Non-programming Interests

Pages: 123
closed account (yqj1hbRD)
But why didn't these scientists remember the age 10000 years before?

And also the middle age was warmer than nowadays. Was it 4°C more? No, I don't want to google now. But I know, that it was warmer, and that vine was cultivated in regions of Germany, where now wine would become too sour.

But you shouldn't mean, that a rise in temperature in the average of a year should mean, that the summers should be hotter. It could also be, that the winters would be milder and the summers not so hot, but more rain.

Oh, when I think of winter and summer in the year 1976 in Germany. The winter so cold and frosty and so long. Temperature less than -30°C, like in Sibira. Followed by a Summer very hot and dusty with 6 weeks hot sunshine and without any rain. But the wine of this year was very good.

And now the winter swinging near 0 °C and the summer mostly rain and rain and rain. Good for somebody, who lives in a loft, otherwise the temperature in the summer would become almost unbearable.

But now it is good for new housing space. Before nearly nobody lived in a loft.

But holidays in Germany? Bathing season? Not good, but good for airlines.

At the other hand an early summer in March and an indian summer in October isn't so bad instead snow and ice.

And if our winters and summers are similar as in England? I think, if the Britains can live with such a climate, the Germans also should be able to do it.

But who said, there wouldn't be real winters. Three meters snow in East Anatolia were a lot of snow this winter. I don't know, when we should go skying in winter in the Sahara.

This could be if the Sahara would become green again during the next 2000 years as it was already before 10000 years, before this glacial backlash. And during the world ages the Sahara should have been only about 5% of the times a desert. And after the next 2000 years the Sahara should stay green more than 70000 years.

The spreading out of the desert Sahara just has stopped now and the regreening begins! Shall then the Sahara be called Atlantis again, as it was called before? Normally yes, because otherwise the Ocean should have be named Saharian Ocean. Could be also, that humans had known, why they shouldn't do this. But could be also, we Buddhas didn't like such ideas.

And why should we always live in an end glacial time during a cold age?

And how do Americans call a glacial periode: Ice Age.
And how do Americans call a cold age, which has short glacial times 15000 years and long interglacial times 90000 years without glaciers in the Alps: Ice Age.

Oh, oh, the glaciers in the Alps will be melted away soon but then the Sahara will be green. Humans buy land in the Sahara, it's still cheap for nice villas and gardens for your offsprings!

And in which such an Ice Age do we live since 33,5 Millions of years: The Cenocoic Ice Age

Oh, how cold and frosty it is!

An Ice Age means, that there is still some ice at the poles.

But when it's away, we can build villas and gardens in Antarctica.
A pity that this will not happen soon.

And also in Antarktika you could find fossils - maybe much interesting ones, if only the ice wouldn't be so thick, that digging is so hard.

Ice Age: glaciers at the poles (ca 25% of ages)
Warm Age: no glaciers at the poles (ca 75% of ages)
Glacial: glaciers in the Alps (periodes of ca 15000 years now during an Ice Age)
Interglacial: no glaciers in the Alps (periodes of ca 90000 years now during an Ice Age)
Last edited on
You're interpreting the word "never" too literally. What the sentence actually says is
In fact most parts of the continent are below freezing all year round.
not
In fact most parts of the continent are physically incapable of thawing.


But I can't understand, when they now measure a temperature of -37°C, that this would be evidence, that this temperature never changes.
You're right. The fact that a parameter doesn't change now isn't valid evidence for the idea that it will never change. That's not what the text says, though. Ignoring my interpretation, all it says is that the temperature will stay low is a fact. It doesn't say how they came to that conclusion.
It's worth noting that the conclusion isn't logically impossible. There exists a valid reasoning that lets you arrive to it.
closed account (yqj1hbRD)
helios wrote:
Ignoring my interpretation, all it says is that the temperature will stay low is a fact.


