|
COSMOS
Mar 20, 2014 13:08:20 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by guyfromhecker on Mar 20, 2014 13:08:20 GMT -6
Webster the word significant is so ambiguous it doesn't even belong in science. That's from the opinion papers it isI not scientifically proven
|
|
|
COSMOS
Mar 20, 2014 13:06:11 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by guyfromhecker on Mar 20, 2014 13:06:11 GMT -6
What I meant was not a credible scienist to dispute it. The theory about climate change is so far from being specifically nail down that it isn't even agreed upon by many scientists. The broad question we could cause change is probably agreed upon but the amount is not even close to being agreed upon. These two theories are not even in the same league
|
|
|
COSMOS
Mar 20, 2014 13:03:02 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by guyfromhecker on Mar 20, 2014 13:03:02 GMT -6
When it comes to climate change find me the theory that is close to being accepted as fact. There is none. Evolution had been put through the wringer of time and there's not a scientist on this earth to does not say it has been proven. Still more is being found out about it but the theory has stood the test of science.
|
|
|
COSMOS
Mar 20, 2014 8:32:25 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by guyfromhecker on Mar 20, 2014 8:32:25 GMT -6
Mods, feel free to delete this is this just going to be getting become a discussion on religion obviously.
|
|
|
COSMOS
Mar 20, 2014 8:28:58 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by guyfromhecker on Mar 20, 2014 8:28:58 GMT -6
Lizard there are gaps in the evolutionary trail but the theory has never been more sound, understand that. These gaps are explained if you really pay attention to the theory.
|
|
|
COSMOS
Mar 20, 2014 8:25:18 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by guyfromhecker on Mar 20, 2014 8:25:18 GMT -6
You probably think intelligent design is science good for you, you know nothing about science
|
|
|
COSMOS
Mar 20, 2014 8:23:32 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by guyfromhecker on Mar 20, 2014 8:23:32 GMT -6
Good riddance, you are a creationist in disguise. Nice try
|
|
|
COSMOS
Mar 20, 2014 6:55:41 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by guyfromhecker on Mar 20, 2014 6:55:41 GMT -6
In the scorecard of life I'm sure man has killed more Silverbacks then Silverbacks have killed man. Lizard skip the cliches and come up with some original thinking
|
|
|
COSMOS
Mar 20, 2014 6:29:51 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by guyfromhecker on Mar 20, 2014 6:29:51 GMT -6
Lizard the discussion is over. It's obvious you're not far from the dust to human thing anyway. Although you claimed we just didn't come from mud you might as well say we did because you obviously don't see a link to previous species. That stupid remark about the Silverback just shows how ignorant you are of the subject.
|
|
|
COSMOS
Mar 20, 2014 4:25:17 GMT -6
Post by guyfromhecker on Mar 20, 2014 4:25:17 GMT -6
It will always be a theory. Things like that, which are not as simple as a math problem, are not ever to become law. That does not make them any less respected by science though. The respect for evolution has become stronger with time. No rational scientist does not believe it. It has reached the point of being accepted as fact. Rapid change is possible through mutation. Mutation is not much different than creation really. When mutation occurs "gaps" are bound to be in the records. There will always be "missing links". It is part of the nature of evolution itself. Also pay attention to birth of a species. It happens. Once again this is also equitable to creation. Most folks think there was some gradual thing. It may not have been as gradual they they think. You need to watch it. Check out this search and read a bit about law vs theory.
|
|
|
COSMOS
Mar 19, 2014 16:27:09 GMT -6
Post by guyfromhecker on Mar 19, 2014 16:27:09 GMT -6
I just love reading how all the believers who know enough science to believe in evolution find a way to make evolution fit their belief. It is creative to say the least. Maybe they are God in disguise. People have been interpreting the bible for thousands of year. The bible is the one book, that the Author is not around to tell us what the real meaning it. You can ask several preachers the same question on the same scripture reading, and you will get a different explanation for it. Sure, the main point may be the same point, but the explanation will be different. There are only a few straight and forward points that are hardcore written in stone... Literally. Or written in RED. After that, then most of the Bible can be interpreted however a person wants. Who knows, maybe that is why God had the bible written the way it was, so many eyes can apply it to life and make humans better. IDK, I didn't write it.
