Hurricane Wilma 'strongest ever' = Global Warming

[antiHype]

Originally Posted by Eurapart

Climate change isn't about belief (faith / religion) its about discussing the facts openly and developing a strategy to prevent harm to the planet and its people.

If it's not a matter of faith/beleif/delusion, then why does a scientist need to deploy religious narratives? Is there a scientific basis for morality that can be detected/observed in the "fragile balance of nature"? Is there a scientific definition of "greed" which upsets that balance? And what is that mechanism?

So it is about beleif/faith/religion.

[Daniel]

antiHype,
You're missing the point that religious narratives are ubiquitous in most cultures - even atheists will slip up and use terms usually associated with religious morality fairly often, regardless of whether they actually believe God exists.

And a few posts back you described environmentalism as mysticism and getting morality "from" nature. Sure - there might be a few like that, but by and large, most of us environmentalists have a pre-set morality that leads us to conclude it's moral to use our natural resources responsibly, preserve part of nature as untouched and pristine as possible, or "minimize our footprint." So please don't confuse the majority of environmentalists that base their claims on proven science as mystics and wackos, lest we mistake you for a far right-wing burn-the-environment conservative.

[HEC]

Hello Everyone. This is ZPJ. Before any further comments are made about my double identity, I would strongly like to state that I am a fuctional member of HEC, so I will use it's ID to expose some of the club information on it's web site.

Now, let's get down to business.

Why do I feel like I am trying to educate people all the time. I do it as a living and now I even have to do it here on this site. There are a lot of misconceptions at play here, so I will try to put them all to rest:

Originally Posted by MM

Both of you believe as passionaetly as I do, in what you have to say, but as an engineer I can't accept mathematical identities that do not hold true in all cases. anything=anything or something=something is known as an identity, and unless both sides are exactly equal, then the statement is false.

Yes of course. A mathematician with a very narrow point of view would hold the above presented equation false. I would not expect anything more of a mathematician. It does take some deductive reasoning to come to the conclusion I've arrived at. Mathematicians aren't taught to follow inductive or deductive reasoning, now are they. Mathematics is all about black and white, however the world is full of greys. All you have to do is look at a black and white photo to discover that. The world is very diverse, and often the phenomena that do occur on this earth can't be explained by absolute rights or wrongs. Mathematics is about absolutes, and that is it's biggest weakness, as the world is not finite. There are too many factors at play, when it comes to global warming, so they can't be explained by absolutes. My equation is not an absolute, but rather the closest representation of a logical equation that would best represent the cause and effect variables of global warming/hurricanes. All the numbers back this up. Again, you have to be extremely blind not to see this, but if you are amathematician and you are looking at everything using very narrow tubular vision, than it's no surprise you will miss many things.

Now I should state that I am not saying mathematics is useles, however there are certain things that can't be explained using the rules of absolute mathematics. Global warming is simply one of them, as too many variables are interchangeably at play for mathematics to even come close to explaining it. Our envirionment is a living entity in itself, and same as bodily functions in terms of biology, mathematics is useless at best when it comes to describing such complex phenomena.

MM, your rationality is insufficient at best.

Originally Posted by Eurapart

Please explain how surface water temperatures become 2 degrees Celsius above average as a result of a rise in air temperature. The physics I did demonstrated that the air movement over water actually cools the surface due to evaporation. This is the way human beings keep cool by perspiration. It is all to do with the latent heat of water if I remember correctly.
Which will heat up the surface of the water quicker a hairdryer set at the or a radiant electric fire? The sun is the equivalent of the electric fire.

If you put a bottle of water in the fridge, it cools, however if you leave it out in the warm air it gets warm. Quite simple really.

The argument about Sun Spots is an unsupported one. NASA scientists have provided enough evidence to put that claim to rest once and for all. There is simply not enough variation in the sun's activities to account for the current rise in temperatures. The idea is absurd and scientifically unsupported. Sorry boys and girls, I like the Climate Change Death Ray idea much better as it's much more plausible.

Even if the hypoothesis, about the sun's solar activities having a significant enough effect on temperatures, could account for the current level of climate change, my formula would still hold true. Sun Spots would in the same way cause global warming, now would they not. Whether climate change is triggered by CO2 emissions or Sun Spot activity, the end result would still be Global Warming. Thus the formula would still be the same.

You people must present your arguments much better as they tend to be extremely weak.

ZPJ

[Richard]

Originally Posted by HEC

Mathematics is all about black and white, however the world is full of greys. All you have to do is look at a black and white photo to discover that. Even the world is very diverse, and often the phenomena that do occur on this earth can't be explained by absolute rights or wrongs. Mathematics is about absolutes, and that is it's biggest weakness, as the world is not finite. There are too many factors at play when it comes to global warming to be explained by absolutes.

You've never heard of statistics and probability theory then?

[HEC]

Originally Posted by TheRobster

You've never heard of statistics and probability theory then?

This theory is not about absolutes. MM is talking about absolutes. I was referring to absolute mathematics myself. Sorry Robster, again your example falls short of the target. SOMETHING=SOMETHING, ANYTHING=ANYTHING. Rubbish. Does this ring a bell? He is leaving no margin for error. Climate analogy is not an absolute science and it never will be.

Based on all the evidence available to us, the best logical equations we can present are:

Global Warming=Increased Hurricane activity
Global Warming=More Intense Hurricanes

Therefore:

Global Warming=Record Hurricane figures

Which as a result translates to:

Global Warming=Hurricane Wilma, a record breaking hurricane


The above analogy is a result of deductive reasoning.


