Nuclear power is expensive, but it's the only option available right now that we know works on an industrial scale. Concentrated solar is certainly the most promising renewable, but it requires massive battery banks, or expensive water pumping schemes to provide a base load at night. That said, I like it a lot more than photovoltaics. Geothermal only works in certain places, and corrosion makes them very expensive to maintain. In either case, we'd need a superconducting power grid to avoid losses from moving energy from the deserts (solar) or hotspots (geothermal). All these goals are noble, but we need power now to replace coal and oil.
Incidentally, tide power and osmotic power are also good long term goals.
And you're right- efficiency is absolutely necessary. But the newer technology has to be better in every way, otherwise people won't switch. My mom refuses to install CFLs because she can't stand the quality of the light (yes, some are better than others, but still no cigar) and the fact that they require time to reach full brightness. I have them nearly everywhere, but my reading light is still an incandescent because the CFLs that can be dimmed are expensive and don't look as nice.
No, he's right to say that we can't definitively link hurricane intensity to climate change yet. We might be able to soon (stay tuned) but for the moment the evidence is too weak to say that climate change has made hurricanes measurably worse. He is wrong to say that the IPCC has predicted increased hurricane intensity, though. The IPCC's 4th report only makes the following statement: "It is more likely than not (>50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity."
I already see a set theory flaw within your statement, where you assume that all climatologists are computational physicists. Thurston is a Bioinformatics Specialist, associated with Climate Dynamics group at Oxford. Kininmonth is a meteorologist. Ruddiman is a marine geologist. If I saw an academic paper with such an inclusive statement from a student of mine, then they would told to rewrite.
Good grief. You've read WAY too far into a single sentence on my anonymous, personal blog. I am a computational physicist, and I specifically study time-variable gravity. In the course of my research, I've independently confirmed measurements of glaciers melting via their secular trend on gravity above the Alaskan and Greenland glaciers.
But, like I told the AC before, this is largely irrelevant. Instead of quibbling over my qualifications (or lack thereof), it would be far more productive to look at the evidence I provided and comment on it. My degrees, biases, and status as "expert" aren't the issue here. If you'll notice, I only mentioned that I was a climate scientist to refute the AC's (decidedly unscientific) sociological claim that all scientists supporting abrupt climate change are politically motivated hacks.
Then, in the very next sentence, I carefully explained that my status as a scientist isn't important. The evidence is what's important. Read the IPCC reports, examine the peer-reviewed journal articles I've linked.
If a rise in CO2 follows temperature increase, then CO2 levels are an effect not a cause.
More accurately, it's a positive feedback effect. External factors increased the temperature, which took 600-1000 years to release CO2 from its reservoirs, which then reinforced the warming trend for the next ~4000 years. If you seriously think that CO2 can't warm the planet, I suggest studying the solar spectrum, absorption lines of CO2, and blackbody thermodynamics. If you can somehow show that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, you'll receive a Nobel prize and be able to rewrite basic physics textbooks...
Additionally, if CO2 levels are so high today, but temperatures have barely increased, you have further weakened your position that CO2 is responsible for temperature changes.
My point is that the natural pattern as observed in the ice core proxy data is for the temperature to increase due to Milankovitch cycles. THEN CO2 increases, probably as a result of permafrost melt, etc. That's not what's happening now, though. CO2 has increased before temperatures for the first time in the last half million years.
By a literature review, it seems mostly statistics and modeling, forming a physical science discipline. This would mean that you are casting a very wide net in your definition, making someone studying computational physics an economist, game theorist (which may or may not be an economist), or even a positivist sociologist. Just the measurement and analysis of data does not make one a climatologist. The specialization education makes someone a climatologist, where they study in depth the literature and body of knowledge to understand the field.
Perhaps I should have been more precise. All climatologists are computational physicists, but not the reverse. You're right to say that someone who designs quantum computers isn't a climatologist.
Look, the fact is I don't want my comments here (or on dumbscientist) to impact my job search. So I'm not going to tell you my name or affiliation. Why should that even matter? Examine the evidence I presented, and come to your own conclusions. I could be a hobo under a bridge, and it wouldn't change the reconstruction of those proxy climate records. I see non-scientists obsessed about degrees and "experts" all the time, but most scientists couldn't care less. We're just interested in the evidence...
The fact is, automobiles account for (at most) 2 percent of CO2 emissions.
