Slashdot Mirror

Those "steep curves" still cover 10,000 years or more, not the few hundred of our current situation.

I strongly disagree. Those steep curves show changes as great or greater than we have seen today within the past 200 years. While the *cycle* may be 10,000 years, if you look at it, there are some very large changes within very short time periods, *especially* on the upside:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/~yours/Vostok%20Ice%20Core%20Global%20CO2.gif
http://home.austarnet.com.au/~yours/Vostok%20Ice%20Core%20Global%20Tempertatures.gif

When you look 100,000 year sawtooth, that rising edge is still incredibly steep.

Using a 30 year period tends to cancel out the natural variability of known short term cyclical phenomena which gives a clearer picture of the long term trend.

The problem is that you have short, medium, and long term cyclical phenomena. Any time period you choose, be it 5, 8, 13, or 50,0000 years, is going to have natural cycles and variability.

You can't ignore the longer term natural variability cycles of course but by definition they don't change that fast.

But again, we've got cycles on every scale you can imagine, not just "less than 30 years" and "more than 1000 years". There's a wealth of natural variability in between those two lengths that you simply cannot assume will not skew any given 30 year period.

But if the temperatures you see published are derived in a consistent way then it does give a reasonable indication of how temperature is changing over time.

No, actually, it doesn't. Even if the temperatures are derived in a consistent way, if you don't have the impossible instantaneous integration of temperatures everywhere on the globe, and only have a localized subset of measuring stations, you have no idea as to whether or not your distribution of those measuring stations is giving you a false flag. Perhaps all of your measuring stations are biased towards being on land (a mere quarter of the earth's surface) - assuming that a consistent change in land based temperatures means that global temperatures must be also consistently changing when you add the SSTs is an assumption, not a given.

There are peer reviewed papers on the subject.

There are also peer reviewed paper criticizing the temperature records processed by folk like NOAA and GISS, and UEA. The appeal to authority argument doesn't convince.

CO2 amplifying the global warming effect of water vapor is no assumption.

Yes, it is an assumption. Water vapor can both warm and cool the planet, depending on its form. Simply assuming that all water vapor is a positive feedback is not only observationally wrong, but theoretically wrong.

The UHI effect has a negligible effect on global temperature.

But it has a dramatic effect on the land based temperature measurements which we assert reflect some sort of "average global temperature." I agree, we could pave the entire earth, and have a negligible effect on average global temperature, because let's face it, the atmosphere is huge, and in terms of specific heat, the oceans are orders of magnitude huger (ever wonder how something with a lower specific heat like the atmosphere can theoretically warm something with a specific heat orders of magnitude larger?).

You can't explain the temperature during any epoch of the Earth's existence without accounting for CO2.

Sure we could. We could simply say that the temperature was driven by solar output, or particular water vapor configuration (either cooling or warming), and that CO2

Those "steep curves" still cover 10,000 years or more, not the few hundred of our current situation.

I strongly disagree. Those steep curves show changes as great or greater than we have seen today within the past 200 years. While the *cycle* may be 10,000 years, if you look at it, there are some very large changes within very short time periods, *especially* on the upside:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/~yours/Vostok%20Ice%20Core%20Global%20CO2.gif
http://home.austarnet.com.au/~yours/Vostok%20Ice%20Core%20Global%20Tempertatures.gif

When you look 100,000 year sawtooth, that rising edge is still incredibly steep.

Using a 30 year period tends to cancel out the natural variability of known short term cyclical phenomena which gives a clearer picture of the long term trend.

The problem is that you have short, medium, and long term cyclical phenomena. Any time period you choose, be it 5, 8, 13, or 50,0000 years, is going to have natural cycles and variability.

You can't ignore the longer term natural variability cycles of course but by definition they don't change that fast.

But again, we've got cycles on every scale you can imagine, not just "less than 30 years" and "more than 1000 years". There's a wealth of natural variability in between those two lengths that you simply cannot assume will not skew any given 30 year period.

But if the temperatures you see published are derived in a consistent way then it does give a reasonable indication of how temperature is changing over time.

No, actually, it doesn't. Even if the temperatures are derived in a consistent way, if you don't have the impossible instantaneous integration of temperatures everywhere on the globe, and only have a localized subset of measuring stations, you have no idea as to whether or not your distribution of those measuring stations is giving you a false flag. Perhaps all of your measuring stations are biased towards being on land (a mere quarter of the earth's surface) - assuming that a consistent change in land based temperatures means that global temperatures must be also consistently changing when you add the SSTs is an assumption, not a given.

