Climate change (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Tuesday, November 06, 2012, 14:41 (4401 days ago)
We are in an interglacial period probably headed toward the next glacial period. How climate and cooling can be affected without human interventin is shown in this model of an episode of severe cooling over 12,000 years ago.-http://phys.org/news/2012-11-high-resolution-global-ocean-circulation-trigger.html
Climate change
by David Turell , Saturday, November 10, 2012, 19:37 (4397 days ago) @ David Turell
Midieval warm period validated. Hockey stick and IPCC conclusions out. we are just as warm today as 1,000 years ago.-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204349404578100862654023702.html?KEYWORDS=Can+medieval+warm+period
Climate change
by hyjyljyj , Wednesday, December 05, 2012, 22:40 (4372 days ago) @ David Turell
"Midieval [sic] warm period validated. Hockey stick and IPCC conclusions out. we are just as warm today as 1,000 years ago."-Thank you for this, David. What a breath of fresh air. I was beginning to think almost everyone on the entire interweb had lost their mind, believing with the faith of a doe-eyed child whatever they are spoon-fed about the phony alarmist pseudoscientific religion with the same closed-minded, blind zeal they use in crucifying Christians for their own zeal. The key difference is, here we have the massive weight of cool-headed science on our side, plus common sense, plus the e-mails from CRU spilling the beans about the "travesty" that the data didn't show the warming, and the decision to "TRICK" (their term) the numbers to cover up the truth and make the numbers reflect falsehoods--the polar opposite of science. -If science is about acquiring knowledge, the global warming alarmism machine is anti-science.-I thought the ice core records in Greenland showed conclusively the earth was warmer than it is today 10,000 years ago. (Please correct if inaccurate.) What's certain is the war on carbon is all about money only: CO2 represents 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere and only 25% of greenhouse gases. It is a statistically insignificant contributor to global warming, which is unfortunate because plants really love greenhouses and CO2, animals love to eat plants, and people...well, you get the idea. I live in central Florida, and I wouldn't mind not having a freeze every winter. A couple degrees warmer would be nice, thank you.-Ninety percent of Canada's population lives within 300 miles of the US border. Canadians have figured out:-Warmer Is Better
Climate change
by David Turell , Thursday, December 06, 2012, 01:51 (4372 days ago) @ hyjyljyj
"Midieval [sic] warm period validated. Hockey stick and IPCC conclusions out. we are just as warm today as 1,000 years ago." > > hy,etc: Thank you for this, David. What a breath of fresh air.-I've been presenting the real climate side here for several years. 16 years with no warming, and the CO2 keeps climbing. We are in a sun cooling cycle. Look at the current anemic sunspot cycle, number 24 I think. IPCC climate reports are all about the money. The UN is dominated by third-world countries with their hands out. They don't know how to succeed, so their greed drives the UN and we in the US are the suckers that stay with it, and pay 1/3 of their budget. -By the way, hy, I love your entries, very bright and well-written. Please stay around and help entertain.
Climate change + 1st Amendment
by hyjyljyj , Thursday, December 06, 2012, 13:36 (4371 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Thursday, December 06, 2012, 13:43
Thanks David...at this point it's "difficult to know" how anything could keep me away from this site. Seems like a great place to exchange ideas and viewpoints and rejoice in not feeling the need to "pick sides".-Since you asked me to expound a little, my friends & acquaintances are sometimes taken by surprise when some vapid, specious atheist argument will arise which I demolish,...then assail a Bible verse as pure hogwash and manmade gibberish, since invisible spirits in the sky don't really tell people what to write down...and then in the next breath fiercely defend Christians against what I perceive as an open war on them, especially in the US. Every other religion is accorded a measure of dignity and respect--especially the most mindless, murderous cult of them all--while the one representing 85% of the US population is dragged through the mud in a most revolting and sanctimonious manner.-They wonder why I strongly support crèches and other Christian artifacts in public settings, and I have to remind them that the 1st Amendment is very explicit: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The first clause, they get: Congress cannot (and therefore neither can anyone else) ever make any law creating a state or national religion, nor should they ever be able to. The Founders risked their lives specifically and primarily to get away from that. -But the bolded second clause is consistently ignored. The Founders were very meticulous and precise in making sure the phrase "free exercise thereof" includes no direct mention or indirect suggestion whatsoever of any restrictions on where or how that freedom may be exercised. They wanted us to be free of all religious persecution. Meaning, every single time an employer forces someone to remove a crucifix from their workstation, or some robotic teacher sends a crying kid home for wearing a Jesus is Love T-shirt, or a city council forces the removal of a Christmas display or bans the use of the word "Christmas",...they are flagrantly violating people's 1st Amendment rights, which we all hold "sacred", if you'll pardon the pun. Yet no one speaks up in their defense except other Christians, which is baffling and which makes everyone else discount their opinion as illegitimate. Atheists are having a field day ruining Christmas for people all over the country, and very few people seem to have the nerve to stand up for the 1st Amendment. There is no guarantee you or I can never be "offended" by someone else's religious expression, no matter how fatuous or self-righteous it may seem (e.g., "God's chosen people"? Really? What does that make the other 7 billion of us, chopped liver? Oy vey!); however, there IS a guarantee that someone taking offense can in no way impede anyone's exercising their religion, again, no matter how unfounded or silly or ridiculous or wrongheaded someone else may find it to be.-[BTW David, I recently discovered a humorous essay of four pages in 14 pt. I wrote some years ago which I had forgotten about, and it made me laugh. It is the tale of Christianity and Roman Catholicism in a Nutshell, as irreverently told by a different kind of Italian from the nuns & priests we had in school...a wiseguy from the other side of the tracks, if you get my drift. Is there an appropriate spot to share it here, or should I start my own web log? ← ←(last remaining holdout on planet still loathing the word "blog")]
Climate change + 1st Amendment
by David Turell , Thursday, December 06, 2012, 14:49 (4371 days ago) @ hyjyljyj
hy: Thanks David...at this point it's "difficult to know" how anything could keep me away from this site. Seems like a great place to exchange ideas and viewpoints and rejoice in not feeling the need to "pick sides".-Thank you. dhw has set a tone here which allows just what you have found. Nutty folks are treated courteously until they give up and wander off.-> hy: ...and then in the next breath fiercely defend Christians against what I perceive as an open war on them, especially in the US. Every other religion is accorded a measure of dignity and respect-See my comment below:-> hy: They wonder why I strongly support crèches and other Christian artifacts in public settings, and I have to remind them that the 1st Amendment is very explicit: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The first clause, they get: Congress cannot (and therefore neither can anyone else) ever make any law creating a state or national religion, nor should they ever be able to. The Founders risked their lives specifically and primarily to get away from that. > > Hy: But the bolded second clause is consistently ignored. The Founders were very meticulous and precise in making sure the phrase "free exercise thereof" includes no direct mention or indirect suggestion whatsoever of any restrictions on where or how that freedom may be exercised. -As a Jew raised in a Christian nation, allowed to be a citizen with full rights, I appreciate the First amendment just as you do. Granted as a child I saw a degree of anti-semitism, but that is the result of narrow-brained individuals, not the cbasis of this nation. -> hy: Yet no one speaks up in their defense except other Christians, which is baffling and which makes everyone else discount their opinion as illegitimate.-Not true. Rabbi Daniel Lapin is still waging his war against just such garbage. See his book, 'America's Real War', 1999, or his website.-- > >hy: [BTW David, I recently discovered a humorous essay of four pages in 14 pt. I wrote some years ago which I had forgotten about, and it made me laugh. It is the tale of Christianity and Roman Catholicism in a Nutshell, as irreverently told by a different kind of Italian from the nuns & priests we had in school...a wiseguy from the other side of the tracks, if you get my drift. Is there an appropriate spot to share it here, -Contact Neil as per his instructions in the Forum list. i'd love to see it.
Climate change: Freeman Dyson
by David Turell , Saturday, April 06, 2013, 15:25 (4250 days ago) @ David Turell
A top physicist looks at climate foolishness;-http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html
Climate change: forests cool
by David Turell , Monday, April 29, 2013, 18:24 (4227 days ago) @ David Turell
Forests help in cloud formation and help cool the Earth.-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23451-plants-help-slow-warming--but-theres-a-tradeoff.html
Climate change: sudden cooling
by David Turell , Tuesday, May 13, 2014, 20:29 (3848 days ago) @ David Turell
Climate is hard to predict. This sudden cooling has no known cause:-"Scientists agree that the brief episode at the end of the Ice Age -- officially known as the Younger Dryas for a flower that flourished at that time -- sparked widespread cooling of Earth 12,800 years ago and that this cool period lasted for 1,000 years. But theories about the cause of this abrupt climate change are numerous. They range from changes in ocean circulation patterns caused by glacial meltwater entering the ocean to the cosmic-impact theory."-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140513113605.htm
Climate change: sudden cooling
DAVID: Climate is hard to predict. This sudden cooling has no known cause:-"Scientists agree that the brief episode at the end of the Ice Age -- officially known as the Younger Dryas for a flower that flourished at that time -- sparked widespread cooling of Earth 12,800 years ago and that this cool period lasted for 1,000 years. But theories about the cause of this abrupt climate change are numerous. They range from changes in ocean circulation patterns caused by glacial meltwater entering the ocean to the cosmic-impact theory."-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140513113605.htm-DAVID: Simple and bilateral predecessors. The Cambrian is a huge evolutionary jump:-"Ediacaran fossils are extremely perplexing: they don't look like any animal that is alive today, and their interrelationships are very poorly understood," said Lucas V. Joel, a former graduate student at UC Riverside and the first author of the research paper. Joel worked in Droser's lab until June 2013"-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140509172917.htm-I know this is going over old ground, but so many of these interesting findings that you alert us to point firmly at the randomness with which life forms evolve, appear and disappear. Since climate change is unpredictable, and brings with it large scale extinctions and/or remarkable innovations (which themselves disappear in the next round of climate changes), I don't see how one can with any confidence extrapolate a plan, unless the plan is simply "que sera sera". -The other obvious conclusion one has to draw ... again going over old ground, but it remains open territory ... is that unless your god separately created these extraordinary bilaterian organisms, which are unlike anything living today, they must have developed out of existing organisms, presumably in response to changes in the environment. We're not talking here of adaptations (which would tend to preserve the status quo) but of innovations. What part of those existing organisms do you think would have been responsible for devising the new structures? Or do you think your God preprogrammed the Ediacaran tubes to appear and then disappear as they did?
