I'll admit I'm not a parent. However, knowing that mosquito nets are needed hasn't really been the problem. People might learn to re-treat the nets after two or three years, extending their usable life (failure to do so has been a problem). This is assuming, of course, that we're talking about a location that has access to the internet in the first place. These laptops may be useful in places where literacy and public health are fairly good and people have decent educations.
Just as I'm not a parent, I'm betting you've never lived in a third world country. I've lived and worked in China and the Philippines. There were plenty of computers there but they did fairly little to lift the majority of people out of poverty. The most practical use I could see would be promoting better government via political information, since corruption is horrid in these countries. Or possibly teaching some English. But it's still going to be the top 10%-20% most educated or wealthy that will be able to use these things to generate actual income.
You need education as well as just the hardware to make these things work. In places where you have a population that speaks a widespread foreign language and some salable skill, yes, these would help to generate income. But I think you're underestimating the amount of education it takes to successfully use a laptop to generate income. You've done it so long, it's as easy as breathing. For most people, it's not.
While I agree with you, diseases like Malaria are huge problems in the third world, and preventable. A lot of resources goes into raising children who will eventually get sick and or die. The humanitarian element aside, this is horribly inefficient.
I'm not denying that access to information is valuable. It's very valuable. Low infant mortality is also valuable, since otherwise you lose a lot of what you invest in education.
But I can't see how this project could truly fail.
Put a price tag on the investment in children of various ages. Consider how many children are lost due to preventable diseases. Calculate what proportion of those deaths could have been prevented by mosquito treated nets. From this you'll get the total educational investment which was lost due to preventable disease. Compare it to the income generated over the life of a laptop, minus cost of the laptop and value of time put into training people to use the laptop.
Of course, the thing with greenhouse gasses is that most of the heat generated on earth is because of the sun. So slight changes in reflectivity or the retention of IR radiation have a global effect. It'd be interesting to compare the heat trapped from burning coal into C)2 compared to the heat generated by a nuke plant. My guess is that the nuke plant is pretty insubstantial, megawatt for megawatt.
Considering I graduated school with a degree in biotech (didn't go into the field afterwards, though), I understand the scientific method well enough. The whole 'argument from authority' line doesn't fly here. I've responded to each of your unsupported assertions with actual evidence. And you've ignored it. Repeatedly. And have now vowed to do so indefinitely. That's fine. But if you do decide not to care, please cut the arguments from authority. They do nothing for your case.
You miss my point entirely. A genetic change to one organism is not going to feedback into the rest.
I just finished giving you examples of where such changes have spread to a population, and they create a combined effect that no individual organism is capable of creating. Please address the evidence presented rather than simply making unsupported assertions about why it can't happen.
An adaptation which makes a half square mile of ocean a temperature more favorable to life may do the same to the a portion of the world's climate.
You think a single mutation in one organism competing within a population will change an entire square mile of area?
I've given an example where a population (Did you even read my previous comment?!) has done exactly this re: the production of DMS creating cloud cover. Please address it.
Again, you miss the point. There are various competing forces in the environment and they change over time in a given location.
I've given evidence on how some of these adaptations can function as attractors in a stochastic system. Instead of providing counterexamples you just keep saying "that can't happen" and misrepresenting my argument.
None of this explains why anyone would assert the planet is such a system or why the Earth being 500 degrees warmer is likely to be promoted or stopped by local organisms by any mechanism other than intelligence.
I've given examples where individual adaptations have a beneficial effect on the individual and also have a homeostatic effect on the environment. If you'd like to argue with those examples, go right ahead. If you'd like to ignore them, you're taking to youself.
We're not arguing if the environment was changed by this genetic development of these creatures. Why not? What do you mean by 'genetic development' here? If you read the rest of that paragraph it explains why
Your statement made no sense especially with context included. Evolutionary adaptations having an impact on the environment is precisely what we were discussing. Your denial of even the subject of our conversation reinforces the fact that you aren't reading what I've said.
No you haven't. You've cited possible examples of an organism changing the environment, They aren't 'possible examples.' DMS does alter cloud cover in an area and bacteria do produce it. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/gio t-rlo110606.php I've given evidence to support my point. You've given no evidence whatsoever to support yours, nor have you addressed the evidence that I've given. You simply insist that it can't possibly happen even as I demonstrate that it has. Organisms do alter their environment. Those alterations do impact global climate. The impact to global climate is typically similar to the impact to local climate. ie. An adaption to excessive sunlight is to increase reflectivity, which has a local and global effect.
but no mechanism why such changes should promote life rather than randomly promote or endanger life, in general.
You do know what a mechanism is, right? In this case, DMS is the mechanism by which cloud cover is altered. It is not the only mechanism by which homeostasis is maintained. To give an analogy "evolution" is not a mechansim, it is a process. The genetic code is a mechanism by which traits are propagated and viruses, mutations, etc. are the mechanism by which diversity is maintained. That I've given you several mecahnisms that underly the process I'm describing and you're still asking for a 'mechansim.' This leads me to believe that you don't realy want a mechanism at all. Or else you aren't willing to change your views in the face of evidence which contradicts them. Or both.
