Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#62 Oct 2, 2013
Cod wrote:
<quoted text>
So when are you going to evolve?
So, once again you show you don't understand the first thing about evolution. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#63 Oct 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you shouldn't talk over his head like that, SZ. It seems to make him cranky.
It would be difficult to say anything correct and NOT talk over his head.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#64 Oct 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be difficult to say anything correct and NOT talk over his head.
Point taken.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#65 Oct 2, 2013
Cod wrote:
<quoted text>
What a clown. You want you want today's children to be culled from billions to a few hundred million feudal slaves of the psychopathic elites. BTW, no science supports AGW, you are obviously a bot or a shill and a scumbag for only a scumbag could be a shill.
No, there is a large amount of science that supports AGW. The question, in my mind, is how valid it is. Do the models actually reflect what will happen to the climate? Well, the models are calibrated against the past behavior and the science we know. But truthfully, I am not convinced that they are sufficiently well tested in a rigorous way to be reliable.

That said, I certainly see nothing that would say that humans have *not* affected the climate: only that the models we currently have are not tested well enough to justify this claim.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#66 Oct 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there is a large amount of science that supports AGW. The question, in my mind, is how valid it is. Do the models actually reflect what will happen to the climate? Well, the models are calibrated against the past behavior and the science we know. But truthfully, I am not convinced that they are sufficiently well tested in a rigorous way to be reliable.
That said, I certainly see nothing that would say that humans have *not* affected the climate: only that the models we currently have are not tested well enough to justify this claim.
I could be wrong but if I remember correctly I read somewhere that the sun is continuously growing. Yet some believe while it is growing and getting hotter, it also has cooling periods at times.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#67 Oct 2, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I could be wrong but if I remember correctly I read somewhere that the sun is continuously growing. Yet some believe while it is growing and getting hotter, it also has cooling periods at times.
I'd point out that the evidence of warming if pretty solid (whether caused by humans or not). So either way we have to deal with the climate effects.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#68 Oct 2, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I could be wrong but if I remember correctly I read somewhere that the sun is continuously growing. Yet some believe while it is growing and getting hotter, it also has cooling periods at times.
The Sun varies in its output. Sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker.

The problem is that the warming we see today is unprecedented.

The concept of a "Northwest passage" was a dream when I was growing up. The Arctic ice never melted enough for ships to sail the Arctic ocean. Now it happens every year.

If you look at this graph you will see some very interesting results:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/08/2...

They measure the volume of Arctic sea ice since 1979, for each month. You will see that the volume in April when the ice is at a maximum is down about 40% since 1979. Much more scary is the fact that it is down over 70% in September since 1979.

Here is another graph and shows how the claims of recovery by deniers is a joke:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/11/2...

It shows 13 years of "recovery". As I said, I am not in favor of the political attempts so far to change peoples behavior. A true global warming believer should also be a fan of nuclear energy. Many of them aren't. That leads me to believe that they are political lackeys.

Some facts that ARE undeniable. Doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the temperature 1.2 degrees C without feedback. The questionable part of AGW is how much warming will come from feedback. Even Cod has pointed out that water is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Increasing the temperature 1.2 degrees C will increase the partial pressure due to water vapor. That is an undeniable fact. So there will be some positive feedback. Deniers try to claim that increase will be moderated by cloud cover, but clouds both let heat out and keep heat in. I live in the Pacific Northwest and know that the "warm" winter nights here are largely due to cloud cover. The few sunny periods in the winter are also the coldest days of the year. In the winter we lose more heat due to cloudless nights than we gain in the daytime. Climate science is not easy.

The IPCC had several models and the increases in temperature have been matching the moderate models. or has been slightly higher:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/04403...

So Cod, do you have anything besides your idiocy in response?

