SkepticLance

To 1veedo Graphs appear different according to how they are drawn. In particular, by altering the scale, you can present a picture that can look quite different. In fact, this is a tool frequently used by lecturers in order to make specific points. They present graphs with the scale adjusted to make their point. This is a legitimate educational technique. Your graph has been adjusted to present a particular picture, and I am sure it is honest. What it does not show (doubtlessly by accident) is the relationship between temperature and greenhouse gases. Other graphs, which have been adjusted to show this more clearly, indicate that warming and cooling preceded greenhouse gas concentration changes. Swansont said : If CO2 has a warming effect now, how could it not have a warming effect before? Did the physics change? No. Ergo, it contributed, at some level, to the warming. I do not deny that it made a contribution to warming. That does not say that it led to massive positive feed-back. Again, the warming is linear. That is NOT consistent with positive feed-back. And yes, the whole picture is no doubt affect by many variables. One that has not been discussed, for example, is the effect of the explosion of plant life when the world warms. You accuse me of over-simplifying. Perhaps. But so are those who try to put most of that warming down to positive feed-back mechanisms between CO2 and temperature. As I said before, such a mechanism is not needed. Warming began without it. Why (apart from political considerations) do we need to assume such a mechanism to continue a linear warming?

Swansont said : If CO2 can account for warming now, how does it not account for warming in the past? Has the physics changed? Ignoring your sarcastic comment about physics changing; yes there is a difference. The difference shows clearly in the data. The past relationship shows warming first, then CO2 increase. This is characteristic of a cause/effect relationship in which the warming is the cause, and CO2 increase is an effect. Today, the relationship is not so clear cut - probably because, in the early years of warming, other factors (besides greenhouse gases) were very strong. However, the warming of the past 30 years is consistent with GHG's being a strong factor. You ask how, in the past, does CO2 not account for warming. The data clearly shows that CO2 change is not a factor, at least in the early years of warming, since the warming is well under way BEFORE CO2 starts increasing. The other part of the GW activist theory, that CO2 may not start the warming, but continues it by a positive feed-back, is clearly not needed as an explanation. After all, something else began the warming. So why do we need to postulate an extra factor when that 'something else' is obviously capable of causing warming. I think the positive feed-back hypothesis is politically generated - not scientifically- to try to strengthen the case for GHG warming today. And as I said, the warming, once begun, was linear. That is NOT consistent with positive feed-back.

Hello Bascule. I find myself amazed at the reaction of certain people to the interpretation of the CO2/warming or cooling relationship half a million years ago. It seems that 1veedo (and yourself???) demand that what happened before humans actually appeared on Earth has to follow the exact same pattern as what is happening now. I have presented a simple explanation because that is all that is required. It is basic physics. Cold water dissolves more CO2. As the water warms, solubility drops and CO2 leaves the water, entering the air. For the events discussed, there is plenty of time, since the changes are happening over periods of thousands of years (unlike today). Of course, the reverse also applies. There may, of course, be any number of other factors applying. However, the world's oceans are the largest sink of carbon dioxide, and normally the largest source. Bascule, do you really think that a linear change in CO2 levels can be due to positive feed-back? Again, it is really basic physics that in such a feed-back system, the two factors reinforce each other, leading to an accelerating effect. This did not happen, which makes the positive feed-back hypothesis seem very unlikely.

To 1veedo Interesting new word you came up with : Anthropomorphic global warming. Since anthropomorphic means taking the shape or form of a man, that boggles the imagination when applied to global warming. I suggest you try 'anthropogenic' instead, which means created by man. You said : CO2 is what's known as a positive feedback agent in our climate. Feedback is a factor in a system that loops back into itself, and it is usually negative or positive. An example of positive feedback is a microphone put close to the speaker. You may note that microphone feed-back rapidly increases in volume to a major crescendo. Increase or acceleration is a basic property of positive feed-back, as the signals feed on each other. In the past, when warming occurs, and is followed by CO2 increase, there is no such acceleration. Unless you want to add to the complexity of your explanation, and suggest a counter balancing negative feed-back which exactly balance the positive, you are in the wrong. And such a negative feed-back?? Why don't you look up 'Occam's Razer', which is a basic concept in science. As I have said before, there is a much simpler explanation for the fact that CO2 increases following warming. It is simply the effect of its solubility in sea water at higher temperatures. That explanation meets the requirements of Occam's Razer very nicely. Accepting this does not mean you have to dump ideas on anthropogenic global warming. Since 1976, CO2 increase has been coincident with warming, not following. Thus, you can argue that CO2 increase in the last few decades is a cause of global warming, and you can make a strong case thereby. Your ideas on positive feed-back for the warming/CO2 increase relationship for the past million years make no sense. Mind you, the explanation for increased CO2 that Icemelt came up with makes no sense either. If increase in CO2 comes from the cold, deep water reaching warmer climes, and releasing it, why is this happening now? If that explanation were correct, the water picked up massive amounts of CO2 in bygone times, and we have no reason why. It is a very weak explanation.

