A city isn't made up of a million identical citizens. If you put a million humans in one location, they will specialize, each filling a niche. This is what I'm talking about.
Humans will specialize. Cells in a colony may specialize. But how does this group of specialized cells in a colony suddenly (or gradually) become a single organism? It seems to me that the probability of a bunch of specialized cells becoming a single organism is about as likely as a million specialized humans in a city evolving into a single living creature.
Now the reason that an organism develops is because multicellular organisms are more efficient at reproducing than colony organisms.
I understand that a multicellular organism has advantages. But how would a single-cell organism ever be able to become a multi-celled organism? That's what my question is and what I haven't been able to find an answer to on any of the pages I've Googled this weekend. They all seem to talk about the advantages of being multi-celled or of having gender, but they either ignore the how or simply say, "We really don't know." That's a problem for me.
So why doesn't an organism develop for humans? Well, it did - we call it human society. There is a standing body of knowledge which is sufficient to recreate a city's specialists, and therefore, a city (or a colony of humans) can reproduce by sending out settlers (very few settlers) and the knowledge required to build that society.
That's looking at the issue from a very academic, theoretical and even esoteric standpoint where a city is an organism. I don't accept that. In this analogy a city is a colony, not an organism.
Exactly similarly, the evolution of gender (somewhat) and the development of multicellular life (moreso) don't say that evolution is necessarily wrong. They simply say that whenever the final answer to the development of life on Earth is found, it necessarily must be equivalent to evolution over the time period where evolution explains the data extremely well.
I have no problem with that. I don't say that multicellular life and gender is proof that evolution is wrong, but it does seem to me that it suggests that the real mechanics involved are far from understood to a degree that, to me, calls into question evolution as a whole. That is, these are such major issues that perhaps the theory of evolution provides a correlation rather than a relation. I can show that every time 90% of the city turns on the heaters in their house that the temperature outside is below 50--but that doesn't mean that everyone turning on their heater is the reason it's so cold out. Likewise, the theory of evolution may appear to fit some of the data but it could be as wrong as the conclusion that the city turning on their heaters causes the temperature to fall--it matches the data but the theory is completely wrong.
2) The initial formation of multi-cell organisms. This is appropriate to evolution, and it's difficult. Here [bbc.co.uk] is some information on what I was trying to say. Here [devbio.com] is an article regarding something similar to what I was saying, and also similar to what the other suggestion (poorly separated single-cell division) was. (But with plenty of explanations).
The explanation given by the first link is an example of exactly what I'm talking about: "Eventually the specialisation became so advanced that the cells were interdependent and the group shifted from being a colony to being a multicellular organism." That is an entirely inadequate explanation and glosses over the meat of the matter by simply saying it "shifted from being a colony to being a multicellular organism." That's like mixing up a lot of loose watch parts and saying that eventually the parts "shifted from an unorganized collection of watch parts to form a functioning watch." Ok, fine, but HOW?
Dog breeding backs up evolution - dogs with certain traits survive and reproduce (o
France contributed to the US-led NATO action in Yugoslavia. By preventing the flight of Muslims from genocide, we cooperated in reducing the sources of Islamic terrorism. Working together early is better than fighting each other later. It saves lives and money, and creates opportunities for growth, rather than destruction. The degree to which everyone is armed, and in opposition, is making these orientations crucial.
Yugoslavia? Whatever... I still believe I am correct when I say (and have previously cited information that confirms) that France contributes a significantly small amount to NATO based on its relative population, and their recent military history in the last 100 years is a history of failure--especially on those where they had to stand alone. When they had help from someone (NATO, us, others) they obviously did better. But, overall, France is basically of no use to our defense and our defense would be no weaker without them.
And in none of these cases did France "cower", except possibly in WWII, along with the rest of mainland Europe.
As I said originally, "cower" or failed. Their military history is marked by failure even if there are also sporadic wins. Especially if you just focus on France's military history in the last 100 years which is probably more relevant than their "glory days" of being a world power centuries ago.
France's role in American protection lies in NATO. As NATO has never been defensively tested, its value in deterrence is open to debate. But I have yet to hear a convincing argument against it.
I have no problem with NATO, I just disagree that France contributes economically or militarily in any meaningful way to NATO such that I should be greatful to France for contributing to our defense. Quite frankly, if France announced it was resigning from NATO I could care less and would feel no less secure. In fact, I'd tend to believe that France resigning from NATO would cause the remaining alliance to actually be stronger since military effectiveness is based greatly on political will--something France has shown it has no stomach for in the last century.
And France itself seems quite safe, even given its $500 per capita annual defense budget. Compared with the US $2000 per capita annual defense budget ($400B Pentagon + $200B wars), not to mention Homeland Security and National Security budgets, CIA, FBI, it's probably over $3000 per capita. And we're not as safe.
It depends if you're talking about safe from a military or terrorist standpoint. Militarily I feel that we are much safer than France. Our military is such that I do not have any concern that we will be militarily attacked by anyone, period.
If we're talking about terrorism then no-one is safe. They found bombs along French rail lines, they just got lucky. And when it comes to terrorism, I don't think NATO is doing anything that significantly reduces the risk of terrorism here or abroad so talking about the $29.5 billion French defense budget or their $77 million contribution in a terrorism context is irrelevant. We're talking about military defense.
The antimissile system makes us less safe. It won't even protect us from a few missiles, from Pakistan, China, or Iran, much less all of them. Or a trucknuke, or a shipping container. Or a hijacked plane. Or any of the actual threats we must address.
We do have to address truck nukes, shipping containers, planes, etc. Of course. But that doesn't mean old-fashioned military aggression will never occur again. That's silly. We haven't entered into a time of international peace with terrorism being the only problem. We have same international problems we already had PLUS terrorism. We must deal with both.
Your opinion that a functioning antimissile system couldn't protect us from a few missiles from Pakistan, China, or Iran is rediculous. That's what we're working on. And while I agree it would be doubtful we could deploy a system to defend us from thousands of simultaneous missiles from the Soviet Union, dealing with two orders of magnitude fewer missiles from one of the above-mentioned countries is a lot more realistic. And since that magnitude of attack is far more likely than an all-out exchange with the Soviet Union or China, I think it's worth making an effort to defend against.
What it does accomplish is to escalate nuclear production in China, Russia, North Korea, every other "small" nuclear threat, in order to rise above the threshold of perceived deterrence. And those extra nukes find their way into the hands of others even less manageable. So once again, it's spending more on escalation that increases the threat.
That's your opinion. There is no evidence that China or North Korea will produce any fewer weapons whether we have a defense or not. I'm also not concerned about China attacking... it's countries with just a few nukes, like North Korea, that I'm worried about. And that's exactly where it's not technologically absurd to believe we can create a working defense against attacks of that magnitude.
So the colony organisms don't replicate that easily. Until one of them evolves an organism that can develop into different "jobs" inside the colony, depending on the external conditions.
