SkepticLance

herpguy The original question was what will the hurricane season be like? To me, this relates to the formation of hurricanes, and how many form. In other words, we need to look at the origins of hurricanes, and this relates to surface winds driven by temperature differentials. The later mechanisms which drive a hurricane seem to me to be less relevent to the question.

DrCloud. The origin of hurricanes is linked to the convergence of surface winds that move from cooler and higher latitidues to warmer and lower latitides. These winds are driven by solar energy due to (wait for it) a major temperature differential between colder and warmer air masses. Without that air temperature differential, the surface winds that converge and trigger hurricanes could not exist. Sure, the later development of the hurricane is more due to release of latent heat of condensation from rain droplet formation, driving an amazing heat engine. However, the start requires surface winds formed from temperature differentials.

DrCloud You have taken my statements way beyond anything they were intended for. The single point I was making, as even bascule admits to be true, was that it is temperature differential rather than absolute temperature that is important. Fullstop. This was not an essay on the mechanics of hurricance formation.

DrCloud Your comments are leading me to believe of you exactly what you accused me of - ignorance. It is really, really basic. Air movements in the atmosphere, including that which leads to hurricanes, begins with warmer air rising, and cooler air coming in to take its place. For this to happen there needs to be a site which is warmer than another site. A temperature differential. This is as true for Antarctic storms as tropical hurricanes. Sure, the detailed mechanism is different, but the basics are the same.

OK DrCloud. I was over-simplifying. The main point still remains. High temperature is not the cause of hurricanes. High temperature differentials are.

Herpguy Hurricanes are indeed complex. However, the basics are simple. A large mass of warm water, surrounded by cooler water, leads to a flow of air inwards, which due to coriolus influence, spins. If temperature differential is enough, we get a storm. High temperatures alone are not enough. We need high temperature differentials. This does not come from recent history.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, high temperatures alone are not the trigger for hurricanes. What is needed is a high temperature differential. Typically, a warm patch of ocean surrounded by cooler waters. Air moves from cool to warm and starts rotating. It is the temperature DIFFERENCE that drives the storm. The stormiest place on Earth is Antarctica, which shows just how little high temperatures are needed. The stormiest time on record (British Admiralty records) was in the Little Ice Age, when a series of North Atlantic gales buffeted the British Isles. The point I am making is that simply having a warm summer does not necessarily mean lots of powerful hurricanes.

Let me indulge myself with a bit of speculation. In other words, I hypothesize. I have always thought that, from an evolutionary standpoint, rape is not conducive to reproductive success. If we see the potential rapist as a member of a tribal, hunter-gatherer society, we are looking at most of Homo sapiens recent evolution. In this society, rape would lead to serious personal consequences - even death of the rapist by neolithic execution. Thus it would not be a successful reproductive strategy and the propensity to commit rape would be selected out of the gene pool. However, certain men are still liable to committing rape. Then it occurred to me that there is one situation where committing rape would carry no adverse social consequences. ie. in war time. If one tribe is fighting another, and an 'enemy' woman is captured, raping her would carry no social censure or punishment. Thus, the propensity to rape could evolve, as long as it is (mostly) restricted to 'the enemy'. Ditto for raping slave women who were captured from the enemy. This becomes a successful reproductive strategy, since those slave women can bear children who get adopted by the tribe. If my hypothesis is correct, then we predict that the incidence of rape becomes epidemic in wartime, with 'enemy' women suffering often.

Walrusman. I cannot see an unsophisticated people extracting metals from plants unless the plants have exceptionally high levels of metals. There is a project under way today to genetically modify plants to grow on the tailings of old gold mines, to concentrate gold in their tissue for later extraction. However, this is a very sophisticated technology, and even then it is still under research. They might not succeed.

Edelweiss Old and ugly women do indeed get raped too. However, the majority of victims are young women. This indicates at the very least that sexual attraction is a factor. Take it from there.

There is no reason in theory why humans could not obtain metals from plant material. You could suggest, as part of the story line, that the alien plants made much greater use of, say, iron in their structure. Thus, a typical alien plant was 5% iron by weight. Then your colonists could convert the plant material to ash; carry out some process of concentration, such as panning the ash with water, and then smelt it in furnaces with charcoal to reduce the residual iron ash to iron.