Climate change: sudden cooling
by David Turell , Thursday, May 15, 2014, 19:03 (3846 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: I know this is going over old ground, but so many of these interesting findings that you alert us to point firmly at the randomness with which life forms evolve, appear and disappear. Since climate change is unpredictable, and brings with it large scale extinctions and/or remarkable innovations (which themselves disappear in the next round of climate changes), I don't see how one can with any confidence extrapolate a plan, unless the plan is simply "que sera sera".-We know of six mass extinctions and amazing swings in climate. Yet life continued an evolution from simple to complex. The only conclusion that is safe is that living forms are extremely resilient, based on a very complex biochemistry that current science continues to illustrate. > > dhw: The other obvious conclusion one has to draw ........... they must have developed out of existing organisms, presumably in response to changes in the environment. ...... What part of those existing organisms do you think would have been responsible for devising the new structures? Or do you think your God preprogrammed the Ediacaran tubes to appear and then disappear as they did?-All I can do is look at current evidence. When the Burgess shale in Canada was the only place to look at the Cambrian Explosion, Darwinists could plead lack of evidence. But now that Chinese areas and Australian areas have opened up the Cambrian and its past aged layers with no change in the preceding Edicaran, the evidence for the unexplained explosion is extremely strong. We have no way of knowing whether God stepped in and fiddled directly or as I think is more possible is that original life is so complex and and potentially inventive that the huge jump in complexity simply waited until the climate had enough oxygen to fuel the more complex organisms, and then proceeded to produce them.
Climate change: sudden cooling
DAVID: The only conclusion that is safe is that living forms are extremely resilient, based on a very complex biochemistry that current science continues to illustrate. dhw: The other obvious conclusion one has to draw ........... they must have developed out of existing organisms, presumably in response to changes in the environment. ...... What part of those existing organisms do you think would have been responsible for devising the new structures? Or do you think your God preprogrammed the Ediacaran tubes to appear and then disappear as they did?-DAVID: We have no way of knowing whether God stepped in and fiddled directly or as I think is more possible is that original life is so complex and and potentially inventive that the huge jump in complexity simply waited until the climate had enough oxygen to fuel the more complex organisms, and then proceeded to produce them.-[I have edited these quotes to streamline the argument.]-I'm very happy with your answer, except that I would like to reword it. A jump doesn't "wait" (though I suspect you like the word because it suggests preplanning). Not even the individual organisms in which this jump took place would have waited ... assuming that all changes must take place within existing organisms unless your god produced the new ones from scratch. As you say,the original forms of life must have been so complex and potentially inventive that when environmental changes took place, the inventive mechanisms that had been passed on by those first forms were able not only to adapt but also to experiment. Whatever those mechanisms are, they must be contained within the basic structural and functional unit of life, which is the cell. And whether or not this was designed by your god, the invention of new organs and the resultant origin of species therefore has to be the result of some form of inventive intelligence within the cell or, rather, following the principle of "emergence" (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts), the inventive intelligence of cell communities. -The various possible explanations for those who believe in evolution are therefore: 1) your god inventing the original "intelligent cell" but sometimes stepping in and fiddling, 2) your god preprogramming every single innovation, 3) your god leaving his invention to do its own innovating, 4) the original "intelligent cell" assembling itself by chance or 5) by some form of mental activity (panpsychist) within the chemicals themselves. For anti-evolutionists, the explanation can only be that God created each innovation separately.
Climate change: sudden cooling
by David Turell , Friday, May 16, 2014, 19:11 (3845 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: As you say,the original forms of life must have been so complex and potentially inventive that when environmental changes took place, the inventive mechanisms that had been passed on by those first forms were able not only to adapt but also to experiment. Whatever those mechanisms are, they must be contained within the basic structural and functional unit of life, which is the cell. And whether or not this was designed by your god, the invention of new organs and the resultant origin of species therefore has to be the result of some form of inventive intelligence within the cell or, rather, following the principle of "emergence" (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts), the inventive intelligence of cell communities.-I have truncated your fair summary > > dhw: The various possible explanations for those who believe in evolution are therefore: 1) your god inventing the original "intelligent cell" but sometimes stepping in and fiddling, 2) your god preprogramming every single innovation, 3) your god leaving his invention to do its own innovating, 4) the original "intelligent cell" assembling itself by chance or 5) by some form of mental activity (panpsychist) within the chemicals themselves. For anti-evolutionists, the explanation can only be that God created each innovation separately.-My choices: 1) is possible, but the evidence of massive numbers of convergence and the bushiness of the evolutionary process suggest no fiddling.- 2) again possible but the reasoning about (1) still prevails. If pre-programmng were precise we would not see the bushiness and all the convergent attempts by evolution. Some directionality of preprogramming, I think is a definite probability, for after all evolution did arrive at US.- 3) Again, highly probable, as it appears from the helter-skelter branches of invention exhibited by the wondrous range of strange creatures and their very unusual lifestyles, evolution does not seem to follow a business-like straight and narrow path.-4) I reject completely. The theoretically proposed original ancestor cell is highly complex to start with, and the abortive attemps to study origin of life have met stone wall after stone wall. To repeat, all the scientists have shown is what does not work, and no current theory to explore looks promising. What they do produce is intelligently designed laboratory molecules, n ot related to natural attempts.-5) Yes, God's intelligent activity in cells is highly possible, or even probable, if we assume that God works at the quantum plain of reality and influences the genome. This is how directionality to humans might have been accomplished.-In summary: I think God used the process of evolution, perhaps because it is the only way our arrival could be accomplished. We must accept that we cannot known His reason. Straight creationism as an interpretation of Genesis is due to mistranslations of the ancient text. Seven days is really seven eons. We certainly see evolution. It is the mechanism of speciation that is simply not known to us. Darwin's proposal of gradual tiny steps is not correct. What is correct is now the subject of intense research and debate, with strict Darwinists slowly backing down.
Climate change: sudden cooling
by romansh 
, Saturday, May 17, 2014, 16:35 (3844 days ago) @ David Turell
4) I reject completely. The theoretically proposed original ancestor cell is highly complex to start with, and the abortive attemps to study origin of life have met stone wall after stone wall. -> To repeat, all the scientists have shown is what does not work, and no current theory to explore looks promising. What they do produce is intelligently designed laboratory molecules, not related to natural attempts.-This bit I don't understand David. What I have read and understood is that the life we observe today is derived from an orginal ancestor cell (I have read that up to three have been proposed, but it is of no import to the discussion). This does not mean that there weren't a whole bunch communities of cells evolving prior to that. Plus this is totally consistent with the abiogenesis you I presented a while back.-Your second point, I find wanting. When scientists reproduce what they think might occur in a 'natural' setting in a laboratory, to replicate quickly what might take million of years in reality, your claim that this is intelligently directed, this I find a little bizarre.
Climate change: sudden cooling
by romansh , Saturday, May 17, 2014, 18:13 (3844 days ago) @ romansh
I should point out my second point had evolution in mind rather than abiogenesis, which was really what you were addressing David.-Nevertheless the video I was previously pointing to is a really simple model, and does not seem unreasonable to me.-So if we tested it in the lab and it worked ... would it count as a demonstration of abiogenesis? Bearing in mind scientists are directing the testwork?-The video I was referring to.
Climate change: sudden cooling
by David Turell , Sunday, May 18, 2014, 03:08 (3844 days ago) @ romansh
First Romansh message: Your second point, I find wanting. When scientists reproduce what they think might occur in a 'natural' setting in a laboratory, to replicate quickly what might take million of years in reality, your claim that this is intelligently directed, this I find a little bizarre.-Not at all bizarre. What is designed in a lab is always intelligently designed. And the other issue is that if some brilliant science team produces a living form, there is no guarantee that is how it happened the first time. We cannot relive that history and will only know that we have found a method to create life from simple molecules. We know such a method exists, for life is here. Is there more than one method? It is possible. -> Romansh: I should point out my second point had evolution in mind rather than abiogenesis, which was really what you were addressing David. > > Nevertheless the video I was previously pointing to is a really simple model, and does not seem unreasonable to me. > > Romansh: So if we tested it in the lab and it worked ... would it count as a demonstration of abiogenesis? Bearing in mind scientists are directing the testwork?-Of course it would, but with the proviso stated above > > The video I was referring to.-Your video I've just reviewed. Lots of acurate organic chemistry and lots of wishful thinking.The current RNA studies on RNAzymes have reached the correct replication rates of about 99+%, not accurate enough for life, but an improvement over the first 95% models, after searching thru trillions of possible molecules. Spontaneous polymerization? Yeah, but without water and with enzymes and where did they come from? You don't get organic reactions easily without heat and enzymes, and the latter are giant molecules. Simple lipid membranes, Jack Szoztak's work, brings to mind this quote from him in my book: "What is important in the origin of life field is understanding the transitions that led from chemistry to biology. So far, I have not seen that efforts to define life have contributed at all to that understanding." http://www.jbsdonline.com. -The video says that organic chemicals were readily available on early Earth. After the bombardment by planetismals, the Earth cooled down, and it is thought life could appear after 4 billion years ago. Early chemcial traces of life start at about 3.6 billion years ago, based on Australian and Greenland findings. Basically at 4 billion years lava, rocks and some water. Some organic material arrived by meteorite. How did the video author know that organic material was plentiful? Meteorite analysis, Murchison for example, have shown only eight essential amino acids, not 20. All living amino acids are left handed. Meteorite amino acids are 53% left and 47% right in a study last year. All Ribose molecules in life are right handed, facts the video did no discuss. I repeat: after 60+ years of work we only know what does not work. To study this subject thoroughly start with Robert Shapiro's "Origins", 1986. His last thoughts were in SciAm in 2007 when he proposed an inorganic chemical/energy cycle as the best probable beginning, shortly before his death. And he was an abiogenesis believer.-In conclusion, don't accept videos with beautiful symphonic and operatic musical background without deeply researching the subject yourself. OOL is a vital piece of the evidence in discussing agnoticism or theism. And it still looks miraculous to Paul Davies, who is now is sounding more and more like a diest.-And finally from the video, how does information appear out of nowhere? A code suddenly invents its own information? Poppycock!
Climate change: sudden cooling
by romansh , Sunday, May 18, 2014, 21:43 (3843 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Sunday, May 18, 2014, 22:34
David > Your video I've just reviewed. Lots of acurate organic chemistry and lots of wishful thinking. Or an incrediple perceptive imagination >The current RNA studies on RNAzymes have reached the correct replication rates of about 99+%, not accurate enough for life, but an improvement over the first 95% models, after searching thru trillions of possible molecules. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html > So far, I have not seen that efforts to define life have contributed at all to that understanding." http://www.jbsdonline.com. Here I agree with you ... life is like pornography ... I know it when I see it ... to quote a Judge whose name escapes me. > Basically at 4 billion years lava, rocks and some water. Some organic material arrived by meteorite. How did the video author know that organic material was plentiful? How do we know it was insufficient. Organic compounds can be made abiotically, this has been known for over a hundred years. > Meteorite analysis, Murchison for example, have shown only eight essential amino acids, not 20. Who suggests all early life had all 20 amino acids? > All living amino acids are left handed. Meteorite amino acids are 53% left and 47% right in a study last year. I would suggest a small difference in the availability of the early enantiomer would provide early life a sufficient drive to out replicate right handed enantiomer producers.-> All Ribose molecules in life are right handed, facts the video did no discuss. So what? That life can produce a specific handedness today is irrelevant. We are trying to work out what might have happened over 3.5 Gy ago.-> In conclusion, don't accept videos with beautiful symphonic and operatic musical background without deeply researching the subject yourself. OOL is a vital piece of the evidence in discussing agnoticism or theism. And it still looks miraculous to Paul Davies, who is now is sounding more and more like a diest. If you reread my question i was not asking you to accept it? > And finally from the video, how does information appear out of nowhere? A code suddenly invents its own information? Poppycock! Information came when mankind created the concept.-Remember there is more information in a random set of events than there is a repeating set of events. It just harder to work out the key for the random set.-Poppycock indeed.
Climate change: sudden cooling
by David Turell , Sunday, May 18, 2014, 22:56 (3843 days ago) @ romansh
David > > Your video I've just reviewed. Lots of acurate organic chemistry and lots of wishful thinking. > Romansh:Or an incrediple perceptive imagination-Just lots of imagination with huge sections to be filled in inbetween the assertions. > >The current RNA studies on RNAzymes have reached the correct replication rates of about 99+%, not accurate enough for life, but an improvement over the first 95% models, after searching thru trillions of possible molecules. > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-wit... story is filled with hoopla and the usual provisos:-"In all, 29 metabolism-like chemical reactions were spotted, seemingly catalysed by iron and other metals that would have been found in early ocean sediments. The metabolic pathways aren't identical to modern ones; some of the chemicals made by intermediate steps weren't detected. However, "if you compare them side by side it is the same structure and many of the same molecules are formed," Ralser says. These pathways could have been refined and improved once enzymes evolved within cells.-"There is one big problem, however. "For origins of life, it is important to understand where the source molecules come from," Powner says. No one has yet shown that such substances could form spontaneously in the early oceans.-"A related issue is that the reactions observed so far only go in one direction; from complex sugars to simpler molecules like pyruvate. "Given the data, one might well conclude that any organics in the ocean would have been totally degraded, rather than forming the basis of modern metabolism," says Jack Szostak, who studies the origin of life at Harvard. "I would conclude that metabolism had to evolve, within cells, one reaction and one catalyst at a time."-Again our friend skeptical Jack.- > > David: So far, I have not seen that efforts to define life have contributed at all to that understanding." http://www.jbsdonline.com. - > Romansh: Here I agree with you ... life is like pornography ... I know it when I see it ... to quote a Judge whose name escapes me.-Justice Stevens in the famous Supremes pornography case.- > >David; Basically at 4 billion years lava, rocks and some water. Some organic material arrived by meteorite. How did the video author know that organic material was plentiful? > Romansh How do we know it was insufficient. Organic compounds can be made abiotically, this has been known for over a hundred years.-But as Szostak points out which ones?- > > David Meteorite analysis, Murchison for example, have shown only eight essential amino acids, not 20. > Romansh: Who suggests all early life had all 20 amino acids?-Agreed.-> > David:All living amino acids are left handed. Meteorite amino acids are 53% left and 47% right in a study last year. > Romansh: I would suggest a small difference in the availability of the early enantiomer would provide early life a sufficient drive to out replicate right handed enantiomer producers.-That is pure guess work and wishful thinking > > > David: All Ribose molecules in life are right handed, facts the video did no discuss. > Romansh: So what? That life can produce a specific handedness today is irrelevant. We are trying to work out what might have happened over 3.5 Gy ago.-So life started out with both handednesses, and then chose left? I would think life did not change in midstream > > > In conclusion, don't accept videos with beautiful symphonic and operatic musical background without deeply researching the subject yourself. OOL is a vital piece of the evidence in discussing agnoticism or theism. And it still looks miraculous to Paul Davies, who is now is sounding more and more like a diest. > Romansh: If you reread my question I was not asking you to accept it?-Agreed, but it impliedc acceptence. > > > David: And finally from the video, how does information appear out of nowhere? A code suddenly invents its own information? Poppycock!-> Romansh;Information came when mankind created the concept.-Inadequate sidestep. Information is information with or without mentation. > > Romansh: Remember there is more information in a random set of events than there is a repeating set of events. It just harder to work out the key for the random set.-Agreed. A crystal is ordered,but simple. Information required for life is very complex. > > Poppycock indeed.
Climate change: sudden cooling
by David Turell , Sunday, May 18, 2014, 23:00 (3843 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Sunday, May 18, 2014, 23:56
David > > > Your video I've just reviewed. Lots of acurate organic chemistry and lots of wishful thinking. > > Romansh:Or an incrediple perceptive imagination > > Just lots of imagination with huge sections to be filled in inbetween the assertions. > > >The current RNA studies on RNAzymes have reached the correct replication rates of about 99+%, not accurate enough for life, but an improvement over the first 95% models, after searching thru trillions of possible molecules. > > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-wit... The story is filled with hoopla and the usual provisos: "In all, 29 metabolism-like chemical reactions were spotted, seemingly catalysed by iron and other metals that would have been found in early ocean sediments. The metabolic pathways aren't identical to modern ones; some of the chemicals made by intermediate steps weren't detected. However, "if you compare them side by side it is the same structure and many of the same molecules are formed," Ralser says. These pathways could have been refined and improved once enzymes evolved within cells. "There is one big problem, however. "For origins of life, it is important to understand where the source molecules come from," Powner says. No one has yet shown that such substances could form spontaneously in the early oceans. "A related issue is that the reactions observed so far only go in one direction; from complex sugars to simpler molecules like pyruvate. "Given the data, one might well conclude that any organics in the ocean would have been totally degraded, rather than forming the basis of modern metabolism," says Jack Szostak, who studies the origin of life at Harvard. "I would conclude that metabolism had to evolve, within cells, one reaction and one catalyst at a time." Again our friend skeptical Jack. > > > > > David: So far, I have not seen that efforts to define life have contributed at all to that understanding." http://www.jbsdonline.com. > > > > Romansh: Here I agree with you ... life is like pornography ... I know it when I see it ... to quote a Judge whose name escapes me. Justice Stevens in the famous Supremes pornography case. > > > > >David; Basically at 4 billion years lava, rocks and some water. Some organic material arrived by meteorite. How did the video author know that organic material was plentiful? > > Romansh How do we know it was insufficient. Organic compounds can be made abiotically, this has been known for over a hundred years. But as Szostak points out which ones? > > > > > David Meteorite analysis, Murchison for example, have shown only eight essential amino acids, not 20. > > Romansh: Who suggests all early life had all 20 amino acids? Agreed. > > > > David:All living amino acids are left handed. Meteorite amino acids are 53% left and 47% right in a study last year. > > > Romansh: I would suggest a small difference in the availability of the early enantiomer would provide early life a sufficient drive to out replicate right handed enantiomer producers. That is pure guess work and wishful thinking > > > > > David: All Ribose molecules in life are right handed, facts the video did no discuss. > > > Romansh: So what? That life can produce a specific handedness today is irrelevant. We are trying to work out what might have happened over 3.5 Gy ago. So life started out with both handednesses, and then chose left? I would think life did not change in midstream > > > > > In conclusion, don't accept videos with beautiful symphonic and operatic musical background without deeply researching the subject yourself. OOL is a vital piece of the evidence in discussing agnoticism or theism. And it still looks miraculous to Paul Davies, who is now is sounding more and more like a diest. > > Romansh: If you reread my question I was not asking you to accept it?-Agreed, but it implied acceptence. > > > > > David: And finally from the video, how does information appear out of nowhere? A code suddenly invents its own information? Poppycock! > > > Romansh;Information came when mankind created the concept. Inadequate sidestep. Information is information with or without mentation. > > > > Romansh: Remember there is more information in a random set of events than there is a repeating set of events. It just harder to work out the key for the random set. Agreed. A crystal is ordered,but simple. Information required for life is very complex.
Climate change: fracking is safe
by David Turell , Monday, November 17, 2014, 14:10 (3660 days ago) @ David Turell
The fluids used are harmless, based on this study:-http://townhall.com/columnists/thomasmiller/2014/11/17/liberal-university-destroys-antifracking-talking-point-n1918979?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
Climate change: the damage to science
by David Turell , Friday, June 19, 2015, 15:14 (3446 days ago) @ David Turell
A refreshing review by a science writer of the damage to the reputation of science as an entity that should have trust, because of all the spurious claims about warming and the attempt to silence critics, and of course the huge piles of money that influence the game. He takes a middle road, yes there is some warming, but it won't cause much trouble.-http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/19/the-climate-wars-damage-to-science/-"I dread to think what harm this episode will have done to the reputation of science in general when the dust has settled. Science will need a reformation. Garth Paltridge is a distinguished Australian climate scientist, who, in The Facts, pens a wise paragraph that I fear will be the epitaph of climate science:-"We have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis for society's respect for scientific endeavour.-"And it's not working anyway. Despite avalanches of money being spent on research to find evidence of rapid man-made warming, despite even more spent on propaganda and marketing and subsidising renewable energy, the public remains unconvinced. The most recent polling data from Gallup shows the number of Americans who worry “a great deal” about climate change is down slightly on thirty years ago, while the number who worry “not at all” has doubled from 12 per cent to 24 per cent—and now exceeds the number who worry “only a little” or “a fair amount”. All that fear-mongering has achieved less than nothing: if anything it has hardened scepticism."
Climate change: the damage to science
by David Turell , Saturday, July 25, 2015, 20:07 (3410 days ago) @ David Turell
Here is another take on Ridley's article on how climate science has damaged science in general:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/here-is-matt-ridleys-must-read-article-on-climate-science/-"Ridley's article is a must read for anyone who is true to science. But for all of its import, it is only the beginning. Ridley is obviously a discerning man but there has been another misadventure and abuse of science that dwarfs climate science. Virtually everything he points out in this excellent piece could be restated, but to even greater extremes, regarding evolution science.-"Ridley was once an AGW proponent who now has pulled himself out of its mire. He has stepped back and now the landscape has become all too clear. It is not that there is no warming, or that carbon dioxide has no effects. That's hardly the point. The problem is in the misrepresentations of the science, the control of the funding, the publication control and blackballing, the demonization, the false dichotomies, the political intrusions, the dangerous impact on public policy, and so forth. This is not science, it a hijacking of science for nonscientific purposes.-"Ridley sees all of this. He sees how it really is, and he doesn't like what he sees. What Ridley does not yet see is that evolution science is all of this, but on a grander scale. Ridley has opened a door, but he is focusing on the first step. It is a most dangerous door, for behind it are all manner of truths people prefer to avoid."-Hear,hear!
Climate change: the damage to science
DAVID: Here is another take on Ridley's article on how climate science has damaged science in general:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/here-is-matt-ridleys-must-read-articl...-"Ridley's article is a must read for anyone who is true to science. But for all of its import, it is only the beginning. Ridley is obviously a discerning man but there has been another misadventure and abuse of science that dwarfs climate science. Virtually everything he points out in this excellent piece could be restated, but to even greater extremes, regarding evolution science. "Ridley was once an AGW proponent who now has pulled himself out of its mire. He has stepped back and now the landscape has become all too clear. It is not that there is no warming, or that carbon dioxide has no effects. That's hardly the point. The problem is in the misrepresentations of the science, the control of the funding, the publication control and blackballing, the demonization, the false dichotomies, the political intrusions, the dangerous impact on public policy, and so forth. This is not science, it a hijacking of science for nonscientific purposes. "Ridley sees all of this. He sees how it really is, and he doesn't like what he sees. What Ridley does not yet see is that evolution science is all of this, but on a grander scale. Ridley has opened a door, but he is focusing on the first step. It is a most dangerous door, for behind it are all manner of truths people prefer to avoid."-David: Hear,hear!-A powerful article. Of course exactly the same accusations can be levelled at religion: “the control of the funding, the publication control and blackballing, the demonization, the false dichotomies, the political intrusions, the dangerous impact on public policy, and so forth”. It can probably be levelled at most of our institutions, since they are all run by humans who are subject to the weaknesses of human nature! We should, however, be careful not to assume that the polemic applies to all science and all scientists (and all religious people and institutions). You yourself believe in common descent, which is the basis of the evolutionary theory. -One more quote struck home: -“Scientists are just as prone as anybody else to “confirmation bias”, the tendency we all have to seek evidence that supports our favoured hypothesis and dismiss evidence that contradicts it—as if we were counsel for the defence.”-Exactly the point I was making to you about preconceptions. (So have some respect for my intelligent bacteria!)
Climate change: the damage to science
by David Turell , Sunday, July 26, 2015, 20:00 (3409 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: “Scientists are just as prone as anybody else to “confirmation bias”, the tendency we all have to seek evidence that supports our favoured hypothesis and dismiss evidence that contradicts it—as if we were counsel for the defence.” > > Exactly the point I was making to you about preconceptions. (So have some respect for my intelligent bacteria!)-But you know about those intelligent bacteria because I presented them. There are two possible interpretations. I have picked one after much study, not preconceived!
Climate change: the Little Ice Age
by David Turell , Thursday, April 04, 2019, 19:33 (2061 days ago) @ David Turell
A definitive drop in temperature changed society according to this essay:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/01/how-the-little-ice-age-changed-history?ut...
"The reality is that our planet oscillates between phases with no ice, phases with all ice, and phases in the middle. The middle is where we happen to be right now—a fact that is responsible for our faulty perception of the earth’s climate as accommodating and stable.
***
"During this epoch, often known as the Little Ice Age, temperatures dropped by as much as two degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Compared with the extremes of snowball earth, that might not sound like much, but for people who lived through it the change was intensely dramatic. This was also the period between the end of the Middle Ages and the birth of the modern world. In a new book, “Nature’s Mutiny: How the Little Ice Age of the Long Seventeenth Century Transformed the West and Shaped the Present” (Liveright), the German-born, Vienna-based historian Philipp Blom argues that this is no coincidence—that there is a complex relationship between the social, economic, and intellectual disruption caused by the changed climate and the emerging era of markets, exploration, and intellectual freedom which constituted the beginning of the Enlightenment.
***
"The cooling happened in phases, with an initial drop beginning around 1300, and a sharper and more abrupt onset of cold starting in 1570 and lasting for about a hundred and ten years. It is the latter period that provides the focus for Blom’s book. Agreement about the fact that the cooling occurred, however, is not matched by an equivalent consensus about why.
***
"Although Blom’s focus is Europe, the most densely settled northerly area of the planet, he makes it clear that the effects of the Little Ice Age were global in scale. In China, then as now the most populous country in the world, the Ming dynasty fell in 1644, undermined by, among other things, erratic harvests.
***
"The most consequential effect of the frigid weather, Blom argues convincingly, was to disrupt the harvest, especially the grain harvest. It led to a fundamental shift in the social order across Europe, and beyond. The Little Ice Age amounted to “a long-term, continent-wide agricultural crisis,” as Blom writes. Grain harvests did not return to their previous levels for a hundred and eighty years. That affected everything about how society worked. Before this moment in European history, society was largely organized along feudal lines. The bulk of the population consisted of peasants, living on land owned by a lordly overclass. Town life, meanwhile, was dominated by restrictive guilds, and, in Blom’s description, it “valued social capital—class and family standing, trustworthiness, competition—but did not encourage anyone to reach beyond his station.” This settled order, which had lasted for centuries, was overturned. At first, there were panics and uprisings, food riots and rebellions, and a spike in witch trials—because, in a pre-scientific world, the idea that witches were responsible for failing harvests made as much sense as any other explanation.
***
"It is a book about a new economic system and the philosophical and cultural trends that accompanied it; climate is central to the story that it tells, but the connections don’t aim for the solidity of algebraic logic. Rather, Blom is seeking to give us a larger picture that is relevant to the current moment. His book is about links and associations rather than about definitive proof; it is about networks and shifts in intellectual mood, about correlations as much as causes. Despite that, Blom’s hypothesis is forceful, and has the potential to be both frightening and, if you hold it up to the light at just the right angle, a little optimistic. The idea can be put like this: climate change changes everything."
Comment: From snowball Earth to now the climate has been very cold and very hot, and has changed the way humans have acted and organized. we aer currently still warming from the Little Ice Age.
Climate change: hot Earth produced dinosaurs
by David Turell , Friday, August 19, 2022, 20:04 (828 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Friday, August 19, 2022, 20:16
A new study;
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2334580-reptile-boom-250-million-years-ago-may-hav...
"A boom in reptile abundance and diversity around 250 million years ago may have resulted from soaring temperatures beginning millions of years earlier, rather than filling the gap left by a mass extinction of mammals as was previously thought.
"Towards the end of the Permian period around 250 million years ago, two massive volcanic eruptions caused global temperatures to increase by roughly 30°C (54°F). “[The volcanos] released huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which resulted in a huge global warming effect,” says Tiago R. Simões at Harvard University. In the tropics, “the surface of the ocean was basically as hot as your hot tub.”
"The explosions may not be as famous as the more recent asteroid strike that could have killed off the dinosaurs, but the eruptions were among the most destructive mass extinction events in our planet’s history, with the second, more powerful blast wiping out 86 per cent of species.
"The planet was already on a warming trend, but the eruptions spurred a roughly 20-million-year-long hot steak. While early mammal ancestors began dying en masse, reptiles appeared to evolve at break-neck speed, ranging from small gecko-like creatures on land to domineering ichthyosaurs at sea.
"Simões and his colleagues spent eight years measuring and comparing museum fossils of amniotes – the four-legged ancestors of mammals, reptiles and birds – that lived 140 million years before and after the major extinction event. He compiled 348 morphological characteristics, like skull dimensions and tail length, for 1000 fossil specimens from 125 species. Then, he and his team compared that information with global temperatures during the same period.
"Their statistical analysis revealed that reptiles were increasing in number and diversity around 40 million years before the dramatic explosions, indicating the reptiles’ success was tied to a warming climate, not the sudden loss of mammalian competition.
^^^
"The findings shake up how palaeontologists think about reptile evolution, says Christopher J. Raxworthy at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. “New climates themselves could be stimulating evolution to ultimately produce very diverse new forms,” he says.
"Raxworthy notes that, compared to the rapid pace of human-caused climate change, this stretch of warming happened relatively slowly. “We won’t actually see the evolutionary implications of the climate change we’re inducing now for millions of years,” he says. “The consequences could be huge.”
Comment: Hotter climate can make animals create adoptive changes. But I don't think herds of dinos will reappear.
Another more detailed version:
https://phys.org/news/2022-08-million-years-climate-drove-evolution.html