This is a strawman. You seem to have no understanding whatsoever of what Lovelock is proposing nor have you acknowledged what I've wr
The formatting came out wrong on the end of my comment
We're not arguing if the environment was changed by this genetic development of these creatures. Why not? What do you mean by 'genetic development' here? That's a little vague.
A hypothesis with a big black hole in the middle of it alternately filled with "perhaps somehow" and "mystical intelligence" is not something to be taken seriously
I've never made any arguments which refer to "mystical intelligence" or "perhaps somewhow." Perhaps that was your hippie acquantainces? They're bad sources for information on scientific theories. I've given pretty straightforward mechanisms, and you've ignored them.
Perhaps the earth has a lot of blue because Vishnu likes it blue of because blue planets are less likely to be destroyed by cosmic events for some reason. The important thing is because there is so much blue there is likely to be a mechanism, right? WRONG.
This is a strawman. You seem to have no understanding whatsoever of what Lovelock is proposing nor have you acknowledged what I've written.
That goal applies to a given organism, not to the planet as a whole.
That goal applies to a population of genetically related organisms acting in a local environment.
What is the mechanism that makes it more likely that one creature will survive to breed and thus take over a significant chunk of the gene pool?
An adaptation which makes a half square mile of ocean a temperature more favorable to life may do the same to the a portion of the world's climate. Examples are cloud formation and changes in albedo, which evolve as adaptations to local environments but have a global impact. But the intent of the organism is not to make the world's climate more favorable. That's a side effect. Its "intent," (If we can anthropomorphise it as such), is only to alter the local environment. Given the high degree of genetic relatedness of microorganisms, populations frequently cooperate as a genetic superorganism (not a worldwide superorganism, but an organism large enough to occupy a particular niche. A small swath of ocean, someone's colon, etc.) For example, consider quorum sensing and cooperation amongst chollera bacteria as one example of this cooperation. Chollera bacteria can 'cooperate' via quorum sensing to purge an intestine of other bacteria through diahhrea using toxins. The bacteria signal each other, and don't produce toxin till they have a large enough population to purge the colon. They do this despite some free-riding chollera bacteria which benefit from the effect without contributing to it.
given that goal for an organism, and the situation that so many years ago an organism adapted in such a way that it could (potentially) affect the earth's environment in a way favorable to that creature. What is the mechanism that makes it more likely that one creature will survive to breed and thus take over a significant chunk of the gene pool? Obviously one, or even several creatures with a mutation won't be able to change the climate within their lifespan so how does this trait make them more likely to be genetically successful?
Creatures adapt to the local climate. The adaptation allows the creatures to spread. The adaptation has a global effect. Consider how desertification impacts an environment. The removal of life through overgrazing leads to a local environment that is more hostile to life. Likewise, you can reverse the process. Deserts become praries become forests. Life has a clear effect on the local environment. That local effect has an impact on the climate. Part of that impact is homeostatic.
We're not arguing if the environment was changed by this genetic development of these creatures. Why not? What do you mean by 'genetic development' here? That's a little vague.
A hypothesis with a big black hole in the middle of it alternately filled with "perhaps somehow" and "mystical intelligence" is not something to be taken seriously
I've never made any arguments which refer to "mystical intelligence" or "perhaps somewhow." Perhaps that was your hippie acquantainces? They're bad sources for information on scientific theories. I've given pretty straightforward mechanisms, and you've ignored them.
Perhaps the earth has a lot of blue because Vishnu likes it blue of because blue planets are less likely to be destroyed by cosmic events for some reason. The important thing is because there is so much blue there is likely to be a mechanism, right? WRONG.
This is a strawman. You seem to have no understanding whatsoever of what Lovelock is proposing nor have you acknowledged what I've written.
Heh. Yes. Of course, how silly of me. Osama wants you to believe in global warming! If you're trying to accuse me of being a Republican, though, you've got the wrong guy. I'm more of a left-leaning moderate libertarian. This is slashdot, after all. And I wasn't talking about "believing in Global Warming." Belief is for religions. I was talking about the development of a model which actually describes what we should expect in terms of global climate change, and how we might test that model or alter the climate based on that model most effectively. That's science. Simple belief in the need to panic is not. The motive for that is political, not scientific.
Nope. No trolling for me. but here's two cents of your logic for you. My logic costs more that two cents. Ya must've gotten some cheap knockoff.
Ice caps are melting - They will stop melting, it is illogical to say they will continue melting given the scientists are hedging on evidence of lack of logic in the arguements by scientists in the 90s.
