It's just that light isn't always exactly 'light' when it travels through space.
*This*.
It would've been better if they had focused on the transformation of light over time as it travels through space - that shit is interesting as all hell.
It's arbitrary, but purposeful - it's easy to wipe out the weak species, where selective pressures don't have to be all that great for them to go extinct.
I'll start worrying when we wipe out the *hard* species. As someone who believes in natural selection survival of the fittest doesn't bother me - call me when the fittest don't survive, and then I'll worry:)
We should avoid being wiped out, so our species can evolve instead of disappearing.
You do realize that evolution is the selective pressure *against* lifeforms, right? If selective pressures are applied to *our* species, and the survivors form a *new* species, we *will* have been wiped out!:)
If I could wipe out a species, it wouldn't be this or that lizard or whatever kind of owl we keep fucking up, it would be mosquitoes.
You and I agree completely there - in fact, that's my criteria for actually worrying about the impact of humanity. I will believe that humans are a significant danger to the biosphere when we're able to wipe all mosquitos off the face of the planet. Until then, we're more bark than bite.
We do, in fact, require a shit-load of species to sustain us.
Fair enough, but not any *specific* shit-load of species:) As selective pressures cause species to form, some go extinct, and that's not only okay, it's how it's always worked.
So yeah, the outcome could be really bad for not just you, but your genetic line.
Put the shoe on the other foot, and realize that without selective pressures, our genetic line would never have come to be. Who are we to deny "homo superior" when they become a species based on selective pressure?
I'm assuming you believe evolution is true - do you think it is true, but we should avoid it at all costs?:)
Your first mistake is to assume that we can't survive without an ecosystem replete with a shit-load of species.
Your second mistake is to assume that we can preserve this aforementioned shit-load of species and stop selective pressure from happening.
Now, perhaps we won't last as as long as the coelacanth, or the shark, and it will turn out that homo sapiens gives way to some other species after selective pressures generate "homo superior" or whatever nomenclature you'd like to use. Maybe that's sad to some people...but if I was an australopithecus afarensis, staring down the barrel of extinction with the knowledge that my progeny would eventually be selectively pressurized into homo sapiens, would that be such a bad thing?
The problem with being afraid of change is that it always does.
"Only one ingredient was missing from Kuhn's powerful organizing principle, but it was an important one, as he himself came to recognize. A paradigm common to all the members of the relevant professional community is the necessary condition for science, but it is not a sufficient one. The most enduring ideologies (such as Marxism and Freudianism) could lay claim to something almost like a paradigm. Popper's criterion of falsifiability is the crucial link missing from Kuhn's original theory of knowledge. "
Let's read that last line again, together:)
"Popper's criterion of falsifiability is the crucial link missing from Kuhn's original theory of knowledge."
"Kuhn concluded, however, that different rules apply in the case of really significant scientific revolutions like those of Copernicus and Newton, where a major aspect of reality is at stake. These inevitably necessitate a revolution in philosophy and morality as well. Here, he said, the history of science leads us to expect a lengthy period of conflict and instability within the profession following the original scientific breakthrough, and perhaps centuries before the new world-view begins to dominate within the culture at large. "
Hopefully it won't take centuries before AGW believers are as marginalized in the culture as flat earthers, but given the strength of faith you've demonstrated here, who knows:)
I did answer your question - you just didn't like the answer:)
Q: "Reality does not depend on time travel not being possible, there are several possible theories of time travel, but you cannot just provide argument for why time travel is ruled out by the contemporary rules of physics. You have to explain why."
A: "Yes, it does. It's called second law. It's called an effect cannot precede a cause. I've cited peer reviewed literature to this effect, and you've decided on your own recognizance that you've got superior qualifications:)"
Now, if you want to be pedantic, you only had one question mark in your last comment:
Q: "And I'm not makeing a Baseian argument, it is a Kuhnian argument, you have read Thomas Kuhn right?"
My apologies if I thought that was a rhetorical question. If it was meant sincerely, the answer is yes, I have read Thomas Kuhn. The continuing commentary is that if you believe in time travel, aliens and Koch conspiracies because of Kuhn, you're doing it wrong:)
Hang on - are you refuting your own suggestion while pretending that it is someone else's argument?
OP wasn't my post.
GP did not confuse climate change in general with that specifically of an anthropogenic nature.
It appeared that way. The original post used "climate change" in scare quotes. GP removed those scare quotes. They were put there for a reason, but perhaps removed without thought as to the implication.
Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.
Now that you've seen climate change just as fast during a period of very *small* human CO2 emissions and a period of very *large* human CO2 emissions, are you willing to give up your religion, or do you have another excuse?:)
So, your assertion is now that antarctica, before humanity, didn't vary much in response to current changes, solar fluctuations, milankovich cycles, changes in cloud albedo, or any number of natural factors? That somehow, temperatures in antartica have been bounded by less than 1C of change per century before human CO2 emissions?
No. I said we haven't observed those effects on Emporer penguins before.
What was the observation network like pre-1950? Did you not observe emperor penguin migration because they didn't migrate, or because you weren't looking?
In fact, there are always forcings of all sorts, and fairly complex mechanisms that tie those forcings together in a non-linear fashion. The "current forcing" includes not only human activity, but all other variations and systems that existed before humanity. The claim that human activity has somehow caused prior, non-anthropogenic forcings to disappear, or to be overwhelmed, is a silly statement.
But you wont admit to losing this debate because you aren't trying to win this debate, this is likely about serving your paymasters.
Is that what you believe? So now, it's not only time travel and aliens, but a grand Koch conspiracy to force you to comment on slashdot?:)
Precious!
Reality does not depend on time travel not being possible
Yes, it does. It's called second law. It's called an effect cannot precede a cause. I've cited peer reviewed literature to this effect, and you've decided on your own recognizance that you've got superior qualifications:)
no one who isn't getting paid or doesn't think the planet is at stake would keep this up,
Oh, so you see yourself as a determined hero who thinks the planet is at stake because I don't believe time travel is possible?:)
I'll give you a hint, buddy, nobody but us two are reading this. There are no aliens, there are no time travelers, and there are no paymasters, just one quixotic hero tilting at windmills, and another who finds that amusing:)
You're here because a lot of environmental changes that a lot of species couldn't adapt to happened - without the extinction of those species, your species never would have arisen. You can argue that it was bad for them, but you can't argue that it was bad for you.
After all, wouldn't it be better if we got rid of all those damn spotted owls and desert tortoises and tit-mice that prevent us from expanding our habitat? Isn't the misguided attempt to preserve other species that are being selected against through pressures simply *forcing* us to fight for all our daily resources?
Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.
Now that you've seen climate change just as fast during a period of very *small* human CO2 emissions and a period of very *large* human CO2 emissions, are you willing to give up your religion, or do you have another excuse?:)
Isn't it disingenuous to imply that climate change never happened before?
Put another way, isn't it true that climate change has *always* been a factor that can affect the location of penguin colonies, even before humans were ever around?
I admit that you don't understand my standard of falsifiability:)
I'll also admit that you seem to have conceded defeat on ever understanding it:)
I think you're trying to make a Bayesian argument, but it doesn't seem like you have the vocabulary or education to do so effectively. Asserting that time travel and aliens are possible ways of refuting observations is as bad as intelligent designers saying that the Creator can create things that seem to be 10 million years old, but were really put there only 6000 years ago:)
If the environment changes faster than a species can adapt, it is selected against, and goes extinct.
In fact, by definition, all extinctions of the past were caused by environmental changes faster than the species could adapt.
I would imagine that if we had been able to prevent all the extinctions of the cretaceous, humanity would never have arrived.
Who are we to deny the life forms who will be here 10 million years from now thanks to the various waves of extinction prior to their arrival a chance at existence?
By strictly focusing on existing species survival and the thwarting of selective pressures, aren't we in fact denying the future existence of species that would've arisen from those pressures, regardless of their source?
Do you believe that climate change affecting penguins happened before 1950? Do we have any reason to believe that environmental conditions and landmarks referenced by penguins remained constant until humans started emitting large amounts of CO2 in 1950?
Because colony sites never changed before humanity existed?:)
This is obviously once again an example of the misleading shorthand of "climate change".
"climate change" always happens. Always will.
"anthropogenic climate change" is a peculiar proposition in general, and even more suspect when people are trying to make a specific attribution to a region the size of a penguin breeding ground:)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm shocked. We completely agree on this one. :)
*This*.
It would've been better if they had focused on the transformation of light over time as it travels through space - that shit is interesting as all hell.
What's the misunderstanding? You were wrong about pre-1950 climate changing as much as post-1950 climate.