Exactly, the colony example is the closest I could come to explaining how a single-cell could go to multicell, but in the end we still run into the problem of how it "evolves into an organism that can development into different jobs." That's kind of like having a million citizens in a city and suggesting that, over time, we will eventually evolve into a single large organism. That's obviously not the case and I don't see why it would be the case on a cellular colony basis either.
If God realized "hmm, social beings will need to bond", great! How did He do it? By creating a Universe where organisms would need to evolve, as a species, faster than random chance would allow. If you have another suggestion as to how He did it, I'd love to hear it. So would many, many evolutionary biologists, I imagine.:)
Like I said (I think) before, I don't entirely disagree with evolution. In theory it's a nice explanation of how things evolved (pun intended) and I have no problem believing that evolution is the way that God got his work done. The problem is that I still haven't seen evidence that convinces me that evolution is the right explanation. You look at physics and we can see that the universe is in motion according to these elegant rules that we more or less understand and make sense and I don't argue that. We see fossils from dinosaurs that lived hundreds of millions of years ago and I don't argue with that even though some would say that contradicts the Bible's explanation of creation. So it's not the fact that something doesn't, at first glance, appear to be compatible with the Bible that causes me problems... it's that evolution just still doesn't make sense to me. I want to believe it, but I haven't been able to reconcile my skepticism yet.
Me: But the fact remains that I either don't fully understand how evolution supposedly works
You: No one understands fully how it works. The point of a theory is to try to fit the observed data as best as possible.
That's the problem in a nutshell. No-one fully understands it and so far the theory doesn't adequately explain observed data, yet it is generally accepted on the same level as relativity or gravity. More emphasis is placed on justifying evolution than looking for or consider alternative explanations that might better fit the data. You yourself later in the post suggested that some aspects of evolution need more study, but the theory itself can't be wrong--that's a very close-minded viewpoint on a theory that doesn't explain all the data.
This doesn't mean evolution is wrong, or even incomplete. Evolution fits the observed data best. Simply put, no one has a better explanation. No one.
I disagree that evolution fits the data. I think it fits the observed outcome, not the data. And while "survival of the fittest" makes sense in life and nature, it doesn't make sense to me that if I never use my right arm during my entire life and that if my children never use their right arm during their entire life and so on for generations that the right arm will eventually disappear. That doesn't make any sense to me.
One or two weak points doesn't make a theory wrong - it makes it have one or two weak points that need study. Until it's proven wrong, there's no reason not to state that evolution is currently the best model to explain the diversity of life on Earth. There's too much evidence backing up evolution in other places to make it completely wrong nowadays, anyway. It might be incomplete, but it's not wrong.
I don't agree that there's that much evidence backing up evolution and these two "weak points" are huge weak points. It's like if physics applied on earth but for some reason didn't apply in space--yes, physics might then ex
That French military history link was amusing. Kind of a stretch to mock the "French" Gauls for their defeat by the "Italian" Julius Caesar. And of course it omits the centuries of wars in which the French invented so much of modern military language, by winning. And of course the French conquest of Britain, and in the Americas, like in Mexico and Louisiana, while also trivializing Napoleon's victories across Europe. Not very historical, but an amusingly warped trip through the history of killing.
Don't feel like getting further into French history, but the French got their butts kicked in Mexico. That's what the Mexicans celebrate every May 5th (Cinco de Mayo).
The French domestic military budget supports their NATO committment, which protects us.
Both their contribution to NATO ($77.6 million) and their completely domestic military budget ($29.5 billion) are quite trivial considering their population and certainly recent history in the last century or show indicates they are either unwilling or unable to use their limited military effectively even to defend their own interests, let alone ours. So, no, I'm not convinced that they protect us in any meaningful way.
Are you more secure with so much of your taxes paying for a ridiculous antimissile system, to use but one example of US military overexpenditure on insecurity?
A working antimissile system is a good idea, especially in this age where a nuclear attack of just a few missiles is far more likely than an all-out war with thousands of ICMBs. It may have been rediculous to think we could stop thousands of ICBMs from the USSR, but it's not rediculous to think we could stop some or all of, say, a couple dozen missiles that could someday be launched by North Korea. I'd rather the military develop ways to prevent the killing of people than on missiles to kill people.
Cower? Let's have an example, other than in WWII, when France was defeated along with half of the world.
As provided elsewhere in this thread, check this link.
As part of NATO, part of their $29.5B protects us. And again, who's safer?
Oh wow, France contributed $77.6 million to the NATO budget in 1998 compared to $453 million by the U.S. Canada contributed more than France even though it has a population almost half its size, Germany contributed almost 4 times more than France even though its population is only about 30% larger, Italy contributed more. Heck, Bill Gates could have contributed more to NATO than France. I'm so glad the French are out there helping with the common defense.:)
Someone I know was recently considering inviting President Clinton to speak at an event here in Mexico. I was asked to translate the invitation. I was under the impression, too, that former presidents were still addressed as "President." I found that that was NOT the case. "Mr." is appropriate and we referred to Clinton as such in the invitation.
They got a response from Clinton's PR firm in which they referred to him as "President Clinton." I advised them to follow in-kind and go ahead and refer to him as "President" so as not to offend them in subsequent exchanges even though I had to wonder if the PR firm thinks really high of Clinton or are just uninformed of the proper title of their client. Either way, it's pretty sad.
France paid $29.5B in 2002, while the US paid $399B. Who's safer?
Probably the French because they tend to cower rather than stand tall in the face of threats (both past and present), and because part of that $399B that we spent protects them
Can somebody define "highest bridge?" The Royal Gorge Bridge in Colorado is 1053 feet high, which is apparently 167 feet higher than this bridge in France. It may be the highest paved bridge or maybe the longest high bridge but I certainly don't see under what criteria it can be called simply the "highest bridge."
It is called "sudden" because generally speaking, the climate does not change rapidly.
Ok, not "generally." But scientists are now showing us that the climate has changed very rapidly in the past, certainly much more rapidly than a few degrees over a hundred years. So, at best, what we're experiencing seems to be "faster than usual climate change" but certainly not "sudden." If the climate has changed more in a few decades than what we've seen in a century we can hardly claim that what we are experiencing is "sudden."
Also, a "global warming" of only a few degrees is enough to cause melting of ice caps and thus flooding of coastal areas.
Depends on where the warming is. Last I heard the temperature of the poles haven't increased significantly which is surprising some people since they're supposedly supposed to be one of the first places to feel the impact of global warming. That it hasn't materialized is causing pause among some people. Although the news media often reports on the latest ice sheet separating from the south pole, every indication is that this is completely natural and NOT a result of temperatures which have remained quite steady at the poles. At least that was the case the last time I investigated the poles as they relate to global warming.
Why "man-made"? Because there is pursuasive evidence that human actions could have caused it. Those who say that it is absolutely impossible for human events to modify the climate, that volcanoes and such affect the climate much more, are simply ignoring the science. However, those who say that human behavior has absolutely 100% guaranteed caused the warming of the last century are also ignoring the science.
I don't disagree that we could have some effect. But I do believe that that effect is small and I haven't seen any hard proof that would suggest otherwise. And when looking at old information from thousands and millions of years ago it is often hard to determine what was the cause and what was the effect.
