Posted on 04/21/2014 2:52:15 AM PDT by Olog-hai
As I understand the original rationale behind the "greenhouse gas" hypothesis, CO2 "insulates" because it absorbs (and emits) light energy in a broad band in the infrared--IOW, it has a broad fluorescence band in the IR range. That is the basis of its "reflection" of infrared. The thing is, it absorbs IR energy from all directions, and reemits it in all directions. So there is no net quantity of IR energy being redirected back towards the earth, and thus no net increase in heat directed at the earth. Substances can increase the heat of the atmosphere, by absorbing the energy of visible light and reemitting it as IR light--but CO2 does not do that, since it is transparent within the visible range.
The only thing that anyone ever told me that could account for CO2 increasing the total heat energy content of the atmosphere is that within the fraction of a second where a CO2 molecule has absorbed IR light and not yet emitted it, the CO2 molecule could bump into another atmospheric molecule (e.g. N3 or O2) and transfer that extra energy to it. That would increase the kinetic energy of that molecule, which would manifest as heat.
Anyway, I hope I did not become hopelessly technical here.
I do not know what you are talking about, "mixing fact with fiction." Even within the period of written history--about 6,000 years--humans have changed. Our teeth have become smaller, for one thing, and that is just one change out of many. Look at every plant and animal that has been domesticated; it is drastically different than its wild forebears (if they still exist; not all of them do).
It would be wonderful if microorganisms did not evolve. Then we wouldn't have to spend billions of dollars developing new antibiotics, antivirals, and vaccines to try to stay ahead of them. Haven't you ever wondered why a new flu vaccine is made every year? It is because the influenza virus changes its genetic material--that is, it evolves--so as to escape our immune system. Otherwise, we'd get the flu once and be immune forever. It only takes a few months to make a new flu vaccine, and even in that short time, flu viruses can evolve enough to make the vaccine almost useless.
As a life scientist, I have to deal with evolution all the time. Evolution is as central to life science as electromagnetism is to physics.
You’re doing it again. (Apologies to the late Ronald Reagan.)
“Every plant and animal that has been domesticated” is still the same species as it was prior to domestication; no species has changed into another. A degenerate genome is not evolution; in fact, it’s a purported antithesis to evolution.
Adaptation of the same organism without a change to the organism is still not evolution. Overuse of anything (including antibiotics) creates a biological tolerance; this is anything but evolutionary. Furthermore, flu viruses are staying flu viruses notwithstanding.
As a life scientist, you should stick strictly to the scientific method and abandon Greek mythology. Promoting evolution is promoting the old Greek pagan religion.
PS. A scientist making apples/oranges comparison? Electromagnetism is a real and practical phenomenon, upon which our technology is based. Evolution remains a theory; there is no law of evolution like we have laws of electromagnetism (Maxwell’s equations for example). Please cease from debasing yourself as a scientist.
Denying reality doesn't make it any less real.
Electromagnetic theory. Gravitational theory. Evolutionary theory. Scientists all work within the framework of theory; science could not advance otherwise.
It is not my problem that you choose to reject science in favor of creationism, nor am I or the thousands of other scientists who study life science somehow “debasing” ourselves because we work in the realm of hard evidence.
BTW, the fact that humans have been able to selectively breed traits more favorable to domestication into every domestic species is a direct consequence of evolution. Without evolution, no amount of selective breeding would do anything, because genomes would be static, unchanging, and unchangeable. Corn did not exist before humans got the idea of breeding teosinte several thousand years ago.
P.S. Don’t bother pelting me with reams of anti-science. You can’t possibly convince me to stop being convinced by evidence, and there is not a thing you can do to convince the countless thousands of other scientists who work with various aspects of evolution to stop. We are going to keep on researching no matter what you want or how much anti-science you express here.
P.P.S. It is clear that you have no interest in expanding your scientific knowledge. I have no desire to further engage with someone who does not want to learn.
OK, I see what you mean. Yes, that's true. But in the case of CO2 in the atmosphere it's an imbalance because the incoming energy from the sun heats the earth, which radiates infrared. There's more infrared coming from below than above.
"Anyway, I hope I did not become hopelessly technical here."
Don't worry, I do technical.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I'm skeptical of AGW actually.
"Calling evolution “observable” is an untruth. Nobody has observed it..."
I'm not sure why you are so vocal about things you don't understand.
Nice try. Electromagnetism is governed by laws, not theory. We wouldn’t have computers if not for this phenomenon; it’s anything but theoretical. There are no such laws with respect to evolution (especially Price’s equation and Fisher’s theorem, both highly controversial among just about all scientists, never mind highly ).
I reject no science (your use of that overused liberal rhetoric further undermines you). What I reject is Greek mysticism that masquerades as science. Those that regard themselves as scientists also ought to reject same, or else start being more honest and refer to themselves as priests instead.
Being “convinced” by certain observations that one’s prejudice insists on calling “evidence” is not scientific either. Please stop pelting me and others with anti-science and bring actual science to the table instead of rhetorical statements.
Nice bit of more liberal rhetoric; now we’re onto the “don’t understand” bit.
The fact is that nobody has observed so-called evolution. Please stop rejecting fact out of hand.
Please stop taking the thread off topic, too.
"In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').[3] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Natural Selection Led To Different Features In Europeans As Recent As 5,000 Years Ago, According To Researchers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3141471/posts
Never mind Olog-hai.
I see you’re in way over your head and don’t know it.
Not when I keep getting hit with rhetoric. Don’t worry about me.
So the claim there is that one of these groups is not human? All I see are references to change in appearance.
This is not some controversial subject. The word "theory" does not mean what you think it means.
"Scientific laws are not breakable and the phenomena they describe when tested are utterly repeatable and reproducible. Electromagnetism is a phenomenon upon which the computer you are looking at works."
"As for the issue you continue to raise that is not related to the subject of this thread, I will stand with Karl Popper. Scientific method is not something to be abused."
It's ironic that you would bring up Popper right after saying, "Scientific laws are not breakable". Popper would tell you that you can never know for certain that a "law" is true. You can only know for certain when it's false.
"Scientific laws" are just more compact ways to express the conclusions of theory. We refer to the "law of gravity" and its related equation rather than cite Newton's entire theory. But like theories, there's no guarantee that "laws" are certain either. In fact the Newtonian "law of gravity" isn't quite correct and was refined by Einstein.
I'm afraid you aren't in a position to be lecturing on the scientific method.
That's what urinating into the wind does for you.
High-handed responses do not befit those who engage in science. Leave that to the liberals and take the high road.
Scientific law does not describe theory; it’s the other way around (to wit, the theory seeks to answer “What is electromagnetism” versus “What does electromagnetism do” when related to this particular phenomenon). As for the off-topic subject you insist on persisting to discuss, there aren’t any scientific laws to fit with it; there are a number of unrelated observations that a zealous cadre are desperately trying to stitch together in an unscientific way. But we do have freedom of religion in the USA, so I try not to treat such devotees as spitefully as they want to treat me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.