Ah ha. You do realise that the ozone layer around the poles depletes naturally, don't you? CFCs, Methane, Bromide and other nasty pollutants do increase ozone depletion, but they do not cause it.
The ozone layer is a approx. equilibrium (ie. the rate that it is being reduced is approx. equal to the rate that it is forming). By adding CFCs etc (which catalysis the breakdown of ozone) to the upper atmosphere, one decreases the ozone concentration, therefore a person would be entirely correct in saying that CFCs and the like cause ozone depletion.
And may I inquire as to your facts and figures as to why this report (the peer reviewed scientific paper which the WWF based there report on) is lying with statistics and isn't true?
Or perhaps we should take realistic measures, such as cutting human caused CO2 levels (which does make up a significant proportion of atmospheric levels, and also does have a significant effect on the enviroment)?
Stomach acid contains HCl, plus a significant number of digestive enzymes. However, your body stops the HCl from eating your tissues by coating the stomach with mucus, therefore I would expect that your stomach can handle a significantly higher amount of chloride ions.
That all being said, my gut feeling suggests that the original posters claim of >1 ppm is a bit too low (however, I have no data to back this up), as it wouldn't surprise me if virtually of the food which we eat is significantly higher in salt.
I assume that the parent poster meant that >1 ppm chloride (as in the ion, Cl-) will hurt you, the counter ion (sodium in the case of table salt) will have it's on seperate effects, but just the chloride alone will get you.
He isn't talking about chlorine gas, as it is Cl2 (both Cl's are neutral) whereas chloride specifically refers to Cl- (the Cl has a one negative charge).
Actually silicon can form multiple bonds, it's just that there large atomic size makes this differcult. I put in Si=Si into SciFinder Scholar (a chemistry database) and got just over 900 matches. While many of these will be repeats, Si double bonds do exist.
I think that your being a little bit unfair on the parent poster. From my reading of it, he wasn't making a claim that radiodating is perfect, but rather he was disputing the orginal posters claim that dating was unfalsifiable. As this bit of untruth is often spread by "scientific" creationists, mentioning them is fair enough.
I agree with all of your post, bar one small point. I believe that the biggest eruption in civilised history occured at Taupo in New Zealand in 186 AD. While NZ wasn't inhabited at the time, it was recorded in China and Rome.
If you look at a map of the North Island of New Zealand, you'll see a large lake (with great fishing). That's the caldera left behind.
You know what, why does a traitor (or any non-US citizen of the US) deserve US rights?
Because by protecting the rights of traitors etc, they are also protecting your rights. It's a slippery slope to dictorship, so one should think carefully before throwing away legal protections.
If he was arrested for a parallel crime (i.e. being a traitor to the Al Queda) by his compatriots, they wouldn't give him a trial; he didn't offer a trial to the supposed infidels he was trying to kill.
Because one would hope that the US is better than a terrorist organisation hellbent of forcing a hardline theocratic government on the world.
Do I have this right? You move to a state with your own free will, knowing full well what it's like, and now your whinging that you don't like the rules?
I find it quite interesting that you refer to CFC science as good, whereas global warming isn't so good, as about a year ago I had the honour of attending a lecture by F. Sherwood Roland (who won a chemistry nobel prize for his work on CFCs and the ozone), and he stated that he believes that the IPCC's conclusions (that the earth is warming and humans play a very significant role in this warming) are correct.
Firstly, it is a troll, and it's one of the best that I've read. If I was wearing a hat, I'd take it off for the author.
As for the line "The world is heating up, it's largely Mankinds fault, and this is a bad thing that we must put a stop to", I think that first two points can be defending scientifically, the third is harder for me to answer as I haven't studied it.
The heating of the world has been well and truely observed. The ground, sea surface and deep sea all have been observed heating up at a significant rate. The upper atmosphere has shown a slight cooling, however this is line with loss of ozone and the addition of more particles to the atmosphere. A very diverse range of scientific bodies have agreed on this. Also boreholes, and other paloclimatic data supports this hypothesis.
That CO2 is significant cause of this is also well known. The greenhouse effect (of which CO2 is a very significant part) is a well accepted scientific principle, and it can be fairly well shown (by studing radioisotopes) that the rising CO2 levels are from human sources.
As for the third part, I can't say that much about it, but this link may interest you. It's a IPCC report on to the regional effects of climate change. I should note that I haven't read it myself (but I do intend to).
Ahh... the great science conspiracy to hide the data. Damm those jackbooted scientists going around spread their lies. Luckly we have creationists, global warming skeptics and flat earthers to tell us the truth.
You should be very careful when quoting Lomborg, as virtually every scientific publication which has reviewed his work has accused him of carefully selecting data, getting basic statistics wrong, ignoring research which disagrees with him etc.
Also his academic publications aren't that great. According to the web of science (source), they number 1. That ain't that great (I've got more than that, and I'm just a PhD student)
Not disagreing with your point, but it should be pointed out the author of the paper (Mukul Sharma) doesn't appear to disagree with global warming. The bit in the slashdot heading is a slashdot addition, and should be treated as such.
No. It's not that simple. This guy is trying to explain longterm period oscillations in tempertures, something that scientists don't blame on global warming.
His data is quite interesting, however, it breaks down between 125 000 and 115 000 years ago (something which he notes in his research paper).
I'm a bit skeptical as to whether or not this will change China that much. I travelled through Vietnam a couple of years ago, and the internet was pretty much uncontrolled then (this may have since changed), if locals want to find out about the rest of the world they can.
While I wish it wasn't true, I starting to feel that as long as you give people a chance to improve their lot (which does happen in China) freedom doesn't seem that important.
Plus, if it does ever take off, the government can always launch propaganda floods about the evils of the West (just find a few crime storys), or that fails, there is always the army.
Personally, I feel that freedom will come to China only after a very long time. Reformers will have to penetrate the system (as per the Soviet Union) and reach it's upper levels before change will happen.
There is a massive difference between find scientific evidence (by that I mean peer reviewed journals) for global cooling (in a doomsday sense), and searching the internet for some crank theory.
The global cooling scare mostly came from a few people (mostly nonscientists) misintrepretating scientific theories, whereas the global warming hypothesis is well accepted in the scientific community (and commonly misrepresented in the media). The difference between the two are massive, but also allow the global warming skeptics to play a media game rather than a science game (which, along with the creationists) they lost a long time ago.
I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge is spotty. However, this suggests to me, that in this case it would be best to see what the experts say. And given that the absolutly vast majority of the worlds biologists believe in evolution, it seems resonable that evolution is the best possible answer.
As for the flood changing everything, this doesn't strike me as the best answer. One could just as well argue that Merlin changed everything. Without evidence that a global flood (or a wizard) has altered the earth, it isn't really much of a arguement (at least in the scientific sense).
Basically, we have the scientific data. Evolution and creation are two ways of explaining the same data. This is philosophy - we both actively seek that set of data that contradicts fundamental assumptions of the opposing theory.
While I would dispute that creationism can explain the data (for example, why is human DNA very similar to chimp DNA, when other similar creatures such as sharks and dolphins very different - evolution explains this well, whereas I can't see how creationism can), what are the fundamental assumptions of creationisms, that scientists could disprove?
As a side note, I personally know of at least three creationists who (having studied biology degrees at uni, gave up creationism and Christianity. This was mostly because they felt lied to. Therefore any Christian wanting to investigate further should remember that lots of mainstream Christian faiths have accepted evolution (and that there are plenty of Christian scientists, they aren't mutally exclusive).
Slashdot Mirror
Ah ha. You do realise that the ozone layer around the poles depletes naturally, don't you? CFCs, Methane, Bromide and other nasty pollutants do increase ozone depletion, but they do not cause it.
The ozone layer is a approx. equilibrium (ie. the rate that it is being reduced is approx. equal to the rate that it is forming). By adding CFCs etc (which catalysis the breakdown of ozone) to the upper atmosphere, one decreases the ozone concentration, therefore a person would be entirely correct in saying that CFCs and the like cause ozone depletion.
And may I inquire as to your facts and figures as to why this report (the peer reviewed scientific paper which the WWF based there report on) is lying with statistics and isn't true?
Or haven't you got round to reading it yet?
hydrogen requires slightly more energy to produce than it contains.
Minor anal correction...
Hydrogen realeases exactly the same amount of energy as what it takes to produce it. It's just that we can't use all of the energy that it produces.
Or perhaps we should take realistic measures, such as cutting human caused CO2 levels (which does make up a significant proportion of atmospheric levels, and also does have a significant effect on the enviroment)?
Stomach acid contains HCl, plus a significant number of digestive enzymes. However, your body stops the HCl from eating your tissues by coating the stomach with mucus, therefore I would expect that your stomach can handle a significantly higher amount of chloride ions.
That all being said, my gut feeling suggests that the original posters claim of >1 ppm is a bit too low (however, I have no data to back this up), as it wouldn't surprise me if virtually of the food which we eat is significantly higher in salt.
I assume that the parent poster meant that >1 ppm chloride (as in the ion, Cl-) will hurt you, the counter ion (sodium in the case of table salt) will have it's on seperate effects, but just the chloride alone will get you.
He isn't talking about chlorine gas, as it is Cl2 (both Cl's are neutral) whereas chloride specifically refers to Cl- (the Cl has a one negative charge).
Actually silicon can form multiple bonds, it's just that there large atomic size makes this differcult. I put in Si=Si into SciFinder Scholar (a chemistry database) and got just over 900 matches. While many of these will be repeats, Si double bonds do exist.
I think that your being a little bit unfair on the parent poster. From my reading of it, he wasn't making a claim that radiodating is perfect, but rather he was disputing the orginal posters claim that dating was unfalsifiable. As this bit of untruth is often spread by "scientific" creationists, mentioning them is fair enough.
Not by humans it wasn't.
As I understand it, Kupe discovered NZ in approx. 950 AD, with large scale settlement occuring by 1300 AD.
I agree with all of your post, bar one small point. I believe that the biggest eruption in civilised history occured at Taupo in New Zealand in 186 AD. While NZ wasn't inhabited at the time, it was recorded in China and Rome.
If you look at a map of the North Island of New Zealand, you'll see a large lake (with great fishing). That's the caldera left behind.
(Interesting link.)
Is there any scientific evidence (peer reviewed etc) that diary products are bad for you? Or are you just pushing forward psuedoscience?
You know what, why does a traitor (or any non-US citizen of the US) deserve US rights?
Because by protecting the rights of traitors etc, they are also protecting your rights. It's a slippery slope to dictorship, so one should think carefully before throwing away legal protections.
If he was arrested for a parallel crime (i.e. being a traitor to the Al Queda) by his compatriots, they wouldn't give him a trial; he didn't offer a trial to the supposed infidels he was trying to kill.
Because one would hope that the US is better than a terrorist organisation hellbent of forcing a hardline theocratic government on the world.
Do I have this right? You move to a state with your own free will, knowing full well what it's like, and now your whinging that you don't like the rules?
Somethings wrong here.
Actually it potentially very useful. Quantum encryption should be about as close to unbreakable as possible.
I find it quite interesting that you refer to CFC science as good, whereas global warming isn't so good, as about a year ago I had the honour of attending a lecture by F. Sherwood Roland (who won a chemistry nobel prize for his work on CFCs and the ozone), and he stated that he believes that the IPCC's conclusions (that the earth is warming and humans play a very significant role in this warming) are correct.
Also, urban heat effects have been accounted for. Sometimes climate skeptics on PR mode claim that they haven't, but this is simply FUD on their part. If you want scientific references for this, ask I can supply (however, these aren't online), but in the mean time, this QA sheet from CSIRO (an Australian scientific research organisation) contains info on heat islands.
Firstly, it is a troll, and it's one of the best that I've read. If I was wearing a hat, I'd take it off for the author.
As for the line "The world is heating up, it's largely Mankinds fault, and this is a bad thing that we must put a stop to", I think that first two points can be defending scientifically, the third is harder for me to answer as I haven't studied it.
