Quote from: BADecker on February 20, 2020, 12:29:24 AM

Sounds great to me. But you seemed a little bit on your high horse when you first suggested that I was a troll for talking about global cooling from volcanoes and their ash.

Your outlandish claim (i.e. extraordinary without any substantial evidence backing it up) made me feel you were just teasing or not taking discussions seriously, but I agree I could've been a bit less aggressive when pointing that aspect. I'm a bit cynical with non-bitcoin discussion in this forum after seeing notbatman. So my bad if I was aggressive.

Quote from: BADecker on February 20, 2020, 12:29:24 AM

I guess we all know that Wikipedia allows trolls to place info into their pages.

English Wikipedia is well moderated especially for more scientific articles so I'd argue they are trustworthy as long as they link their sources, which happened on the section you mentioned. I wouldn't think there are lies in there.

Quote from: BADecker on February 20, 2020, 12:29:24 AM

So, maybe GC from volcanoes isn't true.

I feel this claim is a product of two misunderstandings.

The first is that when we're talking about global cooling, i.e. a trend of decreasing temperature, a punctual event isn't useful. It may affect weather (short term) conditions, but as the years elapse its effects will be slowly reserved. Volcanic-related global cooling has already happened on Earth's history (a geology paper that backs my claim but uses a lot of jargon).

The second is that our current geological setting does not indicate widespread volcanic activity (the last moment such was the case was the breakthrough of Pangea, some 180 million years ago.. In general we can say the tectonic plates shift between moments of intense volcanism and moments of intense mountain-building and we're kinda somewhere in between those.

Quote from: BADecker on February 20, 2020, 12:29:24 AM

And maybe other sites that say similar things in more detail got their info from Wikipedia. But the same for global warming. I mean, if you can't tell the difference between fake news and real news, how do you determine anything when it is this huge of a topic?

That's an excellent question. My answer for that would be: the consensual explanation of specialists who back their claim on scientific evidence. And if that isn't enough, then I'd go and skim through the scientific articles myself. And if that is not enough either, I'd go and read their methodologies & results while ignoring their conclusions. But that third step is mostly reserved for academic purposes. What about you?

Quote from: Spendulus on February 20, 2020, 02:34:44 AM

Well, consider for a second, petroleum geologists. They work with oil, eg fossil fuels, the GREAT SATAN, some would say. But they known the history of dirt and rock, so might be considered an "intelligent adversary."

They are not going to claim such things.

I mean, the oil industry isn't exclusively related to fossil fuels, neither is the only type of fuel that is "unsustainable", so I wouldn't say they're Great Satan. And while I do recognize environmentalists think so, I wouldn't say such an opinion is directed to the researchers but to the companies & their exploratory techniques (often bypassing procedures to guarantee minimal environmental impact) & their overall long-term goals.

With that said, I didn't get your point.

Quote from: Spendulus on February 20, 2020, 02:34:44 AM

Phrasing such as "influences..." ..."feed the pattern but not the pattern..." are not scientific. I assume the "pattern itself" is what, a world temperature? What is that?

Of course they're not scientific, this is not a symposium and using jargon is not important. What matters is expressing one's point, and I'll restate mine in case it wasn't clear:

Global warming is the long-term trend of increase in average global temperatures;
Global cooling is the long-term trend of decrease in average global temperatures.

Quote from: Luqueasaur on February 19, 2020, 10:04:41 PM

Let's just say thermodynamic equilibrium, which if reached would present a temperature measurable like on a gray body radiator. What you'd be seeking is that temperature upon which you'd superimpose say, man's co2 emissions, then noting their effects, or superimposing solar flare and solar wind effects, therefore measuring their effects.

Otherwise, how could one make any intelligent assessment? But you don't have a baseline temperature?

Since the Earth is in an open system, there's no thermodynamic equilibrium. There might be models of Earth as a closed system, but I'm not aware of that. But the lack of evidence does not point the lack of existence, so this might be a widespread tool used in Atmospheric sciences, who know. You'd have to ask a climatologist about that.

Nonetheless, I still think that the indirect evidences of anthropogenic actions & global warming suffices to cause a correlation. Firstly, men impacted the Ozone layer with CFC and was able to revert the damages, secondly, temperatures show a trend of unnatural increase since the Industrial Revolution which can't really be tracked to any other long-term influence other than, well, men (once again). And given our destructive impact on the biosphere it's not far-fetched to think we could also impact yet another (vulnerable) sphere of the Earth system.