Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Difference between Global Warming Science

Pages: (5) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 >

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,07:16    Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,08:11) tipping points are more in line with the medias narrative and the activist message then any real data.  Every ten years we hear there are only ten years left.  All the "science" are computer models using assumptions that fix the direction of the result.  I'm more inclined to trust the resilience of this massively complex system called Earth then to accept that we can dramatically alter it after about 200 years of industry.  Again, actual science rather than rhetoric is desired here. Then produce some evidence for your claim. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,08:33    Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,13:11) tipping points are more in line with the medias narrative and the activist message then any real data.  Every ten years we hear there are only ten years left.  All the "science" are computer models using assumptions that fix the direction of the result.  I'm more inclined to trust the resilience of this massively complex system called Earth then to accept that we can dramatically alter it after about 200 years of industry.  Again, actual science rather than rhetoric is desired here. Great. Do you understand how what you've just said is a slightly longer restatment of your previous "I don't believe in tipping points" comments? As someone who craves substance, or in your case claims to whilst mysteriously avoiding it at all costs, shouldn't you do as Lou suggests and back up this claim of your with some...well...substance. Perhaps some evidence would be nice. Louis -------------- Bye.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,08:35    nice, but my claim is my opinion based upon my experience and the data I haven't seen.  You want me to change my opinion then you need to convince me.  Otherwise you're asking me to believe on say so.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,08:39    Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,14:35) nice, but my claim is my opinion based upon my experience and the data I haven't seen.  You want me to change my opinion then you need to convince me.  Otherwise you're asking me to believe on say so. Whaaaaaa? Data you haven't seen? Oh I'm not even going to touch that pile of happy illogical horseshit with a bargepole! I'm not asking you to do anything other than support the claims you've made. As I've said several times, you have no idea what (if anything) I think about climate change and/or tipping points etc because I've said very little about what I think about it. No one is trying to convince you of anything, all anyone is trying to do is get you to support your claims. See the difference? Louis -------------- Bye.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,11:56    sorry, Louis, I hate to burst your bubble but this isn't about you.  I don't care what you think about climate change or tipping points and I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I simply stated my opinion.  If you feel so inclined and are urged to change my opinion then you need to present some data.  If not then be content that I have my opinion for whatever it's worth.

C.J.O'Brien Posts: 395 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,14:14    Quote All the "science" are computer models using assumptions that fix the direction of the result. Really? Perhaps you could identify these assumptions? Here are some links to information about climate modeling. Show me in these descriptions of the models where the assumptions are that invalidate the results in your view. http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/t_modeling.html http://www.climateprediction.net/science/model-intro.php http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_climscen.html Or are you just bloviating about matters completely beyond your understanding? Quote I'm more inclined to trust the resilience of this massively complex system called Earth then to accept that we can dramatically alter it after about 200 years of industry. Got it. Bloviating. Here's the deal, skip. "Massively complex systems" are dynamic. They depend highly sensitively on feedback loops. What may look like "resilience" on the timescales familiar to human experience is actually the result of fluctuations between attractors over geological timescales. However, the study of chaos theory and dynamic systems in general tells us that while the system may seem locked in to a basin of attraction, perturbation may cause a rapid shift to a new attractor or chaotic fluctuations. What we've done by pumping trillions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is give this feedback dependant system just such a perturbation. Finally, it's not the resilience of Earth that we're worried about. All can agree that the climate has been different in the past, and that it will be different in the future, all due to entirely natural fluctuations. However, in the short term, the resilience of human agro-economy is very much in doubt, what with our teeming billions of mouths to feed. Quote Again, actual science rather than rhetoric is desired here. Agreed. Got any? -------------- The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand. --Joe G

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,14:57    no problem C.J., I'll compare your links to the 5 papers from Climate Dynamics that I'm currently reading and see where that leads.  I would point out though that your comments rest on two assumptions that may well be unfounded.  One, that we are at a point where a variation can cause a rapid shift, i.e. tipping point and, two, that the trillions of tons at this time point can have a significant enough impact upon the system to achieve this rapid shift.  For this scenario we have no direct observational evidence and must rely on models for the predictions.  Also, you're actually a multi-variable response including rainfall distributions, humidity changes, soil and mineral variations, sunlight to cloud ratios, and probably dozens more variables that may are may not be significantly tied to slight temperature increases over the next hundred years.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,15:29    shorter skeptic WERE YOU THERE???? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,15:30    Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,11:56) sorry, Louis, I hate to burst your bubble but this isn't about you.  I don't care what you think about climate change or tipping points and I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I simply stated my opinion.  If you feel so inclined and are urged to change my opinion then you need to present some data.  If not then be content that I have my opinion for whatever it's worth. Your opinion is worth nothing.   Louis' opinions are worth quite a bit more. I really have to wonder about people who are "skeptical" of science, when it is abundantly clear they haven't mastered the basics. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,15:35    Quote (Lou FCD @ April 22 2008,07:16) Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,08:11) tipping points are more in line with the medias narrative and the activist message then any real data.  Every ten years we hear there are only ten years left.  All the "science" are computer models using assumptions that fix the direction of the result.  I'm more inclined to trust the resilience of this massively complex system called Earth then to accept that we can dramatically alter it after about 200 years of industry.  Again, actual science rather than rhetoric is desired here. Then produce some evidence for your claim. ROTFL, Lou! Scientific fact:  There is currently more energy absorbed by the earth than is emitted.   Q: What does the first law of thermodynamics say will happen? Let us see if skeptic can think at a high school level. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,15:44    Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,14:57) no problem C.J., I'll compare your links to the 5 papers from Climate Dynamics that I'm currently reading and see where that leads.  I would point out though that your comments rest on two assumptions that may well be unfounded.  One, that we are at a point where a variation can cause a rapid shift, i.e. tipping point and, two, that the trillions of tons at this time point can have a significant enough impact upon the system to achieve this rapid shift.  For this scenario we have no direct observational evidence and must rely on models for the predictions.  Also, you're actually a multi-variable response including rainfall distributions, humidity changes, soil and mineral variations, sunlight to cloud ratios, and probably dozens more variables that may are may not be significantly tied to slight temperature increases over the next hundred years. I am reminded of this classic bit from cinema: Otto: Don't call me stupid.                     Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people!                     I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs.                     But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?                     Otto:  Apes don't read philosophy. Wanda: Yes, they do, Otto.                     They just don't understand it. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,15:50    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ April 22 2008,16:35) Quote (Lou FCD @ April 22 2008,07:16) Then produce some evidence for your claim. ROTFL, Lou! Scientific fact:  There is currently more energy absorbed by the earth than is emitted.   Q: What does the first law of thermodynamics say will happen? Let us see if skeptic can think at a high school level. Yes, well I'm not holding my breath. I think Quote my claim is my opinion based upon my experience and the data I haven't seen. about sums up all I need to know from here. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,16:43    that's a very interesting statement regarding relative opinions, I'll have to keep that in mind. Also, I'm not skeptical of science just it's interpretation and misuse. just to entertain: what is the largest heat sink on the planet?

