Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #211   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats.cruising
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,301
Default Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view

* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/5/2007 10:45 PM:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/5/2007 9:46 PM:

....
My problem with your story is the implication is that society freely
accepts theories that are later shown to be false. While there may be
some cases of that, dinosaur extinction by gigantism is not one of them.
Whether you were taught it, imagined it, or made it up yesterday is
irrelevant. It was never accepted as probable by a significant number of
scientists; it was just one of many hypotheses proposed to explain a
mystery.



Two interesting cases you have - as I said there are a few.

As recently as 20 years ago, the medical community believed, and taught,
that ulcers were caused by stress. Treatment for the condition was based
upon that theory. It was universally accepted. It was nonetheless wrong.


Not entirely true, its still accepted that emotional stress can make
the symptoms worse, and physical stress seems to trigger the ulcer
infection. A large segment of the population is infected with the
bacteria, but only a small number get ulcers - the reason for this is
not understood.

Also, it must be remembered that this breakthrough in treatment
involves drugs that did not exist a few decades earlier, so reducing
stress and modifying diet was not a bad treatment.

You would do better to find cases where the traditional treatment was
the complete opposite of what we believe to be true today. In the
field of medicine, it should be easy to find dozens of such examples.

As recently as today, students are still being taught that Pluto is a
planet, even though it is really only a "Kuyper Belt Object," and there are
a significant number of *larger* Kuyper Belt Objects that have *never* been
considered to be planets. Indeed, at least one Kuyper Belt Object (other
than Pluto) has a moon, yet is still not a planet. So why are students still
being taught outdated "facts"?


This issue is total bogus, as it has little to do with Pluto, but with
the discovery of additional objects that caused astronomers to rethink
the traditional classification system. In particular, the discovery
of another roughly the size of Pluto meant that we had to decide
between an ever-growing pantheon of planets, or 8 true planets, and a
growing list of "dwarf" or "minor" planets.

I remember being taught that Pluto was an "odd" planet, quite
different from others. I also remember Fred Whipple, Al Cameron and
others predicting that we might find numerous objects out there. Fred
Leonard even speculated in 1930 that Pluto may be the first of a
series of ultra-Neptunian bodies. It was just that we had to wait
until 1992 to begin to discover the large number of objects.

BTW, the term "Kuiper Belt" is somewhat controversial, since Kuiper
had nothing to do with the discovery, and even claimed that it would
unlikely to find much. The "Leonard-Whipple" belt would be more
appropriate, but many favor "Trans-Neptunian Objects" (TNO's) or Minor
Planets.


What science considers to be truth today is what will be taught in schools
for some time to come. Textbooks are not printed anew each time a new fact
displaces an old fact -- nor can they be. So there will always be a lag
between new discoveries and their acceptance by the general public -- for
that matter, even by the experts in that particular field. And even then,
there will always be the "old guard" who will cling steadfastly to what
*they* learned when *they* were in school.


True, but it is sad that the common perception, reinforced by the
popular press, often misses the true story. For example, the real
story of Pluto is not that we lost a planet, but that we gained a
whole category of minor planets.

It is also sad that one book or movie that had little scientific
foundation becomes remembered as the "consensus view." A perfect
example of this is the book "The Cooling" which I happened to run into
at the library yesterday. Dave mentioned in another thread that this
was the "consensus view" in the 70's, but in fact it was a fringe
view, not supported by any science. Even today, its poor
interpretations of the contemporary science are repeated to show how
science has "flip-flopped."


Eventually, most -- if not all -- science textbooks will teach that Global
Warming is caused by CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by human activity.
It may be taught as only a theory, but it will be accepted as fact, as the
most current theories generally are. And by that time, it is highly likely
that this theory, too, will be surplanted by another.


It is highly likely that there will be some significant change to the
theory, but "supplanted" is not quite the right word. Any new theory
has to take into account the data that has been collected thus far.
As more and more data seems to support the consensus view of
anthropogenic climate change, it becomes less likely that the current
theory will be replaced by something totally different.
  #212   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats.cruising
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 325
Default Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view

On Apr 6, 11:50 am, Jeff wrote:
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/5/2007 10:45 PM:

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
* KLC Lewis wrote, On 4/5/2007 9:46 PM:

...
My problem with your story is the implication is that society freely
accepts theories that are later shown to be false. While there may be
some cases of that, dinosaur extinction by gigantism is not one of them.
Whether you were taught it, imagined it, or made it up yesterday is
irrelevant. It was never accepted as probable by a significant number of
scientists; it was just one of many hypotheses proposed to explain a
mystery.


