SkepticLance

Chris said Secondly, CO2 is the primary driver of climate change from about 1950 to present. This is a misleading statement. From 1950 to 1966 the world was cooling. From 1960 to 1976 the overall temperatures did not change much (a little up and down). Only since 1976 has there been significant temperature rise. Thus CO2 has caused significant climate change only since 1976. Could you give me a date for your graph? In other words, what time period does it refer to?

Just a small point of correction. The bible does not actually say how old the Earth or the universe are. It says that God created it all in 6 days, but some biblical scholars argue that the word that was translated as 'days' might have meant 'time period'. It is some rather silly biblical scholars who nit pick their way through the bible, and calculate, using some rather weird assumptions, that the Earth is 6,000 years old. It is a long time since I read the bible, but I recall that it is very ambiguous on time periods. These days, I rely on science publications. Much more reliable.

To the original questions. 1. Any place CO2 accumulates. Yes. But only temporarily. In the longer term it disperses. Volcanic action leads to temporary local concentrations, as does emission from certain lakes, even to the extent of wholesale mortality to local people when the CO2 'burps' out. 2. Turning CO2 to O2. Can be done, but it is an energy absorbing process. Thus, energy has to be consumed. Since most man-made CO2 production occurs in order to release energy, the reverse is kind of unlikely. Of course, green plants do the CO2 to O2 thing all the time. Another small point. CFC's do NOT accumulate over the poles. They just have a stronger ozone depleting effect there.

Samec's ideas seem to boil down to the 'God of the Gaps' argument. If there is a gap in our knowledge, it must be God. It also ignores the sheer size of the universe. 4 billion years of comets still add up to a tiny fraction of the known mass of the solar system. A bunch of a few trillion balls of dirty ice somewhere out in space explains it nicely. Does not have to be the Oort cloud, of course. Could be that the dirty snowballs are simply drifting through the galaxy, and the odd one gets captured by the sun's gravity. However, the Oort Cloud hypothesis does explain it all very well. The Oort Cloud would also contain the odd planet sized body, which would provide a gravity tug to direct those dirty snowballs with the impetus to head sunward.

To Mr. Skeptic Perhaps I am being pedantic, but the starvation = longevity idea is still unproven in humans. It has been shown to be correct in a wide range of organisms, including at least one primate, but has not shown to be correct in humans, at least so far. The idea that we can live a long time by caloric restriction is deduction, not scientific 'proof'. OK, it is probably correct, but still not demonstrated in any scientific manner. I am a bit sceptical about how far it will prove to be correct in our species, based on the fact that there are heaps of societies in which caloric restriction is the norm, due to poverty, and not one single society shown to have exceptional longevity. Indeed, most such societies have an average life span way below that of the obese West, due to that poverty. While there are lots of good reasons why a poverty stricken society should have reduced average life span, it appears strange that, out of thousands, not a single one has been identified with average life span increased. And please, do not quote me the many myths of long lived societies where, strangely, there is no documentary evidence of how long people live - just lots of claims of long life without evidence.

A clam has just been dredged up from 80 metre deep water off Iceland that had 405 annual growth rings. Over 400 years old! What's 'e got that I aint?

To mooeypoo I am not an expert in this field - just quoting one speaker who was such an expert. In his talk, he lists a total of 8 proper studies that used objective criteria for evaluating results, rather than just asking the patients their view. Overall, results were slightly negative. In other words, it appears that counselling appears to slow down healing. However, patient perception is the opposite, because people are temporarily uplifted by being able to talk at length about their emotions and feelings. I am going by memory on this. I was impressed by the detail of the talk but that does not mean I am 100% accurate in my memory. The speaker's explanation for the negative consequence is a bit like the nasty habit of picking at a scab. If you do that to a physical wound, it slows the healing. Continually talking about an emotional trauma is a bit like picking at that scab. It slows the healing. It seems that the process of forgetting is a vital part of emotional healing, and repeated talking inhibits the healing forgetfulness. That does not mean that talking over a freshly experienced emotional trauma is harmful. We all know the value of a sympathetic shoulder to cry on when we are hurting. It is the prolongued talking long after the subject would normally have been dropped, and forgetting begun, that does the harm.