Huh? All the data I've seen places the "transportation sector" near the top of the list. Here's a quote: "The transportation sector is the second largest source of CO2 emissions in the U.S. Almost all of the energy consumed in the transportation sector is petroleum based, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Automobiles and light-duty trucks account for almost two-thirds of emissions from the transportation sector and emissions have steadily grown since 1990."
That said, I do agree that nuclear power is our best course of action.
What I find interesting is that every time I try to follow-up on the testing for this, I'm met with "...this computer model clearly shows..." When I try to investigate the model, I find out it is proprietary, as is the precise data that was used. In other words, it is impossible to reproduce the claims in another laboratory, because the method is hidden.
This closed-source attitude is a big problem, but it's a problem for science in general. For instance, have you ever tried to download the raw data from Cassini or the Mars rovers or particle accelerators? It's usually impossible, because scientists don't like to share their data until they've wrung all possible discoveries out of it first. I'm hoping that journals like PLOS Biology will help to shift this trend in a more open-source direction.
At that point my adult-skeptic sense kicks in. I've seen luddites before, or just people who have some desperate need to join a cause that shows how bad we all are. I have no idea why this phenomenon exists, but I've seen it all my life. The entire "climate change" movement smells of this. Strong assurances that *something* is wrong, clear direction on massive sacrifices that we need to make, and very vague predictions as to what will happen if we don't make'em.
Yeah, the environmental movement annoys me too. If I have to see Al Gore's smug face accepting another nobel prize for essentially parroting what scientists tell him, I'm going to put my head through a wall. But very, very few of the climate scientists I met are like that. Most of them are simply trying to understand the climate with as much rigor as possible...
"It's quite a coincidence does" NOT equate to evidence or scientific data. If the data you quote is correct it does show that these CO2 concentrations have appeared before and they appeared long before man was tooling around in an SUV. ..
I'm curious- how did you draw that conclusion from the Vostok data? All the CO2 data I've seen (including that graph) show that CO2 has only risen above its historical 300ppm maximum in the 1900s. If you mean that SUVs weren't around in the early 1900s, well, you're kind of right. But industrialization was well underway, and cars did exist back then...
I don't see how that suggests man made climate change at all? How did you make that leap of logic. All it suggests is the Vostok data does not follow the same pattern we see today, but that is hardly evidence of man made global warming.
Like I said, it could be a complete coincidence that the first time CO2 concentration rose above 300ppm in 500,000 years was when we started pumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Are all the scientific conclusions in this are based on huge leaps of disconnected logic like I see in this post?
I know this will be a bit of a shock, but some subjects are too complicated to be adequately taught in the space of a single slashdot post. I highly recommend checking out the IPCC reports if you're seriously interested in a rigorous review of climate change science.
Global Warming theory has met neither of those requirements. The main statement of Global Warming is something like this: "small changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cause large changes in global temperature". Despite this theory, there is absolutely no evidence that a change in CO2 has ever caused the temperature to change, over the entire billions-years history of the planet. So GW theory doesn't explain past observations.
Abrupt climate change is a direct result of an unprecedented excavation of fossil fuels, and the combustion of said fuels which releases CO2 into the atmosphere that's been trapped for millions of years. It's not supposed to explain past observations.
It doesn't explain current observations either: CO2 concentration has steadily increased over the past 100 years, while temperatures have gone up, then down, then up again, then down again (as they are currently). There is no dramatic warming trend as predicted by GW theory.
I've never met a scientist who made a claim like the one you're attributing to me. Most scientists recognize that long term trends are only discernable in the data after accounting for annual variations, multi-year variations, etc. Once those fluctuations are removed by a 5 year averaging procedure, a disturbing upward trend is apparent.
Finally, GW has not made any unique predictions that have later been confirmed as true. It predicted more and bigger hurricanes; that hasn't happened. It predicted significant temperature increases; that hasn't happened. In fact, the theory seems totally based on computer models that have failed to make a single correct prediction about the climate ever since I first started following the issue, in 1998.
First, the temperature is increasing. Second, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report made a very limited claim regarding hurricanes: "It is more likely than not (>50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity."
Third, Meehl 2004 showed convincing proof that natural forcing can't account for recent global temperature trends, but including anthropogenic forcing provides a good match for the data.
