Anyone notice that many people are scientifically illiterate

[USincognito]

Has the earth been warming in the Ice age prior to the conditions causing it today?
No need to concern yourself with vagueness, or misconceptions, I am asking about the warming without limiting it to Ice age done, still is etc.

O.k. I'll dumb it down then. The Holocene has gone on longer than expected and we weren't warming. 75 years ago the ice sheets and glaciers were robust. We were at a balance temperature wise.

After we cut down on sulfite emissions and ramped up CO2 emissions in the 60s and 70s we started warming again at an unprecedented rate.

 

[Astrid]

I did.

Terrif. So why ask.

 

[ralliann]

Terrif. So why ask.

I wanted a reason from you all scientifically literate. Perhaps science has had various explanations in it's history? When did this science begin?

 

[ralliann]

The Holocene has gone on longer than expected

Who's expectations and what were the expectations based upon?

and we weren't warming.

In the early Holocene, glaciers melted on a massive scale, opening up many millions of square miles for human colonization and just generally making life for Homo sapiens easier. The Holocene has seen the emergence of new species like the domestic dog and cat, and the success of species that thrive on human expansion, such as the house mouse and raccoon. The Holocene began with the Neolithic revolution, in which human culture exploded and cheap methods of food production, such as the use of beasts of burden for agriculture, became popular.

There was warming to produce modern species. What caused this warming?

75 years ago the ice sheets and glaciers were robust. We were at a balance temperature wise.

I am asking about before this, long before this. See the above.

After we cut down on sulfite emissions and ramped up CO2 emissions in the 60s and 70s we started warming again at an unprecedented rate.

What caused the warming as above. It does seem to me there was much more massive "change" than the warming we see today. But being dumb and all I am asking ?

 

[Astrid]

I wanted a reason from you all scientifically literate. Perhaps science has had various explanations in it's history? When did this science begin?

IOW waste our time.
Go look up history of science if you
want a treatise.

The only point I care to make in this thread
is that it is impossible to be a scientifically
literate yec with intellectual integrity.

No exception or disproof has ever been offered.

You certainly cannot do it

So I will take it that you also demonstrate
the accuracy of my statement.

 

[ralliann]

IOW waste our time.
Go look up history of science if you
want a treatise.

I am asking a simple question.

The only point I care to make in this thread
is that it is impossible to be a scientifically
literate yec with intellectual integrity.

What I am questioning is the cause of global warming, from it's beginning. What are the reasons as science has said. It is very simple.

No exception or disproof has ever been offered.

You certainly cannot do it

So I will take it that you also demonstrate
the accuracy of my statement.

But, I was told there were expectations that did not get met? So something must have been off on whatever those expectations were based. I can't agree (maybe I am to stupid) how that is either without integrity on the part of either of us.

 

[Astrid]

I am asking a simple question.

What I am questioning is the cause of global warming, from it's beginning. What are the reasons as science has said. It is very simple.

But, I was told there were expectations that did not get met? So something must have been off on whatever those expectations were based. I can't agree (maybe I am to stupid) how that is either without integrity on the part of either of us.

So you've settled on blather.

 

[ralliann]

So you've settled on blather.

I quess I can't grasp how that is so. So please forgive me for taking your time.

 

[sjastro]

I am asking a simple question.

What I am questioning is the cause of global warming, from it's beginning. What are the reasons as science has said. It is very simple.

But, I was told there were expectations that did not get met? So something must have been off on whatever those expectations were based. I can't agree (maybe I am to stupid) how that is either without integrity on the part of either of us.

Your answer was provided in post#212.

(1) Mechanism for global warming in general whether it is natural or human induced..
(2) Being able to differentiate between natural warming and human induced warming.
(3) Supportive data for human induced warming.

 

[ralliann]

Your answer was provided in post#212.

(1) Mechanism for global warming in general whether it is natural or human induced..
(2) Being able to differentiate between natural warming and human induced warming.
(3) Supportive data for human induced warming.