But there is enough information out there that humans can not deny there is a form of Evolution in the books. Did we walk out of a puddle of mucky water? Who knows what happened outside The Garden of Eden. I will give you an example. After Eve bit into the apple of knowledge, God sent them out of the Garden. Told them "Be fruitful and multiply." Now, how will they do that. Sure, them two can have kids. But what happens from there? Sure the Bible teaches who Begot who. But never said where these individuals came from. So it leads to believe that there HAD to be other humans out there that the children "Got" with to create other Humans. Otherwise, we would all be, well, I don't want to type the word, because I am sure it would be censored. But, if there is no other humans out there, then the children would only have one option to "Multiply". So that is why I believe there had to be something going on outside the Garden.
Point 2, when God was tired of the Sin on the earth, he told Noah to Build an Arc. Get two of each animal, and his family. He did, and the earth was flooded. Wiping out what was left. Now, that was on that Arc? We don't know. Mabey there was still some creature evolving on there. That would be the next generation of humans. No one knows.
To say "find a way to make evolution fit their belief" is incorrect. We are not "Making it fit". We are explaining to those who have no clue of the Bible, why we believe that it could happen.
And by the post you put, I would have to say you have no bases to even start from. You are basing on you lack of knowledge of what the scripture reads and is taught.
Also your last comment, goes against one of the 10 commandments... Lets see if you can figure out which one...
Lord, can't you take a joke? OK, call me a false witness or whatever. As for your take on things I was there about 40 years ago as a teen. Now I would jump and say "Look folks, Evolution is not a disproof of creation, but a sound backing of it. I mean, what do you think "birth of a species" means? How do you think it happens? Some call it chance.........." Now, did that sound just like you?
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Mar 18, 2014 20:01:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
COSMOS
Mar 18, 2014 19:17:36 GMT -6
Post by guyfromhecker on Mar 18, 2014 19:17:36 GMT -6
I just love reading how all the believers who know enough science to believe in evolution find a way to make evolution fit their belief. It is creative to say the least. Maybe they are God in disguise.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Mar 16, 2014 20:46:56 GMT -6
Millions did not watch Cosmos tonight because the E word was featured. Neil deGrasse Tyson was also audacious enough to inform folks that Evolution was not mearly an opinion. In fact. he informed them it wasn't even in the theory realm anymore. It is scientific fact. Just like gravity. I have known that for a long time, but I bet many did not. I get a kick out of folks saying "well, it's only a theory". Then rattling on about how theories are dis-proven all the time. This one stood the test of time and investigation. Evolution is a fact of science and life.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 24, 2014 19:45:02 GMT -6
OMG, now an article blaming the warming hiatus on volcanism. Last week and the week before they said it was still warming, but hiding out in Africa or the oceans. What rational will we hear next? Of course none of this is actually provable.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 13, 2014 19:34:24 GMT -6
So if the output goes down the temp just drops like a rock to whatever it is going to reach? I mean if one cycle is low you are gonna be as cold as if you strung 3 together?
Yoo hoo, what happened to that little thing called feedback, among other things? Italics: What we saw with Pinatubo should give you a good general idea as to what screening the sun does. They're both short-lived forcings. The difference being Pinatubo's radiative forcing change was much bigger and more abrupt. Solar forcing's amplitude is generally pretty small. This is the reason effective equilibrium is reached fairly quickly (~15yr, though in practice never more than 11 yr due to the cycle essentially interrupting that process). Even a cycle with twice that amplitude wouldn't have an equilibrium time much over 50 yr (provided it wasn't near a critical point of glaciation/deglaciation/hothouse). Bold: You could see a number of slight feedbacks working on much longer timescales, but they will essentially be unmeasurable in the temperature record, namely because the triggering mechanism wasn't strong. The stronger the trigger, the more likely non-linearity will come to the fore with these feedbacks and change the equation, and vice versa. As a result, stringing together 3 cycles of equal strength doesn't really change solar forcing any appreciable amount. Now, if these cycles were growing significantly in amplitude each time, you'd have a point (and this is why we are pretty sure solar was a significant component of early 20th century warming). Luckily, feedbacks are inherently self-limiting processes. They are generally proportional to the size of the trigger both in amplitude and on the temporal scale as well. Even with CO2, the bulk of the temperature response typically occurs in 10 years (around 65%), with the remainder occurring over much longer timescales due to the persistence of the gas in the atmosphere. As a result, we are pretty well in equilibrium with where CO2 concentrations were 30 years ago. Again, as I mentioned earlier, the ocean flywheel tends to muddy things up by causing heat exchange with the atmosphere to fluctuate unpredictably on short-medium timescales. Well, looking at the graph I have below you would think everything would be in neat 15 year trends. Temp would go up for 15 or down for 15 or stay the same. It doesn't though. Trends seem to be more on the 30yr and longer.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 12, 2014 18:09:46 GMT -6
If I was gonna pick a year right now, I would go with 1973-74. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 12, 2014 17:55:30 GMT -6
The thing that sticks out in my mind is the downright cold, even without snow. The snow department, IMO has not been impressive regardless of totals. Why, because of the nickel and dime snows. No big snow followed by add-ons, and no winter long snowpack. Just my opinion. Only one or two of the 70s winters had a long term snowpack. The whole decade wasn't like that.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 12, 2014 17:53:00 GMT -6
For those who bashed me for alluding to this winter as potentially being a 70s type thing I accept your apologies. All I see now are posts and articles comparing this winter to some of the worst in the 70s. I saw early season storm track and just had a feeling. They don't call it patterns for nothing. Some patterns are harder to shake than others. This one has hung on and made comebacks.
