Beyond record hot, February was 'astronomical' and 'strange'

Beyond record hot, February was 'astronomical' and 'strange'
In this Feb. 9, 2016 file photo, Lebanese men play cards and smoke water pipe, as they sunbath during unusually warm weather at the Mediterranean Sea off the Corniche, or waterfront promenade, in Beirut, Lebanon. Earth got so hot last month that federal scientists struggled to find words, describing temperatures as "astronomical," "staggering" and "strange." They warned that the climate may have moved into a new and hotter neighborhood. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla)

Earth got so hot last month that federal scientists struggled to find words, describing temperatures as "astronomical," ''staggering" and "strange." They warned that the climate may have moved into a new and hotter neighborhood.

This was not just another of the drumbeat of 10 straight broken monthly global heat records, triggered by a super El Nino and man-made global warming. February 2016 obliterated old marks by such a margin that it was the most above-normal month since meteorologists started keeping track in 1880, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

NOAA said Earth averaged 56.08 Fahrenheit (13.38 degrees Celsius) in February, 2.18 degrees (1.21 degrees Celsius) above average, beating the old for February set in 2015 by nearly six-tenths of a degree (one-third of a degree Celsius).

The old record was set just last December and the last three months have been the most above-normal months on record, said NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden. And it's not just NOAA. NASA, which uses different statistical techniques, as well as a University of Alabama Huntsville team and the private Remote Sensing System team, which measure using satellites, also said February 2016 had the biggest departure from normal on record.

Beyond record hot, February was 'astronomical' and 'strange'
In this Feb. 16, 2016 file photo, a girl takes pictures of her dog, back dropped by freshly sprung snowdrops and other spring flowers during an unseasonably warm winter day, in Bucharest, Romania. Earth got so hot last month that federal scientists struggled to find words, describing temperatures as "astronomical," "staggering" and "strange." They warned that the climate may have moved into a new and hotter neighborhood. (AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda)

These were figures that had federal scientists grasping for superlatives.

"The departures are what we would consider astronomical," Blunden said. "It's on land. It's in the oceans. It's in the upper atmosphere. It's in the lower atmosphere. The Arctic had record low sea ice."

"Everything everywhere is a record this month, except Antarctica," Blunden said. "It's insane."

In the Arctic, where reached a record low for February, land temperatures averaged 8 degrees above normal (4.5 degrees Celsius), Blunden said. That's after January, when Arctic land temperatures were 10.4 degrees above normal (5.8 degrees Celsius).

It was also the warmest winter—December through February—on record, beating the previous year's record by more than half a degree (0.29 degrees Celsius).

Georgia Tech climate scientist Kim Cobb said she normally doesn't concern herself much with the new high records that are broken regularly.

"However," she added in a Thursday email," when I look at the new February 2016 temperatures, I feel like I'm looking at something out of a sci-fi movie. In a way we are: it's like someone plucked a value off a graph from 2030 and stuck it on a graph of present temperatures. It is a portent of things to come, and it is sobering that such temperature extremes are already on our doorstep."

NASA's chief Gavin Schmidt usually discounts the importance of individual record hot months, but said this month was different, calling it "obviously strange."

This was due to the long-term warming from heat-trapping gases and the powerful El Nino, so these types of records will continue for a few more months, but probably will not be a permanent situation, Schmidt said in an email.

But others were not so sure. Jason Furtado, a meteorology professor at the University of Oklahoma who wasn't part of any of the government teams, simply wrote in an email: "Welcome to the new normal."


Explore further

The heat goes on: Earth sets 9th straight monthly record

More information: NOAA: www.ncdc.noaa.gov

© 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: Beyond record hot, February was 'astronomical' and 'strange' (2016, March 17) retrieved 24 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-03-hot-february-astronomical-strange.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1682 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

KBK
Mar 17, 2016
The oil companies were caught, on paper no less..as creating a climate change lie, to maintain their businesses and profits. This goes back to their knowing about it, in 1978. Then, sparing no expense to create confusion and negativity in the matter.

http://www.scient...ars-ago/

The same short sighted, inhuman evil life stealing crap as the tobacco companies. But with an outcomes that is far worse: The collapse of earth's climate.

They did it in collusion with more than just other oil companies, I'm sure.

Then consider other sciences where there is so much interference and contention....all the "disputed" fringe sciences that would disrupt all those connected machinations ---not just oil. Like the now very seriously investigated 'cold fusion'. How it was forced into stillbirth 25 years ago (not the first time!) by very selfish entities.

The lies, the control, the misdirection and the filth - continue.

Mar 17, 2016
I think bringing in conspiracy theories for those fringe sciences goes too far.

Science is driven by competition and hence people are out to disprove one another. A world-wide conspiracy is extremely difficult to imagine happening.

Mar 17, 2016
You mean like the tobacco companies conspiracy? Wow, I just imagined that.

Mar 17, 2016
You mean like the tobacco companies conspiracy?
@philecrawford
1- don't confuse global marketing as being the same as science

2- how was it actually stopped? because of science and evidence

3- there were dissenters in the "conspiracy" you are presenting as well, which allowed for leaked information (as in the dangers of smoking known to the companies) which was (ta-dah) tested and validated by science and then presented to the public

cultures can't even agree on the tastiness of bacon as a food product so it is unreasonable to assume that the physical evidence that is usually open to public scrutiny is somehow altered for the sake of a conspiracy

and then you throw gov't into the mix... ??

this is why global conspiracies don't work- the vast numbers of people involved and the varying ideas, beliefs, etc

Mar 17, 2016
I can't wait for the show trails.

Mar 17, 2016
It's beyond amusing to see people enjoying themselves in the pictures that accompanied this story and then read the comments of the ignorant Chicken Littles. You need to get out more Chicken Littles, meet a "hot" girl in the park.

BTW: It snowed this morning.

Mar 17, 2016
I can't wait for the show trails.
@tblakely1357
you mean like a reality show where you take people over known trails?
will it include the full Appalachian trail too? or just the best parts?
what about other countries trails?

will it include trails that have been paved or modified by man for stability and safety?
or are those trails going to be all natural?

it isn't very clear... which trails are you talking about

.

BTW: It snowed this morning.
LMFAO
antig
it's even more amusing to see people who can't differentiate between weather and climate

even funnier are those who attempt to spread lies while advocating for "reality" (or their version of it anyway) and get caught doing it
like here: http://phys.org/n...mon.html

Mar 17, 2016
So, let's see stumpid.
1] I THOUGHT you were so stupid that you wouldn't notice the obvious, that the line didn't include the highest data point or,
2] You would CONFIRM how stupid you are by including the highest data point and NOT QUESTION how the line could switch from descending to ascending.
http://www.woodfo...15/trend

Which is it?
It's no where funny when someone don't understand basic data analysis.

Don't BE stupid stumpy, I liked you better when I only THOUGHT you were stupid.

LMFAO

Mar 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Mar 17, 2016
LMFAO
Which is it?
It's no where funny when someone don't understand basic data analysis
yes, it really is sad when someone "don't understand basic data analysis" but then demonstrates it publicly like you do

lies you are attempting
1- there aren't just "two" choices

2- there is a *reason* that 30 years is used for trends - to weed out noise of chaos in the statistics
http://www.woodfo...15/trend

3- changing the argument (and moving goalposts)

4- misrepresentation of data

5- cherry-picking while not comprehending evidence

wanna talk about the other lies too? http://phys.org/n...mon.html

or would you prefer to stick to just your above false claims and ignorance?

LOL

Mar 17, 2016
there is a *reason* that 30 years is used for trends - to weed out noise of chaos in the statistics

Why not 20, 40 or 60?

Mar 17, 2016
It's beyond amusing to see people enjoying themselves in the pictures that accompanied this story and then read the comments of the ignorant Chicken Littles. You need to get out more Chicken Littles, meet a "hot" girl in the park.


Oh, and we're back to "it's happening and it's man made abut it's actually beneficial". While I'm grateful you finally seem to accept the science, make up your mind, dude! Which is it? When you flip flip like this, it gives the rest of us the impression you don't have an informed opinion but are just a determined naysayer. And I would *hate* to have incorrectly categorised you as a motivated disseminater of misinformation. That would be totes unfair.

Mar 17, 2016
1- there aren't just "two" choices

Yes, I know, you have demonstrated innumerable ways of how stupid you are, but I did not want to overtax your tiny brain.

Mar 17, 2016
Poor ignorant Chicken Littles, don't know the difference between climate and weather. Here is Romania in 2012.
http://www.nydail....1022667

Mar 17, 2016
Poor ignorant Chicken Littles, don't know the difference between climate and weather. Here is Romania in 2012.
http://www.nydail....1022667


So you decided to show us a perfect example of weather to enlighten us?

Mar 17, 2016
Why not 20, 40 or 60?
@antig
20 has too much noise, and it will not be more accurate (than 30 yrs)
40 or 60 are better and would provide better information

the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) created the typical trend time to weed out noise in the stats

furlong and thermodynamics have addressed this many times here on PO alone, and more than once to you

ignoring reality doesn't make it go away, it only makes you look stupid

Yes, I know, you have demonstrated innumerable ways of how stupid you are, but I did not want to overtax your tiny brain.

Poor ignorant Chicken Littles, don't know the difference between climate and weather. Here is Romania in 2012.

http://epa.gov/cl...ary.html

ROTFLMFAO

Still can't tell weather from climate!

yeah, simple things like definitions escape you antiG...!
LMFAO

Mar 17, 2016
3- changing the argument (and moving goalposts)

4- misrepresentation of data

5- cherry-picking while not comprehending evidence

Yep.
Still waiting for you to explain the AGW Cult maths that can result in a descending plot changing to ascending when the highest data point is included as was done here.
http://www.woodfo...15/trend

Mar 17, 2016
Poor ignorant Chicken Littles, don't know the difference between climate and weather. Here is Romania in 2012.
http://www.nydail....1022667


So you decided to show us a perfect example of weather to enlighten us?

Of course not. After all, a prerequisite for enlightenment, is you must have a brain.

Mar 17, 2016
3- changing the argument (and moving goalposts)

4- misrepresentation of data

5- cherry-picking while not comprehending evidence

Yep.
Still waiting for you to explain the AGW Cult maths that can result in a descending plot changing to ascending when the highest data point is included as was done here.
http://www.woodfo...15/trend


Wait, so now you're arguing it ISN'T happening again? I can't keep up. It's good to know your clear, logical argument is "it isn't happening but what's happening isn't man-made and this man-made change isn't significant but this severe man-made change is actually beneficial".

There's moving the goalposts and then there's making the goal posts the entire length of the field so you can feel like you're always scoring a goal.

Mar 17, 2016
Still waiting for you to explain the AGW Cult maths that can result in a descending plot changing to ascending when the highest data point is included
you already had your false claims and statistics explained here on PO at least 3 times, by furlong, thermodynamics and runrig... so now you want me to explain it to you too?

again?

even though the above should be enough for even a 9 year old to figure it out?

perhaps you should read the warning on the homepage of your link about
BEWARE SHARP TOOLS

I can also show you a data record from a single day that makes a big bell shaped curve from 50deg f to 85 & back to 30... wanna talk about that next and how it is not climate?

I can lead an idiot to knowledge but I can't make you think, antiG

Mar 17, 2016
LOL. 30 years. Go tell it to Phil Jones
Bottom line - the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.

http://www.burton...4199.txt

Mar 17, 2016
Meanwhile, actually read that article for a moment. See what it's saying.

"10 straight broken monthly global heat records... February 2016 obliterated old marks by such a margin that it was the most above-normal month since meteorologists started keeping track in 1880."

February was *13 degrees above average* and that's the GLOBAL average temperature. That's not a regional variation. That's not Back of Burke Australia hitting 53 degrees. That's the whole planet being so far above the average for that month that we have to redefine the mean for February upward by a margin.

And that is from multiple lines of evidence. So in case my mild sarcasm wasn't enough: STFU. This kind of shit kills people. Millions are about to die in Africa from food shortages and you're being a denialist dick on a comments page.

At this point, your position is verging on criminal.

Mar 17, 2016
BEWARE SHARP TOOLS

Well, I don't have to worry about that on this forum, since you are certainly not the SHARPEST.
Now explain the AGW Cult maths where, most of the data show a descending trend and when the highest data point is included at the start, it switches to an ascending trend.

Mar 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.


Mar 17, 2016
Actually the thing that really pisses me off about this "but it's cold in Boston" or "but there was a snowstorm in Eastern Europe" is that anyone with basic knowledge of climate science knows these things are a prediction of the globe warming. Boston wouldn't be having record lows and Europe wouldn't be experiencing freak blizzards if it wasn't for the reduction of Arctic albedo due to sea ice loss. Arctic sea ice was the only reason these areas were so temperate. To put it simply (maybe too simply) the ice was locking that cold weather in the Arctic and now it's being pushed south.

It's the melting of that ice due to climate change that is exacerbating winter across this region and *that was predicted by climate science 30 years ago*.

In fact, the logical response to freak blizzards and snowstorms in this part of the globe is that it's more solid evidence of warming.

Mar 17, 2016
anyone with basic knowledge of climate science knows these things are a prediction of the globe warming. Boston wouldn't be having record lows and Europe wouldn't be experiencing freak blizzards if it wasn't for the reduction of Arctic albedo due to sea ice loss.

So, which century and decade did Boston and Europe experience all this fantastic weather you claim.

Mar 18, 2016
When diary and wheat farms have been extant on Greenland for 400 years . . . give me a call. Otherwise it ain't hot yet.

Mar 18, 2016
As usual, nothing unusual about the weather in my neck of the woods.


Mar 18, 2016
greenonions still has not figured out the difference between science and politics and does not understand that when he puts his words in someone else's mouth and then calls them ignorant
he is commenting on himself.

Mar 18, 2016
Nice weather report, they are always so much better at reporting the weather that has already happened. Forecasting? Not so much....

Mar 18, 2016
Then, there is this:

http://phys.org/n...ine.html

A little harder to deny, right?

Mar 18, 2016
. Like the now very seriously investigated 'cold fusion'. How it was forced into stillbirth 25 years ago (not the first time!) by very selfish entities.


ColdFusion ? Not too popular lately. maybe because they remained being Windows centric for too long.

Even Ruby on Rails is more popular than CF :P

Mar 18, 2016
... anyone with basic knowledge of climate science knows these things are a prediction of the globe warming. Boston wouldn't be having record lows and Europe wouldn't be experiencing freak blizzards.......In fact, the logical response to freak blizzards and snowstorms in this part of the globe is that it's more solid evidence of warming.

Anyone with basic knowledge knows you are an idiot and your "logical" response is to blow it out of where the sun don't shine. Now, tell us which century and decade did Boston and Europe enjoy all this fantastic weather you claim?

Mar 18, 2016
philstacy9 - I think I have a good understanding of the difference between politics and science. Seems very clear to me that the denialists on this board are the ones with a political agenda, and are constantly pissing on the science.

But help us understand what you are saying with your two links. One is about a snow storm in the north eastern U.S. What was your point in posting that? To claim that global warming is not happening? The other was about trees that are adapting to global warming. I am wrong in seeing a level of cognitive dissonance in posting these two links? Please enlighten us.

I am saying that if alien races are not communicating with humans you are the reason.

Mar 18, 2016
LMFAO
Now explain ...most of the data show a descending trend and when the highest data point is included at the start, it switches to an ascending trend
@antig
because you apparently are incapable of comprehending math
perhaps this will help?
... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends
THAT is one important key point i tried to make to you...
Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others
THIS is why you can't comprehend the statistics, and why it is obvious to any semi-literate quasi-educated person you are incapable of comprehending basic science

here is a little help with that
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

again, until you learn why noisy chaotic systems can create misinformation because of your choice to cherry-pick data then you will remain an ignoramus

Mar 18, 2016
"you will remain an ignoramus"
--------------------------------

Did you have no mother? Who are you to judge others, while you hide in the woods and the internet, sniping?

Mar 18, 2016
Did you have no mother?
@liar-kam
nope. i was born of a virgin
Who are you to judge others, while you hide in the woods and the internet, sniping?
who are you to continue to post lies that are easily proven to be bullsh*t??

and then try to claim it must be true because you once worked at edwards ??

evidence is everything, beni-kam

if you lie, i will prove it
that is what pisses you off, isn't it?

So, let's stay on topic, and stop the personal trashing, okay?

Mar 18, 2016

Yep.
Still waiting for you to explain the AGW Cult maths that can result in a descending plot changing to ascending when the highest data point is included as was done here.

Its called regression analysis, and it isn't cult maths. It's well known, and is taught to undergrads. The smaller the sample size, the larger the uncertainty. 2002 to 2015 is less likely to be true than 1997 to 2015. Indeed, the smaller the sample size is, the more it fluctuates. The larger it is, the more stable it is, and the less likely it is to fluctuate.

I have illustrated this principle by plotting linear trends since 1980. You can see that it starts out as relatively stable, but as the year increases, fluctuations start affecting the trendline more and more. By the time we get to the 2000's, it fluctuates wildly.

Here is an album of screen captures:
http://imgur.com/a/ciV5b

You can see that 1990 is really the last point at which it remains stable.

Mar 18, 2016
" You can see that it starts out as relatively stable, but as the year increases, fluctuations start affecting the trendline more and more. By the time we get to the 2000's, it fluctuates wildly."
------------------------------------

It is like a spinning top, or other relatively stable state starting to seek another stable state, perhaps not one conducive to Human habitat.

We have perturbed the climate, which is the complex interaction of complex systems, and have threatened to send it into a different stable stable, one in which we have no understanding, let alone control.

Mar 18, 2016
Its called regression analysis, and it isn't cult maths. It's well known, and is taught to undergrads. The smaller the sample size, the larger the uncertainty. 2002 to 2015 is less likely to be true than 1997 to 2015. Indeed, the smaller the sample size is, the more it fluctuates. The larger it is, the more stable it is, and the less likely it is to fluctuate
@furlong
THANKS furlong
you already posted this to her more than once
...she will simply ignore it and continue to make the same claims because admission of the math and science will mean admission of the evidence proving the AGW and climate warming

this is exactly the same argument that was refuted before, and we will see her make the same argument again in about a month
(maybe it is a dementia issue? or chemical denigration of the grey matter on the part of antig?)


Mar 18, 2016
@antigoracle
Here is a plot from 1960 to 2009 in increments of 5 to further illustrate this principle.
http://www.woodfo...15/trend

You can see that when it starts out, slopes are close to each other. At around, 1990, however, we start seeing oscillations.

Mar 18, 2016
THANKS furlong
you already posted this to her more than once

Sure. Antigoracle is a clown who thinks he/she can hide behind "it's just math." Like Denglish, they think their eyes are as good as expert analysis.

Well, here is something for their eyes. As they can plainly see, it isn't so mysterious. No matter how they want to spin it, the trend line is stable before 1990, and unstable afterwards. Stable=useful
Unstable=useless

The way I see it, he/she has two options if he/she wants to continue this charade:
1) Declare that unstable trendlines are just as good as stable ones
2) Declare that trendlines aren't a useful tool to begin with anyway.
3) Not bother to respond, or tell me to grow a brain

I can't want to see which one.

Mar 18, 2016
Like the articles on this website I cherry pick my data points and make 'astronomical' and 'strange' conclusions but I get 99% disagreement for my political bias.

Mar 18, 2016
Like the articles on this website I cherry pick my data points and make 'astronomical' and 'strange' conclusions but I get 99% disagreement for my political bias.

So, you admit cherry picking? And you think this is a good strategy for determining facts?

Yeah, ok.

By the way, no, the articles on this website don't cherry pick. You do.

Just because you cheat doesn't mean that everyone else does.

Mar 18, 2016
Timescales of months deal with weather not climate. If you want to look at climate, look at say the average global temperature over the last 11 years (get a complete solar cycle in there), and compare it with an 11 year period 100 years ago, then you can see climate change as opposed to weather.

Mar 18, 2016
Here is an album of screen captures:
http://imgur.com/a/ciV5b


"Bottom line - the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.--Phil Jones. Imagine Phil Jones, the High Priest of Global Warming is WORRIED about the globe COOLING.
So, congratulations furlong, you have just ruined Phil's day.

Mar 18, 2016
"Bottom line - the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.--Phil Jones. Imagine Phil Jones, the High Priest of Global Warming is WORRIED about the globe COOLING.
So, congratulations furlong, you have just ruined Phil's day.

Ahh, so you chose not to respond to my argument showing that you are wrong to use 2002 to 2015 at all, and decided to change the subject.

That's pretty much what I expected.

Mar 18, 2016
@antigoracle
Since you didn't acknowledge that my argument shows you don't have a leg to stand on, or at least attempt to refute it, I fully expect you to continue trotting out your wood for trees argument, as Stumpy said you would.

As I said before, you deniers don't adapt to new information, and this is proof.

Mar 18, 2016
Timescales of months deal with weather not climate. If you want to look at climate, look at say the average global temperature over the last 11 years (get a complete solar cycle in there), and compare it with an 11 year period 100 years ago, then you can see climate change as opposed to weather.

Let's look at the last century. Coming out of the LITTLE ICE AGE at the turn of the century, you would expect the globe to warm back up. Notice the near perfect cycles of warming and cooling, with 2 warm periods in the last century. Compare the last 2 rates of warming, despite human CO2 contribution being significantly less during the first period.
http://www.woodfo...99/trend

Mar 18, 2016
@antigoracle
Since you didn't acknowledge that my argument shows you don't have a leg to stand on, or at least attempt to refute it, I fully expect you to continue trotting out your wood for trees argument, as Stumpy said you would.

As I said before, you deniers don't adapt to new information, and this is proof.

Look again, your "argument" CONFIRMED my point that the globe is in a period of cooling.

Mar 18, 2016
@dirty_spammer
Let's look at the last century. Coming out of the LITTLE ICE AGE at the turn of the century

The little ice age ended around 1850.

Oh, look at that, mommy's tard made a post. I'll let her know you are still as "smart" as the day after she dropped you.

Mar 18, 2016
There are 3 certainties in life: death, taxes and chucky is wrong.

You can be certain you'll die a tard.

Mar 18, 2016
Hey...I know what also contributes to "Global Warming"...It's caused by Stumpy laughing his fat ass off all the time. That constant LMFAO is a steady stream of HOT CO2 and all that Methane adding to the air pollution when he has to fart while laughing.
Isn't that right, Stumpy/Otto?
:))

Mar 18, 2016
philstacy9
I am saying that if alien races are not communicating with humans you are the reason.


Thanks Phil - that splains everything.
- onions
Time for a "what if" moment.
WHAT IF all the Stumpy/Otto's of the world all farted at the same time. Could that change the Earth's orbit around the Sun?
And what if Piss1 joined them after eating a big bowl of beans, wouldn't that take the Earth out of its orbit around the Sun altogether?
Stumpy Dumpy will now demand that claim to be validated while Otto/Stumpy gives my comment a ONE.
:)))

Mar 18, 2016
WELCOME to the new normal! Beyond record hot, February it was. Wow. Even the dim bulbs (you know who you are) agree, FEB, insanely hot it was.

I suspect it's the first trickel of the dreaded methane feedback loop being unleashed. Mark my words denier scum bags, it's going to be a superhot summer and it only gets worse.

It will be so hot, Mr socks will need to go barefoot.


Mar 18, 2016
OK...Here are some practical questions in need of practical answers:

1) IF ALL nations of the world began to make a concerted effort to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and instead used renewable forms of energy, how many deaths of eagles and other birds could be avoided and what should be the kill limits?

2) Will there ever be a market for ready-to-serve bird meat from eagles, condors, etc. who are fried while in flight over solar farms? And what should the going price be for such exotic fare?

3) IF a concerted effort by all nations is carried through to clean up the air, soils and waters of the Earth, will the working Middle Class and rich folks still have to pay through the nose for a government-enforced "Redistribution of Wealth" to people who like living in mud huts?

Mar 18, 2016
WELCOME to the new normal! Beyond record hot, February it was. Wow. Even the dim bulbs (you know who you are) agree, FEB, insanely hot it was.

I suspect it's the first trickel of the dreaded methane feedback loop being unleased. Mark my words denier scum bags, it's going to be a superhot summer and only gets worse.

It will be so hot, Mr socks will need to go barefoot.

- Hot-to-trot
Hey Hottie...how're you doing there, old bean?

You know what? Summers are usually hot, and sometimes VERY hot. It really depends on your location. The Kalahari is super hot from what I've heard; and so is Death Valley...and that ain't no lie b/c I've been there.
Now, if you said that it's gonna be a super hot day or a whole week in January on the Harvard campus in Massachusetts...I might be worried. But I am personally hoping for a long, hot summer to get my juices flowing.


Mar 18, 2016

@ Hot stuff
Oh, by the way, my wife and I recycle anything made of steel, plastics, cardboard, wood, paint, old tires, aluminum, and coffee grinds go into our citrus trees.
What have YOU been doing to help save the Earth? Talking about it? Algore does that too.

Mar 18, 2016

2) Will there ever be a market for ready-to-serve bird meat from eagles, condors, etc. who are fried while in flight over solar farms? And what should the going price be for such exotic fare?

Such a fallacy Mr socks, Solar farms may be photovoltaic in which case the birds won't "fry". But even if they are Solar thermal systems, what by comparison do coal or gas plants do to the same birds. If it's coal you want to argue fore, just look at the eagle habitat removed by mountain-top remove. It's as large as may states, and do you think the coal companies will pay to have the land reclaimed??? Hell no. Google satellite the Appalachians of WV, KY,
Look at what they left, total P.O.S. they are.

Mar 18, 2016
Well, old beanie. I DO agree on the dirty coal business. But they DO make a brave attempt to curb the pollution coming out of their stacks. And they provide jobs. Also, the eagles have a habit of flying off to other locations far from those mountain tops. They DO adapt, you know. There have been some attempts to RECLAIM the mountains by building up what was taken out, with dirt minus the coal that was removed.
OK...the uglification of the land by some forms of mining could be improved...a lot. But look at all the people you've thrown out of work...and their kids are going hungry. Ever been to Appalachia? They are SO poor in Appalachia that Detroit seems like heaven.

Solar farms take a BIG toll on the eagle and other bird population. They are literally burned up in mid flight...just to provide cheap electricity. I have seen it. The electricity might be cheap, but the eagles are dying. Do you even care?

Mar 18, 2016

@ Hot stuff
Oh, by the way, my wife and I recycle anything made of steel, plastics, cardboard, wood, paint, old tires, aluminum, and coffee grinds go into our citrus trees.
What have YOU been doing to help save the Earth? Talking about it? Algeria does that too.


Well Mr. Socks, recycle, so do we. I have to hall it from the farm every month, but I insist on it. Most of it winds in China by shipping containers anyway, but they are starting to get smart so who knows when we will have to recycle our own slop? It's a resource for the resourceful.

You ask very serious question though, you say
What have YOU been doing to help save the Earth?
with the emphasis on YOU, Do you question whether I WANT to SAVE the Earth? Or do you question HOW I would save it. As one person, my efforts are roughly as good as yours. OUR efforts though will make a difference.



Mar 18, 2016
HOW would YOU save it? Ok so we're not too different in our methods. We recycle steel cans by opening both ends of cans and then crushing each can so that they don't take up too much room in the plastic bags. Then we drive to the recyclables station and get paid for our contribution. It's just a matter of being more conscientious of what can or can't be used again after being melted down. Same with aluminum. Nothing hard about it. But I've seen people toss aluminum cans on the side of the road, and I have stopped my truck and gone back to pick up the can, throw it in the back to be recycled. My wife does the same thing. I also think more and more people are getting the same idea b/c we're not seeing as many cans thrown on the side of the road as before.
That's good. But as to air pollution...well, that's a little more of a problem

Mar 18, 2016
The problem mainly is that air moves...like polluted air can cross the Pacific Ocean from Hong Kong or some other polluted city in China...and wind up in Los Angeles or Seattle or....or...
What do you do about THAT? Do you go to the Chinese Embassy in DC, grab some guy by the throat and threaten him with bodily harm if the Chinese Commies in Bejing don't stop the air pollution?

Mar 18, 2016
Mr Socks;
Solar farms take a BIG toll on the eagle and other bird population. They are literally burned up in mid flight...just to provide cheap electricity. I have seen it. The electricity might be cheap, but the eagles are dying. Do you even care?
If it upsets you that much, write a letter and protest. Maybe some locations are not good for this type of solar. If you set one of these systems up in the Sahara desert though, your not going to fry to many birds.

To be honest, if your trying to defend fossil fuels, your on the wrong end of a loosing argument. This is a global extinction prevention issue. It's not just a concern, it's a 'life on this planet for the next million years' kind of issue. For global survival we need to keep all fossil fuels in the ground, but given mankind's needs and greeds, shifting from fossil is like swimming upstream against the current.

It will take a seachange in people's thinking globally. BTW, the USA lags behind on that.


Mar 18, 2016
Hottie? I think that more people would be amenable to preventing the "perceived" warming of the Earth, even if untrue, IF we didn't feel so threatened by this "Redistribution of Wealth" stipulation that would actually make everyone much poorer....(paraphrasing) the equality of misery.

Mar 18, 2016
If it upsets you that much, write a letter and protest. Maybe some locations are not good for this type of solar. If you set one of theses systems up in the Sahara desert though, your not going to fry to many birds.

To be honest, if your trying to defend fossil fuels, your on the wrong end of a loosing argument. This is a global extinction prevention issue. It's not just a concern, it's a life on this planet for the next million years kind of issue. For global survival we need to keep all fossil fuels in the ground, but given mankind's needs and greeds, shifting from fossil is like swimming upstream against the current.

- Hotsie Totsie
Did you know that coal was formed from vegetation (dead matter) millions of years ago.
In effect, coal IS renewable, just that it takes too long. But the same is true of petrol (oil). Oil is derived from dead plant matter where the oil seeped into the ground and collected there.
From VEGETATION, Hottie.

Mar 18, 2016
Mr. Socks, if you want novel ideas to help people don't listen to your minister (they are all political wingnut toadies anyway). The US, strip-mined mountaintop removed land of the dead, Appalachia would be a perfect place for Solar farms. It would provide great jobs to our union coal minor brothers, and make an huge amount of electricity for factories and business to grow.

Mar 18, 2016
Mr. Socks
From VEGETATION, Hottie.
Duuuuhhhhhh. Leave the coal, the oil, the natural gas in the ground, Consider it sequestered. If you want to put a global tax on solar to key coal, gas, and oil sequestered, it would be a better tradeoff than an extinction event.

.

Mar 18, 2016
OK Hottie...here's a question for you...and others.
Do you like to keep warm in the winter when it's cold outside? Do you like to walk out in the cold weather, but go home to a nice warm house and hot food? Do you like to get into your vehicle to drive wherever and get there in little time? Or would you prefer to hitch up your horse and buggy and FREEZE in that buggy while the horse pulls it at ~ 5 miles per hour?
Do you send your kid to school where the all the kids have to keep their winter coats, hats and gloves on in class because the furnace isn't allowed to run on fossil fuels? When you get up in the morning, do you have to trudge over to the stove and find that there's no electricity b/c your local 'electric company isn't allowed to get their electric from a coal, gas or oil burning facility?
Think about it awhile.
Aside from nuclear energy, fossil fuels is what keeps us warm and driving. Solar and wind have their limits. What else is there?

Mar 18, 2016
One more question before I leave this thread, Hot Stuff.
You are on your computer now, right? Or your iPad or whatever. Now WHERE is the electricity coming from so that you can talk in this thread and research whatever you need to research?
Does the power come from wishful thinking?

Mar 18, 2016
Look Mr. Socks, it's a very grave situation we are in. Once people put aside politics and recognized what a hell of a problem we are in now, it will be a "HOLY SHIT MOMENT". That is right now.

What people will do about heating/cooling and auto is going to have to be technology based in urban areas. For us out in the wood, we'll have to do what we all do, carbon neutral living.

Mar 18, 2016
Mr. Socks;
Now WHERE is the electricity coming
mostly natural gas. It's used to be coal, but the local utility refitted their plant for natural gas like the hundreds of other. The destruction of coal/oil was fracking. That too will end once the world has been baked to toast from run-away global warming!


Mar 19, 2016
So, you approve of fracking? Look at it this way...natural gas, coal, and oil all are naturally occurring energy sources. They ARE polluters of air, soils and water. That is fact. No denying it.
However, there ARE ways to mitigate that pollution so that it is limited from entering the atmosphere, water table, and the environment in general. There are people who are designing and developing the means to ameliorate the bad effects and products of mining and burning these fossil fuels that produce energy. The governments of each nation should encourage the production of the best solutions to end completely, if at all possible, the polluting qualities of these natural resources. But if you are saying that we MUST end our using of fossil fuels immediately, that can't be done. At least, not until a viable replacement is found or devised as quickly as possible. Most people are NOT about to give up their creature comforts and warm homes and it is unrealistic to expect it of them.

Mar 19, 2016
It was a pleasure talking with you, Hottie. I sincerely hope that your "Global Warming" aka "Climate Change" fears will never come to pass. There are ways to prevent it from happening, and one of those ways is recycling and searching for alternatives to the natural resources already in use. People have to be informed that recycling is preferable to large open pits and land fills that are bound to leak pollutants into the drinking water table.
But what has been suggested in the past as far as monetary gain for third world countries as some form of reparation for the fact that they didn't care enough to improve their own lot, that makes it necessary to take from those who have earned what they've got to give to those who haven't earned it, is criminal.

Mar 19, 2016
Mr. Socks. Just to clarify my position, you say
So, you approve of fracking? Look at it this way...natural gas, coal, and oil all are naturally occurring energy sources.
Yes they are natural when they STAY IN THE GROUND, Let them stay in ground where the come from.

We can use technology to replace fossil fuels. We can not live as a planet without abandoning fossil fuels as an energy source.

Mar 19, 2016
Hottie, I am willing to let go of my use of gasoline for my truck, oil for the furnace in my house and our gas for cooking. But kindly let me know when efficient alternatives are available. Until such time arrives, I will allow myself the audacity of keeping comfortable in our home. Thank you and good night or good day/morning.

Mar 19, 2016
But they DO make a brave attempt to curb the pollution coming out of their stacks.


No they don't. Coal mines and coal power plants fight every pollution control regulation, tooth and nail.

But look at all the people you've thrown out of work...and their kids are going hungry. Ever been to Appalachia? They are SO poor in Appalachia that Detroit seems like heaven.


And coal mines have been union busting for decades, making them even poorer.
If the jobs are so good, how come the miners have *always* been poor?

Solar farms take a BIG toll on the eagle and other bird population. They are literally burned up in mid flight...just to provide cheap electricity. I have seen it.


No they don't. It's a small toll.
If you've seen it, then you know it only happens in one small area, the Ivanpah Valley. The electricity isn't cheap. These are pilot concentrator plants.

Mar 19, 2016
Climate deniers are astroturf. The ignore button will shut them up; nothing you say will. They're marginalized, by being proven wrong over and over and continuing to deny.

It's time to stop the madness of science denial. And the only way to do it is to ignore them and vote.

Now, back to the topic: as I predicted over a year ago, El Nino has come and California hasn't had the necessary storms to replenish our water. Wonder how long it will be until the farmers stop denying global warming...

You can beat a mule with a two-by-four between the eyes but you can't make it drink.

Mar 20, 2016
Don't feed o_pervert, please.
Yep. Put it on ignore and move on. We have real issues to deal with, and deniers waste our time. They've got nothing to say we haven't already heard a thousand times, and that we know is stupid.

Mar 20, 2016
Don't feed o_pervert, please.
Yep. Put it on ignore and move on. We have real issues to deal with, and deniers waste our time. They've got nothing to say we haven't already heard a thousand times, and that we know is stupid.
@Da Schneib
welcome back - missed your posts!
so has rc, because he's been slamming you

anyway... sometimes we get a real gem that you just don't see every day though, and it is worth making note of because some people might actually believe it as presented

like the o_s claim that Clay has DNA ... i just wish i could find that genome so i could compare it to other animals.
OR that all organic material is alive

that is a first for me, anyway

oh, i prefer:
you can lead an idiot to evidence, but you can't make them think

Mar 20, 2016
Don't feed o_pervert, please.
Yep. Put it on ignore and move on. We have real issues to deal with, and deniers waste our time. They've got nothing to say we haven't already heard a thousand times, and that we know is stupid.
@Da Schneib
welcome back - missed your posts!
so has rc, because he's been slamming you

anyway... sometimes we get a real gem that you just don't see every day though, and it is worth making note of because some people might actually believe it as presented

like the o_s claim that Clay has DNA ... i just wish i could find that genome so i could compare it to other animals.
OR that all organic material is alive

oh, i prefer:
you can lead an idiot to evidence, but you can't make them think
- StumpDump
That idiot being StumpyDumpy/Otto.
LMAO Dumpy STILL didn't do a google search for " clay dna " like I told him to do. Dumpy doesn't know that researchers had found DNA in clay. Typical stupid lazy ass.

Mar 20, 2016
But they DO make a brave attempt to curb the pollution coming out of their stacks.

No they don't. Coal mines and coal power plants fight every pollution control regulation, tooth and nail.


Yes they do. They are forced to COMPLY with EPA regs or face penalties.

But look at all the people you've thrown out of work...and their kids are going hungry. Ever been to Appalachia? They are SO poor in Appalachia that Detroit seems like heaven.

And coal mines have been union busting for decades, making them even poorer.
If the jobs are so good, how come the miners have *always* been poor?


Nobody ever said that the jobs are so good. It's the only jobs available in the coal mining areas for most people. So what did the unions ever do for these miners? Take their money in union dues and spend it on....what? They didn't spend it on the miners, that's for certain.

(cont'd)

Mar 20, 2016
"Solar farms take a BIG toll on the eagle and other bird population. They are literally burned up in mid flight...just to provide cheap electricity. I have seen it."

No they don't. It's a small toll.
If you've seen it, then you know it only happens in one small area, the Ivanpah Valley. The electricity isn't cheap. These are pilot concentrator plants.

What do you mean, it's a SMALL toll? ANY amount of kill is a BIG toll. I have been to Ivanpah and seen eagles and other birds flying over the panels, their feathers and wings singed so that they can no longer fly and fall to the ground.
Is THAT your idea of saving the Earth? Birds also fly into windmills set up in other countries. Is this supposed to be a better tradeoff...bird kill as opposed to fossil fuels?
How about nuclear energy instead of fossil fuels? How about another Fukushima right here in mainland USA? Maybe somewhere near Highway 101 in California, eh?

Mar 20, 2016
I can't imagine anything anyone who would disrespect the President of the US might have to say that I might be interested in listening to.

Go live in North Korea where they think what you have to say means something.

See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya.

Mar 20, 2016
One thing is for certain. There is NO WAY to make any car, truck, boat, airplane, etc. to run without fossil fuels. If you think so, then you should buy yourself a mule and a wagon to pull you and your family around. But DON'T let the mule fart, because that will only add TO the CO2 and Methane that's already in the atmosphere. Same thing with your family and yourself.

Mar 20, 2016
I can't imagine anything anyone who would disrespect the President of the US might have to say that I might be interested in listening to.

Go live in North Korea where they think what you have to say means something.

See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya.
- Da Schneib

LOL and who the hell are YOU? Oh, are you talking about President A-hole who sits in the White House currently? Obama is going to Cuba to suck on Fidel's toes, then he will come back to do even more damage to the US economy while he has a few months left to do it. For his legacy, of course. Dimwit.

Mar 20, 2016
One thing is for certain. There is NO WAY to make any car, truck, boat, airplane, etc. to run without fossil fuels.
Tesla.

We done here?

Oh, are you talking about President A-hole
The average IQ is 100. Thanks for keeping it down there, sport.

Sorry you're all hurt because the black President and stuff.

Get over it.

Mar 20, 2016
Tesla.
We done here?
@Da Schneib
Dont' forget Militky MB-E1, Sunrise & Sunrise II,Solar Riser, Solar One, Gossamer Penguin, Solar Challenger, MIT Monarch and Monarch-B, Aerovironment Bionic Bat, Solar Impulse, Helios... etc ad nauseum

but there was also Gaston Tissandier from history, using electric engines on airships!

there are a LOT MORE that you can throw at the idiot troll that are just aircraft, which is the harder of the craft to make electric

funnier still - Sail Boats have been utilised for millennia without internal combustion engines. and still don't need them except for comfort

now she'll make up some excuse and then rant away about you being otto (or i being otto, or you being me - LOL) or some other red herring distraction from the epic fail of that singular line

funniest yet- from another thread
they should use a sailboat with no engine
http://phys.org/n...eld.html

LMFAO

Mar 20, 2016
A moron and a pervert. So ignore.
I do, mostly. Can't resist a swat now and again. It's a character flaw. ;)

Mar 20, 2016
@cs
What is the point ?
@Phys1
what is the point of my post?

this comment
One thing is for certain. There is NO WAY to make any car, truck, boat, airplane, etc. to run without fossil fuels
i was adding more to Schneib's post that socks seems to be intentionally ignoring
(plus, i found it interesting that she even admitted to the whole sailboat thing while not considering the implications of the comment)

you mean yall don't find the comment hysterical?

i mean, she said
There is NO WAY to make any car, truck, boat, airplane, etc. to run without fossil fuels
while we have an abundance of cars, trucks, planes boats and more running WITHOUT fossil fuels!

and that can be validated with a 4 second search!

that is just FUNNY man!


Mar 20, 2016
@cs
What is the point of contradicting a troll?

there is more to it than that... send me an e-mail and i can explain

Mar 20, 2016
@cs
What is the point of contradicting a troll?
Lurkerz. I personally don't post on a site if nobody's contradicting the obvious trolls.

Also it's good exercise.

Mar 20, 2016
LOL...

Its not warm enough for me and we are also having a very much above average temperature year. Guess folks, we are ahead in the water year and almost exactly normal with the snow year...

http://wcc.sc.ego...t+a+year

Same for California you wonks

http://wcc.sc.ego...t+a+year

Mar 20, 2016

"Its called regression analysis, and it isn't cult maths...

You can see that it starts out as relatively stable, but as the year increases, fluctuations start affecting the trendline more and more."

---

This argues the data are abnormal and not suited to regression analysis. Unstable variance (variance that changes over time) contradicts a fundamental assumption of simple regression; the data come from normal distribution. Statistical moments implied by normally distributed data in these cases have no meaning (literally, the mean isn't). Neither do moments such as standard deviation. Without those moments the sample is useless.

This is particularly important in the case of "anomaly" data, such as those used in climate measures. Statistically these data are Z Scores; a measure of excursions from the sample mean by individual observations. If the data have abnormal variance over time, they don't come from a normal distribution and a Z Score has no meaning.

Mar 20, 2016
One thing is for certain. There is NO WAY to make any car, truck, boat, airplane, etc. to run without fossil fuels.
Tesla.

We done here?

Oh, are you talking about President A-hole
The average IQ is 100. Thanks for keeping it down there, sport.

Sorry you're all hurt because the black President and stuff.

Get over it.
- Da Schneib
Nope. We're not done here.
So, tell me, fool...WHERE does an electric car get its power from? Fairy dust?
Oh, that's right...it has to go to a dual electric/fossil fuel station to RECHARGE THE BATTERIES.
AND WHERE DOES THE RECHARGE STATION GET ITS POWER FROM TO RECHARGE ELECTRIC CAR BATTERIES? Come on, genius... give us the answer.

Black President? Are you saying that the President is BLACK? Wow...I hadn't even noticed his color until YOU brought it up.
LMAO

Mar 20, 2016
Black President? Are you saying that the President is BLACK? Wow...


He's not actually "black", he has African ancestry. I'm not really "white" either, I have predominantly Neanderthal ancestry. Most of us aren't either one. Recent genetic assays have shown there are at minimum three major crossings between H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalensis over the past 50,000 years resulting in the Middle Eastern, European and Asian subspecies. It's presumed the original H. Sapiens developed in sub-Saharan Africa and later interbred to various effect and extent with the Neanderthals, resulting in the contemporary variations seen today. Northern Europeans and Asians tend to include larger amounts of Neanderthal genetic material than found in the Middle East and Northern Africa but the genome is rapidly shifting with the advent of modern transportation.

Mar 20, 2016
Don't feed the Stumpy pervert, please.
Yep.We have real issues to deal with, and deniers waste our time. They've got nothing to say we haven't already heard a thousand times, and that we know is stupid.


anyway... sometimes we get a real gem that you just don't see every day though, and it is worth making note of because some people might actually believe it as presented

like the o_s claim that Clay has DNA ... i just wish i could find that genome so i could compare it to other animals.
OR that all organic material is alive

oh, i prefer:
you can lead an idiot to evidence, but you can't make them think
- Captain StumpyDumpy
Still didn't do a Google Search for - clay dna - like I told you to do, eh Dumpy?

LMAO StumpyDumpy thinks that clay BY ITSELF has DNA. I agree that you can lead the Stump idiot to evidence, but Stumps can't do some simple research.
Hey Stump, give us the link where I said ALL organic material is alive.

Mar 20, 2016
Black President? Are you saying that the President is BLACK? Wow...


He's not actually "black", he has African ancestry. I'm not really "white" either, I have predominantly Neanderthal ancestry. Most of us aren't either one. Recent genetic assays have shown there are at minimum three major crossings between H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalensis over the past 50,000 years resulting in the Middle Eastern, European and Asian subspecies. It's presumed the original H. Sapiens developed in sub-Saharan Africa and later interbred to various effect and extent with the Neanderthals, resulting in the contemporary variations seen today. Northern Europeans and Asians tend to include larger amounts of Neanderthal genetic material than found in the Middle East and Northern Africa but the genome is rapidly shifting with the advent of modern transportation.
- BackBurner
Actually, geneticists have found NO evidence of Neanderthalensis in Black Africans, only in Whites & Asians

Mar 20, 2016
@ BackBurner
FYI Barack Hussein Obama's mother has Black ancestry through her own mother. You know, that White grandmother whom Obama cynically spoke of as, "a typical White woman". Obama's "White" mother's ancestry includes Black slave(s) who were brought to America in chains in ~1690. Passing for White in America is quite common.
I think Ancestry.com has the evidence.

Mar 20, 2016
@o_religious_pervert
That idiot being StumpyDumpy/Otto.
LMAO Dumpy STILL didn't do a google search for " clay dna " like I told him to do. Dumpy doesn't know that researchers had found DNA in clay. Typical stupid lazy ass.

I think he meant you. Reading your text, he absolutely has a point.
I too was impressed by your clay hypothesis.
You are quite skilled at being stupid, o_pervert!
- Piss1

No, Dumpy means himself. It is a form of self-hatred to cast aspersions at others to throw off hints that Dumpy has mental and emotional problems that are insurmountable unless he hurls vitriol against others to alleviate his own feeling of lesser worth. Humility is definitely NOT among Dumpy's characteristics.

Mar 20, 2016
Black President? Are you saying that the President is BLACK? Wow...


He's not actually "black", he has African ancestry. I'm not really "white" either, I have predominantly Neanderthal ancestry. Most of us aren't either one.... It's presumed the original H. Sapiens developed in sub-Saharan Africa and later interbred to various effect and extent with the Neanderthals, resulting in the contemporary variations seen today. Northern Europeans and Asians tend to include larger amounts of Neanderthal genetic material than found in the Middle East and Northern Africa but the genome is rapidly shifting with the advent of modern transportation.
- BackBurner
Actually, geneticists have found NO evidence of Neanderthalensis in Black Africans, only in Whites & Asians

@ BackBurner
I should have said, "geneticists have found NO evidence of Neanderthalensis in Black Africans, only in Whites & Asians. Not sure about American & European Blacks."

Mar 20, 2016
Yes, here are two links to Obama's mother's Black ancestry.

http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0

http://www.baltim...ory.html

and there are other links available

Mar 20, 2016
@o_religious_pervert
No he means you.
And he is right.
- Piss1

LMAO...THAT coming from an obvious pederast. And don't deny it

Mar 20, 2016

@ BackBurner
I should have said, "geneticists have found NO evidence of Neanderthalensis in Black Africans, only in Whites & Asians. Not sure about American & European Blacks.


I believe that's unprovable. Neanderthalensis can be found in "black" people born of "black" parents in contemporary Africa due to cross breeding there. Genetic mixing of the species has been ongoing for millennia. It would be difficult to find a pure H. Sapiens or Neanderthalensis anywhere on the planet but it may be pure H. Sapiens would be easier to find in Africa. It seems unlikely to be completely absent in the entire continent.

Sapiens and Neanderthalensis are thought to have a common ancestor 500,000 to 1.5 million years ago. Neither really "died out", they've interbred, with the Neanderthalensis apparently more successful in the crossing.

Mar 20, 2016
BEWARE SHARP TOOLS

Well, I don't have to worry about that on this forum, since you are certainly not the SHARPEST.
Now explain the AGW Cult maths where, most of the data show a descending trend and when the highest data point is included at the start, it switches to an ascending trend.


Well, the relative sharpness of commenters here is pretty variable, auntie grizelda, but one thing IS for certain-- everyone here is regularly exposed to the work of one particular tool...

That tool being yourself.

And since your MO continues to be --prolly because it's the best you are capable of-- the simplest of the simplest, ie "trying to get one's goat", I hereby christen the troll formerly known as aunti grizelda to be henceforth known by the name:

GOAT TOOL.

Welcome aboard, goat tool!


Mar 20, 2016

If the data have abnormal variance over time, they don't come from a normal distribution and a Z Score has no meaning.


BTW, I shouldn't really have qualified that to "abnormal variance over time"; it's simply abnormal variance. It could be in time, space or spacetime as it were. If it's abnormal the mean doesn't tell you anything. This is the principal criticism of "average global temperature", it has no meaning and measuring changes in it are statistically impossible. I expect this may be more advanced statistics than most understand, it's nevertheless a major methodological problem in the climate sciences.

Mar 20, 2016
Tesla.
We done here?
@Da Schneib
but there was also Gaston Tissandier from history, USING ELECTRIC ENGINES ON AIRSHIPS!

LOT MORE that you can throw at the idiot troll that are just aircraft, which is the harder of the craft to make electric

Sail Boats have been utilised for millennia without internal combustion engines. and still don't need them except for comfort

now he'll make up some excuse and then rant away about you being otto (or i being otto, or you being me - LOL) or some other red herring distraction...

funniest yet- from another thread
they should use a sailboat with no engine
http://phys.org/n...eld.html

LMFAO
- StumpDump

Stump/Otto didn't know about electric engines on airships. LMAO

http://www.scienc...t-a-time

AND Stump doesn't know about engines on sailboats used for docking & when wind dies down

Mar 20, 2016
But they DO make a brave attempt to curb the pollution coming out of their stacks.


No they don't. Coal mines and coal power plants fight every pollution control regulation, tooth and nail.



Solar farms take a BIG toll on the eagle and other bird population. They are literally burned up in mid flight...just to provide cheap electricity. I have seen it.


No they don't. It's a small toll.
If you've seen it, then you know it only happens in one small area, the Ivanpah Valley. The electricity isn't cheap. These are pilot concentrator plants.
- retrosurf

@retrosurf. How about these?

The Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, Nevada

The Topaz Solar Farm, California

The Chattanooga Airport Solar Farm, Tennessee

The Disney Solar Farm in Florida 

And, of course, the Ivanpah Solar Farm that you already mentioned. Lots of big birds getting killed to prevent "CC".

Mar 20, 2016
BEWARE SHARP TOOLS

Well, I don't have to worry about that on this forum, since you are certainly not the SHARPEST.
Now explain the AGW Cult maths where, most of the data show a descending trend and when the highest data point is included at the start, it switches to an ascending trend.


Well, the relative sharpness of commenters here is pretty variable, auntie grizelda, but one thing IS for certain-- everyone here is regularly exposed to the work of one particular tool...

That tool being yourself.

And since your MO continues to be --prolly because it's the best you are capable of-- the simplest of the simplest, ie "trying to get one's goat", I hereby christen the troll formerly known as aunti grizelda to be henceforth known by the name:

GOAT TOOL.

Welcome aboard, goat tool!

- Caliban
WHY are you making fun of GOATS? They are worth a lot more than, say, Otto and his sock puppets aka StumpRump, Piss1, etc. etc. ad nauseum


Mar 20, 2016

@ BackBurner
I should have said, "geneticists have found NO evidence of Neanderthalensis in Black Africans, only in Whites & Asians. Not sure about American & European Blacks.


I believe that's unprovable. Neanderthalensis can be found in "black" people born of "black" parents in contemporary Africa DUE TO CROSSBREEDING THERE. Genetic mixing of the species has been ongoing for millennia. ...but it may be pure H. Sapiens would be easier to find in Africa. It seems unlikely to be completely absent in the entire continent.

.
- BackBurner
I would cite some examples from the Bible re Ham, son of Noah, but it would irritate all the atheists, so I won't. I mentioned American Blacks as being interbred with some Whites. Obama's ancestry is a good example. But I doubt that pure H.Sapiens can be found in Africa; as you said, "due to crossbreeding." It's so much like Mendel's Law of Inheritance...all the mixing of races. It is difficult to find a "pure" race if it exists


Mar 20, 2016
You know Obama_socks (or whatever your sock puppet alias is), you and the denier goon never answer a direct question. You and the your ilk always side-skirt the the issues. So instead of trying to point out where science is wrong, you goofs dodge the SUBJECT and bring up something to make everyone hate. You must be one of them Trump fans they keep reporting about on fox news.


Mar 20, 2016
First, let's look at the title of this article;
Beyond record hot, February was 'astronomical' and 'strange'
That folks is a statement of FACT (in human relatable terms). Astronomical and strange. It's easy to see from every science instrument we have in space, in the sea, on land and in the air. Mankind has managed to dump so much crap into the atmosphere that it's effected the whole energy balance between the power delivered by the Sun to the energy emitted to outerspace by our planet!

What makes everyone mad is no one is being held responsible for the pollution dumped into the air. If you Mr. Socks and all of the denier Ilk want to come in and defend that crap good luck with your life A-hole. Since nearly 99% of the Republican party denies the science of climate change, they must be even bigger A-hole's too.


Mar 20, 2016
You know Obama_socks (or whatever your sock puppet alias is), you and the denier goon never answer a direct question. You and the your ilk always side-skirt the the issues. So instead of trying to point out where science is wrong, you goofs dodge the SUBJECT and bring up something to make everyone hate. You must be one of them Trump fans they keep reporting about on fox news.

- hot mama
Obama_socks is my one and only name. Do you like it? I like yours too. Trump is great.. He will UNDO all the damage that Obama has done to the U.S.

Why complain? Who do YOU prefer?
Anyway, what exactly was your question regarding the weather?

Mar 20, 2016
First, let's look at the title of this article;
Beyond record hot, February was 'astronomical' and 'strange'
That folks is a statement of FACT (in human relatable terms). Astronomical and strange. It's easy to see from every science instrument we have in space, in the sea, on land and in the air. Mankind has managed to dump so much crap into the atmosphere that it's effected the whole energy balance between the power delivered by the Sun to the energy emitted to outerspace by our planet!

What makes everyone mad is no one is being held responsible for the pollution dumped into the air. If you Mr. Socks and all of the denier Ilk want to come in and defend that crap good luck with your life A-hole. Since nearly 99% of the Republican party denies the science of climate change, they must be even bigger A-hole's too.

- hottie
We have already discussed recycling of materials, and I agreed to give up using fossil fuels IF you can provide an alternative fuel.

Mar 20, 2016


Welcome aboard, goat tool!

- Caliban
WHY are you making fun of GOATS? They are worth a lot more than, say, Otto and his sock puppets aka StumpRump, Piss1, etc. etc. ad nauseum


For the simple reason that goat tool is a troll deserving of ridicule and contempt.

Unlike you, of course.

You are beneath even contempt and derision.

Does that answer your ?, moron?


Mar 20, 2016


Welcome aboard, goat tool!

- Caliban
WHY are you making fun of GOATS? They are worth a lot more than, say, Otto and his sock puppets aka StumpRump, Piss1, etc. etc. ad nauseum


For the simple reason that goat tool is a troll deserving of ridicule and contempt.

Unlike you, of course.

You are beneath even contempt and derision.

Does that answer your ?, moron?

- Caliban
What's your problem? Got menstrual cramps that's making you bitchy and foaming at the mouth?
Oh wait...I had forgotten that you also worship at the shrine of Otto the Nazi lover.
Well, in that case...excuuuuuuse mee.

Mar 20, 2016
(cont'd)
I will place you on IGNORE USER from now on. I see that you haven't changed since the last time you exhibited your natural tendency to prove your membership in the Phys.org asshole club.

Mar 20, 2016
This is the principal criticism of "average global temperature", it has no meaning and measuring changes in it are statistically impossible. I expect this may be more advanced statistics than most understand, it's nevertheless a major methodological problem in the climate sciences.
Actually, this is incorrect. Provided the methodology is consistent, no matter how chaotic the underlying measurements may be, you will get a usable result set and can examine it for trends.

The proof is simple. Consider a series of measurements of the positions of the atoms in a container of gas; for any given atom, the result will be highly chaotic. But if you investigate the delta-positions, that is, the amount of change in position from one data sample to the next, you can extract an average speed for the atoms.

[contd]

Mar 20, 2016
For any given atom, this will be essentially meaningless; but for the collection of all of them, this average speed will vary with temperature. The average speed has little or nothing to tell us about the chaotic series of speeds we will find as we watch one atom bounce around, going now faster, now slower, as it collides with other atoms and with the walls of the container; but we're not interested in the speed of any single atom, we're interested in the temperature of the gas.

And so with average temperature of the Earth. In itself, it doesn't predict the temperature at any given point at any particular time; the temperature at that point at a given time will fluctuate chaotically. However, if the average of all the temperatures we measure increases, then we can confidently state that the heat content of the system is increasing.

Your claim basically boils down to the claim that temperature is meaningless, which is obviously incorrect.

Mar 21, 2016
(cont'd)
I will place you on IGNORE USER from now on. I see that you haven't changed since the last time you exhibited your natural tendency to prove your membership in the Phys.org asshole club.


This is an admirable solution to your dilemma.

I applaud your new found adult-ness.


Mar 21, 2016
I will place you on IGNORE USER


This is an admirable solution to your dilemma.

I applaud your new found adult-ness.
Nice. You won.

Mar 21, 2016
researchers had found DNA in clay
@obutthead
LOL
where is the clay DNA?
that DNA you claim researchers found is not the clay genome!
give us the link where I said ALL organic material is alive
never said you claimed this, o-illiterate one - you said
Life forms don't arise from dead matter
http://phys.org/n...eld.html

what was previously living in organic material?? and why ain't diamonds alive?
is methane alive? lipids? peptides?
you're made of them which means you're made of dead (or even lifeless) material, so your claim is absolute crap!
and stupid to boot
LOL!
didn't know about electric engines
i prove you're an idiot & you simply claim you said it?
WOW
LMFAO
doesn't know about engines on sailboats
LOL! OMG - another idiot moment!
they're not needed- unless you want more comfort or feel lazy
you've never been sailing, have you?
LMFAO

thanks for proving literacy isn't something you're familiar with

Mar 21, 2016
Maybe, instead of getting annoyed at imbeciles like antigoracle, we should use them as examples of the medieval mindset that survived into the contemporary era. If you ever wonder "how would people in a pre-scientific society have dealt with our modern insights on [insert science/technology subject here] ?", you can just come on this site and look up antigoracle's response to a relevant topic.

When he's trying to disprove global warming by saying that it snowed, that reminds me of people poking fun at heliocentrism - you can see the sun rise and set, can't you? So of course it circles the earth!

I've posted this one before. And I'll be posting it again, I'm sure: https://s-media-c...2d37.jpg

Let's be grateful that we can see the pre-modern mindset in its full glory with specimens like antigoracle. They're bound to go extinct at some point.

Mar 21, 2016
You know Obama_socks (or whatever your sock puppet alias is), you and the denier goon never answer a direct question. You and the your ilk always side-skirt the the issues. So instead of trying to point out where science is wrong, you goofs dodge the SUBJECT and bring up something to make everyone hate. You must be one of them Trump fans they keep reporting about on fox news.

Trump is great.. He will UNDO all the damage that Obama has done to the U.S.


Just remember. No refunds once you've been duped. And you can't say you haven't been forewarned that he's a professional con-man.

What I find funny: the only person who has a lower opinion of Trump-voters than most liberals is...Donald Trump! That's right. He's laughing his ass off thinking how many dumb people are buying into his obvious BS. He'll say whatever he thinks the crowd wants to hear, contradicting himself at every turn, and the morons just gobble it up!


Mar 21, 2016
@goat tool
Look again, your "argument" CONFIRMED my point that the globe is in a period of cooling.

Haha, I just showed you that the "evidence" you are using for that is not evidence at all. The trendlines from 1997 and 2002 are well within a regime of high uncertainty. VISUALLY. All you have to do is look at the plots I provided to see that after 1990, the trend lines fluctuate too much to be of any use. That includes your trendline "showing" that the earth is in a period of global cooling.

http://imgur.com/a/ciV5b

And you tell Stumpy he doesn't understand analysis? You can't even understand simple pictures correctly!

Mar 21, 2016
I googled "clay DNA" and got a bunch of instructions for making models of DNA from balls of clay.

Snicker.

Mar 21, 2016
I googled "clay DNA" and got a bunch of instructions for making models of DNA from balls of clay.

Snicker.

He stumbled upon this research http://www.news.c...ned-clay

And then concluded, that MUST refer to the passage in the bible that God made man from clay.

Of course, that, in itself is a stretch and is like concluding that because the universe was opaque right after the big bang, that that must refer to Genesis 1.

However, even ignoring that, he has several problems. First, the Bible doesn't say that life was formed from clay, but humans. You'd think that God wouldn't have left such an important part out. Second, he dismisses the parts of Genesis that don't align with what has been scientifically observed, or even make sense.

In other words, he is cherry picking, and seems to see nothing wrong with doing so.

Mar 21, 2016
Of course, what obama_socks is really doing is bias confirmation. This is because his conclusion is not at all dependent on the research he found. Luo's findings are only one possibility. We don't know, for certain, if life actually originated in clay. If this hypothesis is ever falsified, it will not impact obama_socks' belief.

All he's really doing is embracing facts that dovetail with what he already believes, and ignoring the rest. That way, his beliefs can only ever be reinforced.

Mar 21, 2016
Not to be confused with confirmation bias, which is when we remember the times that our bias was confirmed and forget all the times it wasn't.

It's a failure in pattern recognition. Humans are extremely good at pattern recognition, so much so that we err quite a lot in finding patterns where there are none. This has happened because if you run away every time you think you see a lion, you survive even if 9 times out of 10 there wasn't a lion. Your risk is greater when you don't run away, and thus false pattern recognition is not contra-selected. This trait is the root of all conspiracy theories, including religions.

Mar 21, 2016
I googled "clay DNA" and got a bunch of instructions for making models of DNA from balls of clay.

Snicker.
- Da Schneib
You snickered a little too soon instead of doing a FULL search. Too lazy to look at other Google pages, eh? It's easy to see that you aspire to be just like Cap'n StumpyDumpy - too lazy to do some heavy searching. You also might want to follow StumpDump's lead and take words/sentences/ideas out of context and then do a LMFAO.

Mar 21, 2016
Getting back to Luo's findings, this was discovered long ago in the '80s and '90s, and has been superseded by RNA-world theories. The linked article discusses some of this research, and current findings with respect to the origin of life on Earth:

http://www.scienc...onundrum

Mar 21, 2016
- Da Schneib
You snickered a little too soon instead of doing a FULL search.
If it ain't on the first page you're lyin'.

Simples.

I ain't doin' homework for the likes of you.

Mar 21, 2016
Of course, what obama_socks is really doing is bias confirmation. This is because his conclusion is not at all dependent on the research he found. Luo's findings are only one possibility. We don't know, for certain, if life actually originated in clay. If this hypothesis is ever falsified, it will not impact obama_socks' belief.

All he's really doing is embracing facts that dovetail with what he already believes, and ignoring the rest. That way, his beliefs can only ever be reinforced.
- the furlong
Where did you ever get the idea that I said that life/life forms come FROM clay. Clay itself is INANIMATE and is completely devoid of genomes, DNA. RNA, etc. However, it is the ELEMENTS in clay that FORMS A HYDROGEL that wraps around a life form and THAT HYDROGEL is what PROTECTS the life form from harmful UV radiation, otherwise your ancestors could never have survived to evolve into plants and animals. Got it? Or are you afraid to face the truth?

Mar 21, 2016
Where did you ever get the idea that I said that life/life forms come FROM clay. Clay itself is INANIMATE and is completely devoid of genomes, DNA. RNA, etc. However, it is the ELEMENTS in clay that FORMS A HYDROGEL that wraps around a life form and THAT HYDROGEL is what PROTECTS the life form from harmful UV radiation, otherwise your ancestors could never have survived to evolve into plants and animals. Got it? Or are you afraid to face the truth?


Actually that conjecture has been ruled out. About a decade ago. The paper I linked shows that the three required elements to form cellular life-- lipids, amino acids, and nucleic acids-- most likely originated from H₂S and HCN, i.e. hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulfide. These are very common chemicals probably brought to Earth's surface by comet impacts during the Late Heavy Bombardment. This is a bolster to the RNA World hypotheses, since the nucleic acid components can be created from reaction products of these chemicals.

Mar 21, 2016
Where did you ever get the idea that I said that life/life forms come FROM clay.

I didn't. I said you used the research to justify the bible passage that God made humans from clay.

Mar 21, 2016
I googled "clay DNA" and got a bunch of instructions for making models of DNA from balls of clay.

Snicker.

He stumbled upon this research http://www.news.c...ned-clay

And then concluded, that MUST refer to the passage in the bible that God made man from clay.

Of course, that, in itself is a stretch...

However, (...)several problems. First, the Bible doesn't say that life was formed from clay, but humans. You'd think that God wouldn't (...) out. Second, he dismisses the parts of Genesis that don't align with what has been scientifically observed, (...)sense.
- the furlong
Stumbled? LMAO
There are other studies that also concur with Cornell. The clay already had DNA dropped into it FROM dying life forms. The clay used to FORM the first man had DNA in it FROM those dead or dying life forms, which is why H.Sapiens share many traits with animals/plants. Quite logical if you comprehend well.

Mar 21, 2016
the furlong
Stumbled? LMAO

Well, yes. Upon being challenged that there was no evidence for the Bible, you looked up "clay DNA", and found this research.
There are other studies that also concur with Cornell.

It doesn't matter if they've also been falsified, as Da Scheib suggests (to be fair, I haven't really looked too deeply at his link, but for now, I am taking his word for it. I'll take a further look later)
The clay used to FORM the first man had DNA in it FROM those dead or dying life forms, which is why H.Sapiens share many traits with animals/plants. Quite logical if you comprehend well.

Well, no. The hypothesis from Cornell is that the hydrogels served as a confinement for the ingredients of life to develop into more complex things like DNA, and, eventually, cells with membranes. I have read nothing about DNA being "dropped" into the clay.

Mar 21, 2016
Upon being challenged that there was no evidence for the Bible, you looked up "clay DNA", and found this research.

Actually, let me give a slight correction. You looked this up after being challenged that there was no evidence for the God of Abraham.

Mar 21, 2016
Where did you ever get the idea that I said that life/life forms come FROM clay.

I didn't. I said you used the research to justify the bible passage that God made humans from clay.
the furlong
That is THE purpose of doing research...To find out the Truth, rather than go with the flow as several are doing in this & other threads. Whether it's the CC fallacy or the claim that the story in Genesis is false, it's of the utmost importance to search for the facts. The problem is that what is fact now can change later and become obsolete. That's why science, for the most part, is unplanned obsolescence, which is why research is ongoing. "Hope and Change" - BHObama
I didn't research to justify anything. I am open to new, verifiable ideas that NEVER change. I research Genesis only b/c the rest of the OT is Hebrewcentric, not including the NT per se. Clay is just a medium that just happened to have the correct consistency to PROTECT life forms. That is all.

Mar 21, 2016
the furlong
Stumbled? LMAO

Well, yes. Upon being challenged that there was no evidence for the Bible, you looked up "clay DNA", and found this research.
There are other studies that also concur with Cornell.

It doesn't matter if they've also been falsified, as Da Scheib suggests(...)I'll take a further look later)
The clay used to FORM the first man had DNA in it FROM those dead or dying life forms, which is why H.Sapiens share many traits with animals/plants.

Well, no. The hypothesis from Cornell is that the hydrogels served as a confinement for the ingredients of life to develop into more complex things like DNA, and, eventually, cells with membranes. I have read nothing about DNA being "dropped" into the clay.
- the furlong
I had read about DNA from ancient life forms that had been lodged in clay long before being questioned on it.
You said confinement. I said protected from UV by the clay. Basically the same thing.

Mar 21, 2016
That is THE purpose of doing research...To find out the Truth, rather than go with the flow as several are doing in this & other threads.

Yes, but you aren't doing that. You are guessing what the truth is, using anything that confirms what that guess is, and then ignoring the rest. That's confirmation bias, not research.
Whether it's the CC fallacy or the claim that the story in Genesis is false, it's of the utmost importance to search for the facts.

You misunderstand the implications of the Cornell research, which is not that the God of Abraham exists. That's a non-sequitur. It's like you saying me heading east from Florida is evidence I am going to Africa. There just isn't enough information to even begin making thatg inference.

And yes, it is important to search for the facts, but only if there is a compelling reason. This is why we don't search for Jinn, despite the tales.

Mar 21, 2016
Upon being challenged that there was no evidence for the Bible, you looked up "clay DNA", and found this research.

Actually, let me give a slight correction. You looked this up after being challenged that there was no evidence for the God of Abraham.
- the furlong
THAT particular challenge is age-old...as long as atheists and agnostics have existed. I did research to find the Truth of the matter years ago - whatever that Truth turned out to be. Don't you find it strange, that atheists can't DISPROVE the existence of God the Creator, the same way that I can't provide material proof that He does exist? Does this cancel out BOTH arguments? Ordinarily it would - except for the fact that both sides are unwilling to cede any part of their argument to the other. But both atheist and believers in Creation have Free Will given by that Creator, and are free to express belief OR unbelief while alive. The Truth can only be revealed after the death of the physical body.

Mar 21, 2016
The problem is that what is fact now can change later and become obsolete.

You could say that about anything. Hence, it is not an argument. It's a fact that mass has gravity, but that could change later and become obsolete, too, but surely you wouldn't put your money on all of humanity suddenly becoming weightless tomorrow.

Also, strangely, you don't seem to be applying this argument to your God of Abraham hypothesis, which was, indeed, considered fact at one time, only to become obsolescent in the face of evidence.
"Hope and Change" - BHObama

I don't know what that's doing there. Moving on...
I didn't research to justify anything.

I am sure you didn't confirm your own bias on purpose. On the contrary, it is human nature to indulge in confirmation bias. I am merely pointing out that you are doing it. Your intent has nothing to do with it.

Mar 21, 2016
Yes, but you aren't doing that. You are guessing what the truth is, using anything that confirms what that guess is, and then ignoring the rest. That's confirmation bias, not research.

Whether it's the CC fallacy or the claim that the story in Genesis is false, it's of the utmost importance to search for the facts.

You misunderstand the implications of the Cornell research, which is not that the God of Abraham exists. ...It's like you saying me heading east from Florida(...)Africa. There just isn't enough information to even begin making thatg inference.

it is important to search for the facts, but only if there is a compelling reason.
- furlong
Apparently, you have forgotten what I told you in another thread, about my separating my faith/beliefs from my on-the-job work. It is the same with my research into biblical matters. If facts coincide with those beliefs, I will continue to search to avoid confirmation bias, which has already been set aside.

Mar 21, 2016
Don't you find it strange, that atheists can't DISPROVE the existence of God the Creator, the same way that I can't provide material proof that He does exist?

In science, people don't prove or disprove. They demonstrate, or they falsify. Math and logic are the only places you prove or disprove. In science, at best, you can say that you prove within an acceptable level of uncertainty.

In this context, science HAS demonstrated that the God of Abraham doesn't exist. There IS no evidence for a global flood. The is no evidence that the Hebrews were enslaved by Pharaoh and rescued by a god (not even in historical accounts from other civilizations). And so on. Indeed, there is much evidence AGAINST these claims.

Now, if you want to say a vague, more deist, version of God exists, then, yes, you can't falsify its existence, but trying to prove Yahweh exists is not just futile. It's delusional.

Mar 21, 2016
- furlong
Apparently, you have forgotten what I told you in another thread, about my separating my faith/beliefs from my on-the-job work. It is the same with my research into biblical matters. If facts coincide with those beliefs, I will continue to search to avoid confirmation bias, which has already been set aside.

All right, well, then you should have no trouble acknowledging that the Cornell research, even if true, is NOT actually evidence for Abraham's God.

And, no, I did not forget. While you and I are in accord that one's spiritual beliefs don't necessarily interfere with one's scientific pursuits, I, nonetheless, note your penchant for indulging in confirmation bias that AFFECTS your pursuit of science, your claim that Cornell's research should be evidence for Yahweh beng the prime example.

Mar 21, 2016
"You misunderstand the implications of the Cornell research, which is not that the God of Abraham exists." - the furlong
I didn't misunderstand anything. Of course the research has nothing to do with Genesis, and I wouldn't expect it to. However, Genesis states that the first man was formed out of clay and life was breathed INTO that form...meaning that the first man was endowed with life by that first "breath" from the Creator.
The Cornell study concerned a few types of clay that were found to have certain properties that were/are conducive to the surrounding and protection of life forms & their DNA, RNA, etc. such as bacteria, etc. That coincides with the first cells/life forms in the waters being surrounded and protected by clay and its inert materials. Hydrogel would be the perfect medium for such a protection from radiation. Certain elements in clay together are able to form hydrogel in a simple chemical action. That's the beauty of it.

Mar 21, 2016
@obama_socks
No, THE IMPLICATIONS (a.k.a. consequences), not the research itself. I didn't say you said that the research had anything to do with genesis. I said you implied that the IMPLICATIONS of the research are what were related to Genesis. That's the problem.

Mar 21, 2016
Don't you find it strange, that atheists can't DISPROVE the existence of God the Creator, the same way that I can't provide material proof that He does exist?

In science, people don't prove or disprove. They demonstrate, or they falsify.

In this context, science HAS demonstrated that the God of Abraham doesn't exist. There IS no evidence for a global flood. The is no evidence that the Hebrews were enslaved by Pharaoh and(...)Indeed, there is much evidence AGAINST these claims.

Now, if you want to say a vague, more deist, version of God exists, then, yes, you can't falsify its existence, but trying to prove Yahweh exists is not just futile. It's delusional.
- the furlong
Yes, either demonstrate OR falsify. As to a global flood, many cultures speak of it. And no, science hasn't demonstrated any such thing re the existence or nonexistence of God of Abraham. Hebrewcentricity only provides the history of Jews. I am not concerned about that. Only Genesis.

Mar 21, 2016
- furlong
Apparently, you have forgotten what I told you in another thread, about my separating my faith/beliefs from my on-the-job work. It is the same with my research into biblical matters. If facts coincide with those beliefs, I will continue to search to avoid confirmation bias, which has already been set aside.

All right, well, then you should have no trouble acknowledging that the Cornell research, even if true, is NOT actually evidence for Abraham's God.

And, no, I did not forget. While you and I are in accord that one's spiritual beliefs don't necessarily interfere with one's scientific pursuits, I, nonetheless, note your penchant for indulging in confirmation bias that AFFECTS your pursuit of science, your claim that Cornell's research should be evidence for Yahweh beng the prime example.
- furlong
Not at all. The clay DNA argument is only ONE of many that are explanations for OR against Genesis. I am not biased either way - re clay DNA

Mar 21, 2016
Yes, either demonstrate OR falsify.

No, you could demonstrate its existence. All you'd need is for the God to do is unambiguously physically materialize and then demonstrate his powers in a way that leaves unambiguous physical evidence. For example, God could call out "I am the Lord, your God. I will now raise the dead" in an omnipresent voice, and then raise the dead.

This would be the first evidence. It might not be sufficient evidence, but it undeniably would be evidence. As time went on, God would have to continue performing works until we were 99% certain it was God, and not, say, a technologically advanced alien.

Mar 21, 2016
@obama_socks
No, THE IMPLICATIONS (a.k.a. consequences), not the research itself. I didn't say you said that the research had anything to do with genesis. I said you implied that the IMPLICATIONS of the research are what were related to Genesis. That's the problem.
the furlong
I think that the clay DNA research MAY have some correlation with the clay Adam story related in Genesis, but neither the study NOR Genesis provide unambiguous evidence for or against it.
It's for that reason why I will continue to research and wait for further developments from scientists (archaeology, geology, etc.) to provide MATERIAL EVIDENCE for their assertions or that of Genesis.
As to the immaterial, invisible and normally indeterminate evidence of a spirit world/plane, science can't do anything about that, due to scientists ONLY concern with the existence of matter/energy and not much else. But that is to be expected. I suspect that a spiritual plane has its own form of matter/energy

Mar 21, 2016
it's of the utmost importance to search for the facts
@creationists
so, why would you make an unsubstantiated claim that has no evidence ? like this:
meaning that the first man was endowed with life by that first "breath" from the Creator
at this point, it doesn't matter if it says clay or play-doh, because you can't prove the magic sky faerie actually "created" anything because *no evidence*... so it could say sky-faerie breathed into duct tape, but there is no evidence for any of it

"claims and BRAVADO do not constitute a factual argument"
-Dr. Phil Mason
either demonstrate OR falsify
maybe this will help you demonstrate your religion? https://www.youtu...fLJVSdjg

evidence of a spirit world/plane, science can't do anything about that
because there is no evidence that proves one exists

that isn't because they're concerned with "matter/energy and not much else"... it's because there isn't any evidence whatsoever for proof

Mar 21, 2016
Yes, either demonstrate OR falsify.

No, you could demonstrate its existence. All you'd need is for the God to do is unambiguously physically materialize and then demonstrate his powers in a way that leaves unambiguous physical evidence. For example, God could call out "I am the Lord, your God. I will now raise the dead" in an omnipresent voice, and then raise the dead.

This would be the first evidence. It might not be sufficient evidence, but it undeniably would be evidence. As time went on, God would have to continue performing works until we were 99% certain it was God, and not, say, a technologically advanced alien.
- the furlong
I doubt that would happen. Such an act would render the human concept of Free Will moot and the testing of humanity would be ended. The world will end and this "quadrant" of the Universe will be destroyed...when it will happen, I don't know. But the point is that the Creator is NOT human except for a similar appearance. (cont'd)

Mar 21, 2016
That the Creator is definitely NOT human or made of the matter/energy we are familiar with, should be the pivoting point to make humans understand that they are NOT dealing with someone who can be confirmed or falsified in the way of traditional, normal scientific methods. Either you believe in the existence of the Creator, or you don't. With your Free Will, you make your choices and face the consequences of those choices. Each criminal who has been caught and incarcerated understands that concept. Choice is not hard to understand. You make choices every second of your life.
But as to the Creator appearing to benefit your curiosity and need to validate/verify...I doubt that it will happen...and with good reason.

Mar 21, 2016
- the furlong
I doubt that would happen. Such an act would render the human concept of Free Will moot and the testing of humanity would be ended.

No, that's another non-sequitur. Humans could continue exercising their free will.

Also, you are assuming that the God that reveals itself will necessarily require humans to be free-willed, but that. too, is a non-sequitur, since, right now, we are dealing with an ill-defined diety whose only characteristic is to be omniscient/omnipotent.

The world will end and this "quadrant" of the Universe will be destroyed...when it will happen, I don't know.

This "quadrant" will be destroyed (probably long after we're gone) once the Sun gets hot enough to boil the oceans, in about a billion years or so, assuming the earth is not prematurely done in by a particularly massive asteroid, or other catastrophe.

Mar 21, 2016
- the furlong
I doubt that would happen. Such an act would render the human concept of Free Will moot and the testing of humanity would be ended.

Humans could continue exercising their free will.

Also, you are assuming that the God that reveals itself will necessarily require humans to be free-willed, but that. too, is a non-sequitur, since, right now, we are dealing with an ill-defined diety(...)omniscient/omnipotent.

The world will end and this "quadrant" of the Universe will be destroyed...when it will happen, I don't know.

This "quadrant" will be destroyed (probably long after we're gone) once the Sun gets hot enough to boil the oceans, in about a billion years or so, assuming the earth is not prematurely done in by a particularly massive asteroid, or other catastrophe.
- furlong
No...the end of this quadrant will be much more dramatic than that. The Sun will be involved due to its place in this quadrant. As for a billion years - (cont'd)

Mar 21, 2016
No...the end of this quadrant will be much more dramatic than that. The Sun will be involved due to its place in this quadrant. As for a billion years - (cont'd)

I wrote that the Sun would get hot enough to boil the oceans. That's the first way in which Earth will become inhospitable. Billions of years after that, the Sun will expand to a red giant, likely engulfing Earth in the process.

Mar 21, 2016
(cont'd)
As for a billion years left before this quadrant of the Universe is wiped out...it will be a much shorter time. The existence of humanity on this planet has been the reason WHY it hasn't been devastated completely by massive asteroids and the Sun's destabilizing already. Earth has been, and is being, protected by those whose job/role it is to do so. The end will come when you least expect it...maybe a nice, warm sunny day in June while you are with your family...or somewhere looking at the sky via telescope. It will catch you unawares. WHY? It's because humans are being TESTED.

Mar 21, 2016
The beauty of it all is this: You have Free Will to do ANYTHING YOU WANT TO DO. You have the right to Free Speech to say anything you want. And you have the right to THINk anything you want. Everyone is exercising their rights. That's good. It falls in line with the testing that is ongoing. If you don't believe that the testing of humans is fair...well, maybe it just doesn't seem fair, to be honest. But it IS the ONLY way to make certain determinations.
Good luck, furlong.

Mar 21, 2016
I meant to include this link in regard to the energy balance between incoming energy from the sun and energry escaping from earth into outerspace with respect to Global warming.

https://www3.epa....ses.html


Mar 21, 2016
But the point is that the Creator is NOT human except for a similar appearance
you've met her?

considering that if we actually talk to people who make this claim IRL, they get put into a psych ward and on lithium (or similar anti-psychotic meds) then why is it rational to use it in a discussion about science and that which can be proven by evidence?
(PROTIP - it aint rational, so it aint an argument or evidence)
the Creator is definitely NOT human or made of the matter/energy we are familiar with
source?
evidence?
Each criminal who has been caught and incarcerated understands that concept
and according to your own book they're all going to your heaven, too!
... and mostly because there is a tight control and structure in a prison!

... think on that a moment

Mar 21, 2016
Looking back I see @obamas_socks said something about he'll quit using fossil fuels when there is an alternative. First let's be very clear and state what is wrong with fossil fuels. First, fossil fuels are not renewable. So your alway paying someone to dig it up, package it, ship it, sell it, trade it, and keep the combustion machinery operational. So when you burn it, it is gone but as we know, the pollutants from combustion, or accidents also have a negative economic impact, OK so you agree then fossil fuels are bad, then what about electricity? Well almost 40% of electricity is from coal. Wind is growing and has 4,4%. Here is a website that breaks it down;

https://www.eia.g...&t=3

Solar is of course grown leaps and bounds. So go electric and solarize your home and soon you'll be all renewable and energy independent (except when you want to show your antique car some oldtimers parade ),


Mar 21, 2016
@greenonions, it's always a long way from here and nobody you know saw it.

Mar 22, 2016
I meant to include this link in regard to the energy balance between incoming energy from the sun and energry escaping from earth into outerspace with respect to Global warming.

https://www3.epa....ses.html

- hottie
That EPA link does explain a lot. Thanks hottie...very informative.

"When the sun's energy is reflected back into space, Earth avoids warming. When absorbed energy is released back into space, Earth cools."
This seems to be a bit redundant, don't you think?

Mar 22, 2016
sox
I doubt that would happen. Such an act would render the human concept of Free Will moot and the testing of humanity would be ended.
Don't you love the logic? If God were to appear to humans - that would render the concept of free will moot. Huh? Well - if that is true - and I sure don't understand why it should be true - it sure makes you wonder why the bible is full of instances of god appearing to man (including in the person of Jesus). Here - take a look - https://en.wikipe...heophany
- onions
Which humans do you want the Creator to appear to? Scientists? Your local rabbi? The Pope? Your next door neighbor? Atheists wouldn't believe that God appeared even if He did. You would be expecting much fanfare with angels singing and all sorts of miraculous things happening. It doesn't work that way. The appearance would be so quiet and calm that you wouldn't even notice.
BTW, the Christ wasn't God, but the Emissary to teach good behavior.

Mar 22, 2016
I know what you are saying Da Schneib - but Benny Hinn and all of his church people have seen him - https://www.youtu...-sHbGoCI I guess they all don't have free will any more. Wonder what that means for them?
- onions
Matthew 24 says (paraphrasing) that false prophets and imitators of the Christ will appear to people long before the end of the world, and to not believe them because they are not really who they say they are. Only pretenders.
That's the reason why I doubt that the Creator would appear for your enjoyment and curiosity. As an unbeliever, you would only mock Him and demand to see miracles in order to believe your eyes and ears. But that still wouldn't be enough for you and you would curse Him for all the sins you have committed and all the wrong things you have done and what was done to you. You would have to be pure of heart and sinless to have the ability to see Him. Do you think you qualify?

Mar 22, 2016
Solar is of course grown leaps and bounds. So go electric and solarize your home and soon you'll be all renewable and energy independent (except when you want to show your antique car some oldtimers parade ),

- hottie
Solar is only as good as the batteries that hold a charge and the household electrics that can use only the least amount without draining the batteries of power. TVs and other appliances most often use a lot of wattage and a solar farm could accommodate many homes and their electrical needs. But a single dwelling with a small array of solar panels, along with a limited amount of batteries would be lucky if it could keep all the appliances running until the sun comes up.
It's the batteries that need improving.

Mar 22, 2016
Electric cars can be recharged by pulling up to an electric outlet or whatever they have at the recharge station. But that station still has to buy its power from a facility that buys power from another facility that burns a fossil fuel - gas. oil or coal. So you're back to square one...whether you drive a gas guzzler or electric car, it doesn't matter. If they make electric cars with solar panels on the roof so while you drive, the batteries are recharging, that's good. But what do you do at night and you have a long drive ahead of you all night? Truckers have to drive all night to meet deadlines and make money. They don't have the luxury of stopping for the night. What do you want them to do? Same with farm equipment like big tractors. They're not big enough to carry a huge bunch of batteries, so they run on gasoline or diesel plus oil. Do you have alternatives for all these things? And don't forget to stop using plastics like nylon, rayon, vinyl, etc. Plastic cups at McDonalds

Mar 22, 2016
@hottie
So let's say that you're willing to give up on using anything made of plastics. Are you OK with going back to using cotton, wool, rubber and cowhide and other animal skins? How about getting rid of your car with all its plastics and riding a bike instead. Oh wait, bicycles also use plastic unless its all metal. And of course there are plastics in use on the ISS and the spacecraft that's used to get the astronauts up there. No oil, no plastics. It's a hard choice, I know. But if you're going to change the future, you have to go all the way, right?
But then, there's the problem of heating your home and hot water. Do you burn wood to heat water and have a wood burning fireplace to heat your home? But that would be pumping more GHG into the atmosphere from the wood you're burning. Well, if the native Americans could live that way 200 years ago, you should be able to also, right? You and everyone else need to make up your minds to be uncomfortable for the sake of the planet

Mar 22, 2016
I'm not a scientist, armchair or otherwise. Science enthusiast, yes, but scientist, no.
However, one of basic principles of science is observation. One needn't be a scientist to practice this principle. I am a farmer.
Every year I must plan and prepare for what crops I will plant based on what the land can handle safely, what I will likely have for a growing season, and whatever market demands I need to adhere to.
The reason I mention this is, that for intents and purposes, I am a layman with regards to climate science. Yet, even so, I have been forced to recognize that the time to plant my fields has come earlier every year, and my water expenditures are greater. For ten + years I've monitored this phenomenon, and know for certain that it is a reality. I've profited from it to an extent, even in spite of the damage and higher costs that have resulted from this.
I'm worried though. I don't live near the coast, so rising waters are not a concern.

Mar 22, 2016
Drying aquifers, and lower accumulative precipitation do concern me.

And they should you as well, as living in the bread basket of the world, this condition will lead to starvation somewhere. That's reality. Not some magic trick, political or otherwise.

So far, and I may be wrong, it seems the overwhelming focus to a solution for this condition is aimed at addressing preventative measures rather than coping methods to reduce the heat. I don't understand this, as it occurs to me that each should be given equal regard at this stage versus the current pay for today at tomorrow's expense attitude. I understand that carbon reduction is necessary, but I also understand that it is not likely to change anytime soon.
So can anyone tell me why serious efforts aren't being implemented to reflect more of the heat into space so that we can offset the "snowball" factor taking place?

Mar 22, 2016
Which humans do you want the Creator to appear to?

As many people as possible. It's God, so, I assume it can appear to everybody at once.
Atheists wouldn't believe that God appeared even if He did.

You don't know human nature, if you say this. People tend to believe what they personally experience, atheist, or not. To say that no atheists would be convinced of God's existence, given empirical evidence, is preposterous and insulting. It belies your mistaken presumption that to be atheist, one must be dogmatic.

However, even if that weren't the case, surely God manifesting and performing empirically testable miracles would convince MANY MORE people. There are many people willing to be convinced, me among them, but the evidence falls waaay too short.

So, really, what you are really saying is that the only people God wants in his kingdom are the gullible, the unreasonable, and the delusional, and maybe the lucky few who have personally actually seen him.

Mar 22, 2016
"Electric cars can be recharged by pulling up to an electric outlet or whatever they have at the recharge station. But that station still has to buy its power from a facility that buys power from another facility that burns a fossil fuel - gas. oil or coal. So you're back to square one."
---------------------------------------

No, . . YOU are still on square one. I power my car with sunshine. No gas. No oil. No leaks. No filters. No changes. No tune-ups. No emissions checks. No maintenance. No stink.

2 1/2 cents/mile.

Now, who is the backward one?

Mar 22, 2016
"Electric cars can be recharged by pulling up to an electric outlet or whatever they have at the recharge station. But that station still has to buy its power from a facility that buys power from another facility that burns a fossil fuel - gas. oil or coal. So you're back to square one."
---------------------------------------

No, . . YOU are still on square one. I power my car with sunshine. No gas. No oil. No leaks. No filters. No changes. No tune-ups. No emissions checks. No maintenance. No stink.

2 1/2 cents/mile.

Now, who is the backward one?

I am glad that you can afford to switch entirely to green. I wish I had the resources to do that. What really needs to happen is a change in infrastructure. It needs to not be an extreme financial burden (as it would be in my case) for people to switch. In other words, we need to get the deniers out of power so that society can move on.

Mar 22, 2016
furlong, it took a lifetime and the recent changes in technology and law for me to do it. We had to take money out of life savings to lower our cost of living in the long term. So far, it looks like a great choice. It was the automobile which made it work. The payback for the house alone was about 17 years, which came down to 5 years when the car was added, because of the savings from fuel alone.

I bought a "new" car with 40 miles on it from a dealer, which saved almost $10k, and got another $10k in tax credits, to cover the taxes on the 401k we had to cash in to buy it.

Again, it is my field and my interest. I was on the Advanced Transportation Working Group at EPRI, and we dumped a lot of money into electric technology in the late 1980's.

Mar 22, 2016
furlong, we are not 100% green, far from it. But we are doing what we can, using the power company as the bank, to store our daytime power for us to use at night, for house and charging the car.

We are all finding our way here, trying to make a system which works for all of us, fairly, with our power systems as integrating all of our systems for synergy.

I also live in earthquake country, and want to be ready to supply my own power and transportation.

Mar 22, 2016
http://www.smartg...16-03-18

Here is a great program, and the way to get it all started. This probably will kill petroleum from ever being $100/barrel again, if these benefits are widely known.

Mar 22, 2016
I see we have some who dissent from my opinion which is based on experience. Let us see their own ideas, based on their own experiences.

Mar 22, 2016
Again, it is my field and my interest. I was on the Advanced Transportation Working Group at EPRI, and we dumped a lot of money into electric technology in the late 1980's
What's that - temp job #20? George kamburoff is the kind of guy who thinks that having a job pumping gas makes him an authority on petroleum engineering.

And since he never did the work to become an engr, and has never worked as an engr, it is easy for him to believe that he IS one.

Psychopaths actually believe they are what they pretend to be. How hard can it be? The goobers around them do it and george is obviously a lot smarter than they.

Mar 22, 2016
Relevant to this, James Hansen chimed in that the recent warm temperatures (as well as the blob in greenland) might be a sign of the beginnings of the AMOC shutdown (they are consistent with models of an AMOC shutdown), and that maybe we should kind of do something yesterday in case that actually turns out to be true.

http://www.slate....iew.html

Of course, he's only a leading climate scientist, so what does he know? Besides, dogbert, antigoracle, and jeffensley, have personally eyeballed graphs on wattsupwiththat and have decided they are far better authorities on the subject. Also, shootist is over in the corner blushing at the thought of Freeman Dyson entering his bedroom through his window at night and whispering sweet climate denial nothings in his ear.

Mar 22, 2016
sox
You would have to be pure of heart and sinless to have the ability to see Him.
Why is that sox? Do you mean that on the judgement day - no one will be able to see god? Do you mean that when you get to heaven - you will be unable to see god? There is some really confusing stuff in this for me. Did god create everyone pure of heart and sinless? So what happened? Did he mess up? Seems to me you have not thought this one through to carefully.
- onions
LOL you are only ASSUMING that I haven't thought about all of it carefully. No matter how I do the calculations, it still comes up the same.And Babies are born sinless - tabula rasa. Did you think that they were already guilty of every imaginable sin at birth?
WHY would you expect to SEE God? And what makes you think that you should be allowed into Heaven if you are a sinner AND/OR an atheist. Nope. God didn't mess up. It was YOU who messed up. Of course you had the Free Will to do what you please.

Mar 22, 2016
LOL you are only ASSUMING that I haven't thought about all of it carefully. No matter how I do the calculations

It doesn't matter how you do the calculations. It's how everyone who has done the calculations has done them. That is the nature of peer review.
WHY would you expect to SEE God?

If God is not an asshole, then why would he hide himself from people willing to be convinced of his existence?
And what makes you think that you should be allowed into Heaven if you are a sinner AND/OR an atheist.

Again, if God is not an asshole, then not believing in him because you have no evidence for his existence should not be grounds for eternal punishment.
Nope. God didn't mess up. It was YOU who messed up.

You are still making excuses for God. Why can't God speak for himself? Why does he need people to speak for him? Why can't he be direct instead of expecting us to place our trust in an ancient book?

Mar 22, 2016
sox
Atheists wouldn't believe that God appeared even if He did
I would. Of course there would be no doubt that he was god. If a human came up to me and said "hi I'm god" - of course I would not believe that - until there was some proof. Otherwise I am at the whim of the Benny Hinn's of the world.
- onions
And WHY would you not believe it if a human came up to you and said that he is a god? Is it because you would be expecting a guy in a long white robe with white hair and long white beard, with angels singing "Halleluyah" and anything your imagination can dream up? How about if a man dressed in rags came to you and declared himself to be a god? You would most likely be disgusted an give him a swift kick in the pants, wouldn't you?
But the question remains...WHY would you NEED to SEE God when the end of the world comes? Are you a "righteous holy man"? Think it over carefully. What would motivate you to demand to SEE God? Curiosity? Penitence? LOL

Mar 22, 2016
How about if a man dressed in rags came to you and declared himself to be a god?

If a man came up to GO (or me), and declared himself to be God, and then performed undeniable miracles, it wouldn't matter what he was wearing. Again, I don't know why you are making excuses for God.

God should be powerful enough so that his existences doesn't need to be rationalized--that is--if he actually wants rational people willing to be convinced to believe in him. It might very well be the case that he doesn't want this, but then, he's an asshole, and I don't see why I should worship an asshole.

Mar 22, 2016
Which humans do you want the Creator to appear to?

As many people as possible. It's God, so, I assume it can appear to everybody at once.

Atheists wouldn't believe that God appeared even if He did.


You don't know human nature, if you say this. People tend to believe what they personally experience, atheist, or not. To say that no atheists would be convinced of God's existence, given empirical evidence, is preposterous and insulting. It belies your mistaken presumption that to be atheist, one must be dogmatic.
- the furlong

It's a known fact that atheism is its own religion with its own dogma. Many atheists "genuflect" at the "shrine" of Richard Dawkins & company...metaphorically, or course.

I am aware of human nature. As I have already mentioned to onions re a man dressed in rags, human nature prefers pomp & circumstance, rather than humility and a humble appearance and demeanor. Your vision would be clouded by your idealism.

Mar 22, 2016
Which humans do you want the Creator to appear to?

As many people as possible. It's God, so, I assume it can appear to everybody at once.
Atheists wouldn't believe that God appeared even if He did.

However, even if that weren't the case, surely God manifesting and performing empirically testable miracles would convince MANY MORE people. There are many people willing to be convinced, me among them, but the evidence falls waaay too short.

So, really, what you are really saying is that the only people God wants in his kingdom are the gullible, the unreasonable, and the delusional, and maybe the lucky few who have personally actually seen him.
- furlong

"Surely God manifesting(...)empirically testable miracles".
So this would be your "trial by fire" to test the Creator of the Universe's prowess? You would have the balls to force the Creator into a full confrontation with your foolish and stupid whims, just to give you a sense of satisfaction? LOL

Mar 22, 2016
rewitte -
So can anyone tell me why serious efforts aren't being implemented to reflect more of the heat into space
Thanks for your observations rewitte. As a back yard scale farmer - my observations mirror yours (and my worries). We are so dependent on that water - for our food supplies. There has been a lot written on physorg regarding geo engineering. Many ideas - such as seeding the oceans with iron, putting thousands of mirrors into orbit, spraying water to create clouds, etc. have been proposed. There is understandable concern about unintended consequences to messing with the system in such a way. Also - we are still dealing with such levels of denial. It looks as if we may be entering a new era - where the reality of warming becomes so obvious - and we start dealing with serious consequences - and we may then seriously consider more aggressive actions.
- onions

~ 7 billion humans and counting. ISIS helps to do the job of culling the herd.

Mar 22, 2016
It's a known fact that atheism is its own religion with its own dogma.

No, that is not a fact. Certainly there are people who treat atheism like a religion (there are always people who adhere to dogma), but atheism is the position that no deity is actually known to exist with an overwhelming level of certainty. In short, God doesn't exist.

Many atheists "genuflect" at the "shrine" of Richard Dawkins & company...metaphorically, or course.

So, what? This is a hollow statement. There will always be ideologues.

But, if atheism is a religion, it isn't very religion-like, considering that there are plenty of atheists like Phil Plait who criticize Dawkins without suffering the typical repercussions of criticizing a religion's prophet. Really, the only criteria for being an atheist is not to believe in any God, and nothing more. There are no rituals or practices. You are simply not correct about this.

Mar 22, 2016
"Electric cars can be recharged by pulling up to an electric outlet or whatever they have at the recharge station. But that station still has to buy its power from a facility that buys power from another facility that burns a fossil fuel - gas. oil or coal. So you're back to square one."
---------------------------------------

No, . . YOU are still on square one. I power my car with sunshine. No gas. No oil. No leaks. No filters. No changes. No tune-ups. No emissions checks. No maintenance. No stink.

2 1/2 cents/mile.

Now, who is the backward one?
- gkam
Well, good for you. But didn't you say that your wife spends ~$150 per mo. on gasoline? Please refresh my memory. Thanks

Mar 22, 2016
So this would be your "trial by fire" to test the Creator of the Universe's prowess? You would have the balls to force the Creator into a full confrontation with your foolish and stupid whims, just to give you a sense of satisfaction? LOL

I have "the balls" to do it because I see no evidence for it.

I don't see why God should be offended enough at me to strike me down for asking for evidence. I mean, if you walked up to me and told me you could fly, would you have any right to be angry with me if I asked for proof? If you truly could fly, I'd think it would be easier to simply put all of my doubts to rest by ACTUALLY FLYING. It would be fun for you, and me, and neither of us would have to get angry at the other.

Are you telling me you DON'T have "the balls" to question the existence of Ahura Mazda https://en.wikipe...rianism?

Mar 22, 2016
LOL you are only ASSUMING that I haven't thought about all of it carefully. No matter how I do the calculations

It doesn't matter(...)calculations. It's how everyone who has done the calculations has done them. That is the(...)
WHY would you expect to SEE God?

If God is not an asshole, then why would he hide himself from people willing to be convinced of his existence?
And what makes you think that you should be allowed into Heaven if you are a sinner AND/OR an atheist.

Again, if God is not an asshole, then not believing in him because you have no evidence for his existence should not be grounds for eternal punishment.
Nope. God didn't mess up. It was YOU who messed up.

You are still making excuses for God. Why can't God speak for himself? Why does he need people to speak for him? Why can't he be direct instead of expecting us to place our trust in an ancient book?
- furlong
That's between YOU and God. So don't believe.

Mar 22, 2016
You would have to be pure of heart and sinless to have the ability to see Him
So, your omniscient omnipotent deity can't be viewed by anyone at all?
even your deity said in your bible that the only perfect human was his son...

so, per the above claim, said deity has its power based solely on the intentionally flawed character of it's own creations? WTF?
and you can't see the flaw in the logic here?
How about if a man dressed in rags came to you and declared himself to be a god?
the best way to determine if it is real is to test it, whether it is a man in glowing robes or a homeless man

in fact, considering you claim your creator to be all knowing, why would said creator have any problems with anyone who seeks to validate a truth?


Mar 22, 2016
So this would be your "trial by fire" to test the Creator of the Universe's prowess? You would have the balls to force the Creator into a full confrontation with your foolish and stupid whims, just to give you a sense of satisfaction? LOL

I have "the balls" to do it because I see no evidence for it.

I don't see why God should be offended enough at me to strike me down for asking for evidence. if you walked up to me and told me you could fly, (...)have any right to be angry with me if I asked for proof? If you truly could fly, I'd think it would be easier to simply put all of my doubts to rest by ACTUALLY FLYING. It would be fun for you, and me, and neither of us would have to get angry at the other.

you telling me you DON'T have "the balls" to question the existence of Ahura Mazda https://en.wikipe...rianism?
- furlong
I would have no need to question another religion.
Are you referring to parasailing? hang gliding? piloting a plane?

Mar 22, 2016
- furlong
That's between YOU and God. So don't believe.

No, this is between you and me--as in you keep bringing up God in inappropriate contexts, like climate change articles. If you stopped talking about God, I would stop asking you to provide me with a compelling reason for his existence.

Mar 22, 2016
I would have no need to question another religion.

It isn't a need, for me, it's a want. It's curiosity. Don't get flustered.
Are you referring to parasailing? hang gliding? piloting a plane?

Gee...I wonder...just whatever could I be referring to?

Mar 22, 2016
If my own mother stood before me, alive, I would seek help.
Same for Jesus, god, Napoleon ...

If I witnessed a miracle, I probably would attempt to capture physical evidence. For example, if I saw Jesus, knowing what I know about him, I would ask him to tell me something easily testable nobody could reasonably know. It wouldn't take that long, and if it didn't bear any useful results, then I would certainly take myself to a doctor.

I don't think it is reasonable to, by default, conclude you are having hallucinations if there are no compelling reasons to think it.

Mar 22, 2016
Oh BTW I have taken a cue from Piss1 and made a great list to show to everyone:

DON'T FEED THESE MEMBERS of the Phys.org Asshole Club, please.
—————
There is absolutely no point in being civil to the following:

THE IRRATIONALLY STUPID: Theghostofotto1923 - Captain Stumpy - Uncle Ira - Da Schneib - Caliban - Phys1 aka Piss1 - BAKOON (Otto's sockpuppet) -

PHYS.ORG ASSHOLE CLUB MEMBERS: Theghostofotto1923 - Captain Stumpy - Uncle Ira - Da Schneib - Caliban - Phys1 aka Piss1 - Otto's sockpuppets -

PHYS.ORG ASSHOLE CLUB RECRUITER: Captain Stumpy - Theghostofotto1923 & legion of sock puppets -

Most Deserving of Being Ignored: Theghostofotto1923 - Captain Stumpy - Uncle Ira - Caliban - Phys1 aka Piss1 -

Awaiting Full Membership: greenonions - leetennant - Whydening Gyre -

Awaiting Full Membership Even If Severely Disliked: gkam -

Non-Contributors of Own Actual Knowledge: Captain Stumpy - Theghostofotto1923 -

(Updated as needed)

Mar 22, 2016
- furlong
That's between YOU and God. So don't believe.

No, this is between you and me--as in you keep bringing up God in inappropriate contexts, like climate change articles. If you stopped talking about God, I would stop asking you to provide me with a compelling reason for his existence.
- furlong

You brought up the topic of God, when I was talking about clay DNA. Here is what you said:

4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2016
Where did you ever get the idea that I said that life/life forms come FROM clay.

I didn't. I said you used the research to justify the bible passage that God made humans from clay.


Mar 22, 2016
sox
And WHY would you not believe it if a human came up to you and said that he is a god?
Cuz I am a skeptic, and I don't accept claims without evidence. I think Captain may have mentioned that issue a couple of times. I notice that you ducked all of the issues regarding god declaring that no man can look on the face of god - which presents a whole bunch of problems for those of you planning to hang out for eternity with him...
- onions

"...no man can look on the face of god". Nope...that wasn't me who said that. You have to be referring to someone else's comment. I have NEVER used that phrase in Phys.org.

Mar 22, 2016
And another one from the furlong:
5 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2016
I googled "clay DNA" and got a bunch of instructions for making models of DNA from balls of clay.

Snicker. (Piss1 sez)

Then the furlong sez: He stumbled upon this research http://www.news.c...ned-clay

And then concluded, that MUST refer to the passage in the bible that God made man from clay.

Of course, that, in itself is a stretch and is like concluding that because the universe was opaque right after the big bang, that that must refer to Genesis 1.

However, even ignoring that, he has several problems. First, the Bible doesn't say that life was formed from clay, but humans. You'd think that God wouldn't have left such an important part out. Second, he dismisses the parts of Genesis that don't align with what has been scientifically observed, or even make sense.

In other words, he is cherry picking, and seems to see nothing wrong with doing so.

Mar 22, 2016
**CORRECTION**
IT WAS DA SCHNEIB WHO SAID THIS, NOT PISS1:

"4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2016
I googled "clay DNA" and got a bunch of instructions for making models of DNA from balls of clay.

Snicker."

Mar 22, 2016
1 / 5 (4)
Mar 21, 2016
the furlong
Stumbled? LMAO

Well, yes. Upon being challenged that there was no evidence for the Bible, you looked up "clay DNA", and found this research. - furlong
There are other studies that also concur with Cornell. - O_S

It doesn't matter if they've also been falsified, as Da Scheib suggests(...)further look later) - furlong
The clay used to FORM the first man had DNA in it FROM those dead or dying life forms, which is why H.Sapiens share many traits with animals/plants. - O_S

Well, no. The hypothesis from Cornell is that the hydrogels served as a confinement for the ingredients of life to develop into more complex things like DNA, and, eventually, cells with membranes. I have read nothing about DNA being "dropped" into the clay.
- the furlong

I had read about DNA from ancient life forms that had been lodged in clay long before being questioned on it.
You said confinement. I said protected from UV by the clay. Basically the same thing. - O_S