Who pissod off Penn?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Anyone expressing it - care to tell me what happens if, say, 50% of the ~10,000 nuclear weapons in existence were detonated?

What's the long-term here? A Billion years?

You tell me. You are the one implying a claim.

 

[jimbob]

Man has indeed learnt to move water around, however in regions of political instability, what is the likely consequence of the fertile belt moving across a national boundry?

Conflict.

As if there is not conflict now.

OK: more severe conflict, and new conflicts.

I would say that is an adverse consequence.

If you have problems with housefires in one part of town, throwing molotov cocktails around won't help. Just because there are already fires , you don't want to fan them and start new ones.

Are you incapable of seeing anything in other than black and white?

Plants need CO₂, so lots must be good.

There is already conflict in the mddle east, so more conflict won't matter.

 

[Chaos]

OK: more severe conflict, and new conflicts.

I would say that is an adverse consequence.

If you have problems with housefires in one part of town, throwing molotov cocktails around won't help. Just because there are already fires , you don't want to fan them and start new ones.

Are you incapable of seeing anything in other than black and white?

Plants need CO₂, so lots must be good.

There is already conflict in the mddle east, so more conflict won't matter.

Dont forget "everybody dies in the end, so many many people dying slowly and painfully from preventable causes is nothing bad."

 

[jimbob]

But what if some libertarians have to pay more beause of this conflict?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

OK: more severe conflict, and new conflicts.

How do you know that?

I would say that is an adverse consequence.

Opinion sans fact.

If you have problems with housefires in one part of town, throwing molotov cocktails around won't help. Just because there are already fires , you don't want to fan them and start new ones.

Silly analogy, and you know it.

Are you incapable of seeing anything in other than black and white?

To the contrary, I see vast degrees.

Plants need CO₂, so lots must be good.

Elevated Carbon Dioxide Spurs Shrub Growth

Sounds good. More food for everyone, thus potentially relieving your concerns about conflict.

There is already conflict in the mddle east, so more conflict won't matter.

Did I say that?

 

[Prometheus]

How do you know that?



Opinion sans fact.



Silly analogy, and you know it.



To the contrary, I see vast degrees.



Elevated Carbon Dioxide Spurs Shrub Growth

Sounds good. More food for everyone, thus potentially relieving your concerns about conflict.



Did I say that?

That's a rather over simplified and narrow estimate.

 

[jimbob]

Opinion sans fact.

Yes it is my opinion that more conflict and more severe conflict is adverse. Unless you are a shareholder in defence companies. And even then, tension is probably better than war, because there ios the continual updating of equipment, without direct destruction of the economic base.

If you have problems with housefires in one part of town, throwing molotov cocktails around won't help. Just because there are already fires , you don't want to fan them and start new ones.

Silly analogy, and you know it.

Why? Adding climatic stress, i.e. migration pressures, and movement of fertile land to a region where there is already tension, seems very similar to adding more fuel and fire to a region of housefires.

Elevated Carbon Dioxide Spurs Shrub Growth

Sounds good. More food for everyone, thus potentially relieving your concerns about conflict.

Did you read your link?

During the past 200 years, shrubs have expanded their reach into many of the world's grasslands, reducing the amount and quality of forage available to livestock. Some scientists theorize that elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations have spurred that growth. But evidence as to the underlying reasons behind the problem of woody plant encroachment has been lacking.

This is showing that raised levels of CO₂ in the absense of any other climatic change, reduces " the amount and quality of forage available to livestock".

In other words, it has a directly adverse effect on forage available to livestock.

There is already conflict in the mddle east, so more conflict won't matter.

Did I say that?

You implied it with this statement:

As if there is not conflict now.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because man is a infinitesimal force on this Earth and in this Universe.

Sounds rather low self esteemy of you. I tend to think humankind is an incredibly powerful species with the obvious ability to significantly affect the Earth.

You do realize, I hope, that even the lowly algae changed the Earth's atmosphere significantly?

Life started to have a major impact on the environment once photosynthetic organisms evolved. These organisms, blue-green algae (picture of stromatolite, which is the rock formed by these algae), fed off atmospheric carbon dioxide and converted much of it into marine sediments consisting of the shells of sea creatures.

While photosynthetic life reduced the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, it also started to produce oxygen. For a long time, the oxygen produced did not build up in the atmosphere, since it was taken up by rocks, as recorded in Banded Iron Formations (BIFs; picture) and continental red beds. To this day, the majority of oxygen produced over time is locked up in the ancient "banded rock" and "red bed" formations. It was not until probably only 1 billion years ago that the reservoirs of oxidizable rock became saturated and the free oxygen stayed in the air.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You do realize, I hope, that even the lowly algae changed the Earth's atmosphere significantly?

You do realize what you have posted in that link is a hypothesis, not a fact.

 

[jimbob]

It is another hypothesis supported by evidence.

Article about stromatolites

Other research posits (Bank, C., 2002), based on genome sequencing, that cyanobacteria may have originated as late as 2.3 billion years ago, and were preceded by sulfur-oxidizing bacteria and sulfate-reducing bacteria. This mirrors the changes in the geochemical record, centered around 2.7 billion years ago. The hypothesis is consistent with geology that finds isotopic fractionation of sulfur compounds becomes large, followed by the sudden increase in oxygen in the atmosphere and surface water environments at about 2.2 or 2.3 Ba.

Whether or not stromatolite contains preserved cellular structure remains controversial, though the consensus is that in special cases, remnants of ancient cell structure can be viewed using special polishing techniques and high magnification. Additionally, determination of atom ratios (so called molecular fossils) in Archaean sediment from Australia has led to sound conjecture that microorganisms with nuclei appeared before 3.8 Ba.

Nonetheless, the cyanobacteria are conjectured to have been the predominant form of life on early earth for more than 2 Billion years, and were likely responsible for the creation of earth's atmospheric oxygen, consuming CO2 and releasing O2 through their photosynthetic metabolism. Creation of the modern atmosphere is, of course, perhaps the most critical event in geological history that powered the Cambrian explosion and subsequent evolution of the aerobic forms of life, including all animals.

There are isotopic signatures that show the atmosphere changing due to an increase in oxygen.

Face it, given the reactivity of oxgen, observing an atmosphere with appreciable levels of molecular oxygen would be an indicator that these levels of molecular oxygen are being maintained by life. If life on Earth were wiped out, then atmospheric oxygne would eventually vanish. This is simple chemistry.

In other words, the sum total of organisms on Earth can be shown to affect the atmosphere significantly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You do realize what you have posted in that link is a hypothesis, not a fact.

So's gravity.

 

[jimbob]

Back to an earlier, unresolved set of questions:

I have seen the assertion that Asia is cooling, but the evidence I can see is that most of Asia is warming:

The rate of warming does show a significant trend in north amrerica and in parts of europe over the last 25 years when compensated by population data. The trend is the opposite for most of asia and the pacific rim. It's pure speculation, but could it be that when we started cleaning our air, that it got a percent of a degree warmer? Have you ever heard of the asian brown cloud?

Followed by:

I looked at surface measurements and saw the trend[EDIT: in warming, nothing to do with post#161], however I do accept that economic growth could have had some effect due to development near measurement sites, so I decided on something that was far from most human local effects and was sensitive to temperature. Luckily for analysis, ice cover would seem to fit the bill quite well, certainly better than polar bear numbers.

[EDIT: This isn't cherry-picking data, as I didn't know what the result would be until I looked at it. I take it you have an issue with "data mining"? What is it as you seem to be using it as a pejorative term, I won't deny "datamining" but will deny "cherrypicking"]

The NASA GISS data map doesn't seem to agree that there is cooling asia, quite the opposite (unless I am colourblind and can't read a map)


MP4 here
from this page

1880-1884 anomaly vs 1951-1980 done in watercolor? These are not the driods that you are looking for.

Bob, or anyone else: Why is this not the data? It shows Asia getting warmer than its average from 1951-1980. Looking in the top left of the animation, it shows the dates. Up to 2003.

Again: 1951-1980 is the baseline.

China's glaciers seem to be shrinking, and the locals have noticed that spring is earlier, which agrees with NASA's data.

China: Melting glacier leaves world's worst polluter with no room for doubt

The Urumqi No1 Glacier is so named because it was the first icefield to be measured in China. Since 1953, scientists have been monitoring its thickness and length, analysing traces of pollution and tracking changes in temperature at this 3,800-metre altitude. The results leave no room for doubt that this part of the Tian (Heaven) mountain range is melting.

