Aside from an irrelevant description of the equivalence principle, you're just continuing to repeat arguments that I've debunked in detail in the links I've given you. This is boring. Have a nice day.
All theory, especially scientific theory is gray, because it changes all the time. Theories of a century ago or even of last week change.... All theory IS gray, by the mere fact that all theory is from humans and is subject to human interpretation. Also, theories change all the time. At one time, the scientific theory commonly accepted was that the earth is flat and at the center of the universe. Anybody who argued differently was ostracized. At one time, all doctors believed that disease was caused by bad air and bad humors. At one time, the commonly accepted theory for the existence of all things was that there is a Creator who made all. Now the theory is that it all sort of happened by natural means without any intelligent input or planning.
What a breathtaking oversimplification, even for a creationist:... It's a question of degrees of scepticism, based on faith/doubt in the reliability of various kinds of evidence, the relatedness of evidence to theory, the possibility of alternate explanation, the theory-ladenness of evidence and relative trust in those theories, and so on. Surely some of this stuff rings a bell? I can't treat all theories with equal trust or equal scepticism because the claims of the theories are different, the quality of supporting evidence is different, and the quantity of supporting evidence is different.... Each theory must be considered on its own merits...
It is not only gray, but also full of holes. For thousands of years, up until Darwin came along, scientific consensus was that the God theory of creation was the proper one. Now in the last couple of milliseconds of history, a new theory, the theory of evolution where God has been excluded has come about.
Prior to the discovery of evolution, there simply wasn't a decent scientific explanation for the origin of species. It's not that creationism used to be scientific before Darwin; it's that creationism wasn't-- and couldn't-- ever be scientific. Note that I'm not saying creationism is wrong! Quite the opposite! It's just not a scientific theory because it isn't falsifiable.
It's really funny that you should mention gravity, because that is the one force of nature we know the least about and it is also the weakest, being 36 orders of magnitude weaker than the electric force. There are more questions about gravity and unknowns, than any of the other forces that operate in the universe.
Yes, I've briefly described gravity's complexities. But the point is that scientific experiments have repeatedly detected nearly imperceptible flaws in gravitational theory, and subsequently developed more accurate theories. These more accurate theories have to agree with the simpler Newtonian theory when dealing with weak gravitation fields, though.
Also, we know that gravity is much weaker than electricity through the same scientific experiments which demonstrate that positive and negative electric charges attract and cancel. But gravity only comes in positive quantities, so it never cancels. As a result, the universe's large scale structure is dominated by gravitational interactions. Galaxies form because of gravity, and random collisions between objects form the flat disk shape. Stars collapse because of gravity until they become hot enough to fuse hydrogen, then remain stabilized by gravity until it ultimately ends when nuclear fuel runs out, etc.
(....record billions of years rather than a few odd thousands....)
You apparently are ignorant that there are two ways to measure time. One is called atomic time, because it depends on the atom an
There are only two choices in ascribing origins. One is that everything came into being by God specifically creating it and the other choice is an explanation that leaves God out of the picture. You have chosen to believe in the latter and I have chosen to believe in the former.
Aside from the fact that your choice 2 is actually a category which includes many explanations, I think there are more than two choices. For instance, choice 3: a god other than the one you believe in created the universe. Choice 4: there are multiple gods (like Egyption, Greek or Hindu gods) who collaborated in the universe's creation. Choice 5: the universe is god (see pantheism.) Etc.
Neither your belief nor my belief or anybody's belief for that matter can be proven.
And yet again, the distinction is that your belief can't ever be disproven because it's based on religious faith, whereas scientific theories have to be testable by definition.
Honestly, I wouldn't care if you just said "I have faith in these religious beliefs, and I realize that they're inconsistent with science." The freedom of (or from) religion is important to me. As long as you don't misrepresent your religion as science I don't care what you believe, just like I don't care that Tom Cruise believes Xenu committed mass murder 75 million years ago using spaceships that look like DC-8s.
My problem is that you seem to be implying that your superstition is equivalent to a well-established scientific theory. Furthermore, you say things like "we know that today no fossils form" which are only evidence of a flaw in your country's school system.
