DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ocean Is Abnormally Warm

No, you misunderstand even that. I can be convinced. It just has to be a convincing argument. And your arguments are bad. Even when you have the right general idea, the arguments you make to support that idea can be/are flat out illogical. 97% consensus in what they gathered isn't the same as 97% of all there is. You don't seem capable of making that distinction. I'm not saying to ignore what the study said, I'm saying it needs to be put in the proper context to understand what it really says. Yes, there is in all likelihood manmade climate change, but that 97% is likely in large part due to how they gathered the data. It's more of a meta analysis than actual hard "science."

j/c

Here's a weird thought: The earth has cooled and warmed since forever. Even before people. Odd, isn't it?

And for the "x(*&^") heads, I'm not saying ignore pollution.

It's "studies"independent of each other over "decades of research". I mean since you are bringing up the point of....

Not really if you look at it big picture....

Earth Hasn’t Warmed This Fast in Tens of Millions of Years

Chemical analyses of ancient sediments allowed scientists to put together one of the most comprehensive climate histories of the planet

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-this-fast-in-tens-of-millions-of-years/

Thanks. I think that article proved my point.

Well of course it did.

Quick question on behalf of those that are so "dumb@science" but seem to be the only ones taking the reins in #commonsense.


If this is the Earth Hasn’t Warmed This Fast in Tens of Millions of Years argument...

If every other time it warmed quickly (not nearly as quickly, mind you, say you), and every other time the results were catastrophic, how is fairly dust and electric cars going to bail out 8+ billion of us this time??

Please choose science over virtue-signaling when attempting to provide an answer.

Ding. Ding. Ding!!

The article 100% proved your point.

I have no doubt that you are relatively (to most) well-informed. All scientific discoveries is undoubtedly a stretch.

I'm not sure humanity was ever a slave to evolution. We've been self aware and able to adapt our environments to our purposes rather than needing to adapt to them for a long time. This may be part of our current problem. We seem to resist evolving.

While fossil fuels may run out, I don't know that the climate will ever stop changing. The cosmos may "have other plans" no matter what humanity tries to do. While the earth going on and healing itself is possible, I'm not sure it is a given. Joining the healing process would be beneficial, but there are no guarantees.

Everything has a price and consequences. The difficulty is in predicting the consequences before they happen. Sometimes one also has to determine what they can't stop from changing and instead need to figure out how to adapt to the change.

I'm not trying to be an [censored] just for the sake of it. It seems to me that if we're going to have the best chance of solving issues, we need to look at them with our eyes as clear as possible. We can't paint over unpleasant truths.

Everything we need is here. Unfortunately, too many people don't seem to be content with only what they need. And I'm not saying that they should, but too many people definitely seem to be unaware or uncaring of their impact. Personally, humanity's structural focus on profit and growth seems very shortsighted. "Nature" doesn't seem to be a fan of imbalance.

First, who said it warmed to this level before in the past ten million years? Who said other times it got to the level of being catastrophic?

Constructing a question in a manner of which has nothing to do with what was stated?

And why are you pretending that "dust and electric cars" are the only methods being studied and currently being experimented with and used to fight climate change?

Why was the current Sahara dessert one of the most plush places in earth way before any man made carbon? What happened?

It's because we're in that "once in every ten million years" natural cycle to hear you tell it.

The studies' independence has nothing to do with which studies were selected for your pointed to analysis. No one can look at everything. They didn't even look at every scientist that believes in man made climate change. They picked a group, and that group impacted the number they reached in conclusion. They don't know what they don't know. You don't know what they don't know. You keep pointing at a number like the number is the be all end all. That number is just another data point. Another analysis using a different methodology will come up with a different percentage.

"I saw a number, that's everything there is to know" is the thought pattern of a simpleton.

What does somebody's sweets have to do with anything?

So once again we hear, "It was rigged!" Dear Lord.

And then you have the nerve to call those who disagree with you the simpletons. Let me guess, it's not personal?

Hahaha. Another posted article that he didn't even read first.

Not again!

Comprehension seems to be something that isn't the strong suit of some. Let me guess, we are on a 10 million year natural cycle according to you too?

Yes, they put it together in a certain way. That is true for every study. It doesn't make them wrong, it's just something that has to be considered when determining what a study actually means.

