What is YOUR view?

Post by David Brooks
The new MARTIN DURKIN DOCUMENTARY : CLIMATE: THE MOVIE
https://www.climatethemovie.net/
It's rather an uphill battle I fear.

The NCSE had to take up global warming denial because the ID perps had
become the most effective organization for keeping creationism out of
the public schools because they were running their bait and switch scam
on the rubes that had converted over to ID creationism, so the
creationist attempts were effectively stopped because the creationists
had never listened to the science side of the issue, but when the
creationists scam artists selling you the scam told the rubes not to do
it, they tended to listen. Science denial is science denial, but what
is the real issue with global warming?

We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Some
people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible because
methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere. We likely did
accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon dioxide,
but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already been
increasing for thousands of years.

We need to better define what the crisis is.

We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming period. For
the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice age cycles. The
earth has been cooling for the last 3 million years, but for the last
million we went to a cycle of around a hundred thousand years of cold
interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand years of warmer climate. The
temperatures of the cycles seem to have become more extreme in the last
500,000 years. The last warm period got warmer than it is now, and more
ice melted and sea levels were 20 meters higher than they are now. We
have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not yet as
bad as they got without human industrial interference.

There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed that
the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession into another
ice age. We might delay the next ice age. This really doesn't seem to
be that bad. We got a taste of what things would be like when
temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's and
didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is supposed
to be responsible for our current global warming. Since we are around
the end of the warm cycle it may be that things would have just kept
getting colder without human intervention. Europe would have been
rendered nearly uninhabitable. The Greenland colony died out during
this cold period. North America's northern latitudes would have likely
failed to be colonized by Europeans. The industrial revolution would
have likely shifted to countries closer to the equator. We would be
crying about very different circumstances if the world had continued to
get colder instead of warming back up by 1850.

So, we likely have to figure out what the crisis is. The earth has seen
warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to the
levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously happened
before. So the regions that will be flooded will just be a repeat of
what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago. If we delay the
next ice age arctic ecology will suffer more than last time if the warm
period is extended. What we observe today are the remnants of what has
survived thousands of years of reduced habitat. A lot of arctic species
had already gone extinct before the industrial revolution. Arctic
ecologies have their heydays during the glacial periods when currently
highly populated regions like New York were under a mile of ice. Things
started to get warmer before the glacial maximum 25,000 years ago. It
may be that the climate should be getting colder at this time, but is
that something that we want to happen? Do we want to go back to a time
when New York city was under a mile of ice and polar bears had sea ice
year round to hunt all the seals that were lying around? The Islands
worried about being flooded out would instead see their coral reefs dry
out and more of the coral atolls be exposed. They would have issues
with things like getting the reefs reestablished in what was deeper
water, and they would have to try to reduce erosion so that there would
be something above sea level during the next warm period.

So, the crisis has to be defined, and what we should do about it,
probably, has to be figured out.

Ron Okimoto

David Brooks

2024-03-31 19:12:41 UTC

Post by David Brooks
The new MARTIN DURKIN DOCUMENTARY : CLIMATE: THE MOVIE
https://www.climatethemovie.net/
It's rather an uphill battle I fear.

The NCSE had to take up global warming denial because the ID perps had
become the most effective organization for keeping creationism out of
the public schools because they were running their bait and switch scam
on the rubes that had converted over to ID creationism, so the
creationist attempts were effectively stopped because the creationists
had never listened to the science side of the issue, but when the
creationists scam artists selling you the scam told the rubes not to do
it, they tended to listen. Science denial is science denial, but what
is the real issue with global warming?
We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Some
people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible because
methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere. We likely did
accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon dioxide,
but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already been
increasing for thousands of years.
We need to better define what the crisis is.
We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming period. For
the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice age cycles. The
earth has been cooling for the last 3 million years, but for the last
million we went to a cycle of around a hundred thousand years of cold
interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand years of warmer climate. The
temperatures of the cycles seem to have become more extreme in the last
500,000 years. The last warm period got warmer than it is now, and more
ice melted and sea levels were 20 meters higher than they are now. We
have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not yet as
bad as they got without human industrial interference.
There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed that
the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession into another
ice age. We might delay the next ice age. This really doesn't seem to
be that bad. We got a taste of what things would be like when
temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's and
didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is supposed
to be responsible for our current global warming. Since we are around
the end of the warm cycle it may be that things would have just kept
getting colder without human intervention. Europe would have been
rendered nearly uninhabitable. The Greenland colony died out during
this cold period. North America's northern latitudes would have likely
failed to be colonized by Europeans. The industrial revolution would
have likely shifted to countries closer to the equator. We would be
crying about very different circumstances if the world had continued to
get colder instead of warming back up by 1850.
So, we likely have to figure out what the crisis is. The earth has seen
warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to the
levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously happened
before. So the regions that will be flooded will just be a repeat of
what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago. If we delay the
next ice age arctic ecology will suffer more than last time if the warm
period is extended. What we observe today are the remnants of what has
survived thousands of years of reduced habitat. A lot of arctic species
had already gone extinct before the industrial revolution. Arctic
ecologies have their heydays during the glacial periods when currently
highly populated regions like New York were under a mile of ice. Things
started to get warmer before the glacial maximum 25,000 years ago. It
may be that the climate should be getting colder at this time, but is
that something that we want to happen? Do we want to go back to a time
when New York city was under a mile of ice and polar bears had sea ice
year round to hunt all the seals that were lying around? The Islands
worried about being flooded out would instead see their coral reefs dry
out and more of the coral atolls be exposed. They would have issues
with things like getting the reefs reestablished in what was deeper
water, and they would have to try to reduce erosion so that there would
be something above sea level during the next warm period.
So, the crisis has to be defined, and what we should do about it,
probably, has to be figured out.
Ron Okimoto

Thank you so much for your comprehensive response, Ron. 🙂

Much appreciated.

Please clarify "NCSE" - I'm not certain to what organisation you refer.

--
David

JTEM

2024-03-31 20:39:03 UTC

Post by RonO
We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Some
people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible because
methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere. We likely did
accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon dioxide,
but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already been
increasing for thousands of years.

Not that you give a shit about science or anything else but, there is
not Gwobull Warling at all. You're comparing the Holocene to itself
and declaring that it doesn't match.

Don't deny it -- though you already have but -- you are comparing the
Holocene to itself and declaring that it doesn't match. This is as far
from science as you nutters can get. But, if you compare our present
interglacial, the Holocene, to the previous one then it's cold. Sea
level is maybe 16 feet too low.

So a reasonable comparison says it's too cold, an unreasonable,
unscientific comparison says it's hot, but even then only if we
ignore the natural variations within an interglacial. The
Medieval Warm Period, for example, was WARMER, as the name would
imply. As was the Roman Warm Period, again noting the name.

So, you're precious Gwobull Warbling cherry picks a low point, or
just ignores data entirely, only to invent a "High" which isn't
high at all, but actually pretty low.

"Ah, science!

Your second MASSIVELY stupid error was in ignoring the so called
"Solutions." If your precious Gwobull Warbling were real then all
the "Solutions" would map to the problem -- "too much CO2" -- and
thus lower it. But that's not what happened all all.

Your precious Gwobull Warbling scriptures have AGW kicking off
back in the 19th century when emissions hit 1 billion tons. Well,
absolutely ZERO percent of that CO2 has ever left the atmosphere,
according to your fake "Science" -- it lasts 300 to a thousand
years, according to NASA -- but in the mean time the growth in
human population alone accounts for easily in excess of twice that!

Just humans breathing -- and at this point there's something like
8 billion of us -- we produce easily more than TWICE the amount of
CO2 your scriptures claim got the whole AGW ball rolling in the
first place.

Do the math. Ask a grownup to show you how.

Google for the start date of your precious gwobull warbling.

Google how much CO2 humans exhale.

Google the size of the human population at that time.

Google the size of the human population at the present.

Subtract the population at the start of your precious AGW from
the present, then multiply by the amount of CO2 each human
produces.

There. If Gwobull Warbling is real (and it's not) then we
have slaughter most of humanity -- roughly 15 out of every
16 people must be executed. THEN we can have some form of
industrialization while keeping emissions at or below 1
billion tons.

REALITY: The same self imposed elite who order you to shit
yourself in fright over Gwobull Warbling won't even discuss
banning private aviation. Flying First Class on a commercial
airliner is "Going to far." that's "Too much of a sacrifice"
for them.

Do the math.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

RonO

2024-03-31 23:13:38 UTC

Post by RonO
We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Some
people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible
because methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere. We likely
did accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon
dioxide, but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already
been increasing for thousands of years.

Not that you give a shit about science or anything else but, there is
not Gwobull Warling at all. You're comparing the Holocene to itself
and declaring that it doesn't match.
Don't deny it -- though you already have but -- you are comparing the
Holocene to itself and declaring that it doesn't match. This is as far
from science as you nutters can get. But, if you compare our present
interglacial, the Holocene, to the previous one then it's cold. Sea
level is maybe 16 feet too low.
So a reasonable comparison says it's too cold, an unreasonable,
unscientific comparison says it's hot, but even then only if we
ignore the natural variations within an interglacial. The
Medieval Warm Period, for example, was WARMER, as the name would
imply. As was the Roman Warm Period, again noting the name.
So, you're precious Gwobull Warbling cherry picks a low point, or
just ignores data entirely, only to invent a "High" which isn't
high at all, but actually pretty low.
"Ah, science!
Your second MASSIVELY stupid error was in ignoring the so called
"Solutions." If your precious Gwobull Warbling were real then all
the "Solutions" would map to the problem -- "too much CO2" -- and
thus lower it. But that's not what happened all all.
Your precious Gwobull Warbling scriptures have AGW kicking off
back in the 19th century when emissions hit 1 billion tons. Well,
absolutely ZERO percent of that CO2 has ever left the atmosphere,
according to your fake "Science" -- it lasts 300 to a thousand
years, according to NASA -- but in the mean time the growth in
human population alone accounts for easily in excess of twice that!
Just humans breathing -- and at this point there's something like
8 billion of us -- we produce easily more than TWICE the amount of
CO2 your scriptures claim got the whole AGW ball rolling in the
first place.
Do the math. Ask a grownup to show you how.
Google for the start date of your precious gwobull warbling.
Google how much CO2 humans exhale.
Google the size of the human population at that time.
Google the size of the human population at the present.
Subtract the population at the start of your precious AGW from
the present, then multiply by the amount of CO2 each human
produces.
There. If Gwobull Warbling is real (and it's not) then we
have slaughter most of humanity -- roughly 15 out of every
16 people must be executed. THEN we can have some form of
industrialization while keeping emissions at or below 1
billion tons.
REALITY: The same self imposed elite who order you to shit
yourself in fright over Gwobull Warbling won't even discuss
banning private aviation. Flying First Class on a commercial
airliner is "Going to far." that's "Too much of a sacrifice"
for them.
Do the math.

Before you do that, you should try to relate your response to what I
actually wrote. No one can do that for your post because you removed
just about everything and left just some uncontroversial facts. If you
are responding to the video, you should make that clear, but you seem to
have snipped out that part of the post.

Ron Okimoto

JTEM

2024-04-01 00:08:38 UTC

Post by RonO
Before you do that, you should

Gwobull Warbling isn't science. It's religion. You are worse than
the Young Earth Creationists because they at least know that
they're operating on faith.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

Mark Isaak

2024-04-01 14:53:16 UTC

Post by RonO
Before you do that, you should

Gwobull Warbling isn't science. It's religion. You are worse than
the Young Earth Creationists because they at least know that
they're operating on faith.

The issue is worse than religion; it is fundamentalist economics. It
particularly demonstrates the market failures of externalities and power.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

Bob Casanova

2024-04-01 05:31:08 UTC

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 18:13:38 -0500, the following appeared

Post by RonO
We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Some
people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible
because methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere. We likely
did accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon
dioxide, but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already
been increasing for thousands of years.