Two interesting cases you have - as I said there are a few.

As recently as 20 years ago, the medical community believed, and taught,
that ulcers were caused by stress. Treatment for the condition was based
upon that theory. It was universally accepted. It was nonetheless wrong.


Not entirely true, its still accepted that emotional stress can make
the symptoms worse, and physical stress seems to trigger the ulcer
infection. A large segment of the population is infected with the
bacteria, but only a small number get ulcers - the reason for this is
not understood.

Also, it must be remembered that this breakthrough in treatment
involves drugs that did not exist a few decades earlier, so reducing
stress and modifying diet was not a bad treatment.

You would do better to find cases where the traditional treatment was
the complete opposite of what we believe to be true today. In the
field of medicine, it should be easy to find dozens of such examples.

As recently as today, students are still being taught that Pluto is a
planet, even though it is really only a "Kuyper Belt Object," and there are
a significant number of *larger* Kuyper Belt Objects that have *never* been
considered to be planets. Indeed, at least one Kuyper Belt Object (other
than Pluto) has a moon, yet is still not a planet. So why are students still
being taught outdated "facts"?


This issue is total bogus, as it has little to do with Pluto, but with
the discovery of additional objects that caused astronomers to rethink
the traditional classification system. In particular, the discovery
of another roughly the size of Pluto meant that we had to decide
between an ever-growing pantheon of planets, or 8 true planets, and a
growing list of "dwarf" or "minor" planets.

I remember being taught that Pluto was an "odd" planet, quite
different from others. I also remember Fred Whipple, Al Cameron and
others predicting that we might find numerous objects out there. Fred
Leonard even speculated in 1930 that Pluto may be the first of a
series of ultra-Neptunian bodies. It was just that we had to wait
until 1992 to begin to discover the large number of objects.

BTW, the term "Kuiper Belt" is somewhat controversial, since Kuiper
had nothing to do with the discovery, and even claimed that it would
unlikely to find much. The "Leonard-Whipple" belt would be more
appropriate, but many favor "Trans-Neptunian Objects" (TNO's) or Minor
Planets.



What science considers to be truth today is what will be taught in schools
for some time to come. Textbooks are not printed anew each time a new fact
displaces an old fact -- nor can they be. So there will always be a lag
between new discoveries and their acceptance by the general public -- for
that matter, even by the experts in that particular field. And even then,
there will always be the "old guard" who will cling steadfastly to what
*they* learned when *they* were in school.


True, but it is sad that the common perception, reinforced by the
popular press, often misses the true story. For example, the real
story of Pluto is not that we lost a planet, but that we gained a
whole category of minor planets.

It is also sad that one book or movie that had little scientific
foundation becomes remembered as the "consensus view." A perfect
example of this is the book "The Cooling" which I happened to run into
at the library yesterday. Dave mentioned in another thread that this
was the "consensus view" in the 70's, but in fact it was a fringe
view, not supported by any science. Even today, its poor
interpretations of the contemporary science are repeated to show how
science has "flip-flopped."



Eventually, most -- if not all -- science textbooks will teach that Global
Warming is caused by CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by human activity.
It may be taught as only a theory, but it will be accepted as fact, as the
most current theories generally are. And by that time, it is highly likely
that this theory, too, will be surplanted by another.


It is highly likely that there will be some significant change to the
theory, but "supplanted" is not quite the right word. Any new theory
has to take into account the data that has been collected thus far.
As more and more data seems to support the consensus view of
anthropogenic climate change, it becomes less likely that the current
theory will be replaced by something totally different.




i keep finding it funny that while CO2 is a bad thing there are other
gasses that are worse; and for those of you who get atmospheric chem
what happens if the meth hydrid ice melts? hows our hocky stick graph
then?

see the problem is not so much the close in stuff its the stuff that
we are getting really close to.

  #213   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats.cruising
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,301
Default Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view

* Two meter troll wrote, On 4/6/2007 7:30 PM:


i keep finding it funny that while CO2 is a bad thing there are other
gasses that are worse; and for those of you who get atmospheric chem
what happens if the meth hydrid ice melts? hows our hocky stick graph
then?

Hey, the holes in the ozone layer won't just heal themselves!
  #214   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats.cruising
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,275
Default Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view

Cessna 310 wrote in :

there is no consensus agreement on
whether or not man is the cause of global warming.


Not as long as all the funding continues...it'll never end!

Larry
--
  #215   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats.cruising
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,275
Default Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view

Cessna 310 wrote in :

Presents the FACTS of global warming, not speculation.



http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...ming_swindle/i
ndex.html

Finest presentation from the finest scientist on the subject.
Wait until you see the weather balloon data! The SURFACE of the planet IS
warmer. The ATMOSPHERE of the planet is COLDER!...go figure.

Youtube HAD the movie on it, but there seems to only be an abridged version
left after the GW hackers trashed it. The abridged is 8 minutes of the
hour, without all the extensive documentation.
alt.binaries.multimedia.documentaries newsgroup has posted it in its
entirety, many times. Fantastic show...The sky is NOT falling!

CO2 wouldn't be problem if we can stop the GOVERNMENT FUNDING the academics
are sucking on.

Larry
--


  #216   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats.cruising
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,275
Default Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view

Cessna 310 wrote in :

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html


My favorite quote from it:

"2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000
years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you
count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-
industrial increases."

This brings into question how much intestinal gas ancient man produced,
given he had no beer, that we know of....

Larry
--
  #217   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats.cruising
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,275
Default Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view

Cessna 310 wrote in :

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html


"Atmospheric concentrations of the various greenhouse gases have been
adjusted for heat retention potential of each. For example, the global
warming potential (GWP) of various man-made chloroflourocarbons (CFC's)
range between 1,300 and 9,300 times greater potency as greenhouse gases
than CO2. Methane has a GWP of about 21 and nitrous oxide a GWP of about
310.

Comparing greenhouse gases by strict concentration only, the total human
component is somewhere between 0.1% and 0.2%, depending on whose numbers
you use. Adjusted for GWP, the total human contribution to Earth's overall
greenhouse effect is about 0.28%."

So, the 18.8 oz of R-12 in my 1973 Mercedes 220D's really-great-working air
conditioner is NOT going to depopulate the planet. So, can I have my
68c/16 oz can R-12 back....instead of the $8.29/12 oz R-134a the *******s
are selling now?

NOT! .28%?! Lied to by our Illuminati government, yet again.....

Larry
--
  #218   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats.cruising
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,275
Default Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view

"KLC Lewis" wrote in
et:

Eventually, most -- if not all -- science textbooks will teach that
Global Warming is caused by CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by
human activity. It may be taught as only a theory, but it will be
accepted as fact, as the most current theories generally are. And by
that time, it is highly likely that this theory, too, will be
surplanted by another.



If current trends continue, in the USA at least, science textbooks will be
full of religious nonsense such as the Christian BS that the Earth is ONLY
6000 years old, or something stupid like that, in spite of the MOUNTAIN of
real evidence to the contrary, like nuclear physics of the Carbon 14 atoms.

MANY teachers in YOUR local schools are devout Christians who ARE teaching
this as fact "because the bible says so". Religion depends on the
indoctrination of the young, in any sect. Forcing it into the schools is a
matter of survival of the cults.

Darwin was right. Just look at the teaching staff at any high school!

Larry
--
  #219   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats.cruising
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 94
Default Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view

Larry wrote:


Darwin was right. Just look at the teaching staff at any high school!

Larry


Darwin was wrong. Just look at the teaching staff at any public high
school with a tenure system.

Darwin was wrong. Just look at the teaching staff at most colleges and
universities with a tenure system.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So where is...................... *JimH* General 186 November 28th 05 03:29 PM
Hurricane Storage Asho A Surveyors View Geoff Schultz Cruising 0 July 4th 05 10:39 PM
Metric readout on Humminbird Wide View somebody Electronics 2 June 27th 04 02:08 AM
Can We STOP IT??? Bobsprit ASA 5 November 21st 03 12:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017