swansont

Note: Some posts copied from duplicate thread.

Yes. I'll close this and copy the relevant answers to the other.

But that is a shifting of the burden of proof. We know what the current climate entails. That's political, but one might hope that the weight of two valid arguments (assuming for the moment that both are valid) that say "reduce fossil fuel use" would spur more action than just one.

Ask away. I've provided one reference. But the numbers Paradelver gives (do you have a source?) eliminate solar variation as the cause. Jupiter, Saturn, et. al, only get a few percent of the solar flux we get (which one can calculate purely from geometry)

Observed by whom? (i.e. do you have citations for this?) As far as Mars goes, I recall reading the albedo of Mars has changed. This wasn't what I read, but was the first thing I found in Googling(pdf file) http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/pdf/fenton/nature05718.pdf

moved. This was OT for "Aliens cause global warming"

I can't comment on a lot of the specifics; it goes past my level of expertise. Life on earth may deal just fine with varying conditions, but that does not mean that human life will. Conditions present millions of years ago have no bearing on what present life is well-adapted to. I hope you can see that mean level and equilibrium are two very different concepts. Anthropogenic means it was made by humans, usually in the context of being made in ways that other animals don't produce, e.g. burning fossil fuels. Websites and blogs geared toward debunking bad and/or politicized science abound. Creationism/ID, "alternative" medicine (e.g. homeopathy), other topics within medicine (e.g. HIV/AIDS and mercury-autism), various flavors of non-mainstream physics (e.g. anti-relativity, anti-QM), etc. Some people are bothered by seeing fallacious or otherwise unsound arguments go unchallenged.

How much of the hype came from the CDC and WHO, and how much came from the hypemeisters in the media?

The existence of a magnetic force is well-established. You need a very compelling reason to discard it.

#5. AFAIK the temperatures back then were much higher than they are now. #6 Equilibrium isn't the proper concept to apply, since the earth is a dynamic system. The introduction and loss rates change with time, for a variety of reasons. Here are some summaries that address at least parts of some of the other questions. #2 http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-ice-age.htm #3 http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm #7 http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Christian values or values shared by many Christians? It's not like they have a monopoly on the values.

I fear you are completely missing the point. Thie disagreement was not over the linear-fit to the increase over the last several decades. Any function is going to look linear if you look at a short enough data set. The objection is using that linear fit as a basis for projecting a future linear increase, when the longer-term trend is clearly not linear!

Elas, I moved you last post to the thread you linked to; discussion of your work beongs there, not here.

You'll have to better define what you mean by nanotechnology. Nanofabrication has been around for decades, so it's not a new thing. Your computer's processor and memory were built using nanofabrication techniques.

Ah, I see. AIDS is manmade. Gotcha. <sigh>

You looked back three decades. Why stop there? Let's look back 50 years, and break it up into 2 sections. If we look at the graph that you cited, (using the five-year average curve to smooth things out and avoid the potential bias of choosing a particular starting year) it's pretty obvious that there is a slope change. Let's start when solar variations pretty much flattened out. From 1955-1980, the increase is about 0.2 ºC, I'll even spot you 0.05 ºC that might be there from a decrease in solar — let's call it 0.25ºC when we subtract that out. About 0.1 ºC per decade. From 1980-2005, the increase is about 0.4 ºC, or 0.16 ºC per decade, which is in the range that you've quoted. (If we change the cutoff to 1976 the slope difference gets larger.) How, exactly, you can justify a linear extrapolation of temperature, and deem it "good science"?

Name two. I wasn't talking of creating life, I was talking of extending (saving) it, allowing people to live longer. Given that the population was much flatter before the rise of science, if science took more lives than it saved, the population should go down, not up. Unless you can think of another influence on population.

And it also points to the fact that c2 is pretty big.

Asking for the source of the data represented on a graph is not refusing to accept the data. It's asking from where the data came. When Pangloss referenced some data, iNow analyzed it! How can that possibly be characterized as "refusing to accept the data?" What was being challenged was your linear projection based solely on the past behavior with no scientific justification, as we can all recall:

I can't claim any special expertise in GCMs, but AFAIK the feedback terms are named thus because they will appear due to any change in temperature, and it seems to me that cataclysmic events that would help allow you to test that, since it's unlikely to have other events that would mask them. In other models you'd look for similar behavior — any kind of single-variable "impulse" event that would allow you to test the model. Of course, if it's a system where you can control individual parameters, that makes testing a whole lot easier.

Technology makes killing more efficient, but I refer back to the question I posed earlier. If one posits that science killed more than it saved, how would one account for a tremendous increase in population?

That bears repeating. A mole of monotomic hydrogen has a mass of a gram. The sun has a mass of about 2 x 10^30 kg, so if that were all hydrogen, we're talking ~10^57 atoms. Conversion to helium only reduces that by a factor of four.

AFAIK the resolution is only now getting to the point where an earth-mass, earth-orbit planet is detectable. So I'm guessing the answer is "no."

If it's a public school he is an agent of the state.

What is the population today, and what was it 200 years ago?