And yet it wasn't like the winters of the 70s. You cannot accept what it not given to you. Well, I guess you can, but technically, that's stealing. Webster, wait til they go looking for the magic matching analog. It sure isn't gonna fit anything from the 80s, 90s, or 00s.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 12, 2014 16:15:46 GMT -6
To be fair, you can't just say a winter "like the 70s" and leave it at that. The 78 and 79 winters are really the benchmarks, just like the 82 snow. Unless something drastic happens, we won't be close to either of those. If you would have come out and said, "we're going to have snow and cold that will rival 197x", then we would have something to compare this winter to, and we could follow up with, "Phil nailed it" or "Man, Phil missed it by a mile". I don't recall ever seeing that. If you did, and I missed it, I'll apologize for that. Also, I think the comparisons on the Corner to the 70s are concerning the temperatures in MN, unless I missed a bunch of posts with facts that compare this winter in St. Louis to any in the 70s. Well, my whole point is this. Folks always go around hunting for the "matching" year when these winters end. I can tell you what I thought then and what I know now. They are not gonna be able to dig out anything in the past 30 years to compare it to. That's pretty much the way it is gonna be for a lot of the places in the upper MW and many places east of the Mississippi. This was a throwback to some other time. Maybe it was a 60s winter. All I know is it doesn't fit the modern era. That is what I was trying to say. I used the 70s because that's the winters I remember. It is kind of like, "back when winters were winters". I can't pull up the 60s that well. I was too young.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 12, 2014 16:09:27 GMT -6
Ok, I apologize Phil. I have been sick and in a bad mood, my dog now has diabetes, lol. So anyone asking for apologies just kind of set me off. So sorry for calling you conceited and coming off like an a$$, wasn't really my intent. Carry on. I know the feeling snowman. I been sick since Friday. On Saturday my friend sent me a couple of texts just like any other weekend. I just ignored them because I couldn't find anything nice to say. He sent another and I told him to leave me the you know what alone. Oh man that is so sad to hear about your dog. I hate the D word.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 11, 2014 20:00:54 GMT -6
One of the reasons I expected a real bad winter simply had to do with the odds. Severe winters were being experienced over other parts of the N hemisphere the last few years and I just figured the polar jet wasn't gonna miss us forever. When this stuff is going on we get it eventually.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 11, 2014 19:42:54 GMT -6
Old sunspot AR1944 has just come across the western limb and has been renumbered AR1967. It is still a large sunspot that has shown activity in the last several days. NASA is forecasting a 30% chance of class-M flares and 5% of X flares in the coming days. Other than this active region sunspot levels have fallen to 62 after several days above 100. AR1967 has made the headlines!
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 11, 2014 19:31:22 GMT -6
It doesn't take nearly that long for changes in solar output to influence temperatures. The equilibrium response is on the order of 15 yr. Much of the response is quicker than that (see Pinatubo eruption or this paper, for instance). If output does not change, neither will temperature. It's all about change over time, and more specifically, the rate of change over time that's important in climate.
So if the output goes down the temp just drops like a rock to whatever it is going to reach? I mean if one cycle is low you are gonna be as cold as if you strung 3 together? Yoo hoo, what happened to that little thing called feedback, among other things?