Not that you give a shit about science or anything else but, there is
not Gwobull Warling at all. You're comparing the Holocene to itself
and declaring that it doesn't match.
Don't deny it -- though you already have but -- you are comparing the
Holocene to itself and declaring that it doesn't match. This is as far
from science as you nutters can get. But, if you compare our present
interglacial, the Holocene, to the previous one then it's cold. Sea
level is maybe 16 feet too low.
So a reasonable comparison says it's too cold, an unreasonable,
unscientific comparison says it's hot, but even then only if we
ignore the natural variations within an interglacial. The
Medieval Warm Period, for example, was WARMER, as the name would
imply. As was the Roman Warm Period, again noting the name.
So, you're precious Gwobull Warbling cherry picks a low point, or
just ignores data entirely, only to invent a "High" which isn't
high at all, but actually pretty low.
"Ah, science!
Your second MASSIVELY stupid error was in ignoring the so called
"Solutions." If your precious Gwobull Warbling were real then all
the "Solutions" would map to the problem -- "too much CO2" -- and
thus lower it. But that's not what happened all all.
Your precious Gwobull Warbling scriptures have AGW kicking off
back in the 19th century when emissions hit 1 billion tons. Well,
absolutely ZERO percent of that CO2 has ever left the atmosphere,
according to your fake "Science" -- it lasts 300 to a thousand
years, according to NASA -- but in the mean time the growth in
human population alone accounts for easily in excess of twice that!
Just humans breathing -- and at this point there's something like
8 billion of us -- we produce easily more than TWICE the amount of
CO2 your scriptures claim got the whole AGW ball rolling in the
first place.
Do the math. Ask a grownup to show you how.
Google for the start date of your precious gwobull warbling.
Google how much CO2 humans exhale.
Google the size of the human population at that time.
Google the size of the human population at the present.
Subtract the population at the start of your precious AGW from
the present, then multiply by the amount of CO2 each human
produces.
There. If Gwobull Warbling is real (and it's not) then we
have slaughter most of humanity -- roughly 15 out of every
16 people must be executed. THEN we can have some form of
industrialization while keeping emissions at or below 1
billion tons.
REALITY: The same self imposed elite who order you to shit
yourself in fright over Gwobull Warbling won't even discuss
banning private aviation. Flying First Class on a commercial
airliner is "Going to far." that's "Too much of a sacrifice"
for them.
Do the math.

Exactly as has been his standard MO for years, and the
reason why any response to him is a waste of time.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

JTEM

2024-04-01 15:11:35 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
Exactly as has been his

Courageously replying to yourself, again. Well. Less chance
of having your fantasy of relevance shattered...

You're a narcissist. A classic narcissist, utterly convinced
of it's own worthlessness. That's why you need to do this.

I'm laughing at you.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

JTEM

2024-04-17 20:20:44 UTC

Post by RonO
Before you do that, you should try to relate your response to what I
actually wrote. No one

Ah! The collective doubles-down on it's stupidity, yet
again!

FOR ONCE, just stand by your own goddamn position. You don't
always have to be such a pussy.

The earth hasn't been warming for thousands of years. And even
THAT kind of time frame is laughable! The Holocene, our
present ice age, if some 2.6 million years old!

Honey cakes, "The Little Ice Age" ended and the planet started
to regain what it had lost. We never made it. We still haven't
reached the highs seen before "The Little Ice Age."

If you lend me $100 and I pay you back $80, you're $20 poorer,
NOT $80 richer! Same with temperatures. We lost warmth during
"The Little Ice Age" and we never climbed back up to what we
lost. It's cold.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

John Harshman

2024-04-18 01:43:43 UTC

Post by RonO
Before you do that, you should try to relate your response to what I
actually wrote. No one

Ah! The collective doubles-down on it's stupidity, yet
again!

There is no collective. Ron's stupidity is his own. Jillery's stupidity
is her own. My stupidity is my own.

And of course your stupidity is unique.

JTEM

2024-04-18 02:15:00 UTC

Post by John Harshman
There is no collective.

...insisted the collective.

What triggered you this time? Because other than denying
your existence here -- "The collective doesn't exist!"
-- you couldn't identify anything you disagreed with.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

John Harshman

2024-04-18 02:47:03 UTC

Post by John Harshman
There is no collective.

...insisted the collective.
What triggered you this time? Because other than denying
your existence here -- "The collective doesn't exist!"
-- you couldn't identify anything you disagreed with.

I have no interest in dealing with your crap, most of the time. I'm now
experimenting to see if I can convince you of one tiny and obvious bit
of reality. Solipsism is a bad look for you.

JTEM

2024-04-18 03:30:05 UTC

Post by John Harshman
I have no interest

And yet you replied. You read and reacted, allegedly
to what I typed, yet you have no interest and you're
a totally different personality disorder from your
present symptoms of your extensive mental health issues.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

John Harshman

2024-04-18 15:47:27 UTC

Post by John Harshman
I have no interest

And yet you replied.

Now that was quote-mining.

JTEM

2024-04-18 18:17:48 UTC

Now

Remember: You're pretending to be an independent entity.
But you already admitted an absence of interest! And
you've already reacted more than once! And not to
anything I've said. Supposedly. You're offended on
behalf of a totally different person who shares your
disorders, even though you lack interest and never
read anything in the thread...

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

John Harshman

2024-04-19 02:56:39 UTC

Now

Remember

I do. Do you still believe that almost everyone here is my sock puppet?
Can you support that claim? I'm guessing yes and no, respectively.

JTEM

2024-04-19 04:16:59 UTC

Post by John Harshman
I do. Do

Your third reply, NONE OF THEM on topic, and you're
pretending that you're not an upset sock puppet
lashing out at the person who made you look like a
fool, again.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

John Harshman

2024-04-19 13:23:41 UTC

Post by John Harshman
I do. Do

Your third reply, NONE OF THEM on topic,

Welcome to talk.origins. Note that none of your replies to me have been
relevant to anything I said. I had hoped to find out something about
you, but I see that won't happen. My other sock puppets will have to
carry on from here.

JTEM

2024-04-19 17:40:48 UTC

Post by John Harshman
Welcome to

So your fourth reply, not a single on-topic word in
any of them, it's not my position that caused your
meltdown. No. It's the fact that I shamed your other
sock puppet. But you can't admit that you are a
rotating sock puppet, so you have to pretend that
you never even read anything, and you're this
emotional for totally unrelated mental health issues.

Wow that's... that's... well, that's "Science." That's
what that is. "Science."

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

John Harshman

2024-04-19 21:51:35 UTC

Post by John Harshman
Welcome to

Bye.

JTEM

2024-04-20 02:38:51 UTC

Bye.

Now FIVE replies with this one sock puppet alone, not a
single word on topic -- now even a one -- you're just
lashing out because I shamed one of your other sock
puppets.

...or would you prefer that we refer to them as
your "Alters?"

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

Bob Casanova

2024-04-20 05:47:34 UTC

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23:41 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman
I do. Do

Your third reply, NONE OF THEM on topic,

Why would you *want* to know anything about him/her/it? "Oh,
look; it's a puddle of vomit. Let's see what I can find out
about it!" No. Just no.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

JTEM

2024-04-20 07:19:42 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
Why would

Oh, look! The collective is really scraping the bottom
of the barrel!

At least with this alter there's never any pretenses. The
narcissistic personality disorder is always on full
display.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

jillery

2024-04-20 10:24:41 UTC

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23:41 -0700, John Harshman

Post by John Harshman
I do. Do

Your third reply, NONE OF THEM on topic,

How discretionary.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

JTEM

2024-04-21 18:38:23 UTC

Post by jillery
How discretionary.

Is this really better than just taking your meds?

There's still no Gwobull Warbling and you remain
entirely ignorant of the view you think you're
supporting.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

Kerr-Mudd, John

2024-04-21 19:45:17 UTC

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by jillery
How discretionary.

[JTEM oversnipping not mine]

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

[]

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

JTEM

2024-04-21 20:19:14 UTC

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
[JTEM oversnipping not mine]

I quoted that particular symptom in entirety!

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

My apologies. I meant to explicitly state it.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

jillery

2024-04-22 07:11:51 UTC

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Kerr-Mudd, John

2024-04-22 08:59:22 UTC

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2024-04-22 09:42:45 UTC

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

Yes. I was amazed at Jillery's misunderstanding. Maybe it was a joke of
some kind.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

J. J. Lodder

2024-04-22 21:25:55 UTC

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

Yes. I was amazed at Jillery's misunderstanding. Maybe it was a joke of
some kind.

Just an attempt to find a reason to pick yet another quarrel,
I guess,

Jan

jillery

2024-04-23 06:07:58 UTC

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 23:25:55 +0200, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) trolled:

<snip for focus>

Post by J. J. Lodder
Just an attempt to find a reason to pick yet another quarrel,
I guess,
Jan

That's what you do.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Kerr-Mudd, John

2024-04-23 14:41:14 UTC

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 02:07:58 -0400

Post by jillery
<snip for focus>

No, it doesn't; you've ommited my objection to your claim that I was a
"JTEM fan"

Post by J. J. Lodder
Just an attempt to find a reason to pick yet another quarrel,
I guess,
Jan

That's what you do.

A "So what am I?" playground retort? feh.
Very poor debating technique.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

jillery

2024-04-24 06:01:24 UTC

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:41:14 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 02:07:58 -0400

Post by jillery
<snip for focus>

No, it doesn't;

Yes it does.

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
you've ommited my objection to your claim that I was a
"JTEM fan"

So what? My reply above isn't to you but to Lodder. And your
objection doesn't inform Lodder's willfully stupid troll below.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Just an attempt to find a reason to pick yet another quarrel,
I guess,
Jan

That's what you do.

A "So what am I?" playground retort? feh.

Feh back atcha.

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Very poor debating technique.

Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
following as well:

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

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
both in printed papers and in ASCII,
Jan

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

Apparently trolls are compelled to stick together.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2024-04-24 07:17:19 UTC

On 2024-04-24 06:01:24 +0000, jillery said:

[ … ]

Post by jillery
Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
*****************************

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
both in printed papers and in ASCII,
Jan

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

What on earth is wrong with that?`

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

Kerr-Mudd, John

2024-04-24 09:07:19 UTC

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200

Post by jillery
Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
*****************************

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
both in printed papers and in ASCII,
Jan

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

What on earth is wrong with that?`

I dunno; seems to some half-arsed attempt at stirring up some other spat.

jillery makes some good points against Ron Dean (not difficult) but gets
the wrong end of the stick too often, IMO. A lot of suppressed anger
there, I feel.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

jillery

2024-04-24 12:48:35 UTC

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 10:07:19 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200

Post by jillery
Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
*****************************

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
both in printed papers and in ASCII,
Jan

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

What on earth is wrong with that?`

I dunno; seems to some half-arsed attempt at stirring up some other spat.
jillery makes some good points against Ron Dean (not difficult) but gets
the wrong end of the stick too often, IMO. A lot of suppressed anger
there, I feel.

It's remarkable how much you value your feelings.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Mark Isaak

2024-04-24 15:28:10 UTC

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200

Post by jillery
Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
*****************************

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
both in printed papers and in ASCII,
Jan

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

What on earth is wrong with that?`

I dunno; seems to some half-arsed attempt at stirring up some other spat.
jillery makes some good points against Ron Dean (not difficult) but gets
the wrong end of the stick too often, IMO. A lot of suppressed anger
there, I feel.

"Suppressed"?

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

jillery

2024-04-30 04:54:16 UTC

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:28:10 -0700, Mark Isaak
<snip for focus>

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
jillery makes some good points against Ron Dean (not difficult) but gets
the wrong end of the stick too often, IMO.

Faint praise using left-handed compliments and baseless allusions. No
surprise here.