The heating of the world has been well and truely observed. The ground, sea surface and deep sea all have been observed heating up at a significant rate. The upper atmosphere has shown a slight cooling, however this is line with loss of ozone and the addition of more particles to the atmosphere. A very diverse range of scientific bodies have agreed on this. Also boreholes, and other paloclimatic data supports this hypothesis.
That CO2 is significant cause of this is also well known. The greenhouse effect (of which CO2 is a very significant part) is a well accepted scientific principle, and it can be fairly well shown (by studing radioisotopes) that the rising CO2 levels are from human sources.
As for the third part, I can't say that much about it, but this link may interest you. It's a IPCC report on to the regional effects of climate change. I should note that I haven't read it myself (but I do intend to).
Ahh... the great science conspiracy to hide the data. Damm those jackbooted scientists going around spread their lies. Luckly we have creationists, global warming skeptics and flat earthers to tell us the truth.
You should be very careful when quoting Lomborg, as virtually every scientific publication which has reviewed his work has accused him of carefully selecting data, getting basic statistics wrong, ignoring research which disagrees with him etc.
Also his academic publications aren't that great. According to the web of science (source), they number 1. That ain't that great (I've got more than that, and I'm just a PhD student)
Not disagreing with your point, but it should be pointed out the author of the paper (Mukul Sharma) doesn't appear to disagree with global warming. The bit in the slashdot heading is a slashdot addition, and should be treated as such.
No. It's not that simple. This guy is trying to explain longterm period oscillations in tempertures, something that scientists don't blame on global warming.
His data is quite interesting, however, it breaks down between 125 000 and 115 000 years ago (something which he notes in his research paper).
Because of the damage it will do before it stops.
I'm a bit skeptical as to whether or not this will change China that much. I travelled through Vietnam a couple of years ago, and the internet was pretty much uncontrolled then (this may have since changed), if locals want to find out about the rest of the world they can.
While I wish it wasn't true, I starting to feel that as long as you give people a chance to improve their lot (which does happen in China) freedom doesn't seem that important.
Plus, if it does ever take off, the government can always launch propaganda floods about the evils of the West (just find a few crime storys), or that fails, there is always the army.
Personally, I feel that freedom will come to China only after a very long time. Reformers will have to penetrate the system (as per the Soviet Union) and reach it's upper levels before change will happen.
There is a massive difference between find scientific evidence (by that I mean peer reviewed journals) for global cooling (in a doomsday sense), and searching the internet for some crank theory.
The global cooling scare mostly came from a few people (mostly nonscientists) misintrepretating scientific theories, whereas the global warming hypothesis is well accepted in the scientific community (and commonly misrepresented in the media). The difference between the two are massive, but also allow the global warming skeptics to play a media game rather than a science game (which, along with the creationists) they lost a long time ago.
Do you have any evidence that China is faking their numbers? It should be easy to spot via satellite data if they are faking it in a significant way.
I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge is spotty. However, this suggests to me, that in this case it would be best to see what the experts say. And given that the absolutly vast majority of the worlds biologists believe in evolution, it seems resonable that evolution is the best possible answer.
x .h tm?once=true&rnk=r2&terms=Potassium-argon
As for the flood changing everything, this doesn't strike me as the best answer. One could just as well argue that Merlin changed everything. Without evidence that a global flood (or a wizard) has altered the earth, it isn't really much of a arguement (at least in the scientific sense).
Basically, we have the scientific data. Evolution and creation are two ways of explaining the same data. This is philosophy - we both actively seek that set of data that contradicts fundamental assumptions of the opposing theory.
While I would dispute that creationism can explain the data (for example, why is human DNA very similar to chimp DNA, when other similar creatures such as sharks and dolphins very different - evolution explains this well, whereas I can't see how creationism can), what are the fundamental assumptions of creationisms, that scientists could disprove?
As a side note, I personally know of at least three creationists who (having studied biology degrees at uni, gave up creationism and Christianity. This was mostly because they felt lied to. Therefore any Christian wanting to investigate further should remember that lots of mainstream Christian faiths have accepted evolution (and that there are plenty of Christian scientists, they aren't mutally exclusive).
And here are some more sites:
http://geology.about.com/cs/dating_methods/inde
http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/rad_dat.html
http://www.nearctica.com/evolve/history.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/