1. There are some scientists who predict that 'globabl warming' will be followed by 'global cooling' if the deep ocean currents slow down and the carnot style weather patterns which move heat from the equators to the poles fail. You're welcome to lecture them on their 'illogic' in thinking that climate patterns can only move in one direction.
2. Instead of hunting around on Europa, google Nils-Axel Mörner.
He's certainly a minority view, but not insignificant.
3. Ice which is floating in water raises water level minimally. (Ice cubes of fresh water water melting into salt water raise the level slightly.) Salinity of water, among other factors, affects density. Similarly, continents relieved of continental glaciers often 'rebound' upwards. If we're dealing with creating a predictive scientific model to solve a problem, these things could be important in predicting what will happen and how fast. If we're only interested in politics, of course, we'll already know the "right" answer.
4. Australia has been in drought for 10 years and climate has shifted so cities have no water - That is not science I thought we were predicting stronger storms from global warming? Australia should be having problems with flooding not drought. So yeah, blaming every single environmental anomaly after the fact on 'global warming' is not at all science.
5. We can dump iron in a sensitive ecosystem like the ocean and it will grow disproportionate amounts of algae which will make more fish in the ocean and end climate change
First, the purpose would primarily be carbon sequestration. Replenishment of over-fished schools would be secondary. Volcanoes dump huge amounts of iron in the ocean all the time. If they weren't natural, someone would probably be protesting them. Remind me again, are we trying to solve a major environmental problem here or aren't we? Bringing ocean iron levels up to where they were in the 1980s at the very least shouldn't be seen as moving the oceans outside of some undefined tolerance levels. Fish stocks are already depleted. Any political action we take to improve or alter our environment is going to have side effects. Either we take no action, or we do a rational cost-benefit analysis to determine the best solution, based on a reliable model. Carbon taxes and carbon sequestration both will have costs. And benefits as well, some of which will
The question is, are we talking about climate change as a science (Make hypotheses or models and test them) or are we now talking about climate change as motive for a political agenda. The two are entirely differnent. Which is why I said that alternatives to carbon markets and pigovian taxes are unlikely to be pursued. If carbon sequestration is pursued instead of carbon markets, I'm willing to change my views about the politics related to global warming. Are you willing to say the same about yours?
Jon Stewart had a line in a pre-election edition of the Daily Show. If you want to know what tricks the republicans are up to, just see what they are accusing the democrats of.
Putting aside the debate over global warming for just a moment, lets deal with the logic that you use;
1. We have screwed up the carbon cycle and CO2 levels are higher than any we can detect having occurred previously.
The second half, that CO2 Levels are higher than any time in human history, and possibly higher than any time in the past 20 million years or so, is true. There's some decent evidence that ages prior to 25 million years ago saw CO2 levels higher than the present day.
That the carbon cycle is 'screwed up' is a bit flimsy. We've added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere, but carbon is still cycling like it always has.
rare events are increasing Demming had a good system for determining when a system was 'under control' or 'operating outside its control limits.' Which one describes the earth's climate? "Rare events are increasing" is an unscientific standard. Science predicts first and then tests later. The predictions regarding global climate change were, initially, to the tune of a 10 inch rise in the earth's oceans. That didn't happen. So now the theory is 'rare events increase.' How do you DISPROVE that theory? Because if you can't disprove a theory, it isn't a scientific theory.
I think the reason people are disturbed with many who argue against it, is because the way they argue it is counter productive. It is going to happen whether we are the cause of it or not. So to justify that we don't need to do anything by claiming we aren't the cause comes down to blatant neglect. This isn't an argument. You're assuming what you're trying to prove. What's going to happen whether we're the cause of it or not. Climate change? It might, but there's no proof of that.
All science so far actually points toward it being a reality. Quite a few of the earlier global warming theories have been disproved. And all the climatologoical models from the early 90s supporting it have been disproved. Possibly some will be refined and be shown correct. There isn't, to my knowledge, a good, working, predictive climatological model. But the real scientists are still hedging their bets when they talk. Catastrophic climate change might happen, but it's not true that "All science points" to such an outcome. We can't even effectively model what will happen. And events prior to antarctica's migration over the south pole are certain to give different results, so the fossil record can only tell us so much.
Here's my own prediction. Iron fertilization offers a powerful tool to suck tremendous amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. One kilogram of iron (which is the limiting factor on algae growth in the oceans) is enough to fix 100,000 kilograms of Carbon. And if some of the algae is eaten by fish, this will hugely benefit the fishing industires of the world, possibly to the point that some of the funding for this ongoing fertilization could come from fishing licenses.
If we want to reduce global CO2, we have a powerful tool. My prediction is that FUD will be spread to discredit this tool. Because there are people who want to slow the growth of American industry, who want to reduce economic inequality by slowing the fastest of the herd, and who seek to benefit one way or another from tradable carbon credits. (Enron was looking to set up and profit from such a market.)
Because of these interests, I predict that far more cost effective methods of removing CO2 from the atmosphere through iron fertilization will be ignored. We'll see if I'm proven right.
We had one. I finally had to set things up so that users had to change a radio button from 'spam' to 'human' with a javascript reminder if they didn't because I was getting so much spam to the form. (All from the same place, oddly. I never took the time to figure out who it was.)
but aside from intelligent intervention (intelligence is the product of evolution) there is no way in which such a change can feed back in a process that would allow it to evolve towards some "goal" and there is no "goal" inherent in the process.
The goal is manipulation of the local environment in such a way that it's favorable to an organism and its kin, which seems to occurr (Dimethyl Sulfide and cloud seeding, as mentioned). Some manipulations of the immediate or local environment would have a global impact regarding the earth's albedo. So you have a discrepency in the data (heat of early earth). You have a mechanism to explain it. Now it's your turn to describe a better mechanism. Boiling off of the earth's water, with more water being added from space? *shrugs* I'm not sure. But if you do know of a more reasonable mechansim, let me know and we'll compare them.
I've heard it from hippies who use "science" as some sort of misguided appeal to authority.
True. But just because hippies (or hitler, or any other H-word) say it doesn't mean it's wrong. I've heard some pretty crappy explanations of evolution, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. My first encounter with Gaia theory was from a professor who worked as a researcher at McMurdough station, Antarctica, during an environmental science class back in college. That doesn't mean it's TRUE of course. People learn a lot of junk in school. But it's not just currency among hippies, either.
Considering how much atmospheric oxygen interferes with plants carbon fixation, it seems like some plants should thrive in a manmade high-CO2 atmosphere.
Iron fertilization. about 16 shipfulls of iron would be enough to counter about half the global CO2 output for a year. It would also increase the number of fish in the sea, by increaseing their food supply. So it could be partially funded via fishing licenses.
Be careful though. There are a few industries (Enron was one of them) that stood to profit as brokers of a CO2 credit trading market. So they wanted that rather that more cost-effective iron fertilization/carbon sequestration.
The earth is not an organism and its climate is not the result of genetically coded, inherited survival traits.
Lovelock presents some arguments that individual adaptation to maintain homeostasis can have the effect of promoting worldwide homeostasis within to ranges suitable for life. The sun used to be 30% hotter, but global temperatures were not proportoinally hotter. Unicellular marine life release Dimethyl Sulfoxide to increase their cloud cover and keep them cooler. This also has the affect of increaseing the earth's albedo. The notion that the biosphere may employ some homeostatic processes with an effect on global climate is a legitimate (though debated) scientific theory.
I'll believe that a small town cop can have a hard time because he can make enemies (and doesn't have the resources that a larger town would either.)
However, there are some small towns that get a majority of their revenue from inflated speeding tickets levied against out of state motorists. It's a huge conflict of interest that the local venues get to keep money from fines. The purpose of law enforcement is law enforcement. Not paying the bills. But there currently isn't much of a democratic check against this kind of thing, since all the motorists are out-of-state.
Occasionally it gets so bad that people start avoiding the town and business suffers, but those seem to be the exceptions rather than the rules.
If we can capture these extra wavelengths what will our brains do? Ignore or use?
Use, most likely. There are several explanations for the evolutionary advantage of colorblindness. One explanation is that people who are totally colorblind are better at making out shapes since they don't rely on color. The army uses them for these purposes. However, another explanation is the fact that the mothers of colorblind sons are tetrachromats and capable of seeing in four channels of colors. So at the very least, humans are plastic enough that they can adapt to see in four channels of color. Though I don't know how late in life this advantage has to accrue for it to work.
Of course, with normal tetrachromats the pigmetation is still made from beta carotene, IIRC, and I don't know how a cone that relied on a different pathway for its pigment would work. Maybe you'd get burnout if the chemical wasn't properly replenished? I don't know enough about the area to say.
there are also people/ animals with large brains that could be deemed quite stupid
Individuals have problems, sure. But populations? Whole populations don't usually have terribly disadvantageous mutations.
It's more a question of what kind of intelligence a brain is geared for. Cows, for example, have surprisingly good memories which we'd expect from their large brains. But they don't work together well or even get out of the way of the frigging truck. And they follow if you drive slowly. So they seem quite stupid by our standards.
Modern China is neither communist nor dictatorship. It's closer to fascist oligarchy. It's dramatically different than what it was 15 years ago. Economic freedoms have increased dramatically, but the civil rights conditions haven't improved much.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll admit I'm not a parent. However, knowing that mosquito nets are needed hasn't really been the problem. People might learn to re-treat the nets after two or three years, extending their usable life (failure to do so has been a problem). This is assuming, of course, that we're talking about a location that has access to the internet in the first place. These laptops may be useful in places where literacy and public health are fairly good and people have decent educations.