Are you simply not willing to admit it, and therefore declare yourself the winner of the argument? :)
I suppose a lot of theists do that as well when you challenge their God :)
It's arbitrary, but purposeful - it's easy to wipe out the weak species, where selective pressures don't have to be all that great for them to go extinct.
I'll start worrying when we wipe out the *hard* species. As someone who believes in natural selection survival of the fittest doesn't bother me - call me when the fittest don't survive, and then I'll worry :)
You do realize that evolution is the selective pressure *against* lifeforms, right? If selective pressures are applied to *our* species, and the survivors form a *new* species, we *will* have been wiped out! :)
You and I agree completely there - in fact, that's my criteria for actually worrying about the impact of humanity. I will believe that humans are a significant danger to the biosphere when we're able to wipe all mosquitos off the face of the planet. Until then, we're more bark than bite.
Fair enough, but not any *specific* shit-load of species :) As selective pressures cause species to form, some go extinct, and that's not only okay, it's how it's always worked.
Put the shoe on the other foot, and realize that without selective pressures, our genetic line would never have come to be. Who are we to deny "homo superior" when they become a species based on selective pressure?
I'm assuming you believe evolution is true - do you think it is true, but we should avoid it at all costs? :)
Look at the data - CO2 emissions pre-1950 were minuscule in comparison to post-1950:
http://theresilientearth.com/?...
Do you really think that the beginning of the industrial revolution was as CO2 intense as the post WWII boom?
Your first mistake is to assume that we can't survive without an ecosystem replete with a shit-load of species.
Your second mistake is to assume that we can preserve this aforementioned shit-load of species and stop selective pressure from happening.
Now, perhaps we won't last as as long as the coelacanth, or the shark, and it will turn out that homo sapiens gives way to some other species after selective pressures generate "homo superior" or whatever nomenclature you'd like to use. Maybe that's sad to some people...but if I was an australopithecus afarensis, staring down the barrel of extinction with the knowledge that my progeny would eventually be selectively pressurized into homo sapiens, would that be such a bad thing?
The problem with being afraid of change is that it always does.
Oooh, even better (from same cite):
"Only one ingredient was missing from Kuhn's powerful organizing principle, but it was an important one, as he himself came to recognize. A paradigm common to all the members of the relevant professional community is the necessary condition for science, but it is not a sufficient one. The most enduring ideologies (such as Marxism and Freudianism) could lay claim to something almost like a paradigm. Popper's criterion of falsifiability is the crucial link missing from Kuhn's original theory of knowledge. "
Let's read that last line again, together :)
"Popper's criterion of falsifiability is the crucial link missing from Kuhn's original theory of knowledge."
Ah, the sweet smell of a frustrated Kuhnian :)
Post script regarding Kuhn:
http://humanists.net/pdhutcheo...
"Kuhn concluded, however, that different rules apply in the case of really significant scientific revolutions like those of Copernicus and Newton, where a major aspect of reality is at stake. These inevitably necessitate a revolution in philosophy and morality as well. Here, he said, the history of science leads us to expect a lengthy period of conflict and instability within the profession following the original scientific breakthrough, and perhaps centuries before the new world-view begins to dominate within the culture at large. "
Hopefully it won't take centuries before AGW believers are as marginalized in the culture as flat earthers, but given the strength of faith you've demonstrated here, who knows :)
I did answer your question - you just didn't like the answer :)
Q: "Reality does not depend on time travel not being possible, there are several possible theories of time travel, but you cannot just provide argument for why time travel is ruled out by the contemporary rules of physics. You have to explain why."
A: "Yes, it does. It's called second law. It's called an effect cannot precede a cause. I've cited peer reviewed literature to this effect, and you've decided on your own recognizance that you've got superior qualifications :)"
Now, if you want to be pedantic, you only had one question mark in your last comment:
Q: "And I'm not makeing a Baseian argument, it is a Kuhnian argument, you have read Thomas Kuhn right?"
My apologies if I thought that was a rhetorical question. If it was meant sincerely, the answer is yes, I have read Thomas Kuhn. The continuing commentary is that if you believe in time travel, aliens and Koch conspiracies because of Kuhn, you're doing it wrong :)
OP wasn't my post.
It appeared that way. The original post used "climate change" in scare quotes. GP removed those scare quotes. They were put there for a reason, but perhaps removed without thought as to the implication.
That's an assertion, not an argument.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.w...
Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.
Now that you've seen climate change just as fast during a period of very *small* human CO2 emissions and a period of very *large* human CO2 emissions, are you willing to give up your religion, or do you have another excuse? :)
So, your assertion is now that antarctica, before humanity, didn't vary much in response to current changes, solar fluctuations, milankovich cycles, changes in cloud albedo, or any number of natural factors? That somehow, temperatures in antartica have been bounded by less than 1C of change per century before human CO2 emissions?
What was the observation network like pre-1950? Did you not observe emperor penguin migration because they didn't migrate, or because you weren't looking?
That's an assertion, not an argument.
In fact, there are always forcings of all sorts, and fairly complex mechanisms that tie those forcings together in a non-linear fashion. The "current forcing" includes not only human activity, but all other variations and systems that existed before humanity. The claim that human activity has somehow caused prior, non-anthropogenic forcings to disappear, or to be overwhelmed, is a silly statement.
When we look at a variance adjusted set, you'll note that the trend slopes are nearly identical:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
And if you don't like hadcrut3, you can try hadcrut4:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
Is that what you believe? So now, it's not only time travel and aliens, but a grand Koch conspiracy to force you to comment on slashdot? :)
Precious!
Yes, it does. It's called second law. It's called an effect cannot precede a cause. I've cited peer reviewed literature to this effect, and you've decided on your own recognizance that you've got superior qualifications :)
Oh, so you see yourself as a determined hero who thinks the planet is at stake because I don't believe time travel is possible? :)
I'll give you a hint, buddy, nobody but us two are reading this. There are no aliens, there are no time travelers, and there are no paymasters, just one quixotic hero tilting at windmills, and another who finds that amusing :)
You make me giggle!
Are you asserting that natural climate variation caused by factors other than human CO2 emissions never had an effect on animals or plants?
Do you honestly believe that penguin migrations never happened before humanity? I mean, is that really all that speculative?
You're here because a lot of environmental changes that a lot of species couldn't adapt to happened - without the extinction of those species, your species never would have arisen. You can argue that it was bad for them, but you can't argue that it was bad for you.
After all, wouldn't it be better if we got rid of all those damn spotted owls and desert tortoises and tit-mice that prevent us from expanding our habitat? Isn't the misguided attempt to preserve other species that are being selected against through pressures simply *forcing* us to fight for all our daily resources?
Wrong.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.w...
Professor Richard Lindzen likes to play a game with his audiences. He shows the following slide, and explains that one of the panels represents the global warming over the 52-year period 1895-1946, and the other represents the warming over the 52-year period 1957-2008. He explains that both graphs are to the same scale and invites his audience to guess which is the earlier period and which is the later.
Now that you've seen climate change just as fast during a period of very *small* human CO2 emissions and a period of very *large* human CO2 emissions, are you willing to give up your religion, or do you have another excuse? :)
Isn't it disingenuous to imply that climate change never happened before?
Put another way, isn't it true that climate change has *always* been a factor that can affect the location of penguin colonies, even before humans were ever around?
I admit that you don't understand my standard of falsifiability :)
I'll also admit that you seem to have conceded defeat on ever understanding it :)
I think you're trying to make a Bayesian argument, but it doesn't seem like you have the vocabulary or education to do so effectively. Asserting that time travel and aliens are possible ways of refuting observations is as bad as intelligent designers saying that the Creator can create things that seem to be 10 million years old, but were really put there only 6000 years ago :)
OT: What is burning karma?
If the environment changes faster than a species can adapt, it is selected against, and goes extinct.
In fact, by definition, all extinctions of the past were caused by environmental changes faster than the species could adapt.
I would imagine that if we had been able to prevent all the extinctions of the cretaceous, humanity would never have arrived.
Who are we to deny the life forms who will be here 10 million years from now thanks to the various waves of extinction prior to their arrival a chance at existence?
By strictly focusing on existing species survival and the thwarting of selective pressures, aren't we in fact denying the future existence of species that would've arisen from those pressures, regardless of their source?
Do you believe that climate change affecting penguins happened before 1950? Do we have any reason to believe that environmental conditions and landmarks referenced by penguins remained constant until humans started emitting large amounts of CO2 in 1950?
Because colony sites never changed before humanity existed? :)
This is obviously once again an example of the misleading shorthand of "climate change".
"climate change" always happens. Always will.
"anthropogenic climate change" is a peculiar proposition in general, and even more suspect when people are trying to make a specific attribution to a region the size of a penguin breeding ground :)