Tell me if you can, Where did the water on our planet come from? Scientists had a consensus that it was delivered by meteors ... whaaaa haha haa haaa haaa That is a good one!
PS, And the same dentists said to brush up and down before they changed there mind and then back again ... must have been friends with the Dr's that brought us Thalidomide.
Will's Link
I think this is it: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/life-rocky-start.html
Similar subject: the interesting global event that created the worlds "fossil fuel" reserve. And the chemical process that continues to produce further reserves, way down yonder.
Anyone willing to put up a theory of earth's water origin?
Another but easy question for the " new to earth studies" people. Who knows how the oceans got the salt? Don't blurt out the answer, please.
Will's Link
In response to your last post/link... and then there is: Eminent Domain and Government-owned land, Restricted use of spaces, State and Federal conflicting laws and so on... Tell the government to be good for goodness sake but then we circle back around to that itchy question " From what conditions/perspective /terms/values do we evaluate what is good? The politics of Perspective
As for HOH... I know what I've read about that... (original equipment, not all deposited here via meteor)... which goes with the whole early life was here wayyyyy prior than originally thought realization as well.
Early on in our planet's development, racing through space as a molten ball of iron we cooled enough to form a crust. The center was still very hot. This planet collected a layer of space ice which grew ever thicker as we entered the orbit of the sun and began to slow down.
Like a giant snowball (ice ball ) we slowed down into the orbit we currently have and from the internal heat, we began to experience the first of our global warming events. The ice melted and the waters were upon the face of the earth.
Remember that You heard it here first.
http://www.ducks.org/conservation/public-policy/climate-change-and-waterfowl https://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Global-Warming/Reports/NowheretoRun-BigGameWildlife-LowResFinal_110613.ashx http://www.conservationhawks.org/what-we-do-1/
Instead of doing the long version here I would suggest that people begin by reading some of Freeman Dyson. You will find some simple statements in the simple search but there is a great depth of information and scientific explanation to back up his position ... You need to dig deeper. Good luck.
Tom Nelson: Freeman Dyson: It would be crazy to try to reduce CO2 tomnelson.blogspot.com/2015/04/freeman-dyson-it-would-be-crazy-to-try.html
Apr 6, 2015 - 15:15 "CO2 is so beneficial in other ways, it would be crazy to try to reduce it" 16:40: "Average temperature of the Earth..is a very poorly defined ...
From a Wry Heat reprinted with permission of Jonathan DuHamel
A new post on The Hockey Schtick reviews a new paper “that finds only about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration.”
This new work supports an old table from the Energy Information Administration which shows the same thing: only about 3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources. The numbers are from IPCC data. Look at the table and do the arithmetic: 23,100/793,100 = 0.029. URL for the table: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf
Add to that a recent discovery which I presume to be true. about 17% of the reported CO2 level is in error. Which is to say that the reported level was significantly higher than it truly is during the "hysteria phase" of the last 15 years or so.
Overall, this sort of "on going" conversation RE various scientific points has been astonishingly civil here in the MA page. I think all players want to keep it that way due to a built up level of mutual respect and appreciation from great camaraderie here. We have a UNIQUE and most awesome internet forum page here. Love that you were focused on that as well!
Figure 4. Residuals from the quadratic and exponential fits.
Both fits show similar cyclic behavior, with the CO2 levels higher than predicted from about 1958-62 and also 1978-92. More rapid oscillations with smaller amplitudes occur after 2002. There are sharp peaks in 1973 and 1998 (the latter coinciding with the super El Niño.) Whether the oil crisis of 1973 has anything to do with this I can’t say. For persons who know more than I about decadal oscillations, these results may be of interest.
The data were taken from the NOAA site at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends
Remember ,.. Pi's earlier post on another thread about climate change,..
"who cares" so Woodsman,... you will not change someone's views who honestly just does not give a damn,.. He only sees what reinforces his current view and is blind to all else.
Woodsman,.. I thought Will and I were the only outspoken sorts on this forum,.. Congrates,.. !!!!
