1 Boy I hope he's an atheist!

2 I think any Republican hit with "you don't believe in science" should respond with "explain to me the science of global warming" and refuse accept any response of scientists say....

3 I've always thought the US should have invested in the basic science of how the planet's climate works before spending money on models and shit, but I'm no scientist.

4

Still the best thing ever written on the intertubes:

"It's a shame there isn't some natural phenomenon that could explain changes in the Earth's temperature.  Such an object/force would have to be enormous . . . on the order of our own Sun."

5 People berate the Catholic Church for picking on Galileo. Will the lefties ever be called out for their anti-scientist actions?

6 We don't need evidence.  Science is the whip with which we beat conservatives.

7 Mann is still fighting a rear guard action on his FIOA'd emails from UVA. They should make an interesting read.

8 Burn the heretic

9 FYI - Im jean Parisot over at WUWT, like to toss a little moron type levity into academic proceedings over there occasionally.

10 She scienced ME with blindness...

11 We can't base our political/economic theories on evidence.  If truth were to gain a foothold in politics, where would it end?

12

It's a shame that science had become so political.

 

13 *has

14
And what's this about GENESIS?

Genesis is supposedly the next generation of the Solyndra boondoggle scam -- the DoE gave the firm over $800B in guaranteed loans.

15 Mann is still fighting a rear guard action on his FIOA'd emails from UVA.

Hmm, I oughta do him sometime.

16 So basically Inhofe was right all along. Damn I love Inhofe. (Ok I'm oversimplifying-pfffftttttt)

17 I don't know what this is about. First! Probably not. Anyway, I am sickened about the deaths of our National Guardsmen yesterday. Sickened to death. I loathe the likes of "Jim" who does his "butter toast" aversion to anything military. I'll agree with you on one point: Who, in their right mind would serve and protect the likes of people in the inner cities, with pants on the ground, guns pointed, a garbled English that has to be translated (there is a story of a grandmother at the age of 23). Over-sized white t-shirts and a score to avenge.

18 4 Still the best thing ever written on the intertubes:

"It's a shame there isn't some natural phenomenon that could explain changes in the Earth's temperature. Such an object/force would have to be enormous . . . on the order of our own Sun."
_________

A local radio station has a station ID announcement that points out that if you spread out all the sand in the Sahara, you'd have enough to cover northern Africa.

19 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.
This statement is germane to all discussions.

Also, as I understand it, AGW has too assume that the sun always inputs the exact same amount of energy into our system.  It must assume this, because if that energy varies in any way (certainly in the magnitudes to which it's energy cycles seem to swing) their theory falls apart.  Yet, we have proven (as much as such a thing is possible) that the energy output from the sun does vary (and to a great degree, in some cases).

How, exactly, do they square that circle?

20 Seize the infidel!

21 It's a shame that science had become so political. The more science is funded through politics, the more of this we will get.

22 And what's this about GENESIS?

Isn't that my line?

23

Clouds are white.

Cloud tests are racist.

24 Scienceism hardest hit.

25
Remember when the federal government invested heavily in the telephone & telegraph industry in the late 19th century?

Oh wait, no it didn't.

26 Honorary AoSHQ moron animal comments on global warming.

27
How, exactly, do they square that circle?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at September 07, 2011 12:02 PM (8y9MW)

Shut up!  That's how....

28 @19: They square that circle by saying "shut up, that's why".  It's the all-purpose Leftist Problem Remover.

29 17. I would Next question?

30 15 Jane, that explains how the left got so f--ked up - you've been passing around syphilis since the 1970's.

31

14
And what's this about GENESIS?
- - - - - - -

Please refer to Star Trek (the movie) III.

32 quick somewhat serious question - at the heart of the "global warming" question is the role Man plays in, what would appear to be a natural phenomenon. How is AGW different in any meaningful way than humans shedding blood in the fields in the belief that will help with the crops? -

33 14 800M or 800B

34 Honorary AoSHQ moron animal comments on global warming. It is touching when even our animal friends can teach us ways to get on a raging bender when surrounded with nothing but trees and fruit.

35 14. Abacab was their best album?

36 How is AGW different in any meaningful way than humans shedding blood in the fields in the belief that will help with the crops? My guess is that blood would be a marginal fertilizer.