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
A lot of suppressed anger

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
there, I feel.

"Suppressed"?

Right, because what jillery posts is so much angrier than the mindless
and irrelevant made-up crap posted about jillery by you and your
bedfellows.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Bob Casanova

2024-04-24 17:07:06 UTC

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ]

Post by jillery
Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
*****************************

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
both in printed papers and in ASCII,
Jan

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

What on earth is wrong with that?`

Nothing, aside from the minor "bluffing your way" snark
(which is typical of Jan, and easily ignored); it's correct.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

J. J. Lodder

2024-04-25 11:02:40 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ∑ ]

Post by jillery
Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
*****************************

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
both in printed papers and in ASCII,
Jan

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

What on earth is wrong with that?`

Nothing, aside from the minor "bluffing your way" snark
(which is typical of Jan, and easily ignored); it's correct.

Well, Jillary is 'buffing her way into physics'
with a certain regularity.
She seems to acquire a new area of competence
with every youtube movie she has seen.

What outsiders don't realise is that sciences like physics or biology
are also languages that you have to learn to use correctly.

Athel for example will also be distrustful of someone claiming knowledge
of biochemistry when he consistently fails to capitalise
the letters in the vatamins C, D12, etc.

Biologists will distrust the biological knowledge
of people who fail to capitalise Linean species names correctly.
And so on.
Those in the know do it in certain well established ways,
those who do it differently are not in the know, probably.

Jan

--
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do"
(if you want to have a chance of being mistaken for one)

Bob Casanova

2024-04-25 15:08:18 UTC

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:02:40 +0200, the following appeared

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ? ]

Post by jillery
Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
*****************************

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
both in printed papers and in ASCII,
Jan

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

What on earth is wrong with that?`

Nothing, aside from the minor "bluffing your way" snark
(which is typical of Jan, and easily ignored); it's correct.

Well, Jillary is 'buffing her way into physics'
with a certain regularity.
She seems to acquire a new area of competence
with every youtube movie she has seen.

OK. I hadn't really noticed any egregious
Dunning-Kruger-like posts from her, but I wasn't looking
closely.

Post by J. J. Lodder
What outsiders don't realise is that sciences like physics or biology
are also languages that you have to learn to use correctly.

True. In fact, as has been commented regarding England and
the US as "separated by a common language", words sometimes
have a vastly different meaning in the vernacular from their
meaning in science; "theory " is a perfect example.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Athel for example will also be distrustful of someone claiming knowledge
of biochemistry when he consistently fails to capitalise
the letters in the vatamins C, D12, etc.
Biologists will distrust the biological knowledge
of people who fail to capitalise Linean species names correctly.
And so on.
Those in the know do it in certain well established ways,
those who do it differently are not in the know, probably.

I can't refute any of that; in fact I fully agree. And it
doesn't apply only to science; every specialized field has
its "specialty" terms, which may sound like common usage,
but have a specific, and frequently different, meaning.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2024-04-25 15:54:27 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ∑ ]

Post by jillery
Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
*****************************

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
both in printed papers and in ASCII,
Jan

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

What on earth is wrong with that?`

Nothing, aside from the minor "bluffing your way" snark
(which is typical of Jan, and easily ignored); it's correct.

Well, Jillary is 'buffing her way into physics'
with a certain regularity.
She seems to acquire a new area of competence
with every youtube movie she has seen.
What outsiders don't realise is that sciences like physics or biology
are also languages that you have to learn to use correctly.
Athel for example will also be distrustful of someone claiming knowledge
of biochemistry when he consistently fails to capitalise
the letters in the vatamins C, D12, etc.
Biologists will distrust the biological knowledge
of people who fail to capitalise Linean species names correctly.

In principle yes, but even biologists sometimes write things like
Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. However, in the days when serious journals
had serious sub-editors they didn't make it into print.

Post by J. J. Lodder
And so on.
Those in the know do it in certain well established ways,
those who do it differently are not in the know, probably.
Jan

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

jillery

2024-04-30 04:57:28 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ? ]

Post by jillery
Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
*****************************

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
both in printed papers and in ASCII,
Jan

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

What on earth is wrong with that?`

Nothing, aside from the minor "bluffing your way" snark
(which is typical of Jan, and easily ignored); it's correct.

Well, Jillary is 'buffing her way into physics'
with a certain regularity.
She seems to acquire a new area of competence
with every youtube movie she has seen.

Explain how posting a link to a Youtube video justifies "acquire a new
area of competence". You're just making up mindless crap because
you're too lazy/stupid to post anything intelligent about the video.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery

2024-04-30 04:53:11 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by jillery
Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
*****************************

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
both in printed papers and in ASCII,
Jan

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

What on earth is wrong with that?`

The better question is: What's right with that?

Post by Bob Casanova
Nothing, aside from the minor "bluffing your way" snark
(which is typical of Jan, and easily ignored); it's correct.

Lodder's comments are at most technically correct only. That makes
them no better than a spelling flame, to show how much he knows about
the names of birds.

More important, Lodder completely ignored the cited video, and instead
chose to troll yet another mindless and irrelevant personal attack
against me. Not sure why you and your bedfellows act as if it's OK
to be willfully blind to willful stupidity.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

JTEM

2024-04-24 19:26:04 UTC

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
No, it doesn't; you've ommited my objection to your claim that I was a
"JTEM fan"

Search for "JTEM" in this group. Note the thousands upon Thousands
upon THOUSANDS of words the collective has gushed on your obsession
with JTEM.

OF! COURSE! You're a JTEM fan!

Nothing wrong with that. I'm so charming, after all.

You SHOULD BE a JTEM fan!

I make you all giddy, no doubt. From the exciting of my being
here.

And, again, that's okay.

Perfectly normal.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

Arkalen

2024-04-23 09:56:57 UTC

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

Yes. I was amazed at Jillery's misunderstanding. Maybe it was a joke of
some kind.

Or maybe she just does that sometimes. (or wait... was *that* a joke? I
don't even know what level to approach this at)

jillery

2024-04-24 06:02:03 UTC

Post by Arkalen
Or maybe she just does that sometimes. (or wait... was *that* a joke? I
don't even know what level to approach this at)

Why waste your time injecting yourself into something you admit you
know nothing about and have no interest in knowing anything about it?
Virtue signaling again?

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Arkalen

2024-04-24 08:08:36 UTC

Post by Arkalen
Or maybe she just does that sometimes. (or wait... was *that* a joke? I
don't even know what level to approach this at)

Why waste your time injecting yourself into something you admit you
know nothing about and have no interest in knowing anything about it?
Virtue signaling again?

Because you are one of my distinct memories of interacting on here, and
it was with fondness more than annoyance that I saw you still seem to be
the rare combination of reasonable person/super-aggressive crank that I
remembered. And when Athel Cornish-Bowden made a response that *didn't*
seem to recognize this I was confused and couldn't resist bringing it up
on the off chance he really wasn't aware of the pattern.

I knew it would upset you, and all I can say about that it wasn't my
intent and I wish it didn't. But there's a limit to how hard I'll try
and avoid doing so when I know how hair-trigger your reactions can be.

jillery

2024-04-24 12:48:59 UTC

Post by Arkalen
Or maybe she just does that sometimes. (or wait... was *that* a joke? I
don't even know what level to approach this at)

Why waste your time injecting yourself into something you admit you
know nothing about and have no interest in knowing anything about it?
Virtue signaling again?

Because you are one of my distinct memories of interacting on here, and
it was with fondness more than annoyance that I saw you still seem to be
the rare combination of reasonable person/super-aggressive crank that I
remembered. And when Athel Cornish-Bowden made a response that *didn't*
seem to recognize this I was confused and couldn't resist bringing it up
on the off chance he really wasn't aware of the pattern.
I knew it would upset you, and all I can say about that it wasn't my
intent and I wish it didn't. But there's a limit to how hard I'll try
and avoid doing so when I know how hair-trigger your reactions can be.

I hope you didn't hurt your arm too much while patting yourself on the
back.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery

2024-04-30 04:59:31 UTC

Post by Arkalen
Or maybe she just does that sometimes. (or wait... was *that* a joke? I
don't even know what level to approach this at)

Why waste your time injecting yourself into something you admit you
know nothing about and have no interest in knowing anything about it?
Virtue signaling again?

Because you are one of my distinct memories of interacting on here, and
it was with fondness more than annoyance that I saw you still seem to be
the rare combination of reasonable person/super-aggressive crank that I
remembered. And when Athel Cornish-Bowden made a response that *didn't*
seem to recognize this I was confused and couldn't resist bringing it up
on the off chance he really wasn't aware of the pattern.
I knew it would upset you, and all I can say about that it wasn't my
intent and I wish it didn't. But there's a limit to how hard I'll try
and avoid doing so when I know how hair-trigger your reactions can be.

Yeah, I'm regularly the butt of baseless personal attacks. That's the
go-to technique by trolls to hijack discussions and evade substantive
issues. Not sure why that doesn't upset you also.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery

2024-04-24 12:57:43 UTC

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Arkalen

2024-04-24 13:37:52 UTC

Post by jillery
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Athel Cornish-Bowden said that JTEM implying that others (than JTEM)
need meds made Athel Cornish-Bowden laugh, i.e. that JTEM needs meds in
a way that is so obvious that the suggestion the opposite might be true
is humorous. "Needing meds" in this context is clearly presented as a
derogatory accusation of irrationality, both in JTEM's usage and Athel
Cornish-Bowden's, making it extremely unlikely that ACB be a JTEM fan.
So your apparent claim that he is a JTEM fan suggests a misunderstanding
involving any aspect of the above.

*Hemidactylus*

2024-04-24 13:45:41 UTC

Post by jillery
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

With Nyikos no longer around to engage, jillery may become something akin
to an immune system that starts engaging in more friendly fire than before.

Martin Harran

2024-04-25 08:46:24 UTC

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 13:45:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*

Post by *Hemidactylus*

Post by jillery
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

With Nyikos no longer around to engage, jillery may become something akin
to an immune system that starts engaging in more friendly fire than before.

Not just Nyikos but Glenn too has left the stage so something of a
double whammy.

JTEM seems to have become a substitute for Glenn and Ron Dean to some
extent for Nyikos but I don't think either of them really measure up
to the original.

Arkalen

2024-04-24 14:02:12 UTC

Post by jillery
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Yikes I completely substituted Athel Cornish-Bowden for John Kerr-Mudd
in there, as if that explanation wasn't confusing enough already. I
apologize; Athel Cornish-Bowden has nothing to do with that part of the
conversation.

Kerr-Mudd, John

2024-04-24 19:11:08 UTC

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200

Post by jillery
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Good job I Read Ahead; I was going to have to correct you there.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

jillery

2024-04-30 04:56:56 UTC

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200

Post by jillery
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

<Kerr-Mudd's explanation missing here>

Post by jillery
Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.

Alternate explanation: Kerr-Mudd explicilty "commends" JTEM on his
implication that jillery needs meds (read it again).

The multitude of mindless personal attacks by multiple posters who act
as if it's clever to exercise their inner trolls, inspired by nothing
more than what you call "a misunderstanding", further supports my
original understanding.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Kerr-Mudd, John

2024-04-30 09:29:19 UTC

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:56:56 -0400

Post by jillery
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200

Post by jillery
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

<Kerr-Mudd's explanation missing here>

Post by jillery
Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.

Alternate explanation: Kerr-Mudd explicilty "commends" JTEM on his
implication that jillery needs meds (read it again).

It wasn't what I meant; it was intended as an ironic look at JTEM's
craziness, but you decided (or mis-read) it as an insult to yourself, and
are still going on about it. Would an apology help?
Ok, I apologise.
Can we leave it there?

Post by jillery
The multitude of mindless personal attacks by multiple posters who act
as if it's clever to exercise their inner trolls, inspired by nothing
more than what you call "a misunderstanding", further supports my
original understanding.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2024-04-30 09:57:13 UTC

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:56:56 -0400

Post by jillery
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200

Post by jillery
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

<Kerr-Mudd's explanation missing here>

Post by jillery
Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.

Alternate explanation: Kerr-Mudd explicilty "commends" JTEM on his
implication that jillery needs meds (read it again).

For two or three years the talk.origins server refused to accept my
posts (I never did discover why; there were no error messages). Before
that I had jillery in my killfile but when I reappeared I couldn't
remember why she was there, so I took her out. However, she seems to be
determined to go back, and I shall respect her wishes.

In relation to your reply to JTEM, I think everyone except Jillery
understood what it meant.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Martin Harran

2024-04-30 10:13:17 UTC

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:57:13 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

[ ...]
?

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
For two or three years the talk.origins server refused to accept my
posts (I never did discover why; there were no error messages).

Were you by any chance using news.individual.net? It was my only
service for a long time, no need to consider anything else as it was
totally reliable across the various newsgroups I frequented at that
time. Then it suddenly stopped posting to talk.origins with no errors
shown, just posts not appearing.. A few others reported the same
problem but nobody was ever to figure out why it was happening, the
suspicion was that it was something to do with NIN taking a dislike
the TO moderation software. I ended up adding eternal.september
specifically for TO.

[...]

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2024-04-30 13:40:30 UTC

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:57:13 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ...]
?

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
For two or three years the talk.origins server refused to accept my
posts (I never did discover why; there were no error messages).

Were you by any chance using news.individual.net?

Yes

Post by Martin Harran
It was my only
service for a long time, no need to consider anything else as it was
totally reliable across the various newsgroups I frequented at that
time. Then it suddenly stopped posting to talk.origins with no errors
shown, just posts not appearing..

That was exactly my experience.

Post by Martin Harran
A few others reported the same
problem but nobody was ever to figure out why it was happening, the
suspicion was that it was something to do with NIN taking a dislike
the TO moderation software. I ended up adding eternal.september
specifically for TO.
[...]

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Bob Casanova

2024-04-30 17:05:51 UTC

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:13:17 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:57:13 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ...]
?

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
For two or three years the talk.origins server refused to accept my
posts (I never did discover why; there were no error messages).

IIRC (it's been a while) that was a fairly common problem
with various news servers back in the '90s; the
robo-moderation caused "issues" and t.o had to be manually
allowed by the servers as a "special case". Again IIRC, that
was an issue with my then-news server, comcast.net. I
*think* it's no longer an issue with most.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

jillery

2024-05-01 11:16:52 UTC

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 10:29:19 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:56:56 -0400

Post by jillery
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200

Post by jillery
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people
laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

<Kerr-Mudd's explanation missing here>

Post by jillery
Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.

Alternate explanation: Kerr-Mudd explicilty "commends" JTEM on his
implication that jillery needs meds (read it again).

It wasn't what I meant;

Nevertheless, it is what you wrote. You and your bedfellows rely on
mindreading more than I do. Bad jillery, bad, bad, bad, so very bad.

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
it was intended as an ironic look at JTEM's
craziness, but you decided (or mis-read) it as an insult to yourself, and
are still going on about it. Would an apology help?
Ok, I apologise.
Can we leave it there?

If only you would. Not only do you and your bedfellows continue to
blame me for this "misunderstanding", some escalate this otherwise
trivial issue to excuse their willful stupidity.

Post by jillery
The multitude of mindless personal attacks by multiple posters who act
as if it's clever to exercise their inner trolls, [triggered] by nothing
more than what you call "a misunderstanding", further supports my
original understanding.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Arkalen

2024-04-30 10:02:16 UTC

Post by jillery
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200

Post by jillery
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

<Kerr-Mudd's explanation missing here>

Post by jillery
Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.

Alternate explanation: Kerr-Mudd explicilty "commends" JTEM on his
implication that jillery needs meds (read it again).

That alternate explanation is, I guess, just about plausible enough to
justify a misunderstanding by a defensive reader but it *would* be a
misunderstanding as it fails on Grice's maxim of quantity. If Kerr-Mudd
had wished to commend JTEM for the implication jillery needs meds he
would have said "jillery". "It's others" includes jillery but also a
much larger group, and is the term that would be used when that larger
group is being referenced. The "*it's* others" as opposed to just
"others" highlights that "others need meds" is being opposed to the
counterfactual "not-others[=JTEM] needs meds". The maxim of relevance
suggests that this counterfactual is indeed what the sentence is hinting at.

That, or you misunderstood and everyone else understood correctly which
is why they are uniformly disagreeing with you. I guess it would hurt
your soul to go back through past posts just *trying* the alternate
interpretive lens to see if it tracks.

I mean, that's the thing of it you know. If everyone were against you -
and on this point, they are! Why would they deny accusing you of needing
meds? Who on this board is too precious to make and stand by such an
accusation if they mean it? Does anyone talk to JTEM like "no JTEM John
Harshman wasn't calling you paranoid or a Russian agent, he was ~on your
side~ actually and you misunderstood"?

jillery

2024-05-01 11:16:35 UTC

Post by jillery
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200

Post by jillery
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

<Kerr-Mudd's explanation missing here>

Post by jillery
Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.

Alternate explanation: Kerr-Mudd explicilty "commends" JTEM on his
implication that jillery needs meds (read it again).

There's more than one way to interpret Grice's maxim of relevance
here; "it's others" is but a continuation of Kerr-Mudd's paraphrase of
JTEM's implication, and so references JTEM's original claim about me
only, and makes no reference to any imagined "larger group".

You and your bedfellows love to invoke baseless "guesses". Once
again, I suggest you test the sensitivity of your own soul, and
actually read the claims you and your bedfellows explicitly make about
my personal limitations in this very thread.

Post by Arkalen
I mean, that's the thing of it you know. If everyone were against you -
and on this point, they are! Why would they deny accusing you of needing
meds? Who on this board is too precious to make and stand by such an
accusation if they mean it? Does anyone talk to JTEM like "no JTEM John
Harshman wasn't calling you paranoid or a Russian agent, he was ~on your
side~ actually and you misunderstood"?

Yes, that must be why Athel aped Harran, because he really, really
likes me.

I gave your first reply some grace because you had only recently
returned to T.O., and so might reasonably be ignorant of the tradition
of stupid manufactured arguments posted by those who have a need to
exercise their inner trolls. That your second reply continues to
ignore the personal attacks directed at me in this very thread
suggests such grace is unjustified.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Bob Casanova

2024-04-24 17:12:25 UTC

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:37:52 +0200, the following appeared

Post by jillery
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.

You misunderstand.

Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.

Asked and answered (ignoring the misidentification of one of
the players); that's exactly how I read it. Let's see if
there's an acknowledgement...

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

JTEM

2024-04-24 19:08:41 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
Asked and answered

So dog poo does *Not* taste like candy, you're saying.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

JTEM

2024-04-24 19:16:14 UTC

Post by Arkalen
Athel Cornish-Bowden said that JTEM implying that others

You're such a loser at this point that you can't even dare
say things to the Great & All Powerful JTEM anymore, you
have to say them to your other sock puppets.

HINT: What is it JTEM said, specifically, that you're
pretending to disagree with?

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

Bob Casanova

2024-04-22 20:12:04 UTC

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400, the following appeared

Post by jillery
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400

Post by JTEM
Is this really better than just taking your meds?

I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.

So yet another JTEM fan.

??? Explain, please.

Post by jillery
No surprise here.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Kerr-Mudd, John

2024-04-19 11:59:14 UTC

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 19:56:39 -0700

Now

Remember

I do. Do you still believe that almost everyone here is my sock puppet?
Can you support that claim? I'm guessing yes and no, respectively.

JTEM is unable to produce any logically consistent argument for
anything.

Yours, another sock.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

JTEM

2024-04-19 17:38:09 UTC

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
JTEM is unable to produce any logically consistent argument for
anything.

Two examples, please.

Remember: You're pretending to be normal here. You're not a
narcissistic personality disorder convinced of it's own
inferiority. So you're not convinced that any attempt to
support your claims will utterly fail, exposing you as a
mentally ill jackass. So, go ahead. Two examples.

Pussy.

You can't bring yourself to try, because you know what you
really are and so don't I. Pussy.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

Bob Casanova

2024-04-18 15:55:39 UTC

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 18:43:43 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman

Post by RonO
Before you do that, you should try to relate your response to what I
actually wrote. No one

Ah! The collective doubles-down on it's stupidity, yet
again!

There is no collective. Ron's stupidity is his own. Jillery's stupidity
is her own. My stupidity is my own.
And of course your stupidity is unique.

Only in its persistence over a span of years. Otherwise it's
just garden-variety stupidity.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

JTEM

2024-04-18 18:15:32 UTC

Post by Bob Casanova
Only in

Oh, look! Look! It's the anal wart on the dark end
of the collective!

How's that transparent narcissistic personality
disorder of yours doing? Still not being treated,
I see...

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

JTEM

2024-04-18 02:13:48 UTC

Post by JTEM
The earth hasn't been warming for thousands of years. And even
THAT kind of time frame is laughable! The Holocene, our
present ice age, if some 2.6 million years old!

Quaternary Period. Sorry.

The Holocene is the present "Interglacial," the present warm
period...though not very warm.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

jillery

2024-04-01 13:01:00 UTC

Post by David Brooks
The new MARTIN DURKIN DOCUMENTARY : CLIMATE: THE MOVIE
https://www.climatethemovie.net/
It's rather an uphill battle I fear.

The NCSE had to take up global warming denial because the ID perps had
become the most effective organization for keeping creationism out of
the public schools because they were running their bait and switch scam
on the rubes that had converted over to ID creationism, so the
creationist attempts were effectively stopped because the creationists
had never listened to the science side of the issue, but when the
creationists scam artists selling you the scam told the rubes not to do
it, they tended to listen. Science denial is science denial, but what
is the real issue with global warming?
We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Some
people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible because
methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere. We likely did
accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon dioxide,
but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already been
increasing for thousands of years.
We need to better define what the crisis is.
We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming period. For
the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice age cycles. The
earth has been cooling for the last 3 million years, but for the last
million we went to a cycle of around a hundred thousand years of cold
interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand years of warmer climate. The
temperatures of the cycles seem to have become more extreme in the last
500,000 years. The last warm period got warmer than it is now, and more
ice melted and sea levels were 20 meters higher than they are now. We
have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not yet as
bad as they got without human industrial interference.
There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed that
the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession into another
ice age. We might delay the next ice age. This really doesn't seem to
be that bad. We got a taste of what things would be like when
temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's and
didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is supposed
to be responsible for our current global warming. Since we are around
the end of the warm cycle it may be that things would have just kept
getting colder without human intervention. Europe would have been
rendered nearly uninhabitable. The Greenland colony died out during
this cold period. North America's northern latitudes would have likely
failed to be colonized by Europeans. The industrial revolution would
have likely shifted to countries closer to the equator. We would be
crying about very different circumstances if the world had continued to
get colder instead of warming back up by 1850.
So, we likely have to figure out what the crisis is. The earth has seen
warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to the
levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously happened
before. So the regions that will be flooded will just be a repeat of
what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago. If we delay the
next ice age arctic ecology will suffer more than last time if the warm
period is extended. What we observe today are the remnants of what has
survived thousands of years of reduced habitat. A lot of arctic species
had already gone extinct before the industrial revolution. Arctic
ecologies have their heydays during the glacial periods when currently
highly populated regions like New York were under a mile of ice. Things
started to get warmer before the glacial maximum 25,000 years ago. It
may be that the climate should be getting colder at this time, but is
that something that we want to happen? Do we want to go back to a time
when New York city was under a mile of ice and polar bears had sea ice
year round to hunt all the seals that were lying around? The Islands
worried about being flooded out would instead see their coral reefs dry
out and more of the coral atolls be exposed. They would have issues
with things like getting the reefs reestablished in what was deeper
water, and they would have to try to reduce erosion so that there would
be something above sea level during the next warm period.
So, the crisis has to be defined, and what we should do about it,
probably, has to be figured out.
Ron Okimoto

The crisis is from not just the high levels of CO2 and CH4 but also
CO2's unprecedented rapid rise, making it difficult for both nature
and civilization to adapt to AGW changes. CH4 levels are also
increasing, not just from anthropic sources, but also from rotting
organic matter which was previously sequestered in permafrost, but is
now exposed due to AGW, one of many positive feedback loops. That CH4
is removed from the atmosphere more quickly isn't nearly as important
in the short term as its greater ability to absorb solar energy, which
is 26-87 times that of CO2.