Tangent: Even most scientists who disagree with human caused global warming do agree that the climate is warming and that the clear trend of the last 100 years and of the last 50 years is increasing global temperature. Most scientists who disagree just point out that we don't have sufficient evidence that human activity is the cause, and/or that natural climate variations could be causing all of what we see.
I agree with both of the last comments (we don't have sufficient accurate evidence and that it could all be natural climate variations). I am also concerned that people are using "trends" based on 100-year old data before we had anything remotely accurate in terms of global monitoring. We're using old data of questionable accuracy that is poorly distributed on a global basis which, even if accurate, is hard to apply because of the effects of urban heat islands which require rather subjective modifications to the temperature data to correct.
I prefer the satellite record because it is truly global, very accurate, and not subject to the effect of urban heat islands. And although that record is short (only about 25 years), it does not seem to support the belief that the world is getting warmer--at least any more.
I don't believe that any serious scientists have suggested compensating -- all I have ever heard serious scientists recommend is that humans reduce their impact on the climate. There's a difference between taking one's foot off the gas pedal and shoving one's foot on the brake pedal.
Even taking the foot off the gas pedal can have bad results on a high-speed curve if your car is front-wheel drive.:) In this case, "compensating" means "reducing" in the sense that reducing requires changes in our economy that could be very destructive. we're not really talking about saving our planet. Our planet will survive, period. It's US we're worried about. So if the medicine is worse than the disease then I'd question whether or not I want to take the medicine.
Incomplete cell separation, possibly suddenly making the - now larger - organism less ingestible for other organisms (due to size). This is the only 'spontaneous' major evolution I can imagine, because it happens at such a basic level.
But it seems to me that an incomplete cell separation would just result in two cells that are stuck together, much like Siamese twins. Each cell would be completely self-contained but stuck to the other cell due to the incomplete division. If either cell tried to reproduce then why wouldn't it just reproduce successfully and off goes another single cell? I still don't see where an organism that works perfectly fine as a single cell is going to "evolve" into a multi-cell organism in such a way that further reproduction produces a new multi-cell organism.
I agree that hermaphroditism is more efficient for animals like us with internal fertilisation (hey, shouldn't an omnipotent god have been able to work that one out in advance if you and I can?)
Yes, He could figure that out. But He could also conclude that the reproductive process has benefits for human bonding that go beyond the simple need for efficiency in reproduction.
Your points regarding the benefits of reproduction that requires two sexes are well taken, but I still don't see how evolution would get you there. If you have an organism that can already reproduce just fine all by itself then why would it "evolve" into something that requires a second organism? Even if it's just the option? That is inherently weaker than an organism that can reproduce by itself. So what caused an organism to even have the possibility of reproducing in this fashion?
See above. You seem to be hooked on 'spontaneous' evolution, which is probably very convenient for supporting your chosen belief, but at odds with what is generally accepted as likely. There were transitions when both systems would work depending on what was available. Animals don't change over one generation. You would go from hermaphrodite, to some members of the species being better at one role or the other, to specialisation. Evolution implies gradual change. Sudden change is generally considered a creationist idea.
I say "spontaneously" because in my way of thinking there has to be a point where an organism's "parent" could only reproduce by itself and then this organism either requires a partner or has the option of a partner. How did this organism suddenly get this ability to mate with another organism? I can understand a given organism being sterile and not being able to reproduce at all, but how would evolution cause a mutation to occur that would cause this organism to be able to reproduce in an entirely different way? And wouldn't that organism require another similarly mutated organism so that it's alternate reproduction facility could be used? Otherwise, it would be a mutant in a field of normal organisms, the new reproductive facility would go unusued, and wouldn't evolution make sure that that unused feature just evolved out of existince?
To put it bluntly, did an organism just mutate and form functioning reproductive organs? I realize we were talking about organisms of just a few cells, but still--the theory is the same. What kind of miraculous mutation just happens to produce a working reproductive organ or process that is different from the existing process? And what are the chances that that mutant would run across another mutant that would allow it to create more offspring that had similar characteristics?
That doesn't discount the existence of a god that decided to use evolution to achieve an end - heck, if you want true omnipotence, look at setting up the universe's laws of physics to get a planned result billions of years later!
Like I said, I have no problem with evolution existing right along side my religious views. I have absolutely no problem with that. And if someone asks me if I believe in evolution I would have to respond, "Yes, I think I do." But the fact remains that I either don't fully understand how evolution supposedly works or I'm not convinced that it's right.
Thank you for your useless response. Of course I've read other books. Unfortunately, I've read other books far more than I've read the Bible (I say "unfortunately" because as a Christian I should spend more time reading the Bible).
But I thank the others in this thread who contributed a constructive and useful response to my dilema.
I'm a Christian and I believe that creationism and evolution don't necessarily contradict. However, I do have problems with evolution in that it doesn't make sense. How did a simple but robust single-cell organism spontaneously "evolve" into a more complex multi-cell organism? Why did organisms that reproduced asexually "evolve" into creatures that require a male and female component which is far less efficient? And if one of those spontaneously evolved into something that required a mate, what's the probability that it just happened to bump into another similar organsim that also just spontaneously evolved into the opposite gender of this new mutation?
I'm a Christian and I'm fully ready to believe in evolution--and I don't entirely discard it. But something just doesn't make sense there, and it's not the religious angle that causes me grief.
Totally stopping all emissions of course is totally unrealistic but that doesn't mean we should not at least reduce them a bit... I don't think anyone but the extremely naive think that we can 'fix' climate change, as you said it could be natural. There is plenty of evidence that CO2 does have an effect on the climate and we are dumping tons of it into the atmosphere. I (and many others) think we should just do our best to reduce our impact so as not to exacerbate (or even trigger) changes.
With poisonous pollutants I agree. We should reduce those. But I wouldn't consider CO2 a pollutant and that's what people are usually referring to when it comes to "emissions" and global warming. And while we are dumping what might seem to be a lot of it into the atmosphere, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the entire CO2 cycle and how much CO2 is produced and consumed naturally. Those that advocate reducing CO2 emissions often state that that's true but that it's a delicate balance and that "little extra" that we put into the system is enough to push things over the edge and cause problems. Maybe they're right but of all the speculation in this field I'd say that is the least certain of all. It's just as possible that nature will find a new equillibrium to consume all that extra CO2 (granted, of course, we don't burn down the entire Amazon).
It's more than just atmospheric sciences here. It's about the behavior of the atmosphere and its interaction with the ocean, the land, and the animal life that exists in those two areas that consume O2 and produce CO2, and plant life that does the opposite. Climate models don't just have to model the atmosphere, they have to model the planet. I'd go so far as to say that modeling the atmosphere is probably the easiest part of the problem--modeling how plants and animals on land and in the sea respond is just as important, and far more complex. Life has a fantastic tendency to be able to survive and adapt--without knowing how plants and animals, which have a huge part in the CO2 cycle, react makes the study of the atmosphere alone pretty academic.
