Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#211
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 So why are students still being taught outdated "facts"?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
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
So where is...................... | General | |||
Hurricane Storage Asho A Surveyors View | Cruising | |||
Metric readout on Humminbird Wide View | Electronics | |||
Can We STOP IT??? | ASA |