Just as I'm not a parent, I'm betting you've never lived in a third world country. I've lived and worked in China and the Philippines. There were plenty of computers there but they did fairly little to lift the majority of people out of poverty. The most practical use I could see would be promoting better government via political information, since corruption is horrid in these countries. Or possibly teaching some English. But it's still going to be the top 10%-20% most educated or wealthy that will be able to use these things to generate actual income.
You need education as well as just the hardware to make these things work. In places where you have a population that speaks a widespread foreign language and some salable skill, yes, these would help to generate income. But I think you're underestimating the amount of education it takes to successfully use a laptop to generate income. You've done it so long, it's as easy as breathing. For most people, it's not.
While I agree with you, diseases like Malaria are huge problems in the third world, and preventable. A lot of resources goes into raising children who will eventually get sick and or die. The humanitarian element aside, this is horribly inefficient.
I'm not denying that access to information is valuable. It's very valuable. Low infant mortality is also valuable, since otherwise you lose a lot of what you invest in education.
But I can't see how this project could truly fail.
Put a price tag on the investment in children of various ages. Consider how many children are lost due to preventable diseases. Calculate what proportion of those deaths could have been prevented by mosquito treated nets. From this you'll get the total educational investment which was lost due to preventable disease. Compare it to the income generated over the life of a laptop, minus cost of the laptop and value of time put into training people to use the laptop.
See which offers the greater return.
Of course, the thing with greenhouse gasses is that most of the heat generated on earth is because of the sun. So slight changes in
reflectivity or the retention of IR radiation have a global effect. It'd be interesting to compare the heat trapped from burning coal into C)2 compared to the heat generated by a nuke plant. My guess is that the nuke plant is pretty insubstantial, megawatt for megawatt.
...he'd still be trying to find a way to factor prime numbers.
Interesting. Which town, if you don't mind me asking. Did you fight the ticket?
Considering I graduated school with a degree in biotech (didn't go into the field afterwards, though), I understand the scientific method well enough. The whole 'argument from authority' line doesn't fly here. I've responded to each of your unsupported assertions with actual evidence. And you've ignored it. Repeatedly. And have now vowed to do so indefinitely. That's fine. But if you do decide not to care, please cut the arguments from authority. They do nothing for your case.
You miss my point entirely. A genetic change to one organism is not going to feedback into the rest.
I just finished giving you examples of where such changes have spread to a population, and they create a combined effect that no individual organism is capable of creating. Please address the evidence presented rather than simply making unsupported assertions about why it can't happen.
An adaptation which makes a half square mile of ocean a temperature more favorable to life may do the same to the a portion of the world's climate.
You think a single mutation in one organism competing within a population will change an entire square mile of area?
I've given an example where a population (Did you even read my previous comment?!) has done exactly this re: the production of DMS creating cloud cover. Please address it.
Again, you miss the point. There are various competing forces in the environment and they change over time in a given location.
I've given evidence on how some of these adaptations can function as attractors in a stochastic system. Instead of providing counterexamples you just keep saying "that can't happen" and misrepresenting my argument.
None of this explains why anyone would assert the planet is such a system or why the Earth being 500 degrees warmer is likely to be promoted or stopped by local organisms by any mechanism other than intelligence.
I've given examples where individual adaptations have a beneficial effect on the individual and also have a homeostatic effect on the environment. If you'd like to argue with those examples, go right ahead.
If you'd like to ignore them, you're taking to youself.
We're not arguing if the environment was changed by this genetic development of these creatures.
Why not? What do you mean by 'genetic development' here?
If you read the rest of that paragraph it explains why
Your statement made no sense especially with context included. Evolutionary adaptations having an impact on the environment is precisely what we were discussing. Your denial of even the subject of our conversation reinforces the fact that you aren't reading what I've said.
No you haven't. You've cited possible examples of an organism changing the environment,
They aren't 'possible examples.' DMS does alter cloud cover in an area and bacteria do produce it.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/gio t-rlo110606.php
I've given evidence to support my point. You've given no evidence whatsoever to support yours, nor have you addressed the evidence that I've given. You simply insist that it can't possibly happen even as I demonstrate that it has. Organisms do alter their environment. Those alterations do impact global climate. The impact to global climate is typically similar to the impact to local climate. ie. An adaption to excessive sunlight is to increase reflectivity, which has a local and global effect.
but no mechanism why such changes should promote life rather than randomly promote or endanger life, in general.
You do know what a mechanism is, right? In this case, DMS is the mechanism by which cloud cover is altered. It is not the only mechanism by which homeostasis is maintained. To give an analogy "evolution" is not a mechansim, it is a process. The genetic code is a mechanism by which traits are propagated and viruses, mutations, etc. are the mechanism by which diversity is maintained. That I've given you several mecahnisms that underly the process I'm describing and you're still asking for a 'mechansim.' This leads me to believe that you don't realy want a mechanism at all. Or else you aren't willing to change your views in the face of evidence which contradicts them. Or both.