To The Thing. You hit the nail on the head when you queried the diffusion distance. This kind of test can be very misleading, since it depends so much on diffusability. You are correct about the concentration gradient. The inhibition distance will depend more on the concentration of HCl than anything else. Another factor that can screw the result is the fact that not all species of bacteria are upset by low pH. A few species are quite happy in very acid conditions. This test is good visually - you can clearly see the results. But lousy scientifically.

As bluenoise said, it is a matter of definition, and you can choose your definition to suit the answer you want. Sisyphus said they are not alive since they do not meet all the criteria of 'life'. Sadly for this statement, there is no universal agreement on what are the criteria of life. My own belief is that there are only two. 1. Biological reproduction. 2. Biological evolution. Most of the traditional criteria for life, such as growth, nutrition, excretion, reproduction etc are met by a forest fire. But it does not evolve. My two criteria are considered inadequate by many biologists who point out that certain computer programs both show elements within the program that reproduce and evolve. Thus, the nearest widely accepted definition of life goes something like this : " Life is a complex system of organic molecules that reproduce their unique patterns from generation to generation, and evolve into other complex patterns over time." Those who want to exclude viruses add to the definition some statement that the reproduction is autonomous - not dependent on other life. Personally, I am not sure that a computer program cannot be said to be 'alive'. And I think viruses must be considered to be alive. But that is just my opinion.

To 1veedo. There has actually been a nice correlation between solar output (as measured by sunspot activity) and global temperature covering the last 500 years, with the notable exception of the last 30 years. It is not a correlation of 1, or even close, but the coefficient is high enough to strongly indicate a real relationship. The fact that the two factors do not track each other 100% simply indicates that other factors are involved, and some of those other factors have already been mentioned in this thread. The last 30 years, of course, indicate a more recent factor driving global warming which almost certainly includes human activity as a major factor.

Swansont said : but what is left is showing that increased CO2 won't initiate a warming cycle. It seems to me you would agree with that, if I read you correctly. I have never said that. You persist in misinterpreting what I am saying. My reference to CO2 and warming, with warming being the cause refers to the past million years, except the last 100 years. I repeated the 'except' several times to try to make sure no-one misunderstood. Damn! At least Peak Oil man was smart enough to understand my point. Waitforufo got it right about the video when he said most of the criticism was the kill the messenger variety. It does not matter much where a scientist gets his/her research funds from. Medical researchers throughout the world have, for many decades, relied upon pharmaceutical companies for their primary source of funds. With this money they have created many life-saving medical technologies. If a climate scientist is doing work that does NOT support the IPCC paradigm, he/she can expect to find getting government research funds very difficult, if not impossible. Thus, they go to where the money is. If Big Oil offers research dollars, they would be nuts to turn it down. Like medical researchers taking funds from drug companies, their research results can still be of the top most calibre. It is a rule of this, and other forums, that ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. I think that attacking the reputation of scientists is just as despicable.

Swansont said : And a simplification to the point that it's wrong is a nonstarter. Do you have any peer-reviewed research that says that CO2 does not contribute, in any way, to the greenhouse effect? Re-read my posting. I did NOT deny that CO2 can cause warming. What I said was that, over most of the past million years, from the fact that CO2 increase comes AFTER warming, a sensible conclusion is that warming can be the cause of CO2 increase. I even mentioned the mechanism. tomgwyther said : e.g Greenland used to BE green, hence it's name, it was hotter then. Actually, that is not true. Historical records show that Greenland was always cold. However, the Nordic promoters of the colonies in 1000 AD told little lies, and the name was one such lie. It is probable that it was a little bit warmer then than today, since those same historical references show they grew five different crops there, which we cannot do today.

I am going shamelessly off topic. Blame it on Edtharan, for the philosophical musings in the last post about intelligent life. Edtharan (or anyone else) a question. Imagine a kind of Planet of the Apes scenario. Humans take a bunch of chimps to another planet, which is Earth like. The chimps are taught all sorts of ways to use and make tools. For some reason the humans die off, and the chimps are left for the next few million years to evolve without interferance. Predict the result.