I have always been very sceptical of the power/control hypothesis as the motivation for rape. I have read of some of the studies that came to this conclusion. Typically the researcher interviews rapists - usually in prison. Naturally the interviewee wants to do want the interviewer expects, and criminals in prison are usually very shrewd. They quickly work out what the interviewer is after and delivers it. "Oh yes, I was motivated by a need for power and control." Seems to me that if one is motivated purely by power and control, there are lots of other ways of displaying that rather than through a sex act. In fact, the desire to have sex with an attractive woman (or otherwise if the rapist is homosexual) is very powerful. This drive is lust, not power need. If we treat the idea that power and control is the prime motive as a scientific hypothesis, then we need to proceed scientifically, and make testable predictions. Here is one : 'If that hypothesis (power/control) is correct, then I predict that most rapes will be of people who are, for reason of age or disability, less able to resist. They are more vulnerable, and hence easier to dominate. On the other hand, if the prime motive for rape is pure lust, then I predict that most rapes will be of people who are in their maximum sexual attractiveness. For women, that means young, slim and trim. At their physical peak.' This is testable. Simply find out what percentage of rapes of women is the victim young and attractive versus old or disabled. Guess what? Most rapes are of young women.

Guys, Watch your sources. If they come from Greenpeace or other anti-GM organisations, take what they say with a VERY big pinch of salt. First : the terminator gene. This was developed by contract to the American government. The people behind it were, in fact, trying to find a way to satisfy the demands of the anti-GM movement for preventing cross fertilisation with non-GM plants. The very word "terminator' was invented by the anti-GM movement as part of their emotion-laden campaign. Always suspect terminology that carries emotional connotation. We know that the anti-GM mob reacted against the honest efforts of the government, by spreading the lie that the 'terminator' gene was invented by multi-nationals to protect their market. As to the 30 metre line ...That depends on the crop. An experiment in Australia involved a field of GM canola being planted right next to a field of non-GM canola. The degree of cross fertilisation was measured, and came to 0.1%. At that rate it is seriously unlikely to 'take over.' Corn cannot cross fertilise over that distance. Rice is self fertilising, and makes that not an issue. Etc etc. The British aproach has been forced by the actions of anti-GM vandals. These hooligans learn of a GM crop and rush to pull them out. They are instrumental by their own actions in forcing high degrees of secrecy.

Free Thinker. Since you are Australian, I suggest you lay your hands on a book called "The New Nature" by a fellow Ozzie, Tim Lowe. Excellent book, which relates to the impacts of humans on natural ecosystems, emphasizing Australia. Your views are essentially correct and well considered. The introduction of alien species into areas where vulnerable species can be affected seems to be the main mechanism by which humans disrupt said ecosystems. Australia's introduced foxes are a prime example. No-one can answer your questions. We simply do not know. The speed of adaptation and evolution into new species is very varied and very uncertain. Many species cannot adapt to such immense shocks as rats on Lord Howe Island (I was there recently), and simply go extinct. Others diminish in number and slowly adapt. Personally, I think (from theory, rather than more reliable empirical evidence) that the world today has begun a massive speciation event, with thousands, or even millions, of new species slowly developing in response to what man has done. I predict that, when genome analysis becomes quick and cheap, that we will be able to plot these genetic changes in wild populations.

Water is terrible stuff. Have you ever considered what fish do in it? What you need is a little disinfectant added, to kill the nasties. I have always found that whiskey works well! More seriously, I think your problem is probably psychosomatic. This is not meant as an insult. I have a psychosomatic response to eating certain fish. I know where it came from - a nasty bout of food poisoning many years ago. My body learned that certain fish tastes are not good, and it 'saves' me from poisoning by making me nauseous each time I eat strong flavoured fish. I know this is purely in the mind, but that does not reduce the problem. I suspect you have a similar problem with water. It cannot be physical, since you take in water in any drink, regardless of the flavour. Why not enjoy the problem. Make sure you have lots of whatever drink you like, and enjoy it?

bascule. Come clean and tell us what you are getting at. I know you are smart enough to realise that this is unpredictable.

Among others, young seedlings make use of the soft very organic soil manufactured by moss, and it becomes their 'launch point' into life. However, we do need to emphasize, as Edtharan said, that this is just another organism exploiting an opportunity. The moss is not there to help others. It is there purely for its own 'selfish' interest - to grow and reporduce.