37
Genesis is supposedly the next generation of the Solyndra boondoggle scam -- the DoE gave the firm over $800B in guaranteed loans.

correction: $800M

38 This Danes weren't the first to come up with the solar ray/cloud connection. It was first reported in the mid 1970s, and included in The Great Global Warming Swindle.

I hope none of the CERN scientists have anything in their personal lives that the b*ast*rds can dredge up and exploit. It take  just one, or maybe a couple, for the left and their flying monkeys in the media to destroy to shut the others up

39 35. Bah, San Fran you can do it surrounded by fruits and nuts Should I denounce myself?

40 BTW, Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

41 Don't they measure solar output very thoroughly and precisely?  Can't they just see if there's a correlation between cosmic ray output and weather/temperature? Or are sunspot cycles just shorthand for that?

42 It's a shame that science had become so political.

There's a grand circle of irony there.  The Left has tried to make politics scientific, not just through the obvious field, but by bringing 'soft sciences' like psychology, sociology, and economics to bear to create their 'perfect system'.  And then using the 'hard sciences' as window dressing to back them up, because the masses go for that.

Which can only be sustained by...politicizing science, to keep the great gaping cracks in their massive edifice from become clear to all.  Not that they can prevent the inevitable, just to deny it.

Goes to show where the real priorities are...power.  And I don't mean what runs your iPod.

43 How is AGW different in any meaningful way than humans shedding blood in the fields in the belief that will help with the crops? I believe Michael Mann is currently modeling trends in human sacrifice to crop productivity, and his results are fiercely urgent.

44 Again, leaving theology completely aside, as the sciences progress, the less plausible, let alone possible, the theory of evolution is.

 But, say that out loud and see what happens.

45 Someone, somewhere found a story about the whites dusting up a black person, it is now a law suit. It now becomes a "race issue" when for the last six months when all of these blacks have been involved in criminally stealing in mass mobs from convenience stores. And they look fine, best of clothing, shoes, well-fed, and all that. They have also gone down hard on white attendees at state and country fairs. Just plummet them for no reason. But we've got the justice brothers investigating this horrific crime against their own. When they get involved, I see millions, all passed around.

46 that's - sort of - the point I'm stumbling towards: There's no question that mankind's actions will have ** some ** effect on Nature; it's the extent of that effect.

47 You know ace, shit like this will hurt a certain blogger's calendar sales Why do you hate calendars? Datist scum

48

Here's some empirical evidence for you.  According to what has been found in ice cores from Antarctica, we are on the 5th global temperature spike the Earth has experienced in the past 500,000 years, each of about 10,000 years duration.  And yes, the CO2 content of the atmosphere increased with the temperature each time, although the increase lagged by several hundred years each time, INCLUDING THE CURRENT ONE.  And BTW, we do appear to be on the tail end of this current spike, which if the pattern repeats yet again, means in the next few hundred years at most, it's going to get pretty goddamned chilly around here.  "AGW" my ass.

And to call CO2 a "weak greenhouse gas" is an understatement.  Even now it only comprises .03% of the Earth's atmosphere.  There are plenty of other elements in the atmosphere that are orders of magnitude more powerful in terms of heating and/or cooling.  Like, um, water vapor...

 

49 If only we had some theory, or method, that consisted of the systematic measurement and testing of hypotheses through observation and experimentation which would lead to confirmation, modification, or repudiation of said hypothesis, then we could move science forward.

50 >>>Also, as I understand it, AGW has too assume that the sun always inputs the exact same amount of energy into our system. It must assume this, because if that energy varies in any way (certainly in the magnitudes to which it's energy cycles seem to swing) their theory falls apart. Yet, we have proven (as much as such a thing is possible) that the energy output from the sun does vary (and to a great degree, in some cases). Right, they begin with the assumption that there are no external variations ergo any variation must be explained entirely by earth-bound phenomenon. The CLOUD test is important because we know cosmic rays are variable, and further, they track with changes in global temperature; what was needed to connect them was a plausible mechanism by which cosmic rays translated to temperature changes. The fact that cosmic rays create "cloud seeds" is just such a mechanism. Global warming continues to ignore clouds, because they don't understand how clouds work or what influence they have on temperature (do they reduce it by reflecting light or increase it by trapping heat?) This is par for the course. Any part of the earth's weather which is not well understood is just assumed, from the get-go, to have zero effect. That's done in science a lot, because it needs to be done. It is a typical thing to say "We don't understand this, so we're going to ignore it." There are a lot of unknowns you have to do this with. But what is NOT done is for people to pretend they haven't made that assumption or that assumption is without consequence or that that assumption cannot be disproven by actual evidence. The no-solar-effects-assumption is so critical to AGW that even when proof comes that it's not true, they... continue insisting it is true anyway, because all of their models are programmed with that assumption, and the models are everything, aren't they?