If you think past glaciers were no fun, just consider living during
the Permian Extinction. AGW deniers would have us do nothing until
the world's continents become deserts and the world's oceans become
anoxic swamps.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

JTEM

2024-04-01 15:18:19 UTC

Post by jillery
The crisis is from not just the high levels of CO2 and CH4 but also
CO2's unprecedented rapid rise, making it difficult for both nature
and civilization to adapt to AGW changes.

How long did it take the climate to warm up for the Medieval Warm
Period, exactly?

Do you have any clue what so ever? Of course not. You're simply
regurgitating the media, convincing yourself that it's "Science,"
and believing this makes you intelligent.

Post by jillery
If you think past glaciers were no fun, just consider living during
the Permian Extinction. AGW deniers would have us do nothing until
the world's continents become deserts and the world's oceans become
anoxic swamps.

As I pointed out, JUST FROM THE RISE IN HUMAN POPULATION, we are
producing more than twice as much CO2 as the fantasy claims to
have gotten your AGW started in the first place, back in the 19th
century, JUST FROM BREATHING.

Humans breathing produce more than TWICE AS MUCH CO2 as your
climate scriptures claim was enough to start AGW, looking at the
rise in human population.

Your own narrative is self refuting.

Not only would it be pointless to take any action but, the planet
would be better off if it were warmer. The Quaternary Period is an
ice age. The planet was warmer before it started. Ending the ice
age means making it warmer. Not ending the ice age means that
mountains of ice will once again scrape the northern hemisphere
clean.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

jillery

2024-04-02 04:41:16 UTC

Post by jillery
The crisis is from not just the high levels of CO2 and CH4 but also
CO2's unprecedented rapid rise, making it difficult for both nature
and civilization to adapt to AGW changes.

http://youtu.be/JCt2MhOzWVE

Post by JTEM
How long did it take the climate to warm up for the Medieval Warm
Period, exactly?

Specify exactly how Medieval Warm Period is especially relevant.

Post by JTEM
Do you have any clue what so ever? Of course not. You're simply
regurgitating the media, convincing yourself that it's "Science,"
and believing this makes you intelligent.

The above presumes the rise in human population appeared by magic,
perhaps from God breathing life into dust.

Post by JTEM
Humans breathing produce more than TWICE AS MUCH CO2 as your
climate scriptures claim was enough to start AGW, looking at the
rise in human population.
Your own narrative is self refuting.
Not only would it be pointless to take any action but, the planet
would be better off if it were warmer. The Quaternary Period is an
ice age. The planet was warmer before it started. Ending the ice
age means making it warmer. Not ending the ice age means that
mountains of ice will once again scrape the northern hemisphere
clean.

The cite you deleted makes clear there's a difference between ice ages
and interglacials. Try reading for comprehension instead.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

JTEM

2024-04-02 10:34:14 UTC

Post by jillery
Specify exactly how Medieval Warm Period is especially relevant.

No. You are a goddamn jackass troll.

You pretended that something was unprecedented, yet admit that
you haven't the faintest clue as to WHAT the precedents are.

Now double down and pretend you didn't do either of these things,
like a good mental case.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

jillery

2024-04-02 11:52:14 UTC

Post by jillery
Specify exactly how Medieval Warm Period is especially relevant.

No. You are a goddamn jackass troll.
You pretended that something was unprecedented, yet admit that
you haven't the faintest clue as to WHAT the precedents are.
Now double down and pretend you didn't do either of these things,
like a good mental case.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

JTEM

2024-04-04 06:35:02 UTC

Post by jillery
To know less than

If you want to know what the Holocene should look
like the last thing you should ever do is compare
it to the Holocene. You'd compare the Holocene to
the Eemian... in which case, it's too cold right
now. It's cold and sea level is roughly 16 feet
too low.

Compare this interglacial to the last one and it's
cold. It's the opposite of warm. Which explains
why the Gwobull Warbling fraud compares the
Holocene to itself and then declares it doesn't
match.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

jillery

2024-04-06 05:44:31 UTC

Post by JTEM
If you want to know what the Holocene should look
like the last thing you should ever do is compare
it to the Holocene.

Also, don't piss into the wind.

Post by JTEM
You'd compare the Holocene to
the Eemian... in which case, it's too cold right
now. It's cold and sea level is roughly 16 feet
too low.

The Eemian was the penultimate interglacial. There were many other
interglacials. Some were warmer and some were colder than now. You're
cherrypicking.

Post by JTEM
Compare this interglacial to the [previous] one and it's
cold. It's the opposite of warm. Which explains
why the Gwobull Warbling fraud compares the
Holocene to itself and then declares it doesn't
match.

I know of no authoritative article which compares the Holocene to
itself.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

JTEM

2024-04-17 20:23:15 UTC

Post by JTEM
If you want to know what the Holocene should look
like the last thing you should ever do is compare
it to the Holocene.

Also, don't

You're proving my point: You're retarded.

Post by jillery
The Eemian was the penultimate interglacial. There were many other
interglacials. Some were warmer and some were colder than now.

How many had cars? Jet planes?

Again, you are retarded.

And it doesn't matter if you want to feel that comparing THIS
interglacial to the last on is unfair, because comparing THIS
one to THIS one is retarded.

So I can see the appeal, for you.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

jillery

2024-04-18 04:09:27 UTC

Post by jillery
The Eemian was the penultimate interglacial. There were many other
interglacials. Some were warmer and some were colder than now.

How many had cars? Jet planes?

Look it up.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

JTEM

2024-04-18 05:12:07 UTC

Post by jillery
The Eemian was the penultimate interglacial. There were many other
interglacials. Some were warmer and some were colder than now.

How many had cars? Jet planes?

You're too mentally unhinged to see it but, you just falsified
your precious Gwobull Warbling narrative. You just testified to
the fact that the climate changes all on it's own. That, it's
been warmer or cooler independent of CO2.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

jillery

2024-04-18 10:59:36 UTC

Post by jillery
The Eemian was the penultimate interglacial. There were many other
interglacials. Some were warmer and some were colder than now.

How many had cars? Jet planes?

And none of them had you.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

JTEM

2024-04-18 12:44:50 UTC

Post by jillery
And none of them had you.

Great. Wonderful. But if we can slip past your extensive
array of mental illnesses: You were pretending that CO2
is causing Gwobull Warbling. THEN you insisted that the
earth has been hotter even when CO2 was much lower.

That is a contradiction, even if your disorders will not
allow you to see it.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

jillery

2024-04-20 10:22:22 UTC

Post by JTEM
You were pretending that CO2
is causing Gwobull Warbling. THEN you insisted that the
earth has been hotter even when CO2 was much lower.
That is a contradiction, even if your disorders will not
allow you to see it.

There is no contradiction. CO2 is but one cause of global warming.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Ernest Major

2024-04-20 11:08:30 UTC

There is no contradiction. CO2 is but one cause of global warming.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Another relevant point is the current climate is not in equilibrium.

--
alias Ernest Major

JTEM

2024-04-21 18:35:07 UTC

Post by Ernest Major
Another relevant point is the current climate is not in equilibrium.

That would be a point if it ever had been.

There has never been a point during the entire history
of the genus Homo where it was warm enough to not grow
the glaciers and cold enough for them to never shrink.

Stretch back to prehistory and we find "Ice Age" animals
inside of what we call "Permafrost" today. Only it was
not and could not be permanent at all, else those animals
would never have gotten into it!

What, you think they used Star Trek transporter tech to
beam each other into the "Permafrost?"

Gwobull Warbling is a fantasy that is self refuting. The
problem is that most people are far too stupid to ever
notice much less look for consistencies.

It's a religion at this point, and you're all terrified
at the thought of being labelled heretics!

WHEN did Gwobull Warbling start?

HOW HIGH were CO2 emissions?

What was the temperature back then?

How hot & cold has it been in the intervening period?

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

JTEM

2024-04-21 20:20:41 UTC

Post by jillery
There is no contradiction. CO2 is but one cause of global warming.

#1. The world isn't warm.

#2. If we did warm the planet that would be a good thing.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

jillery

2024-04-22 07:09:30 UTC

Post by jillery
There is no contradiction. CO2 is but one cause of global warming.

#1. The world isn't warm.
#2. If we did warm the planet that would be a good thing.

Thank you for yet more unprofessional and unauthoritative opinions.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

JTEM

2024-04-23 07:55:50 UTC

Post by jillery
Thank you for yet more unprofessional

Lol!

"It's unprofessional to not obey the media and call
it science!"

People like you; you're the reason McDonald's has to
put pictures on their cash registers.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

William Hyde

2024-04-07 22:55:57 UTC

They are right to worry. The effect of CH4 is about .5 Watts per square
meter as compared to pre-industrial times. Crudely speaking, this
accounts for about a quarter of a degree of warming.

Why is it so? Well, the mean lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere is not
that short, being about 11 years. As it is far more effective at
absorbing IR than CO2 it can add a lot of heat before it is gone.

When it does break down, some of it becomes stratospheric water vapour,
which is an excellent greenhouse gas itself. And this effect lasts.

The effect of a unit of methane put into the atmosphere, over a century,
is still larger than that of a unit of CO2, though the CH4 will be long
gone at the end of that period.

It's short lifetime hasn't stopped us from increasing the amount in the
atmosphere. CO2 levels have not yet doubled from pre-industrial times,
but CH4 is up 160%.

Finally, the bio-geochemistry of CH4 works against us. As the world
warms, microbes more actively devour our stock of sequestered organic
carbon, producing more CH4 and CO2. Arctic soils, in particular, hold
vast amounts of frozen organic matter - far more than tropical soils.
Field experiments have shown that the rate at which arctic areas are
giving off greenhouse gases is increasing. This positive feedback could
grow very nasty indeed.

We likely did

Post by RonO
accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon dioxide,
but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already been
increasing for thousands of years.

Time scales matter.

The earth has warmed about 4C since the last glacial maximum about 20k
years ago, most of that in the first 10k. We have now warmed the earth
one degree C in less than two centuries. And eight billion of us depend
on the ecosystems which were well adjusted to that earlier climate.

It appears that already forests in parts of the world are no longer
stable ecosystems. Many will be replaced by more fire-resistant (and
less useful) trees, or by grass or scrub. And that's just the beginning.

Post by RonO
We need to better define what the crisis is.
We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming period. For
the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice age cycles. The
earth has been cooling for the last 3 million years, but for the last
million we went to a cycle of around a hundred thousand years of cold
interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand years of warmer climate. The
temperatures of the cycles seem to have become more extreme in the last
500,000 years. The last warm period got warmer than it is now, and more
ice melted and sea levels were 20 meters higher than they are now.

Eemian warmth was different. At this time the orbital eccentricity was
more than double the current value. With perihelion occurring in
summer, this led to strong increases in summer temperatures, decreases
in winter. The obliquity was also larger, meaning more heat in higher
latitudes.

The problem is that our temperature proxies are mostly summer ones -
winter does not leave us a lot of records. Tropical records can also be
difficult to work with, so there is a bias towards temperate and polar
records. Eemian warmth is mainly summer warmth, and not directly
comparable to our little experiment which will be year-round warmth,
with a bias towards winter and higher latitudes.

And, once more, the Eemian world did not have to support eight billion
people.