There are peer reviewed papers on the subject.

There are also peer reviewed paper criticizing the temperature records processed by folk like NOAA and GISS, and UEA. The appeal to authority argument doesn't convince.

CO2 amplifying the global warming effect of water vapor is no assumption.

Yes, it is an assumption. Water vapor can both warm and cool the planet, depending on its form. Simply assuming that all water vapor is a positive feedback is not only observationally wrong, but theoretically wrong.

The UHI effect has a negligible effect on global temperature.

But it has a dramatic effect on the land based temperature measurements which we assert reflect some sort of "average global temperature." I agree, we could pave the entire earth, and have a negligible effect on average global temperature, because let's face it, the atmosphere is huge, and in terms of specific heat, the oceans are orders of magnitude huger (ever wonder how something with a lower specific heat like the atmosphere can theoretically warm something with a specific heat orders of magnitude larger?).

You can't explain the temperature during any epoch of the Earth's existence without accounting for CO2.

Sure we could. We could simply say that the temperature was driven by solar output, or particular water vapor configuration (either cooling or warming), and that CO2

By tough question it would be hard to only choose a few, knowing that you can only cover so much material. I read some when I was in high school, but it wasn't a dedicated science fiction fantasy class. We did 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Chrysalids, and Flower for Algernon I know I remember at least.

It somewhat matters what level of High School you are talking about, some books are more appropriate than others.

A good resources is: http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/topscifi/index.html

I would also suggest breaking the genre down into categories to get a broader experience. I would also avoid any of the non-serious "trash" science fiction and fantasy, while they may be fun and easy to read, they are not of great value (other than perhaps to get kids interested in reading in general). I would also stick to single books, not series for sake of time. Also pick shorter books, simply because you can cover more, and they may hold short attention spans better.

Some other classic books that would be on the short list:
Dune (it really has to be).
A wrinkle in time (more for younger audience).
Left Hand of Darkness.
War of the Worlds (really have to understand when it it was written to really grasp the depth of it).
Snow Crash (I believe there may be a rape scene which may be a problem).
Slaughterhouse V.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
The Time Machine
A Canticle for Leibowitz
The Forever War.
Something by Crichton (not including Timeline lol)
Something by Asimov
Something by Clark

There are plenty more. Many of the authors also have older shorter just as interesting books such as Frank Herbert. I didn't bother mentioning many of the other one already mentioned like Starship Troopers or Tolkin. Somewhat because they are obvious, and mentioned by many, but also because Tolkin, other than Hobbit which may be too young (maybe not), really is too long to cover and with the exception of Troopers I am not a huge fan of Heinlein.

The Metamorphosis - Kafka. They should read something by him someday. This class is a good excuse. (short)

1984 - Orwell. This has one of the best first pages in English literature. It brings up the subject of torture that has been in the news lately. (long)

Nightfall - Asimov. This is shorter than I, Robot. (short)

A Scanner Darkly - Dick. This has a wonderful anti-drug message. The writing style is bracingly weird. (medium)

Flowers for Algernon - Keyes. This discusses themes of accomplishment, capacity, happiness and loss. (medium)

Cat's Cradle - Vonnegut. This is sexier, shorter and more fun than Slaughterhouse 5. (medium)

Brave New World - Huxley. (long)

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - Rowling. This has scholastic themes and is regarded as well written. (long)

Stranger in a Strange Land - Heinlein. This is thought provoking. (long)

Neuromancer - Gibson. This is from the edgy part of the sci-fi genre. It has some racy scenes. (long)

The Sword of Shannara - Brooks. This is a straightforward fantasy novel. (long)

The Hobbit - Tolkien. More fantasy. (long)

Lord Foul's Bane - Donaldson. This is wacky but it does focus on solipsist and humanist themes. (long)

Battlefield Earth - Hubbard. It's a little long but reads fast. One presidential candidate said this was his favorite book. (really long)

Anthem - Rand. This is a short one. (short)

The Dispossessed - Le Guin. This examines socialism. (long)

Neon Genesis Evangelion - Anno. This is manga and may be too expensive or sexy for the classroom. It covertly covers teen issues. (really long if you read them all)

(The kids should've already read something by Bradbury. You don't need to read something else by him. I left out Dune because it strikes me as unoriginal and too long. I think Lovecraft's stuff is depressing. War of the Worlds by Wells is good but no longer relevant. Crichton, Ellison and Card are fun but I think you can live without them. I would only read one fantasy novel. I would pick Lord Foul's Bane because it would make for some hilarious classroom discussions. There is also http://fantasybedtimehour.com/ that analyzes Lord Foul's Bane in minute detail. Here's a list of the top sci-fi books: http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/topscifi/lists_books_rank1.html)

Well, I'm not entirely certain as to what "pre-teen" is. 9-12? But when I was around that age I wasn't really reading books for my age group. Well, except for Sweet Valley High, but it was a guilty pleasure.

