Ice age theory

superball · November 21, 2011

Was it this model that has taken for granted self evident processes, and delimit the realm of analysis, or has main stream confounded the situation, because they lost there way by not following self evident principles, and observation?

This is a question for the reader, it is used to test current models. It is used to determine related factors. It is thought to be polluted with irrelevant information. It is thought to have dismissed natural self evident factors. It is thought to have been confusing. It is thought to have not answered to a high degree all factors related to the present day.

How was it determined by what came before, and what came after. By assuming the model was functional in the first place, and by determining the model has been in a evolving manner polluted with irrelevant amendments.

By the continued use of amendments, leading to confusion.. Another axiom of course.

Does global warming models list these factors in a cause, and effect chain?

From an observable point of view are current models functional?

Do they explain to a high degree all of the main causes in order of importance?

What is assumed to be self evident?

A Cause and effect chain answers, or explain questions related to specific change.

Keep in mind the model is not related to a global warming process. Instead it is used to determine the outcome of cause and effects related.

The foundation of change in a system is categorized in a cause and effect chain.

Observable, testable, factual. Open for amendments.

I have no idea what you are trying to say or how that sentence relates to what went before and what came after. I appreciate it is difficult when working in a foregin language - perhaps you could try writing shorter sentences.

I remain willing to discuss your ideas and will be happy to do so once I know what they are.

I thank you for your willingness to help.

I agree more is needed, I really did not think about the Q. & A.

My wording, and ideas of methodology may have not been clear. First It is a simple model. Second cause and effect chain is used for all determining factors. Third Tested for truth and functionality.

Perhaps, because of my Questioning process others find it aloof.

Q: When we describe a system effected by change, how do you determine, and go about explaining these changes in a scientific manner?

Include, and determine the state of changes occurring in the system leading to a functional physical working model.

My question was used to determine these factors.

The methodology, I had used the axiom assuming all is true.

I had tested for a high degree of accuracy.

All statements used for explaining changes by categorizing the fundamental laws of nature.

Change was determined by cause, and effect including only what is not assumed, but instead what is widely known.

Factor that are less widely known are also included, and gives answers to questions current models lack.

by use of axiom assuming all statements are true, and then by testing it for truth.

by using well known principles, explaining a cause for a given effect.

by keeping it very simple, including self evident or well known principles.

by explaining other less known causes for a given effect.

A trend can be used to determine a cause. True, or false?

Every thing in nature, everything included in a system has a generating effect on another system.

You might say mainstream global warming scientist look at a completely closed system, ignoring self evident principles, and observation.

I hope this is sufficient although it seems to be very repetitive.

Thank you for your help, respectfully super-ball.

Edited November 21, 2011 by superball

Ophiolite · November 22, 2011

I still have no frigging idea what you are on about, unless it is this: it seems you are questioning the validity of how science is presently conducted. You think that too many irrelevant observations are included in hypotheses. You think that the only things that should be included are items/events/entities that are part of a cause and effect chain.

Is that short description of your thesis correct? Please, if possible, give a yes or no answer.

Let me try to deconstruct one or two of your paragraphs and show you what is confusing me. (It may not just be me. The absence of queries or comments from others suggests they have given up on you.)

This is a question for the reader, it is used to test current models. It is used to determine related factors. It is thought to be polluted with irrelevant information. It is thought to have dismissed natural self evident factors. It is thought to have been confusing. It is thought to have not answered to a high degree all factors related to the present day.

Grammatically the question referred to above is the it mentioned in the succeeding sentences. However none of those make any sense. It might make more sense if the it was the current model, but that is not what you have written. The end result is that I have no idea what you were trying to say and since this is the introduction to your response I am now adrift with no reference points as I continue deeper into your explanatory morasse.

For me at least, you really need to get your act together and start expressing yourself clearly if we are to make any progress. Perhaps other members will post saying the they find your

writing lucid. If so the fault will lie with me, but it doesn't look that way at present.

JustinW · November 22, 2011

The methodology, I had used the axiom assuming all is true.

I have the same problem as Ophiolite. I have been waiting for clarity. The OP was about an ice age theory, then goes on to talk about all weather and current forcast models. But you do not state your case anywhere in the thread.(Or at least stated it clearly.) Are the current models wrong, if so, then how? Do you have a model that differs from those currently used? If so, explain what is different. Maybe try to give examples of what the other models have done wrong and why.

I had tested for a high degree of accuracy.

Tested what? Give examples of what was tested, how you tested it, and the end result of said tests.

Change was determined by cause, and effect including only what is not assumed, but instead what is widely known.
Factor that are less widely known are also included, and gives answers to questions current models lack.

Like I said, I think we could better understand what you are saying if we had some real life examples to go by.

superball · November 22, 2011

Is that short description of your thesis correct? Please, if possible, give a yes or no answer.

No. short description is in the final, labeled final.

Super-ball asked Was it this model that has taken for granted self evident processes, and delimit the realm of analysis, or has main stream confounded the situation, because they lost there way by not following self evident principles, and observation?

I feel it was unfair for you to ask. It was my question. It was intended for the reader to answer.

Grammar is poor in some instances. I made many mistakes. I am sorry.

The way I had answered my own question was as (example). If you did not understand the question, or understand how to relate, I am sorry. The final author notes section is labeled. Now you have asked for opinion, and should come at a later time.