This is a strawman. You seem to have no understanding whatsoever of what Lovelock is proposing nor have you acknowledged what I've wr
The formatting came out wrong on the end of my comment
We're not arguing if the environment was changed by this genetic development of these creatures.
Why not? What do you mean by 'genetic development' here? That's a little vague.
A hypothesis with a big black hole in the middle of it alternately filled with "perhaps somehow" and "mystical intelligence" is not something to be taken seriously
I've never made any arguments which refer to "mystical intelligence" or "perhaps somewhow." Perhaps that was your hippie acquantainces? They're bad sources for information on scientific theories. I've given pretty straightforward mechanisms, and you've ignored them.
Perhaps the earth has a lot of blue because Vishnu likes it blue of because blue planets are less likely to be destroyed by cosmic events for some reason. The important thing is because there is so much blue there is likely to be a mechanism, right? WRONG.
This is a strawman. You seem to have no understanding whatsoever of what Lovelock is proposing nor have you acknowledged what I've written.
That goal applies to a given organism, not to the planet as a whole.
That goal applies to a population of genetically related organisms acting in a local environment.
What is the mechanism that makes it more likely that one creature will survive to breed and thus take over a significant chunk of the gene pool?
An adaptation which makes a half square mile of ocean a temperature more favorable to life may do the same to the a portion of the world's climate. Examples are cloud formation and changes in albedo, which evolve as adaptations to local environments but have a global impact. But the intent of the organism is not to make the world's climate more favorable. That's a side effect. Its "intent," (If we can anthropomorphise it as such), is only to alter the local environment. Given the high degree of genetic relatedness of microorganisms, populations frequently cooperate as a genetic superorganism (not a worldwide superorganism, but an organism large enough to occupy a particular niche. A small swath of ocean, someone's colon, etc.) For example, consider quorum sensing and cooperation amongst chollera bacteria as one example of this cooperation. Chollera bacteria can 'cooperate' via quorum sensing to purge an intestine of other bacteria through diahhrea using toxins. The bacteria signal each other, and don't produce toxin till they have a large enough population to purge the colon. They do this despite some free-riding chollera bacteria which benefit from the effect without contributing to it.
given that goal for an organism, and the situation that so many years ago an organism adapted in such a way that it could (potentially) affect the earth's environment in a way favorable to that creature. What is the mechanism that makes it more likely that one creature will survive to breed and thus take over a significant chunk of the gene pool? Obviously one, or even several creatures with a mutation won't be able to change the climate within their lifespan so how does this trait make them more likely to be genetically successful?
Creatures adapt to the local climate. The adaptation allows the creatures to spread. The adaptation has a global effect. Consider how desertification impacts an environment. The removal of life through overgrazing leads to a local environment that is more hostile to life. Likewise, you can reverse the process. Deserts become praries become forests. Life has a clear effect on the local environment. That local effect has an impact on the climate. Part of that impact is homeostatic.
We're not arguing if the environment was changed by this genetic development of these creatures.
Why not? What do you mean by 'genetic development' here? That's a little vague.
A hypothesis with a big black hole in the middle of it alternately filled with "perhaps somehow" and "mystical intelligence" is not something to be taken seriously
I've never made any arguments which refer to "mystical intelligence" or "perhaps somewhow." Perhaps that was your hippie acquantainces? They're bad sources for information on scientific theories. I've given pretty straightforward mechanisms, and you've ignored them.
Perhaps the earth has a lot of blue because Vishnu likes it blue of because blue planets are less likely to be destroyed by cosmic events for some reason. The important thing is because there is so much blue there is likely to be a mechanism, right? WRONG.
This is a strawman. You seem to have no understanding whatsoever of what Lovelock is proposing nor have you acknowledged what I've written.
Heh. Yes. Of course, how silly of me. Osama wants you to believe in global warming! If you're trying to accuse me of being a Republican, though, you've got the wrong guy. I'm more of a left-leaning moderate libertarian. This is slashdot, after all. And I wasn't talking about "believing in Global Warming." Belief is for religions. I was talking about the development of a model which actually describes what we should expect in terms of global climate change, and how we might test that model or alter the climate based on that model most effectively. That's science. Simple belief in the need to panic is not. The motive for that is political, not scientific.
Nope. No trolling for me.
but here's two cents of your logic for you.
My logic costs more that two cents. Ya must've gotten some cheap knockoff.
Ice caps are melting - They will stop melting, it is illogical to say they will continue melting given the scientists are hedging on evidence of lack of logic in the arguements by scientists in the 90s.
1. There are some scientists who predict that 'globabl warming' will be followed by 'global cooling' if the deep ocean currents slow down and the carnot style weather patterns which move heat from the equators to the poles fail. You're welcome to lecture them on their 'illogic' in thinking that climate patterns can only move in one direction.