If they display an interest in something, let them read it. Regardless of whether it's too advanced for them. Yes, certain themes may be a bit mature (i.e. A Clockwork Orange, American Psycho), but so long as there is no graphic violence, torture, or rape there shouldn't be an issue. Books with political messages should be fine as well, if they catch the references, it can spark an interesting conversation. It's always good when kids think and ask questions.

As far as sci-fi goes specifically, I've always been more of a fantasy chick myself. Loved Dragonlance, it's total fluff but still fun. They even have children's versions of the first trilogy now, although I'm not sure how much easier to read they can make it. It's not exactly difficult reading material to begin with.

Oh! William Gibson. I read Mona Lisa Overdrive, Count Zero, and Neuromancer when I was about 12 and loved it, then explored his other novels. Good stuff. Orson Scott Card is great as well.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/topscifi/lists_books_rank1.html Top 100 Sci-Fi books.

Hell, if they're ambitious throw a copy of Cryptonomicon at them and see what happens. If they don't like it, read it yourself, great book. And it's ridiculously long, perfect for road trips or long plane rides.

Doctor Who is great sci-fi. I haven't picked up any of the books yet, but now that I have a two years or so until the next series I may start reading the novels until I can get my fix. ;)

All else fails, toss them in the sci-fi section of the library and tell them to look around and read. I suppose it all depends on how much they enjoy reading. Some kids just aren't into it. I was very happy on summer vacations when my parents dumped me at the library.

Just last night I once again visited the Top 100 Sci-Fi List of Books and checked their list for any new books that moved up and their Major Series list to decided on what I will be reading next on my month long visit in Europe. After that I hit Google to look for eBook torrents for the books and series that I am interested in and I came across this Top 100 Sci-Fi Books Torrent with most of the books from the list and many of them as complete series.

The books are in Microsoft Reader's LIT format so if you have a compatible PDA device that you use for reading then you're set or you can always convert them out to HTML with Covert Lit utility (GNU licensed and open source to boot) that runs on a number of OS's and takes care of the work. Also I would recommend the Haali Reader for Pocket PC platform if you want a good full featured reader that can read text files directly inside .zip files without uncompressing and it saves your place in many books even on phone resets in case you have a PDA type phone that you can read on like I do.

I am exactly in the same boat as you, I also read the Hyperion Cantos but I couldn't get through the first book the first three times I tried to read, because the story lines were so diluted and all-over-the-place, that if it wasn't for the single story about the village of people and the Crucifix of Resurrection I would have dropped this book like a stone and missed out on the rest of the great series. That first books almost soured me to the Top 100 Sci-Fi List because it was one of the books there that was highly recommended, and there should be a warning placed on it.

Also, I personally prefer to read books as eBooks but I also like to own the best ones as mass print paperbacks so I usually buy them en mass as complete series from Barnes & Nobel since they seem to be a less sleazy company than Amazon. Also, just as a reminder don't bother with the Amazon Kindle eBook reader since you can't put your books on it without uploading them to Amazon and anything you buy to put on the reader is only licensed to you and you do not own the books you buy.

Writing up a reply to this question makes me look at all the books on my shelf with fond memories of the adventures that I read about. If you haven't already read these then check out the Dune series for deep sci-fi, and the Dune prequel books by Herbert's son if you like lighter fiction in the same universe, Ender's Game series, Vorkosigan Saga for action packed episodic sci-fi, and the other series mentioned in the links above.

Enjoy your reading.

Just last night I once again visited the Top 100 Sci-Fi List of Books and checked their list for any new books that moved up and their Major Series list to decided on what I will be reading next on my month long visit in Europe. After that I hit Google to look for eBook torrents for the books and series that I am interested in and I came across this Top 100 Sci-Fi Books Torrent with most of the books from the list and many of them as complete series.

The books are in Microsoft Reader's LIT format so if you have a compatible PDA device that you use for reading then you're set or you can always convert them out to HTML with Covert Lit utility (GNU licensed and open source to boot) that runs on a number of OS's and takes care of the work. Also I would recommend the Haali Reader for Pocket PC platform if you want a good full featured reader that can read text files directly inside .zip files without uncompressing and it saves your place in many books even on phone resets in case you have a PDA type phone that you can read on like I do.

