The coming Ice Age

[ZedMikey]

A theory that explains how the great diversity of life we have now came from a single DNA or RNA replicating it's self with modification over time can't explain how the RNA or DNA came to be in the first place is a flawed theory.

You didn't answer my question. A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[whatthe?]

That is my answer, that you don't like it or agree with it doesn't change what it is.

 

[ZedMikey]

That is my answer, that you don't like it or agree with it doesn't change what it is.

Your answer doesn't address the question. I know you think the theory of evolution needs to explain the origin of life... you've made that abundantly clear. It seems logical to conclude that it then needs to explain the origin of the chemicals (i.e. the non-life) from which the life sprang. Do you think that is an accurate statement?

 

[ZedMikey]

To return to the original post... I found the press release on NSO's website.

http://www.nso.edu/press/SolarActivityDrop.html

In response to news inquiries and stories, Dr. Frank Hill issued a follow-up statement:
"We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age. It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing."

 

[Jaydog]

But what laid the first chicken egg? A chicken or a cat?

Nothing, haven't you learned about the new "random mutation" it is magic within science, the chicken didn't exist for gazzillions of years and then one day a random mutation occurred and "poof" it was a chicken, the chicken grew and grew and then one day an egg fell out of it's arse, and it was like "what the heck it that" I better sit on it until global warming can keep it warm, then one day the egg started to move and out popped a chick, the real question is...How was it fertilized??? :D

 

[Jaydog]

To return to the original post... I found the press release on NSO's website.

http://www.nso.edu/press/SolarActivityDrop.html

the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood

That about sums it up

 

[ZedMikey]

That about sums it up

You will notice, I included that part in my post. As well as the important:

We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age.

They may not know everything about the effects of solar cycles on the climate, but they know enough to make predictions. And soon, they'll have data to compare to that prediction. Voila! Testable hypothesis!

 

[Jacob]

the real question is...How was it fertilized??? :D

Crash peed in its butt...?

 

[Jaydog]

You will notice, I included that part in my post. As well as the important:


They may not know everything about the effects of solar cycles on the climate, but they know enough to make predictions. And soon, they'll have data to compare to that prediction. Voila! Testable hypothesis!

That is why I have always been against the whole "Global Warming" idea, sure we know Co2 levels are higher, but like I have state a million times, there are way too many variables, and our data is made up of a split second of time in comparison to the age of the earth and/or solar system, we really don't have a clue whats going on, and to make fundimental changes that would vastly hurt us economically with the little info that we do have is along the same lines as the old "the sky is falling" scenerio.

 

[CrustyJeep]

haven't you learned about the new "random mutation" it is magic within science

Random mutations are magic? :rofl:

Not the ghosty in the sky though, no magic there :flipoff:

 

[CrustyJeep]

That is why I have always been against the whole "Global Warming" idea, sure we know Co2 levels are higher, but like I have state a million times, there are way too many variables, and our data is made up of a split second of time in comparison to the age of the earth and/or solar system, we really don't have a clue whats going on, and to make fundimental changes that would vastly hurt us economically with the little info that we do have is along the same lines as the old "the sky is falling" scenerio.

But we do know that CO2 is a green house gas, and we lots of data showing at least a correlation between CO2 and climate tom foolery.

So, you know that little Billy at school has the flu, and you know it's caused by a virus, but you can't predict with any certainty that you or your family will get it, so you just ignore the obvious and let little Billy come on over to stay the night anyway, right?

Tell me that's not how your logic works... Because that's what it looks like.

Of course not. You're just butt hurt that a scientist said something that seems to make your hobby look harmful. It's all about YOU, not flawed science.

 

[ZedMikey]

That is why I have always been against the whole "Global Warming" idea, sure we know Co2 levels are higher, but like I have state a million times, there are way too many variables, and our data is made up of a split second of time in comparison to the age of the earth and/or solar system, we really don't have a clue whats going on, and to make fundimental changes that would vastly hurt us economically with the little info that we do have is along the same lines as the old "the sky is falling" scenerio.

Our data for almost everything is made up of a "split second of time" compared to the age of the Earth (and smaller yet the solar system and the universe). That is why science makes predictions based upon the data is has available to it, and modifies/enhances it's predictions and understanding as more data becomes available. That's also why we don't compare everything to the age of the Earth. That's ridiculous.

Let's see... Newton first proposed his law of universal gravitation in 1686 or so. 325 years ago... seems like a long time. 325/4.5billion is on the order of 10^-7 = 0.0000001. Scaled to a timeframe we can grasp, the life of a human, that's about 4.5 minutes. 4.5 minutes out of your life... that's how long we've had Newton's law of universal gravitation. Surely 4.5 minutes isn't long enough to know anything about the nature of gravity!

See... that's ridiculous.

 

[CrustyJeep]

Let's see... Newton first proposed his law of universal gravitation in 1686 or so. 315 years ago... seems like a long time. 315/4.5billion is on the order of 10^-7 = 0.0000001. Scaled to a timeframe we can grasp, the life of a human, that's about 4.5 minutes. 4.5 minutes out of your life... that's how long we've had Newton's law of universal gravitation. Surely 4.5 minutes isn't long enough to know anything about the nature of gravity!

See... that's ridiculous.

Which is why Jaydog ignores that stupid theory.

 

[ZedMikey]

Which is why Jaydog ignores that stupid theory.

I don't blame him... I was being generous. The real number is 3.2 minutes! No WAY we know a damn thing about gravity. :fawkdancesmiley:

 

[ZedMikey]

Oh, and you can stick Newton's laws of motion in there, too... they were also published in that time frame. Stupid F=ma. Shows what we know!

 

[ZedMikey]

Another couple examples... general relativity? ~100 years old. So, about 1 min. Psh... no wonder our GPS satellites don't work.

Climate change... ~30 years or so... So, about 20 seconds (not quite a "split second," but still). What about our 800,000 years of ice core data? A paltry 8000 human minutes... 5.5 days.

 

[Jacob]

Gravity is that asshole that makes you fall down when you have had too many adult beverages.


See, we know alot about gravity.

 

[ZedMikey]

Gravity is that asshole that makes you fall down when you have had too many adult beverages.


See, we know alot about gravity.

You're right. I don't know why it didn't click before. Gravity is caused by beer! :beer:

 

[ZedMikey]

Here is a peer review that states that climate warming is naturally cause and shows no human influence http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html

In 2008, a year after this paper was published (and this paper was denied by at least one journal, apparently), another paper was published showing the flaws in the statistical analysis of the 2007 paper. I couldn't find the full text of either paper, but I found a summary of the 2008 paper. http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_IJoC_08_fact_sheet.pdf

It also appears that you are overstating the conclusions of the 2007 paper. Again, I haven't found the full text of the 2007 paper, but it appears the only conclusions it made were that the predicted temperatures of various global climate models differed statistically from observed temperature data.

That conclusion is a far cry from showing " that climate warming is naturally cause and shows no human influence."

 

[Jaydog]

Our data for almost everything is made up of a "split second of time" compared to the age of the Earth (and smaller yet the solar system and the universe). That is why science makes predictions based upon the data is has available to it, and modifies/enhances it's predictions and understanding as more data becomes available. That's also why we don't compare everything to the age of the Earth. That's ridiculous.

Let's see... Newton first proposed his law of universal gravitation in 1686 or so. 325 years ago... seems like a long time. 325/4.5billion is on the order of 10^-7 = 0.0000001. Scaled to a timeframe we can grasp, the life of a human, that's about 4.5 minutes. 4.5 minutes out of your life... that's how long we've had Newton's law of universal gravitation. Surely 4.5 minutes isn't long enough to know anything about the nature of gravity!

See... that's ridiculous.

Physics doesn't change or cycle, weather does, Co2 levels rise and fall, temperatures rise and fall, gravity stays the same, so the analogy doesnt fit.

 

[Jaydog]

In 2008, a year after this paper was published (and this paper was denied by at least one journal, apparently), another paper was published showing the flaws in the statistical analysis of the 2007 paper. I couldn't find the full text of either paper, but I found a summary of the 2008 paper. http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_IJoC_08_fact_sheet.pdf

It also appears that you are overstating the conclusions of the 2007 paper. Again, I haven't found the full text of the 2007 paper, but it appears the only conclusions it made were that the predicted temperatures of various global climate models differed statistically from observed temperature data.

That conclusion is a far cry from showing " that climate warming is naturally cause and shows no human influence."

Exactly what I've been saying, peer reviews change with the tide, political influence, grant promises, etc..there isn't a consensus among all the scientists studying the effects of Co2 on the Climate, sure there are groups that are on both sides, but right now all we can do is pick sides, because niether of us truly know.

 

[RusM]

My biggest problem with climate changers Is that they all throw out the medieval warm period and little ice age from their analysis. Both periods were considerably colder and warmer than what we are now experiencing. :stirpot:

 

[ZedMikey]

My biggest problem with climate changers Is that they all throw out the medieval warm period and little ice age from their analysis. Both periods were considerably colder and warmer than what we are now experiencing. :stirpot:

Actually, they weren't.

Here's NOAA's page with links to several studies (with differing models that all agree) that show the warming we are experiencing now is greater in magnitude and rate of change than the "medieval warm period."

The problem with the medieval warm period is that it was very spatially varied. Globally, it wasn't as much of a "warm period" as Europe was seeing, for instance.

 

[ZedMikey]

Exactly what I've been saying, peer reviews change with the tide, political influence, grant promises, etc..there isn't a consensus among all the scientists studying the effects of Co2 on the Climate, sure there are groups that are on both sides, but right now all we can do is pick sides, because niether of us truly know.

This wasn't a change in political influence, etc. This was BAD STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.

And again, there IS a consensus. Please see definition 1b below. There will always be people who don't agree, even in the scientific community. If unanimity were required for scientific progress, we'd get nowhere.

con

 

[Jaydog]

This wasn't a change in political influence, etc. This was BAD STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.

And again, there IS a consensus. Please see definition 1b below. There will always be people who don't agree, even in the scientific community. If unanimity were required for scientific progress, we'd get nowhere.






<!--INFOLINKS_OFF--><!-- End Google Analytics --></THE></THE>

Here is a great article that sums up my beliefs on peer reviews and consensus, I'm sure you will dissagree, but I am a bit skeptical on the abilitly for humans to remain unbiased and ethical.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963

 

[Jaydog]

Good Lord!!

Now Scientists are saying the Earths heat is coming from Radioactivity........:haha::haha::haha:

I honestly don't think they have a flippin clue :D


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388637,00.asp

 

[CrustyJeep]

Now Scientists are saying the Earths heat is coming from Radioactivity....

Uh I think they've been saying that for a long time. Do you have an issue with it?

 

[crash2]

Now Scientists are saying the Earths heat is coming from Radioactivity........:haha::haha::haha:

I honestly don't think they have a flippin clue :D


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388637,00.asp

Thats what happens in 2012---we be fawked :redneck:

 

[Jaydog]

Uh I think they've been saying that for a long time. Do you have an issue with it?

They have a consensus now, I don't have a problem with it, it's just another source of heat, besides the sun, that figures into the whole equation, and makes it all the more difficult to blame everything on vehicle and manufacturing emissions, which in turn makes it harder to pass carbon limit legistlation, which means we can keep some of our freedoms....for now :D

 

[ZedMikey]

Here we go again...

First off, there has ALWAYS been a consensus that the Earth produces heat. That about half of it is from radioactive decay is meaningless in the context of climate change. It comes to the surface the same regardless of how it is produced in the core of our planet.

As for it being "just another source of heat, besides the sun, that figures into the whole equation, and makes it all the more difficult to blame everything on vehicle and manufacturing emissions" blah blah blah... let's look at some numbers.

Let's see... per that article (and the numbers jive with other sources I've seen), the Earth's geothermal heat output is about 44 terawatts total. Given the Earth has about 5.1*10^8 square kilometers of surface area... we get about .08 W/m^2 of geothermal heat transfer at the surface. Again... on par with other numbers I've seen. The article states that about half of that (23 terawatts) is from radioactivity.

Now let's see... with a little math, we can turn the value for solar energy incident upon the Earth's surface, 1400 W/m^2, into a number we can really compare with our above figure. The surface area exposed to solar radiation is a disc with the diameter of the Earth. That disc would have an area of about 1.3*10^8 square kilometers. About a quarter of the surface area of the Earth, as we would expect. Now, we multiply those two to get total solar power incident on the sunlit side... and divide by the total surface area of the Earth to average that across the entire planet... we get about 343 W/m^2.

Now we can properly compare the magnitude of "just another source of heat, besides the sun" with that of that of the sun's heat. .08 vs 343... the sun provides about 4300 times more heat to the surface of the Earth than the stuff that article is talking about.

Still think it matters, Jay? :)