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,19:23    Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,17:56) sorry, Louis, I hate to burst your bubble but this isn't about you.  I don't care what you think about climate change or tipping points and I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I simply stated my opinion.  If you feel so inclined and are urged to change my opinion then you need to present some data.  If not then be content that I have my opinion for whatever it's worth. You've missed my point wildly as usual. You are making a claim about "tipping points" etc being a load of old cobblers. We are aware that this is your opinion because you have stated it (more than once). What I and others are asking is the basis for this opinion. What evidence do you have that supports this opinion of yours. Do you understand that your opinion is not the, or even a, default position? Provide evidence to support your opinion. Understand yet? The point is to try to get you to support your claims to some degree, no matter how tiny. Simply restating your claims is not the same thing as supporting them. It seems like I've mentioned this before. It also seems like I'm not the only one. So Obliviot, for the umpteenth time: what scientific evidence do you have that the "tipping points" proposed by climate scientists are false? Try to support your claim with more than "I don't like the way they are used in the media" or some such irrelevance. I, and others, are asking about the SCIENCE behind your claim. Stop evading supporting your claims please. No one cares about convincing anyone or any such red herring, that is yet another one of the "Obliviot Standard Playbook Moves For Avoiding Supporting His Claims". You have said X, we are asking on what basis you can claim X to be the case. I'll try to use a hypothetical example you might understand. You claim to be a scientist, a chemist (my field) no less. (Needless to say I am massively sceptical of this claim but that's a side issue, we'll assume you are telling the truth for the sake of the example) Here goes: If Person A (let's call him Andy) were to come into the lab one morning and claim to have synthesised tetrodotoxin, from glucose, in seven steps, using non-toxic, cheap reagents and room temperature, economic reaction, naturally I'd hope you would be very sceptical of Andy's claim. How would you get Andy to support his claim that he had done this? So now you have two questions to answer: 1) provide support for your claims re: tipping points. 2) provide a description of how you'd get Andy to support his claims re: tetrodotoxin synthesis. Try to actually do this, you might be amazed at the progress it generates. Louis -------------- Bye.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,19:58    The idea that science provides insufficient information to inform political action is ludicrous. That the information isn't perfect is immaterial. It is the best information available. Specific evidence may have a higher or lower probability but intentional obfuscation such as has been employed by the Bush Administration at NASA and NOAA is equally important information to inform political action. The probability based issues of GW definitely call for deliberate, reasoned action rather than willy-nilly regulation but the science does indeed present a political problem that requires political solutions. I think we have entered a new age in human interactions where the attitude expressed so beautifully, if unintentionally, by skeptic are actually dangerous. The science is struggling against an intentional attempt to cover it up rather than address it. This is unacceptable. The science itself is not political but it presents political challenges which require access to accurate figures and lots and lots of peer review. Why would they fraudulently and criminally attempt to discredit the science? At that point society should be using that particular piece of information to inform its action. Then we can get back to trying to understand the science. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,04:14    These weird hours are drastically effecting my post content and quality. Hmmm. I'm gonna need some drugs and maybe a prostitute or two I think. Skeptic, have you ever learned how computer modeling works? I'm forgetting again what kind of science you learned about. Hell, I'm forgetting what kind of science I learned about. Sometimes though a couple of pages just copied and pasted right from the unabridged dictionary just about do the trick. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,07:07    Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,11:56) sorry, Louis, I hate to burst your bubble but this isn't about you.  I don't care what you think about climate change or tipping points and I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I simply stated my opinion.  If you feel so inclined and are urged to change my opinion then you need to present some data.  If not then be content that I have my opinion for whatever it's worth. Skeptic, this has nothing to do with opinions. We simply asked you to support your opinion, because we can't discuss without content. Apperantly, you don't understand what Louis sad, he sad he wanted (just like me) to see some foundation for your statements. Really, how the héll can you base your opinion on data you haven't seen (does it even exist)?? I really don't understand how you do that.

Falk Macara Posts: 11 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,09:05    Quote (Assassinator @ April 23 2008,07:07) . . . Really, how the hell can you base your opinion on data you haven't seen (does it even exist)?? I really don't understand how you do that. It's easy. Step one involves vast quantities of mind-altering substances.   If step two involves the inside of an ambulance, you may have overdone it. In certain circumstances, brain chemistry can be permanently altered; drop height experiments on infants figues prominently* as a mechanism. Now, if the question was "how can you hold forth an opinion for the purpose of debate when you are unable to supply any foundation for this opinion which may support rational debate", you hope the other guy has imbibed vast quantities of mind-altering substances.   Skeptic:  I'll start you off with a few options; feel free to make up a few of your own: -> Eccentricity of the orbit of the Earth. -> Solar Volatility. -> Natural climate variation distorting stochastic predictions. -> It's all a big commie-liberal-gay-jewish-athiest-Intelligentsia conspiracy to make it too hot to wear mind-ray deflectors# -> ??? *:  To teach the controversy on the theory of gravity, I presume. #: I'm amazed you needed to look at this footnote, actually.