We

Post by RonO
have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not yet as
bad as they got without human industrial interference.
There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed that
the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession into another
ice age.

As one of the authors of such a paper, I have to disagree with your
interpretation.

We might delay the next ice age. This really doesn't seem to

Post by RonO
be that bad.

Nor would it be good. Ice ages begin very slowly in human terms. If we
still are an industrial society when the next one comes along - some
time in the next twenty thousand years - we will be able to deal with it.

Worrying about a future ice age at this point is equivalent to Julius
Caesar worrying about world war II.

We got a taste of what things would be like when

Post by RonO
temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's and
didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is supposed
to be responsible for our current global warming.

The little ice age ended well before CO2 from industry became a
significant factor in climate. It has been shown that stratospheric
aerosols caused by increased volcanism account for about 60% of the
little ice age cooling. Given the noisy data, that's about as good as
can expect, though solar, GHG and land-use effects were also accounted for.

The earth has seen

Post by RonO
warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to the
levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously happened
before. So the regions that will be flooded will just be a repeat of
what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago.

You are drawing parallels where there are no parallels. See above.

William Hyde

RonO

2024-04-23 00:27:31 UTC

They are right to worry. The effect of CH4 is about .5 Watts per square
meter as compared to pre-industrial times. Crudely speaking, this
accounts for about a quarter of a degree of warming.
Why is it so? Well, the mean lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere is not
that short, being about 11 years. As it is far more effective at
absorbing IR than CO2 it can add a lot of heat before it is gone.
When it does break down, some of it becomes stratospheric water vapour,
which is an excellent greenhouse gas itself. And this effect lasts.
The effect of a unit of methane put into the atmosphere, over a century,
is still larger than that of a unit of CO2, though the CH4 will be long
gone at the end of that period.
It's short lifetime hasn't stopped us from increasing the amount in the
atmosphere. CO2 levels have not yet doubled from pre-industrial times,
but CH4 is up 160%.
Finally, the bio-geochemistry of CH4 works against us. As the world
warms, microbes more actively devour our stock of sequestered organic
carbon, producing more CH4 and CO2. Arctic soils, in particular, hold
vast amounts of frozen organic matter - far more than tropical soils.
Field experiments have shown that the rate at which arctic areas are
giving off greenhouse gases is increasing. This positive feedback could
grow very nasty indeed.
We likely did

Post by RonO
accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon dioxide,
but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already been
increasing for thousands of years.

Time scales matter.
The earth has warmed about 4C since the last glacial maximum about 20k
years ago, most of that in the first 10k. We have now warmed the earth
one degree C in less than two centuries. And eight billion of us depend
on the ecosystems which were well adjusted to that earlier climate.
It appears that already forests in parts of the world are no longer
stable ecosystems. Many will be replaced by more fire-resistant (and
less useful) trees, or by grass or scrub. And that's just the beginning.

Post by RonO
We need to better define what the crisis is.
We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming period.
For the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice age
cycles. The earth has been cooling for the last 3 million years, but
for the last million we went to a cycle of around a hundred thousand
years of cold interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand years of warmer
climate. The temperatures of the cycles seem to have become more
extreme in the last 500,000 years. The last warm period got warmer
than it is now, and more ice melted and sea levels were 20 meters
higher than they are now.

Eemian warmth was different. At this time the orbital eccentricity was
more than double the current value. With perihelion occurring in
summer, this led to strong increases in summer temperatures, decreases
in winter. The obliquity was also larger, meaning more heat in higher
latitudes.
The problem is that our temperature proxies are mostly summer ones -
winter does not leave us a lot of records. Tropical records can also be
difficult to work with, so there is a bias towards temperate and polar
records. Eemian warmth is mainly summer warmth, and not directly
comparable to our little experiment which will be year-round warmth,
with a bias towards winter and higher latitudes.
And, once more, the Eemian world did not have to support eight billion
people.
We

Post by RonO
have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not yet
as bad as they got without human industrial interference.
There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed
that the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession into
another ice age.

As one of the authors of such a paper, I have to disagree with your
interpretation.
We might delay the next ice age. This really doesn't seem to

Post by RonO
be that bad.

Nor would it be good. Ice ages begin very slowly in human terms. If we
still are an industrial society when the next one comes along - some
time in the next twenty thousand years - we will be able to deal with it.
Worrying about a future ice age at this point is equivalent to Julius
Caesar worrying about world war II.
We got a taste of what things would be like when

Post by RonO
temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's and
didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is
supposed to be responsible for our current global warming.

Post by RonO
warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to the
levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously
happened before. So the regions that will be flooded will just be a
repeat of what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago.

You are drawing parallels where there are no parallels. See above.
William Hyde

It looks like you didn't comment relevantly on that topic, just denied
it with no discussion. The paper that was put up on TO did predict that
we might skip the next ice age. I recall the paper was published a
couple years before the Top Six were put out so that would be around
2015. I haven't heard much about it since. You may have written
something similar, but didn't come to the same conclusion. It was
likely that before that paper was published, no group had made a similar
prediction, since I did not recall any such previous prediction.

If just as much ice melts as melted last time, why wouldn't sea levels
reach the same depths? Sea level was 20 meters higher than it is now,
or were you claiming that not as much ice was going to melt this time?

Ron Okimoto

William Hyde

2024-04-25 00:23:24 UTC

They are right to worry. The effect of CH4 is about .5 Watts per
square meter as compared to pre-industrial times. Crudely speaking,
this accounts for about a quarter of a degree of warming.
Why is it so? Well, the mean lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere is not
that short, being about 11 years. As it is far more effective at
absorbing IR than CO2 it can add a lot of heat before it is gone.
When it does break down, some of it becomes stratospheric water
vapour, which is an excellent greenhouse gas itself. And this effect
lasts.
The effect of a unit of methane put into the atmosphere, over a
century, is still larger than that of a unit of CO2, though the CH4
will be long gone at the end of that period.
It's short lifetime hasn't stopped us from increasing the amount in
the atmosphere. CO2 levels have not yet doubled from pre-industrial
times, but CH4 is up 160%.
Finally, the bio-geochemistry of CH4 works against us. As the world
warms, microbes more actively devour our stock of sequestered organic
carbon, producing more CH4 and CO2. Arctic soils, in particular, hold
vast amounts of frozen organic matter - far more than tropical soils.
Field experiments have shown that the rate at which arctic areas are
giving off greenhouse gases is increasing. This positive feedback
could grow very nasty indeed.
We likely did

Post by RonO
accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon
dioxide, but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already
been increasing for thousands of years.

Time scales matter.
The earth has warmed about 4C since the last glacial maximum about 20k
years ago, most of that in the first 10k. We have now warmed the
earth one degree C in less than two centuries. And eight billion of
us depend on the ecosystems which were well adjusted to that earlier
climate.
It appears that already forests in parts of the world are no longer
stable ecosystems. Many will be replaced by more fire-resistant (and
less useful) trees, or by grass or scrub. And that's just the beginning.

Post by RonO
We need to better define what the crisis is.
We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming period.
For the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice age
cycles. The earth has been cooling for the last 3 million years, but
for the last million we went to a cycle of around a hundred thousand
years of cold interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand years of warmer
climate. The temperatures of the cycles seem to have become more
extreme in the last 500,000 years. The last warm period got warmer
than it is now, and more ice melted and sea levels were 20 meters
higher than they are now.

Eemian warmth was different. At this time the orbital eccentricity
was more than double the current value. With perihelion occurring in
summer, this led to strong increases in summer temperatures,
decreases in winter. The obliquity was also larger, meaning more heat
in higher latitudes.
The problem is that our temperature proxies are mostly summer ones -
winter does not leave us a lot of records. Tropical records can also
be difficult to work with, so there is a bias towards temperate and
polar records. Eemian warmth is mainly summer warmth, and not
directly comparable to our little experiment which will be year-round
warmth, with a bias towards winter and higher latitudes.
And, once more, the Eemian world did not have to support eight billion
people.
We

Post by RonO
have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not yet
as bad as they got without human industrial interference.
There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed
that the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession into
another ice age.

As one of the authors of such a paper, I have to disagree with your
interpretation.
We might delay the next ice age. This really doesn't seem to

Post by RonO
be that bad.

Nor would it be good. Ice ages begin very slowly in human terms. If
we still are an industrial society when the next one comes along -
some time in the next twenty thousand years - we will be able to deal
with it.
Worrying about a future ice age at this point is equivalent to Julius
Caesar worrying about world war II.
We got a taste of what things would be like when

Post by RonO
temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's and
didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is
supposed to be responsible for our current global warming.

Post by RonO
warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to
the levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously
happened before. So the regions that will be flooded will just be a
repeat of what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago.

You are drawing parallels where there are no parallels. See above.
William Hyde

It looks like you didn't comment relevantly on that topic, just denied
it with no discussion.

Really? You started with the claim that methane is not an important
greenhouse gas, and I went into some detail to show that it in fact is.

Then you went on to speculate that global warming might save us from an
oncoming ice age, and I reminded you that while an ice age is coming
soon in geological time, it is very far away in human time, while damage
from global warming is not.

I did not mention ocean acidification, another consequence of our
atmospheric pollution. I gather from biologists that this is also
rather important.

The paper that was put up on TO did predict that

Post by RonO
we might skip the next ice age.

Actually this is not a new idea. I first saw reference to in in an
Asimov essay in the 1960s, discussing Milankovitch theory. It also
appears in a book I've recommended here many times, "Ice Ages - solving
the Mystery", by Imbrie and Imbrie, published some time in the mid 70s.

Indeed,there was an SF novel circa 1990 which had a new ice age caused
by people following those crazy environmentalists. Another SF writer,
George Turner, had the same idea, but played it more subtly (the novel
titles are "Fallen Angels" and "The Sea and the Summer" - also titled
"The Drowning Towers".)

I recall the paper was published a

Post by RonO
couple years before the Top Six were put out so that would be around
2015.

Our paper was:

"Transient nature of late Pleistocene climate variability", Thomas J.
Crowley & William T. Hyde

Nature volume 456, pages 226–230 (2008)

It was mentioned in this group a few years later.

The next ice age wasn't the real point of the paper, which talked about
a larger and more significant change which might occur in the next
50,000 years.

I haven't heard much about it since. You may have written

Post by RonO
something similar, but didn't come to the same conclusion.

Of course we did. And we knew it would be abused by the denialist
community, as it immediately was.

I've been involved in three papers which had as their point that some of
the worst case scenarios for GW might not happen, and in each case some
in the denialist community claimed that we had "proven" that climate
change was not a problem at all. Those who deal with creationists will
not be surprised.

Putting off the next ice age is about as urgent as dealing with the flu
season in 6629. Climate change is a problem now, not thousands of years
in the future.

If we achieve a stable climate, and the natural progression of the ice
ages kicks in, we will be easily able to deal with it. Assuming we are
at at least the current level of technical ability, that is.

It was

Post by RonO
likely that before that paper was published, no group had made a similar
prediction, since I did not recall any such previous prediction.
If just as much ice melts as melted last time, why wouldn't sea levels
reach the same depths? Sea level was 20 meters higher than it is now,

That is off by a factor of two or three, probably due to an imperial to
metric switch. But it doesn't matter.

Post by RonO
or were you claiming that not as much ice was going to melt this time?

If we carry on sea level will rise far higher than in the Eemian.

West Antarctica and Greenland are vulnerable to melting and even partial
collapse, and together could contribute about twelve meters of sea level
rise. Most of the ice is in East Antarctica, which is dynamically
stable at the moment, but still melting.

The total contribution of all three ice sheets is over sixty meters, and
while it's hard to imagine what we could be that stupid, if we are the
thermal expansion of sea water would kick in an extra ten meters or so.
That would take millennia, though. The melting could be done in a few
centuries if we are crazy enough.

We simply cannot state with any precision what amount of melting we
would get with a given temperature rise. But it seems unlikely that we
will stop short of 2.5C, and it is difficult to imagine that this won't
eliminate most of our smaller ice sheets, for a rise of at least six
meters, plus whatever happens to East Antarctica.

Note also that sea level rise will not be uniform.

William Hyde

RonO

2024-04-26 02:24:35 UTC

They are right to worry. The effect of CH4 is about .5 Watts per
square meter as compared to pre-industrial times. Crudely speaking,
this accounts for about a quarter of a degree of warming.
Why is it so? Well, the mean lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere is
not that short, being about 11 years. As it is far more effective at
absorbing IR than CO2 it can add a lot of heat before it is gone.
When it does break down, some of it becomes stratospheric water
vapour, which is an excellent greenhouse gas itself. And this effect
lasts.
The effect of a unit of methane put into the atmosphere, over a
century, is still larger than that of a unit of CO2, though the CH4
will be long gone at the end of that period.
It's short lifetime hasn't stopped us from increasing the amount in
the atmosphere. CO2 levels have not yet doubled from pre-industrial
times, but CH4 is up 160%.
Finally, the bio-geochemistry of CH4 works against us. As the world
warms, microbes more actively devour our stock of sequestered organic
carbon, producing more CH4 and CO2. Arctic soils, in particular,
hold vast amounts of frozen organic matter - far more than tropical
soils. Field experiments have shown that the rate at which arctic
areas are giving off greenhouse gases is increasing. This positive
feedback could grow very nasty indeed.
We likely did

Post by RonO
accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon
dioxide, but we did it at a time when global temperatures had
already been increasing for thousands of years.

Time scales matter.
The earth has warmed about 4C since the last glacial maximum about
20k years ago, most of that in the first 10k. We have now warmed the
earth one degree C in less than two centuries. And eight billion of
us depend on the ecosystems which were well adjusted to that earlier
climate.
It appears that already forests in parts of the world are no longer
stable ecosystems. Many will be replaced by more fire-resistant (and
less useful) trees, or by grass or scrub. And that's just the beginning.

Post by RonO
We need to better define what the crisis is.
We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming period.
For the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice age
cycles. The earth has been cooling for the last 3 million years, but
for the last million we went to a cycle of around a hundred thousand
years of cold interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand years of warmer
climate. The temperatures of the cycles seem to have become more
extreme in the last 500,000 years. The last warm period got warmer
than it is now, and more ice melted and sea levels were 20 meters
higher than they are now.

Eemian warmth was different. At this time the orbital eccentricity
was more than double the current value. With perihelion occurring in
summer, this led to strong increases in summer temperatures,
decreases in winter. The obliquity was also larger, meaning more
heat in higher latitudes.
The problem is that our temperature proxies are mostly summer ones -
winter does not leave us a lot of records. Tropical records can also
be difficult to work with, so there is a bias towards temperate and
polar records. Eemian warmth is mainly summer warmth, and not
directly comparable to our little experiment which will be year-round
warmth, with a bias towards winter and higher latitudes.
And, once more, the Eemian world did not have to support eight billion
people.
We

Post by RonO
have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not
yet as bad as they got without human industrial interference.
There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed
that the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession
into another ice age.

As one of the authors of such a paper, I have to disagree with your
interpretation.
We might delay the next ice age. This really doesn't seem to

Post by RonO
be that bad.

Nor would it be good. Ice ages begin very slowly in human terms. If
we still are an industrial society when the next one comes along -
some time in the next twenty thousand years - we will be able to deal
with it.
Worrying about a future ice age at this point is equivalent to Julius
Caesar worrying about world war II.
We got a taste of what things would be like when

Post by RonO
temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's
and didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is
supposed to be responsible for our current global warming.

The little ice age ended well before CO2 from industry became a
significant factor in climate. It has been shown that stratospheric
aerosols caused by increased volcanism account for about 60% of the
little ice age cooling. Given the noisy data, that's about as good
as can expect, though solar, GHG and land-use effects were also
accounted for.
The earth has seen

Post by RonO
warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to
the levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously
happened before. So the regions that will be flooded will just be a
repeat of what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago.

You are drawing parallels where there are no parallels. See above.
William Hyde

It looks like you didn't comment relevantly on that topic, just denied
it with no discussion.

I didn't say it would save us. I just said that the prediction was that
we might skip it, and that would be worse for the Arctic biology. It
would keep our crops from failing and our Northern cities from being
covered by a mile of ice, but as you say that would take thousands of
years. Skipping the next cold period would mean that there would be no
expansion of habitat for the arctic species that are now suffering a
decrease in habitat during the warm period.

I did not mention ocean acidification, another consequence of our
atmospheric pollution. I gather from biologists that this is also
rather important.

So you dismissed it because it is in our distant future. Why shouldn't
we consider it? The future is the future. Shouldn't you consider it
when thinking about doing something now? Perspective is that it got
warmer last warm period and more ice melted than has melted at this
time. More permafrost was defrosted than now. The bad things that they
are predicting happened last time, but you claim that it was different,
but that doesn't change the fact that they happened last time.

For whatever reason the cold periods have gotten longer, and the
temperature shifts have become more extreme. Carbon dioxide is warming
up the planet, but the last look at it claims that it isn't as bad as we
think.

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

Look at the graph of the Vostok station ice core data. Maybe we were not
destined to get as warm as the last few warm periods. Two of the last 4
warm periods have gotten hotter than the current warm interval, but our
warm cycle seems to have faltered, and it looks like we should be in a
downward trend at this time, but something has kept that from happening.
The 4 previous warm period were warmer than it is now. Our temperature
seems to have peaked several thousand years ago for this cycle.

If you click on the Vostok link in the figure legend you can get the
methane numbers and for some reason this warm period is messed up. When
things got hotter last warm period methane levels peaked higher, but
dropped when the temperature started to fall. More ice melted than now,
and more permafrost thawed out, but the falling temperatures seem to
stop that even as CO2 levels remained relatively high. This cycle seems
to have been different even before we started pumping CO2 into the
atmosphere.

It sort of looks like we have already skipped the usual rapid
temperature downturn, and for some reason this cycle has maintained
higher temperatures for a longer period of time and it started long
before our CO2 intervention.

The paper that was put up on TO did predict that

Post by RonO
we might skip the next ice age.

Actually this is not a new idea. I first saw reference to in in an
Asimov essay in the 1960s, discussing Milankovitch theory. It also
appears in a book I've recommended here many times, "Ice Ages - solving
the Mystery", by Imbrie and Imbrie, published some time in the mid 70s.
Indeed,there was an SF novel circa 1990 which had a new ice age caused
by people following those crazy environmentalists. Another SF writer,
George Turner, had the same idea, but played it more subtly (the novel
titles are "Fallen Angels" and "The Sea and the Summer" - also titled
"The Drowning Towers".)

It seems to have been a first for a scientific publication. As far as I
know it was the first such publication since the turn of the century.
Everyone had just been worried about global warming.

I recall the paper was published a

Post by RonO
couple years before the Top Six were put out so that would be around
2015.

"Transient nature of late Pleistocene climate variability", Thomas J.
Crowley & William T. Hyde
Nature volume 456, pages 226–230 (2008)
It was mentioned in this group a few years later.
The next ice age wasn't the real point of the paper, which talked about
a larger and more significant change which might occur in the next
50,000 years.

The Vostok data indicates that the last two cold periods had warming
cycles after the initial temperature crash. It got very cold, but then
warmed up again in a sort of roller coaster ride, but it looks like it
is just more noticeable than the previous temperature fluctuations.

The paper that I recall had a Science news article about it, and it was
the news article that noted something that was just mentioned in the
discussion of the paper.

I haven't heard much about it since. You may have written

Post by RonO
something similar, but didn't come to the same conclusion.

Of course we did. And we knew it would be abused by the denialist
community, as it immediately was.
I've been involved in three papers which had as their point that some of
the worst case scenarios for GW might not happen, and in each case some
in the denialist community claimed that we had "proven" that climate
change was not a problem at all. Those who deal with creationists will
not be surprised.
Putting off the next ice age is about as urgent as dealing with the flu
season in 6629. Climate change is a problem now, not thousands of years
in the future.

Doesn't the Vostok data look like the next cold period has already been
put on hold? Based on previous warm periods we should already be
declining in temperature, and the decline should have started around
10,000 years ago. What would the temperature be now if it had risen and
fallen at the same rate that it has for the last half million years?

If we achieve a stable climate, and the natural progression of the ice
ages kicks in, we will be easily able to deal with it. Assuming we are
at at least the current level of technical ability, that is.

You are going to stop Manhattan from being scraped down to bedrock by a
mile thick ice sheet. Would that be ethical? Shouldn't we be more
worried about making sure that the tundra gets established further
South. What ice age megafauna that we have left will be frolicking from
New Mexico across the great plains. They would be having the time of
their existence, but our crops would have been failing for thousands of
years before that.

It was

Post by RonO
likely that before that paper was published, no group had made a
similar prediction, since I did not recall any such previous prediction.
If just as much ice melts as melted last time, why wouldn't sea levels
reach the same depths? Sea level was 20 meters higher than it is now,

That is off by a factor of two or three, probably due to an imperial to
metric switch. But it doesn't matter.

Again you say it doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter? The islands
that they claim are going to flood did flood back then and life on those
islands did become extinct. There was an article put up on TO where a
flightless Rail had reevolved on an island that flooded during the last
warm period and wiped out that previous flightless Rail species. It
would seem to matter.

It is the global warming doom sayer articles that are claiming that
there is going to be a 20 meter rise in sea levels, they may be talking
about 20 feet. Wiki claims that sea levels were 20 to 30 feet higher in
the last warm period than today.

Post by RonO
or were you claiming that not as much ice was going to melt this time?

If we carry on sea level will rise far higher than in the Eemian.

Even if it isn't going to get as warm as people claim?

West Antarctica and Greenland are vulnerable to melting and even partial
collapse, and together could contribute about twelve meters of sea level
rise. Most of the ice is in East Antarctica, which is dynamically
stable at the moment, but still melting.
The total contribution of all three ice sheets is over sixty meters, and
while it's hard to imagine what we could be that stupid, if we are the
thermal expansion of sea water would kick in an extra ten meters or so.
That would take millennia, though. The melting could be done in a few
centuries if we are crazy enough.
We simply cannot state with any precision what amount of melting we
would get with a given temperature rise. But it seems unlikely that we
will stop short of 2.5C, and it is difficult to imagine that this won't
eliminate most of our smaller ice sheets, for a rise of at least six
meters, plus whatever happens to East Antarctica.
Note also that sea level rise will not be uniform.

Has anyone figured out why the temperature hasn't risen and fallen at
the same rate as it has in previous warm periods? It looks like we
already were 2 degrees warmer than today (over 10,000 years ago), but
the temperature has been oscillating instead of peaking and falling.

Ron Okimoto

William Hyde

2024-04-26 20:11:40 UTC

They are right to worry. The effect of CH4 is about .5 Watts per
square meter as compared to pre-industrial times. Crudely speaking,
this accounts for about a quarter of a degree of warming.
Why is it so? Well, the mean lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere is
not that short, being about 11 years. As it is far more effective
at absorbing IR than CO2 it can add a lot of heat before it is gone.
When it does break down, some of it becomes stratospheric water
vapour, which is an excellent greenhouse gas itself. And this
effect lasts.
The effect of a unit of methane put into the atmosphere, over a
century, is still larger than that of a unit of CO2, though the CH4
will be long gone at the end of that period.
It's short lifetime hasn't stopped us from increasing the amount in
the atmosphere. CO2 levels have not yet doubled from pre-industrial
times, but CH4 is up 160%.
Finally, the bio-geochemistry of CH4 works against us. As the world
warms, microbes more actively devour our stock of sequestered
organic carbon, producing more CH4 and CO2. Arctic soils, in
particular, hold vast amounts of frozen organic matter - far more
than tropical soils. Field experiments have shown that the rate at
which arctic areas are giving off greenhouse gases is increasing.
This positive feedback could grow very nasty indeed.
We likely did

Post by RonO
accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon
dioxide, but we did it at a time when global temperatures had
already been increasing for thousands of years.

Time scales matter.
The earth has warmed about 4C since the last glacial maximum about
20k years ago, most of that in the first 10k. We have now warmed
the earth one degree C in less than two centuries. And eight
billion of us depend on the ecosystems which were well adjusted to
that earlier climate.
It appears that already forests in parts of the world are no longer
stable ecosystems. Many will be replaced by more fire-resistant
(and less useful) trees, or by grass or scrub. And that's just the
beginning.

Post by RonO
We need to better define what the crisis is.
We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming
period. For the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice
age cycles. The earth has been cooling for the last 3 million
years, but for the last million we went to a cycle of around a
hundred thousand years of cold interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand
years of warmer climate. The temperatures of the cycles seem to
have become more extreme in the last 500,000 years. The last warm
period got warmer than it is now, and more ice melted and sea
levels were 20 meters higher than they are now.

Eemian warmth was different. At this time the orbital eccentricity
was more than double the current value. With perihelion occurring
in summer, this led to strong increases in summer temperatures,
decreases in winter. The obliquity was also larger, meaning more
heat in higher latitudes.
The problem is that our temperature proxies are mostly summer ones -
winter does not leave us a lot of records. Tropical records can also
be difficult to work with, so there is a bias towards temperate and
polar records. Eemian warmth is mainly summer warmth, and not
directly comparable to our little experiment which will be
year-round warmth, with a bias towards winter and higher latitudes.
And, once more, the Eemian world did not have to support eight billion
people.
We

Post by RonO
have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not
yet as bad as they got without human industrial interference.
There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed
that the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession
into another ice age.

As one of the authors of such a paper, I have to disagree with your
interpretation.
We might delay the next ice age. This really doesn't seem to

Post by RonO
be that bad.

Nor would it be good. Ice ages begin very slowly in human terms.
If we still are an industrial society when the next one comes along
- some time in the next twenty thousand years - we will be able to
deal with it.
Worrying about a future ice age at this point is equivalent to
Julius Caesar worrying about world war II.
We got a taste of what things would be like when

Post by RonO
temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's
and didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is
supposed to be responsible for our current global warming.

The little ice age ended well before CO2 from industry became a
significant factor in climate. It has been shown that stratospheric
aerosols caused by increased volcanism account for about 60% of the
little ice age cooling. Given the noisy data, that's about as good
as can expect, though solar, GHG and land-use effects were also
accounted for.
The earth has seen

Post by RonO
warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to
the levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously
happened before. So the regions that will be flooded will just be
a repeat of what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago.

You are drawing parallels where there are no parallels. See above.
William Hyde

It looks like you didn't comment relevantly on that topic, just
denied it with no discussion.

Ok, then.

I did not mention ocean acidification, another consequence of our
atmospheric pollution. I gather from biologists that this is also
rather important.

So you dismissed it because it is in our distant future.

Failing to mention something is not the equivalent of dismissing it.
Particularly as I did bring it up in my second post. It is a real
problem, and one that won't be dealt with by geoengineering, which seems
to be getting to be a more popular idea in some circles.

Also, I don't think that ocean acidifcation is a problem for the distant
future. It is a problem now.

Why shouldn't

we consider it? The future is the future. Shouldn't you consider it
when thinking about doing something now?

We very much should.

Perspective is that it got

warmer last warm period and more ice melted than has melted at this
time. More permafrost was defrosted than now. The bad things that they
are predicting happened last time, but you claim that it was different,
but that doesn't change the fact that they happened last time.
For whatever reason the cold periods have gotten longer, and the
temperature shifts have become more extreme. Carbon dioxide is warming
up the planet, but the last look at it claims that it isn't as bad as we
think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
Look at the graph of the Vostok station ice core data. Maybe we were not
destined to get as warm as the last few warm periods.

Old news. The orbital parameters we have had over this interglacial are
not as favourable for hot summers as in some past interglacials. As I
mentioned above, the eccentricity is now only about half that of the
Eemian, and larger eccentricity leads to more extreme seasons in high
latitudes.

One previous interglacial, known as isotope stage eleven, was also
anomalous. It had an orbital configuration much like the current one,
though that does not prove that the "stage eleven problem" was entirely
an orbital event. But it is indicative.

Two of the last 4

warm periods have gotten hotter than the current warm interval, but our
warm cycle seems to have faltered, and it looks like we should be in a
downward trend at this time, but something has kept that from happening.
The 4 previous warm period were warmer than it is now. Our temperature
seems to have peaked several thousand years ago for this cycle.
If you click on the Vostok link in the figure legend you can get the
methane numbers and for some reason this warm period is messed up. When
things got hotter last warm period methane levels peaked higher, but
dropped when the temperature started to fall. More ice melted than now,
and more permafrost thawed out, but the falling temperatures seem to
stop that even as CO2 levels remained relatively high. This cycle seems
to have been different even before we started pumping CO2 into the
atmosphere.
It sort of looks like we have already skipped the usual rapid
temperature downturn, and for some reason this cycle has maintained
higher temperatures for a longer period of time and it started long
before our CO2 intervention.

One idea is the "early Anthropocene" hypothesis:

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

Basically the idea is that early agriculture made a sufficient change to
various greenhouse gases to have altered the climate slightly. As the
article notes, this is contested. I have seen Ruddiman's plot of the
concentration of various biogenic greenhouse gases over time for the
past few interglacials, and this one does stand out as different. Just
why this is so is another question.

As an orbit guy, I tend to blame the orbit for a lot of things (as you
will have noted) and when the timescales are too small for that,
volcanoes. But Ruddiman's idea is interesting, even if it isn't the
whole story.

The paper that was put up on TO did predict that

Post by RonO
we might skip the next ice age.

Actually this is not a new idea. I first saw reference to in in an
Asimov essay in the 1960s, discussing Milankovitch theory. It also
appears in a book I've recommended here many times, "Ice Ages -
solving the Mystery", by Imbrie and Imbrie, published some time in the
mid 70s.
Indeed,there was an SF novel circa 1990 which had a new ice age caused
by people following those crazy environmentalists. Another SF writer,
George Turner, had the same idea, but played it more subtly (the novel
titles are "Fallen Angels" and "The Sea and the Summer" - also titled
"The Drowning Towers".)

It seems to have been a first for a scientific publication. As far as I
know it was the first such publication since the turn of the century.
Everyone had just been worried about global warming.

As I keep telling you, the idea that we might miss the next excursion to
a full-blown ice age is old news. If that were the conclusion of our
paper, and only that, it wouldn't have been worth publishing. Certainly
not in Nature.

The idea is mentioned in a volume of Quaternary Research published in
1970, when it wasn't yet clear which effect was going to dominate,
cooling from stratospheric aerosols or warming from greenhouse gases.

Our paper used a coupled climate-ice-sheet model to examine the question
of future climate. Can you recall anything about the other paper, if
indeed it existed? Did it use a general circulation model?

I recall the paper was published a

Post by RonO
couple years before the Top Six were put out so that would be around
2015.

"Transient nature of late Pleistocene climate variability", Thomas J.
Crowley & William T. Hyde
Nature volume 456, pages 226–230 (2008)
It was mentioned in this group a few years later.
The next ice age wasn't the real point of the paper, which talked
about a larger and more significant change which might occur in the
next 50,000 years.

The Vostok data indicates that the last two cold periods had warming
cycles after the initial temperature crash. It got very cold, but then
warmed up again in a sort of roller coaster ride, but it looks like it
is just more noticeable than the previous temperature fluctuations.
The paper that I recall had a Science news article about it, and it was
the news article that noted something that was just mentioned in the
discussion of the paper.

I haven't heard much about it since. You may have written

Post by RonO
something similar, but didn't come to the same conclusion.

Of course we did. And we knew it would be abused by the denialist
community, as it immediately was.
I've been involved in three papers which had as their point that some
of the worst case scenarios for GW might not happen, and in each case
some in the denialist community claimed that we had "proven" that
climate change was not a problem at all. Those who deal with
creationists will not be surprised.
Putting off the next ice age is about as urgent as dealing with the
flu season in 6629. Climate change is a problem now, not thousands of
years in the future.

Doesn't the Vostok data look like the next cold period has already been
put on hold? Based on previous warm periods we should already be
declining in temperature,

My co-author on the above paper, Tom Crowley, commented that we had
"missed the off ramp" for the next glacial cycle.

We are most likely to move from an interglacial to a glacial when
aphelion is in summer, from a northern hemisphere perspective. This
results in cool summers with less melting of winter snow. Next season,
snow may fall on existing snow, a prerequisite for building an ice sheet.

As aphelion is now in early July we have passed the most favourable time
for ice sheet formation, and obliquity changes are not favourable, thus
Tom's comment (IIRC he thought the most favourable time was about 800
years ago).

and the decline should have started around

10,000 years ago. What would the temperature be now if it had risen and
fallen at the same rate that it has for the last half million years?

If we achieve a stable climate, and the natural progression of the ice
ages kicks in, we will be easily able to deal with it. Assuming we
are at at least the current level of technical ability, that is.

You are going to stop Manhattan from being scraped down to bedrock by a
mile thick ice sheet.

You have to stop it long before then. At its inception an ice age is
easy to stop. By the time the ice sheet is a mile thick over northern
Canada, it's a much tougher job.

Would that be ethical? Shouldn't we be more

worried about making sure that the tundra gets established further
South. What ice age megafauna that we have left will be frolicking from
New Mexico across the great plains. They would be having the time of
their existence, but our crops would have been failing for thousands of
years before that.

I will leave the philosophy of it to you. I suspect that our
successors, assuming that Manhattan and agriculture are still important
to them, will have no qualms. But then, perhaps we won't survive to
that time without a hypersensitive ethical system.

It was

Post by RonO
likely that before that paper was published, no group had made a
similar prediction, since I did not recall any such previous prediction.
If just as much ice melts as melted last time, why wouldn't sea
levels reach the same depths? Sea level was 20 meters higher than it
is now,

That is off by a factor of two or three, probably due to an imperial
to metric switch. But it doesn't matter.

Again you say it doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter?

What does not matter is your mistake as to sea level. Your point is
unaffected whether the Eemian sea level was five or twenty meters higher
than it now is.

Rising sea level itself does of course matter. More now than then, for
our species anyway.

The islands

that they claim are going to flood did flood back then and life on those
islands did become extinct. There was an article put up on TO where a
flightless Rail had reevolved on an island that flooded during the last
warm period and wiped out that previous flightless Rail species. It
would seem to matter.
It is the global warming doom sayer articles that are claiming that
there is going to be a 20 meter rise in sea levels, they may be talking
about 20 feet.

I recall one global map of projected temperature changes by 2100 which
had been based on data given in Fahrenheit degrees. Someone assumed it
was given in Celsius, so multiplied it by 1.8. Someone else assumed
that the new data set was still in C, and multiplied it again by 1.8
before plotting it. I think that the resulting map "predicted" warming
of 12F for parts of the US. Given that errors never die, this map is
probably still available somewhere and someone is uncritically using it
as a source.

Reminds me of the passenger jet that had to land on empty tanks in
Gimli, Man, because of a fueling mixup between gallons and litres.

Wiki claims that sea levels were 20 to 30 feet higher in

the last warm period than today.

Yes, but there is no parallel between the two cases. We probably can
halt this with far less than twenty feet of sea level rise. Or, though
I doubt it, thirty feet could already be baked in.

Or we could let it go much, much, higher.

William Hyde

Mark Isaak

2024-04-01 14:49:41 UTC