We are, of course, totally ignoring the fact that satellite data for the last 2 decades hasn't shown any global warming. Environmentalists often ridicule people for suggesting that global warming might not even be happening but the fact of the matter is that the best temperature data we have for the last 2 decades (coming up on 3) do not show any long-term upward trends in temperature.
What we can say is that sans the rapid expansion of the human population none of the major changes that have occurred in the last 200 years would have.
Whoa! You must be privy to scientific knowledge that the rest of humanity isn't. On what speculation do you base the above conclusion?
This itself is a reason to aim for producing changes to return things to the levels they were in the 1500's. The reason? Because the earth like and dynamic system works best when changes are gradual and therefor are less likely to push you into an instability that causes a major change of state.
Despite your assertion above, we don't even know that the changes of the last few hundred years were caused by us. It is far from certain. They are well within the realm of climatic variability and the new fad is scientists showing us that the climate can drastically change in a matter of decades all by itself with no human help. So why is a supposed change in temperature of a few degrees over a century called "sudden" or "man-made?" There doesn't seem to be evidence that it is both and there is definitely evidence that would suggest it very well may be neither.
So what if the changes of the last few hundred years were actually normal climate variation (recovery from the little ice age, etc.) and all the sudden we try to "compensate" for it? For all we know that could be like taking a curve too quick and heading towards the embankment, overcompensating, and running off the cliff on the other side of the road. We would've been better off if we hadn't tried "fixing" the problem.
We simply do NOT know enough about climate change to go off on some crusade to try to "fix" it, which is itself a very subjective term.
Caveat: I'm personally in favor of trying to be clean. There's no reason to pollute more than we have to. But that's because I just like clean rivers and clean air, not because I'm being threatened with exagerations of imminent disaster.
Theres noise and there's trending. Over 5 years, the predicted trend is less than the noise. Over half a century, the predicted trend is greater than the noise.
Agreed (that the projected tend is less than the noise, not that I necessarily agree with the projection). Unfortunately that means that we'll have to wait quite awhile to see just how accurate these models are, with or without fudge factors.
I have a problem making political decisions based on models that we're not sure are right. That's reactionary and I'm not willing to tank the world economy on a "better safe than sorry" attitude. There may be legitimate environmental concerns out there, but for the most part the environmental movement has been hijacked for political purposes. That's unfortunate because legitimate environmental concerns may be ignored in the process or disregarded because it is seen from a political perspective rather than a scientific one.
The CMIP experiments show that the most thorough and complete climate models are now converging
And are they converging on predictions of global warming that are higher or lower than originally predicted?
Ok, I really don't have time for this but what the hey...
First, the IPCC itself acknowledged in 2001 that "some" (page 9) recent climate models provide "satisfactory" models without flux adjustments. The implication there being that most don't... The same document (page 13) suggests global warming of 1.4 to 5.8C from 1990 to 2000, so we're talking about 1.3-5.2C per century.
Refer you to the last 20 years of "JGR (Oceans)" and "JGR (Atmospheres)"?
If those models are applied to climate conditions from, say, 500 to 1000 years ago and are let run free, will they reproduce the current climate accurately?
How about the NCAR Climate System Model, which gives good results over 300 years without flux adjustment
Let's see. The NCAR Model projected that "surface temperature is expected to rise nearly 0.2 Kelvin (one-third degree Fahrenheit) per decade over the next four decades". So that's 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade or a projected 2 degrees Celsius change over a century. That's certainly on the low side of the IPCC alarmist figures. It has also been about 5-1/2 years since that model was announced so I would expect to see about 0.1C of warming since then. I am unaware of that having happened...? If it has, can you point to some data?
the Hadley Centre's HCM5, which generates a realistic for 1000 years stable climate (with non-greenhouse CO2) without flux adjustment?
I couldn't find information on HCM5, although I do see HCM2 and HCM3 on the Hadley website and I didn't see any claims to "1000 years stable climate" projections although I did find this page which says: "It is important to be aware that predictions from climate models are always subject to uncertainty because of limitations on our knowledge of how the climate system works and on the computing resources available. Different climate models can give different predictions."
I keep wondering... if some climate models are supposedly so accurate, why do we have so many different models that contradict each other? Further, it seems that at least one of the examples you provided reinforces my point that as the models get supposedly more accurate that the temperature increase they project becomes less--hence the 2C per century prediction of NCAR being on the LOW side of the IPCC estimates from just 3 years ago. I wonder how much lower the estimates will be in 3 years? Of course, in 3 years we'll probably no longer be talking about global warming and instead talking exclusively about salinity in the North Atlantic.
How about some independent opinions, without axes to grind?
How about proving that any of the links I provided are wrong regardless of their source? Perhaps provide links that explain how existing climate models work that demonstrates the lack of "flux adjustments?".
As for "independent opinions without axes to grind" you'll find very few of those on EITHER side of the issue, so we might as well discuss the real facts rather than who is presenting them.
Weather prediction like trying to approximate where all the eddies will appear when you pull the plug out of your bathtub. Climate prediction is estimating how long the tub will take to drain.
Huh... So that's why climate prediction has been sooo accurate so far. They can't even predict the current climate based on previous climatic conditions without introducing "fudge factors" to force the model to be right. And every time they improve their model the effects on the global climate seem to get less and less significant.
The timing of the "Abrupt Climate Change" scenario is interesting. Just as supposedly-improving climate models drop further and further into the statistical noise and variability of natural climate change, WHAM, we have a new theory that tells us why it's the end of the world as we know it. "OK, so maybe the newer models aren't showing that global warming is really going to be as severe as we originally thought, but WAIT, have you considered abrupt climate change caused by a cessation of the global conveyor? Oh my God, global warming maybe isn't a threat after all but check out the salinity of the Northern Atlantic! We're doomed! So you still better stop driving that SUV, we need to implement the Kyoto treaty, and we need to transfer trillions of dollars of wealth to the developing world to satisfy our political, ehr, environmental goals."
Quite frankly... if this is the end of the world as we know it, I do feel fine! I will, however, pay $5 to see the sci-fi disaster-fest this weekend because floods, explosions, and tornados are always fun to watch on the big screen.:) [$5 because I live in Mexico]
So, say your mother or your girlfriend/boyfriend or less-techy individual sees this pitch from didtheyreadit, likes the potential offering and implements it, you don't want to read what they're sending you?
Well, they're whitelisted anyway. I don't actually mean preventing the server from connecting to you. I would just consider it a good candidate for blacklisting, subject to any whitelists that would override it.
Look at it as though that certain someone cares not about webbugs (they know nothing about them) but about wanting to know if you read their email.Of course, this is all assuming that you have a partner and/or mother...
I have both, neither of which would be interested in this "technology." In fact, I think the only one really interested in this technology would be marketers--i.e., the marketing department of some company trying to keep track of what their contacts are doing. If that's the case, no, I don't want to hear from them, either.:)
The second world war is something for which many Europeans are still grateful, but that doesn't mean that they'll accept vassal status to a patently power-mad and, I'm sorry to say, arrogant America. 'Cleaning up the mess' isn't something the states has managed in a long time, so stop trying to trade on the non-existent reputation of your country.