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,13:18    Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,16:43) that's a very interesting statement regarding relative opinions, I'll have to keep that in mind. Also, I'm not skeptical of science just it's interpretation and misuse. just to entertain: what is the largest heat sink on the planet? It doesn't matter!   The problem is one of balance in radiative flux in and out at the surface (which coincidentally is where we live). Air has a low heat capacity, so its temperature rises readily.  Once heated, transfer of heat from the air to the ocean is very inefficient. A sophomore level explanation (note the lack of discussion of heat sinks) is at http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/gh_kushnir.html Yet again you show that your opinion of your own scientific knowledge is a sterling example of the Dunning-Krueger effect.   Are you getting the message yet?  For your opinions to "count" you must actually know something relevant to the issue.  I can tell that Louis is a very good synthetic organic chemist, with some background in drug design, and has invested some effort into thinking about science, religion, philosophy in general. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,17:05    From the beginning... I can say that I've haven't seen data to convince me after having read available data and remaining unconvinced.  By no means have I read everything but so far nothing is swaying my opinion.  This shouldn't be a difficult concept as it is used constantly here to justify no belief in God. Secondly, I have two issues that affect my posts, time and effort.  Where appropriate I may feel the need to invest the time and effort on a topic.  In most cases, I just haven't seen the point.  I'm not here to change anyone's mind.  Just try to keep that in mind. and finally, opinions are opinions and none "count" more than others.

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,18:55    Quote (skeptic @ April 23 2008,18:05) and finally, opinions are opinions and none "count" more than others. Which is, of course, why when you need to fix your car, you hold the opinion of the local loony in the same regard as trained mechanics. This possibly explains why it breaks every 5 minutes. But thats just an opinion. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,19:03    I don't care whether or not my opinion on anything "counts", although I'm flattered to think someone might occasionally find it so. Hey, we all love to be loved right? ;-) Too far? LOL What I *DO* care about are the support free, content free claims from Obliviot, and his insistance on battling the straw atheist/liberal/whatever he has conjured upin his head. So please can we stay away from falling into the trap of Obliviot's Standard Playbook For Avoiding Supporting His Claims. A trap I fall into like the La Brea Tar Pit of Tard it is, nearly every chance I get. Obliviot: Answer the two questionsI posed above. Stop evading the issue. McDonalds can do without you flipping burgers for five minutes as you compose your latest excuse for not supporting your claims. Louis -------------- Bye.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,20:27    Quote I can tell that Louis is a very good synthetic organic chemist, Louis is synthetic? Henry

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,21:12    or try to comprehend this Louis, is there any true point to me answering any question you pose?