I will not pollute the main factors provided with opinions, before we agree on something.

I have many questions in this model. I have answered all questions related. Progress answers questions. There is plenty of questions to be answered on your part also. The model is not opinion based sorry. Please answer questions related to content in previous posts. I think more clarity will be obtained on both our parts. I sincerely Intend for clarity.

If you may help me please by doing so. I clearly stated this is not global warming model. I clearly describes how the model was intended to be used.

sincerely I do appreciate your time, maybe we can find a better use for it. I am going in circles here.

I have the same problem as Ophiolite. I have been waiting for clarity. The OP was about an ice age theory, then goes on to talk about all weather and current forcast models. But you do not state your case anywhere in the thread.(Or at least stated it clearly.) Are the current models wrong, if so, then how? different.

OP is ice age yes, but will provide many less known relations. cause and effect means it gives cause for a given effect, so The model will clearly answer many more questions unrelated to atmosphere alone.

Currently Used by Present day Global warming models, So yea cause and effect answer many questions related to observation.

Do you have a model that differs from those currently used? If so, explain what is Maybe try to give examples of what the other models have done wrong and why.

The model is very different Yes.

I like your explanation, and I will provide, if you have a specific question related to current models please ask, this will systematically answer all line of questioning.

My question for you is, would you like to ask a question about any current (global warming model) If yes I will attempt to use the model for that purpose.

Tested what? Give examples of what was tested, how you tested it, and the end result of said tests.

I think we could better understand what you are saying if we had some real life examples to go by.

This is my intention, and I thank you for mentioning it. The only problem with that is I am the expert relating to my content. I do not believe current models are expressed in a few short paragraphs expressing cause, and effect for any given subject related to the system we call Earth.

Thank you guys for asking for clarity, I hope I have done so.

respectfully super-ball.

Edited November 22, 2011 by superball

Ophiolite · November 22, 2011

I simply have no idea what you are talking about. I believe you are sincere, but your statements simply make no sense. You refuse or are unable to summarise your thesis in a couple of simple sentences, or at most paragraphs. I'm giving up for the moment, but because it is rude to swear on the forum. If I can find the moral fibre to return I shall do so, but man you need to sit down with someone who can write English and explain your ideas to them and get them to summarise them for you. The present approach is fruitless. Good luck.

superball · November 22, 2011

Self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition, or assumption.

summarise your thesis in a couple of simple sentences,

Q: When we describe a system effected by change, how do you determine, and go about explaining these changes in a scientific manner?

Include, and determine the state of changes occurring in the system leading to a functional physical working model.

My question was used to determine these factors.

The methodology, I had used the axiom assuming all is true.

A list of some questions,

Does global warming models list these factors in a cause, and effect chain?

From an observable point of view are current models functional?

Do they explain to a high degree all of the main causes in order of importance?

What is assumed to be self evident?

A trend can be used to determine a cause. True, or false?

Every thing in nature, everything included in a system has a generating effect on another system.

A Cause and effect chain answers, or explain questions related to specific change.

Keep in mind the model is not related to a global warming process. (Instead it is used to determine the outcome of cause and effects related).

The foundation of change in a system is categorized in a cause and effect chain.

Observable, testable, factual. Open for amendments.

This is my intention, to answer any questions related to The predictions, effects, or results of less well known factors related to the present day.

By doing so, the information I will provide will answer many questions related to past, present, and future.

I thank you for your time.

Respectfully super-ball.

Edited November 22, 2011 by superball

Essay · November 22, 2011

...you need to sit down with someone who can write English and explain your ideas to them and get them to summarise them for you. The present approach is fruitless.

Agreed! ...Or perhaps lithium would be more effective.

But lets give this a try....

The methodology, I had used the axiom assuming all is true.

What are any of your axioms (that you use for your model)? What do you know of the axioms for the current model?

My question for you is, would you like to ask a question about any current (global warming model) If yes I will attempt to use the model for that purpose.

Does your model account for change in insolation at 65^oN. Latitude? The current model includes this as a trigger for changing glacial regimes. How does your model differ (in that aspect of changing insolation) from the current model?

superball · November 22, 2011

[quote

Does your model account for change in insolation at 65^oN. Latitude? The current model includes this as a trigger for changing glacial regimes. How does your model differ (in that aspect of changing insolation) from the current model?

You are asking me for a trigger that will give a signal correct? It has been provided. A tilt, or shift in earth axial.

You say, he say, a trigger is needed. Is the specific latitude needed to understand what a trigger is? No.

You say, the current model includes this as a trigger for changing glacial regimes, and is determined by the amount of solar energy hitting a given point. average in watts per square meter (W/m2)

This is an assumption on there side. Would you like to state the figures if you can locate them please?

Global warmers, the conditions, and requirements are based on the assumption of solar energy, some specific measure has been included although it has never been observed.

Ice age, this model also included solar energy as a main contributor. No specific location, or intensity of solar energy needed. Although it is clearly Higher in recent years.

Does global warmer give an approximation? Time frame for this specific trigger, when will this happen?

When will the heat all by itself reaching a given point on the globe trigger this ice age?

Observation is a key factor.

sincerely super-ball

Edited November 22, 2011 by superball