I've just got back from a 2 week holiday, and have a lot to do. Thus a brief answer. Lamarckism is not involved in any way. I have never suggested any passing on from one generation to another. The only evolutionary (hence genetic) change is the potential to develop muscles, bones and organs. A good other example of a non muscle or bone organ that develops with use is the human brain. Its functioning gets more efficient with more use. We have evolved the potential to develop certain body structures with greater use. Such development is only within one generation, but we can evolve the potential to so develop.

To mooeypoo I attended a lecture at the NZ Skeptics Conference on the business of counselling and psychotherapy. According to the speaker, there have been a number of studies looking at effectiveness. These studies can be divided into two types. 1. Those that evaluate results by interviewing the subject. Basically asking the question : Did the counselling/psychotherapy help you? Inevitable, the answer is yes. 2. Those that use more objective testing methods to evaluate the results. Did the objective measure show benefits from counselling/psychotherapy? Over the longer term (21 months) the answer is no. For example : a British study looked at a large number of people who had suffered bereavement. Half were randomely assigned to counselling. Half were essentially told to go home and get over it. The final evaluation test after 21 months measured how much emotional trauma remained. The group receiving counselling were worse off at that point, by that measure, than the group left to their own devices. The thing is that everyone loves talking about themselves. Counselling/psychotherapy provides the service of active listener to someone talking about themselves. People love it! However, apart from the subjective 'ice cream therapy' factor of the pleasure of talking, there appears to be no long term emotional benefit.

To 1veedo Absolute bloody last post before I go on holiday. I am running round like the proverbial dog with tail on fire, and haven't time to read or research it right now. I will take your word for it that the Solanki model was wrong. Shows what happens when you rely on unreliable models! I doubt it matters much to the argument, whether we are at an 8000 year high or a 200 year high, though. Either way, before mid 20th Century, warming/cooling correlates closest to sunspot activity. Sunspot activity actually reached a peak about 1940, and dropped a bit to 1960 - remaining more or less stable (excluding cycles) since. The level of activity is much higher than 150 years ago.

To DrDNA We use the term 'icecream therapy' for things like massage, counselling, psychotherapy etc. Like eating ice cream, it feels good when it happens, but has no lasting benefit.

To 1veedo There is not a dishonest bone in my body! My 8000 year figure came from : http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6591.html While I would love to continue this debate, I will, in fact, be absent for the next two weeks. I am taking a two week holiday on a live aboard boat, to go scuba diving in the Rowley Shoals (off Western Australia in the Indian Ocean). For some strange reason, there is no internet cafe! Maybe we can catch up when I get back.

1veedo said : There are other factors in the climate than sunspots, and sunspots haven't been "really high" during this entire period. No, but they have been 'really high' for the past 70 years. Your comparison was between now and 150 years ago. Sunspots are NOW at an 8000 year high.( As a multi-annual average. I appreciate that they vary over 11 and 22 years). That means they have a warming effect in the current time period that is at an 8000 year high. Thus, to suggest that today would be colder than 150 years ago without the effect of AGGs seems pretty unlikely.

If not an explosion, then what? Depends on whose theory you subscribe to. Lots of ideas exist. Possibly a brane collision??????

lucaspa said You are now arguing for a second theory: independent selection factors for male longevity Actually, I am arguing for the same factors. Essentially the same evolutionary pressure for both male and female. I remember one thing the New Scientist article said. " The real question is not why males do not live as long as females. The question is why they live almost as long." Chimpanzees are more typical of primates. Males have short lives with a lot of reproduction in a short time. Females live longer, and the reason is very clear - they have to live longer to raise their offspring. Male humans live almost as long as females. Why? For the same reason. Because they are important in the survival of the offspring. And this extends to the second generation. Your comment about life spans 70 years ago do not change the basic principles here. If the lifespan gap was wider then, it makes little difference. Males were still living way beyond what was needed for basic reproduction.

