SkepticLance

iNow We are going to end up arguing semantics. Strong change requires a lot of time. However, your definition of strong may be different.

I think Mr Skeptic has presented my view point quite well. I have nothing against solar energy, except the cost. If and when it gets cheap enough, then we can use it a lot more. Right now, it remains too expensive for mass generation.

To Ophiolite I understand your point, and it is valid. However, it does not change the fact that evolutionary change over periods of thousands or tens of thousands of years, on a species with a long time between generations, must be quite small. It is still present, but not substantial. To get strong change of the kind we have been talking about in this thread requires hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.

iNow You need to look beyond your own limited judgements. The discussion has been about bulk supply of electricity - the sort of power that is generated in gigawatts. For that, solar panels are not a proven technology. Sure they are a proven technology for other uses, and I have already acknowledged that in earlier posts. This is what I said in post 323 "However, I accept the argument about the cost coming down. There is little doubt that the cost of solar panels and thus the cost of solar generated electricity, will come down, and possibly very dramatically. When that happens, solar power can be added to the range of mass electrical generation systems." Try to keep up.....

Swansont I hope I have not given the impression I am advocating we ignore solar panels. My view is that we need to devote large amounts of $$$ to research into a wide range of energy generating methods. This includes solar panels. It is just that, right now, the time for us to use solar energy has not arrived. Research, yes. But we need to invest mightily in proven technologies such as nuclear in order to make sure we have the electricity generation available for the enxt few decades.

To Edtharan Like wind power, solar power has a place even now. My friend with the solar panels for TV is a minor example. However, solar panels are in widespread use for powering all kinds of things that are off the main grid. Close to where I live is a lighthouse, which is powered by a big bank of batteries and a lot of solar panels. Yachts use solar panels on a widespread basis. Millions of yachts! For this reason, your argument about mass production is not valid. These panels are being mass produced already. However, I accept the argument about the cost coming down. There is little doubt that the cost of solar panels and thus the cost of solar generated electricity, will come down, and possibly very dramatically. When that happens, solar power can be added to the range of mass electrical generation systems. However, like nuclear fusion, that is a solution for the future. Until it happens, we should be focussing our attention on what is available now, at least for mass generation!

Obviously some enthusiasts for solar power here! That's fine, as long as they retain a firm grasp of reality. Solar panels are still immensely expensive as a source of electricity. I have a friend whose house is somewhat off the beaten track. He is not connected to the power grid. Mostly he gets by with gas cooking and heating, and lighting, from portable gas bottles. However, he recently decided he wanted to be able to watch TV. He set up a solar panel array to charge batteries, from which he could power his TV. It cost thousands of dollars! And it only powers his TV!

iNow I think there is a big communication gap here. Please re-state your objections to my stance as a clear cut message. Re cost of solar panels. I have given this so many times .... Anyway, here it is again. As from 2005, electricity from solar panels cost US$ 0-25 per kilowatt hour, and versus coal burning making electricity for 5 cents per kWHr. And the costs can and will change. Of course. But it has to come down an awful lot!

iNow said "I was pretty sure none of them were being taken seriously, and I'm glad your list confirmed that." So the millions of tonnes of palm oil being made into biodiesel are not being taken seriously??? That is a big consolation. All the ethanol from corn is not serious??? Wow! Solar panels are not serious. Gee! All the lobby groups pushing for the other alternatives are not serious? What a relief!

To iNow I have cited 'stupid actions' many times in threads you were involved in. A few have been implemented, and a whole lot more have been proposed, and thankfully not put to use. Yet. Here are a few. Palm oil for biodiesel. Corn for ethanol as biofuel. Global engineering projects such as ground up limestone added to the ocean, or reflective mirrors in orbit, or millions of tonnes of iron added to the ocean. Solar panels for electricity, at a cost massively more than smarter generation methods. Getting rid of cars, and putting people on bicycles or walking. The loss in standard of living and personal freedom would be immense. Turning everyone vegetarian, and massively increasing dietary anemia. etc. There are much better alternatives. Electricity generation from a range of sources, including hot rock, nuclear, wind etc. The development of electric 'plug in' hybrid cars. GM is supposed to mass release its first in 2010. Ford 3 years later. Biofuel from whole plant conversion, using cellulose digesting enzymes. Biofuel from algae grown in sewage treatment ponds. Fuel from garbage. etc.

To ParanoiA I suggest you re-read posts 166 and 168. Your point has already been made by Mr. Skeptic and made extremely well. My response agreed with his, and suggested that we need to follow two lines of action to maximise benefit.

To Edtharan The problem with solar power at present is cost. No good trying to save the world if it beggars us all. Solar panel electricity cost is US$0-25 per kWHr. By comparison hydroelectricity is 5.7 cents. Nuclear 7.5. Wind 10c. I have no problem with doing what we can right now. I have said in other posts that we need to be beginning a whole lot of new nuclear power stations. Takes 20 years from conception to commission, and in 20 years the world will need them badly! My objection is to stupid actions carried out right now. Smart actions that will work without substantial undesirable side effects, and which do not entail major economic loss, I support.

iNow If you have a point, please make it. Your last comment is quite unhelpful.

To iNow I am really not interested in chasing red herrings. Look again at the title of this thread. It says nothing about British teenagers attacking people with knives. As far as guns and suicide are concerned, let me re-quote from my Harvard University reference. "Says HSPH Professor of Health Policy David Hemenway, the ICRC’s director: “Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.” But few can survive a gun blast. " That really says it all.

Edtharan Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds as if you think we should be acting much more quickly? My feeling is that it is a mistake to do that. There is no immediate crisis, and we can do more harm than good by not implementing the correct measures. We have done little in 30 years, true. However, I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. 30 years ago, we did not have the means to replace fossil fuels. Electricity generation from non fossil means (apart from hydro and geothermal) were much more expensive or hazardous. The technology has now got to the stage where nuclear is safer, and such things as wind and solar are getting cheaper. A complete replacement of fossil fuels will probably take another 30 years at least, since the new techniques required are still under development. However, the progress is there. We now have hybrid cars. Next stage, perhaps next year, is plug in hybrid cars that will run as pure electric cars most of the time. After that, rapid recharge pure electric cars that can do 200 kms per charge and recharge in 10 minutes, meaning that you can use these vehicles for long journeys. We have means of cutting power usage. New technology lights that use 10% of the power incandescent bulbs required. New LED lights slowly being introduced that are even better. Heat pumps instead of electric heaters that use a quarter of the power per heat unit. This is a tiny part of the whole list of new developments that will help reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Given time, we will have the means. Rush us, and the result will be much, much worse.

To ParanoiA You are so far off the beam in your post that you should be starting a new thread entirely. Our discussion has been about suicide. Not teenagers wielding knives as weapons against other people, or judges showing their pocketknives. You ever heard of someone attempting suicide with a knife? It has gotta be really painful. And how many people successfully kill themselves with a knife? I bet the number is close to zero. My thesis has been that the ready availability of firearms, and especially hand-guns, increases the fatality rate through suicide. That has nothing to do with knives. And I have proved my case.

DH and insane alien are absolutely right. I think of it as energy transfer. Our skin has receptors that measure the temperature of the skin. The skin is warmed by our blood, and cooled by outside air. If the cooling is rapid, then skin temperature will drop, and the skin receptors will report on the lower skin temperature. "Skin receptor calling brain. Local report. It is bloody cold down here." Since water is able to carry more heat energy than air (air is a good thermal insulator) then wet air can carry more heat energy away from the skin than dry air. More energy lost means temperature drop and the skin reports it is cold.

To Edtharan One thing I have noticed in these discussions is a strong tendency by many people to read into other people's posts what they think they said, rather than what they really said. For example, take the following paragraph in your last post : "But it also seem like we disagree about what to do about it. You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't do anything about the change, where as I am saying that we should try to reduce the effects of human activity as much as possible." I have never said we should do nothing. My message has been very consistent and repeated often. My assertion is that action is needed, but must be well researched, well managed, and controlled. Panicky reaction must be avoided. My favourite example of stupid response is the widespread use of palm oil in the EEC to replace diesel as part of their Kyoto requirements for biofuel. End result : the palm oil producing countries cut down tropical rainforest wholesale to plant the oil palm trees. The net result is to make the environmental situation much worse from several viewpoints. I would much rather see action being slower than desired, than too rapid, since that should reduce or avoid the stupidity. Too much alarm being promulgated leads to lobby groups pushing for rapid action, and that leads to ever worsening environmental damage. A more recent idea is to grind up billions of tonnes of limestine and add it into the ocean, to absorb more CO2. CaCO3 +CO2 + H20 = Ca(HCO3)2 Yet this idea has not been researched except in the most cursory way. Now I hope that the powers that be are smart enough to put that idea on the back burner for a good 20 years or so, to permit all aspects to be fully researched. Who knows what ecological and other harmful consequences might result from that amount of bicarbonate in the ocean. I argue against the pessimistic view of global warming, not to tell everyone we should not do anything about it, but to alleviate the panic, with the idea that we can choose action that has had time to be properly studied. Or else to use actions that have a smaller global impact, making them less likely to cause serious harm.

Edtharan Again, much of what you say, I agree with. Let us agree that global climate is a complex system with both positive and negative feed-back systems, and is in a state of dynamic change. I am interested in the Permian-Triassic extinction event. I just watched a doco on this subject about a week ago. The proponent in this doco proposed that this event was, like the Cretaceous extinction, caused by an asteroid impact. Apparently, when an asteroid strikes, shock waves pass through the Earth and converge at the opposite point of the globe, compared to the site of impact. At the point of convergence, they yield a massive release of energy. The theory, for the Permian event, was that this point of convergence was Siberia, and caused the Siberian Plate Eruptions. Interestingly, for the Cretaceous event, the impact off Mexico is matched by a point diametrically opposite in India, where, at the time of the impact, a massive series of volcanic eruptions took place 65 million years ago. If the Siberian eruptions were diametrically opposite to a Permian asteroid impact, the site of the impact crater would be Antarctica. And such a crater, of suitable massive size has been 'discovered'. Sadly, it is under more than a mile of ice, and no-one has drilled it to collect samples, and prove it is an impact crater. It has been located by gravity measurements instead. Assuming the Permian event was, indeed, an asteroid impact, the asteroid would be so big that, when the tip struck the Earth, the opposite end would still be in the stratosphere. The aftermath included a massive release of Hydrogen Sulfide. We do not need to postulate climate change as the cause of the extinctions (though the climate change was there) since the H2S was quite sufficient to wipe out the 98% of species that died.

To Edtharan Again, much of what you said is something I agree with. A complex dynamic system with have both positive and negative feed-back systems. What I get irked with is the catastrophist view that ignores the negative feed-backs and concentrates on hypothetical positive feed-backs which might, or might not, kick in some time in the next few decades. Of course the catastrophists never admit they might not. Not do they ever admit that there might be negative feed-backs to provide a rough balance. It is the bias, and one-eyed view that I oppose. And the incredibly pessimistic belief in total disaster. The world has been much warmer in the past. As I said, if we look back 120,000 years to the previous interglacial, it got to 2 Celsius warmer than the present. And if we look at the trend of warmings during interglacials over the past million years, it is increasing. This means that if our current interglacial is part of the trend, it will peak at more than 2 C warmer than the present temperature, even without anthropogenic influences. Even that past warming was not the record. If we look back to the Cretaceous, there were times when temperature got to almost 10 C warmer than the present - though there is some debate about this, since the measures are unavoidably indirect. Average Cretaceous temperature was 4 C warmer than now. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97PA00721.shtml There is no doubt that the Age of Dinosaurs was much warmer than now, and the world did not come to an end. Nor was it a disaster for life. Indeed, it was a time for incredibly abundant life and amazing biodiversity. One item I read suggested that CO2 was up to 10 times our historical average during the Cretaceous, though I do not quite know how they drew that conclusion. The point I am making is simply that there is no immediate cause for panic. The warming of the world is faster than normal, yes. But past warmings have permitted abundant and diverse life, and this warming will be the same. Change is happening, but not catastrophe.

There is a neural tube defect called anencephaly. It occurs rarely but often enough to have been well studied. Essentially the baby is born with no higher brain. Only the portions of brain near the brain stem, which keep the heart pumping but not much else. Fortunately, such babies normally die soon after birth. This defect is more common when mothers eat corn products contaminated with fumonisin, which is a toxin made by the fungus Fusarium. It is most common on organic (hence unsprayed) corn products. Such a baby essentially has no sense organs, and cannot be called truly human.

The original question needs modifying since it mentions mutation. I am sure that was an error. Mutation is largely unaffected by technology, though in the modern world certain chemicals and radiation may increase the rate. it will not make the mutations useful, though, and the vast majority remain harmful. However, I have had a personal theory for a long time that technology has been the primary driver of human evolution over the past few million odd years. You need to accept that technology includes very simple methods. For example ; modern day chimps in the wild crack nuts between two rocks. That is the use of tool, and is therefore technology, albeit very simple. If we accept that our ancestors have been using, to an increasing extent, simple technology for some millions of years, then that technology must have had an impact, and those individuals with genetic ability to use simple technology better than others would have a selective advantage. So upright stance can be seen as an adaptation to use tools and weapons.. The technology would also have an impact by permitting other changes. The loss of fur in humans is unique, in that we are the only terrestrial mammal in our size range to lose fur. There are obvious advantages in improving cooling and in permitting easier parasite removal. However, other species have not made the change. Why? I suggest it is because technology permitted other means of keeping warm (even the tropics can get cold) such as clothing or the use of fire. With an alternative warming method at times when it is cold, loss of fur to improve stamina for hunting would make sense. If we are discussing human evolution, we have to discuss a time period of hundreds of thousands of years or more, since evolution is a slow process. So, has technology influenced human evolution over that time period? I think it has.

To CP That is correct. Global warming has raised ocean temperatures by 0.12 C. A level of 1 to 2 C rise is needed above maximum normal summer temperature to cause coral bleaching. However, such temperature rises have always happened on a temporary basis. For example : the El Nino/La Nina cycle alone can cause an oceanic temperature rise and fall of up to 4 Celsius. If this rise hits at peak summer times, guess what happens? And this cycle does not correlate with global warming. It is just a natural cycles that has existed well before current warming. My own guess is that coral bleaching has always happened, and is part of the normal ecology of reefs. The corals do recover, and probably always have.

I have to make a comment about another myth - that of malaria returning with global warming. Malaria was rife throughout Europe and North America (along with other 'tropical' diseases like yellow fever) during the Little Ice Age. William Shakespeare lived and wrote in the middle of this cold time, and he mentions malaria no less than 9 times in his plays (under the medieval name - ague). http://www.cdc.gov/Ncidod/eid/vol6no1/reiter.htm "Such mention of agues did not disappear when the coldest years of the Little Ice Age began. In 16th century England, many marshlands were notorious for their ague-stricken populations and remained so well into the 19th century. William Shakespeare (1564–1616), who was born in the autumn of Bruegel's first fierce winter, mentioned ague in eight of his plays. For example, in The Tempest (Act II, Scene II), the slave Caliban curses Prosper, his master: "All the infections that the sun sucks up/ From bogs, fens, flats, on Prosper fall and make him / By inch-meal a disease!" Later, Caliban is terrified by the appearance of Stephano, who, mistaking his trembling and apparent delirium for an attack of malaria, tries to cure the symptoms with alcohol: ". . . (he) hath got, as I take it, an ague . . . he's in his fit now and does not talk after the wisest. He shall taste of my bottle: if he have never drunk wine afore it will go near to remove his fit . . . Open your mouth: this will shake your shaking . . . if all the wine in my bottle will recover him, I will help his ague." " This 'ague' was eliminated by action to attack the various species of malaria carrying mosquitoes. In England, the biggest action was the draining of the fens near London, where those mosquitos bred. The final coup de gras to malaria was early 20th century, with the use of DDT to kill mosquitos. In fact, if you took the period from 1750 (coldest part of the LIA) to, say, 1950, then the incidence of malaria in the west inversely correlates with temperature. Malaria is more a disease of poverty than tropical climate. It is fully capable of thriving in a range of temperatures. However, it is eliminated by eliminating the vector. Today, we have a range of techniques for eliminating the vector, and the reason it still is prevalent in Africa etc is simply a lack of resources (poverty) to do what is needed.

Coral bleaching is due to a reasonably strong change in temperature. http://www.marinebiology.org/coralbleaching.htm "Coral species live within a relatively narrow temperature margin, and anomalously low and high sea temperatures can induce coral bleaching. Bleaching events occur during sudden temperature drops accompanying intense upwelling episodes, (-3 degrees C to –5 degrees C for 5-10 days), seasonal cold-air outbreaks. Bleaching is much more frequently reported from elevated se water temperature. A small positive anomaly of 1-2 degrees C for 5-10 weeks during the summer season will usually induce bleaching." Note : It takes at least 1 C to induce bleaching, even at the time of highest summer temperature. Global warming has warmed the oceans by only 0.12 C. Thus, for coral bleaching to occur, it requires a much larger increase in temperature. This happens with a localised (hundreds or thousands of square kilometres) hot spot near the ocean surface. These have always been a part of ocean activity. After all, it is local hot spots that are the primary drivers of hurricanes, and we have had hurricanes since way before we had global warming.