Non-existent reputation? Let's see here...
For better or for worse, the U.S. has solved more serious world conflicts than Europe has. Maybe if we hadn't been so succesful at fixing your (Europe's) problems in the first half of the 20th century we wouldn't think we could do it now in Iraq. Maybe if we hadn't won the Cold War with the USSR we would be more humble. But history has shown that our strategy, overall, has worked and we can fix world conflicts (*). Europeans might not like us right now or may disagree with our currenct foreign policy, and many of them may say that our "reputation"="their opinion of our foreign policy." But, in reality, we have the reputation for having solved a number of significant problems in the world in the 20th century, we rebuilt Europe, were triumphant in the face of the Soviet threat, and have generally been a stabilizing force.
Meanwhile, history has shown that Europe can get together and build a contintental bueracracy and make pretty speeches while the U.S. continues to protect its military security and even pays for that security. Their reputation is one of requiring assistance in the face of dictators, total destruction of the continent, requiring our aid to rebuild, and thereafter pretty much criticizing us for not being as peaceful as they would like despite the fact that their "peacefulness" and appeasement in the past has only encouraged aggression that the U.S. later had to fix. It's like Europe hasn't learned from its own history.
I don't hate Europe or Europeans, but I think some of their criticism of the U.S. and even some of our current policies is rather hypocritical and ironic.
(*) That does not mean we are immune from making mistakes or creating conflicts, too.
Indeed. It would be wise for the EU to develop their military. But as I stated before, many EU countries are disarming instead. This situation only increases the EU's dependence on US aid to defend itself against attackers.
Of course, this is as annoying now as it was in years and decades gone by. We're spending huge amounts of money on military defense of the world, including Europe, which allows Europe to reduce military spending and spend on other aspects in their economies. Can you say "free ride?" Can you imagine what the U.S. could do if we didn't have to spend hundreds of billions on our military each year?
Slashdot Mirror
Humans will specialize. Cells in a colony may specialize. But how does this group of specialized cells in a colony suddenly (or gradually) become a single organism? It seems to me that the probability of a bunch of specialized cells becoming a single organism is about as likely as a million specialized humans in a city evolving into a single living creature.
Now the reason that an organism develops is because multicellular organisms are more efficient at reproducing than colony organisms.
I understand that a multicellular organism has advantages. But how would a single-cell organism ever be able to become a multi-celled organism? That's what my question is and what I haven't been able to find an answer to on any of the pages I've Googled this weekend. They all seem to talk about the advantages of being multi-celled or of having gender, but they either ignore the how or simply say, "We really don't know." That's a problem for me.
So why doesn't an organism develop for humans? Well, it did - we call it human society. There is a standing body of knowledge which is sufficient to recreate a city's specialists, and therefore, a city (or a colony of humans) can reproduce by sending out settlers (very few settlers) and the knowledge required to build that society.
That's looking at the issue from a very academic, theoretical and even esoteric standpoint where a city is an organism. I don't accept that. In this analogy a city is a colony, not an organism.
Exactly similarly, the evolution of gender (somewhat) and the development of multicellular life (moreso) don't say that evolution is necessarily wrong. They simply say that whenever the final answer to the development of life on Earth is found, it necessarily must be equivalent to evolution over the time period where evolution explains the data extremely well.
I have no problem with that. I don't say that multicellular life and gender is proof that evolution is wrong, but it does seem to me that it suggests that the real mechanics involved are far from understood to a degree that, to me, calls into question evolution as a whole. That is, these are such major issues that perhaps the theory of evolution provides a correlation rather than a relation. I can show that every time 90% of the city turns on the heaters in their house that the temperature outside is below 50--but that doesn't mean that everyone turning on their heater is the reason it's so cold out. Likewise, the theory of evolution may appear to fit some of the data but it could be as wrong as the conclusion that the city turning on their heaters causes the temperature to fall--it matches the data but the theory is completely wrong.
2) The initial formation of multi-cell organisms. This is appropriate to evolution, and it's difficult. Here [bbc.co.uk] is some information on what I was trying to say. Here [devbio.com] is an article regarding something similar to what I was saying, and also similar to what the other suggestion (poorly separated single-cell division) was. (But with plenty of explanations).
The explanation given by the first link is an example of exactly what I'm talking about: "Eventually the specialisation became so advanced that the cells were interdependent and the group shifted from being a colony to being a multicellular organism." That is an entirely inadequate explanation and glosses over the meat of the matter by simply saying it "shifted from being a colony to being a multicellular organism." That's like mixing up a lot of loose watch parts and saying that eventually the parts "shifted from an unorganized collection of watch parts to form a functioning watch." Ok, fine, but HOW?
Dog breeding backs up evolution - dogs with certain traits survive and reproduce (o
Yugoslavia? Whatever... I still believe I am correct when I say (and have previously cited information that confirms) that France contributes a significantly small amount to NATO based on its relative population, and their recent military history in the last 100 years is a history of failure--especially on those where they had to stand alone. When they had help from someone (NATO, us, others) they obviously did better. But, overall, France is basically of no use to our defense and our defense would be no weaker without them.
As I said originally, "cower" or failed. Their military history is marked by failure even if there are also sporadic wins. Especially if you just focus on France's military history in the last 100 years which is probably more relevant than their "glory days" of being a world power centuries ago.
France's role in American protection lies in NATO. As NATO has never been defensively tested, its value in deterrence is open to debate. But I have yet to hear a convincing argument against it.
I have no problem with NATO, I just disagree that France contributes economically or militarily in any meaningful way to NATO such that I should be greatful to France for contributing to our defense. Quite frankly, if France announced it was resigning from NATO I could care less and would feel no less secure. In fact, I'd tend to believe that France resigning from NATO would cause the remaining alliance to actually be stronger since military effectiveness is based greatly on political will--something France has shown it has no stomach for in the last century.
And France itself seems quite safe, even given its $500 per capita annual defense budget. Compared with the US $2000 per capita annual defense budget ($400B Pentagon + $200B wars), not to mention Homeland Security and National Security budgets, CIA, FBI, it's probably over $3000 per capita. And we're not as safe.
It depends if you're talking about safe from a military or terrorist standpoint. Militarily I feel that we are much safer than France. Our military is such that I do not have any concern that we will be militarily attacked by anyone, period.
If we're talking about terrorism then no-one is safe. They found bombs along French rail lines, they just got lucky. And when it comes to terrorism, I don't think NATO is doing anything that significantly reduces the risk of terrorism here or abroad so talking about the $29.5 billion French defense budget or their $77 million contribution in a terrorism context is irrelevant. We're talking about military defense.
The antimissile system makes us less safe. It won't even protect us from a few missiles, from Pakistan, China, or Iran, much less all of them. Or a trucknuke, or a shipping container. Or a hijacked plane. Or any of the actual threats we must address.
We do have to address truck nukes, shipping containers, planes, etc. Of course. But that doesn't mean old-fashioned military aggression will never occur again. That's silly. We haven't entered into a time of international peace with terrorism being the only problem. We have same international problems we already had PLUS terrorism. We must deal with both.