But also this isn't a fact. We could assume, if the ecliptic don't change, then we should mean, that the temperature on Antarctica should be lower than the average temperature on earth.

But I didn't consider new streams like golf stream.
And I didn't consider that the ecliptic could change, so that after such a change the equator could meet the poles.

Also could be thinkable, that the gradient of the axis of the earth could change, so that in an extreme case, the south pole could point an age long directly to the sun, and night never comes. So the south pole could become also the hottest region of the Earth.

I don't assume now, that this would happen. But can I be sure? And did the writers of this text really consider these possibilities and all others, which I didn't think of now. And did they really get evidence for all?

This seems to me quite unthinkable.

I didn't say it never can be different, when somebody says "never", but I doubt it. And if I can think only of one possibility more (or less considering always), than I know, they are not right.

And until now, I could always find such a possibiliy more ore less. Maybe in a rare case I cannot find such a possibility. But if I cannot find it, this will not mean, that there is none, but only that I am not able to find it.

But there are exceptions of this rule: other rules of thinking, like rules for logic or mathematics or exact definitions.

But limited phantasy or limited knowledge shouldn't be an exception for this rule.

And normally for correct thoughts, these words are not necessary. Or did you read ever something like:

if a<b and b<c then always a<c

If I hear such a sentence, I hear in my mind, that the writer himself has doubts or would think, others could have doubts.

Oh, I also doubt the word "all". When you hear all people do this or did this, then you also should doubt.

Maybe one person was sitting on the toilette and didn't do what all the others did.

also none
also everybody
also nobody
also nothing
also everything

I think we should make a catalogue of such words. And the humans should learn these words by heart. And when they hear such a word, they automatically should doubt. Then not much nonsense could be told anymore.

Sorry, this was not so a good idea. If everybody would know this, then the nonses tellers, would say the same nonsense, but without these words. And the nonsense couldn't be anymore so easily discovered. Best, I know about it, and this should be my secret. What a pity, that I now had told it.
Last edited on
closed account (yqj1hbRD)
Here you can see a short text from an article about the Saharah in a German magazine, translated with:

http://translate.google.com

One explanation for the development of the savannah and back could be the stronger sunlight after the last ice age to be. Due to the larger temperature difference between the oceans and the continents emerged stronger monsoon winds that carried the water vapor in the ocean far to the country. With the temperature leveled off and the winds again. Researchers suspect that there was every 100 000 years, a wet period in the Sahara.
...
Geology: How the Sahara became a desert - read on to FOCUS Online: http://www.focus.de/wissen/natur/geologie-wie-die-sahara-zur-wueste-wurde_aid_300481.html


The time of 100000 years is very much fitting, but what did the researchers forget?
And why did they forget this, what I told before?
Last edited on
But also this isn't a fact.
It also isn't what it says.
Ignoring my interpretation, all it says is that the temperature will stay low is a fact.


And did the writers of this text really consider these possibilities and all others, which I didn't think of now. And did they really get evidence for all?
You're arguing a vacuous truth. You're saying the author should get evidence before making outrageous claims, which is true, but the author didn't make said claims.

And normally for correct thoughts, these words are not necessary. Or did you read ever something like:

if a<b and b<c then always a<c
Not specifically this statement, but I have seen "always" used in mathematical contexts. Here's an example taken straight from my Algebra book:
If c isn't prime, it's always possible to find a and b such that ab is divisible by c, but neither a nor b are divisible by c.
The word is meaningless in this context. It's only meant to add emphasis to the statement.
There's other cases where it isn't meaningless: let f be a function over the reals that returns 1 if its argument is rational, and 0 otherwise, then "f is almost always 0" is true.
Last edited on
closed account (yqj1hbRD)
Sorry, that I have to tell something. But you should know I am not a holy roller. I am a very clear thinker and a doubter. And what I doubt is the date.

You have heard about such a date: 21.12.2012 ?

This date I doubt. But clear is, it will happen. And I don't know how much time we have for preparations.