51 CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. Even if it magically absorbed more heat, such that its kinetic energy results in 100 deg. higher than the surrounding 99.96%, it doesnt have the mass necessary to raise the surrounding mass any significant amount. What about CO2 makes it different than the other 'greenhouse gasses' such as water? It is the only one that is a product of human activity that can be TAXED/REGULATED. That is the only science involved. How can we MEASURE carbon dioxide, so we can tax it.

52

"The Danes weren't the first to come up with the solar ray/cloud connection."

No, that was Cro-Magnan Man, who came up with that connection first, because it is so F*cking obvious.  How sad that "modern" science" is behind our forebears by about a 150K years.

53 If we halt the production of CO₂, much like we have done with wealth creation, then we'll save Mama Gaia, much like we've done with the economy.

And if you disagree, you're a racist barbarian theocrat.

54

Through several more years of "careful, quantitative measurement" at CERN, Mr. Kirkby predicts he and his team will "definitively answer the question of whether or not cosmic rays have a climatically significant effect on clouds." His old ally Mr. Svensmark feels he's already answered that question, and he guesses that CERN's initial results "could have been achieved eight to 10 years ago, if the project had been approved and financed."

Old and busted - careful, quantitative measurement.

The new hotness - computer models based on WAGs, speculation, and incomplete data.

In a way, I'm glad these experiments are going on now rather than 10 years ago, else the CERN experimental results would have been given the Mann et al "hide the decline" treatment and sequestered (unless they gave the pre-determined "humans are solely responsible for "climate change" answer) for all eternity. 

55 Bashir Assad makes me moist.

56 I am conservative and hate science.  Now, excuse me, I have some witches to burn and some humours to balance with a good leeching.

57 The CLOUD test is important because we know cosmic rays are variable, and further, they track with changes in global temperature; what was needed to connect them was a plausible mechanism by which cosmic rays translated to temperature changes.

Why is that only Conservatives seem interested in proving (instead of asserting) Causation once we've found Correlation?

58 >>>Again, leaving theology completely aside, as the sciences progress, the less plausible, let alone possible, the theory of evolution is. >>>But, say that out loud and see what happens. What happens is that people point out that a "scientific theory" that postulates a supernatural phenomenon to explain it -- that is to say, magic -- is not in fact a scientific theory, because science, by definition, excludes the supernatural and all magical effects. I'm not really sure how people can convince themselves that science, which has a rather long history of not involving magic and the gods in its explanations, should include God and His magic in three or five theories, just to square it with the Bible. You can call that "science." Prior to recent decades that was called "theology" or "Sunday School." I know some people want to disprove AGW as help in disproving evolution, but if you notice, none of the rebutting science in anti-AGW theories includes God, or magic, or divine will. These theories continue postulating *natural* mechanisms, not *supernatural* ones.

59 The no-solar-effects-assumption is so critical to AGW that even when proof comes that it's not true, they... continue insisting it is true anyway, because all of their models are programmed with that assumption, and the models are everything, aren't they?

Posted by: ace at September 07, 2011 12:15 PM (nj1bB)

...and this is why using the CBO to score policy really needs to be scrapped.

60 _ If You Don't Believe in Global Warming You're Anti-Science - If You Believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming You're A Mystic -

61

Word. It's going to get colder here in the next few months. As it has for the last million yrs or so.

Adapt. Or die.

62 53. If I remember correctly from my fine Chicago schooling, there's still stuff newton came up with we are still trying to figure out

63 I think it is going to be a bitch of a winter.

64 at the heart of the "global warming" question is the role Man plays in, what would appear to be a natural phenomenon.

It is ironic that the atheistic left, who believe that humans are just a bunch of naked  apes, think that we humans are just another life form no different from dam-building beavers (all being created by the Great Darwin In the Sky) and yet we are endangering the planet itself while religious conservatives, who believe that God gave them dominion over the flora and fauna, believe that nature is working as it should and doubt man's ability to significantly change God's plan. 