Your opinion that a functioning antimissile system couldn't protect us from a few missiles from Pakistan, China, or Iran is rediculous. That's what we're working on. And while I agree it would be doubtful we could deploy a system to defend us from thousands of simultaneous missiles from the Soviet Union, dealing with two orders of magnitude fewer missiles from one of the above-mentioned countries is a lot more realistic. And since that magnitude of attack is far more likely than an all-out exchange with the Soviet Union or China, I think it's worth making an effort to defend against.
What it does accomplish is to escalate nuclear production in China, Russia, North Korea, every other "small" nuclear threat, in order to rise above the threshold of perceived deterrence. And those extra nukes find their way into the hands of others even less manageable. So once again, it's spending more on escalation that increases the threat.
That's your opinion. There is no evidence that China or North Korea will produce any fewer weapons whether we have a defense or not. I'm also not concerned about China attacking... it's countries with just a few nukes, like North Korea, that I'm worried about. And that's exactly where it's not technologically absurd to believe we can create a working defense against attacks of that magnitude.
Exactly, the colony example is the closest I could come to explaining how a single-cell could go to multicell, but in the end we still run into the problem of how it "evolves into an organism that can development into different jobs." That's kind of like having a million citizens in a city and suggesting that, over time, we will eventually evolve into a single large organism. That's obviously not the case and I don't see why it would be the case on a cellular colony basis either.
If God realized "hmm, social beings will need to bond", great! How did He do it? By creating a Universe where organisms would need to evolve, as a species, faster than random chance would allow. If you have another suggestion as to how He did it, I'd love to hear it. So would many, many evolutionary biologists, I imagine. :)
Like I said (I think) before, I don't entirely disagree with evolution. In theory it's a nice explanation of how things evolved (pun intended) and I have no problem believing that evolution is the way that God got his work done. The problem is that I still haven't seen evidence that convinces me that evolution is the right explanation. You look at physics and we can see that the universe is in motion according to these elegant rules that we more or less understand and make sense and I don't argue that. We see fossils from dinosaurs that lived hundreds of millions of years ago and I don't argue with that even though some would say that contradicts the Bible's explanation of creation. So it's not the fact that something doesn't, at first glance, appear to be compatible with the Bible that causes me problems... it's that evolution just still doesn't make sense to me. I want to believe it, but I haven't been able to reconcile my skepticism yet.
Me: But the fact remains that I either don't fully understand how evolution supposedly works
You: No one understands fully how it works. The point of a theory is to try to fit the observed data as best as possible.
That's the problem in a nutshell. No-one fully understands it and so far the theory doesn't adequately explain observed data, yet it is generally accepted on the same level as relativity or gravity. More emphasis is placed on justifying evolution than looking for or consider alternative explanations that might better fit the data. You yourself later in the post suggested that some aspects of evolution need more study, but the theory itself can't be wrong--that's a very close-minded viewpoint on a theory that doesn't explain all the data.
This doesn't mean evolution is wrong, or even incomplete. Evolution fits the observed data best. Simply put, no one has a better explanation. No one.
I disagree that evolution fits the data. I think it fits the observed outcome, not the data. And while "survival of the fittest" makes sense in life and nature, it doesn't make sense to me that if I never use my right arm during my entire life and that if my children never use their right arm during their entire life and so on for generations that the right arm will eventually disappear. That doesn't make any sense to me.
One or two weak points doesn't make a theory wrong - it makes it have one or two weak points that need study. Until it's proven wrong, there's no reason not to state that evolution is currently the best model to explain the diversity of life on Earth. There's too much evidence backing up evolution in other places to make it completely wrong nowadays, anyway. It might be incomplete, but it's not wrong.
I don't agree that there's that much evidence backing up evolution and these two "weak points" are huge weak points. It's like if physics applied on earth but for some reason didn't apply in space--yes, physics might then ex
Don't feel like getting further into French history, but the French got their butts kicked in Mexico. That's what the Mexicans celebrate every May 5th (Cinco de Mayo).
The French domestic military budget supports their NATO committment, which protects us.
Both their contribution to NATO ($77.6 million) and their completely domestic military budget ($29.5 billion) are quite trivial considering their population and certainly recent history in the last century or show indicates they are either unwilling or unable to use their limited military effectively even to defend their own interests, let alone ours. So, no, I'm not convinced that they protect us in any meaningful way.
Are you more secure with so much of your taxes paying for a ridiculous antimissile system, to use but one example of US military overexpenditure on insecurity?
A working antimissile system is a good idea, especially in this age where a nuclear attack of just a few missiles is far more likely than an all-out war with thousands of ICMBs. It may have been rediculous to think we could stop thousands of ICBMs from the USSR, but it's not rediculous to think we could stop some or all of, say, a couple dozen missiles that could someday be launched by North Korea. I'd rather the military develop ways to prevent the killing of people than on missiles to kill people.
As provided elsewhere in this thread, check this link.
As part of NATO, part of their $29.5B protects us. And again, who's safer?
Oh wow, France contributed $77.6 million to the NATO budget in 1998 compared to $453 million by the U.S. Canada contributed more than France even though it has a population almost half its size, Germany contributed almost 4 times more than France even though its population is only about 30% larger, Italy contributed more. Heck, Bill Gates could have contributed more to NATO than France. I'm so glad the French are out there helping with the common defense. :)
They got a response from Clinton's PR firm in which they referred to him as "President Clinton." I advised them to follow in-kind and go ahead and refer to him as "President" so as not to offend them in subsequent exchanges even though I had to wonder if the PR firm thinks really high of Clinton or are just uninformed of the proper title of their client. Either way, it's pretty sad.
Probably the French because they tend to cower rather than stand tall in the face of threats (both past and present), and because part of that $399B that we spent protects them
.
Whatever. Still looks cool.
Ok, not "generally." But scientists are now showing us that the climate has changed very rapidly in the past, certainly much more rapidly than a few degrees over a hundred years. So, at best, what we're experiencing seems to be "faster than usual climate change" but certainly not "sudden." If the climate has changed more in a few decades than what we've seen in a century we can hardly claim that what we are experiencing is "sudden."
Also, a "global warming" of only a few degrees is enough to cause melting of ice caps and thus flooding of coastal areas.
Depends on where the warming is. Last I heard the temperature of the poles haven't increased significantly which is surprising some people since they're supposedly supposed to be one of the first places to feel the impact of global warming. That it hasn't materialized is causing pause among some people. Although the news media often reports on the latest ice sheet separating from the south pole, every indication is that this is completely natural and NOT a result of temperatures which have remained quite steady at the poles. At least that was the case the last time I investigated the poles as they relate to global warming.
Why "man-made"? Because there is pursuasive evidence that human actions could have caused it. Those who say that it is absolutely impossible for human events to modify the climate, that volcanoes and such affect the climate much more, are simply ignoring the science. However, those who say that human behavior has absolutely 100% guaranteed caused the warming of the last century are also ignoring the science.