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 11, 2014 19:18:51 GMT -6
No one is going to apologize to a conceited person like this. No need to. You have congratulated yourself time and time again because you pretty much know everything. You made a huge deal out of the school evacuation plan you came up with. No one has seen this plan yet, because you were afraid of "backlash". Post it like you promised you would. It's almost that time of year again. Chill out 99. Name calling from a mod. WTG! Holding a grudge? BTW, about the evacuation thing. It is way too complicated to be made into a model for all. I shoulda conceded that at the start. It would fit some schools, but not all. Probably more meant for rural schools. Some schools have actually done it in tornado alley before. I just think it has to be an option. It's better than ducking down your head in an ill-prepared building. Now, to correct you. My wife says I am self righteous at times, closed minded, and unrelenting, but says no on the conceited thing. She knows me better.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 11, 2014 17:04:02 GMT -6
For those who bashed me for alluding to this winter as potentially being a 70s type thing I accept your apologies. All I see now are posts and articles comparing this winter to some of the worst in the 70s. I saw early season storm track and just had a feeling. They don't call it patterns for nothing. Some patterns are harder to shake than others. This one has hung on and made comebacks.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 10, 2014 17:01:44 GMT -6
Here is one of the best graphs to get a grasp on what the modern Maximum was like. Sure it had a peak, but the sustained output for over 60 years (1940-2000) was greater than any seen before. The earth pretty much had no choice about warming.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 8, 2014 12:17:42 GMT -6
Scripts' researchers released a paper in 2012 that indicated the little ice age was indeed a global event. Sure it might not have been 1.1 degrees everywhere but there is a signal for a global event. I understand if you want global warming to be true that is inconvient but it seems to be the case. As to the northern hemisphere being where the 1.1 colder came from I would fully expect the northern hemisphere to be colder than the south because of the greater land area. I would like to continue talking about this, but let's get one thing crystal clear here. My responses in this thread have absolutely nothing to do with belief or opinion. They are of little to no use in scientific discourse. I feel I've backed up (and will continue to back up) everything I've said here with actual data sources and solid analysis (or at least links to solid analysis). Please do not seek to turn this into a personal message. For the record, I don't want global warming to be true, but my wants and wishes are irrelevant when it comes to science.Now back to the matter at hand: Again, it's not even Northern Hemispheric temperature, it's Northern Hemispheric extra-tropical temperature (north of 22N). There's still a big difference there (about 20% of the globe). The tropics are big. We're also talking about 1 paper, in which the authors admit right in the abstract, that it contradicted numerous other reconstructions that argued for a lesser amount (around -0.6C) AND listed the strengths and weaknesses of the method they used. So to lean on this paper alone and ignore the other reconstructions is probably not a great idea. Interesting paper? Yes, quite. But maybe not in the way you thought: Reconstructions of Arctic Sea IceThis really brings up another point. Was the change coincident across the globe? Arctic data suggests it wasn't. In fact, we see a fairly reliable signal of decrease in ice coverage at this time, especially over the regions where the Atlantic meets the Arctic or feeds it via warmer water currents. This suggests heat displacement, not just removal. Thing is, it's not just across the Arctic. There are cooler periods in other parts of the world, but they are, for the most part, not synchronous, indicating changes in heat transport via ocean current changes and atmospheric circulation changes were also important. Yes, there is evidence that the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton minimums helped reduce global temperature, but not by huge amounts. Again, even if you argue that this is wrong, and that these changes in the LIA are large, then you are also arguing for a very high climate sensitivity. This means climate will also be very sensitive to CO2, CH4, etc. This point is not something you can successfully argue your way out of. We know how Tyndall gasses behave. We do not see this apparent pattern between solar activity and temperature in recent (last 50 year) temperature records. Solar activity has declined since its mid-20th century peak, but temperature firmly rose 0.5-0.6C since the late 70s. This was even predicted ahead of time, even though Wally Broeker didn't fully guess the full extent of SO2 emissions on the lower atmosphere: www.sciencemag.org/content/189/4201/460.abstractSolar activity declined little over the last half of the 20th C. Arguably it stayed very strong. One average, the last three cycles of the 20th C were as great as any ever measured. Even with the slight decline you speak of the last three cycles are above the levels most of the previous 4 centuries. Have you ever heard of momentum? In the 20th Century we had 5 of the strongest cycles ever measured. Even the "down" cycle of the mid century was not on par with anything related to cooling. This Modern Maximum is the only one we have witnessed. It is not surprising that we do not really know the consequences of it.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 3, 2014 22:22:31 GMT -6
Kinda hard to really compare Permian times to now. I mean it wasn't even close to the same world, so how can you compare it climatically? Who knows how solar forcing can even be compared between then and now.
|
|
|
Post by guyfromhecker on Feb 3, 2014 19:02:50 GMT -6
Navy could you tell me where you got the solar data for the long-lost times.
|
|