Simpletons point at numbers and think they can be universally applied and are all encompassing. Do you do that? I call a thing what it is. It isn't personal.

^The sad part of this latest Pit@Dawgtalkers conversation off-ramp is that the "10 Million Years" was taken directly from a junk headline he posted. A junk headline from a junk article.

One that he has now contradicted and tried to use as evidence at the same time.

yeah, my bad.

Man doesn’t make carbon.


Why did the Detroit area have clean fresh drinking water and no pollution thousands of years before man came along? What happened?

I am not trying to play know it all.

However, evolution has been on going process until the human genome was cracked(1990). Since then discoveries have been made to alter genetics.

Evolution has been ongoing and still is. The process of evolution is survival of the fittest, natural selection, and random mutation.

"We've been self aware and able to adapt our environments to our purposes rather than needing to adapt to them for a long time."

That has nothing to do with the process of evolution. Genetically altering mutation is what has given us the ability to change evolution.

Creating designer people like selecting eye color, skin color and eliminating genetic disorders like autism is changing evolution.

Obviously climate change is an on going process and has been since before man existed. However, we are now contributing to climate change.

Adaptation is a part of natural selection. (And thus a part of evolution) link

I'm not sure gene tailoring and evolution are the same thing. It's not about survival, it's not natural, nor is it random. Purposeful design is in some ways the antithesis of evolution.

You can remove predators and wear condoms but it does not alter evolution.

You missed my point gene editing is the beginning of man altering evolution.

I get what you're trying to say with gene editing. But once man starts purposefully altering himself it stops being evolution, at least as defined by Darwin. Some people use directed or participant evolution. Evolution by itself has its own particular definition at least in the "theory of" usage.

My point about man being able to adapt environments is more along the lines of central A/C and heating. If one adapts one's environment to their preference, there is no pressure for that one to adapt to the environment. Manmade environments don't really fit in natural selection. Removing predators would also seem to influence evolution.

In a sense, evolution changes every living thing. At the same time, evolution isn't a fixed course and actions can influence it.

Purposeful gene splicing is definitely on a different level.

Having AC/heating does not alter natural selection that comes about from random mutation.

"But once man starts purposefully altering himself it stops being evolution" I am sorry but I don't understand that.

Evolution is a process. Man altering genes does not stop a process.

Genetic mutations are a fundamental force of evolution, providing the raw material for adaptation and genetic variation that enables natural selection to act.

By altering genetic mutations we are no longer a slave to the process of evolution.

Natural selection and random mutation are two different things. Random mutation can lead to evolution through natural selection, but natural selection doesn't have to come from random mutation. The environment one is in has a big effect on what is selected/what survives to be passed on. Normal genetic inheritance can be selected as well as random mutation. Not all random mutations are beneficial and get passed on.

Altering a process and stopping a process are two very different ideas. I've never said anything about stopping the process. What you are describing is something other than that process which will keep going. Man will continue to evolve outside of his selections. There will still be random mutations. Knowing how to change certain things doesn't mean controlling everything. In some ways we will always be "slaves" to it. We can "rebel" against it and change some things on purpose, but I'm not sure we will ever be completely free of it.

Purposeful gene tailoring is something other than evolution. It doesn't stop evolution. It is an entirely different process. It stops being evolution when things are being purposely chosen for any possible reason rather than determined by what survives over time. Man will continue to "evolve" in your scenario, but when talking about natural selection and the theory/science of evolution that's a specifically defined mechanism. Manmade selection with intent isn't natural selection thus placing it outside evolution as technically defined. If speaking colloquially, sure, man is choosing his own "evolution", but your use of natural selection and talk of following all science led one to believe you were referring to the precise science as theorized rather than layman's usage. "Popular science" can frequently blur that line.

"Genetic mutations are a fundamental force of evolution, providing the raw material for adaptation and genetic variation that enables natural selection to act."

"Natural selection and random mutation are two different things."

I defined quite clearly IMO what is the difference.

I don't want to dig any deeper it is getting to far away from the topic of a warm ocean.

I have been studying evolutionary anthropology since 1970. I can go deep into it but I don't have the energy to write that much.

Great discussion.

I saw a program recently. I changed from DirecTV satellite to streaming. I had to buy a "fire stick."