65 Burn the DENIER heretics!  Burn!  Burn!

After you buy carbon offsets from my company, of course.

66 64. I disagree It'll be mid 80's through the whole season Global warming proof!!!!

67 > 25 Remember when the federal government invested heavily in the telephone & telegraph industry in the late 19th century? Oh wait, no it didn't. Posted by: soothie Remember when Federal Emergency Aid rebuilt Chicago after the Great Fire? Oh wait, no it didn't either.

68 is not in fact a scientific theory, because science, by definition, excludes the supernatural and all magical effects.

Really only in the last 100 years or so.  Well, okay, at this point 150 - 200.  Before that, science was quite ready to accept the fact that the supernatural could exist.  Indeed, that it did exist.

Science can't say anything about God Himself, but it can certainly point to Him.

For instance: How did nothing suddenly explode into Something?  By the way, "a super dense particle" isn't "nothing."  Neither are "theoretical mathematical points."

Now, certainly if you exclude the supernatural (maybe: "extranatural" would be more precise), then there can be no supernatural explanation.  However, you should really examine your premise that there is nothing extranatural.  Beyond merely "can't prove a negative," you'd have to put forward some positive proof that a) the Big Bang could have happened on its own and/or b) life could arise from non-life on its own and/or c) life, having arisen from non-life, could then modify its forms in such a seemingly organized way (that is: that organization could result from chaos).

69 ... but the science has moved on.

In light of the CERN tests and a recent "peer-reviewed" paper by Spencer and Braswell, comes Dessler 2011 GRL Paper “Cloud Variations And The Earth’s Energy Budget,” a rebuttal paper by a AGW-believer.

Now it seems, clouds aren't important.

70 I am an engineer specializing in energy transfer equipment. The AGW theory is pure BS and a con.

However, to put the theory of AlGore in layman's terms. It is  putting a pot of water on the stove without the burner on but because it has a lid it will boil.

1+1=POTATO.

71

You know who else did everything based on computer models?  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Wall Street.  The big banks.  Moody's, Standard and Poor's, and Fitch.  The models told them they had found a way to turn dross into gold.  The models told them home prices could never fall.  The models told them people would always pay their mortgages before they paid anything else.  The models told them a "worst-case scenario" was about 10% defaults.

Enough with models. 

72 What happens is that people point out that a "scientific theory" that postulates a supernatural phenomenon to explain it -- that is to say, magic -- is not in fact a scientific theory, because science, by definition, excludes the supernatural and all magical effects.

Oh, I agree. But the theory of evolution is predicated on certain impossibilities as we understand the sciences now, and is in "violation" of established scientific law.

It violates what we understand of chemistry since the belief is that proteins and nucleic acids could not have arisen without the other.

My understanding of thermodynamics is completely, completely rudimentary, but what I have read is that evolution could not occur according to the second law; entropy.

So, isn't there then an element of magic in the theory of evolution.

Evolutionists are pretty much giving up the fossil record as evidence, so they're relying more and more on trying to use hard science, but are getting undercut even more.

73 The warming of Mars has should have been an eyeopener for the sciency community.

74

It's a shame that science had become so political.

 

*Science* is still not political. When it gets political, it's not science, it's politics.

The political positions being passed around are NOT science! Regardless of claims to the contrary.

True science is about cause and effect and discovery of truth. The practice of science has nothing to do with Religion or Politics beyond the idea that the end result of the scientific discovery process can reinforce religious or political ideas AFTER they have been throroughly vetted in the discovery process WITHOUT undue influence by either religion or politics.

But if either religion or politics are introduced into the scientific discovery process, the entire process is invalidated. Both the proces and the results are no longer science.

Michael Mann and Al Gore are clueless when it comes to the whole concept of science, which they both insist on involking to justify their preconceived agendas.

75 OK..I will shut up about evolution, but it just irritates me when if you question it based on scientific rules, you're the one called stupid.

76 @ 17

         I did.

77

"Your CLOUD theory is false. I killed it myself."

"Then why is there fear behind your eyes?"

78 Posted by: beedubya at September 07, 2011 12:38 PM (AnTyA)

I think that's what I said.

Basically, Evolution requires God just as much as Intelligent Design (which, as I understand it, is what we used to call "guided evolution," and not rank Creationism).  But they'll never admit that, because the founding principle of evolution is not Science, it is not discovery, it is not the betterment of mankind.  The founding principle of evolution (at least, Darwinian evolution) is atheism.  Darwin set out to prove God didn't "need" to exist.

I know Christian evolutionary biologists.  I'm amazed at their ability to keep that cognitive dissonance from driving them insane.

79

It should be noted that this position isn't really debatable -- carbon dioxide is provably a (weak) greenhouse gas. More carbon dioxide should lead to some increased temperature.

But how much?

It should be noticed that urine has volume... peeing in the ocean should lead to some increases in the volume of the ocean.  But how much?

It isn't debatable that my peeing in the ocean will affect the water level... but is it really to the point that I'm a more significant factor than the tides?  Or am I just fooling myself here?

80 >>>My understanding of thermodynamics is completely, completely rudimentary, but what I have read is that evolution could not occur according to the second law; entropy. Complete lie; utterly absurd. The second law of thermodynamics states that any *system* (mark that word) proceeds from a state of higher entropy to lower entropy. Creationist theologians pretending to be science says that proves evolution can't happen, because entropy decreases, not increases, as life becomes more sophisticated. Look, let me explain this simply: Your messy bedroom is in a high state of entropy. When you put things away, like things with like things, everything it its place, you have decreased entropy. Was that impossible? No. Because we're talking about the entirety of the "system" when we balance out entropy. In performing work on the room, your body metabolized lower-entropy complex sugars into higher-entropy heat and byproducts. It did balance out, and entropy did win, but you have to look at the whole SYSTEM, including outside actors. The Creationist theologians conveniently forget that there is a huge fusion furnace in the center of our universe which is always increasing entropy, and also filling our planet with energy which can then be used, locally, to decrease entropy, while the entropy of the entire system (including the sun) increases. Now, by the way, the theologians and hucksters have been told this since fucking 1964. This is not a new argument. They know they're wrong, because this has been explained to them six million times. They don't care. They enjoy the lie. They enjoy distorting the law of entropy to the point where it would say, wrongly, that your room can never go from messy to orderly, or that we could never, ever possibly synthesize lower-entropy chemicals from higher-entropy ones (hint: We do, all the time; all of chemistry pretty much consists of creating lower-entropy chemicals, and it's quite possible, so long as you have an entropy-increasing energy source (say, burning natural gas in a bunsen burner) to catalyze the reactions). Competely wrong, complete bumpkin-level bullshit; actually, ti's not bumpkin level, because that presumes the speaker is honestly confused. The Creationists know they're lying when they claim this, but they find it gets an "Oooooh, science!" from teh crowds, so they push it anyway.

81 Chemists would be very surprised to discover that they cannot create low-entropy chemicals from high-entropy ones. They'd sort of wonder how'd they'd been doing just that since... since the beginning of chemistry, since it evolved from alchemy.

82 Global warming continues to ignore clouds, because they don't understand how clouds work or what influence they have on temperature (do they reduce it by reflecting light or increase it by trapping heat?)

This is par for the course. Any part of the earth's weather which is not well understood is just assumed, from the get-go, to have zero effect.

Posted by: ace at September 07, 2011 12:15 PM (nj1bB)

We've looked at clouds from both sides now ... but they're messing with our heads because they're not two dimensional.

83

You have made a bit of a leap of faith to say that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will defintiely increase the surface temperature of the globe (i.e. global warming). Each CO2 molecule becomes a miniature cloud. Do more clouds normally increase the surface temperature???? They will block a greater proportion of the incoming solar radiation tjereby decreasing the insolation at the surface. The additional energy they absorb might lead to a higher temperature in the troposphere, but that is not an increase in surface temperature.

Be very wary of oversimplification of the atmospheric physics my friend.

84 To use the AoS phraseology: If only there were some kind of large, heat producing entropy generating machine at the heart of our solar system which could fuel entropy decreasing chemistry on earth, but itself furiously increasing entropy by emitting high-entropy heat.... It would have to be large, though. On an order of magnitude of our own sun. ... Basically, this bullshit would mean that plants cannot photosynthesize, because they can't reduce entropy. Of course they can, and do. Because the rule about entropy only applies to the GLOBAL situation, with ALL actors included. Entropy is decreased on a LOCAL level -- this plant, this chemical reaction, your messy room, now clean -- ALL THE TIME. All of our metabolism is based, ultimately, on plants creating low-entropy (high stored energy) compounds from higher-entropy ones. The human body is itself an "impossbility" according to this deliberately dishonest statement of the law, because the human body is itself assembled (utlimately) from high entropy chemicals, into low-entropy ones.

