 10:04 AM   #238
tucker6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
I'll take my chances with that book.
Wait a second. You had an ethical dilemma with Ivey's card reading, but you don't with time travel to get rich?
tucker6 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 10:06 AM   #239
tucker6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap View Post
Hawking was criticized as out there and irrationally deemed not qualified speak to climate change by the extremely amateurish uneducated PA critics not understanding WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID about time travel.
Who cares what you want about time travel. That is not the discussion nor is it "old news" or relevant to this absurd debate
why are you always angry? It's a friendly back and forth on a Sunday morning. Relax a little. National policy will not be made or changed by what is said on this forum, even though it should be.
tucker6 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 01-21-2018, 10:08 AM   #240
hcap
Registered User
 
hcap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6 View Post
You know that statement isn't true. It makes everything else you type suspect when you make silly arguments like this.
No science is ever “settled”; but science deals in probabilities, not always certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”. Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades. By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged omn the conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

You know all consensus studies have shown this.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.



hcap is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.