Edtharan. You are a smart, intelligent and educated person. You know better than the argument you put forward about CO2 and warming/cooling over the past 1 million years (excluding the past 100 years). Over that longer time period, we are NOT talking about positive feed-back. Positive feed-back relationships accelerate. The time periods we are talking about showed no acceleration. Sure, you can hypothesize about negative feed-backs that modify the acceleration. But isn't it smarter to keep things simple and just say that warming causes CO2 increase, and cooling causes CO2 decrease? A nice simple cause and effect relationship? We even have a mechanism. As oceans warm, they dissolve less CO2 and vice versa. Thus, with warming, the oceans get hotter and give off CO2 into the atmosphere. And vice versa. The last 100 years are a different situation. You do not need to come up with greenhouse gas effects over the previous million years to justify your position on the last 100. Incidentally, I agree with you on conspiracy theories. The vast majority of so-called conspiracies do not exist. There is a simple law of conspiracies. You cannot have a successful, long term conspiracy with more than 7 conspirators. Why? Because one or more will see personal advantage in breaking the conspiracy. Classic example is OPEC which is a conspiracy for setting high oil prices. They have more than 7 members and they repeatedly fail in their aim.

I have only heard about that video. I suspect I would end up treating it in the same way as I treat Al Gore's masterpiece (which I have seen). That is, a biased, jaundiced version of the truth, to be taken with a big pinch of salt.

The movie actually suggested that they took DNA from modern day reptiles and amphibians, and used specific sequences to replace sequences that were missing from the dinosaur blood, extracted from a mosquito in amber. What you end up with may look like a dinosaur, but at the metabolic level, is not. The movie also suggested that the ability to undergo parthenogenesis in frogs was passed to the dinosaurs, allowing them to reproduce even without a mate, with suggested catastrophic consequences. Good fiction, but only fiction.

Actually, to my chagrin, I realise I made an error in calculating time to get to alpha Centauri. If acceleration and deceleration each take 10 years, and intermediate cruising speed is 0.1c, it will take 55 years to get there - not 75. If cruising speed reached is 0.2c, then time is 33 years, assuming again 10 years acceleration and deceleration each.

You may make something that looks like a dinosaur, but it would no more *be* a dinosaur than a horse with an antler bone graft on its forhead is a unicorn. Hence the use of the word 'ersatz'. Personally, if I was going to be a tourist wandering through some version of Jurassic Park, I would really like to be sure that the 'dinosaurs' were genetically modified to be non aggressive.

There are probably a million different species of fungi, and each will have different environmental optima. Thus, anything I say to answer your question is a broad generalisation and may not apply to one species. Generally then : Fungi like warmth, in the region of 20 to 30 C. Except thermophiles and psychrophiles. Fungi prefer shade. Fungi prefer damp conditions. But not so damp as to reduce oxygen availability. Treat these generalisations with caution.

For Jurassic Park fans, there is still a way. We may not ever be able to get hold of undamaged dinosaur DNA, but there is nothing to stop a genetically advanced society from synthesizing it. We would start with reptile DNA and modify it to introduce the physical qualities required for an ersatz dinosaur. Of course, it would require a biology well in advance of what we have now, but give us 200 years .....

In addressing the original question, someone HAS to raise the Fermi Paradox. Apparently, some scientists were discussing this question and saying that there had to be intelligent life, off Earth, in our galaxy, because of the enormous number of star systems. The Great Man (Prof. Fermi) heard this, and asked the simple question : "Where are they?" This is extremely telling. About a decade back, or maybe a bit less, two NASA scientists wrote an article for Scientific American, about travel to other star systems. They concluded that, within 1,000 years, the first humans would have got to the first other star system. They concluded that travel at between 0.1c and 0.2c would be entirely possible and practical. A sufficiently large, self sufficient, space habitat could be accelerated to that speed and get to Alpha Centauri in no less than 75 years. (Assuming it takes 10 years to accelerate to 0.1c, and another 10 to decelerate). Given those facts, and assuming that the human population continues to grow in numbers, and we retain our love for physical dispersal - extending it to colonising other star systems*, then it is possible to calculate how long it would take us to colonise the entire galaxy to the point of overpopulation. Depending on your underlying assumptions, the time taken from now would be 500,000 to 10,000,000 years. *It would not be necessary to colonise planets on other star systems. Building and living in giant rotating star-orbiting cities with fusion power generators would be sufficient. Using the Drake equation, Carl Sagan and Prof. Drake calculated that our galaxy must contain about one million technologically advanced species. If we assume this figure to be true, we find a serious logical flaw. About 10% of our galaxy is third generation stars about 2 billion years older than our own. This means that 10% of those million advanced species would have had a 2 billion year head start on us. Using the earlier calculation about colonising the galaxy, at least some of those 100,000 species would have done just that - 2 billion years ago! As Fermi said : "Where are they?" Conclusion : The number of advanced species in our galaxy is a damn sight less than that. If the number was large, then at least one would have been aggressive, expansionist and successful. Probability dictates. Only if the number is small can be assume they are all 'stay at home' philosophers, or kill themselves off, or whatever explanation you care to come up with.