It is also hard to take a 'climate scientist' seriously when you qoute yourself as studing computational and theoretical physics, which is outside climatology. A good scientist knows when not to present themselves as an expert in a field they are not.
Computational physics and climatology are essentially synonymous. Instruments record data, which are then integrated into computational models. What did you think climatologists do?
Just out of curiosity, would you say that the IPCC reports are conservative in their pronouncements due to the inherent difficulty of getting that many experts to agree on the claims they publish in their reports?
Absolutely. Their error bars are quite large, indicating the uncertainty of the data. All their language is defined at the beginning of the report: words such as "likely" and "very likely" are given precise meanings based on normal distributions. They've avoided making any strong statements about climate change affecting hurricanes (for good reason, IMHO.)
Yes, I've seen those bizarre claims as well. I don't think any physicist seriously doubts the warming properties of CO2. The spectrum of the sun, absorption lines of CO2 and their relevant thermodynamic relationships are simply too well established. They're freshman-level homework problems, not cutting edge research areas.
I brought that up because I'm concerned about the fact that current warming is highly atypical in that regard. What happens when the natural positive feedback of CO2 adds to what we've already dumped into the atmosphere?
Most scientists agree that humans have contributed a small change to the climate, but all agree that the majority of the change is due to natural cycles (solar, long term atmospheric fluctuations etc). The only people claiming that humans are the sole or majority cause of climate warming/change are involved in politics, vote gathering, and selling 'technology' concepts to 'save the planet' in order to bilk the public out of money.
I am a climate scientist. I've never been in politics and I've never sold anything (professional student here). I also think you're completely wrong. My experiences at the 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union are that most (9/10) of the scientists I met agree with the IPCC report on abrupt climate change.
But you've made an even more fundamental mistake. Science isn't democratic-- it's about evidence. Open up the IPCC reports yourself and focus on what's really important, instead of trying to count how many people are on each side.
For example, Vostok ice core data confirms that for nearly half a million years, the climate has changed cyclically. But in all that time, the maximum CO2 concentration never went above 300 ppm. (It's hit higher levels millions of years ago, but that was a slow and gradual change. Plus the Earth was essentially a different planet back then, with a different solar luminosity and biosphere so comparisons across that much time are tricky.)
You're right to say that natural variations are evident in the data, but the most prominent cycles over geological time are governed by (among other effects) Milankovitch cycles which are caused by periodic variations in the earth's orbit.
But, CO2 concentrations are at 380 ppm today. That's a level it hasn't hit in the last half million years. If we're seeing natural variability alone, it's quite a coincidence that it occurs right when we started excavating fossil fuels to fuel a billion cars.
Plus, the Vostok data is a little difficult to analyze in this manner, but it seems like at Vostok the CO2 always increased 600 years AFTER the temperature started to increase. At least, that's the way it used to work. Right now, the CO2 concentration is at an unprecedented level but the temperature is barely above normal. Again, that suggests that we're not facing natural climate change, we're dealing with anthropogenic abrupt climate change.
Speaking as a scientist, that's not the way science is done these days. You're right to say that many non-scientists treat science as though it's a religion, but it's important to distinguish that from genuine scientific investigations. Let's not conflate common misconceptions about science with the real thing...
No such evidence exists for the existence of non-existence of God.
How is that relevant? We're talking about a science class, not theology. God's existence is irrelevant here- the only question is whether or not creationism is science. That's what most creationists don't seem to understand- evolution isn't about atheism. It's about developing and verifying falsifiable models which can be used to make predictions.
Heck, we all learned that pre-Columbus, people thought the Earth was flat.
You were grossly misinformed. Eratosthenes knew the earth was spherical, and calculated its diameter with impressive accuracy hundreds of years before Christ. People opposed Columbus's voyage not because they thought he'd sail off the edge of a flat world, but because they knew how large the earth was and didn't know about the American continent. They (correctly) thought he would starve before reaching India.
Why can't we do that with ID? "This is some people's theory about all of this. This is what most scientists believe about this. Let's move on."
You're abusing the word theory. The appropriate definition in this context is the pedagogical definition provided by the National Academy of Sciences. Creationism doesn't qualify.
And, again, if you did that you'd have to add a caveat to the notion of a rotating earth, and every scientific theory known to humanity.
How is the scientific any different than a religious ritual? Both are performed by anointed individuals according to prescribed methods.
How is a ritualistic human sacrifice any different than open heart surgery? Both are performed by anointed individuals according to prescribed methods...
If it is wrong or bad science or whatever it needs to be discussed and and an argument needs to be made as to why it is wrong.
That's the problem. If you read just the first part of my link, you'll see that creationism isn't even wrong. Creationism isn't bad science, because that implies that it somehow qualifies as science in the first place.
There is nothing wrong with healthy debate on a topic even if you are radically opposed to your opponent. Avoiding the debate or demeaning your opponent doesn't help anyone and it doesn't advance understanding.
I agree that this subject stirs up a lot of vitriol on both sides, which is profoundly unproductive.
But the problem is that there's no genuine debate here. Creationists have been presenting the same arguments decades after they've been thoroughly debunked. That's not debate, it's a form of amnesia. It's just as valid to say that we need to teach elementary school children that the earth doesn't move.
The sad thing is, creationists are preying on your better nature. It's commendable to want to be even-handed. But sometimes certain positions are just nonsensical, and it's intellectually dishonest to tell children otherwise.
With the theory of evolution, you have scientists trying to make theological decisions.
Cute, but nonsensical. The person you were responding to was right- fundamentalists are trying hard to convince everyone that evolutionary science and creationism are on the same level. They've invented talking points like "intelligent design" and "strengths and weaknesses" to confuse the general public into agreeing with your statement.
But they're wrong. Evolution is falsifiable science, and has nothing to do with theology. For example, many Christians accept the theory of evolution. In 1996, Pope John Paul II said "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis."
Evolution is theologically neutral. Anyone who feels that their faith is threatened by evolution either doesn't understand evolution, or doesn't understand that science is about verifying falsifiable, naturalistic models of reality. Science doesn't attempt to reveal "truth" in a religious sense, it's simply trying to describe the most phenomena with the fewest postulates.
Why thanks. Glad to hear that. Any particular name you want me to give you? I can use "AC" if you want. (I'm busy with school so might not be able to do this for a while, but it will happen eventually...)
Well - if your definition for creationism is that God did use evolution - than all falsifiabilities(?) for evolution obviously get inherited by that hypothesis of creationism;)
Most people would call that theistic evolution, which is scientifically indistinguishable from evolution. The Catholic church, along with most of my religious colleagues, hold this position.
But if you say God didn't use evolution, but rather his designs evolved and he just happened to instantiate every now and then (he released often as all good programmers should) - then I would expect
*inexplicable branches / gaps in the evolutionary tree (where God didn't bother with the intermediate life forms).
*new unattached branches due to inexplicable combinations of significant chunks of DNA from different species combining in a new creature.
So lack of those items would invalidate my proposal.
If every species had a different set of DNA bases, evolution would've been utterly demolished. That's why it's science- evolution makes a very specific claim, and is highly vulnerable to new evidence. Your proposal, on the other hand, is dependent on your personal interpretation of what God "should" do. As such it's compatible with any and all discoveries. For instance, why would God have to create inexplicable gaps? Why couldn't He create species in exactly the right order with exactly the right intermediates that they "could have" evolved that way?
Hopefully we can agree that the fossil record shows a general progression from simple microbes to trilobites to reptiles to mammals, so it seems like God was already creating kingdoms and phyla in that manner... how would your proposal be invalidated by the discovery that this method of creation extended all the way down to the species level?
I'll just emphasize that a low P(t) creature is obviously at a disadvantage due to an inability to adapt to/against creatures with a higher P(t). I know you're including selection pressures in that function - but I'm just pointing out that I would expect a exceptionally high selection bias against creatures that mutate slowly.
In general that's probably true. In fact, some scientists believe that sexual reproduction evolved because genetic recombination allows for a higher mutation rate than asexual reproduction. (Otherwise, it's a lot easier to reproduce by cellular fission- no mate required.)
On another thought - what do you think of creatures that have 'evolved' the ability to regrow limbs & organs (or possibly we have we just lost it)? But I would have thought that that would have almost been the holy grail (pardon the term;) ) of evolution - yet the few creatures that have that capability are 'insignificant' newts and what not, that hardly seem like dominant species. To me that's an ability that never looses it's advantage (even when food is scarce). Whether your vertebrae are crushed in a fall, a croc rips an arm/leg off... your ability to attract mates / defend / fend for yourself after said disasters would give a fantastic evolutionary advantage.
Remember that individuals don't evolve, populations evolve. The ability to regrow a limb is fantastically useful on an individual level, but it's probably more beneficial for the population as a whole to simply have lots and lots of babies. A similar question is "why do all creatures age?", which hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.
Limb regeneration might only work for small creatures, and it might carry dangers like an increased risk of cancer, but I don't know for sure.
By the way, do you mind if I copy this conversation to the comments section here?
Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear power is expensive, but it's the only option available right now that we know works on an industrial scale. Concentrated solar is certainly the most promising renewable, but it requires massive battery banks, or expensive water pumping schemes to provide a base load at night. That said, I like it a lot more than photovoltaics. Geothermal only works in certain places, and corrosion makes them very expensive to maintain. In either case, we'd need a superconducting power grid to avoid losses from moving energy from the deserts (solar) or hotspots (geothermal). All these goals are noble, but we need power now to replace coal and oil.
Incidentally, tide power and osmotic power are also good long term goals.
And you're right- efficiency is absolutely necessary. But the newer technology has to be better in every way, otherwise people won't switch. My mom refuses to install CFLs because she can't stand the quality of the light (yes, some are better than others, but still no cigar) and the fact that they require time to reach full brightness. I have them nearly everywhere, but my reading light is still an incandescent because the CFLs that can be dimmed are expensive and don't look as nice.
No, he's right to say that we can't definitively link hurricane intensity to climate change yet. We might be able to soon (stay tuned) but for the moment the evidence is too weak to say that climate change has made hurricanes measurably worse. He is wrong to say that the IPCC has predicted increased hurricane intensity, though. The IPCC's 4th report only makes the following statement: "It is more likely than not (>50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity."
Good grief. You've read WAY too far into a single sentence on my anonymous, personal blog. I am a computational physicist, and I specifically study time-variable gravity. In the course of my research, I've independently confirmed measurements of glaciers melting via their secular trend on gravity above the Alaskan and Greenland glaciers.
But, like I told the AC before, this is largely irrelevant. Instead of quibbling over my qualifications (or lack thereof), it would be far more productive to look at the evidence I provided and comment on it. My degrees, biases, and status as "expert" aren't the issue here. If you'll notice, I only mentioned that I was a climate scientist to refute the AC's (decidedly unscientific) sociological claim that all scientists supporting abrupt climate change are politically motivated hacks.
Then, in the very next sentence, I carefully explained that my status as a scientist isn't important. The evidence is what's important. Read the IPCC reports, examine the peer-reviewed journal articles I've linked.
More accurately, it's a positive feedback effect. External factors increased the temperature, which took 600-1000 years to release CO2 from its reservoirs, which then reinforced the warming trend for the next ~4000 years. If you seriously think that CO2 can't warm the planet, I suggest studying the solar spectrum, absorption lines of CO2, and blackbody thermodynamics. If you can somehow show that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, you'll receive a Nobel prize and be able to rewrite basic physics textbooks...
My point is that the natural pattern as observed in the ice core proxy data is for the temperature to increase due to Milankovitch cycles. THEN CO2 increases, probably as a result of permafrost melt, etc. That's not what's happening now, though. CO2 has increased before temperatures for the first time in the last half million years.
Perhaps I should have been more precise. All climatologists are computational physicists, but not the reverse. You're right to say that someone who designs quantum computers isn't a climatologist.
Look, the fact is I don't want my comments here (or on dumbscientist) to impact my job search. So I'm not going to tell you my name or affiliation. Why should that even matter? Examine the evidence I presented, and come to your own conclusions. I could be a hobo under a bridge, and it wouldn't change the reconstruction of those proxy climate records. I see non-scientists obsessed about degrees and "experts" all the time, but most scientists couldn't care less. We're just interested in the evidence...
Huh? All the data I've seen places the "transportation sector" near the top of the list. Here's a quote: "The transportation sector is the second largest source of CO2 emissions in the U.S. Almost all of the energy consumed in the transportation sector is petroleum based, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Automobiles and light-duty trucks account for almost two-thirds of emissions from the transportation sector and emissions have steadily grown since 1990."
That said, I do agree that nuclear power is our best course of action.
The most convincing prediction I'm aware of is that the current atmospheric trends cannot be explained by natural forcing alone. See Meehl 2004.
And we generally prefer the term "scientists."
This closed-source attitude is a big problem, but it's a problem for science in general. For instance, have you ever tried to download the raw data from Cassini or the Mars rovers or particle accelerators? It's usually impossible, because scientists don't like to share their data until they've wrung all possible discoveries out of it first. I'm hoping that journals like PLOS Biology will help to shift this trend in a more open-source direction.
Yeah, the environmental movement annoys me too. If I have to see Al Gore's smug face accepting another nobel prize for essentially parroting what scientists tell him, I'm going to put my head through a wall. But very, very few of the climate scientists I met are like that. Most of them are simply trying to understand the climate with as much rigor as possible...
I'm curious- how did you draw that conclusion from the Vostok data? All the CO2 data I've seen (including that graph) show that CO2 has only risen above its historical 300ppm maximum in the 1900s. If you mean that SUVs weren't around in the early 1900s, well, you're kind of right. But industrialization was well underway, and cars did exist back then...
Like I said, it could be a complete coincidence that the first time CO2 concentration rose above 300ppm in 500,000 years was when we started pumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
I know this will be a bit of a shock, but some subjects are too complicated to be adequately taught in the space of a single slashdot post. I highly recommend checking out the IPCC reports if you're seriously interested in a rigorous review of climate change science.
Abrupt climate change is a direct result of an unprecedented excavation of fossil fuels, and the combustion of said fuels which releases CO2 into the atmosphere that's been trapped for millions of years. It's not supposed to explain past observations.
I've never met a scientist who made a claim like the one you're attributing to me. Most scientists recognize that long term trends are only discernable in the data after accounting for annual variations, multi-year variations, etc. Once those fluctuations are removed by a 5 year averaging procedure, a disturbing upward trend is apparent.
First, the temperature is increasing. Second, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report made a very limited claim regarding hurricanes: "It is more likely than not (>50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity."
Third, Meehl 2004 showed convincing proof that natural forcing can't account for recent global temperature trends, but including anthropogenic forcing provides a good match for the data.
Computational physics and climatology are essentially synonymous. Instruments record data, which are then integrated into computational models. What did you think climatologists do?
Absolutely. Their error bars are quite large, indicating the uncertainty of the data. All their language is defined at the beginning of the report: words such as "likely" and "very likely" are given precise meanings based on normal distributions. They've avoided making any strong statements about climate change affecting hurricanes (for good reason, IMHO.)
Yes, I've seen those bizarre claims as well. I don't think any physicist seriously doubts the warming properties of CO2. The spectrum of the sun, absorption lines of CO2 and their relevant thermodynamic relationships are simply too well established. They're freshman-level homework problems, not cutting edge research areas.
I brought that up because I'm concerned about the fact that current warming is highly atypical in that regard. What happens when the natural positive feedback of CO2 adds to what we've already dumped into the atmosphere?
I am a climate scientist. I've never been in politics and I've never sold anything (professional student here). I also think you're completely wrong. My experiences at the 2008 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union are that most (9/10) of the scientists I met agree with the IPCC report on abrupt climate change.
But you've made an even more fundamental mistake. Science isn't democratic-- it's about evidence. Open up the IPCC reports yourself and focus on what's really important, instead of trying to count how many people are on each side.
For example, Vostok ice core data confirms that for nearly half a million years, the climate has changed cyclically. But in all that time, the maximum CO2 concentration never went above 300 ppm. (It's hit higher levels millions of years ago, but that was a slow and gradual change. Plus the Earth was essentially a different planet back then, with a different solar luminosity and biosphere so comparisons across that much time are tricky.)
You're right to say that natural variations are evident in the data, but the most prominent cycles over geological time are governed by (among other effects) Milankovitch cycles which are caused by periodic variations in the earth's orbit.
But, CO2 concentrations are at 380 ppm today. That's a level it hasn't hit in the last half million years. If we're seeing natural variability alone, it's quite a coincidence that it occurs right when we started excavating fossil fuels to fuel a billion cars.
Plus, the Vostok data is a little difficult to analyze in this manner, but it seems like at Vostok the CO2 always increased 600 years AFTER the temperature started to increase. At least, that's the way it used to work. Right now, the CO2 concentration is at an unprecedented level but the temperature is barely above normal. Again, that suggests that we're not facing natural climate change, we're dealing with anthropogenic abrupt climate change.
That's what I meant. Creationists are wrong to say that their theology (or the synonymous buzzword of "intelligent design") is science.
Speaking as a scientist, that's not the way science is done these days. You're right to say that many non-scientists treat science as though it's a religion, but it's important to distinguish that from genuine scientific investigations. Let's not conflate common misconceptions about science with the real thing...
How is that relevant? We're talking about a science class, not theology. God's existence is irrelevant here- the only question is whether or not creationism is science. That's what most creationists don't seem to understand- evolution isn't about atheism. It's about developing and verifying falsifiable models which can be used to make predictions.
You were grossly misinformed. Eratosthenes knew the earth was spherical, and calculated its diameter with impressive accuracy hundreds of years before Christ. People opposed Columbus's voyage not because they thought he'd sail off the edge of a flat world, but because they knew how large the earth was and didn't know about the American continent. They (correctly) thought he would starve before reaching India.
You're abusing the word theory. The appropriate definition in this context is the pedagogical definition provided by the National Academy of Sciences. Creationism doesn't qualify.
And, again, if you did that you'd have to add a caveat to the notion of a rotating earth, and every scientific theory known to humanity.
How is a ritualistic human sacrifice any different than open heart surgery? Both are performed by anointed individuals according to prescribed methods...
I meant to say it's just as valid to teach children that there's a debate about whether the earth moves.
That's the problem. If you read just the first part of my link, you'll see that creationism isn't even wrong. Creationism isn't bad science, because that implies that it somehow qualifies as science in the first place.
I agree that this subject stirs up a lot of vitriol on both sides, which is profoundly unproductive.
But the problem is that there's no genuine debate here. Creationists have been presenting the same arguments decades after they've been thoroughly debunked. That's not debate, it's a form of amnesia. It's just as valid to say that we need to teach elementary school children that the earth doesn't move.
The sad thing is, creationists are preying on your better nature. It's commendable to want to be even-handed. But sometimes certain positions are just nonsensical, and it's intellectually dishonest to tell children otherwise.
Cute, but nonsensical. The person you were responding to was right- fundamentalists are trying hard to convince everyone that evolutionary science and creationism are on the same level. They've invented talking points like "intelligent design" and "strengths and weaknesses" to confuse the general public into agreeing with your statement.
But they're wrong. Evolution is falsifiable science, and has nothing to do with theology. For example, many Christians accept the theory of evolution. In 1996, Pope John Paul II said "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis."
Evolution is theologically neutral. Anyone who feels that their faith is threatened by evolution either doesn't understand evolution, or doesn't understand that science is about verifying falsifiable, naturalistic models of reality. Science doesn't attempt to reveal "truth" in a religious sense, it's simply trying to describe the most phenomena with the fewest postulates.
Why thanks. Glad to hear that. Any particular name you want me to give you? I can use "AC" if you want. (I'm busy with school so might not be able to do this for a while, but it will happen eventually...)
Most people would call that theistic evolution, which is scientifically indistinguishable from evolution. The Catholic church, along with most of my religious colleagues, hold this position.
If every species had a different set of DNA bases, evolution would've been utterly demolished. That's why it's science- evolution makes a very specific claim, and is highly vulnerable to new evidence. Your proposal, on the other hand, is dependent on your personal interpretation of what God "should" do. As such it's compatible with any and all discoveries. For instance, why would God have to create inexplicable gaps? Why couldn't He create species in exactly the right order with exactly the right intermediates that they "could have" evolved that way?
Hopefully we can agree that the fossil record shows a general progression from simple microbes to trilobites to reptiles to mammals, so it seems like God was already creating kingdoms and phyla in that manner... how would your proposal be invalidated by the discovery that this method of creation extended all the way down to the species level?
In general that's probably true. In fact, some scientists believe that sexual reproduction evolved because genetic recombination allows for a higher mutation rate than asexual reproduction. (Otherwise, it's a lot easier to reproduce by cellular fission- no mate required.)
Remember that individuals don't evolve, populations evolve. The ability to regrow a limb is fantastically useful on an individual level, but it's probably more beneficial for the population as a whole to simply have lots and lots of babies. A similar question is "why do all creatures age?", which hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.
Limb regeneration might only work for small creatures, and it might carry dangers like an increased risk of cancer, but I don't know for sure.
By the way, do you mind if I copy this conversation to the comments section here?
That should read "... some of them will have an integral of P(t) over some timespan that's LOWER than a particular value"