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#69 Oct 2, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The Sun varies in its output. Sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker.
The problem is that the warming we see today is unprecedented.
The concept of a "Northwest passage" was a dream when I was growing up. The Arctic ice never melted enough for ships to sail the Arctic ocean. Now it happens every year.
If you look at this graph you will see some very interesting results:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/08/2...
They measure the volume of Arctic sea ice since 1979, for each month. You will see that the volume in April when the ice is at a maximum is down about 40% since 1979. Much more scary is the fact that it is down over 70% in September since 1979.
Here is another graph and shows how the claims of recovery by deniers is a joke:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/11/2...
It shows 13 years of "recovery". As I said, I am not in favor of the political attempts so far to change peoples behavior. A true global warming believer should also be a fan of nuclear energy. Many of them aren't. That leads me to believe that they are political lackeys.
Some facts that ARE undeniable. Doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the temperature 1.2 degrees C without feedback. The questionable part of AGW is how much warming will come from feedback. Even Cod has pointed out that water is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Increasing the temperature 1.2 degrees C will increase the partial pressure due to water vapor. That is an undeniable fact. So there will be some positive feedback. Deniers try to claim that increase will be moderated by cloud cover, but clouds both let heat out and keep heat in. I live in the Pacific Northwest and know that the "warm" winter nights here are largely due to cloud cover. The few sunny periods in the winter are also the coldest days of the year. In the winter we lose more heat due to cloudless nights than we gain in the daytime. Climate science is not easy.
The IPCC had several models and the increases in temperature have been matching the moderate models. or has been slightly higher:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/04403...
So Cod, do you have anything besides your idiocy in response?
Yeah I have looked at the artic sea ice many times. Its lows are lower and its highs are lower. Sad thing is not many people believe that. Have a cool summer or cold winter and many say it is all BS.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#70 Oct 2, 2013
Cod wrote:
<quoted text>
What a clown. You want you want today's children to be culled from billions to a few hundred million feudal slaves of the psychopathic elites. BTW, no science supports AGW, you are obviously a bot or a shill and a scumbag for only a scumbag could be a shill.
When did I ever advocate cutting the population of the Earth?

The fact is that sooner or later we will run out of fossil fuels. If we keep putting CO2 back in the atmosphere our temperatures will probably go back to what they were at the time that fossil fuels formed.

Fossil fuels worked fine in the 20th century. Now it is time to move onto a cleaner safer fuel. There is more than enough energy to meet all of our needs if we apply technology properly. Here is a list of energy sources that will not add CO2 to the environment: Nuclear energy, my favorite is a proven safe source of energy, wind energy, weather dependent but growing every year, hydroelectric, this source is pretty much at an optimum right now, tidal, mostly untapped, geothermal, a huge potential source that is untapped, solar, again a huge potential source, and biofuels, still largely untapped.

The solution to this problem is more technology, not less.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#71 Oct 2, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah I have looked at the artic sea ice many times. Its lows are lower and its highs are lower. Sad thing is not many people believe that. Have a cool summer or cold winter and many say it is all BS.
Yes, they are taking advantage of the short memory term of many people. One year of "recovery" and they think there is no problem. Of course that recovery does not amount to much if it is gone in the next year.

I used to be skeptical about AGW. I followed the arguments of many of the anti-AGW crowd. After a while I realized that by their debating techniques that most of them are not skeptics, they are deniers. And the more I looked at the evidence the more I saw that it supports the findings of the IPCC sceintists.

There is a reason that I point out the difference between a skeptic and a denier. A true skeptic will look at both sides of an argument. A denier will look at only one side. Cod is a denier. He has no argument at all. It is rather sad.
Cod

Houston, TX

#72 Oct 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Unemployed? I better let my school district know. They keep giving me paychecks.
Giving is right considering if you dish out the nonsense that you post here then you certainly don't earn it. Hopefully the cash runs out and the school closes. The children would be better off.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#73 Oct 2, 2013
Cod wrote:
<quoted text>
Giving is right considering if you dish out the nonsense that you post here then you certainly don't earn it. Hopefully the cash runs out and the school closes. The children would be better off.
Nonsense? Sez the uneducated hick whose total contribution to the thread has consisted of references to John Cleese, swiss cheese, rat whales, tweetie bird and calling people scumbags.