According to the Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, the glacier has lost more than 20% of its volume since 1962 as the temperature has increased by almost 1C. And the rate of shrinkage is accelerating. For the first time last year, it was so warm in the summer that rain rather than snow fell on the glacier. A lake formed on the top of the icefield, which is retreating at the rate of nine metres a year.

Does anyone have evidence that Asia is coling, except for Bob Conklin's assertion?

 

[Kotatsu]

If you think scientists just decide which areas to investigate and then do it, you have a very distorted view of how scientific progress happens.

What? That happens all the time. I do so in my research, and more or less everyone on my department does that. We look at already collected data, decide which of it is most interesting to pursue further, and go out to get money to be able to study that. My former supervisor, for instance, decided that it would be very interesting to do a nation-wide survey of earthworms (Lumbricidae; we have no other families occurring regularly), despite not being funded for that in any way. He then tried to get funding, but failed (so far). So instead, he's pursuing this research on non-funded basis, asking friends and colleagues and master students (and me) to collect material for him while we're travelling around the country anyway.

I do the same in my research: I decided on a subject I wanted to study --- which was not at all what I was funded to do, but which was far more practical, useful, and interesting --- and started researching that. The stuff I actually get funded for has so far taken second seat, while I pursue the research I think will be most interesting. I have subsequently got funding for that, but getting two grants out of eight applied for over the last six months has not made me change my interest.

I'm not saying that every scientist has this opportunity, but at least some of us do. Brodski does thus not necessarily have a "distorted view of how scientific progress happens": he may just have experience or knowledge about fields where this is possible, and even every-day --- experience and knowledge which you appear to lack.

 

[CFLarsen]

What? That happens all the time. I do so in my research, and more or less everyone on my department does that. We look at already collected data, decide which of it is most interesting to pursue further, and go out to get money to be able to study that. My former supervisor, for instance, decided that it would be very interesting to do a nation-wide survey of earthworms (Lumbricidae; we have no other families occurring regularly), despite not being funded for that in any way. He then tried to get funding, but failed (so far). So instead, he's pursuing this research on non-funded basis, asking friends and colleagues and master students (and me) to collect material for him while we're travelling around the country anyway.

I do the same in my research: I decided on a subject I wanted to study --- which was not at all what I was funded to do, but which was far more practical, useful, and interesting --- and started researching that. The stuff I actually get funded for has so far taken second seat, while I pursue the research I think will be most interesting. I have subsequently got funding for that, but getting two grants out of eight applied for over the last six months has not made me change my interest.

I'm not saying that every scientist has this opportunity, but at least some of us do. Brodski does thus not necessarily have a "distorted view of how scientific progress happens": he may just have experience or knowledge about fields where this is possible, and even every-day --- experience and knowledge which you appear to lack.

My point - which you conveniently left out - is that scientists need someone to pay the bill.

Scientific endeavour isn't a free-for-all. "Hey, let's buy a new particle accelerator!" "Sure, no problem..."

 

[varwoche]

Because man is a infinitesimal force on this Earth and in this Universe.

Did the thread segue from AGW to AUW while I was away?

Plants need CO₂, so lots must be good.

Indeed. Here is (an article about) a recent study that JDG might consider:

As fossil fuel burning continues to pump carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air, the world's land plants will be unable to absorb as much of it as had been predicted ... limitations on the availability of nitrogen, a necessary nutrient, will likely translate to limitations on the ability of plants to absorb the extra CO2. link

I've read that elevated CO2 is good for poison oak and for viney plants such as ivy. Just typing these words, on top of JDG's woody shrubs, and damn, I'm working up an appetite!

 

[Kotatsu]

My point - which you conveniently left out - is that scientists need someone to pay the bill.

And my point is that that can sometimes be sorted out afterwards, if at all. The example of my former supervisor is educating: he still pursues his nationwide study of earthworms without being in the least funded to do so. He does it by collecting them in his free time, on his vacation, by having friends, relatives and colleagues collect them and send them to him, and so on. None of this is research he gets funding for, and none is research that he is ever likely to get funding for (unless something drastic changes).