2. Instead of hunting around on Europa, google Nils-Axel Mörner.
"Local people report that the dhonis (local fishing boats) could pass
straight across the Maduvvare Falhus thila in the 1970s and 1980s,"
Mörner reports, "whilst they in the last 15 years have had to make
a detour around the thila, because it is now too shallow. The thila
has not grown, so it must be the sea that has fallen."
http://iceagenow.com/Sea_levels_are_falling.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR L&_udi=B6VF0-49C5G0W-2&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2004&_ alid=488820897&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_c di=5996&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1 &_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ce2f1fe2c68eba06a6eb c818408321ac
He's certainly a minority view, but not insignificant.
3. Ice which is floating in water raises water level minimally. (Ice cubes of fresh water water melting into salt water raise the level slightly.) Salinity of water, among other factors, affects density. Similarly, continents relieved of continental glaciers often 'rebound' upwards. If we're dealing with creating a predictive scientific model to solve a problem, these things could be important in predicting what will happen and how fast. If we're only interested in politics, of course, we'll already know the "right" answer.
4. Australia has been in drought for 10 years and climate has shifted so cities have no water - That is not science
I thought we were predicting stronger storms from global warming? Australia should be having problems with flooding not drought. So yeah, blaming every single environmental anomaly after the fact on 'global warming' is not at all science.
5. We can dump iron in a sensitive ecosystem like the ocean and it will grow disproportionate amounts of algae which will make more fish in the ocean and end climate change
First, the purpose would primarily be carbon sequestration. Replenishment of over-fished schools would be secondary.
Volcanoes dump huge amounts of iron in the ocean all the time. If they weren't natural, someone would probably be protesting them. Remind me again, are we trying to solve a major environmental problem here or aren't we? Bringing ocean iron levels up to where they were in the 1980s at the very least shouldn't be seen as moving the oceans outside of some undefined tolerance levels. Fish stocks are already depleted. Any political action we take to improve or alter our environment is going to have side effects. Either we take no action, or we do a rational cost-benefit analysis to determine the best solution, based on a reliable model. Carbon taxes and carbon sequestration both will have costs. And benefits as well, some of which will
The question is, are we talking about climate change as a science (Make hypotheses or models and test them) or are we now talking about climate change as motive for a political agenda. The two are entirely differnent. Which is why I said that alternatives to carbon markets and pigovian taxes are unlikely to be pursued. If carbon sequestration is pursued instead of carbon markets, I'm willing to change my views about the politics related to global warming. Are you willing to say the same about yours?
Jon Stewart had a line in a pre-election edition of the Daily Show. If you want to know what tricks the republicans are up to, just see what they are accusing the democrats of.
Anyone who trusts either party is a fool.
Putting aside the debate over global warming for just a moment, lets deal with the logic that you use;
1. We have screwed up the carbon cycle and CO2 levels are higher than any we can detect having occurred previously.
The second half, that CO2 Levels are higher than any time in human history, and possibly higher than any time in the past 20 million years or so, is true. There's some decent evidence that ages prior to 25 million years ago saw CO2 levels higher than the present day.
That the carbon cycle is 'screwed up' is a bit flimsy. We've added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere, but carbon is still cycling like it always has.
rare events are increasing
Demming had a good system for determining when a system was 'under control' or 'operating outside its control limits.' Which one describes the earth's climate? "Rare events are increasing" is an unscientific standard. Science predicts first and then tests later. The predictions regarding global climate change were, initially, to the tune of a 10 inch rise in the earth's oceans. That didn't happen. So now the theory is 'rare events increase.' How do you DISPROVE that theory? Because if you can't disprove a theory, it isn't a scientific theory.
I think the reason people are disturbed with many who argue against it, is because the way they argue it is counter productive. It is going to happen whether we are the cause of it or not. So to justify that we don't need to do anything by claiming we aren't the cause comes down to blatant neglect.
This isn't an argument. You're assuming what you're trying to prove. What's going to happen whether we're the cause of it or not. Climate change? It might, but there's no proof of that.
All science so far actually points toward it being a reality.
Quite a few of the earlier global warming theories have been disproved. And all the climatologoical models from the early 90s supporting it have been disproved. Possibly some will be refined and be shown correct. There isn't, to my knowledge, a good, working, predictive climatological model. But the real scientists are still hedging their bets when they talk. Catastrophic climate change might happen, but it's not true that "All science points" to such an outcome. We can't even effectively model what will happen. And events prior to antarctica's migration over the south pole are certain to give different results, so the fossil record can only tell us so much.
Here's my own prediction. Iron fertilization offers a powerful tool to suck tremendous amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. One kilogram of iron (which is the limiting factor on algae growth in the oceans) is enough to fix 100,000 kilograms of Carbon.
And if some of the algae is eaten by fish, this will hugely benefit the fishing industires of the world, possibly to the point that some of the funding for this ongoing fertilization could come from fishing licenses.