85 56 Bashir Assad makes me moist.
Posted by: Jane Fonda at September 07, 2011 12:16 PM (AnTyA)

And one day soon, the Sahara will bloom once again!

86 How the hell did this thread go from the AGW farce to evolution?

87 It should be noted that this position isn't really debatable -- carbon dioxide is provably a (weak) greenhouse gas. More carbon dioxide should lead to some increased temperature. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Absolutely, 100% NOT TRUE, and I might add, provably so. Above roughly 250 ppm, all the light at the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs - is already gone. Increasing CO2 levels above 250 ppm does absolutely nothing for its ability to cause greenhouse gas warming. The theory relies entirely on increasing water vapor, a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. The AGW crowd claims that this is a reinforcing feedback. More water vapor causes more warming, more warming causes more water vapor, and so on. And if you read that slowly and understand it, the implication is that the earth's climate system is a simplistic, fragile, out of control menace that can run away to destruction with the introduction of tiny amounts of a trace gas. And also, at concentrations far less than have been present before. You know, when the climate system didn't destroy itself.

88 The problem that the AGW crowd faces is the same one that the larger enviromental crowd faces. You can manipulate the data in almost any experiment to adjust your findings to fit a political, or otherwise preconcieved, notion. That is the easy part. You can force others who are less educated in the subject to accept your findings, which is slightly harder. Where you hit the wall is when less politically-vested scientist, in partially related fields, start testing other unrealted experiments using your information as a backdrop. Once the reproducable result show a failure in the process based on the physical world acting as it is, rather than how you wish it would be, your data will get torn apart.

They should Google Trofim Lysenko and ask themselves if "Mannism" sounds catchier than "Lysenkoism.."

89 In your comment at 1:05 you state the second law of thermodynamics incorrectly ace.  While the quantity of energy and mass remain the same, the quality (usability) of energy and matter deteriorate over time within a closed system.  You said the system proceeds from high entropy to low entropy, that is exactly backwards.

You have the idea right though, because your description is correct.  You can increase order (quality and usability of matter and energy) locally, but not throughout the system.

Because the sun is a high quality energy source, entropy can be reduced here in our local (Earth) system without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

As said above science fails when it comes to explaining first cause.  How did the very dense point before the big bang come to be?  How was the first animation achieved? 

Scientists too fail when it comes to explaining what exactly is a consciousness.  The consensus opinion seems to be that we're deterministic engines without free will.  I openly and savagely reject that opinion.  To be able to even contemplate our existence, our human connections gives lie to that belief.

90 Complete lie; utterly absurd.

The second law of thermodynamics states that any *system* (mark that word) proceeds from a state of higher entropy to lower entropy.

That's completely bass-ackwards

...and proving that decreasing the entropy in a subset of a system temporarily is possible, does not prove that that evolution is caused by genetic mutation, which by definition reflects entropy as the normal order of the gene is broken down. It is my understanding that  known observed mutations have been either neutral or negative.

91 What about CO2 makes it different than the other 'greenhouse gasses' such as water? It is the only one that is a product of human activity that can be TAXED/REGULATED. Posted by: Schwalbe : The © at September 07, 2011 12:15 PM (UU0OF) Bingo.

92 It is my understanding that known observed mutations have been either neutral or negative. Posted by: beedubya at September 07, 2011 01:40 PM (AnTyA) You have misunderstood. One of the most common examples is bacterial resistance to antibiotics - bacteria and virii mutate very quickly. Some of these mutations are harmful, for example reduced transmission or radically increased lethality that reduce transmission. Others, such as resistance to specific antibiotics, as "beneficial" - at least to the bacteria. More complex lifeforms tend to mutate slower, but transposons (genes that are "loosely attached" in that they can swap positions in the genome) are not uncommon in plants. This does effect changes, some of which are beneficial (depending on the environment). The LRP5-V171 mutation which occurs in humans (rarely) results in increased bone strength and density without apparent negative effects. While the utility is minimal, should we ever settle a heavy-gravity planet I would expect that mutation to become a majority there relatively rapidly. For whatever reason (dishonesty, credulity, groupthink, unicorns), the meme that beneficial mutations don't exist persists contrary to a vast store of evidence. You can look it up, if you want to.

93 >>>You said the system proceeds from high entropy to low entropy, that is exactly backwards Just a typo, I know the arrow points towards increasing entropy.

94 >>>Above roughly 250 ppm, all the light at the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs - is already gone. Increasing CO2 levels above 250 ppm does absolutely nothing for its ability to cause greenhouse gas warming. I did not know that. I'm not sure of that though because Freeman Dyson calculated that if you increased the atmosphere to 100% CO2 we'd rise like 8 degrees in temperature. >>>The theory relies entirely on increasing water vapor, a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. The AGW crowd claims that this is a reinforcing feedback. More water vapor causes more warming, more warming causes more water vapor, and so on. That part I knew.

95 See? See? I'm right again! Nobody could have predicted that Dr. Grant would suddenly, suddenly jump out of a moving vehicle.

96 You have misunderstood. One of the most common examples is bacterial resistance to antibiotics - bacteria and virii mutate very quickly. Some of these mutations are harmful, for example reduced transmission or radically increased lethality that reduce transmission. Others, such as resistance to specific antibiotics, as "beneficial" - at least to the bacteria.




But do the mutations increase or decrease the complexity of the bacterium??...and was that mutation the result of the introduction of antibiotics or would have it occurred on it's own?

Maybe I'm being dense, but doesn't that reflect an overall neutrality of the mutation independent of the external antibiotic?

Is there evidence that the antibiotic acted as a catalyst to that mutation?

The qualification of my statement, I guess, should be limited to multi-celled organisms since a genetic mutation of such does indeed reflect a breakdown in order.

97 Is there evidence that the antibiotic acted as a catalyst to that mutation?

The mutation was already present in a subset of the population, and of a reasonable benign nature.  The introduction of the antibiotic increased the survival value of the mutation from neutral, or only slightly negative, to goldmine!

98 According to Boy928, biochemistry student, fwiw, when nylon was first produced, there appeared to be no biological systems that could break it down as food.  It was thought that you could bury it, for instance, and it would last forever.   Since then, multiple bacteria have developed that can digest nylon.  The interesting thing is that the different species use different enzymes to do the digestion.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

99 But do the mutations increase or decrease the complexity of the bacterium?? Generally neither, but irrelevant to whether the mutations are benign. You're mixing contentions. ...and was that mutation the result of the introduction of antibiotics or would have it occurred on it's own? Occurred on its own, the *advantage* was against a given antibiotic - sort of like a micro-scale version of the tiny minority who are immune to AIDS - if AIDS became airborne and virulent, eventually all the people *left* might be descended from those with immunity. Think of an antibiotic as a disease for bacteria (it's more of a toxin, but there you go). Maybe I'm being dense, but doesn't that reflect an overall neutrality of the mutation independent of the external antibiotic? No, unless your contention is that mutations should be judged independently from their effects on survival, which would be... odd. Generally mutations are beneficial or harmful in relation to external factors such as temperature, predation, gravity, diseases, etc. Is there evidence that the antibiotic acted as a catalyst to that mutation? You're repeating yourself. And also, look up Lysenko. The qualification of my statement, I guess, should be limited to multi-celled organisms since a genetic mutation of such does indeed reflect a breakdown in order. Posted by: beedubya at September 07, 2011 02:35 PM (AnTyA) Of which I provided multiple examples which you ignored. Ultimately a genetic mutation occurs in a cell, whether the cell is the single cell of a bacteria or a single cell in a larger organism does not affect whether it's a mutation. As to entropy, you're arbitrarily defining the limits of a system and then trying to finesse a second-law violation out of it, we've dealt with that ind detail.

100 Also, a mutation isn't only harmful or beneficial, it can be both. Sickle-cell anemia harms the individual's ability to transport oxygen in the body and can cause clots and blockages, but also grants some immunity to diseases such as Malaria which depend on blood cells. Without Malaria, the trait is entirely negative. With Malaria present, the trait may be neutral or even beneficial. Also consider that, evolutionarily speaking, traits that help reproduction are "beneficial," because the trait is then passed on. "Beneficial" in this case is not the same as the common usage of the word.

101 Ask the evolutionary biologists how much fun it was to have the state backing Lysenkoism.

102

The second law of thermodynamics states that any *system* (mark that word) proceeds from a state of higher entropy to lower entropy.