I am exactly in the same boat as you, I also read the Hyperion Cantos but I couldn't get through the first book the first three times I tried to read, because the story lines were so diluted and all-over-the-place, that if it wasn't for the single story about the village of people and the Crucifix of Resurrection I would have dropped this book like a stone and missed out on the rest of the great series. That first books almost soured me to the Top 100 Sci-Fi List because it was one of the books there that was highly recommended, and there should be a warning placed on it.

Also, I personally prefer to read books as eBooks but I also like to own the best ones as mass print paperbacks so I usually buy them en mass as complete series from Barnes & Nobel since they seem to be a less sleazy company than Amazon. Also, just as a reminder don't bother with the Amazon Kindle eBook reader since you can't put your books on it without uploading them to Amazon and anything you buy to put on the reader is only licensed to you and you do not own the books you buy.

Writing up a reply to this question makes me look at all the books on my shelf with fond memories of the adventures that I read about. If you haven't already read these then check out the Dune series for deep sci-fi, and the Dune prequel books by Herbert's son if you like lighter fiction in the same universe, Ender's Game series, Vorkosigan Saga for action packed episodic sci-fi, and the other series mentioned in the links above.

Enjoy your reading.

From an English perspective, I would recommend you have your students read a magazine like Make (http://makezine.com/) or a website like Instructables (http://www.instructables.com/home) with a two-fold goal. First, either individually or preferably in groups, the students should create one of the projects they find (with instructor and parent approval). Second, again individually or in groups, they should create something new and post the what they did and the results. Both of these could easily be joint projects between science and English instructors. Personally speaking, I'd be really interested in what 8th graders would choose to make, and would therefore really would like to see what they publish. You might even be able to strike up a deal with the folks over at Make to have a special 'middle school' edition with projects from students around the world. One of the popular concepts in instructional technology right now is 'authentic' learning/problems/assessments, and between the creation of something new and writing it up for publication, I can't think of anything more authentic to encapsulate both science and English at the middle school level.

I'd also strongly suggest having them read a classic scifi book (http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/topscifi/ lists_books_rank1.html; and I'd highly recommend the Red, Green, Blue Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson) then do a report or class presentation including (a) what science was fiction when the book was written, but is now real (think tricorder), (b) what science was fiction when the book was written, but is based on real science (think anti-matter in Star Trek), and (c) what science was and appears to be fiction (think faster than light travel).

nuclear reactors don't themselvs produce CO2. but the production of uranium sure does. mining the stuff it makes me wonder, how much energy does nuclear actually net? this site doesn't have all the information but it sure has some nice pics.

in this paper, the authors calculated that with high quality ore, the CO2 produced by the full life of a reactor is about half to one third of an equivalent sized gas-fired power station. but once high quality ore is not available (it's getting rare) low quality ores are used, requiring more energy to mine and refine, and the CO2 produced by the reactor becomes equal to that produced by the equivalent gas-fired power station.

but a station built to run on natural gas could be retrofitted to be fueled by something more carbon neutral, less radioactive.

By the eye, what do you mean? A device to detect light? Or a device with an iris, cornea and retina? Light-sensitive cells exist in many simple forms and have evolved to more and more efficient versions of vision. There exist forms of life with simple and complex vision today. See this article about a PBS show on the subject. "The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."

Here is more at this press release about the evolution of the human eye. '"It is not surprising that cells of human eyes come from the brain. We still have light-sensitive cells in our brains today which detect light and influence our daily rhythms of activity," explains Wittbrodt. "Quite possibly, the human eye has originated from light-sensitive cells in the brain. Only later in evolution would such brain cells have relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision."'

And lots more links here. so please let's stop using the eye as an example. What next, bacterial flagella? That one is explained too. Next question?

Is it all figured out? No, but in science when we don't know it all we say that we are still looking, we don't say things we don't know must be explained by supernatural means, which is what ID does. It cops out with, "it must be something intelligent that designed it" instead of trying to understand the real reasons. Science may never find all the answers, it doesn't promise that it will but at least it doesn't have the answers BEFORE it has the QUESTIONS.

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

From De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Genesis). But, why listen to what a dead Papist has to say, eh?

This dude. (One cliche deserves another!)

I've been buying electronics and then, in the early 80's, computer magazines for years until I stopped a couple of years ago. The publishing lag time means they were always out of date with what I'd already read on the internet. The only thing I miss about a physical magazine is taking it with me to the dunny.

