Atlantis Online
December 08, 2019, 01:23:05 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Remains of ancient civilisation discovered on the bottom of a lake
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071227/94372640.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Suger and cream, please

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Suger and cream, please  (Read 293 times)
andre
Full Member
***
Posts: 24



WWW
« on: September 15, 2007, 01:57:14 pm »

Hi All,

So I just made a nostalgic visit at Atlantis Rising to find two old PM's inviting me over here.

So here I am. I like the coffee hot please.

So my research gradually diverted more on quartenary science gradually as it is the main driver for the climate hype. Putting that more in perspective is my main objective now. But I'm happy to do some objective Atlantis thinking.

For those who are interested in that, you might have a look in my new main forum. 

I hope that the link is not considered spamming. After all there is no Atlantis in that forum, just Earth science.

http://earth.myfastforum.org/index.php
Report Spam   Logged

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge." (Daniel Joseph Boorstin)

Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2007, 02:58:05 pm »

Hi Andre,

Welcome to the forum.  I don't think anyone will mind you putting a link up, the mods are pretty laid back here.

I actually just had a look at your forum, would it be fair to characterize your position as anti-human activity as the cause of global warming or are you simply trying to cut through the hype? 

We also have an Earth Changes forum here, too, where we try and print all the latest information on global warming.  What is lacking is the original research papers.  Do you know where we can find any of the current IPCC papers that aren't printed in PDFs? 
Report Spam   Logged
Dawn Moline
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1943



« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2007, 03:31:36 pm »

Welcome to the forum, Andre.  Of course, our forum has evolved into one not simply about Atlantis, but everything under the sun. 

Good luck with yours as well. The more information we have on saving the planet, the more earth minded we all are, the better off we'll all be.

Cheers,

Dawn
Report Spam   Logged

"The unexamined life is one not worth leading."
-Plato
HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3278


HUH?


« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2007, 11:29:55 am »

Quote
So here I am. I like the coffee hot please.



(_)>  Cream or sugar?

Nice to make your aquaintence to by the way.
I'll drop by to check out your forum. I belong to a few different ones.
 Smiley

This one is my home though, LOL.
Some of the most unbias and best information on these subjects are posted.
In regaurds to Earth Science; The most serious problem we face is ourselves.
At some point, the everyday people like you and I will eventually need to make the step toward a brighter future. If we wait for scientists and goverment to take these steps. We may never have the chance to see it happen in this life time or the next 5 generations until disaster strikes and we're left with no choice.
As history shows us!

Cheers! And Welcome....
« Last Edit: September 16, 2007, 11:42:53 am by HereForNow » Report Spam   Logged

HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3278


HUH?


« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2007, 11:33:06 am »

Quote
The more information we have on saving the planet, the more earth minded we all are, the better off we'll all be.

I agree completely my dear.
This is part of why I like geology so much.
What happened before can and might happen again, and being mindful of these things can help preserve life.
Report Spam   Logged

andre
Full Member
***
Posts: 24



WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2007, 01:46:47 pm »

Thanks everyone,

So it seems that the Atlantis name is more symbolic for the quest of not understood history the Earth. That's excellent.

The objective of saving the planet is nobel of course. But apart from trying to balance civilisation with natural life (essential) there is not a lot we can do. Study of the geologic past may only reveal in more detail what our descendants may be watching helplessy, sometimes in the distant future.

What that may be, we don't know yet. But what the climatologists think now is definitily wrong. Only one way to find out, picture a jig saw puzzle but the depiction is unknown. So you have an idea about what it can be and then you start trying to fit all pieces of the puzzle to fit that depiction. But if you find pieces that won't fit, you have to face that your idea is wrong. So you need a better idea and start all anew. One day you might stuble upon a picture into which all the pieces fit.

Also, specialists simply cannot solve that puzzle. They may know all about the sky in the picture, but too little about the ocean and the land to figure it all out. We need sophisticated generalists, people who know more about oceanography than any paleobotanologist, who knows more about astrophysics than any glaciologist, who knows more about geophysics than any paleontologist, but most of all, somebody who knows the physics, knowing which is physically possible and which is baloney.
Report Spam   Logged

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge." (Daniel Joseph Boorstin)
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2007, 03:56:54 pm »

Hi Andre,

Quote
The objective of saving the planet is nobel of course. But apart from trying to balance civilisation with natural life (essential) there is not a lot we can do.

Sure there is.  The Montreal Protocol is a perfect example of how international cooperation can solve a problem.  It was signed in 1987 and the trend towards ozone depleting gasses is moving downwards.

Climate change is a complex subject, with more than one variable affecting it, but getting a hold of CO2 is bound to bring about benefits.  Will it solve the global warming problem entirely?  No, we would have had to change our mindthink a lot earlier to do that, but, like the ozone problem, we will get a better handle on it.

Report Spam   Logged
andre
Full Member
***
Posts: 24



WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2007, 04:09:36 pm »

There you are, only one day and some five posts and we're already onto the inevitable conflict. Let's say that after ample scrutnizing of the paleoclimatal evidence and it's interpretations, I cannot but conclude that the role of greenhouse gasses in climate are highly overrated. Consequently, reducing a little bit of something that has only very little effect, isn't really that "controlling".

A fraction of that research can be found in my home forum, but there is a whole lot more.
Report Spam   Logged

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge." (Daniel Joseph Boorstin)
Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2007, 06:17:06 pm »

Hi Andre,

I hope you don't mind a little friendly disagreement.  I have been to your forum and there is some nice work being done there. However, finding a few inconstencies here and there in a theory does not, in itself disqualify the theory, nor also form a counter-theory.  That is sort of the same argument that creationists use to try and disprove evolution, and I sort of think we should be above it.  There is nothing wrong with asking valid questions, but there are too many people in the skeptic camp that come to the argument with an agenda.  Ideally, scientists should come to the whole topic without any agenda whatsoever and simply report their observations.

Science constantly realigns it's ideas as new data comes about. The fact that most of the data has only firmed up the consensus speaks for itself.

I'd be happy to discuss global warming with you here if you are ever game.
Report Spam   Logged
Rachel Dearth
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 4460



« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2007, 09:26:37 pm »

That's cool, everyone is entitled to their own views on global warming, which, apparently has fallen into the same category as religion and politics as a "tabbo" subject to talk about. Welcome to the forum, Andre.
Report Spam   Logged
HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3278


HUH?


« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2007, 09:35:57 pm »

Question: Is the temperature of the center of the Earth cooling? It
would seem that the temperature of the core at several thousand degrees would lose heat to space over time. Even considering the mass of the
Earth, the long time that the Earth has had to cool would have been sufficient to reduce the temperature. Just being under tremendous
gravitation pressure would not, in itself, generate heat if the pressure
were static? Your input would be appreciated. thanks.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Answer: The earth would have cooled to an icy cinder many years ago were it not for the decay of radioactive nuclei (principally uranium 238, thorium 232, and potassium 40). Of course, the amounts of these heat-generating nuclei have decayed over time, so their consequent heat output has also fallen. Unless there is some other source of energy in the earth's core that is not accounted for, the temperature MUST be lower than in the past.
Great passage from your forum by the way... Andre.

http://earth.myfastforum.org/index.php

Remember this? Now all we have to do is smelt more lead? Or perhaps refine it back to it's former state which just so happens to be the above materials.   Wink
This find is how they came up with the presently excepted age of our planet.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2007, 09:38:33 pm by HereForNow » Report Spam   Logged

andre
Full Member
***
Posts: 24



WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2007, 12:59:29 am »

Unless there is some other source of energy in the earth's core that is not accounted for, the temperature MUST be lower than in the past.

yes there is a source of energy, core mantle friction, Read the Venus thread.
http://earth.myfastforum.org/The_Venus_idea_about38.html

Due to different gyroscopic properties the solid inner core of a planet has another precession logic than it's mantle causing all kinds of trouble in the fluid outer core. That's probably the singlemost underestimated feature in geophysics, IMO accountable for a lot of unexplained phenomena. The question remains how.

Report Spam   Logged

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge." (Daniel Joseph Boorstin)
andre
Full Member
***
Posts: 24



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2007, 01:05:47 am »

Hi Andre,

I hope you don't mind a little friendly disagreement.  I have been to your forum and there is some nice work being done there. However, finding a few inconstencies here and there in a theory does not, in itself disqualify the theory, nor also form a counter-theory.  That is sort of the same argument that creationists use to try and disprove evolution, and I sort of think we should be above it.  There is nothing wrong with asking valid questions, but there are too many people in the skeptic camp that come to the argument with an agenda.  Ideally, scientists should come to the whole topic without any agenda whatsoever and simply report their observations.

Science constantly realigns it's ideas as new data comes about. The fact that most of the data has only firmed up the consensus speaks for itself.

It would be a good idea to limit the discussion to science, as in truth seeking. That means that there would neither be place for agenda talk (the physical truth is not asking the highest bidder what it should be) nor consensus talk (the physical truth is not determined by the majority). We have to stick to historical observations, suppositions, physics, verifying the suppositions. And that's a big mess as I intend to demonstrate.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2007, 01:07:13 am by andre » Report Spam   Logged

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge." (Daniel Joseph Boorstin)
HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3278


HUH?


« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2007, 03:38:31 pm »

French Roast or Kona?  Grin

I really do have a serious side you know. Just at the moment I'm still in my shop mantality.  Wink
« Last Edit: September 17, 2007, 03:42:59 pm by HereForNow » Report Spam   Logged

Jason
Administrator
Superhero Member
*****
Posts: 1164



« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2007, 03:57:37 pm »

Hi Andre,

Quote
It would be a good idea to limit the discussion to science, as in truth seeking. That means that there would neither be place for agenda talk (the physical truth is not asking the highest bidder what it should be) nor consensus talk (the physical truth is not determined by the majority). We have to stick to historical observations, suppositions, physics, verifying the suppositions. And that's a big mess as I intend to demonstrate.

I'm all for discussing past historical examples as a means to make a point.  However, I think we short-change ourselves by not talking about the consensus. The point is, if the consensus didn't exist, if it was simply James Hansen (from NASA) stating that global warming existed, his ideas could easily be relegated to the theories of one, perhaps eccentric scientist.  The fact that he isn't the only one saying it, that it is a part of a consensus, speaks volumes.  As you know there are a lot of scientific theories out there, very few become accepted as likely, or even "fact."
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy