Oooh, the earth has a "fever"
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
is equivalent to the ID argument that "man is so complex a creator must be involved". The complaint from those holding this hypothesis is that they claim the immediate removal of all evidence and selectively choosing elements that they wish.
Is it scientific to ignore the possibility that a creator was involved? What if a creator was involved? Is science a search for truth or only politically correct answers?
Steve Holle wrote:
Is it scientific to ignore the possibility that a creator was involved?
if you can provide some scientific evidence for this "creator", we can talk about his place in science.
Steve Holle wrote:
What if a creator was involved?
excellent question. but until there is some evidence, that's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
we'll talk again after a few more centuries
of course, if the climatologists now are right, we might not have centuries. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
1. We have climatologists who say that if we keep burning fossil fuels for another 200 years we'll melt the ice caps and alter weather patterns causing massive environmental changes leading to human extinction. 2. We have geologists who say we have only enough fossil fuels for another 50 years. When it runs out society and governments collapse, anarchy reigns and mankind devolves back into the dark ages. They laugh at climatologists. 3. We have whack-job politicians who are likely to "push the button" or cause another whack-job politician to push his button triggering global thermonuclear war and atomic winter. They laugh at geologists. Sadly, I'm betting on #3 and the fact that mankind is gonna end under a mushroom cloud not by raising the earth's temperature by a degree and a half. When we go out, it will be with a bang rather than a whimper. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
It's hard to tell if the media gives science a bad name, or scientists do a fine job of it on their own.
maybe that "bad name" is a product of people who mock the results without taking the time to learn how they were derived. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Warning: This really is soapbox material but I didn't start it, I'm just putting in my two cents.
Chris Losinger wrote:
maybe that "bad name" is a product of people who mock the results without taking the time to learn how they were derived.
It's not the results of the study that I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is that scientists, media, politicians, etc, all honestly think that this (global warming) is a recent occurrance and would rather pound on their pulpets than actually work on the real problems. Here's my take on it: Of course there's global warming. The number of bodies on the planet have increased drastically over the past 2000 years, and just the population increase alone will have a warming effect on the planet. Then take into account "taming the environment" in the form of raping the earth by destroying forests all across the world. Next we add paved roads and large cities. Heat traps all of them. Then the glut of fossil fuel burners in whatever form (factories, cars and trucks, etc) spewing exhaust in the air creating a green house effect. But here's the catch, the biggest offenders, diesel burners (them big trucks and other vehicles of all types using the same fuel) have ZERO emission standards and that's a VERY popular type of engine due to it's torque output. The earth has been getting warmer since the dawn of man and as population spreads, which requires more housing and the growing of cities, which leads to more population, etc. It's a catch 22 scenario. As long as man lives on the planet it *WILL* get warmer as time goes by until one of two things happen: We leave the planet completely before it dies off, or we all die off and the planet has a chance to heal itself by reclaiming all those cities and roadways. Mike Poz
-
Singapore is the best example for environment control! They're always trying keep their cities clean and neat. One of my friend working there at singapore. He said me that, "Owning a car here is very costly. It is not possible to afford the tax." With their rules, they're keeping their environment green, clean and neat [^] SaRath.
"Do Next Thing..." Understanding State Pattern in C++ -
Steve Holle wrote:
Is it scientific to ignore the possibility that a creator was involved?
if you can provide some scientific evidence for this "creator", we can talk about his place in science.
Steve Holle wrote:
What if a creator was involved?
excellent question. but until there is some evidence, that's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
If you can show me one example of one species becomming another, we could talk about evolution's place in science. If macro evolution, the evolving of a completely new species is unverifiable, unrepeatable and cannot be scientifically refuted, then why is this a better explaination for man than a creator? If you had never seen a watch before, and you found one on a beach, would it seem logical to postulate that it evolved out of sand, or some other primitive substance? You could postulate evolution of the watch without intelligent intervention, but you would be wrong. No matter how often you said it evolved by selection you would be wrong. No matter how many scientists said that was how it happened, they would be wrong. The idea that science has the final answers at this time is as old as science. If you feel free to discuss ID as if it couldn't happen when all you really know is that it might not have happened then please, allow me the same freedom to discuss evolution, or whatever your favorite theory of the origin of man, with the same freedom.