Man! The last two posts are full of misunderstandings. At least I hope they are just misunderstandings. First to CDarwin Yes, human males have continued fertility. However, recent research has shown that offspring from older fathers have a much higher rate of deformities. Plus the fact that male fertility is much lower in older men. Plus the fact that few young, fertile women care to breed with old men. With the notable and very unusual exception of very rich old men! Overall, compared to reproductive success of young men, the reproductive success of old men is decidedly low. This would also most likely be the case in more 'primitive' societies. This would imply that the evolutionary advantage of continued, albeit much reduced, male fertility is not actually too much of an advantage. It may be a factor in evolution, but is not likely to be the major factor. There is some lessons to be learned from other primates. Humans are the only great apes to have great male longevity. However, some other species, like some of the tamarin monkeys, have similar longevity for male and female. The golden lion tamarin, for example, has an average lifespan of about 14 years, for both genders. They are special in that both genders share the task of caring for the young. Other great apes do not have both genders share that task, but humans do, even if the actual nurturing task are not quite the same. Females more directly, and males indirectly through providing protection and food collection. By comparison to what happens with other primates, this is the logical reason for almost equal longevity for male and female. In the days of 'primitive' tribal hunter-gatherer human societies, the average life span was low. However, a child mortality rate that often exceeded 50% before age 12 months was the main reason. Of those adults that reached an age at which they successfully reproduced, most would survive at least into early middle age. This meant that they could become grandparents and assist in the survival of the second generation. In those societies, a person became a grandparent often by age 35. By that age, they would produce few if any, of their own children. If they survived to 55, they would then have a very big input into the survival of their grandchildren. And of course, we all know the biblical (over 2000 years ago) description of life span was three score years and ten. If you look at recent hunter-gatherer societies, you will find grandfathers hunt and gather food for their grandchildren. This means that they will contribute to their survival. On the business of orgasms and sperm count, there may be confusion over the time period I was referring to. Yes, of course, in the short term, sperm count is down. An orgasm involves loss of sperm. This means, in the short term, less sperm. However, over a longer period more sperm is produced. This is because the testes are stimulated into greater activity. Any organ in the body that works harder tends to develop and become more effective. And references to Lamarck are just plain insulting. If I pump iron, my muscles grow stronger. This is basic biology, not Lamarck. If a man's reproductive organs work harder, they too develop. Do you disagree with this general principle?

To 1veedo One of the real problems in these discussions is that there is often enormous misunderstanding. I have had to tell people on many occasions that they were 'putting words in my mouth'. I am sure I do it to other people also, and it is a normal human error. If you believe that I deny many factors in global climate change, then you are under the same misunderstanding. I thought I had carefully always used words such as 'dominant influence', or 'major factor.' From 1976 to the present, anthropogenic greenhouse gases were the dominant influence driving climate change. Before 1955, changes in sunspot activity were the dominant influence. And your statement that the world today would be colder than 150 years ago without those AGGs is not likely to be correct. As I have pointed out, sunspot activity is at a level that is the highest for 8000 years. The world would be a bit cooler than at present without AGGs, but would still be warmer than 150 years ago, due to the much higher sunspot activity. For a long time around the 19th/20th century, CO2 grew at a level of about 0.15 ppm per year. Today, it is growing at about ten times that amount. The greenhouse effect of an increase of 0.15 ppm per year is pretty minimal. However, the warming effect of record high levels of sunspot activity is substantial.

To lucaspa The grandmother/father principle is discussed on another thread. However, did it not occur to you to be really strange that humans, alone of the primates, should have male longevity almost as great as female, in the total absense of any selective advantage? This was discussed in a New Scientist article some months back. Sadly, I did not record the issue number. No, I am not a Lamarckist, and I assume you were being ironic. Evolution by natural selection has equipped organisms of all types with the ability to adapt to outside pressures. Of course, that specific adaptation is not passed down through genes, though the ability to adapt in different ways is. A male that is not having much sex, will divert physical resources into survival. Perhaps building up fat reserves for a time of famine? A male that is having lots of orgasms will develop the 'busy' part of his body to cope with the current need. It is no different in principle to a person who runs a lot developing the stamina to cope - getting fit. That is the basis of 'use it or lose it'.