Mechanisms, causes. Expectations not being accurate. All these things are not shown to be accurate in the past. The difference between now and then however is not the Mechanisms, but rather attitudes in those who support and use them.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Why did so many people die during Hurricane Katrina. It was not the Hurricane, it as the levies breaking. It was bad Engendering. The Romans build bridges across rivers that exist today and we have bridges built across much smaller bodies of water that collapse. Climate Change...over 90% of scientist believe it to be real but many people say the 90% are all liars. A member of the U.S. senate held a snow ball in his hand as proof of Global Warming being fake. Or its real but were not making it speed up. When a disaster is coming people run, a scientist looks for a solution. Global warming is real, Storms are increasing number and in strength, famine and drought are at a all time high, were speeding up the process, the polar Ice is melting, at the speed its melting all costal cities will be under water in 100 years. What are all the people who say its fake gonna say then...oh wait nothing they will be dead and the mess will be left for our grandkids and there kids to fix. I am not a scientist, I got a C in biology but I can read and listen to the words of many of the most intelligent men and woman today and I supposed to ignore them and listen to senator who holds snowball in his hand.

Scientifically illiterate and celebrating it trying to encourage others to join them.​

 

[Hans Blaster]

Mechanisms, causes. Expectations not being accurate. All these things are not shown to be accurate in the past. The difference between now and then however is not the Mechanisms, but rather attitudes in those who support and use them.

But the expectations and predictions for global temperature change were accurate. The predicted values from 30 years ago (when I learned that stuff) for scenarios where we just kept adding CO2 to the atmosphere have happened. We knew then what was likely to happen and it did. No politics, no ideology, no attitudes, just science.

Certainly looking back 30 years from now is different in terms of the detailed observations. We have very good satellite data from 1993-2023, but not so much for all of 1963-1993. The climate models have more detail now, so we can look at regional climate impacts now.

 

[Aussie Pete]

"If evolution is true" is NEVER a good sign.
As to the "logical human consequences" of evolution, you seem quite confused. All humans are equally evolved. All things living today are equally evolved. Some species are more complex, but everything alive today is the result of the same 3.5 billion years of evolution.

Absolute rubbish. Hitler rejected Darwin because he suggested all humans were equally evolved while he (Hitler) ascribed to the Great Chain of Being which was an Aristotelian concept promoted by the Medieval Church. The roots of his ideas were more from bad archaeology, Teutonic mythos and a heaping helping of Nietzsche. He banned Darwin's books.

Not in the U.S. They didn't use Origin or Descent to justify slavery. They used a different book.

None of these are conclusions drawn from evolution. Evolution isn't a philosophy or worldview. It's simply the best explanation for the diversity of life we observe now and in the fossil record.

It's not. Because its neither a theory nor is it supported by the evidence.

Name one.

They teach science in science class, which is why the teach evolution in biology. Because it's science.

Eugenics was founded on Darwinian principles. The word was coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin. Eugenics was promoted by the Nazis

"During the Nazi era in Germany, eugenics prompted the sterilisation of several hundred thousand people then helped lead to antisemitic programmes of euthanasia and ultimately, of course, to the death camps." Quote from the National Library of Medicine, 'Eugenics and Human Rights', Prof. Daniel J Kevles.

The Creationist v science argument is a false dichotomy. The question is not whether Creationism is scientific but whether or not it is true. If Creationism is true, then evolution is false.

"Equally evolved"? What does that mean? Some people are born with a stronger physical frame than others, some are more intelligent, some have darker skin, some are prone to baldness, some are shortsighted and so on. "Equally evolved" plainly does not mean everyone is the same. The Bible says that humanity is unique, which it is, and is made in the image of God.

"With the tongue we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, this should not be!…" James 3:9 & 10

There is no room for eugenics in God's creation. Darwin was racist and believed in the superiority of some races. This is a logical conclusion from evolution. I agree that Darwin was opposed to slavery. However, he promoted genocide, not exactly a superior philosophy.

'In 1881, toward the end of his life, Charles Darwin wrote to a colleague that the “more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.”' (Darwin writing to William Graham 3rd July 1881)

Also, "The Descent of Man" (1871), where he claimed, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races." Darwin saw this as a good thing, not evil.

There are many more references to Darwin's racism, which was not unusual for the time. That the Nazis embraced the same philosophy is hardly surprising. What I do find surprising is that Darwin's racist and genocidal attitudes are ignored by much of the scientific community.

 

[Bradskii]

Mechanisms, causes. Expectations not being accurate. All these things are not shown to be accurate in the past. The difference between now and then however is not the Mechanisms, but rather attitudes in those who support and use them.

Look, all you need to do is say that you don't believe there's any cause for concern and that you aren't going to do anything about it. You can then stand over there with the others who think the same and leave the hard lifting to the rest of us.