I don't disagree that we could have some effect. But I do believe that that effect is small and I haven't seen any hard proof that would suggest otherwise. And when looking at old information from thousands and millions of years ago it is often hard to determine what was the cause and what was the effect.
Tangent: Even most scientists who disagree with human caused global warming do agree that the climate is warming and that the clear trend of the last 100 years and of the last 50 years is increasing global temperature. Most scientists who disagree just point out that we don't have sufficient evidence that human activity is the cause, and/or that natural climate variations could be causing all of what we see.
I agree with both of the last comments (we don't have sufficient accurate evidence and that it could all be natural climate variations). I am also concerned that people are using "trends" based on 100-year old data before we had anything remotely accurate in terms of global monitoring. We're using old data of questionable accuracy that is poorly distributed on a global basis which, even if accurate, is hard to apply because of the effects of urban heat islands which require rather subjective modifications to the temperature data to correct.
I prefer the satellite record because it is truly global, very accurate, and not subject to the effect of urban heat islands. And although that record is short (only about 25 years), it does not seem to support the belief that the world is getting warmer--at least any more.
I don't believe that any serious scientists have suggested compensating -- all I have ever heard serious scientists recommend is that humans reduce their impact on the climate. There's a difference between taking one's foot off the gas pedal and shoving one's foot on the brake pedal.
Even taking the foot off the gas pedal can have bad results on a high-speed curve if your car is front-wheel drive. :) In this case, "compensating" means "reducing" in the sense that reducing requires changes in our economy that could be very destructive. we're not really talking about saving our planet. Our planet will survive, period. It's US we're worried about. So if the medicine is worse than the disease then I'd question whether or not I want to take the medicine.
But it seems to me that an incomplete cell separation would just result in two cells that are stuck together, much like Siamese twins. Each cell would be completely self-contained but stuck to the other cell due to the incomplete division. If either cell tried to reproduce then why wouldn't it just reproduce successfully and off goes another single cell? I still don't see where an organism that works perfectly fine as a single cell is going to "evolve" into a multi-cell organism in such a way that further reproduction produces a new multi-cell organism.
I agree that hermaphroditism is more efficient for animals like us with internal fertilisation (hey, shouldn't an omnipotent god have been able to work that one out in advance if you and I can?)
Yes, He could figure that out. But He could also conclude that the reproductive process has benefits for human bonding that go beyond the simple need for efficiency in reproduction.
Your points regarding the benefits of reproduction that requires two sexes are well taken, but I still don't see how evolution would get you there. If you have an organism that can already reproduce just fine all by itself then why would it "evolve" into something that requires a second organism? Even if it's just the option? That is inherently weaker than an organism that can reproduce by itself. So what caused an organism to even have the possibility of reproducing in this fashion?
See above. You seem to be hooked on 'spontaneous' evolution, which is probably very convenient for supporting your chosen belief, but at odds with what is generally accepted as likely. There were transitions when both systems would work depending on what was available. Animals don't change over one generation. You would go from hermaphrodite, to some members of the species being better at one role or the other, to specialisation. Evolution implies gradual change. Sudden change is generally considered a creationist idea.
I say "spontaneously" because in my way of thinking there has to be a point where an organism's "parent" could only reproduce by itself and then this organism either requires a partner or has the option of a partner. How did this organism suddenly get this ability to mate with another organism? I can understand a given organism being sterile and not being able to reproduce at all, but how would evolution cause a mutation to occur that would cause this organism to be able to reproduce in an entirely different way? And wouldn't that organism require another similarly mutated organism so that it's alternate reproduction facility could be used? Otherwise, it would be a mutant in a field of normal organisms, the new reproductive facility would go unusued, and wouldn't evolution make sure that that unused feature just evolved out of existince?
To put it bluntly, did an organism just mutate and form functioning reproductive organs? I realize we were talking about organisms of just a few cells, but still--the theory is the same. What kind of miraculous mutation just happens to produce a working reproductive organ or process that is different from the existing process? And what are the chances that that mutant would run across another mutant that would allow it to create more offspring that had similar characteristics?
That doesn't discount the existence of a god that decided to use evolution to achieve an end - heck, if you want true omnipotence, look at setting up the universe's laws of physics to get a planned result billions of years later!
Like I said, I have no problem with evolution existing right along side my religious views. I have absolutely no problem with that. And if someone asks me if I believe in evolution I would have to respond, "Yes, I think I do." But the fact remains that I either don't fully understand how evolution supposedly works or I'm not convinced that it's right.
But I thank the others in this thread who contributed a constructive and useful response to my dilema.
I'm a Christian and I'm fully ready to believe in evolution--and I don't entirely discard it. But something just doesn't make sense there, and it's not the religious angle that causes me grief.
With poisonous pollutants I agree. We should reduce those. But I wouldn't consider CO2 a pollutant and that's what people are usually referring to when it comes to "emissions" and global warming. And while we are dumping what might seem to be a lot of it into the atmosphere, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the entire CO2 cycle and how much CO2 is produced and consumed naturally. Those that advocate reducing CO2 emissions often state that that's true but that it's a delicate balance and that "little extra" that we put into the system is enough to push things over the edge and cause problems. Maybe they're right but of all the speculation in this field I'd say that is the least certain of all. It's just as possible that nature will find a new equillibrium to consume all that extra CO2 (granted, of course, we don't burn down the entire Amazon).
It's more than just atmospheric sciences here. It's about the behavior of the atmosphere and its interaction with the ocean, the land, and the animal life that exists in those two areas that consume O2 and produce CO2, and plant life that does the opposite. Climate models don't just have to model the atmosphere, they have to model the planet. I'd go so far as to say that modeling the atmosphere is probably the easiest part of the problem--modeling how plants and animals on land and in the sea respond is just as important, and far more complex. Life has a fantastic tendency to be able to survive and adapt--without knowing how plants and animals, which have a huge part in the CO2 cycle, react makes the study of the atmosphere alone pretty academic.
We are, of course, totally ignoring the fact that satellite data for the last 2 decades hasn't shown any global warming. Environmentalists often ridicule people for suggesting that global warming might not even be happening but the fact of the matter is that the best temperature data we have for the last 2 decades (coming up on 3) do not show any long-term upward trends in temperature.
Whoa! You must be privy to scientific knowledge that the rest of humanity isn't. On what speculation do you base the above conclusion?
This itself is a reason to aim for producing changes to return things to the levels they were in the 1500's. The reason? Because the earth like and dynamic system works best when changes are gradual and therefor are less likely to push you into an instability that causes a major change of state.
Despite your assertion above, we don't even know that the changes of the last few hundred years were caused by us. It is far from certain. They are well within the realm of climatic variability and the new fad is scientists showing us that the climate can drastically change in a matter of decades all by itself with no human help. So why is a supposed change in temperature of a few degrees over a century called "sudden" or "man-made?" There doesn't seem to be evidence that it is both and there is definitely evidence that would suggest it very well may be neither.