Here's another example: there is a guy who is studying distribution of Hippoboscid flies, parasitic to birds and mammals, in Sweden. He does this as a hobby, and does not receive any funding at all, but pays for his trips to various banding stations and museums from his own pocket (he works, if I recall correctly, in the construction industry, and is not affiliated with any university at all). He just found something that interested him, and set out to study it while pursuing his other hobby: banding birds. I don't know if he has started writing any papers yet (I've only met him a handful of times), but if he does that, he does it in his free time, unpaid to do it.

Scientific endeavour isn't a free-for-all. "Hey, let's buy a new particle accelerator!" "Sure, no problem..."

Not the expensive parts of science, no. But there are large fields in science that are much, much, cheaper, and that can be pursued without any kind of funding. Some parts of science still require nothing more than free time (vacations, evenings, weekends), a notebook, and a steady hand.

 

[SkeptiKilt]

So I finally got around to watching P&T's global-warming episode of Bull____. The only scientific journal cited was an issue of TIME magazine from nearly forty years ago with the famous "imminent Ice Age" article. The only climate scientist interviewed was the former weatherman for "Good Morning America" who went on to start The Weather Channel. Al Gore was ad hommed, as were the usual New Agey types and people in the street. In addition to the weatherman emeritus, we hear from a non-famous, non-groovy non-scientist who's president of a libertarian think tank, and a non-famous, non-groovy non-scientist from the group that published Al Gore's utility bills.

The reason Penn doesn't know much about climate change is that he's not asking the right people the right questions. This show lived up to its name.

 

[varwoche]

So I finally got around to watching P&T's global-warming episode of Bull____. The only scientific journal cited was an issue of TIME magazine from nearly forty years ago with the famous "imminent Ice Age" article. The only climate scientist interviewed was the former weatherman for "Good Morning America" who went on to start The Weather Channel.

John Coleman -- a CTist nuttier than an almond orchard.

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a SCAM.

Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmentalextremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Lucky we have great skeptical minds like Penn and Coleman exposing all the BS from those climate scientist commie bastards.

 

[CFLarsen]

And my point is that that can sometimes be sorted out afterwards, if at all. The example of my former supervisor is educating: he still pursues his nationwide study of earthworms without being in the least funded to do so. He does it by collecting them in his free time, on his vacation, by having friends, relatives and colleagues collect them and send them to him, and so on. None of this is research he gets funding for, and none is research that he is ever likely to get funding for (unless something drastic changes).

Here's another example: there is a guy who is studying distribution of Hippoboscid flies, parasitic to birds and mammals, in Sweden. He does this as a hobby, and does not receive any funding at all, but pays for his trips to various banding stations and museums from his own pocket (he works, if I recall correctly, in the construction industry, and is not affiliated with any university at all). He just found something that interested him, and set out to study it while pursuing his other hobby: banding birds. I don't know if he has started writing any papers yet (I've only met him a handful of times), but if he does that, he does it in his free time, unpaid to do it.

Not the expensive parts of science, no. But there are large fields in science that are much, much, cheaper, and that can be pursued without any kind of funding. Some parts of science still require nothing more than free time (vacations, evenings, weekends), a notebook, and a steady hand.

Oh, come on. What you are describing is a fantasy: Science generally isn't done in solitude, with no funding other than lunch money from the scientist's wife.

Science today is very much a collaborate effort, with scientists working together across countries, and seeking funding for research, studies, experiments and conferences. Science is big, and it's big business.

 

[Kotatsu]

Oh, come on. What you are describing is a fantasy: Science generally isn't done in solitude, with no funding other than lunch money from the scientist's wife.

Do you have any evidence that supports your implicit claim that I am lying when I describe the funding several of my colleagues' projects are currently receiving?

Science today is very much a collaborate effort, with scientists working together across countries, and seeking funding for research, studies, experiments and conferences. Science is big, and it's big business.

Tell me, do you do any kind of science yourself?

What you describe is certainly true --- for most branches of science: much of physics, chemistry, physiology, medicine, and so on. Other branches of science does not necessarily experience the same thing. Morphology, systematics, taxonomy, and related fields are excellent examples of this. These are subjects which are decidedly not big business, as evidenced by my examples above. A significant amount of all taxonomic work is being carried out by scientists who are retired, and thus have time to do it.