theCPE

The climate models for temperature prediction are "accurate" because they are updated continually. As time progresses the model is updated to reflect the true temperature increases. The first temperature models produced during the 80s I believe had the temperatures being 5 C higher by the year 2000!!! That of course didn't happen. Basically, the models have limited range of accurate prediction since the only reason the models track with historic temperatures is because the models are constantly updated.

I want to become a computer scientist, I love computers and I would love to have a career working with computers.

What do you love about computers?

If you like the hardware aspects of working with computers look into computer/network administration.

If you like using computers for problem solving then CS is definitely what you should do.

How difficult is it to become a computer scientist? I'm not very good at science but I'm willing to work as hard as I can to get where I need to be and succeed in computer science.

A B.S. in CS isn't too difficult. It will require a decent amount of work however. I am a Computer Engineer which means I took half electrical engineering courses (circuit design) and half software courses. I always considered semesters with more CS classes the easier semesters. There will be labs and lots of programming assignments so be prepared for that.

Is being a computer scientist a hard career or is it a reliable career?

I would consider it a safe career. CS and engineers don't typically have problems finding a job. I knew a lot of CS and CPEs that graduated with me and I can't recall any of them not finding a job.

If problem solving/critical thinking is something you enjoy doing, then you'll probably like the field.

Who is more likely to use birth control?

Non-catholics. (which includes baptist, etc)

Who is more likely to have an abortion?

Non-christians Id guess.

Who is more likely to get married?

Less career/education oriented people (id guess smarts play a role in this too)

Who is more likely to commit suicide?

Looks like non-religious people.

Who is more likely to receive assistance if they have important (eg food, health) problems?

anyone I imagine, welfare / gov programs cant discriminant.

Hence, who is more likely to have more kids, and therefore a higher evolutionary fitness?

Well, according to statistics less developed countries have higher birth rates. Also, less educated non-career oriented people in developed countries have higher birth rates.

So....I think there might be something to your idea, but more likely I think there are other factors that play the true role of making people have less evolutionary fitness.

theCPE:

 

Ah, more labels... I should have expected as much

Well, then explain what you described and yourself commented sounds "silly" is if the label utopian hippy society is wrong or off.

I thank you for responding to this rhetorical question. perhaps it didn't serve its purpose and you still have little understanding of the meaning I intended by it. considering that these things arent necessary, why are they here? what purpose do they serve? this thread is about evolution, and it would seem that all facets of human society should be included in a discussion about human evolution. if the fruits of capitalism are not necessary and they are causing the tree to run bare, why are we picking them?

I see no bare tree. But perhaps you can explain where capitalism has failed or where you expect it too...from my perspective it is succeeding with vigor.

then you have failed to critically examine my post for meaning, especially in light of the topic.

It seemed that most of your post focused on abolishing the ideas of structured economy specifically capitalism and shifting to (again you called it silly yourself and its your idea) an idealistic "hippy" everyone working together and geting equal shares of everything and no one is in a "rush" society.

Anyone with ambition and goals is going to hate such a society. Like others have pointed out, it is an impossible task to convince people to give up what they feel is rightfully theirs through work etc.

it is not "my thing." if YOU were the one "visualizing a circle of hippies sitting around a camp fire" then why would you assume it to be a sentiment shared between us?

You wrote the post didn't you?

I only complain that people limit themselves in their goals and ambitions and the means they employ to succeed in realizing them, especially with regards to thinking "what's in it for me?" sorry, but who are you and what makes you so different and/or deserving of something special? why is it so hard to recognize the inherent problems with the human race at this point in time?

Wow.

You should take a pysch class in motivation. People think they are something special and deserve what they have because of the things they do through effort, creativity, work, sweat, tears, etc etc.

I recognize no inherent problem with ambition within the human race. The inherent problem within the human race I recognize is the problem of multitudes of unmotivated unproductive people and how self replicating it is.

Perhaps it would be better if you enquired as to Quartile's actual meaning, instead of pinning highly subjective viewpoints onto his post.

Um.

I didn't pin any viewpoints to any post.

I posted my opinions or "my take" of his ideals.

Just like prior people. If he believes I misinterpreted his post I'm sure he can point out where my opinion is wrong or something.

Heh.

Wouldn't it be smarter if we used our bountiful resources for everyone's good instead of for the few?

No.

Certainly the gap between the rich and poor could be bridged by some common human agreement rather than being constricted by the confines of regular economic definitions like capitalism or communism.

Ah, a utopian hippy society...interesting.

In other words.. what is the cause of the rush that the united states is in?

Oh dear.

why is it necessary to develop a country to the point that everyone is controlled by reality shows, flashy new cell phones, and the general desire to live a life in the shadow of the american dream? why is it so necessary that the country with the most "world influence" has the most bombs?

It isn't necessary. Of course most things in life aren't necessary. Like the computer you are using to browse the internet, none of that is necessary either.

If we are intelligent, it certainly doesnt show.

Interesting.

To be honest....most of that post had me visualizing a circle of hippies sitting around a camp fire smoking marijuana and singing kumbaya.

If that is your thing and you have no ambition then you are in luck. No one is forced in this country to be productive. If you don't want to be productive and you have no ambition it is perfectly ok.

But then complaining about the fact that some people have goals, ambition and drive is pretty silly.

Anyway, thats my take.

Your links all relate specifically to the Kyoto protocol. Since this is not what we were discussing, and you said that discussion of global climate change and encouraging change is bad for the economy, what you've done is known as equivocation.

No.

If you read the in depth analysis of the protocol you will see what climate policies do to negatively effect economic growth etc.

My contention is that changing our behavior in light of data regarding the human impact on global climate is NOT bad for the economy. I cite economic growth theory, whereby economies make investments in capital, education, and technologies, thereby abstaining from consumption today, in order to increase consumption in the future.

Right, so you "cite" a theory without actually citing anything and just assert the exact opposite of what the studies and links just demonstrated.

I also suggest that all economic impact must be considered in light of residual economic damage global climate change will have in the future. This should be viewed as a "natural capital." Essentially, by devoting output to emissions reductions, reducing consumption today, economies prevent economically harmful climate change and thereby increase consumption possibilities in the future.While these are more difficult to model, many outstanding models have been used to show how moderate behavior change now is significantly cheaper than doing nothing now and paying for damages later. I cite specifically the DICE model in this regard.

See above.

Further, current changes can be used to focus on greater efficiency and less waste, thus saving all industries as pertains to material and resource costs. Last, when considering how much change the economy can sustain (to ensure growth and not collapse), one must consider the speed at which changes are implemented, and weigh the scope of those changes prior to implementing.

See above...

The above are a few counter points to your assertion that discussing global climate change or encouraging behavioral change are detrimental to the economy.

First, that wasn't ever my assertion.

My assertion was that exaggeration or misrepresentation of climate data to push policy can be detrimental to the economy.

Strawman BAD!

Your statements above seem to imply that intelligence is only 1) having an ego, 2) experiencing greed, 3) being ambitious, 4) having emotions.

 

Is that what you mean? Any life form with those things is "intelligent," and those organisms which demonstrate those traits in greater degree are more intelligent?

You are missing my point.

My point is you asserted that people defined intelligence or THINGS for that matter in a way that ensured humans were superior. For you to make that claim simple means you disagree on the definition of intelligence. In which case what makes your definition right and not just one designed to make humans inferior?

Please look again. I never said that humans were not intelligent. I said that I challenged anyone who assumed that humans are the MOST intelligent, and cited some reasons for my stance on this issue.

I think you were asserting humans aren't any more intelligent than other species on earth right? Then you listed YOUR reasons why you thought that way and why others were just defining intelligence so as to make humans by default more intelligent. Which is when I pointed out that with the same logic anyone can just claim you define intelligence in a way to make humans by default no more intelligent.

So... another user posts in this thread a claim that humans are the most intelligent animals, and I ask them to define intelligence, and somehow you're trying to bring this back on me as my responsibility?

No, your responsibility is your detrimental behaviors quote. In the quote you claimed that others defined intelligence improperly to make humans superior etc etc...

You do realize you're just being an ass at this point, and this thread is being further derailed?

That would be an ad hominem. And how is making someone realize they are saying the exact same thing as someone else just the opposite end of the spectrum being an ass. You claim anyone who says humans are more intelligent have improper definitions, well the exact same can be said of you. Then I gave you a chance to provide your definition of intelligence. That is pretty much the point of discussion forums.

If one claims that humans are the most intelligent animals on Earth, then surely they must have some concept of intelligence that plays to the specific strengths of humans.

Why?

Is that a request for me to support my assertion that we tend to use standards of measurement for intelligence that focus heavily on human abilities and characterisics instead of traits shared across the animal kingdom?

No. It is a request to provide support to where people define THINGS in such a way that it makes humans automatically superior. You suggested that is what happens, "we define things so we are on top", so support it.

Your current approach is not working, so if you truly wish to communicate like an adult, please act like one

I think thats another example of ad hominem that you were trying to use earlier.

Can you provide some specifics about what damage you assert "can and will" be done to the economy by the politics of discussing global climate change?

Here yah go:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/economic.htm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1437.cfm

http://www.accf.org/publications/testimonies/test-impactkyoto-march25-1999.html

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/env/2002/pd042502g.html

http://www.siyassa.org.eg/esiyassa/ahram/2001/7/1/ECON2.HTM

The first one is very very detailed. Some of the others not as much.

For more as usual just use google.

The last one reminded me of a very interesting point.

To paraphrase: The economic effects of the most industrialized countries will help developing countries become more competitive.

No way... you mean there is a secondary agenda behind climate change protocols such as kyoto.

Fascinating.

If I've made a comment in a previous post that you feel is unsubstantiated, you should ask me to support it... instead of bringing it up as a way to evade providing support for your own claims.

Ok.

That is exactly what my original post did, but I'll try to do it again but more straight forward.

We are doing more detrimental things to ourselves, our culture, and our environment than any other species... and at rates that are ever increasing. We are so short sighted and so focussed on immediate gratification that I'd seriously challenge anyone who makes a blanket claim that a) humans are greatly intelligent, and b) humans are more intelligent than other species.

Unsubstantiated claim about humans doing more detrimental things....but I'll play along anyway.

Humans have egos.

Humans experience greed (among other things lust, desire, etc).

Humans are ambitious.

Humans have emotions.

These characteristics can cause some nasty behavior. Some of these nasty behaviors are some of the things you listed above.

Basically a statement like what you made above of why humans aren't intelligent just means that your definition of intelligence is different than others. So, if you wan't to make that statement please explain what your definition of intelligence is. Is it lack of ego, emotion, etc??? (<--- thats a question mark)

How is this "intelligence" measured? By some standard that ensures we are the "smartest" or the "best?"

Unsubstantiated.......

As I stated in point number 2 of post number 26 above, we seem to use arbitrary measures that ensure humans have "the most" or are "at the top."

Who is we.

What are the arbitrary measuresments.

Unsubstantiated.

Strawman.

Strawman.

No, its a question hence the question mark not a statement, notice the lack of a period.

So, answer the question.

Strawman.

This is as much a strawman as your unsubstantiated comment that others define things in a way to ensure superiority. Weeee.

Oh and the strawman comment about the dolphins:

You being on a website questioning whether or not we are smarter than dolphins proves we are, more simply humans can question their reality.

Ad Hominem.

Ummmm .... no.

That refers to "definitions ensure our superiority". Now if I had said something like oh you are so silly then yeh, I guess i'd have to agree with you.

Support your claim. Right now, it is simply unsubstantiated opinion.

Oh dear.

Yes but "things are defined so humans have "the most" or are "on top" is substantiated and requires no support.

But you want me to support my claim so I guess I will. The fastest land mammal is the cheetah. Of course I guess i'm gonna need to cite my resources huh?

That wasn't near as fun as I thought it would be

So... You cannot support your original claim.

Now, can you define "detrimental agenda" as pertains to your quote above? Humorous that you were attacking people for such rhetoric just yesterday.

Sigh.

My original claim was that it is an improper assertion that current warming is DIRECTLY due to human emitted CO2.

And it isn't, there are a multitude of effects. Do humans contribute to the warming, yeh, is the warming directly related to human cause, well yeh as much as it is directly related to natural causes.

Saying warming is only directly related to humans and not the ENTIRE dynamic is irresponsible.

As far as attacking people over "rhetoric" I can only imagine you are referring to your quote of "increased global climate".

If you had read my posts and remembered my main points I'm sure you would know the "detrimental agenda" but I can repeat myself its no problem.

The detrimental agenda is the damage that can and will be done to the economy by specific groups that exaggerate and misrepresent GW data to scare people.

Phew.

We are doing more detrimental things to ourselves, our culture, and our environment than any other species... and at rates that are ever increasing. We are so short sighted and so focussed on immediate gratification that I'd seriously challenge anyone who makes a blanket claim that a) humans are greatly intelligent, and b) humans are more intelligent than other species. How is this "intelligence" measured? By some standard that ensures we are the "smartest" or the "best?"

Ah, so your definition of intelligence is the lack of emotion, greed, ego, ambition?

Interesting. So while you assert some people define intelligence in a way to ensure superiority, you define intelligence in a way to ensure inferiority.

Prove to me then that dolphins are not as intelligent as humans.

You just did.

As I stated in point number 2 of post number 26 above, we seem to use arbitrary measures that ensure humans have "the most" or are "at the top."

No we don't, thats silly.

Human's aren't the fastest, strongest, quickest, most agile etc etc the list really could go on forever.

Discussions about intelligence especially comparing human intelligence to other species are always fun.

As far as the original topic about evolution in developed countries:

Adaption and evolution still occur.

Natural selection still occurs.

The degree and result of their occurrence can be questioned though.

Is it wrong of me to think that your link to a wikipedia page about "global warming" is still not enough? Especially after you told me to "google it" when I asked you to support YOUR claim... Never mind.

Haha, ok this is fun.

Your issue is with the politics, not the data.

Right, I have no issue with the data. I have issue with the representation of the data by some groups with a specific detrimental agenda.

You made the claim. Give an exact reference to support it. Telling me to google it is not sufficient.

It isn't too difficult to look it up yourself but ok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

There are plenty of historical graphs for both CO2 and temperature there. Note, for the references please see the bottom of the page as the IPCC is listed several times since that is the holy grail for environmentalist I'm sure that is necessary or the data is just make-believe.

Further the first paragraph of the link explains the 100 year warming trend we have had 1.33 +- .32 degrees.

The main "idea" to take away from the articles is that the CO2 concentration plots DO NOT follow the temperature trends, which is my point.

I'm going to ignore the rest, because most of it is just trying to bait me and is not relevant to the topic.

Right.

theCPE,

For one thing, water vapor has nothing to do with the increase of global temperature. It is a feedback, not a forcing agent in the climate system (so one could say it has contributed to a bit of the warming but indirectly from anthropogenic anyway).

Ok, before things get too off tilt:

I didn't say water vapor was causing the INCREASE in global temperature. I said it is the MAJORITY contributor to GW. Something I have noticed is that the definition of GW is different for some people. GW is the process by which a planet/celestial body is warmed due to the atmosphere. The "natural" fluctuation of our planets temperature is DUE mostly too how much water vapor is in the atmosphere, however YES the current additional average temperature isn't due to water vapor but other extra greenhouse gases such as CO2. Of course, increases in water vapor in the atmosphere can add to increased average temperature as well (the feedback you are referring too).

In summary, i'm not saying water vapor is why we have experienced a 1 degree temperature increase the past century. I'm saying that the greenhouse gas that is most abundant and facilitates GW the most is water vapor. After all GW is a natural process.

Secondly, there is no "zero point" to which climate always returns, so the statement "Over the past century we have had temperature increases in line with prior century temperature increases before the industrial age" is indefensible, unless I am really reading this wrong.

Perhaps you are reading it wrong. I'll attempt to rephrase.

Without the existence of humans the planet earth would not have a flat line average global temperature over time correct?

My point was that the natural fluctuation that earth experienced before industrialization had a specific magnitude (imagine a sine wave). The past century warming that has occurred if plotted would closely fit the trends over time.

Unlike of course if you observe the natural CO2 fluctuations and current increases. The only point I have been trying to make is that the focus and emphasis is always put on CO2 concentrations, why? Because it makes the global situation seem much more dire. The problem is that they are not 1 to 1 trends.

In closing I just want to make a few points I guess.

As with most things, being too idealistic or extreme on either end of a spectrum is not a good thing.

Outright denying that humans effect greenhouse gas levels and thus global climate is ridiculous and extreme.

However, exaggerating or misleadingly using data to "scare" people is extreme and wrong too.

The damage to the environment does need to be mitigated, but idealistic ideas or attempts at returning earth to how it was prior to industrialization is absurd.

Can you support this claim? I'd like to read more about it.

Google historical global temperature or something similar.

In the past century we have warmed about 1 degree on average. Look at the historical ups and down swings in temperature.

Oh dear... If that's how I've come across, then I am desperately incapable of conveying my thoughts adequately. I am NOT okay with lying to people to get them to agree. I AM okay with scaring people to motivate some action, especially if that action is for the collective well-being.

Ah, so scaring through dramatization and exaggeration is ok, but not lying.

This is a false statement. One, it suggests that humans are somehow detached from the environment, and that impact to the environment will not have an impact on us our our likelihood of survival.

Right, I'm sure the kyoto protocol would not have had any negative effects on our economy.

Further, here is another example of my previous point.

"our likelihood of survival."

Again with the dramatization and exaggeration.

We have seen temperatures increase 1 degree in a century and now we are all going to die...... ok.

If you cannot, then how can you say that sharing this data is being used to "trick" people?

I've watched gore's pathetic "documentary" have you? If you have you truly aren't going to deny the use of dramatization and exaggeration he utilized to "scare" people.

I agree. Science is a method of acquiring knowledge. The knowledge we've acquired has shown that we are causing increases in average global temperatures by our contributions of CO₂ to the atmosphere. These contributions have many outcomes that are detrimental to our survival and the survival of other life.

Everything was good, until "detrimental to our survival...."

Again with the exaggeration!!! There have been FAR bigger temperature swings historical (you know ice ages and stuff) than the 1 degree swing we have had over the past century.

If that's too "touchy feeley" for you, then we need to do it so we don't kill the base of the food chain and hence ourselves.

I feel like a broken record but again....the dramatization and exaggeration that "you guys" just can't do without when it comes to "scaring" or convincing everyone that we are "destroying" the world.

It is apparently way too much to ask that the facts be explained that yep, humans have helped speed up the natural temperature fluctuations without doomsday prophecy.....

I am starting to get the sense that your problem was with my use of the word "direct."

Correct.

Are you a denier of the fact that human contributions of CO₂ to the atmosphere are resulting in higher average global temperatures... Yes/No?

No, CO2 emitted by humans does effect global temperature as I posted previously.

The amount due to human emitted CO2 and the amount that is natural is what is important. Further, the correlation between increase in CO2 and increase in temperature is even MORE important. It isn't 1 to 1, not even close.

The data is there. The data is consistent. The data shows that our activities are causing an increase in average global temperature. The data shows that these temperature increases will have cascading effects. That is what I care about. Those effects, and our ability to mitigate the risk posed by them if we act now collectively to do so.

Over the past century we have had temperature increases in line with prior century temperature increases before the industrial age, even though we do currently have higher CO2 concentrations.

It is frustrating that groups with agenda's other than that of the environment focus on CO2 concentrations plots as opposed to temperature increase plots. Again, they are not 1 to 1, thus why it is misleading, and intentionally so.

So, if a few scare tactics is what it takes to get people to get their head's out of their asses and make some changes, then as far as I'm concerned, it's worth it.

And that is the mentality that too me is bad yet common among "environmentalist".

You basically are suggesting that lying to people so that they agree to do something that has the potential for benefits is ok.

First, the potential benefits are too the environment, at the expense of the economy. So you have both advantages and disadvantages by "tricking" people into doing what one group wants for monetary reasons.

Secondly, the point of science isn't to manipulate and corral society at your whim which is precisely what the mentality is for lying and misleading people with GW data.

But... you stated that it's not even correct. So, did you mean how I worded it, or that the increase in average global temperature is NOT directly linked the human CO₂ contributions to the atmosphere?

 

 

Thanks in advance for your reciprocation of clarification.

It is incorrect to assert that current global temperature increases are a direct result of human emitted CO2.

The dynamic is far too complex than to simple state that only CO2 emitted by humans causes the increased warming.

Evident by data from past centuries CO2 fluctuations have always occurred, even prior to the industrial age. Therefore, it is only logical that natural CO2 emissions are not constant.

As far as can be determined human emitted CO2 DOES add greenhouse gases and thus increase warming potential. Asserting however that only human emitted CO2 is the cause or that the warming is DIRECTLY a result of human produced CO2 is wrong.

Before this gets too long and turns into a huge tangent from the OP's intent, my biggest complaints about the majority of the "environmental" crowd and folks that back silly things like the Kyoto protocol is the misstatement of facts to "scare" people.

But the current average increase in global climate is directly linked with human CO₂ emissions.

First, I don't know what increase in global climate means.

Could you explain to me how you can experience more climate.

And secondly, that is an incorrect statement to begin with.

GW is not primarily due to CO2.

GW is primarily due to water vapor.

I have been told that according to the theory of relativity if a man leaves Earth in a spaceship, and travels at a speed approaching I the speed of light his time passes slower than time on earth.

 

If this is so, when the man returns to earth his calendar date and his time would be behind earths; he would be in earths past, and earth would be in his future.

 

How could this be?

Its a thought experiment, that usually goes as follows:

If you have twins and one leaves earth in a spaceship at near the speed of light, when he returns to earth he is much younger than his earth bound twin.

It is due to a concept called time dilation, which was verified using tau particles and a particle accelerator.

Relativity is very interesting to read about and you can find many descriptive explanations using google for general information about relativity.

Of course not, didn't say you did.

The way you calculate the two are similar. All my prior posts were aimed at clarify some misconceptions or whatever someone else posted about escape velocity, hence my focus on escape velocity.

But the trick is to determine what velocity just prevents the bullet from flying off into space and maintains the bullet in a circular orbit. How this can be achieved using the escape velocity figure and something else escapes me.

Yes, orbital velocity and escape velocity are different.

I was making clarifications about escape velocity because there were some misconceptions going on.

But its a similar idea. You find the velocity at which the projectile travels parallel to the surface enough per unit time to completely negate the distance it is pulled toward the surface based on the gravitational constant etc.

Orbit velocities depend of course on the orbit altitude as well.

Fore specific examples and equations try googling the two.

But if you were firing the bullet horizontally (and assuming nothing would impede its path) then the escape velocity doesn't enter into the debate and only Moon's acceleration due to gravity and radius are relevant.

Thats what escape velocity refers to. Speed required for the projectile to leave whatever planet/object without any force, if you fire a projectile horizontally escape velocity is the concept to determine the projectile's fate.

meaning that if you fire that projectile upwards perfectly perpendicular to the force of gravity

Isn't upwards parallel to gravity?

You fire the projectile parallel to the surface, perpendicular to the center of gravity.

ergo anything Less than 90 degrees or a lower velocity, will attain Some sort of orbit

You can put the projectile in orbit with a parallel trajectory to the surface.

Escape velocity just requires you to travel parallel to the surface fast enough that as the moon/planet gravity pulls you back to the surface you keep "missing" it.