What I buy now...
Australian Wood Review
Wooden Boat
Australian Amateur Boat Builder
is much more fun anyway. It's good to leave work at work and get into something totally different when I get home.

Just because someone claims to be scientific doesn't mean that they are scientific. And for creationism to be taken as science, they have to provide a scientific theory of creationism. And so far, they have not done it. Even the proponents of "Intellegent Design" (which is just a rehash of creationism) admit that they do not have a scientific theory.

If you want someone who will debate you anytime, anywhere - and will give you 250,000 dollars for proving empirically that evolution happened - I suggest you look up Doctor Dino - aka Ken Hovind

People have tried to collect on it, but he won't even follow his own rules. For example, here is an example:

I emailed him and pointed out that his offer makes it plain that he will submit the proofs to a panel, not judge them himself. I asked him to so submit them. He wrote back that he had lost the proofs! I submitted more to him from the same source together with a reference to a web article from the BBC (UK) site that mentioned evolution in mosquitoes existing in the London underground railway. I told Hovind that these were to be submitted to his panel, and that I needed to know the names of the panel so that I could judge their impartiality and qualifications for myself. A year later, I am still waiting for even one name from his purported "panel." The only response I got other than Hovind's snide and childish comments was from some guy who completely ignored the proofs, preached incessantly to me, and rambled on inanely about his own plant breeding experiments.

And even if he decides that someone has won the challenge, it is doubtful that he has the resources to pay - after all, he declared bankruptcy in 1996 after the IRS reposessed his property (and Hovind claimed that he had no income).

-MDL

Evolution is a fact

Obviously not a scientist - nothing is a fact - it's all just a theory.

Here are five links explaining why evolution is a fact.

And just in case you're too lazy to click the links and read the damn text - I know from experience that most of you fundie types are really that lazy - here is a sound-bite that even you can't ignore:

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." [Stephen Jay Gould]

Clear enough? Or perhaps you'd like to claim that the late great Stephen Jay Gould was not a scientist?

When I did my Biology degree (10 years ago) one of the first statements made, when teaching Evolution, was that Chimps have DNA that is up to 98% the same as humans.

Amazing! They've been saying this for years. The problem is that the human genome was only mapped a couple of years ago, and I'd bet they haven't mapped the Chimps - so how did/do they know this?

I claim you are a liar. Even a first year biology student is taught how the similarity was determined. It's an estimate based on the rate of hybridization. It's simply impossible for you to have a biology degree and not know this.

"A quick method of measuring changes in DNA structure is to mix the DNA from two species, then measure by how many degrees of temperature the melting point of the mixed (hybrid) DNA is reduced below the melting point of pure DNA from a single species. The method is generally referred to as 'DNA hybridization.' As it turns out, a melting point lowered by one degree centigrade means that the DNAs of the two species differ by roughly 1 percent." [http://www.netherworld.com/~walkerk1/chap1.html]

And before you make the obvious (and incorrect) claim that hybridization isn't an accurate measure, you would do well to educate yourself on the topic. If you or anybody else could disprove hybridization you would be famous overnight.

Is there a point in debating this?

No, which is why I don't bother. Creationists purposefully ignore contrary evidence, overstep their area of expertise, fradulently claim skills and knowledge that they do not have, and repeat "arguments" that have already been shown to be false.

As I've said before, I don't debate with creationists. I treat them with the contempt I'd reserve for any religious nutcase who perverts science and attacks education. I ridicule them. I attack them. My purpose is not to enlighten you, but to make you stop talking.

In the end how can you say that evolution is a fact?

Because it is a fact. That you bring up the tired old argument of "evolution is just chance" is exactly why I don't bother with debate. You repeat this refuted argument as if it's still a matter for debate! It is not.

So, do I have this right, your evidence is a paper from the 60's, and another work by a creationist well known for trying to mislead others.

This article shows how your reference plays up small differences in dating.

As for the dietary benefits of tapeworms, large parasites like the beef tapeworm and Ascaris certainly do compete for us for nutrients. However, like any method of starvation, they tend to rob us of micronutrients (like vitamins) before they get to the stuff we don't really need. Signs of infection with large tapeworms (especially with the broad fish tapeworm, Diphyllobothrium latum) include conditions associated with vitamin B12 deficiency (eg. megaloblastic anaemia). Just to make matters worse, one of the symptoms of have a large lump of tapeworm protein in one's guts is to generate an immune response and the resultant ascites - a collection of fluid in the abdomen resulting in a pot belly - not exactly the look that the dieters are looking for.