-
1. We have climatologists who say that if we keep burning fossil fuels for another 200 years we'll melt the ice caps and alter weather patterns causing massive environmental changes leading to human extinction. 2. We have geologists who say we have only enough fossil fuels for another 50 years. When it runs out society and governments collapse, anarchy reigns and mankind devolves back into the dark ages. They laugh at climatologists. 3. We have whack-job politicians who are likely to "push the button" or cause another whack-job politician to push his button triggering global thermonuclear war and atomic winter. They laugh at geologists. Sadly, I'm betting on #3 and the fact that mankind is gonna end under a mushroom cloud not by raising the earth's temperature by a degree and a half. When we go out, it will be with a bang rather than a whimper. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Mike Mullikin wrote:
3. We have whack-job politicians who are likely to "push the button" or cause another whack-job politician to push his button triggering global thermonuclear war and atomic winter. They laugh at geologists.
Nuclear winter's pretty well discredited at this point. Sagan et al took some worst case possibilities from what the people who wrote it admitted was a rather limited model exagerated them even farther and promoted it as gospel. Meanwhile the people whose model he was ranting off of refined their calculations and fairly conclusively proved it's not possible. If you remember back to the 1st gulf war, Sagan and his followers were proclaiming a global freeze from all the smoke from demolished oilwells. The only environmental impact it had was the black soot speeding the melting of himalayan glaciers.
-
Chadlling wrote:
But even if it has gotten warmer, the planet has a record of pretty dramatic temperature swings, long before humans had an opportunity to impact that temperature
can you prove that ? well, of course you can't. we know the temperatures have gone up and down over huge spans of time, but as far as "dramatic" (ie. big temp over small time) goes, no, you can't - nothing personal, nobody can. the work in this study is probably the best anyone can do right now as far as documenting detailed historic temperature changes. and, as far as we can tell, there's never been an upswing like the one we're currently in the middle of. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
and, as far as we can tell, there's never been an upswing like the one we're currently in the middle of.
That isn't true at all. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence of even larger and more drastic temperature swings in the past. The evidence of glacial activity is indisputable as is evidence of both poles being ice free at certain points in earth's history. In 1815, the volcano Tambora blew up causing 1816 to be known as the year without a summer. There is evidence that the eruption of Krakatoa about 416 CE caused the dark ages in a quite literal sense. In addition the Medieval Climatic Optimum circa 1000 CE was quite real and resulted in higher temperatures than we have today. Evidence for this are foods being grown in areas of the world where they can't be grown today if at all. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Allen Anderson wrote:
that when you are saying that your methods may have some trouble and your final result is half a degree, then perhaps you are within the margin for error.
but the "half a degree" is simply not the point of the study. the point of the study is to demonstrate the unusual increase in the last 100 years or so. yes, the earth's temperature goes up and down on it's own. but as far as we can tell, the rate of increase in past 100 years is unusual. again... go look at the pretty graph[^]
Allen Anderson wrote:
which has become religion
nonsense
Allen Anderson wrote:
Scientists who don't agree with the global warming position are piloried (sp?) endlessly for not falling into line
can you link to any specific examples of this ? can you show us scientists who did serious work who were shunned for not "falling into line" ? do you have any data at all to back up that statement ? Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
but as far as we can tell, the rate of increase in past 100 years is unusual.
It isn't at all. Overwhelming evidence points to drastic temperature changes in earth's history. (In fact, I think the evidence is that the relatively stable climate of the past 200 years is what's unusual.) As I stated earlier, the eruptions of Tambora and Krakatoa in the past 2000 years caused extreme and very rapid changes in temperature. During the Medieval Optimum, temperatures were much higher than today. Going further back, the peat bogs of England and Ireland require higher temperatures than both today and the MCE to form. The following is a good read: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605[^] Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke -- modified at 15:13 Friday 23rd June, 2006
-
If you can show me one example of one species becomming another, we could talk about evolution's place in science. If macro evolution, the evolving of a completely new species is unverifiable, unrepeatable and cannot be scientifically refuted, then why is this a better explaination for man than a creator? If you had never seen a watch before, and you found one on a beach, would it seem logical to postulate that it evolved out of sand, or some other primitive substance? You could postulate evolution of the watch without intelligent intervention, but you would be wrong. No matter how often you said it evolved by selection you would be wrong. No matter how many scientists said that was how it happened, they would be wrong. The idea that science has the final answers at this time is as old as science. If you feel free to discuss ID as if it couldn't happen when all you really know is that it might not have happened then please, allow me the same freedom to discuss evolution, or whatever your favorite theory of the origin of man, with the same freedom.
Steve Holle wrote:
If macro evolution...
nobody said anything about evolution. and since evolution is not the logical opposite of a creator, arguing against evolution is not the same as proving a "creator". if you can prove you creator, go right ahead - but you can't do it by disproving something else.
Steve Holle wrote:
If you had never seen a watch before, and you found one on a beach, would it seem logical to postulate that it evolved out of sand, or some other primitive substance?
no. but that's not the same as arguing against biological evolution, either.
Steve Holle wrote:
If you feel free to discuss ID as if it couldn't happen
i never said it "couldn't happen". i just asked if you could provide any proof. if someone could actually prove a 'creator' did anything, i'd be perfectly happy putting that fact into what i would consider real and honest science.
Steve Holle wrote:
allow me the same freedom to discuss
discuss it all you want. but don't pretend it has anything at all to do with actual science. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
and, as far as we can tell, there's never been an upswing like the one we're currently in the middle of.
That isn't true at all. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence of even larger and more drastic temperature swings in the past. The evidence of glacial activity is indisputable as is evidence of both poles being ice free at certain points in earth's history. In 1815, the volcano Tambora blew up causing 1816 to be known as the year without a summer. There is evidence that the eruption of Krakatoa about 416 CE caused the dark ages in a quite literal sense. In addition the Medieval Climatic Optimum circa 1000 CE was quite real and resulted in higher temperatures than we have today. Evidence for this are foods being grown in areas of the world where they can't be grown today if at all. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
That isn't true at all. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence of even larger and more drastic temperature swings in the past
citation, please - a multi-decade timespan with a large increase in temperature. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
but as far as we can tell, the rate of increase in past 100 years is unusual.
It isn't at all. Overwhelming evidence points to drastic temperature changes in earth's history. (In fact, I think the evidence is that the relatively stable climate of the past 200 years is what's unusual.) As I stated earlier, the eruptions of Tambora and Krakatoa in the past 2000 years caused extreme and very rapid changes in temperature. During the Medieval Optimum, temperatures were much higher than today. Going further back, the peat bogs of England and Ireland require higher temperatures than both today and the MCE to form. The following is a good read: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605[^] Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke -- modified at 15:13 Friday 23rd June, 2006
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Overwhelming evidence points to drastic temperature changes in earth's history
did you not read what i wrote, either time? "unusual" does not mean "the only time ever", nor does "rate... in past 100 years" mean anything like "average high temperature" or "short-term effects of isolated cataclysmic events" Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Steve Holle wrote:
If macro evolution...
nobody said anything about evolution. and since evolution is not the logical opposite of a creator, arguing against evolution is not the same as proving a "creator". if you can prove you creator, go right ahead - but you can't do it by disproving something else.
Steve Holle wrote:
If you had never seen a watch before, and you found one on a beach, would it seem logical to postulate that it evolved out of sand, or some other primitive substance?
no. but that's not the same as arguing against biological evolution, either.
Steve Holle wrote:
If you feel free to discuss ID as if it couldn't happen
i never said it "couldn't happen". i just asked if you could provide any proof. if someone could actually prove a 'creator' did anything, i'd be perfectly happy putting that fact into what i would consider real and honest science.
Steve Holle wrote:
allow me the same freedom to discuss
discuss it all you want. but don't pretend it has anything at all to do with actual science. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
discuss it all you want. but don't pretend it has anything at all to do with actual science.
Kind of like much of the "science" surrounding both sides of the global warming debate, huh?
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
discuss it all you want. but don't pretend it has anything at all to do with actual science.
Kind of like much of the "science" surrounding both sides of the global warming debate, huh?
feel free to disprove any of the stuff in that study. go right ahead, nobody will stop you. i eagerly await your results! Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Dustin Metzgar wrote:
Umm, so you're saying everyone that believes man hasn't changed the climate also believes that it's because it's impossible for man to change the climate?
The problem is we know that he has changed his environment sometimes on a massive scale, multiple times over! We almost destroyed the giant redwoods (ironically from conservation), almost destroyed all plant/animal life in the grand canyon (from flood control), the ozone hole, many times over man has changed regional and global effects. If you want to call yourself ignorant for ignoring all the things man has done to his own planet, go ahead. I simply said you were ignoring evidence, you put the 'I' word into the conversation. I used the word impossible because it is a common usage. you will hear the catch phrases "all climate affects are solar" which is completely true, and irrelevant to the conversation. Solar drives the energy, the distribution of that energy is atmospheric (fluid dynamics). Claiming that the sun is the only factor in global climate is equivalent to saying all men die therefore there is no such thing as murder because all death is natural. It is irrelevant to the conversation of murder, but completely true, all death is natural but still can be man made. You will also hear "the planet is so large that it is impossible for man to affect it on a global scale". Which ironically, is equivalent to the ID argument that "man is so complex a creator must be involved". The complaint from those holding this hypothesis is that they claim the immediate removal of all evidence and selectively choosing elements that they wish. "it was 2c cooler than last year here at my house, so global averages must be thrown out" is another common argument. Ignoring the thermal dynamic cooling of the atmosphere. If you heat one area, the earth will attempt to cool it creating larger variation from hot to cool, some places will be cooler and others hotter, the average is higher. But by selectively choosing the cooler places ONLY, there are claims to throw out the average. So more ways of averaging temperature are done, and more evidence ignored by those who wish to believe in ignoring evidence of "global average". There is also the argument of "average of 1/2C is not much" which also ignores the fluid dynamic cooling which means areas are getting hotter and cooler, larger extremes, but the combined average is 1/2C higher. Man has to live through the extremes, the natural cooling
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
I simply said you were ignoring evidence, you put the 'I' word into the conversation.
Actually, nowhere did I say what my stance was on the issue. You automatically assumed that I don't believe man has affected climate change. I do believe that. But I don't believe talking down to people who have the opposite view is a good way to promote discourse.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
That isn't true at all. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence of even larger and more drastic temperature swings in the past
citation, please - a multi-decade timespan with a large increase in temperature. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Medieval Climate Optimum. Good overview on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum[^] Holocene climatic optimum. Also on Wikipedia (out of convenience): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum[^] Added: http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2F0091-7613(1999)027%3C0199:OICFOP%3E2.3.CO%3B2[^] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69972[^] Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke -- modified at 17:34 Friday 23rd June, 2006
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Overwhelming evidence points to drastic temperature changes in earth's history
did you not read what i wrote, either time? "unusual" does not mean "the only time ever", nor does "rate... in past 100 years" mean anything like "average high temperature" or "short-term effects of isolated cataclysmic events" Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Unusual: not usual or common or ordinary The climate of the past 25 years is usual common and ordinary. (Actually, considering out mild it's been by comparison to historical data, one could argue this isn't true but in the opposite sense that you mean.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Medieval Climate Optimum. Good overview on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_climate_optimum[^] Holocene climatic optimum. Also on Wikipedia (out of convenience): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum[^] Added: http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1130%2F0091-7613(1999)027%3C0199:OICFOP%3E2.3.CO%3B2[^] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69972[^] Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke -- modified at 17:34 Friday 23rd June, 2006
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Medieval Climate Optimum
now look at the graph on that page. see what happens at the right side that doesn't happen in the middle (or anywhere else) ?
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Holocene climatic optimum
that's a 12,000 year scale ! we barely have the kind of detailed data we need going back 400 years. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Unusual: not usual or common or ordinary The climate of the past 25 years is usual common and ordinary. (Actually, considering out mild it's been by comparison to historical data, one could argue this isn't true but in the opposite sense that you mean.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
The climate of the past 25 years is usual common and ordinary
rate of change. rate of change. rate of change. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
The onus is on them not me
bullsh!t. you made an assertion about the validity of their data. prove your assertion.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
To actually prove it quid pro quo requires quite a bit.
too bad. prove your assertion. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
No. I gave my opinion. I even clarified that in my response. Find someone else to provoke. And I still call it bull. But again, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Can you prove that it isn't bull? This statement is false.
-
No. I gave my opinion. I even clarified that in my response. Find someone else to provoke. And I still call it bull. But again, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Can you prove that it isn't bull? This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
No. I gave my opinion
didn't sound like it at the time.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Can you prove that it isn't bull?
nope. but i'm not a climatologist so i defer to those who are, as i'd expect a climatologist to defer to me when it comes to C++. so, if another climatologist comes along and says "no, that data is bull because of X,Y,Z, i'll do what i can to see if he's worth listening to. i have no reason to not beleve the people who wrote this study aren't being straight with us. do you ? no, i think we've established that you don't. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker