The ANTARCTIC
 

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory also.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental
scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may not
be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to see
anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our children or
their children.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental
scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may not
be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to see
anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our children or
their children.

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory
also.

A theory is something that cannot be proven by observable facts or
experimentation. So far scientists haven't been able to prove anything
w/r/t global warming. Some claim that the surface of the Earth is indeed
warming and attempt to attribute it to human activities (which is probably
the case), but there are far too many variable to control to make that leap
of judgment. So they refer to the concept of GW as a theory. Of course
most people who choose to believe that we're on the verge of rendering the
planet uninhabitable tend to overlook that word when reading scientific
reports or preaching their chosen brand of dogma.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Max, instead of trying unsuccessfully to insult me, try typing in
"evidence for global warming" and see what you get. Here's one of 18
million links. Good night and good luck...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGE1BECPI1.DTL

What evidence are you referring to? I see only a report based on talks
given at a meeting of the AAAS. I'd love to see the actual papers upon
which those talks were based, not just some reporter's interpretation of
what he heard. You still haven't provided any references or evidence.

Nor is it my job to do so. You're a smart guy... look it up yourself. I
even gave you the google string.

It wasn't my job, or that of Lloyd, to provide references for you, either.
But we both did so.

Why? Because we actually have scientific data to support our side of the
argument. Do you? If so, show us.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
..com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental
scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may not
be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to see
anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our children or
their children.

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory
also.

I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten years,
the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and forgotten as pet
rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines, cell-phones causing CA, and
Furbies. When the next cause celeb comes along, GW will be discarded onto
the same pile of oblivion that all the other "urgent, life-threatening"
issues-of-the-day have found themselves.

Intelligent design is a belief based upon faith.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

Title: GLOBAL WARMING NATURAL, MAY END WITHIN 20 YEARS
Source: Ohio State Research News
URL Source: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
Published: Mar 14, 2006
Author: Pam Frost Gorder
Post Date: 2006-03-14 23:08:06 by RussKon45


COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that could
begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State
University researcher.


The researcher suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide -- often thought of
as a key "greenhouse gas" -- is not the cause of global warming. The
opposite is most likely to be true, according to Robert Essenhigh, E.G.
Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of
Mechanical Engineering. It is the rising global temperatures that are
naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around,
he says.

Essenhigh explains his position in a "viewpoint" article in the current
issue of the journal Chemical Innovation, published by the American Chemical
Society.


Many people blame global warming on carbon dioxide sent into the atmosphere
from burning fossil fuels in man-made devices such as automobiles and power
plants. Essenhigh believes these people fail to account for the much greater
amount of carbon dioxide that enters -- and leaves -- the atmosphere as part
of the natural cycle of water exchange from, and back into, the sea and
vegetation.

"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship
between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly
underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a
radiation-absorbing gas," Essenhigh argues. "If you ignore the water, you're
going to get the wrong answer."

How could so many scientists miss out on this critical bit of information,
as Essenhigh believes? He said a National Academy of Sciences report on
carbon dioxide levels that was published in 1977 omitted information about
water as a gas and identified it only as vapor, which means condensed water
or cloud, which is at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere; and most
subsequent investigations into this area evidently have built upon the
pattern of that report.

For his hypothesis, Essenhigh examined data from various other sources,
including measurements of ocean evaporation rates, man-made sources of
carbon dioxide, and global temperature data for the last one million years.

He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the
United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of
human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90
billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the
earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange
between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per
year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all
atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small
amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And
if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is
difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising
temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

Some scientists believe that the human contribution to carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, however small, is of a critical amount that could nonetheless
upset Earth's environmental balance. But Essenhigh feels that,
mathematically, that hypothesis hasn't been adequately substantiated.

Here's how Essenhigh sees the global temperature system working: As
temperatures rise, the carbon dioxide equilibrium in the water changes, and
this releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to this
scenario, atmospheric carbon dioxide is then an indicator of rising
temperatures -- not the driving force behind it.

Essenhigh attributes the current reported rise in global temperatures to a
natural cycle of warming and cooling.

He examined data that Cambridge University geologists Nicholas Shackleton
and Neil Opdyke reported in the journal Quaternary Research in 1973, which
found that global temperatures have been oscillating steadily, with an
average rising gradually, over the last one million years -- long before
human industry began to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Opdyke
is now at the University of Florida.

According to Shackleton and Opdyke's data, average global temperatures have
risen less than one degree in the last million years, though the amplitude
of the periodic oscillation has now risen in that time from about 5 degrees
to about 10 degrees, with a period of about 100,000 years.

"Today, we are simply near a peak in the current cycle that started about
25,000 years ago," Essenhigh explained.

As to why highs and lows follow a 100,000 year cycle, the explanation
Essenhigh uses is that the Arctic Ocean acts as a giant temperature
regulator, an idea known as the "Arctic Ocean Model." This model first
appeared over 30 years ago and is well presented in the 1974 book Weather
Machine: How our weather works and why it is changing, by Nigel Calder, a
former editor of New Scientist magazine.

According to this model, when the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as it is
today, Essenhigh said, it prevents evaporation of water that would otherwise
escape to the atmosphere and then return as snow. When there is less snow to
replenish the Arctic ice cap, the cap may start to shrink. That could be the
cause behind the retreat of the Arctic ice cap that scientists are
documenting today, Essenhigh said.

As the ice cap melts, the earth warms, until the Arctic Ocean opens again.
Once enough water is available by evaporation from the ocean into the
atmosphere, snows can begin to replenish the ice cap. At that point, the
Arctic ice begins to expand, the global temperature can then start to
reverse, and the earth can start re-entry to a new ice age.

According to Essenhigh's estimations, Earth may reach a peak in the current
temperature profile within the next 10 to 20 years, and then it could begin
to cool into a new ice age.

Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as he
knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon dioxide
in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent an
improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are logically
rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant factor than in
other studies.

"If there are flaws in these propositions, I'm listening," he wrote in his
Chemical Innovation paper. "But if there are objections, let's have them
with the numbers."

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

And plenty of evidence of major melting going on.. which is too bad.

Not true. There is evidence that the net ice mass change in Antarctica is
positive, not negative. Satellite and ground station date both point to a
slight cooling trend in Antarctica over the past 20 years.

Joughin, I, and Tulaczyk, S., 2002, "Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice
Streams, West Antarctica," Science 295: 476-80.

Thompson, D.W.J., and Solomon, S., 2002, "Interpretation of recent
Southern Hemisphere climate change," Science 296: 895-99.

Comiso, J.C., 2000, Variability and trends in Antarctic surface
temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements," Journal of
Climate 13: 1674-96.

Look 'em up.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Mys Terry" wrote
"Vito" wrote:
With all due respect we pitiful humans lack the ability to turn Earth into a
"lifeless stone". Life will persist altho we may not be here.

You are wrong. .... The only survivors will be cockroaches,....

The ANTARCTIC
 

Bzzzt... I think you need to look it up...

Theory:

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an
organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of
circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can
incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is
not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena;
"a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a
scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was
accepted in chemical practices"

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...
A theory is something that cannot be proven by observable facts or
experimentation. So far scientists haven't been able to prove anything
w/r/t global warming. Some claim that the surface of the Earth is indeed
warming and attempt to attribute it to human activities (which is probably
the case), but there are far too many variable to control to make that
leap of judgment. So they refer to the concept of GW as a theory. Of
course most people who choose to believe that we're on the verge of
rendering the planet uninhabitable tend to overlook that word when reading
scientific reports or preaching their chosen brand of dogma.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental
scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may not
be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to see
anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our children or
their children.

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory
also.

I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten years,
the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and forgotten as pet
rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines, cell-phones causing CA,
and Furbies. When the next cause celeb comes along, GW will be discarded
onto the same pile of oblivion that all the other "urgent,
life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found themselves.

Intelligent design is a belief based upon faith.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many environmental
scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may
not be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to
see anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our children
or their children.

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory
also.

I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten
years, the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and forgotten
as pet rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines, cell-phones
causing CA, and Furbies. When the next cause celeb comes along, GW will
be discarded onto the same pile of oblivion that all the other "urgent,
life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found themselves.


Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa

Yup. And it's neither provable nor disprovable any more than the theory of
global warming being completely attributed to greenhouse gases and human
heat generation. Only time will tell which theory is right. Probably
neither, actually.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
...
Title: GLOBAL WARMING NATURAL, MAY END WITHIN 20 YEARS
Source: Ohio State Research News
URL Source: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
Published: Mar 14, 2006
Author: Pam Frost Gorder
Post Date: 2006-03-14 23:08:06 by RussKon45


COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that
could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio
State University researcher.


The researcher suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide -- often thought
of as a key "greenhouse gas" -- is not the cause of global warming. The
opposite is most likely to be true, according to Robert Essenhigh, E.G.
Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of
Mechanical Engineering. It is the rising global temperatures that are
naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way
around, he says.

Essenhigh explains his position in a "viewpoint" article in the current
issue of the journal Chemical Innovation, published by the American
Chemical Society.


Many people blame global warming on carbon dioxide sent into the
atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in man-made devices such as
automobiles and power plants. Essenhigh believes these people fail to
account for the much greater amount of carbon dioxide that enters -- and
leaves -- the atmosphere as part of the natural cycle of water exchange
from, and back into, the sea and vegetation.

"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the
relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to
have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as
a radiation-absorbing gas," Essenhigh argues. "If you ignore the water,
you're going to get the wrong answer."

How could so many scientists miss out on this critical bit of information,
as Essenhigh believes? He said a National Academy of Sciences report on
carbon dioxide levels that was published in 1977 omitted information about
water as a gas and identified it only as vapor, which means condensed
water or cloud, which is at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere;
and most subsequent investigations into this area evidently have built
upon the pattern of that report.

For his hypothesis, Essenhigh examined data from various other sources,
including measurements of ocean evaporation rates, man-made sources of
carbon dioxide, and global temperature data for the last one million
years.

He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the
United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of
human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90
billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the
earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange
between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per
year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of
all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small
amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said.
"And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is
difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising
temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

Some scientists believe that the human contribution to carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere, however small, is of a critical amount that could
nonetheless upset Earth's environmental balance. But Essenhigh feels that,
mathematically, that hypothesis hasn't been adequately substantiated.

Here's how Essenhigh sees the global temperature system working: As
temperatures rise, the carbon dioxide equilibrium in the water changes,
and this releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to
this scenario, atmospheric carbon dioxide is then an indicator of rising
temperatures -- not the driving force behind it.

Essenhigh attributes the current reported rise in global temperatures to a
natural cycle of warming and cooling.

He examined data that Cambridge University geologists Nicholas Shackleton
and Neil Opdyke reported in the journal Quaternary Research in 1973, which
found that global temperatures have been oscillating steadily, with an
average rising gradually, over the last one million years -- long before
human industry began to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Opdyke
is now at the University of Florida.

According to Shackleton and Opdyke's data, average global temperatures
have risen less than one degree in the last million years, though the
amplitude of the periodic oscillation has now risen in that time from
about 5 degrees to about 10 degrees, with a period of about 100,000 years.

"Today, we are simply near a peak in the current cycle that started about
25,000 years ago," Essenhigh explained.

As to why highs and lows follow a 100,000 year cycle, the explanation
Essenhigh uses is that the Arctic Ocean acts as a giant temperature
regulator, an idea known as the "Arctic Ocean Model." This model first
appeared over 30 years ago and is well presented in the 1974 book Weather
Machine: How our weather works and why it is changing, by Nigel Calder, a
former editor of New Scientist magazine.

According to this model, when the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as it is
today, Essenhigh said, it prevents evaporation of water that would
otherwise escape to the atmosphere and then return as snow. When there is
less snow to replenish the Arctic ice cap, the cap may start to shrink.
That could be the cause behind the retreat of the Arctic ice cap that
scientists are documenting today, Essenhigh said.

As the ice cap melts, the earth warms, until the Arctic Ocean opens again.
Once enough water is available by evaporation from the ocean into the
atmosphere, snows can begin to replenish the ice cap. At that point, the
Arctic ice begins to expand, the global temperature can then start to
reverse, and the earth can start re-entry to a new ice age.

According to Essenhigh's estimations, Earth may reach a peak in the
current temperature profile within the next 10 to 20 years, and then it
could begin to cool into a new ice age.

Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as
he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon
dioxide in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent
an improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are
logically rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant
factor than in other studies.

"If there are flaws in these propositions, I'm listening," he wrote in his
Chemical Innovation paper. "But if there are objections, let's have them
with the numbers."

I'm betting Jon will proclaim this researcher to be full of ****, based upon
nothing, of course, beyond his eco-radical opinions.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

You need to take a look at the definition of the word theory... feel free to
get back to me when you understand it. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many
environmental scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may
not be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely to
see anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our
children or their children.

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory
also.

I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten
years, the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and forgotten
as pet rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines, cell-phones
causing CA, and Furbies. When the next cause celeb comes along, GW will
be discarded onto the same pile of oblivion that all the other "urgent,
life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found themselves.


Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa

Yup. And it's neither provable nor disprovable any more than the theory
of global warming being completely attributed to greenhouse gases and
human heat generation. Only time will tell which theory is right.
Probably neither, actually.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net...

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
...
Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as
he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon
dioxide in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent
an improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are
logically rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant
factor than in other studies.

I'm betting Jon will proclaim this researcher to be full of ****, based upon
nothing, of course, beyond his eco-radical opinions.

Yeah, I'm a tree hugger... the telling phrase is...

"his scientific opinion is a minority one"

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many
environmental scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may
not be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely
to see anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our
children or their children.

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory
also.

I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten
years, the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and
forgotten as pet rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines,
cell-phones causing CA, and Furbies. When the next cause celeb comes
along, GW will be discarded onto the same pile of oblivion that all the
other "urgent, life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found
themselves.


Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa

Yup. And it's neither provable nor disprovable any more than the theory
of global warming being completely attributed to greenhouse gases and
human heat generation. Only time will tell which theory is right.
Probably neither, actually.

You need to take a look at the definition of the word theory... feel free
to get back to me when you understand it. :-)

Random House Dictionary: Theory: a proposed explanation whose status
is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are
regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Is that succinct enough for you, Jon? Or do you view the Random House
Dictionary with the same disrespect as those scientists with whom your
dogmatic opinions are in contravention?

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

That's one of many meanings. Do you believe that Intelligent Design is a
theory? It seems to work in your definition.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...
Random House Dictionary: Theory: a proposed explanation whose status
is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that
are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Is that succinct enough for you, Jon? Or do you view the Random House
Dictionary with the same disrespect as those scientists with whom your
dogmatic opinions are in contravention?

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many
environmental scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it may
not be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't likely
to see anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our
children or their children.

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a theory
also.

I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten
years, the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and
forgotten as pet rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines,
cell-phones causing CA, and Furbies. When the next cause celeb comes
along, GW will be discarded onto the same pile of oblivion that all the
other "urgent, life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found
themselves.


Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa

Yup. And it's neither provable nor disprovable any more than the theory
of global warming being completely attributed to greenhouse gases and
human heat generation. Only time will tell which theory is right.
Probably neither, actually.

You need to take a look at the definition of the word theory... feel free
to get back to me when you understand it. :-)

Random House Dictionary: Theory: a proposed explanation whose status
is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are
regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Is that succinct enough for you, Jon? Or do you view the Random House
Dictionary with the same disrespect as those scientists with whom your
dogmatic opinions are in contravention?

Sorry, got to agree with Jon on this one. What's described as above I'd
call a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and
can't (so far) be falsified.

Take a look at Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions' and some
of Karl Popper's work then get back to me if you want to argue this
further.

FWIW I studied history & philosophy of science at university some 30
years ago as a part of my first degree.

Another ship sailing at 1700 today so I'm gone...

PDW

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
That's one of many meanings. Do you believe that Intelligent Design is a
theory? It seems to work in your definition.

I tend to subscribe to the theory of evolution. ID is a belief based upon
faith, not science.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many
environmental scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it
may
not be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't
likely
to see anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our
children or their children.

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a
theory
also.

I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten
years, the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and
forgotten as pet rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines,
cell-phones causing CA, and Furbies. When the next cause celeb
comes
along, GW will be discarded onto the same pile of oblivion that all
the
other "urgent, life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found
themselves.


Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa

Yup. And it's neither provable nor disprovable any more than the
theory
of global warming being completely attributed to greenhouse gases and
human heat generation. Only time will tell which theory is right.
Probably neither, actually.

You need to take a look at the definition of the word theory... feel
free
to get back to me when you understand it. :-)

Random House Dictionary: Theory: a proposed explanation whose
status
is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that
are
regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Is that succinct enough for you, Jon? Or do you view the Random House
Dictionary with the same disrespect as those scientists with whom your
dogmatic opinions are in contravention?

Sorry, got to agree with Jon on this one. What's described as above I'd
call a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and
can't (so far) be falsified.

Take a look at Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions' and some
of Karl Popper's work then get back to me if you want to argue this
further.

I don't.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

But Max, you said that the definition of theory is "Theory: a proposed
explanation whose status
is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are
regarded as reporting matters
of actual fact." Seems to me that ID falls into that category.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
That's one of many meanings. Do you believe that Intelligent Design is a
theory? It seems to work in your definition.

I tend to subscribe to the theory of evolution. ID is a belief based upon
faith, not science.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

I figured you didn't. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article et,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Actually, most of the science is right according to many
environmental scientists.

The science is strictly theory, but it *may* be accurate. Or it
may
not be. It really makes little difference, because we aren't
likely
to see anything of the sort during our lifetimes, or those of our
children or their children.

Who said so? Theory? Perhaps you think Intelligent Design is a
theory
also.

I'll go one step further, Jon. I'm betting that within five to ten
years, the whole theory of global warming will be as passé and
forgotten as pet rocks, cancer-causing high-tension power lines,
cell-phones causing CA, and Furbies. When the next cause celeb
comes
along, GW will be discarded onto the same pile of oblivion that all
the
other "urgent, life-threatening" issues-of-the-day have found
themselves.


Well, that's your "theory" right... hahahaa

Yup. And it's neither provable nor disprovable any more than the
theory
of global warming being completely attributed to greenhouse gases and
human heat generation. Only time will tell which theory is right.
Probably neither, actually.

You need to take a look at the definition of the word theory... feel
free
to get back to me when you understand it. :-)

Random House Dictionary: Theory: a proposed explanation whose
status
is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that
are
regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Is that succinct enough for you, Jon? Or do you view the Random House
Dictionary with the same disrespect as those scientists with whom your
dogmatic opinions are in contravention?

Sorry, got to agree with Jon on this one. What's described as above I'd
call a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and
can't (so far) be falsified.

Take a look at Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions' and some
of Karl Popper's work then get back to me if you want to argue this
further.

I don't.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I figured you didn't. :-)

But not for the reason you suspect.

It's simply not worth pursuing. For example, if I agree that Pete is right,
then I have to retract my statement that global warming is a theory, rather
a hypothesis. Then you're going to get all ****y-moany about that, and
we're going to go back and forth another twenty or so times.

Not worth the effort.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
But Max, you said that the definition of theory is "Theory: a proposed
explanation whose status
is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that
are regarded as reporting matters
of actual fact." Seems to me that ID falls into that category.

You brought up the concept of ID, not I. It frankly is of no interest to
me.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I figured you didn't. :-)

But not for the reason you suspect.

It's simply not worth pursuing. For example, if I agree that Pete is right,
then I have to retract my statement that global warming is a theory, rather
a hypothesis. Then you're going to get all ****y-moany about that, and
we're going to go back and forth another twenty or so times.

Not worth the effort.

Yeah. Also irrelevant. Global warming is a fact, as far as I'm
concerned. The causes of global warming are at this stage only
hypotheses. That's somewhat *less* than a theory and a theory is far
less than an established fact.

I'm staying out of this crap simply because I can't see the point of
bothering. Jon can cite all the pop press articles etc he likes. They
too are irrelevant because they're based - at best - on some uninformed
& poorly educated journalist's take on what someone else with
scientific training said/wrote.

The expert I respect says 'not proven' WRT human activities. That's
worth far more to me than all the 3rd hand refs Jon can cite. This guy
is head of glaciology research, I've been to Antarctica with him on a
number of occasions, has a string of publications in refereed science
journals a mile long. In fact I've been to sea with a very broad cross
section of the entire planet's glaciologists, oceanographers,
atmospheric scientists etc. Had a whole bunch of NASA people a few
years ago. Or was it NOAA, all these acronyms, so little brain space,
even less interest...

Anyway I'm kinda hoping for a sea level rise of between 1 and 3 metres.
I'd be able to build a deep water jetty then rather than have a tidal
waterfront as I do now. Swings & roundabouts.

Couple completely irrelevant things - I might get a close look at San
Diego this year. Work is trying to convince me to go there for a bit,
I'm trying to get out of it. We'll see.

The other is, I was given a Kyocera ceramic kitchen knife as a belated
Christmas present. This thing is *sharp* and guess what - it has zero
metal content, so it ain't gonna trigger a detector, AFAIK. So much for
a/port security WRT a pair of nail clippers.

If they were really serious they'd ban *all* carryon baggage and make
everyone strip their street clothes off & wear a set of disposable
overalls for the flight. They haven't done that, and won't.

On that note, I'm waving goodbye to a bunch of friends off south and
then heading for a margarita or 3. Followed by a weekend's sailing.

PDW

The ANTARCTIC
 

In any case, it seems to work as a theory by your definition.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
But Max, you said that the definition of theory is "Theory: a proposed
explanation whose status
is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that
are regarded as reporting matters
of actual fact." Seems to me that ID falls into that category.

You brought up the concept of ID, not I. It frankly is of no interest to
me.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

I promise not to do that. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I figured you didn't. :-)

But not for the reason you suspect.

It's simply not worth pursuing. For example, if I agree that Pete is
right, then I have to retract my statement that global warming is a
theory, rather a hypothesis. Then you're going to get all ****y-moany
about that, and we're going to go back and forth another twenty or so
times.

Not worth the effort.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

I would never cite all the ones I like.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I figured you didn't. :-)

But not for the reason you suspect.

It's simply not worth pursuing. For example, if I agree that Pete is
right,
then I have to retract my statement that global warming is a theory,
rather
a hypothesis. Then you're going to get all ****y-moany about that, and
we're going to go back and forth another twenty or so times.

Not worth the effort.

Yeah. Also irrelevant. Global warming is a fact, as far as I'm
concerned. The causes of global warming are at this stage only
hypotheses. That's somewhat *less* than a theory and a theory is far
less than an established fact.

I'm staying out of this crap simply because I can't see the point of
bothering. Jon can cite all the pop press articles etc he likes. They
too are irrelevant because they're based - at best - on some uninformed
& poorly educated journalist's take on what someone else with
scientific training said/wrote.

The expert I respect says 'not proven' WRT human activities. That's
worth far more to me than all the 3rd hand refs Jon can cite. This guy
is head of glaciology research, I've been to Antarctica with him on a
number of occasions, has a string of publications in refereed science
journals a mile long. In fact I've been to sea with a very broad cross
section of the entire planet's glaciologists, oceanographers,
atmospheric scientists etc. Had a whole bunch of NASA people a few
years ago. Or was it NOAA, all these acronyms, so little brain space,
even less interest...

Anyway I'm kinda hoping for a sea level rise of between 1 and 3 metres.
I'd be able to build a deep water jetty then rather than have a tidal
waterfront as I do now. Swings & roundabouts.

Couple completely irrelevant things - I might get a close look at San
Diego this year. Work is trying to convince me to go there for a bit,
I'm trying to get out of it. We'll see.

The other is, I was given a Kyocera ceramic kitchen knife as a belated
Christmas present. This thing is *sharp* and guess what - it has zero
metal content, so it ain't gonna trigger a detector, AFAIK. So much for
a/port security WRT a pair of nail clippers.

If they were really serious they'd ban *all* carryon baggage and make
everyone strip their street clothes off & wear a set of disposable
overalls for the flight. They haven't done that, and won't.

On that note, I'm waving goodbye to a bunch of friends off south and
then heading for a margarita or 3. Followed by a weekend's sailing.

PDW

The ANTARCTIC
 

It's simply not worth pursuing. For example, if I agree that Pete is right,
then I have to retract my statement that global warming is a theory, rather
a hypothesis.

Which is really a statement of your political convictions
and an admission that you're not really sure what a "theory"
or a "hypothesis" really is. For example, Special Relativity
is just a theory.



Peter Wiley wrote:
Yeah. Also irrelevant. Global warming is a fact, as far as I'm
concerned.

Seems to be, yes.

... The causes of global warming are at this stage only
hypotheses. That's somewhat *less* than a theory and a theory is far
less than an established fact.



OTOH to suggest that human activity has had *no* part in
global warming is just plain stupid. We've been dumping
kazillions of BTUs into the atmosphere for hundreds of years
now, ramping up geometrically. Now does all that heat just
disappear? After all, conservation of energy is "just a theory."



The expert I respect says 'not proven' WRT human activities. That's
worth far more to me than all the 3rd hand refs Jon can cite. This guy
is head of glaciology research, I've been to Antarctica with him on a
number of occasions, has a string of publications in refereed science
journals a mile long. In fact I've been to sea with a very broad cross
section of the entire planet's glaciologists, oceanographers,
atmospheric scientists etc. Had a whole bunch of NASA people a few
years ago. Or was it NOAA, all these acronyms, so little brain space,
even less interest...


The problem with trying to analyse human effects on the
environment is that we don't really have any good math for
what the environment does.

It's been suggested that we'd be entering an Ice Age and
human activity has prevented that (IOW human activity is
responsible for 110% of global warming), also that human
activity is responsible for less than 10%. Whatever.


Anyway I'm kinda hoping for a sea level rise of between 1 and 3 metres.
I'd be able to build a deep water jetty then rather than have a tidal
waterfront as I do now. Swings & roundabouts.


Good for some, bad for others... it would be invconvenient
for us to find a new marina when our current one is
underwater. OTOH Katysail's marina had the foresight to
install floating docks ;)




The other is, I was given a Kyocera ceramic kitchen knife as a belated
Christmas present. This thing is *sharp* and guess what - it has zero
metal content, so it ain't gonna trigger a detector, AFAIK. So much for
a/port security WRT a pair of nail clippers.

If they were really serious they'd ban *all* carryon baggage and make
everyone strip their street clothes off & wear a set of disposable
overalls for the flight. They haven't done that, and won't.


No, but they have reactivated the Sky Marshal program. Fancy
your chances with a ceramic knife against a .44 Sp? It's
about the only sign of 'getting serious' about security that
I've seen. OTOH the utter lack of border security makes it
irrelevant. Depressing topic.


On that note, I'm waving goodbye to a bunch of friends off south and
then heading for a margarita or 3. Followed by a weekend's sailing.


Sounds good. I'm just getting over a bad flu, so will
dispense with the alcohol... but it also gives me an
excellent excuse to do less fiberglassing & more sailing
this weekend. But first, we're stopping in at an Emmylou
Harris concert.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

The ANTARCTIC
 

"DSK" wrote
...... For example, Special Relativity is just a theory.

Good example. A scientific theory is a construct, usually mathmatical, that
allow us to predict things, onten under limited conditions. It may or may not
describe the real world. Faced with an infinite universe with no obvious
reference points Albert set about constructing his general theory perforce using
finite mathmatics (all we have) and when that showed flaws, added his special
theory to fill the gaps. Both were brilliant pieces of work. However, less wise
users of these theories came to believe that the real universe was bound by the
limits of his mathmatics, which isn't necessarily true. For example, it may well
be possible to exceed 'C' altho the equations seem to say it is not.

I see the same thing in all the hubub over global warming. Models using less
than complete data seem to indicate a problem. Others do not. Some say man is
responsible, others not. Those who believe man i responsible want to take
drastic measures to reduce our technology, rather than the simple expedient of
reducing our population ... or letting Earth do it for us. I'm told by some
that everybody within X miles of coast will surely drown if we don't act now -
including major cities like N.Y. Well, how much will their drowning reduce
greenhouse gasses?? Sounds like the problem will fix itself - IF there is a
problem. So "What, me worry" is a valid attitude.

The ANTARCTIC
 

...... For example, Special Relativity is just a theory.


Vito wrote:
Good example. A scientific theory is a construct, usually mathmatical, that
allow us to predict things, onten under limited conditions.

"Usually mathematical"??
Without the math to apply it, a theory is useless.

The "limited conditions" you mention are imposed by two hard
& cold facts of reality- nobody knows everything, and while
everything affects everything else, in many cases the effect
is very very small and/or takes a very long time, and so it
can be left out.

So, please allow me to revise your statement above, it is
accurate in it's way but could be much closer to the truth
with slight & simple revision: A scientific theory is a
construct that allows us to predict things, within the
limits of what can be known & observed.


... It may or may not
describe the real world. Faced with an infinite universe with no obvious
reference points Albert set about constructing his general theory perforce using
finite mathmatics (all we have) and when that showed flaws, added his special
theory to fill the gaps.

I like you Vito, you make me laugh.

Einstein invented special relativity first, to explain a
very simple but otherwise unexplainable glitch in the theory
of gravity (as defined by Newton and refined by other
physicists over the generations). It was really a neat
exercise in theoretical mathematics, not expected to ever be
proven.

Einstein then dabbled with a more general theory, ten or
twelve years later he published a few papers on it but
immediately realized he had made some mistakes and began
revising his work.

At that point, somebody mentioned to him that recent
refiniments in the observations of the orbit of Mercury
"proved" that special relativty was valid, and Einstein was
off on his path to become the definitive genius of his time.




.... However, less wise
users of these theories came to believe that the real universe was bound by the
limits of his mathmatics, which isn't necessarily true. For example, it may well
be possible to exceed 'C' altho the equations seem to say it is not.


When we can get better & more accurate observations on the
effects of velocities approaching the speed of light, we'll
have a better idea of how relativity applies. It's true that
relativity "seems" to say that it is impossible for an
object with mass to exceed (or indeed, to achieve) the speed
of light, but it also suggests that both mass & the speed of
light can be tricked.

Bob Crantz could give you a much better answer addressing
this specific point, I'm sure.


I see the same thing in all the hubub over global warming. Models using less
than complete data seem to indicate a problem. Others do not.

How is any model going to use "complete data" when a
complete data set would have to include every molecule of
air & water on & around the Earth, plus much much more?



.... I'm told by some
that everybody within X miles of coast will surely drown if we don't act now -
including major cities like N.Y. Well, how much will their drowning reduce
greenhouse gasses?? Sounds like the problem will fix itself - IF there is a
problem. So "What, me worry" is a valid attitude.