Give an example of an absolute mathematical equation that deals with areas best described by grays rather than blacks or whites. MM is an absolute kind of guy and his absolute analogies have no real value here.

Case closed.

ZPJ

[MarkuisMellvile]

OK Zoltan,

You'll have to agree to differ on the ludicrous argument about your use of the '=' sign.

I don't purport to know more than you about what you know, and find any suggestion that you knowmore than anyone else about what they've learned frankly insulting. You go so far a to directly insult me.

Now as Eurapart says, he (and most other people) can see the value in the choices I've made. That you're determined to explain away (by what you call deductive reasoning as though no-one else is capable of that!) a thoroughly stubborn mis-use of mathematical statements, rather than simply acknowledging that you chose to use an absolute statement when referring to deductively reasoned conclusions is a shame.

I've put into many of my posts on this forum, evidence that some of your views and my views coincide, not conflict. What I don't suvbscribe to is that nature is some unique living entity that chooses to react to what people or any other damaging influence do to it.

Anti-Hype also makes the mistake of using their own religious beliefs/opinions to interpret language I've used in posts. I use the word belief to mean an opinion held or conlusion drawn, rather than in any way connected to religious conviction.

Now can we all agree that Hurricane Wilma (when this thread was started) as a Category 5 hurricane, and being the 12th hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico this season, is indeed a very strong storm that is representative of the increasingly damaging storms that logically will occur as our atmosphere warms in that region as the climate changes?

MM

[HEC]

Originally Posted by MarkuisMellvile

OK Zoltan,

You'll have to agree to differ on the ludicrous argument about your use of the '=' sign.
MM

No insult intended, but somehow I managed to insult you. Totally unintentional may I add.

I am suggesting that a narror approach such as the one you have presented to climate change is very inappropriate to say the least. Nothing personal as I am not attacking you, but rather your arguments. You are too hung up on the'=' sign and you can't get past it. It's still black and white for you. That kind of analogy has no place in Climate Change Science. Getting caught up on absolutes is putting a great deal of limitaions on Climate Science. It seriously hinders any real progression.

I am not claiming to know more. I am merely presenting my side of the argument. P.S. Don't just state that I am claiming to I know more than anyone. Give evidence to prove your points. That would, in fact, seriously put a big dent in my arguments, now would it not.

One more thing. Why did you not make the same arguments in the "Climate Change = Earths rotation slowing down?" thread? Do I detect some favoritism on your part? Where is the consistency?

Originally Posted by MM

Now can we all agree that Hurricane Wilma (when this thread was started) as a Category 5 hurricane, and being the 12th hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico this season, is indeed a very strong storm that is representative of the increasingly damaging storms that logically will occur as our atmosphere warms in that region as the climate changes?

Yes. That much we can all state without an ounce of hesitation.

ZPJ

[MarkuisMellvile]

Originally Posted by HEC

No insult intended, but somehow I managed to insult you. Totally unintentional may I add.

I am suggesting that a narror approach such as the one you have presented to climate change is very inappropriate to say the least. Nothing personal as I am not attacking you, but rather your arguments. You are too hung up on the'=' sign and you can't get past it. It's still black and white for you. That kind of analogy has no place in Climate Change Science. Getting caught up on absolutes is putting a great deal of limitaions on Climate Science. It seriously hinders any real progression.

I am not claiming to know more. I am merely presenting my side of the argument. P.S. Don't just state that I am claiming to I know more than anyone. Give evidence to prove your points. That would, in fact, seriously put a big dent in my arguments, now would it not.

One more thing. Why did you not make the same arguments in the "Climate Change = Earths rotation slowing down?" thread? Do I detect some favoritism on your part? Where is the consistency?

Yes. That much we can all state without an ounce of hesitation.

ZPJ

Good.

I've emboldened those two phrases to illustrate your use of the second person singular in attacking "[my] arguemnts". To state that I'm not being attacked, but follow up with statements in the second person singular is rather contradictory.

I'm not the only person making assumptions on which to base my posts. We all do it from time to time, but few people use those assumptions as their basic philosophy.

I chose not to look at the Earth rotation thread, not through favouritism, but because I don't have infinite time to post on this site, so have to be selective (as we all do) about which threads I take part in. If a thread inspires me (often because I agree or disagree strongly with its theme) I'll post on it. If what I post is met with argumentative responses I ten to reply, rather than ignoring the respondent and looking for other threads to join in. Thus, over the last few days, I have replied to those arguments that I think most need clarifying or challenging.

Now an agreement has been reached as shown above, lets move on without being accusatory in the contributions we make.

MM

[Richard]

Originally Posted by HEC

Give an example of an absolute mathematical equation that deals with areas best described by grays rather than blacks or whites.

y = square root of 2.

[Zoltan Paul Jambor]

Originally Posted by TheRobster

y = square root of 2.

If y = square root of 2 then why not Hurricane Wilma 'strongest ever' = Global Warming


MM. You can choose to see me attacking you with guns and daggers. Again, Mr. Mathematician, I am attacking your reasoning, not your person. But you take it personally anyways. Oh well. What can I say?

"First person singular ... second person...." all coming from the very same man who can't even use the word 'either' properly in an English sentence.

O.K. MM.


ZPJ