Are there any medical whizz kids who can answer a question? In the last five years, I have had two medical check ups involving blood tests. Both times, my total cholesterol was rated as a little above the ideal. However, my low density lipoprotein (bad cholesterol) was very low, and my high density lipoprotein (good cholesterol) was very high, thus raising the total to the point which is supposed to be a little too much. Both doctors told me that my HDL was too high and I had to get it down. Neither told me why, or how. A google search had lots of references saying how good it is to have lots of HDL. Can anyone please tell me why it is bad to have too much HDL, and what needs to be done to reduce it?

My view is that the evolution of humans was preceded and driven by the development of technology. Chimps have a basic technology. Individuals in the wild, without human influence have been observed chewing sticks to make points, and then using them as short spears to hunt monkeys. Others have been seen using short sticks for extracting termits, and yet others have been seen pounding nuts between two rocks to open them. If chimpanzees have basic technology, then we can assume our remote ancestors did also. Once technology, the use of tools and weapons, began, then the growth of the human brain makes sense. Better brains mean better technology and more imaginative use of technology. I once saw a "Walking with Cavemen" TV program. It tried to suggest that our ancestors, the one metre high Australopithecus walked the savannah of Africa, and somehow fended off predators due to their social behaviour. Yeah, right. To a Smilodon (contemporary sabre tooth cat) a bunch of sociable Australopithecines would be so much smorgasbord on the hoof. My view is that they went loaded for Smilodon. Each young male carrying a long stick with a point on the end, and the knowledge of how to use it! If the use of tools began very early in our evolution, it explains the evolution of upright stance, and long, strong hind legs. If carrying a spear, then walking upright with two hands available is a major evolutionary advantage.

Mr d said : So you might not de-Evolve, but you might halt a code at a simpler form, or redirect from the earlier point. That is, of course, correct. Each gene might do that. However, the human species has about 30,000 genes, and the probability against going back to the same genome that once existed is astronomically against.

2KNO3 + heat = 2 KNO2 + O2 When the nitrate is hot, it releases pure oxygen that aids in the burning of the sugar.

Just a couple of comments on the evolution of intelligence. The brain requires a lot of energy to run. The human brain, being as large as it is, requires an enormous amount of energy to run. If a species has a limited food supply, this is a major detrement. Another oddity of the human species is that we have the smallest alimentary canal, for our size, of any primate. This reduces our ability to digest food. Thus, not only do we need to ingest a lot of food to run the energy hungry brain, but it must be high quality food, requiring little digestion. It would be quite possible in terms of future evolutions, for a human sub group to be isolated in a place (like an island) where food is scarce, and brain size to evolve to a smaller mass. On the question of reverting to an earlier form ... This never actually happens. Sometimes it appears to happen, but the evolved changes will always be a little different to what happened earlier. Evolution runs in one direction only. Sometimes it leads to a simplification, but not back to an earlier form. Just a new simpler form.

I am very far from being a computer whiz kid. In fact, my old PC still runs windows 98. However, I now need to buy a new box. I have been asking around about vista. Two gurus have told me that it has problems, and to go to XP Pro in the mean time. One problem not mentioned on this thread is that it is loaded to the gunwales with anti-piracy software. In fact, that is one of the reasons so much RAM is needed. Microsoft has knuckled under to Hollywood. They have packaged enormous amounts of software so that if you buy vista, your own computer restricts your activities. The intent is to stop people playing pirate DVD's. Sadly, it also seems to stop people playing a lot of legitimate DVD's also. For example ; what if you want to play the DVD of your own wedding, produced on a Sony Handicam, and copied to DVD? Just will not work! Your own software will stop you playing it on your own computer.

Racial differences, in the sense of superiority or inferiority, are a load of taurine excrement. Geneticists have found that there is more genetic variation between the peoples of one race sharing a suburban street than there is between any two individuals of different races. If we look at skin colour in terms of genetics, the number of genes involved is small - I seem to remember it is about 20. This is out of a total of 30,000 making up the human genome. And most skin colour variation is between light brown and darker brown. The extreme of black versus white applies to only a small part of the human race. The human species is genetically lacking in diversity, and different races are genetically very, very similar. IQ tests are the most misleading guides of all. Sure, there were studies made comparing IQ results of black versus white Americans which showed that black had lower IQ's. Current thinking is that these results were utterly meaningless. The fault lay in the testing system - not in people's intelligence. Some racists, however, perpetuate the myth that the tests are meaningful. The differences in results came from culture, upbringing and education. Incidentally, the same tests showed white Americans had lower average IQ than Asian Americans.