In nature everything left to itself decays and loses structure, if there is no information input. In human systems, information always comes from a mind without exception. It is natural and extremely logical to extend this into the realm of living creatures. All living things contain codes which represent information. This information came from a mind, the mind of God.
Again, you keep making bizarre claims about information theory without showing how these claims are consistent with Shannon's definition of information, or offering a replacement equation.
I'm used to repeating myself to different people. But you've already raised that exact same point, and I've already answered it. Again, you're missing the point.
I've discussed this issue repeatedly, and always point out that your idea isn't testable. Yes, maybe God created all life. Yes, maybe He created the Earth (and our memories) 30 seconds ago. But since neither of these notions (or yours) can be tested, they're not competing with evolution because evolution can be tested. For instance, finding a chimp fossil in the Precambrian or a 1950s discovery that all species used different DNA bases. That's what makes evolution a science, while creationism is a religion.
I think you're talking about Distant Origin, which is a Voyager episode. Part of the episode involved a "projection" of evolution, starting with a bipedal dinosaur and ending with the creature in the episode. Completely ridiculous, of course; evolution doesn't have a goal and can't possibly be fast-forwarded. This misconception of evolution also appears in the episode where Tom Paris travels at warp 10 and "evolves" into a giant slug.
This word you're using: "factual." I do not think it means what you think it means.
Also, I've been emphatically trying to convince you to focus on evidence in peer-reviewed journal articles. I've even specifically asked people to ignore nonscientists like Al Gore.
The point is that his experience isn't as a climatologist. He's a medical doctor who hasn't published a single solitary peer-reviewed article on climate science. You've just seen two links detailing the sloppy scholarship in his novel. I'm completely uninterested in the scientific opinions of medical doctors and politicians like Al Gore. Just like I'm uninterested in receiving medical advice from a climatologist. All I'm interested in is evidence, presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
So why is it that this sort of thing is touted as being caused by global warming or the new buzz word, climate change. That is another thing that bothers me. Why the switch from global warming to climate change. In fact why are they used interchangeably by many? Most scientists are very careful to focus on climate change, whereas most common folk call it global warming?
I've previously answered that same question. Short version: it's more accurate.
Wow, I feel dumb for congratulating you about recognizing the need for reading peer-reviewed journal articles. You do realize that you're listening to a science fiction author with a lot of irrelevant experience rather than reading the peer-reviewed journals, right? And, no, reading a novel with footnotes doesn't count as reading a scientific journal.
I see very little reason to suspect that the Steig et al 2009 study was wrong to say: "... significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive."
The AC is correct. What a dumb way to say "meters per year." Heck, m/yr is actually shorter in addition to making much more sense. I'm firmly against this kind of overly complex language too.
You quoted from newscientist.com. But this is a "pop" science source. Not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
You're absolutely right that peer-reviewed journal articles are far superior to pop science sources. But the New Scientist articles he quoted accurately reflect the science in those peer-reviewed journals, which I've linked extensively so you can compare.
But perhaps this all is a cycle, because there is peer-reviewed scientific basis for the prediction of catastrophic "Global Cooling."
Huh? What in the full paper led you to that bizarre conclusion?
Or maybe you could re-read my point that the natural carbon cycle is a closed cycle. That means any CO2 emitted by respiration and decomposition was very recently absorbed from the air as the plant grew. So it doesn't change the overall concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another independent line of evidence is that the isotopes in vegetative CO2 don't match the current isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 in fossil fuels, on the other hand, has been locked underground for millions of years and has the same isotope ratios as the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Make no mistake; the current skyrocketing CO2 concentration is due to human emissions.
According to a recent survey, about 10% of scientists believe that the current warming is natural, 4% believe there is no warming, and 84% believe the current warming is caused by humans. So, yeah, some scientists are skeptical of global warming.
But stop trying to count heads on each side of the debate. As I've repeatedly stressed in that last link, science isn't democratic. It's about evidence. When I see some convincing evidence against the existence of abrupt climate change, then I'll be interested.
And of course the IPCC doesn't conduct original research. They compile previously peer-reviewed research into reports that summarize the best scientific evidence available.
It's a better idea to get your science from scientists rather than politicians. The CO2 emissions by living organisms are part of a closed cycle, and those isotopes don't match the composition of the atmospheric CO2 that's currently ~26% higher than it's been in the last 650,000 years. Other sources such as volcanoes emit 100x less than humans do. Also, water vapor isn't relevant because it has a short lifetime in the atmosphere and isn't well-mixed to the top of the atmosphere. I've discussed all these issues at length.
Assuming that large scale warming is already well under way (And that's a big assumption given the major cooling trend we have been in for the last 10 years.)
I've discussed this claim before. Short version: there hasn't been a cooling trend over the last ten years, major or minor.
It is likely, in fact nearly guaranteed that not only can't we do anything about it now, we probably NEVER were able to do anything about it.
The climate varies naturally on long timescales but Meehl 2004 shows the current warming can't be accounted for by natural forcings. Greenhouse gas emissions are the only way we can explain the temperatures over the last ~40 years.
The NASA Earth Observation site has measurements of the ice coverage at the north pole. While their text speaks of massive ice loss and continuing doom, the actual graph they provide of the data shows that while the minimum ice cover is less than the average of a decade ago, there is actually more minimum ice cover than last year, and last year had more cover than the year before. Why do they not mention this at all ? Maybe the point is to mislead?
Yes, 2008 and 2009 had smaller ice extent minima than 2007. But the point is that climate models had previously predicted larger ice extent minima than were observed in 2007. So the last several years tend to confirm that the previous measurements were due to short-term weather variability rather than a flaw in the climate models.
If they were to publish the proper figures for 1979 to 2000 instead of just a vague average, we could maybe see whether there is a regular fluctuation, instead of guessing that the decline has been constant.
Ask, and you shall receive. No serious scientist is actually "guessing" that the decline has been constant, and no climate model that I'm aware of makes that prediction. Short term variability is expected, but the data shows a clear downward trend over the last 30 years.
So we can ignore data if it suits your argument ? Sea ice is formed from and floats in the sea (duh). Global warming causes the oceans to warm - true or false ? So more sea ice can not mean a warmer ocean can it ?
I read that article, and wondered why the authors missed the crucial part of the story. Yes, 2008 and 2009 had smaller ice extent minima than 2007. But the point is that climate models had previously predicted larger ice extent minima than were observed in 2007. So the last several years tend to confirm that the previous measurements were due to short-term weather variability rather than a flaw in the climate models.
Okay, that sounds reasonable. Thanks for the correction. I've heard of research showing positive feedback effects from melting glaciers lubricating the slide of the glacier into the ocean, though. Does this only happen in glaciers in more temperate regions than Greenland?
Okay, yes. Technically I agree. The political/economic ramifications of our response to climate change aren't completely within the domain of physical science, so they're not facts in the way that the anthropogenic origin of abrupt climate change is a fact. For example, our technology could suddenly jump forward very quickly, rendering adaptation very simple and cheap.
But we're talking about the future of the human race here. Let's choose the safest option, and try to avoid the worst effects by moving from coal power to modern nuclear power. As technology advances, solar, wind, tidal and geothermal power can play an increasing role. We've stagnated and become complacent in a world powered by cheap oil; another industrial revolution is long overdue.
I saw the same Horizon documentary. Although sensationalist, it did explain Global Dimming pretty well. But at the same time, regulations of CFCs and similar chemicals have been fairly effective, and their lifetimes in the atmosphere are generally measured in months. So that particular problem has waned, I think. But I agree, whatever effect it would've had on rainfall would've opposed the greater precipitation expected from global warming.
Slashdot Mirror
Aside from an irrelevant description of the equivalence principle, you're just continuing to repeat arguments that I've debunked in detail in the links I've given you. This is boring. Have a nice day.
What a breathtaking oversimplification, even for a creationist:... It's a question of degrees of scepticism, based on faith/doubt in the reliability of various kinds of evidence, the relatedness of evidence to theory, the possibility of alternate explanation, the theory-ladenness of evidence and relative trust in those theories, and so on. Surely some of this stuff rings a bell? I can't treat all theories with equal trust or equal scepticism because the claims of the theories are different, the quality of supporting evidence is different, and the quantity of supporting evidence is different. ... Each theory must be considered on its own merits ...