While you are chatting with the rest of them, see if anyone has any comment on the fact that every country on the planet bar three*, including places like North Korea, are signatories to the Paris Agreement. Then I'll wait for you to ask why places like China are still burning coal and then I'll ask you why are you bothered about someone not helping enough to solve a problem that you don't think exists.

*The three that you are in agreement with are Iran, Libya and Yemen. There used to be four at one point. Guess who the fourth was...

 

[ralliann]

But the expectations and predictions for global temperature change were accurate. The predicted values from 30 years ago (when I learned that stuff) for scenarios where we just kept adding CO2 to the atmosphere have happened. We knew then what was likely to happen and it did. No politics, no ideology, no attitudes, just science.

Certainly looking back 30 years from now is different in terms of the detailed observations. We have very good satellite data from 1993-2023, but not so much for all of 1963-1993. The climate models have more detail now, so we can look at regional climate impacts now.

How did warming in the ice age begin? That was the question. What did science say was the cause.

 

[sjastro]

Mechanisms, causes. Expectations not being accurate. All these things are not shown to be accurate in the past. The difference between now and then however is not the Mechanisms, but rather attitudes in those who support and use them.

The false equivalence and strawman fallacies is a dead giveaway for your disingenuous nature of asking questions when you have already made up your mind based on ignorant stereotyping.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How did warming in the ice age begin? That was the question. What did science say was the cause.

I thought that was already covered above -- Milenkovic (sp) cycles. You should have learned about them in your climatology class.

BUt that's not relevant to the notion that current climate change is driven by human activity.

 

[ralliann]

Look, all you need to do is say that you don't believe there's any cause for concern

No, I did not say that, Nor is that my intent.

and that you aren't going to do anything about it. You can then stand over there with the others who think the same and leave the hard lifting to the rest of us.

No I did not say this either.

While you are chatting with the rest of them, see if anyone has any comment on the fact that every country on the planet bar three*, including places like North Korea, are signatories to be the Paris Agreement. Then I'll wait for you to ask why places like China are still burning coal and then I'll ask you why are you bothered about someone not helping enough to solve a problem that you don't think exists.

I did not deny climate change exists either

*The three that you are in agreement with are Iran, Libya and Yemen. There used to be four at one point. Guess who the fourth was...

You don't know what I agree with either obviously. You don't need to mischaracterize or demonize those who do not fully agree with all you think. So carry on here, as with other subjects this one goes down the tube.

 

[sjastro]

How did warming in the ice age begin? That was the question. What did science say was the cause.

Here is an excerpt from one of the links from post #212.

While the maths is complicated a simplified explanation will suffice as to why the troposphere is warming up while the lower stratosphere is cooling as greenhouse gases increase.

Imagine the Earth’s atmosphere is devoid of greenhouse gases.
Solar radiation in the form of UV, visible and IR strikes the surface which warms up.
Longer wave radiation in the form of IR is radiated back into the atmosphere.
This is a simplified blackbody model.
Now lets add a greenhouse gas such as CO₂ to the atmosphere.
The CO₂ forms a layer in the troposphere.
CO₂ like any greenhouse gas molecule has an interesting property where the chemical bonds stretch, bend, vibrate and can absorb IR radiation.
When this occurs the molecule goes from a ground state to an excited state.
On returning to the ground state IR is re-radiated in all directions including back to the surface which forms the mechanism for greenhouse warming.
Increasing the amount of CO₂ is modelled as increasing the number of layers in the troposphere where each layer absorbs and re-radiates in all directions.
Each successive layer receives less IR radiation than the layer immediately below it.

In the lower stratosphere greenhouse gases also exist which contributes to heating but if CO₂ levels are increased in the troposphere, less IR reaches greenhouse gases in the lower stratosphere which results in cooling as more heat is radiated into space then is supplied by IR radiation from the troposphere, despite the temperature increase there.

Since the temperature changes of the troposphere and lower stratosphere are out of phase it eliminates the idea that current climate change is caused by variations in the solar radiation output, sunspots or Milankovitch cycles in which case temperature changes would be in phase.

In the case of the Ice Age, the amount of solar radiation was reduced the major contributing factor being Milankovitch cycles.

 

[ralliann]

Here is an excerpt from one of the links from post #212.


In the case of the Ice Age, the amount of solar radiation was reduced the major contributing factor being Milankovitch cycles.

So what theory was relevant before this guy?