A view of dinosaur temperature control appearsed in New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9523?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn9523

Both studies claim to be global. Of course, both of us are likely to take that with a pinch of salt. A major source of error in all such studies is likely to be the limited number of samples. Neither of us is likely to convince the other on the basis of this kind of study. I do not claim anything to be 'proof.' You and I both know that 'proof' in science is a chimera. It does not exist. What I have provided is evidence. You may decide it is insufficiently convincing. That is your prerogative. However, I go back as always to my original statement. We cannot predict the future of the world's climate. Computer models are widely variable and likely to be wrong. Studies like Manns are similarly fallible and likely to mislead. I do not claim to be right. Just someone who points out the doubts and uncertainties that exist in this field.

bascule There are heaps of calculations based on empirical data that have later been shown to be wrong. The Club of Rome 1973 "Limits to Growth" is a classic. Results must be tested empirically. You are right on one point. I have concentrated on one model that is clearly fallaceous, but that was due to the fact that it had been adopted as the basis for a major US Government report. Someone at that time thought it was the BEST model available. If that's the best, what's the rest? The IPCC use a wide range of models, that predict temperature increases from 2C to 6C approximately. If that's not doubt and uncertainty, then what is? Other climate scientists have come up with models that predict over 12C increase in 100 years. And you would like to claim this is some kind of exact science?????

bascule. You continually present publications based on theory, calculations, and computer models. These are tools of science but are not examples of strong scientific evidence. I have shown you evidence that this type of work is often highly inaccurate. eg. the USNO models. Yet you persist in giving me anything but empirical evidence and claiming it is strong science. It is not. I should not have to give anyone on this forum lessons in basic science. However, here it is. "The basis of modern science is empirical evidence." Without it, you have superstition.

From what Mokele said, it sounds like he is right. Just another bunch of feral aliens spreading out in all directions. Sad. I thought my idea was a lot more fun!

Swansont said : So where, exactly, am I wrong? You haven't provided a scientifically valid criticism. You have only provided a graph of tree growth measurements. And the temperature calibration wasn't the only limitation I mentioned. I can get (I provided a link before, in the other thread) the temperature data for regions of the US that show that parts of it have cooled over the last 100 years. Does that prove that world hasn't warmed up? So local vs global has to be addressed as well. It's too bad you see this as arrogance. The objection you have presented, scientifically, is crap. That doesn't make the Mann curve right, but I've never argued that point, anyway. Your glacier graph was way too small to read. Doesn't it exist online somewhere else? The twin graphs were provided to show the difference between temperature measurements over 1000 years made with tree rings, compared to the same, but with a switch to direct measurements by thermometer over the last 110 years. As I said, the sole point of this is to show the error that comes from the scientifically untenable practise of changing measurement technique half way through a study and pretending that all the measurements are still comparable. You may not have been defending Mann. That was bascule. Arrogance is not something I am necessarily accusing you of. You must decide for yourself if the description fits. However, the attitude held by some people (unnamed) that their beliefs are unassailable is definitely arrogance. I am not in that category because I have always based my arguments on the doubts and uncertainties and have always pointed out that I could be wrong. So could those who are pro-global warming catastrophisms. Arrogance comes from being in a position where you could be wrong and arguing that you are absolutely right. Sorry about the small size of the glacier graph. I had only a paper copy, from New Scientist 27 August 2005, page 25, which I scanned. It is from a study averaging rate of shrinkage of 169 glaciers from all over the world. Main point is that the rate of glacier shrinkage did not vary much from about 1810 to 1830, through to the late 1990's, when the study ended. I use this to point out that glacier shrinkage does not support the 'hockey stick' of rapid warming after 1910.

Silkworm said : There's a HUGE difference, and based on the fact that species are interdependent, I'm sure that an extinction equation would be exponential, just like all population equations Silkworm, I am sorry to say this, but you are just being silly. Humans have been the cause of extinctions of many species for a long, long time. At least the 10,000 years we have had agriculture, and probably since our species evolved 200,000 years ago. To turn around and say that an extinction rate of 2 per years, as we measure it, is suddently going to become 200,000 per years as Greenpeace would put it... That is plain stupid!

Dr. Dalek. You are undoubtedly correct. However, it is so much fun winding up people who have a totally arrogant belief in their own rightness. bascule. Thank you for reintroducing that graph. It illustrates so well the inaccuracies of the various study methods that I described, and the errors that run from one study to the next. Swansont said : Rubbish. Your second graph doesn't have a temperature scale. It is in units of mm. Without a calibration, you can't say anything about the temperature range present in the lower graph. The units had been calculated in degrees also. Sorry, I kept the graph but not the article, so you will have to take my word for it, or not as you please. However, the pre 1890 part of the graph fit smack in the middle of the range of results shown in bascules graph. It is only after that, where the measurement method changed, that a dramatic difference appeared. Swansont, you failed to comment on the glacier shrinkage graph, which ties in perfectly with my argument. Do you not have an answer?