Prior to the discovery of evolution, there simply wasn't a decent scientific explanation for the origin of species. It's not that creationism used to be scientific before Darwin; it's that creationism wasn't-- and couldn't-- ever be scientific. Note that I'm not saying creationism is wrong! Quite the opposite! It's just not a scientific theory because it isn't falsifiable.
Yes, I've briefly described gravity's complexities. But the point is that scientific experiments have repeatedly detected nearly imperceptible flaws in gravitational theory, and subsequently developed more accurate theories. These more accurate theories have to agree with the simpler Newtonian theory when dealing with weak gravitation fields, though.
Also, we know that gravity is much weaker than electricity through the same scientific experiments which demonstrate that positive and negative electric charges attract and cancel. But gravity only comes in positive quantities, so it never cancels. As a result, the universe's large scale structure is dominated by gravitational interactions. Galaxies form because of gravity, and random collisions between objects form the flat disk shape. Stars collapse because of gravity until they become hot enough to fuse hydrogen, then remain stabilized by gravity until it ultimately ends when nuclear fuel runs out, etc.
Aside from the fact that your choice 2 is actually a category which includes many explanations, I think there are more than two choices. For instance, choice 3: a god other than the one you believe in created the universe. Choice 4: there are multiple gods (like Egyption, Greek or Hindu gods) who collaborated in the universe's creation. Choice 5: the universe is god (see pantheism.) Etc.
And yet again, the distinction is that your belief can't ever be disproven because it's based on religious faith, whereas scientific theories have to be testable by definition.
Honestly, I wouldn't care if you just said "I have faith in these religious beliefs, and I realize that they're inconsistent with science." The freedom of (or from) religion is important to me. As long as you don't misrepresent your religion as science I don't care what you believe, just like I don't care that Tom Cruise believes Xenu committed mass murder 75 million years ago using spaceships that look like DC-8s.
My problem is that you seem to be implying that your superstition is equivalent to a well-established scientific theory. Furthermore, you say things like "we know that today no fossils form" which are only evidence of a flaw in your country's school system.
Again, you keep making bizarre claims about information theory without showing how these claims are consistent with Shannon's definition of information, or offering a replacement equation.
I'm used to repeating myself to different people. But you've already raised that exact same point, and I've already answered it. Again, you're missing the point.
I've discussed this issue repeatedly, and always point out that your idea isn't testable. Yes, maybe God created all life. Yes, maybe He created the Earth (and our memories) 30 seconds ago. But since neither of these notions (or yours) can be tested, they're not competing with evolution because evolution can be tested. For instance, finding a chimp fossil in the Precambrian or a 1950s discovery that all species used different DNA bases. That's what makes evolution a science, while creationism is a religion.
I think you're talking about Distant Origin, which is a Voyager episode. Part of the episode involved a "projection" of evolution, starting with a bipedal dinosaur and ending with the creature in the episode. Completely ridiculous, of course; evolution doesn't have a goal and can't possibly be fast-forwarded. This misconception of evolution also appears in the episode where Tom Paris travels at warp 10 and "evolves" into a giant slug.
This word you're using: "factual." I do not think it means what you think it means.
Also, I've been emphatically trying to convince you to focus on evidence in peer-reviewed journal articles. I've even specifically asked people to ignore nonscientists like Al Gore.
The point is that his experience isn't as a climatologist. He's a medical doctor who hasn't published a single solitary peer-reviewed article on climate science. You've just seen two links detailing the sloppy scholarship in his novel. I'm completely uninterested in the scientific opinions of medical doctors and politicians like Al Gore. Just like I'm uninterested in receiving medical advice from a climatologist. All I'm interested in is evidence, presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
I've previously answered that same question. Short version: it's more accurate.
Wow, I feel dumb for congratulating you about recognizing the need for reading peer-reviewed journal articles. You do realize that you're listening to a science fiction author with a lot of irrelevant experience rather than reading the peer-reviewed journals, right? And, no, reading a novel with footnotes doesn't count as reading a scientific journal.
I see very little reason to suspect that the Steig et al 2009 study was wrong to say: "... significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive."
The AC is correct. What a dumb way to say "meters per year." Heck, m/yr is actually shorter in addition to making much more sense. I'm firmly against this kind of overly complex language too.
Ack, I meant 2008 and 2009 had slightly LARGER ice extent minima than 2007.
Wrong.
You're absolutely right that peer-reviewed journal articles are far superior to pop science sources. But the New Scientist articles he quoted accurately reflect the science in those peer-reviewed journals, which I've linked extensively so you can compare.
Huh? What in the full paper led you to that bizarre conclusion?
Or maybe you could re-read my point that the natural carbon cycle is a closed cycle. That means any CO2 emitted by respiration and decomposition was very recently absorbed from the air as the plant grew. So it doesn't change the overall concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another independent line of evidence is that the isotopes in vegetative CO2 don't match the current isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 in fossil fuels, on the other hand, has been locked underground for millions of years and has the same isotope ratios as the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Make no mistake; the current skyrocketing CO2 concentration is due to human emissions.
According to a recent survey, about 10% of scientists believe that the current warming is natural, 4% believe there is no warming, and 84% believe the current warming is caused by humans. So, yeah, some scientists are skeptical of global warming.
But stop trying to count heads on each side of the debate. As I've repeatedly stressed in that last link, science isn't democratic. It's about evidence. When I see some convincing evidence against the existence of abrupt climate change, then I'll be interested.
And of course the IPCC doesn't conduct original research. They compile previously peer-reviewed research into reports that summarize the best scientific evidence available.
... i.e. it has a short lifetime in the atmosphere.
It's a better idea to get your science from scientists rather than politicians. The CO2 emissions by living organisms are part of a closed cycle, and those isotopes don't match the composition of the atmospheric CO2 that's currently ~26% higher than it's been in the last 650,000 years. Other sources such as volcanoes emit 100x less than humans do. Also, water vapor isn't relevant because it has a short lifetime in the atmosphere and isn't well-mixed to the top of the atmosphere. I've discussed all these issues at length.
I've discussed this claim before. Short version: there hasn't been a cooling trend over the last ten years, major or minor.
The climate varies naturally on long timescales but Meehl 2004 shows the current warming can't be accounted for by natural forcings. Greenhouse gas emissions are the only way we can explain the temperatures over the last ~40 years.
Yes, 2008 and 2009 had smaller ice extent minima than 2007. But the point is that climate models had previously predicted larger ice extent minima than were observed in 2007. So the last several years tend to confirm that the previous measurements were due to short-term weather variability rather than a flaw in the climate models.
Ask, and you shall receive. No serious scientist is actually "guessing" that the decline has been constant, and no climate model that I'm aware of makes that prediction. Short term variability is expected, but the data shows a clear downward trend over the last 30 years.
I read that article, and wondered why the authors missed the crucial part of the story. Yes, 2008 and 2009 had smaller ice extent minima than 2007. But the point is that climate models had previously predicted larger ice extent minima than were observed in 2007. So the last several years tend to confirm that the previous measurements were due to short-term weather variability rather than a flaw in the climate models.
Okay, that sounds reasonable. Thanks for the correction. I've heard of research showing positive feedback effects from melting glaciers lubricating the slide of the glacier into the ocean, though. Does this only happen in glaciers in more temperate regions than Greenland?
Okay, yes. Technically I agree. The political/economic ramifications of our response to climate change aren't completely within the domain of physical science, so they're not facts in the way that the anthropogenic origin of abrupt climate change is a fact. For example, our technology could suddenly jump forward very quickly, rendering adaptation very simple and cheap.
But we're talking about the future of the human race here. Let's choose the safest option, and try to avoid the worst effects by moving from coal power to modern nuclear power. As technology advances, solar, wind, tidal and geothermal power can play an increasing role. We've stagnated and become complacent in a world powered by cheap oil; another industrial revolution is long overdue.
I saw the same Horizon documentary. Although sensationalist, it did explain Global Dimming pretty well. But at the same time, regulations of CFCs and similar chemicals have been fairly effective, and their lifetimes in the atmosphere are generally measured in months. So that particular problem has waned, I think. But I agree, whatever effect it would've had on rainfall would've opposed the greater precipitation expected from global warming.