State Government at it again - Evolution

[Gaspar]

And so we go with this guy's thoughts over yours.

http://ncse.com/news/2013/03/second-antiscience-bill-dies-oklahoma-0014767

Or you could read it.  Not sure how he gets "HB 1674 would write false claims about science into state law," but he has more letters behind his name than I do, so you should go with what he says.

[Townsend]

he has more letters behind his name than I do, so you should go with what he says.

He could be running up and down Sesame Street with a person's hand up his backside talking about the ABC's and your advice should be the same.

[cannon_fodder]

The guy nails it... a trojan horse bill. What else is the point?  We need a law to say a person cannot be punished for having a different view? Of course not.  Unless the point is to argue that flunking me for writing "Jesus did it" for every answer must not be punished by a poor grade.  The bill says nothing shall stop testing as mandated... it doesn't say "this bill explicitly does not give rise to an arguement that a letter grade should be changed based on personal beliefs."

Sorry, Kern did a good job disguising it... but what other point is there?

Additionally, Global Warming as currently understood may be wrong.  It is very popular to cast it in a doubtful light. But some 140000 peered reviewed papers have been published and 99% agree that the cooling trend of the previous 500 years suddenly reversed and drastically began warming shortly after the industrial revolution.  That trend correlates strongly with historical data of warming trends in periods of high CO2 in the atmosphere. Coupled with computer models and lab experiments the evidence is overwhelming.

The details are being debated - what is the ultimate effect? Can the planet self regulate somehow? Would a change in behavior now matter?

But there is a nuanced line between pointing out how science modifies or throws out theories when faced with new evidence, and teaching that something is "just a theory." We are still modifying the theory of gravity, it has not been unified on a sub atomic level... but discouraging the teaching of the theory pfbgravity because it has not been perfected is ludicrous.

I say we test it by encouraging Sally Kern to take a flying leap, at very least off the steps of the capital building where she continues to embarrass the state.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Additionally, Global Warming as currently understood may be wrong.  It is very popular to cast it in a doubtful light. But some 140000 peered reviewed papers have been published and 99% agree that the cooling trend of the previous 500 years suddenly reversed and drastically began warming shortly after the industrial revolution.  That trend correlates strongly with historical data of warming trends in periods of high CO2 in the atmosphere. Coupled with computer models and lab experiments the evidence is overwhelming.

The details are being debated - what is the ultimate effect? Can the planet self regulate somehow? Would a change in behavior now matter?

But there is a nuanced line between pointing out how science modifies or throws out theories when faced with new evidence, and teaching that something is "just a theory." We are still modifying the theory of gravity, it has not been unified on a sub atomic level... but discouraging the teaching of the theory pfbgravity because it has not been perfected is ludicrous.

The correlation of CO2 with warming trends has been observed for 450,000 years worth of data.  Check out the Vostok ice core data presented some time back.  It is very obvious that any and every change in temperature is FOLLOWED by a change in CO2 levels.  The observations of recent data are too short to make any grand conclusions yet.  It IS cause for concern, but the action - if any - that may be needed is nowhere near clear!!  Reducing CO2 may not be the answer - it may be the opposite.  We do not know.

[TheArtist]

The correlation of CO2 with warming trends has been observed for 450,000 years worth of data.  Check out the Vostok ice core data presented some time back.  It is very obvious that any and every change in temperature is FOLLOWED by a change in CO2 levels.  The observations of recent data are too short to make any grand conclusions yet.  It IS cause for concern, but the action - if any - that may be needed is nowhere near clear!!  Reducing CO2 may not be the answer - it may be the opposite.  We do not know.

CO2 warms, period.  

The "lag" that is seen in ice core data (which over the years as the data has become ever better and more precise is getting smaller and smaller) is because in those particular instances it's not the CO2 that is starting the warming but things like the milankovitch cycles, solar maximum/minimums, etc.  BUT, even here it was expected that as those cycles began they would trigger more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere (which again warms) REINFORCING the initial starting factor.  

In other words, we can predict the amount of warming that should likely occur due to those cycles, BUT the amount of warming that actually happens is far greater... one main reason, CO2.  It's called "feedback".  

Look at it yet another way.  Today we see that the warming (and we should be in a cooling trend) is being FOLLOWED by more ice melting at the north pole.  Can you then argue that the melting ice can then cause the earth to get warmer?  Yes you can.  Less ice/more water = more heat being absorbed versus being reflected.  Also, more exposed ocean water and higher winds over those areas allows more CO2 to be released from the oceans into the atmosphere.  Also, as the oceans warm (for whatever combination of reasons) frozen methane deposits can be released, and as the earth warms (for whatever combination of reasons) permafrost thaws more and releases more gasses that warm the atmosphere, etc.  

The orbital "cycles" aren't enough to alone cause the amount of climate change we see over time.  They do however trigger/force the reinforcing mechanisms which do then cause the larger amounts of climate change we see.   BOTH the Melankovitch cycles AND increased CO2 can cause warming, as does more methane in the atmosphere, less ice at the poles, 11 year solar maximums, etc. etc.    In the over all scheme of things, the CO2 reinforcement (more and more CO2) results in more warming than the "cycles" alone.

Google...  (myth CO2 lags warming climate change) for more info.  

[Red Arrow]

CO2 warms, period.  

The "lag" that is seen in ice core data (which over the years as the data has become ever better and more precise is getting smaller and smaller) is because in those particular instances it's not the CO2 that is starting the warming but things like the milankovitch cycles, solar maximum/minimums, etc.  BUT, even here it was expected that as those cycles began they would trigger more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere (which again warms) REINFORCING the initial starting factor.  

In other words, we can predict the amount of warming that should likely occur due to those cycles, BUT the amount of warming that actually happens is far greater... one main reason, CO2.  It's called "feedback".  

Look at it yet another way.  Today we see that the warming (and we should be in a cooling trend) is being FOLLOWED by more ice melting at the north pole.  Can you then argue that the melting ice can then cause the earth to get warmer?  Yes you can.  Less ice/more water = more heat being absorbed versus being reflected.  Also, more exposed ocean water and higher winds over those areas allows more CO2 to be released from the oceans into the atmosphere.  Also, as the oceans warm (for whatever combination of reasons) frozen methane deposits can be released, and as the earth warms (for whatever combination of reasons) permafrost thaws more and releases more gasses that warm the atmosphere, etc.  

The orbital "cycles" aren't enough to alone cause the amount of climate change we see over time.  They do however trigger/force the reinforcing mechanisms which do then cause the larger amounts of climate change we see.   BOTH the Melankovitch cycles AND increased CO2 can cause warming, as does more methane in the atmosphere, less ice at the poles, 11 year solar maximums, etc. etc.    In the over all scheme of things, the CO2 reinforcement (more and more CO2) results in more warming than the "cycles" alone.

Google...  (myth CO2 lags warming climate change) for more info.  

Do all your oscillators amplify and all your amplifiers oscillate?

[TheArtist]

Do all your oscillators amplify and all your amplifiers oscillate?

No and yes.

[cannon_fodder]

I didn't mean to choose an example that deviated the topic.  Just an example to show how scientific debate can be framed.  If someone interjected into the CO2 argument and said that the bible says only God creates heat, everyone would agree that is not a viable topic for educational study outside theology.

Yet in biology for some reason that debate is still going on.

[Conan71]

I didn't mean to choose an example that deviated the topic.  Just an example to show how scientific debate can be framed.  If someone interjected into the CO2 argument and said that the bible says only God creates heat, everyone would agree that is not a viable topic for educational study outside theology.

Yet in biology for some reason that debate is still going on.

I suspect massive amounts of corned beef and cabbage consumed yesterday is contributing to an increase in green house gasses today.

[Hoss]

I suspect massive amounts of corned beef and cabbage consumed yesterday is contributing to an increase in green house gasses today.

I spent almost all my day on I-44 between St. Louis and here.  Drove through the worst rainstorm I've driven in since I lived in Houston.  Only to get here and see we got zero rain.

What a way to spend St. Pattie's Day.  I was so tired I didn't even drink when I got home.

But the weekend made up for it.

[custosnox]

Or you could read it.  Not sure how he gets "HB 1674 would write false claims about science into state law," but he has more letters behind his name than I do, so you should go with what he says.

Of course some of us read it and realized exactly what it was, an attempt to back door ID into the science room, because it seems that the right does not understand the term "scientific theory."  It does not mean "my guess on it is that this happened.".  It means that it is based on scientific evidence, and has been proven to exist, even if we don't fully understand all the details of it.  When it comes right down to it, this bill had no other  intent than that, and this misunderstanding of scientific theory would have caused all kinds of strife. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

No and yes.

It's "yes and no"  AND "yes and no"....

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yet in biology for some reason that debate is still going on.

Reason;  ignorance and superstition.