I discovered, that a precession cycle of the earth has only a duration of 26000 years. But a glacial period added by an interglacial period is four times as long.
This means, after four precession cycles happen changes in the climate, which we can't find in the rotation of the earth.

And what can also cause rises in the temperature? FCKW. And which FCKW stopped the last glacial period, which humans also called Ice Age? There was a minor event 13800 years ago in the Yellowstone region. And now we have to expect the real interglacial period with no glaciers in the Alps and a green Sahara for more than 70000. How much FCKW will be needed for such a climate? I think, you will know, what I mean.

And we cannot close our eyes. It will happen, but we don't know exactly when.

What will happen:

A mighty sea wave will wash away the sands of the Sahara. We can then admire the remainings of the old Atlantis, which is located in the desert Sahara, which then becomes the new green land Atlantis again. And there we can build our houses and gardens. And this we should do, because much of the ozone layer of the earth will not exist anymore, which will cause skin cancer and other diseases.

I am not a prophet, I'm a scientist and a clear thinker, and I don't think nonsense or have nonsense ideas.

It's clear that the apocalypse will happen soon. But what is soon? I cannot know when, but we have to prepare and make plans.

If you would like to get more evidence, then I will give it to you.

Maybe not apocalypse now, but apocalypse soon, but how soon, I don't know.

You shouldn't believe, what I have told, but you should have so an open mind, that you can have enough insight and understanding to grasp it. Otherwise I cannot save your life.

And now all humans, who can understand, that it is true, what I have told should work together for developing a rescue plan.
Last edited on
Hmm, Avalokitesvara, you sound a lot like someone else who used to come here...
@Avolokitesvara
You have heard about such a date: 21.12.2012 ?

This date I doubt. But clear is, it will happen. And I don't know how much time we have for preparations.

But C/C++ date time functions are not limited to this date. So there's not proven that this will ever happen. Well, so I don't care :-P
Last edited on
Anyone remember the Y2K fiasco? I think we're gonna be fine
closed account (yqj1hbRD)
Sorry, that my ideas today could have troubled you.

I didn't want to say, that now the eruption of the Yellowstone hotspot would happen.
I am only concerned with a special topic.
And this topic is about the times, in which we live.

And what I know, is this:

You need not worry, that human FCKW would cause global warming.
Global warming happens now with or without human FCKW,
because after a glacial period during an ice age follows an interglacial period.

But the reason why, I don't know.
My first idea was FCKW, because humans say, that global warming would be caused by human FCKW.
And so I thought about hotspots, especially about the hotspot in the Yellowstone region.
But the eruptions don't happen with such a regularity and an eruption 70000 years ago don't fit to this idea.
So I let this idea die.

And now you can see the difference between humans and a Buddha. A Buddha simply let such an idea die.
But humans like very much, to proof their ideas or to announce their ideas, inspite there were hints, that the ideas would be wrong.

I Buddha has very great abilities, but his abilities a Buddha don't use like humans. Humans like to test very much. Whether a Buddha likes to test, depends on the aftermath. A Buddha has a golden heart, humans mostly not.

So the American tested the bomb by dropping it over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
A Buddha could blast the Yellowstone hotspot.

But why didn't he do it?
Last edited on
I am not a prophet, I'm a scientist
We can then admire the remainings of the old Atlantis, which is located in the desert Sahara


It's clear that the apocalypse will happen soon.
I am not a prophet, I'm a scientist

Uh-huh... Alrighty, then.
Last edited on
I am not a prophet, I'm a scientist


If you're a scientist then what are you doing on a programming site. And also it has been proven by NASA that that date is not what people make of it. If your a "scientist" you better keep up with discoveries:P And what the crap Atlantis is in the Sahara then get over and start digging!Don't you think other scientists would have done found it by now if it was anyway?.....Metal Detecting.....
This thread got way off topic because of one post.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.
Pages: 123