Fire stick had a program called "The Evolution of US." If this is an interesting topic for you it is worth watching.

Simpletons ignore many different studies done independently over decades that arrive at the exact same conclusion because they refsue to accept the truth and believe everything is rigged. Do you do that?

Typical response when someone disagrees with something these days. "It doesn't say what I want it to say so it's junk/fake."

arch, I find what you are saying to be quite in contrast with your own belief system. At least one would think. I know that you're a Christian. Not that I have anything against that because in that respect we very much agree for the most part. But as a part of that here's the part I find confusing about your assertions here. I'm not sure if you have decided whether God screwed up or if man is to blame for climate change? Because the Bible explains something clearly to you.

The first chapter of Genesis explains how the earth was not habitable for man. It explains how God changed the earth to make it livable for mankind and all of God's creatures. How he totally transformed the earth. Again in Isaiah it speaks of this.

I've never heard of any Christian denomination that believes the creation of man happened as far back as 10 million years. Nowhere even close to that. So God transforming the earth must have happened after that time. So according to that you either believe one of two things. You believe that when God transformed the earth for man to live on he simply made an oopsy and didn't adjust things so the planet would not heat up to the point that it could destroy mankind all on its own or you believe mankind are the idiots who have trashed the planet so badly that they are the cause of it.

Do you think God made an oopsy?

You posted a link to an article, that you obviously didn't bother to read, as it endorsed not disputed the very post you responded to.

AKA Monday.

To add: Let me know if you want me to post the actual text in the article and let you know why the headline is trash. I'm sure everyone will enjoy it.

I'm not really interested in hearing your self proclaimed superiority complex today.

No. You simply don't understand what I'm saying.

I fully understand it in part. Although I also hear your disclaimer to the contrary.

On one hand you claim that these studies are slanted and can't be trusted no matter how many times I've pointed out that many studies have been conducted independently of each other over decades that lead to the same conclusion. Then directly after making that argument you add the disclaimer that you're not saying you do or don't believe them per say.

Even Superman can’t save us now.

I'll just say A fundamental force of evolution, and the only force of evolution aren't quite the same thing.

There's "superficial" (I don't mean that in a bad way) knowledge and there is understanding the logic of how all that knowledge fits together. Personally, it seems that there is too much emphasis in the basic imparting of facts in the modern education system and not enough on what they actually mean, how they should be used, and how they fit together and interact. You can't get to the latter without the former. Yet, while "the facts are the facts," knowing the facts and understanding how the facts fit into the bigger picture are two different concepts (? Not sure if concept is the best word choice, but I'm having a hard time coming up with a better one.) There seems to be a tendency to conflate part of a thing with everything about that thing.

So, while your initial sentence is true, it's (only) a part of a more complex thing.

Going back to the A/C or environmental effect on evolution/natural selection point earlier. A genetic mutation giving a "deer" a tan hide with brown stripes could be great for "deer" in a savannah. It's less ideal for a "deer" living on a treeless, green plain. The mutation is the same in both instances, but might be "naturally selected" in one situation and not the other. A mutation for thicker fur in a "bear" in the Arctic might be more likely to "be selected" than that same mutation in a "bear" in a hot, jungle environment. Man is much more able (willing?) to change his environment or to choose another one.

Well, so much for my intended just saying. For me, once I start writing, "inertia" has a tendency to take over. It's the starting in the first place that takes the most energy for me.

Just like the last time there was a polar shift.

Fully...in part? You do realize that those are contradictory ideas?

There is no unbiased study. That doesn't make them useless. To understand how they are most useful, one must figure out how they are "biased" and what they actually say. Another different way to put it is the act of observation imparts the observer effect on that which is being observed. That applies more directly to physics.

You seem to have a hard time understanding that any study is only a part of a "full"/complete thing. 97% of the study, is not 97% of everything. Determining what that 97% is actually a part of has relevance. You keep trying to take shortcuts and simplify things, so that you can understand them. In reality, the simplified thing isn't actually the whole thing.

No one can look at everything. Choosing what one is looking at has an impact on what one sees.

So you simply repeated what I claimed you have been saying all along. Decades of independent research have no meaning to you. They all must be rigged to show what they wanted to show from the beginning because they are somehow slanted. That's why for some no amount of evidence is sufficient.