I believe I may have overrated you. Even a pile of crap can have a use.

Now, do you have any thing of value to say or do you just want to continue to behave like a whiny little kid?
Cod

Houston, TX

#74 Oct 2, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense? Sez the uneducated hick whose total contribution to the thread has consisted of references to John Cleese, swiss cheese, rat whales, tweetie bird and calling people scumbags.
I believe I may have overrated you. Even a pile of crap can have a use.
Now, do you have any thing of value to say or do you just want to continue to behave like a whiny little kid?
Haha uneducated, well dummy let me know if you need any help with Laplace transforms. Oh that's right you couldn't even get past remedial college algebra and trigonometry if your life depended on it. LOL Did you even take general physics? Of course not, even that has a basic college mathematics prerequisite which is beyond your ability or desire to concentrate on order to pass such a rigorous no bull shit the professor course.

So unschooled people like you that have no technical background whatsoever are going to lecture me on the veracity of your hackneyed position on scientific subjects? hahahaha

pass me another cow chip BS-Tard LOLz

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#75 Oct 2, 2013
Cod wrote:
<quoted text>
Haha uneducated, well dummy let me know if you need any help with Laplace transforms. Oh that's right you couldn't even get past remedial college algebra and trigonometry if your life depended on it. LOL Did you even take general physics? Of course not, even that has a basic college mathematics prerequisite which is beyond your ability or desire to concentrate on order to pass such a rigorous no bull shit the professor course.
So unschooled people like you that have no technical background whatsoever are going to lecture me on the veracity of your hackneyed position on scientific subjects? hahahaha
pass me another cow chip BS-Tard LOLz
I'd guess your highest math class was a diffeq class since you think that Laplace transforms are such tough stuff. But they are simply the Gelfand transform for L1(R+) under convolution.

I generally prefer Fourier transforms to Laplace transforms because they are defined for functions defined on the whole real line as opposed to just the ones one the positive real line and the real line is a nice locally compact group. The convolutions are a bit easier to work with also, although I do appreciate the Laplace transforms work on functions that grow quickly at infinity. My first professional paper was related to Laplace transforms as applied to a question about invertibility of measures under convolution. That wasn't the work for my PhD in math (which involved a generalization of the Fourier transform related to Walsh series), but it was fun.

Oh, and I have taken a fair amount of graduate level physics, passing my PhD qualifying exams on the first try. Nobody here studies the physics I want to do and my responsibilities in the math department increased so the PhD in physics is on hold.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#76 Oct 2, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Sub explain again how the largest ever known living species of the past became the little birds we see today and how a little rat sized species of the past became the biggest species(whales) we see today.
Explain how you went from a single cell to a eukaryote organism with 50 trillion cells or so.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#77 Oct 2, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way Sub, what did the T-Rex - Tyrannosaurus evolve to be?
What did your gramps have for breakfast 27 days after his 19th birthday?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#78 Oct 2, 2013
Cod wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a supposition that they are "old" genes.
/pwned again Capt Latte. lol
So what are they then, Capt Cod?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79 Oct 2, 2013
Cod wrote:
<quoted text>
why would I ask a question of a lunatic that believes in the hoax known as AGW?
Why do you hate kittens?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80 Oct 2, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Poly I was just giving Sub a hard time.
Hardly.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#81 Oct 2, 2013
Cod wrote:
<quoted text>
Haha uneducated, well dummy let me know if you need any help with Laplace transforms. Oh that's right you couldn't even get past remedial college algebra and trigonometry if your life depended on it. LOL Did you even take general physics?
Did you take biology? Is the modern evolutionary synthesis currently the best explanation we have so far for biodiversity on Earth? And if not, then what is? Thanks in advance.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 1 hr In Six Days 625
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr SoE 48,383
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 hr Porkncheese 179,706
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 5 hr Porkncheese 6
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 hr Dogen 216,597
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 10 hr scientia potentia... 154,610
Science News (Sep '13) 19 hr _Susan_ 3,980
More from around the web