Goes from low to high. Entropy always increases. You flipped a bunch of terms around... careful with that. It reads confusing.

(hint: We do, all the time; all of chemistry pretty much consists of creating lower-entropy chemicals,

Um, no it doesn't... huh? At best, you're way too broad with the 'all' stuff.

103

Also consider that, evolutionarily speaking, traits that help reproduction are "beneficial," because the trait is then passed on. "Beneficial" in this case is not the same as the common usage of the word.

As I understand it, that is mostly crap. As in, the most modern thinking has it that natural selection business is kinda bubkis - there was always a teleological problem with that, evolution is not teleological but the words kind of imply it. The only out is to make everything tautological. Whatever worked must have been beneficial because it worked.

A lot more weight is put on random mutations and gene drift these days. It's not so much about beneficial vs. non-beneficial. The guy with the super-sperm gene got squashed by a tree, the dude with impotence problem subsided and overcame. Whatever. Random.

Nature doesn't really select for anything, except as a backwards tautological rationalization of what we ended up with. As nature has no telos, no criteria upon which to select.

It selects for survivors. Whoever happened to live didn't live and reproduce because nature selected them - 'nature selected them' (sort of like God's will) because they're here and they lived.

104 As to entropy, you're arbitrarily defining the limits of a system and then trying to finesse a second-law violation out of it, we've dealt with that ind detail.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at September 07, 2011 02:51 PM (bxiXv)

Sorry, multi-tasking here....but in response to your one point..I am not arbitrarily defining the limits  of a system, I'm doing the exact opposite

105 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

106

Maybe I'm being dense, but doesn't that reflect an overall neutrality of the mutation independent of the external antibiotic?

Yes. Benefit/harm is backwards reasoned. It implies some kind of telos or purpose that is not there. Mostly what you have is random mutation. Some of it lives and some of it dies... the stuff that lives, continues living for as long as it does.  It may live on account of the mutation or it may live in spite of it or it may live for altogether unrelated reasons.

You can't go implying value. Good/bad. It depends on subjective criteria. There are no criteria. You're either dead or your not. If not, you will be, eventually.

The rest is coincidence.

The qualification of my statement, I guess, should be limited to multi-celled organisms since a genetic mutation of such does indeed reflect a breakdown in order.

Eh... how are you guys quantifying this shit? Seems to me the existence of isolated mutations appearing in sole individuals would represent a decrease in entropy and an increase in order, if you look at the phenotype as being the system.

Entropy is very very bland. Counter-intuitive to it being described as chaos, yet all the same, the single defining characteristic of such chaos is that it is entirely uniform.

I am not arbitrarily defining the limits  of a system

There are no limits to any system. There is no real system - it's an abstract noumenon - save perhaps 1 system which is the whole universe. No system is a closed system, ALL system boundaries are some degree of arbitrary. That is, except maybe the boundaries of the whole universe.

107 Sorry, multi-tasking here....but in response to your one point..I am not arbitrarily defining the limits of a system, I'm doing the exact opposite Posted by: beedubya at September 07, 2011 03:23 PM (AnTyA) No, that's exactly what you're doing, because you're arbitrarily defining the limit of the system within which you're claiming that entropy is violated - but if you look at the larger systems it is not. You can't take a cell or organism in isolation and examine its entropy, you have to consider the larger system before you start trying to define second law violations.

108 As I understand it, that is mostly crap. As in, the most modern thinking has it that natural selection business is kinda bubkis - there was always a teleological problem with that, evolution is not teleological but the words kind of imply it. The only out is to make everything tautological. Whatever worked must have been beneficial because it worked. Posted by: Entropy at September 07, 2011 03:22 PM (IsLT6) You're arguing with a ghost. I imputed neither motive nor exclusivity to selection.

109 64I think it is going to be a bitch of a winter.

Posted by: Jean at September 07, 2011 12:22 PM (WkuV6)

Like the others have been since the grand solar minimum set in.

110 I have been absent for some time, but now I remember why I used to love this website. Thanks , I will try and check back more frequently. How frequently you update your web site?

111

hi,friend

we are good at making  air filters,oil filters,fuel filters for constrcuction mamchinery,heavy vehicle,agricultural machinery,truck,car,ship and engineering machine etc.
 

112 Gore comes unhinged as AGW science unravels ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU-_y7GYGO0