You're right, the problem will fix itself.

This may not be an orderly process.

What boat projects are you working on, lately?

Regards
Doug King

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..


Yeah. Also irrelevant. Global warming is a fact, as far as I'm
concerned.

Well, duh--considering the Earth emerged from an ice age some 8000 years
ago, I guess that would be fact.

The causes of global warming are at this stage only
hypotheses. That's somewhat *less* than a theory and a theory is far
less than an established fact.

By your definition, I agree.


I'm staying out of this crap simply because I can't see the point of
bothering. Jon can cite all the pop press articles etc he likes. They
too are irrelevant because they're based - at best - on some uninformed
& poorly educated journalist's take on what someone else with
scientific training said/wrote.

The expert I respect says 'not proven' WRT human activities. That's
worth far more to me than all the 3rd hand refs Jon can cite. This guy
is head of glaciology research, I've been to Antarctica with him on a
number of occasions, has a string of publications in refereed science
journals a mile long. In fact I've been to sea with a very broad cross
section of the entire planet's glaciologists, oceanographers,
atmospheric scientists etc. Had a whole bunch of NASA people a few
years ago. Or was it NOAA, all these acronyms, so little brain space,
even less interest...

Anyway I'm kinda hoping for a sea level rise of between 1 and 3 metres.
I'd be able to build a deep water jetty then rather than have a tidal
waterfront as I do now. Swings & roundabouts.

Couple completely irrelevant things - I might get a close look at San
Diego this year. Work is trying to convince me to go there for a bit,
I'm trying to get out of it. We'll see.

The other is, I was given a Kyocera ceramic kitchen knife as a belated
Christmas present. This thing is *sharp* and guess what - it has zero
metal content, so it ain't gonna trigger a detector, AFAIK. So much for
a/port security WRT a pair of nail clippers.

Just don't get caught with the ceramic knife on your person. Could get
nasty, Abdul. g

If they were really serious they'd ban *all* carryon baggage and make
everyone strip their street clothes off & wear a set of disposable
overalls for the flight. They haven't done that, and won't.

On that note, I'm waving goodbye to a bunch of friends off south and
then heading for a margarita or 3. Followed by a weekend's sailing.

Enjoy.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

Technically, we're still in an ice age.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..


Yeah. Also irrelevant. Global warming is a fact, as far as I'm
concerned.

Well, duh--considering the Earth emerged from an ice age some 8000 years
ago, I guess that would be fact.

The causes of global warming are at this stage only
hypotheses. That's somewhat *less* than a theory and a theory is far
less than an established fact.

By your definition, I agree.


I'm staying out of this crap simply because I can't see the point of
bothering. Jon can cite all the pop press articles etc he likes. They
too are irrelevant because they're based - at best - on some uninformed
& poorly educated journalist's take on what someone else with
scientific training said/wrote.

The expert I respect says 'not proven' WRT human activities. That's
worth far more to me than all the 3rd hand refs Jon can cite. This guy
is head of glaciology research, I've been to Antarctica with him on a
number of occasions, has a string of publications in refereed science
journals a mile long. In fact I've been to sea with a very broad cross
section of the entire planet's glaciologists, oceanographers,
atmospheric scientists etc. Had a whole bunch of NASA people a few
years ago. Or was it NOAA, all these acronyms, so little brain space,
even less interest...

Anyway I'm kinda hoping for a sea level rise of between 1 and 3 metres.
I'd be able to build a deep water jetty then rather than have a tidal
waterfront as I do now. Swings & roundabouts.

Couple completely irrelevant things - I might get a close look at San
Diego this year. Work is trying to convince me to go there for a bit,
I'm trying to get out of it. We'll see.

The other is, I was given a Kyocera ceramic kitchen knife as a belated
Christmas present. This thing is *sharp* and guess what - it has zero
metal content, so it ain't gonna trigger a detector, AFAIK. So much for
a/port security WRT a pair of nail clippers.

Just don't get caught with the ceramic knife on your person. Could get
nasty, Abdul. g

If they were really serious they'd ban *all* carryon baggage and make
everyone strip their street clothes off & wear a set of disposable
overalls for the flight. They haven't done that, and won't.

On that note, I'm waving goodbye to a bunch of friends off south and
then heading for a margarita or 3. Followed by a weekend's sailing.

Enjoy.

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Technically, we're still in an ice age.

Is that a theory?

Max

The ANTARCTIC
 

Well, it's not ID. :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Technically, we're still in an ice age.

Is that a theory?

Max