So what if the changes of the last few hundred years were actually normal climate variation (recovery from the little ice age, etc.) and all the sudden we try to "compensate" for it? For all we know that could be like taking a curve too quick and heading towards the embankment, overcompensating, and running off the cliff on the other side of the road. We would've been better off if we hadn't tried "fixing" the problem.
We simply do NOT know enough about climate change to go off on some crusade to try to "fix" it, which is itself a very subjective term.
Caveat: I'm personally in favor of trying to be clean. There's no reason to pollute more than we have to. But that's because I just like clean rivers and clean air, not because I'm being threatened with exagerations of imminent disaster.
Agreed (that the projected tend is less than the noise, not that I necessarily agree with the projection). Unfortunately that means that we'll have to wait quite awhile to see just how accurate these models are, with or without fudge factors.
I have a problem making political decisions based on models that we're not sure are right. That's reactionary and I'm not willing to tank the world economy on a "better safe than sorry" attitude. There may be legitimate environmental concerns out there, but for the most part the environmental movement has been hijacked for political purposes. That's unfortunate because legitimate environmental concerns may be ignored in the process or disregarded because it is seen from a political perspective rather than a scientific one.
The CMIP experiments show that the most thorough and complete climate models are now converging
And are they converging on predictions of global warming that are higher or lower than originally predicted?
First, the IPCC itself acknowledged in 2001 that "some" (page 9) recent climate models provide "satisfactory" models without flux adjustments. The implication there being that most don't... The same document (page 13) suggests global warming of 1.4 to 5.8C from 1990 to 2000, so we're talking about 1.3-5.2C per century.
Refer you to the last 20 years of "JGR (Oceans)" and "JGR (Atmospheres)"?
If those models are applied to climate conditions from, say, 500 to 1000 years ago and are let run free, will they reproduce the current climate accurately?
How about the NCAR Climate System Model, which gives good results over 300 years without flux adjustment
Let's see. The NCAR Model projected that "surface temperature is expected to rise nearly 0.2 Kelvin (one-third degree Fahrenheit) per decade over the next four decades". So that's 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade or a projected 2 degrees Celsius change over a century. That's certainly on the low side of the IPCC alarmist figures. It has also been about 5-1/2 years since that model was announced so I would expect to see about 0.1C of warming since then. I am unaware of that having happened...? If it has, can you point to some data?
the Hadley Centre's HCM5, which generates a realistic for 1000 years stable climate (with non-greenhouse CO2) without flux adjustment?
I couldn't find information on HCM5, although I do see HCM2 and HCM3 on the Hadley website and I didn't see any claims to "1000 years stable climate" projections although I did find this page which says: "It is important to be aware that predictions from climate models are always subject to uncertainty because of limitations on our knowledge of how the climate system works and on the computing resources available. Different climate models can give different predictions."
I keep wondering... if some climate models are supposedly so accurate, why do we have so many different models that contradict each other? Further, it seems that at least one of the examples you provided reinforces my point that as the models get supposedly more accurate that the temperature increase they project becomes less--hence the 2C per century prediction of NCAR being on the LOW side of the IPCC estimates from just 3 years ago. I wonder how much lower the estimates will be in 3 years? Of course, in 3 years we'll probably no longer be talking about global warming and instead talking exclusively about salinity in the North Atlantic.
How about proving that any of the links I provided are wrong regardless of their source? Perhaps provide links that explain how existing climate models work that demonstrates the lack of "flux adjustments?".
As for "independent opinions without axes to grind" you'll find very few of those on EITHER side of the issue, so we might as well discuss the real facts rather than who is presenting them.
Here and here and here and here.
Especially this one -- states that they finally got a model that doesn't use a fudge factor, but it doesn't predict as much global warming, either.
Google is your friend. The above links all came off the first page of searching for ""climate models" "fudge factor".
Huh... So that's why climate prediction has been sooo accurate so far. They can't even predict the current climate based on previous climatic conditions without introducing "fudge factors" to force the model to be right. And every time they improve their model the effects on the global climate seem to get less and less significant.
The timing of the "Abrupt Climate Change" scenario is interesting. Just as supposedly-improving climate models drop further and further into the statistical noise and variability of natural climate change, WHAM, we have a new theory that tells us why it's the end of the world as we know it. "OK, so maybe the newer models aren't showing that global warming is really going to be as severe as we originally thought, but WAIT, have you considered abrupt climate change caused by a cessation of the global conveyor? Oh my God, global warming maybe isn't a threat after all but check out the salinity of the Northern Atlantic! We're doomed! So you still better stop driving that SUV, we need to implement the Kyoto treaty, and we need to transfer trillions of dollars of wealth to the developing world to satisfy our political, ehr, environmental goals."
Quite frankly... if this is the end of the world as we know it, I do feel fine! I will, however, pay $5 to see the sci-fi disaster-fest this weekend because floods, explosions, and tornados are always fun to watch on the big screen. :) [$5 because I live in Mexico]
Well, they're whitelisted anyway. I don't actually mean preventing the server from connecting to you. I would just consider it a good candidate for blacklisting, subject to any whitelists that would override it.
Look at it as though that certain someone cares not about webbugs (they know nothing about them) but about wanting to know if you read their email.Of course, this is all assuming that you have a partner and/or mother...
I have both, neither of which would be interested in this "technology." In fact, I think the only one really interested in this technology would be marketers--i.e., the marketing department of some company trying to keep track of what their contacts are doing. If that's the case, no, I don't want to hear from them, either. :)
Non-existent reputation? Let's see here...
For better or for worse, the U.S. has solved more serious world conflicts than Europe has. Maybe if we hadn't been so succesful at fixing your (Europe's) problems in the first half of the 20th century we wouldn't think we could do it now in Iraq. Maybe if we hadn't won the Cold War with the USSR we would be more humble. But history has shown that our strategy, overall, has worked and we can fix world conflicts (*). Europeans might not like us right now or may disagree with our currenct foreign policy, and many of them may say that our "reputation"="their opinion of our foreign policy." But, in reality, we have the reputation for having solved a number of significant problems in the world in the 20th century, we rebuilt Europe, were triumphant in the face of the Soviet threat, and have generally been a stabilizing force.
Meanwhile, history has shown that Europe can get together and build a contintental bueracracy and make pretty speeches while the U.S. continues to protect its military security and even pays for that security. Their reputation is one of requiring assistance in the face of dictators, total destruction of the continent, requiring our aid to rebuild, and thereafter pretty much criticizing us for not being as peaceful as they would like despite the fact that their "peacefulness" and appeasement in the past has only encouraged aggression that the U.S. later had to fix. It's like Europe hasn't learned from its own history.
I don't hate Europe or Europeans, but I think some of their criticism of the U.S. and even some of our current policies is rather hypocritical and ironic.
(*) That does not mean we are immune from making mistakes or creating conflicts, too.
Of course, this is as annoying now as it was in years and decades gone by. We're spending huge amounts of money on military defense of the world, including Europe, which allows Europe to reduce military spending and spend on other aspects in their economies. Can you say "free ride?" Can you imagine what the U.S. could do if we didn't have to spend hundreds of billions on our military each year?