To lucaspa Yours was a good, informative post. Just one small comment. In relaton to the 'grandmother' principle. It is not likely that males 'go along for the ride'. It is much more likely that male longevity was selected for according to a 'grandfather' principle. With chimps, the female has a much longer lifespan, for the simple reason that they are needed to raise offspring and males are not. There is no reason why human lifespan evolution should have followed so different a path to chimps unless there was real selective pressure for long life to males. The selective pressure comes from the fact that a living, active grandfather is also an advantage to survival of grandchildren. This is seen by the interest that grandfathers show in their grandchildren. And in tribal hunter-gatherer societies, grandfathers are active in hunting and gathering food for their grandchildren. Thus, having a living grandfather is a selective advantage. Don't be so hard on us males. We are not just 'along for the ride'. Human males play a vital role in helping their descendents survive.

To lovejunkie You are absolutely correct. Pit bulls were bred to fight other dogs. The very name refers to the dog fighting pit. They are much more likely to attack and kill other dogs than people. If 66 people were killed in the USA in 19 years, you can guarantee that the number of other dogs attacked and killed was in the hundreds.

Swansont I have never said that volcanoes have no effect. We all realise they can be a factor. I have also never said that sunspot activity is the only factor. We all know there are many factors. My argument has been that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGGs) were a relatively minor factor before the middle of the 20th Century, though they became a bigger effect later, while changes in sunspot activity have been the biggest single factor before, say, 1955. This whole argument began with 1veedo claiming that AGGs were the dominant influence on global warming/cooling, right back to the beginning of the 20th Century. Clearly, they were not.

To waitforufo Your query relates to the argument I have been making. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age have temperature levels that correlate well with sunspot activity. The correlation is not 100%, of course, since there are other factors involved. However, it appears to be the strongest correlation. To Swansont Just to answer your question. Yes, 1910 was the coldest part of a cooling period. That is why I thought the suggestion that a volcanic eruption in 1910 as cooling influence was somewhat amusing. If that were true, we would see the years following showing a further cooling. They do not. 1910 to 1940 was a quite substantial warming period. I was interested to read an account of the eruption of the Tambora Volcano in Indonesia in the year 1815. This was the most potent eruption over the past few centuries. The year 1816 was known as the 'year without a summer' showing the cooling effect of a major volcano. However, within 2 to 3 years, global climate seemed to be back to normal. It seems to me that, if the most massive eruption has an effect lasting no more than 3 years, then we should be careful about ascribing too much effect to the much smaller eruptions of the 20th Century.

To Mr. Skeptic. If you want my agenda, read item 49. I have a bad habit of continuing to argue as long as my opponents are using foolish logic. For example : the personal experience argument. " I have known many pit bulls, and none have attacked me!" I can say in all truth that I have known many criminals (I used to assist an organisation involved in rehabilitation work). Many of those I knew had jail sentences for violent crimes and a couple for murder. However, I know they were all innocent because none of them ever attacked me! This is the kind of silly pseudo-logic that keeps cropping up.

Swansont said : As another example, the cooling arount 1910 also corresponds to a period of increased volcanic activity, which is a cooling effect. Until you quantify its effect you cannot draw the conclusion that it was solar-driven. How do you know that the decrease then wasn't mostly driven by volcanic activity? Thank you for giving me something to laugh at. If you double check, you will find that 1910 was the beginning of a warming period, and the world warmed by about 0.4 C between 1910 and 1940. And incidentally, 1910 was preceded by an increase in sunspot activity. Your insistence that science can proceed only by quantifying matters is not strictly accurate. Sure, it is better if effects can be quantified. And, of course, both temperature increase and what the Max Planck Institute call "reconstructed irradiance" can be quantified, and shown as Watts per square metre. This was shown on the graph which I have posted a number of times. However, there are a lot of phenomena noted by scientists for which no accurate quantifying has been done, and for which useful data and conclusions are still gathered. For example : How many Kuiper Belt objects are there? How much do they mass? What is their maximum and minimum size? We have no way of knowing, but we can still study the objects that are accessible to our telescopes.

To Pangloss You will never see anything that proves pit bulls must be destroyed, since such a decision is subjective and political. That was not my intention. I am just trying to show that this particular breed was bred as a fighting dog, and consequently carries genetic traits for aggression and the tendency to carry through attacks to serious consequences. Nor am I claiming it causes more attacks than other breeds - just more fatal and seriously mutilating attacks. A chihuahua is a particularly vicious breed, and frequently bites people. However, those nips are not at all serious. The pit bull attacks are truly horrific - leading to serious injury and death rather too often.