A tip of the hat to you,.. from out in Western Mass,.. where you located?
Jeez guys I step away for a few weeks and nearly fell over when I saw a Global Warming Thread,.. with 23 posts,.... I was like WTF? ,.. then I saw Pi started it and realized he was just Trolling,.. again,... again,...
Pi you are not located in the USSR or anything are ya? :)
Your cherry picking and taking information out of context again. I have repeatedly said that I care. If what you say above was true then you would be the first to surmise my disposition in that way. And I have a long and successful resume in academic circles in institutions that range from reality-based to progressive.
And honestly BB , I started this obvious JEST in light of the recent volcanic eruption. It was not serious and was civil until you joined in. Get it in check and spit out those sour grapes...
If you were born 20 thousand years ago you would be under a half mile of ice. Or on top with a toboggan.
And to add, Forgive me for this opinion: If the greater good of our world population benefits from a slightly warmer climate with enhanced co2 then your kid's skiing on your favorite mountain should be the least of your concerns and rather near-sighted of you. Get some rollerblades! All in good humor friend.
As for the fluctuations in CO2 taken from ice cores, there is no doubt that there are fluctuations over geological time. However, what we have seen since the industrial revolution is unprecedented. I drive a truck and don't have solar panels, so I am not trying to be on a high horse here, but the facts have really become undeniable. We are altering the atmosphere in dramatic ways.
Sorry that the image didn't show up for some, but if you have a minute and a half to watch this video, it shows co2 concentration over nearly the past million years (starts recent and then expands backwards). These are co2 readings taken from bubbles trapped in ice, not inferred.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UatUDnFmNTY
The Ordovician -Silurian period had roughly 4000 ppm and the Jurassic Cretaceous period was 2000 ppm. We are currently at 400 ppm or so. ( plants and subsequently other life thrive at much higher amounts )
If CO2 were a driver of climate (particularly a direct cause for warming in its proportion) then we should have burned up by those events. Instead, we have had ice ages and mini warming periods on the way down and up with no causative correlation to CO2.
Is it a driver of climate or major events of our planet ? is the proportion enough to bring about catastrophic events? Is it a problem (if a problem at all) worth severely altering our lives over? Are the benefits greater than the assumed downside? Again: read Freeman Dyson for some reasoning on this. His qualifications are unmatched. Congrats on your doctorate degree!
There is real problems with core ice samples that are explained in the above article. When you research the process of how those "bubbles" occur and the dynamic process they go through while being "Deposited" and thereafter affected. ( it is not a simple process) . The great depth of the samples taken ( by necessity ), the location of those source processes, the flux of heating and cooling, water runoff and so on and massive physics involved may tell us something but clearly not what we need to know. (What some claim to know and what it means)
Yes, it supports my beliefs, so it's easy for me to accept...
Question. Can you bullet, no extrapolation needed, just bullets, so I can do some of my own research, the best tests (from your reading) to try to answer the question of whether there is AGW.
I want to better understand why those tests may be more valid than the tests which show different data.
I do want to be considering multiple angles. It always helps. Whether I agree or disagree with what I am learning, it helps.
I know you have researched the heck out of it, I know you have a belief that's different from mine, so I'd like to better understand some of the key points that lead you there. May not change my mind, I dont know... but it will be educational regardless.
By the way, my beliefs are not firmly against or for any particular end but I try to test the validity of assumptions and seek proof for the theory/beliefs. After I began to question the data/methods on my own I began to find similar minds such as F. Dyson ( a lifelong liberal Democrat ) Go figure!
TT-Pi. I am definitely interested in hearing more as well. It is definitely a good point about the fact that there were high CO2 levels hundreds of millions of years ago due to volcanism. Here are a couple interesting articles discussing that: https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-co2-could-spike-to-a-level-not-seen-since-the-dinosaurs/
It isn't necessarily that the earth has never seen these levels of CO2 before, but the rate of change is absolutely unprecedented and the fact that humans are driving the trend is clear. As for whether it is worth dramatically changing out lives over, while nothing in science is 100 percent certain, I think the evidence for severe impacts on the only planet we have is enough that it merits investment in alternative energy. Ultimately, even beyond the climate change aspect, this will be good for the economy and increase our energy independence.