If we want to reduce global CO2, we have a powerful tool. My prediction is that FUD will be spread to discredit this tool. Because there are people who want to slow the growth of American industry, who want to reduce economic inequality by slowing the fastest of the herd, and who seek to benefit one way or another from tradable carbon credits. (Enron was looking to set up and profit from such a market.)
Because of these interests, I predict that far more cost effective methods of removing CO2 from the atmosphere through iron fertilization will be ignored. We'll see if I'm proven right.
We had one. I finally had to set things up so that users had to change a radio button from 'spam' to 'human' with a javascript reminder if they didn't because I was getting so much spam to the form. (All from the same place, oddly. I never took the time to figure out who it was.)
but aside from intelligent intervention (intelligence is the product of evolution) there is no way in which such a change can feed back in a process that would allow it to evolve towards some "goal" and there is no "goal" inherent in the process.
The goal is manipulation of the local environment in such a way that it's favorable to an organism and its kin, which seems to occurr (Dimethyl Sulfide and cloud seeding, as mentioned). Some manipulations of the immediate or local environment would have a global impact regarding the earth's albedo. So you have a discrepency in the data (heat of early earth). You have a mechanism to explain it. Now it's your turn to describe a better mechanism. Boiling off of the earth's water, with more water being added from space? *shrugs* I'm not sure. But if you do know of a more reasonable mechansim, let me know and we'll compare them.
I've heard it from hippies who use "science" as some sort of misguided appeal to authority.
True. But just because hippies (or hitler, or any other H-word) say it doesn't mean it's wrong. I've heard some pretty crappy explanations of evolution, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. My first encounter with Gaia theory was from a professor who worked as a researcher at McMurdough station, Antarctica, during an environmental science class back in college. That doesn't mean it's TRUE of course. People learn a lot of junk in school. But it's not just currency among hippies, either.
Yes, but it would take a ton of energy. It's not like carbon is hard to come by.
Considering how much atmospheric oxygen interferes with plants carbon fixation, it seems like some plants should thrive in a manmade high-CO2 atmosphere.
Iron fertilization. about 16 shipfulls of iron would be enough to counter about half the global CO2 output for a year. It would also increase the number of fish in the sea, by increaseing their food supply. So it could be partially funded via fishing licenses.
Be careful though. There are a few industries (Enron was one of them) that stood to profit as brokers of a CO2 credit trading market. So they wanted that rather that more cost-effective iron fertilization/carbon sequestration.
The earth is not an organism and its climate is not the result of genetically coded, inherited survival traits.
Lovelock presents some arguments that individual adaptation to maintain homeostasis can have the effect of promoting worldwide homeostasis within to ranges suitable for life. The sun used to be 30% hotter, but global temperatures were not proportoinally hotter. Unicellular marine life release Dimethyl Sulfoxide to increase their cloud cover and keep them cooler. This also has the affect of increaseing the earth's albedo. The notion that the biosphere may employ some homeostatic processes with an effect on global climate is a legitimate (though debated) scientific theory.
I'll believe that a small town cop can have a hard time because he can make enemies (and doesn't have the resources that a larger town would either.)
However, there are some small towns that get a majority of their revenue from inflated speeding tickets levied against out of state motorists. It's a huge conflict of interest that the local venues get to keep money from fines. The purpose of law enforcement is law enforcement. Not paying the bills. But there currently isn't much of a democratic check against this kind of thing, since all the motorists are out-of-state.
Occasionally it gets so bad that people start avoiding the town and business suffers, but those seem to be the exceptions rather than the rules.
If we can capture these extra wavelengths what will our brains do? Ignore or use?
Use, most likely. There are several explanations for the evolutionary advantage of colorblindness. One explanation is that people who are totally colorblind are better at making out shapes since they don't rely on color. The army uses them for these purposes. However, another explanation is the fact that the mothers of colorblind sons are tetrachromats and capable of seeing in four channels of colors. So at the very least, humans are plastic enough that they can adapt to see in four channels of color. Though I don't know how late in life this advantage has to accrue for it to work.
Of course, with normal tetrachromats the pigmetation is still made from beta carotene, IIRC, and I don't know how a cone that relied on a different pathway for its pigment would work. Maybe you'd get burnout if the chemical wasn't properly replenished? I don't know enough about the area to say.
there are also people/ animals with large brains that could be deemed quite stupid
Individuals have problems, sure. But populations? Whole populations don't usually have terribly disadvantageous mutations.
It's more a question of what kind of intelligence a brain is geared for. Cows, for example, have surprisingly good memories which we'd expect from their large brains. But they don't work together well or even get out of the way of the frigging truck. And they follow if you drive slowly. So they seem quite stupid by our standards.
Israel doesn't get water from off the Golan Heights?
so are all muslims paedophiles then? A lot of cultures consider hair removal cleaner.
Modern China is neither communist nor dictatorship. It's closer to fascist oligarchy. It's dramatically different than what it was 15 years ago. Economic freedoms have increased dramatically, but the civil rights conditions haven't improved much.