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,22:53    Quote (Henry J @ April 23 2008,20:27) Quote I can tell that Louis is a very good synthetic organic chemist, Louis is synthetic? :p Henry Louis is organic? Jeeze, put me in pharmaceuticals for a few years and I don't know if you'd be able to say that about me. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,05:09    Quote (skeptic @ April 24 2008,03:12) or try to comprehend this Louis, is there any true point to me answering any question you pose? Very much so, because (well apart from the question about hypothetical Andy's lab results) in this case it is basically the identical question that EVERYONE is asking you. Try again. Stop avoiding supporting your claims. Also has it ever occured to you that if you actually supported your claims when asked, these threads would be a lot shorter and less vitriolic. It's been pointed out to you time and again that the FACT of disagreement is never an issue, it's the MANNER in which you disagree: in your case that is assertion followed by repeated dishonest attempts avoiding supporting that assertion. Again I am FAR from the only person who has pointed this out to you. This is as good a case as any: you say you doubt "tipping points" are part of the decent science of climate change and that basically they are a load of activist/political crap dreamt up for some obscure reason. You've made some hand waves regarding: a) you've seen no evidence to counter this opinion, b) that these things suspiciously fit to political agendas you disagree with, c) because tenure/book deals etc can be corrupting (just like that South Korean stem cell chap) a scientist involved in the field directly related to the problem should stay away from any ideas about how to mitigate/solve the problem just in case he/she is corrupt(ed). a) is an argument from ignorance. b) and c) are familiar enumerations of your tendancy to plumb for a conspiracy theory when you have no evidence. Not to mention the backhanded slander of hundred of thousands of honest, hard working scientists as being corrupt/potentially corrupt because they (gasP0 have found evidence and provide solutions to problems that conflicts with your preconceived political or religious biases. Such substance you provide! You claim to crave substance yet when given umpteen opportunities to provide some/discuss some you run around flapping your hands and doing everything to avoid actually supporting your claims. This thread has been up for 8 or 9 days now lets be nice and conservatively call it a week. For that week I and others have repeatedly asked you to provide some support, scientific of course, for your claims. We've even said we'll ignore most of the claims you've made in favour of you supporting JUST ONE of them. Now just answer the question re: evidence supporting your decrial of "tipping points" and the hypothetical lab question I posed. Stop avoiding them. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,05:11    Quote (BWE @ April 24 2008,04:53) Quote (Henry J @ April 23 2008,20:27)   Quote I can tell that Louis is a very good synthetic organic chemist, Louis is synthetic? :p Henry Louis is organic? Jeeze, put me in pharmaceuticals for a few years and I don't know if you'd be able to say that about me. I contain carbon. I was made by my parents. Organic and synthetic all in one go. Oh wait, was that not what you meant? Louis ETA: P.S. We don't actually have to put ourselves into pharmaceuticals, actual immersion is not required. However some of us do enjoy an occasional bath in the plant's reaction vessels. If you find a pube in your Lipitor tablet, just give me a call and I'm sure we can all come to some arrangement. {ahem} -------------- Bye.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,08:33    Enough skeptic. We are all now fully aware of your opinion and that you base your opinion on your opinion.  Stop derailing the threads with them. If you'd like to continue, contribute.  If you have something of value to add, add it but support it. Otherwise, save me the trouble of clicking the BW button. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,12:27    Quote (skeptic @ April 21 2008,08:53) quote "and for some people and places that will be too late" nuf said. I do have to admit that you did hit the nail on the head on one point, when it comes to your posts I skim them.  They are typically too long, redundant and filled with worthless drivel.  But you right about that point.  I would suggest that you start adding some substance. Now about GW, if I read you right here you'd like to discuss climate change with me in the hopes of launching some other attack in a similiar redundant vein.  Well here's your opening...in my opinion, I have seen no evidence that tipping points exist so I'm less inclined to think we are at a point where somewhere in the next 10-20 years some event or series of events will occur putting human existence in jeopardy.  Go ahead, convince me.  I honestly have no dog in this fight except for a sincere aversion to the political manipulation of science to achieve an agenda (both ID and radical evolutionists fall under this same umbrella for me).  So if the world is actually under a state of uncontrolled warming and human existence is threatened then I'm all ears.  Unfortunately, all I ever hear is the politics and never convincing science. There you go, a little project for your afternoon enjoyment. OK, 2 things. 1) If the political aim of radical evolutionists is to... Wait a minute. What is the political aim of radical evolutionists? Is it substantially different than one or more of the stated political aims of Thomas Jefferson? 2) Skeptic, tipping points define almost every system. Stasis in a system is the result of unchanging inputs over time. When populations decline, they can reach a tipping point where the decline turns to a crash. Water sloshes merrily around at .5' c but at  0 suddenly undergoes a phase transition. Phase transitions have all kinds of chaotic properties but typically happen rather suddenly. This is of course oversimplified but I am surprised you would say that there is no evidence for tipping points since you said you do some kind of science.  What kind of science is that again? I ask because tipping points are one of the most salient features of any system. Complex mechanical systems almost never, (I can't think of any examples at all right now, maybe later) change gradually in response to changing conditions. I guess gradual should be defined in terms of climate as averaging climate in 500 year increments back over the last billion or so.  You get stasis then abrupt jumps then stasis. -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,13:19    Touching on the effects of change in climate on human diversity, comes this story from CNN. Quote WASHINGTON (AP)  -- Human beings may have had a brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, an extensive genetic study suggests. The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis released Thursday. The report notes that a separate study by researchers at Stanford University estimated the number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the early Stone Age. Quote Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago, and researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups that developed independently. Paleontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, said: "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction?" .pdf of the paper is here, from the American Journal of Human Genetics.  (ETA: I think this paper goes with my next comment, but I'm not seeing where it connects to this comment yet...) Scary. Edited by Lou FCD on April 24 2008,14:47 -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Pages: (5) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard