Essay

It does not seem to be so. A simple internet search brought up this mention, "Average melatonin (MLT) content of walnuts is approximately 3.6 nanograms," which doesn't seem like a significant amount. But notice the difference between melanin and melatonin. The internet mentions that walnuts contain minerals, which help the body produce its own melanin, but not that walnuts contain melanin themselves. === ...just fyi: Melatonin is a fairly small molecule, as are most hormones, formed as a derivative of the amino acid tryptophan; whereas melanin is a somewhat larger molecule, as are most pigments, formed as a modified polymer of the amino acid tyrosine (or other common plant/animal biomolecules). ...and hopefully there is no plan to consume anything you might extract.... Right? ~

One aspect of AGW's CO2 effect is how it will persist (spatially and temporally) for decades and centuries, 24/7/365, and from pole to pole; unlike most other forcers of climate, which wax and wane to create the long-term average. So.... That's an interesting comparison. So basically you're saying (the temperature change part of) AGW could be offset by repeating a Pinatubo-type event every few years. That seems about right, I guess, since it is essentially the same as the "sulfate aerosol" geoengineering project that's been recently proposed. Plus, it is a neat way to describe the "scale" of AGW effects! So currently, AGW is running at about 3 extra Pinatubos per decade, right? ~

You may have completely "changed" your beliefs, but your profound lack of knowledge and display of ignorance regarding actual climate science seems to be about the same. ~

Certainly other species responded also: “Then a relatively large and fast shift occurred between three million and two million years ago …accompanied by a rise in the proportion of grazing mammals, …[which] seem to have undergone extensive speciation, extinction and adaptation, rather like our hominin forebears.” --page 52 The September 2014 issue of Scientific American, v.311, no.3, features various articles about the saga of human evolution, which range in focus from competition to cooperation, and one that focuses on how “climate shifts made us adapt,” entitled Climate Shocks. “Swings between wet and dry landscapes pushed some of our ancestors toward modern traits—and killed off others.” Dietary changes, following a shift in the ratio of C3/C4 plant regimes, seem to have been a major factor. === The article talks about two obvious periods of “major shifts in African climate …roughly a million years apart, that mark significant changes in our family tree. The first evolutionary shake-up happened between 2.9 million and 2.4 million years ago.” That is a half million years of evolutionary selection pushed by “major shifts in African climate.” And the “second shakeup occurred between 1.9 million and 1.6 million years ago,” so that is another 300,000 years of “major shifts in African climate.” The article continues to explain how “These two ecological jolts, coming after long periods of extremely gradual change, moved the cradle of humanity….” === Note firstly, civilization developed during a geologically brief interval that has been much more stable than even those “long periods of extremely gradual change” which often typify climate. And secondly…. Today’s “major shifts” in climate, including the consequent ecological jolts, which are occurring over some decades or a few centuries, are happening many tens (or many hundreds, or a few thousands) of times faster, and are becoming larger, than those “major shifts” that “moved the cradle of humanity” in the past. To those who study this, it seems the current anthropogenic shift is developing, compared with any “major shifts” in the past, strongly enough now to soon move the bedrock of humanity; hence the alarm. If you are equating today’s phrase “rapid climate change” (as it is used in connection with this era’s anthropogenic greenhouse heating and ocean acidification) with any examples from past eras of natural “climate shocks,” then that would explain why you can be confused or have been easily misled about conclusions. It is because anthropogenic climate change is currently happening so much more rapidly, compared with any “natural” examples from the geological record, that many scientists consider this era to be the dawn of a “Sixth Mass Extinction,” if not simply the dawn of a new geologic epoch, the Eremocene. ~

I think most of what we see on the surface now is sedimentary (or metamorphosed sediments) in nature ...often from eroded igneous origins if not other eroded meta/sediments, so you'd be correct; but I'd like to hear from Ophiolite too ...eventually (no pressure). ~

As a civilization, we are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere, oceans, and lands more extensively and more quickly than they have ever been simultaneously changed in over 20 million years. Mostly this is due to the carbon dioxide excess, which by the end of the century will be at levels not seen for 30 million years, according to the National Research Council of the National Academies. Changes in Albedo, or the reflectivity of the planet, caused by land-use & land-cover changes, as well as polar and glacial melting, are additional major changes attributed to civilization's reliance on extensive, energy-intensive agriculture, and other "extractives" industries. And there is also the unprecedented (in life's evolutionary history, i think) problem with the Nitrogen Cycle!!! At least that helps lay the foundation for some future civilization, since the "Dead Zones" that this problem creates are just the basis for future oil-shale & gas deposits. But the acidification effect of CO2 on the oceans, as well as on the lands and to the hydrological cycle, may be more significant than CO2's pronounced effect on polar ice loss and other global "greenhouse" effects. Aside from a slight increase in erosion due to acidity (and in addition to the drought/flood-associated increase in erosion).... Food chains are intricate webs of co-evolved species, which may be more vulnerable to disruptions in acidity on a global scale than we can imagine from our experiences with other problems locally and regionally. Though they are also more resilient than we can imagine, we are pushing many different "earth systems" more forcefully, and collectively, further than they've been pushed since we came down out of the trees and began walking upright. And by now, we've used up most of the easy-to-get resources, so it'd be too difficult for any modern civilization to start over again. Even the delicate balances, which led to the evolution of the seasons and the good soils and the Temperate Zone and even to honeybees and earthworms, are not appreciated by most. And especially not appreciated by most is how very recently those essential fundamentals of modern civilization evolved, especially in comparison with the scale of the "tens of millions of years of" changes we now, within just a few decades or generations, are forcing into the global system. We need the honeybees and earthworms before we can expect to find any lands of milk and honey! Life evolved to fit the conditions, and if we change the conditions so that they are as they were 20 to 30 million years ago, what do you think will happen to the life (and our agricultural crops and foods/fibers) adapted to today's conditions. Istm, it is likely today's life will be out-competed by other life, which still exists within niches around the globe, that is better adapted to those ancient conditions ...just waiting for some opportunity. ~ p.s. ...and there is the whole new antibiotic (genetics/immunology) resistance problem (and any new genetic engineering "reactions" or unintended consequences?) that could lead to various global threats to civilization; but sorry I don't know much about the oxygen reservoirs, other than it seems 20% depends upon the delicate balance of eroding nutrients supplied by the Amazon, of which much phosphorus and iron seasonally comes from the soils of the Sahara, across the Atlantic ...according to that "Earth from Space" summary. Seasonal effects seem to be significant.... Follow the nutrients!

...very interesting information! It's more of a semantic difference, but I noticed they use the term "protoplanet" [...increasing the temperature of the protoplanet above the melting point of most components...] in their description. It sounds as if "the planet" can't start cooling until it is completely formed and organized enough to be defined as a planet, which occurs after some "heat building" phase that occurs while the definition of protoplanet still applies, or when the definition of "the formation of the planet" is still applied. Once the planet is formed and well-defined, with a crust, then these other points above should make more sense as explanations, istm. ~

Yes, I agree and I assume somebody is doing that, as fast and as thoroughly as possible, given funding. However, I'd worry more about other global changes; since those seem more likely to develop into catastrophic disruptions for civilization long before any problems with oxygen levels become noticeable. ~

As StringJunky mentioned, maybe focusing on Oxygen would help elucidate the intense significance of some of those reservoirs, capacities, and fluxes; especially that of the Amazon. I highly recommend "Earth from Space" ...a PBS NOVA special, where you can read the transcript: "...as for the Amazon as a whole, a fifth of the world’s oxygen is produced here. But there’s a surprising twist: we will breathe almost none of it. Satellite data and ground measurements reveal that almost all the oxygen the Amazon produces during the day remains there and is reabsorbed into the forest at night. PIERS SELLERS: "With the advantage of the satellites, we can now see that the Amazon basically uses all its own oxygen and uses all its own carbon dioxide. It is, as far as we can tell, almost a closed system, in itself, almost." "The soil of the rainforest is continually washed into the Amazon river system, taking with it nutrients and organic material. An average of 2,000,000 tons of this sediment is released every 24 hours. The sediment flows eastward, traveling 4,000 miles into the Amazon delta. Here, microscopic plankton near the surface thrive on the nutrients, and their population explodes." "...the Aqua satellite shows us how a giant plankton bloom grows to cover 25,000 square miles. This vast area translates into a huge boom in oxygen production, made available to the entire planet." GENE FELDMAN: "Plankton in the ocean are responsible for over half of the oxygen that we breathe, and it’s what most creatures on this planet rely on to survive." Yikes (what "ocean acidification" effects may occur to those long-evolved, plankton bloom cycles?)!!! ~

...just an fyi that I don't think anyone else mentioned, which might help with your accounting for heat. ...plus, you can find some extra good info at wikipedia about the "Faint Young Sun Paradox" ...iirc. === ...magnetic field doesn't relate to this topic, right? Right, roughly, within 30 or 100 My, after the formation, a crust formed ...as Ophiolite mentioned above. After the crust formed, there was no longer 6000 degree molten stuff in direct contact with the icy depth of space (or an atmosphere). The crust insulated the hot magma, from the "heat sink" of deep space, so the surface of the crust cooled and mostly became heated by the sun (plus some help of greenhouse effect in atmosphere). Don't you think the crust formation should make a big difference, if you're talking about the surface temperature? ~

...so can you tell us what you found? I'm not trying to be obtuse, but unless I missed some specific problem that you found, I'm wondering why your general review (of whatever you looked at) sounded fairly negative and seems to have only added "heat" to your concerns. It's been years since I looked at many of the details in the original studies, which many of these headlines and summary claims are based upon, but if you have a specific point that seems ambiguous, I'm sure it could be explained. I'm assuming you see why, if you ask any slightly different question ('real' / 'leading cause') or look at any different sample group or studies, then you'll get different answers. Are there any differences that seem unjustified to you? ~

...just an fyi on several minor points, plus a little commentary: If you wonder why that figure of 1.02% seems low, it is probably because most of the surveyed papers did not set out to study that specific, "very likely" qualifier, of the general AGW premise. It's my impression that most "climate science" or any "earth systems" science papers will set out to answer a more specific question, the answer to which may then falsify or support the general greenhouse theory. So it would presume bias, or be like propaganda, if they mentioned or endorsed that particular definition in their abstract. But I'd expect that virtually 100%, from that one percent of papers actually focusing on this particular, "very likely" question, did confirm the notion ...that human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming. Firstly, what we do here isn't actually a "peer review" level of critique; certainly not of the sort that these papers and their authors endure. As an example of why that is so, your idea that these numbers are "forged" is showing that you did not fully understand where the numbers came from, for each case. You can be sure that with such widely published and cited studies, many people have already tried to find flaws or errors. We've been through many of these studies on this forum here before, and in the end, somebody always finds the explanation about why there are small differences between the journalistic headlines and the many specific conclusions provided by each study. Those numbers aren't mistakes or forged, but rather they are complicated; and that is why we most of us here are not professional peer reviewers. It's just too easy to discover mistakes or flaws or attempts to get approval. You will be very hard pressed to discover any actual "messing with the numbers." You're asking good and insightful questions, which have all been asked before, within the science community, decades ago. And they have all been fully addressed or answered as a part of testing and confirming the greenhouse theory generally, both through paleoclimate studies and "current" records and/or observations, and through comparative modeling. When you take a class in the subject, they explain how CO2 can operate as a "positive feedback" or as a "primary forcer" on climate, so that changing temperatures can either lead or lag changing CO2 levels, depending on the circumstances. Good explanation on why CO2 drives the water vapor equilibrium, and how the science already accounts for this factor! I think that is why it doesn't get mentioned explicitly in those papers you cited, since it is such an implicit assumption; not an omission. === But I don't think the extra CO2 is "being released into the air from a warming ocean," since there is enough CO2 in the air to still push the equilibrium into the water. It is the acidity of the equilibrium, in the oceans, which is changing in response to the extra CO2 that wouldn't (otherwise) as easily dissolve in a warming ocean. === Also, I think the "Gore efforts" allude to that big graph from his movie, where he needed a forklift to "complete" the (second, green CO2 graph from above, which is the same "Vostok") graph that he used. Since that Vostok graph only shows CO2 levels up through about 1900, Gore needed to add an extra 100 ppm scale onto the graph (taking it up to 400 ppm, from the 300 ppm shown above), so he could complete the line as it would appear "today," showing this past century's data added onto the original Vostok record. We're currently at 400 ppm, so the next time he does that demonstration he will need a bigger forklift, since he will need to adjust the scale up to 450 or 500 ppm. ~ just fyi

Really, it is more that there are a lot of politics involved in discussions about global warming solutions. Do you know of any geologists who do not think, like the vast majority of scientists, that there are multiple factors affecting climate change? I'm not sure how those charts and statistics are defined, but if you want to speak in terms of how "man-made influence may or may not be the leading one of those ...multiple factors affecting climate change," I'd expect the breakdown would be about the same, with a small percentage saying it is insignificant, and a vast majority saying it is significant. If you want to define a cause as "leading," then you'd need to specify a time span, such as the expected lifetime of CO2 or the lifetime of a particular policy or species or civilization perhaps. ~ p.s. While I'm voting for "both," I'm anxious to hear about what the video says.

“Famous name” in what circles, and famous for what? Discussing “it” would prove “the issue” one way or the other, if that’s your interest. === But about the OP, I want to defend the necessity of political conservatism, in general, while still acknowledging the significant aspects of the right-wing authoritarianism-ness (RWA) that seem to be a common, fairly normal, human trait; a part of the human condition, which seems to arise universally across cultures and history, as if it were to some extent a genetic propensity. Reading E. O. Wilson’s recent book, “The Meaning of Human Existence,” I came across some lines, in chapter 13, entitled “Religion,” which seem to address this very subject; this RWA human trait. Wilson is the "father of evolutionary biology" and coined the term sociobiology, iirc. He writes: “Faith is biologically understandable as a Darwinian device for survival and increased reproduction. It is forged by the success of the tribe….” “The brain was made for religion and religion for the human brain. In every second of the believer’s conscious life religious belief plays multiple, mostly nurturing roles. All the followers are unified into a vastly extended family, a metaphorical band of brothers and sisters, reliable….” And so much for our highly-adaptive RWA Paleolithic roots …and genetic heritage. Wilson goes on describing civilization on levels that are more complex than the “tribal” level. === “A great many educated citizens … understand the rule attributed to the Roman stoic philosopher Seneca the Younger that religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” Wilson goes on to note: “In more secular societies faith tends to be transmuted into religionlike political ideologies. Sometimes the two great belief categories are combined. Hence, “God favors my political principles over yours, and my principles, not yours, favor God. …. The price of the loss of faith was a hemorrhage of commitment, a weakening and dissipation of common purpose.” “It is tribalism, not the moral tenets and humanitarian thought of pure religion, that makes good people do bad things.” “Religious warriors are not an anomaly. It is a mistake to classify believers of particular religious and dogmatic religionlike ideologies into two groups, moderate versus extremist. The true cause of hatred and violence is faith versus faith, an outward expression of the ancient instinct of tribalism. Faith is the one thing that makes otherwise good people do bad things.” === I, imho, don’t think he’s saying faith is necessarily bad, but that a freedom of faith might be more adaptive than a blind faith; especially since as a “rare social species” we’re not ant-like automatons, but rather we are humans humanely trying to balance competition with cooperation, as the meaning of human existence emerges from our cultures. Speaking about freedom of faith, I’d hope Russell Means’ quote about how “Freedom means you're free to be responsible,” would illuminate that juxtaposition against blind faith. === As Wilson writes: “Religious warriors are not an anomaly. It is a mistake to classify believers of particular religious and dogmatic religionlike ideologies into two groups, moderate versus extremist. The true cause of hatred and violence is faith versus faith, an outward expression of the ancient instinct of tribalism.” === It's not that a mild form of insanity infects political conservatism, but that it afflicts one faction in particular more than other factions; especially where "In more secular societies faith tends to be transmuted into religionlike political ideologies." This experiment in Democracy has plenty of trials still emerging, istm. ~

Seriously though, if being "shorter" and from a "better known" source, is a basis for making a judgement, then why would a critique matter? I'm not advocating the "appeal to authority" fallacy here, but the "authority" of the source does matter! This is still a science forum, right? ~

Who is looking out for The Earth, as a whole? The UN is trying, with its various arms and instruments; and the IPCC is an “inter-governmental” effort, though they focus mostly on climate, which is just a symptom of the overall “whole” problem. The UN had its 8 Millennium Development Goals, which seem to have now evolved into the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. But however they are defined, they are still the usual goals of conquering poverty, hunger, disease, and war, while providing education, empowerment, equity, and environmental justice; just the basics. “In September 2000, building upon a decade of major United Nations conferences and summits, world leaders came together at United Nations Headquarters in New York to adopt the United Nations Millennium Declaration, committing their nations to a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty and setting out a series of time-bound targets - with a deadline of 2015 - that have become known as the Millennium Development Goals.” But most people still see the world from the perspective of individual Nation-States, based on 17th-century notions and considerations, with special focus on their tribe; rather than seeing today’s globalized civilization with a much longer-term, or sustainable, global view ...so not too many people are aware of these efforts by the United Nations. === But don’t despair! There is a workable path appearing. In attempting to manage the global carbon budget, to prevent global acidification (and climate revving), many efforts are underway to cut carbon emissions. While these provide technological advances that can stimulate the economy, finding a way to reduce existing levels of CO2, by “pulling” existing CO2 out of the air, is the key to managing the global carbon budget, which is the most fundamental way we can be “looking out for the Earth as a whole.” That is because “growing good soil” is the answer to reversing the already too high levels of atmospheric CO2. But growing good soil, globally, is also the answer to those other problems of poverty, hunger, disease, and war, as well as facilitating education, empowerment, equity, and environmental sustainability. People are beginning to figure out that this is the simplest and cheapest and most comprehensive, single solution to a wide array of historically intractable problems. And as usual, not until all the other alternatives have been tried, will we do the right thing; but we’re getting closer to recognizing the fundamental realities of global resources, especially the significance of good soil. See: "How Mushrooms Can Help Save the World" See also: “2015 has been declared the International Year of the Soil. Learn how healthy soil can help us reverse climate change and heal the planet.” ...as well as The Atlantic magazine that has this recent article: “Before the arrival of Europeans, Native communities in the Americas had been burning forest fires for millennia to support the growth of desirable plants ...to manage ecosystems. In other words, humanity has been “geoengineering” with trees for a very long time.” We need to get back to this sort of “geoengineering,” which billions of people can do locally, as we’ve been doing since agriculture came to predominate our species’ niche, imho. Nowadays, however, we will be doing this with robotics and with genomic and remote sensing, to make it much more tolerable, as well as more effective, work that is integrated with a high-tech economy. === “…the United Nations is once again sounding the alarm about the urgent need to return to (and develop) a more sustainable, natural and organic system. That was the key point of a new publication from the UN Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) titled “Trade and Environment Review 2013: Wake Up Before It’s Too Late,” which included contributions from more than 60 experts around the world.” ~

...just for an interesting perspective: “You cannot change the situation in Ukraine without inviting—or even more than inviting, insisting—insisting that those who have the real power, the so-called oligarchs, accept responsibility and support this process of reform. You cannot do it without them. So you have to find a way how they can be on board. The way how this work is organized guarantees that there will be no influence whatsoever on the content of the work that we do; I can promise you. The day when one of those oligarchs will try to influence what I am doing would be my last day on this project.” …from a 3/5/15 Deutsche Welle interview with Gunter Verheugen, former EU Vice President and Commissioner, on helping with the Ukraine situation. I guess there is a fine line between "responsibility and support" and "no influence whatsoever," but I think I get his point; and I wish him good luck, and hope he can help "find a way" before his last day on the project. ~

On one of this past Sunday morning’s news and weekly-review shows (3/1/15), as they wondered if the DHS would be funded (amid efforts by one faction to link immigration policies to passage of the normal security budget), several Republican leaders spoke about that one faction. House Homeland Security Committee member Rep. Peter King used the phrases, “absolutely irresponsible” and “no concept of reality” and "self-righteous and delusional" for describing these members of his own party. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) who heads the House Intelligence Committee described them as “a small group of phony conservative members who have no credible policy proposals and no political strategy….” Of course he finished this sentence of his, by adding “…to stop Obama’s lawlessness,” so you can tell that he’s still a Republican. Later, also speaking about that particular faction, Nunes described how they seem to be “unaware that they can’t advance conservatism by playing fantasy football with their voting cards.” === So there may yet be hope that not all political conservatism is a mild form of insanity, since the ability to recognize certain aspects of insanity, within one’s own (political) life, is a sign that one is not insane …or so I’ve heard. ~

Sure, even without life, it "would still be a planet...." ...but it wouldn't be "the" planet, as it now exists. ...iirc: This March, 2010 SciAm article on The Evolution of Minerals mentioned how, while deep space normally has ~50 minerals occur naturally, a planet will develop ~500 minerals as it forms and evolves. But only because of life, at least here on this planet, are there ~5000 minerals "naturally" occurring. I was so stunned, at the many implications arising from this point, that I made this slide. === Good soils, and a temperate zone, are also fairly unusual and recent evolutionary developments on the planet. While grasses evolved early in the scheme of things, they (like mammals) didn't come to predominate until the soils and climatic conditions evolved into a favorable setting ...which also were largely a result of earlier biological evolution and developments. So the grasses didn't just come "from nothing" as mentioned above, but there could be "something else ...that's a major thing," if the conditions favor it ...as with the herbivore/dung/soil/climate/grasslands situation that mutually co-evolved. ~

The difference, or "how they calculate the similarity," is explained in the link that the number is quoted from. Reading more of the text will help you learn more English, as well as Biology! Quoting the text, which the number comes from, will make answers easier to find; instead of just repeating, "Similarity between human and mouse is xx%," and then typing in those different numbers you find. === In the 'genome' link, they explain how "...more than 90 percent of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome. That is because the gene order in the two genomes is often preserved over large stretches, called conserved synteny." In the 'nature' link, they explain how their study “...reveals about 30,000 genes, with 99% having direct counterparts in humans.” But just because they do find "direct counterparts" across the two genomes, that doesn't also mean they find the same "conserved synteny," or that the "gene order" will be calculated to be similar. Right? === As the first link points out: "...the mouse genome could be parsed into some 350 segments, or chapters for which there is a corresponding chapter in the human genome.” "Although virtually all of the human and mouse sequence can be aligned at the level of large chapters, only 40 percent of the mouse and the human sequences can be lined up at the level of sentences and words." So from that perspective you might say they are only 40% similar; right? === And as the second link mentions: "Humans appear to have about the same number of genes, with similar sequence, and we both like cheese. So why aren't mice more like us? The answer probably lies in the regulation of those genes." It seems, between various differences in sequence and regulation, the same dictionary of genes can be used to build very different books. === When science looks "at the level sentences and words," then the percentages are calculated as less similar; but when science looks at the level of the book, "or chapters," then the percentages are calculated as more similar. ~

Thanks, though I'm no expert, and my knowledge is fairly outdated. But from what I gather, in very simple language.... "non-coding regions" have genes that modify how the 'coding' genes work. In other words.... Even if (within any given cell) the coding genes are very similar between chimps and humans, during development the coding genes are then modified (by the non-coding parts of DNA), which changes how the coding genes express ...in phenotype. === I had also looked briefly at the HAR1 link, which was about something called the Human Accelerated Region! Wow, that still sounds very interesting, and I may follow up if nobody else does. There seem to be lots of good search results, including wikipedia at the top, when I type in: Genetics HAR1. Almost a decade ago I read about a newly discovered genetic mechanism, for helping promote more of a certain kind of localized and "favorable" mutation, that was found only in humans (and one other primate iirc), and I wonder if this is the same thing. It involved genes in a local region of our genome associated with digestion, so it made sense, since our diets have continued changing so radically over the past 5-10 thousand years. And interestingly, certain genes associated with autism are located in the same region as these digestive genes (or might even be the same 'digestive' genes, but also used later in development during brain formation), which could help explain some things about autism, but which would also be an example of one possible "non-coding" modification. === But just the fact that there is something called the Human Accelerated Region, which applies to those "98% the same" genes, should show how we can now be very different from chimps, even starting with the same basic toolbox, or artist's palette, of genes. ~

I ran across "natural law" in this context a few years ago, and first thought, 'oh thank god, finally somebody has realized we need to account for nature (and resources) when we devise an economic system.' But no, rather "natural law" is some weird ideology that is based on an economic system where everything will be free ...since 3-D printers can make anything you need ...so we'll finally be rid of the (then) unnecessary corporate and financial overlords. Basically it seemed to me like the libertarian take on how society should be structured. Maybe I'm oversimplifying too much, or mostly wrong, but that was my take on "natural law" when I looked a few years ago. Maybe Hans can clarify some of his terms. ~

I was just reading that article. "Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher" NYT says "He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers." Gosh, if the government and academia offer those same incentives, I could see why people would be skeptical of any science. I wonder if the pockets of academia and government are as deep.... ~ p.s. But that's not that much, per year; the wrongdoing is the lack of declaration on all that 'research' with which his name has so famously become associated.

Apparently great minds do think alike; you're in good company! P.T. Barnum (or Abraham Lincoln) supposedly said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." === But the real problem, istm is that, as James Thurber did say, “You can fool too many of the people too much of the time." ~

You succeeded in furthering my insight into lift, so thanks; and as a thought experiment, you should be able to make initial conditions all the same, for the various cases ...if you use lots of extra thrust (or whatever force imbalance), which you then account for (minus changes) in the final flow. Then you should prove that changes in lift will balance out with changes in turbulence or drag or.... You might enjoy the points made about flight, in this PBS 'Nature' documentary on OWLS, and how they manage "silent" flight. I think some owls may even have "noise-cancelling" abilities, evolved into their feathers and wing control. ...lots of curvature in those oversized wings. Still hard to imagine their 'striking force' is 12x body weight. Now that is silent but deadly.... ~