Regardless, good point on the rate of change in CO2 levels. Does that relate to C12 or 13 (hope I got that right) in particular? IE, there is a stout increase in CO2 levels, which is more biased to the C12 sub type v 13, suggesting fossil fuels/energy production using said fuels may be playing a larger role?
Inherent in everything in science is some degree uncertainty, so definitely be cautious about anyone who says they are 100% certain about anything. Having read the thoughtful posts from many across this sight, the vast majority of people are definitely critical thinkers and I just want to share some articles that show that the preponderance of evidence shows dramatic changes in CO2 associated with human activities. Again, no high horse here.
Will, that is a really good point about C12 vs C13 (two isotopes of Carbon). The ratio of c12 to c13 was fairly constant until about 150 years ago, when humans began harnessing fossil fuels. Since then the ratio of c12 to c13. Since then the proportion of c12, characteristics of Co2 derived from burning fossil fuels, has increased dramatically. You definitely know your stuff.
Definitely keep any questions or counterpoints coming.
Until then.....shoot straight.
You mention "severe impact" and I would like to hear more about that. Granted we need to separate the issues of "other " contributions both natural and of man's contributions such as obvious pollutants IE; runoff of chemicals and waste materials ( in particular the damage to marine life).
I would venture to say that the "severe impacts" that you have in mind are a combination of events but I would like to have you list a few that are primarily a problem caused by added CO2 alone to our planet. Or greatly dependent on it. We can take them on one at a time.
First be sure there is a negative "climate change". More negative than positive. If there is /was no negative effect on the planet there would be no need to have "alternatives."
Regarding "good for the economy " That is a long and speculative discussion about the economics of alternatives. Which is exactly why gross exaggeration and speculation is often used to scare us into believing the proposed end justifies the current action/ subsidies.
To be fair there is a point at which a blend of all available sources reach an equilibrium (it is not a fixed point because it slides according to changing variables) and that depends on the marginal costs of each. In upfront cost it is no competition . Fossil fuels win big. When proposed externalities are factored in there is more to consider and alternatives become more attractive. Even more so as the proposed externalities are exaggerated. So careful evaluation of real economic and real-world environmental impacts are critical to know.
I have read that most scientists believe that "the damage" of our worlds initial massive usage of FF's is already done. There is a good argument for reducing ( as we have) our increase. That is a tough sell to developing countries such as China and India. But we can keep ours in check and help them out with their technology.
A combination of reducing the marginal cost of renewables and increasing energy efficiency is what I believe is the best course of action and we are already doing that. But to manipulate the process is always a questionable practice ( based on projected "opinions of future damage" and artificially manipulated cost of each form of energy production ) and that is where the argument gets fuzzy.
Energy independence? I don't believe we can survive without oil . Unless of course, we re-invest in Nuclear power. Alternatives will not give us independence but will provide some relief to traditional fuels. More drilling, coal mining, and gas extraction will give us independence on a level that keeps us in the game. Lowered use ( more efficiency ) will stave off (our portion of )the further accumulation of the dreaded CO2 but getting the developing countries on board is the greatest challenge. IE China and India. These are countries that are moving the majority of their people to a better standard of living. Out of Poverty. And Coal is the fuel of choice ... I would think that the cleanest coal plant is the only option that will interest them. So, if we really care about this, it is imperative that we help them with the best technology and subsidies. Otherwise, all the effort and hardship we put upon ourselves will be almost pointless.
Belchertown Bowman's Link
The climate in Vinland - Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/vinland/othermysteries/climate/4157en.html
It is only good news for the people who wish to persuade others without any basis in reality. Satans Fake news helpers.
1.) I'd say a sizable portion of Dem's voted Sanders in primary's and in the final voted Stein or abstained. I know a lot of folks who may have written in or voted green etc but were so worried President Trump would win, they voted for HRC.
2.) Wholly smokes... Americans are brutal under-informed on science related issues. A quick scan of FakeBook feeds and the god awful meme's related to scientific facts is flat astonishing. Admittedly, I'm into science so I may be biased. But when I see the stuff people throw out or comments made both via social media and even the media (MSM & NON MSM) it's flat out amazing. And I dont mean when the news intentionally interviews people with questions like "What's the rate limiting step in glycolysis"...
(NOTE: That all said, "Dihydrogen Monoxide Awareness" on social media is frigging hysterical! Making water sound poison as heck just cracks me up for some reason)
I listened to a cool interview with Joe Rogan (his podcast is actually pretty dang good) and Neil Tyson Degrasse the other day. Degrasse noted that every college student should have to take a semester course on confirmation bias and how we assimilate and read information. That's a big "Hell Yeah" from this guy. I'd suggest that a similar - though developmentally appropriate version - course should be done to start middle school and again in 9th or 10th grade to make dang sure people at least have fail safe's to help "Dunning Kruger Proof" themselves, so to speak.
I can't find the statistics on who switched to whom. Maybe they got sensible at the last second and voted for Trump. Either way its Dihydrogen Monoxide under the bridge.
It is likely that education (from homelife to University ) is doing a piss poor job at pointing out a deficiency in the new generation student. Perhaps "participation trophies" and "your alright / I'm alright " idea was flawed.
Yu know, " we are just as valid in our opposite opinions but you have your stinking facts that make you think your better than me" "Wouldn't you rather be liked than right?" And so on... It's sad that this kind of thinking disorder has developed.
DK, in the original paper, suggest that we ALL climb my stupid (peak of inflated expectations, in their words) as we learn. Those who work to develop it or who naturally seem better able to see context, and mitigate their own value in the process seem to fall off my stupid faster and seek mastery, understanding they will never really get there....
The danger is when folks climb my stupid and think: "I got this" and stop seeking, comparing ideas, challenging their understanding.... to me, that's a great example of internet geniuses. See topic, Google 20', assume you know everything about the topic and act like it.
Its actually something I like about formal v self driven educational processes. They challenge us to look beyond where our eyes would naturally wander, thus helping develop that contextual understanding to more completely look at subjects.
We may have just said the same thing... I'm waiting for an electrician to finish some work so it seemed a good time for a long winded answer ha ha ha.
This is from my phone, hopefully its readable!
Emotional courage is a great point. Who has it and why?
I agree that the remedy is as you describe. If you practice that self-check and exercise intellectual honesty ( which has an "emotional strength" element ) the advancement is expedited and the pitfalls overcome more quickly.
We seem to have gotten away from fair and civil debate/dialogue and have embraced a passionate but ridiculous form of mass communication. ( some outlets are far more extreme than others ) That is the very change that I believe has entered education on most levels from home to schools and social media. The common man has somehow become hardened to rational thought and a "whole language approach." While specializing in our focus we lose the broader disposition.
It may be economic/educational/ modern life, due to modern demands but it also seems to go hand in hand with a loss of positive spiritual life (humility and reverence for something greater ) and an embrace of self-glorification ( An ego thing). That is the thing I am referring to above. I agree it is not how "genius" one is per se but more smarts cant hurt ( they can fall into the trap just as the idiot would). Unless we broaden the term Genius to include the mental process that keeps the pitfall in check ( speed of recovery to the stupid factor in us all). But we tend to use that word to point to specific accomplishments and not to learning aptitude itself.
That is what I mean by: "To avoid the Dunning Kruger effect one would need the same mental faculties that would render the need to avoid it obsolete." We need the mental process/faculties that you mention above and that you practice personally to " avoid" it ( to not stay stuck in stupid for a long time). That isn't being taught in our culture. I would say it is often the opposite. That arrogant mindset is the promotion of that ignorant disposition, which is a byproduct of our current cultural values and practices.
So I think we agree, or so it seems to me there is a lot of common themes overlapping ... But, I could be wrong.
