Originally posted by 1010011010
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Global Warming, A Good Thing?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by gunnut View PostWhat do you mean by fast? Geological time and human time are slightly different. We have been collecting data for 150 years. We have written records of European temperature for 1500 years. What is that to the earth? Dinosaurs roamed the earth for 150 million years. Man has only been here for 3.5 million years, if you count our distant ancestors. The last ice age was 40,000 years ago, give or take a thousand years. Even that is 30 times longer than we have records of the temperature variation of a single continent.
Scientists like to say that dinosaurs died off "suddenly." If you look at what they mean by "suddenly" you'll see that they're talking about a span of a million years. Humans, or our ancestors, made a great leap from ape like creatures that walk upright to more modern looking man like creatures with the ability to communicate in a virtual blink of an eye. When you actually look at that time frame, it's on the order of a million years. Ancient Egypt spent 2000 years to build those pyramids. When you think about it, that's 10 times longer than the US has been a republic. They spent more time on building pyramids than the time it took Europe going from the Roman Empire to the European Union.I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dalem View PostPretty pictures. Please explain to me what they mean, in your interpretation, and why.
-daleI enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Comment
-
It's just a Question of Trust, Gunnut.
Since these warming trends take from a century to a million years it's just plain unreasonly to expect proof yet. Be fair now.
You just have to trust them.
So just ignore the fact that they appear to have reverse engineered any data to fit their subjective wants, and swallow it whole as they have.
They obviously mean well, so we should all be nice and let them have control of our economic future and quit being unreasonable and selfishly nationalistic. After all haven't they just asked us to give them any proof that will convince us of their argument? I mean how unbiased can you get?
It's just a question of Trust.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ArmchairGeneral View PostI think that's kinda his point. Normally, these warming trends might take a few thousand to a few million years to accomplish. The problem with the current warming trend is that it's happening over the course of a century or two. Which may seem like plenty, but geologically or climatologically, it's an instant. Which means the climate, the environment, and humans would have little time to adapt.
-dale
Comment
-
Love that Krebs Cycle.
Takes sunlight and uses it to crack CO2 into oxygen and carbon based life. Of course it requires H2O - which it cracks into hydrogen and oxygen - then reassembles as carbohydrate with the carbon supplied by CO2.
Good thing we have this extra CO2 to accelerate production of carbon based fuel for all other life forms dependant on photosynthetic conversion of the inorganic into organic for food and breathable oxygen.
Perhaps I should say photosynthesis instead - in the dumbed down colleges and universities of today students are only required to remember that the Krebs Cycle means photosynthesis - not what photosynthesis is.
We need to cut down on all this dang CO2 - them plants are getting too uppity.
Comment
-
The Wonderful World of Junk Science
by Henry Gibson
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you skating to a bachelors' in science on C's and D's?
Unfortunately you won't be able to get a paying job in your field, once they get a look at your grades.
You will be overqualified for the position of "technician" (bottle washer), and besides those jobs are reserved for the underprivileged.
So you go find yourself a foundation.
Preferably one that doesn't have anything to do with science - that way they won't know what you're talking about when you submit your grant proposal.
Your proposed research doesn't have to actually achieve any result - it just has to be packaged to appeal to their personal prejudices (along with some serious booty worship). Find the right anus and apply liberal lip massage.
Once you've got your grant you can goof off on some island getting a tan and living on the cheap.
When you have a little free time, do some research.
Keep all data that agrees with your thesis - discard and conceal any that conflicts with it.
When the money runs out, get some starry eyed wannabe to be your intern and type it up all nice on their computer (make sure they have a nice computer first) then submit your research to your funding foundation.
Your next grant depends on how well it appeals to their personal politics, so be sure to attend lots of their cocktail parties; listen and determine what they like to hear, and get a free drunk and fondue dinner.
If you ever get found out, blame it all on that lousy wannabe intern who broke up your chain of data by incompetence and losing that other data that empirically proved your result. Make sure they have really bad grades when you're checking out their computer - that will focus the blame on them. Then when you get your new grant, forgive 'em and give 'em a chance to make up for the dirty mess they made - as an unpaid intern.
Good luck with your career in Junk Science,
Henry-
Comment
-
Thank you for clearing that up.
Originally posted by Fortudinae View PostLove that Krebs Cycle.
Takes sunlight and uses it to crack CO2 into oxygen and carbon based life. Of course it requires H2O - which it cracks into hydrogen and oxygen - then reassembles as carbohydrate with the carbon supplied by CO2.
Good thing we have this extra CO2 to accelerate production of carbon based fuel for all other life forms dependant on photosynthetic conversion of the inorganic into organic for food and breathable oxygen.
Perhaps I should say photosynthesis instead - in the dumbed down colleges and universities of today students are only required to remember that the Krebs Cycle means photosynthesis - not what photosynthesis is.
We need to cut down on all this dang CO2 - them plants are getting too uppity.
Good post!
Ivan
Comment
-
Originally posted by dalem View PostPretty pictures. Please explain to me what they mean, in your interpretation, and why.
-dale
The core samples were able to let the scientists look back thousands of years and track trends in CO2, CH4 and temperature. Its probably the best indicator we have of the relationship between CO2 levels and mean surface temperature.
Be interesting if they took several other samples from the north pole and greenland and tried to develop a computer model from the data actually. Maybe they could develop a model that could fairly accurately predict the change in surface temperature at given atmospheric CO2 levels.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ArmchairGeneral View PostI think that's kinda his point. Normally, these warming trends might take a few thousand to a few million years to accomplish. The problem with the current warming trend is that it's happening over the course of a century or two. Which may seem like plenty, but geologically or climatologically, it's an instant. Which means the climate, the environment, and humans would have little time to adapt."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fortudinae View PostLove that Krebs Cycle.
Takes sunlight and uses it to crack CO2 into oxygen and carbon based life. Of course it requires H2O - which it cracks into hydrogen and oxygen - then reassembles as carbohydrate with the carbon supplied by CO2.
Good thing we have this extra CO2 to accelerate production of carbon based fuel for all other life forms dependant on photosynthetic conversion of the inorganic into organic for food and breathable oxygen.
Perhaps I should say photosynthesis instead - in the dumbed down colleges and universities of today students are only required to remember that the Krebs Cycle means photosynthesis - not what photosynthesis is.
We need to cut down on all this dang CO2 - them plants are getting too uppity.
Don't knock modern colleges too hard- they may be a bunch of liberal weanies for the most part, but you can get a pretty good science education, if you want it. ;)I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gunnut View PostBut by the same token, the current trend in warming or cooling is a geological instant, which will return to normal in an instant as well. In this case, an instant is like a few decades to a few centuries. The world was cooling for 3 decades from the 40s to the 70s. The it decided to return to normal for the next few decades. All in a blink of an eye.I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Comment
-
But the problem is we don't know if this is normal for the earth. We only have rudimentary data telling us the earth's temperature in blocks of thousands of years in the past, in trends. We never had clear and specific data of earth's past temperature in accuracy of single years or decades. It's like looking at the earth from an orbitting satellite. We can see the general terrain, but can't make out the roads and buildings."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
Comment