Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[RPDBlueMoon]

Thinking further who is to say those life forms would not have formed in the absence of the sun? If this ball of rock hit enough other balls of rock to become molten and capture water. As it cooled deep in the oceans these lifeforms could have formed.

Without the sun Earth, and the other planets would fall out of orbit and literally drift off into space which would present its own set of problems lol. Really don't see how life could exist in that state, on top of the temperature going down to 0 degrees F and then -100 F

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

The earth's core is molten, so if the sun winked out today those organisms and animals would live for a very long time. Till the core cooled.

So we are both right.

Ok, so humans don’t need food or water for their survival either.
Glad we cleared that up.
I mean, if you can survive “for a while” that must be true right?

 

[Burkey]

Thinking further who is to say those life forms would not have formed in the absence of the sun? If this ball of rock hit enough other balls of rock to become molten and capture water. As it cooled deep in the oceans these lifeforms could have formed.

Erm...the sun preceded the Earth by a substantial margin....
I guess anything is possible of course.
Maybe Ixtar from the planet Xenu placed some microorganisms on a rock that he launched into outer space, like a cosmic message in a bottle.
Evidence? Zero.

 

[K4fxd]

Maybe Ixtar from the planet Xenu placed some microorganisms on a rock that he launched into outer space, like a cosmic message in a bottle.

It's very possible the earth was seeded......

 

[sk47]

The earth's core is molten, so if the sun winked out today those organisms and animals would live for a very long time. Till the core cooled.

So we are both right.

Hello; I will reply to you as replying to the twins will become twisted anyway. I hope this will illustrate what I already contend about their responses. Either one will misrepresent what you or I state.
I did not say nor imply that the deep sea vent ecosystem was possible without the sun's existence.

Here is my statement. " the theory that all life was sustained by the sun. I grew up thinking those two were true, yet new evidence put both old theories into the trash bin. "

The sun sustains life thru photosynthesis and of course warmth. The deep sea vents are sustained by the heat from the volcanic vents and the minerals in the vent water. As you stated a bacterium can use the vent minerals and heat.
I did grow up thinking those two things were true. As an adult and with training in science I learned that even theories in place for decades can change with new evidence.

The key term in that case was sustained. The twist in this case was more subtle than in some past examples to be sure, but a twist none the less.

I get the twins are true believers. They seem genuine in their beliefs. Unfortunately in their zeal they are willing to resort to underhanded gimmicks and word tricks.

 

[Burkey]

It's very possible the earth was seeded......

Hello; I will reply to you as replying to the twins will become twisted anyway. I hope this will illustrate what I already contend about their responses. Either one will misrepresent what you or I state.
I did not say nor imply that the deep sea vent ecosystem was possible without the sun's existence.

Here is my statement. " the theory that all life was sustained by the sun. I grew up thinking those two were true, yet new evidence put both old theories into the trash bin. "

The sun sustains life thru photosynthesis and of course warmth. The deep sea vents are sustained by the heat from the volcanic vents and the minerals in the vent water. As you stated a bacterium can use the vent minerals and heat.
I did grow up thinking those two things were true. As an adult and with training in science I learned that even theories in place for decades can change with new evidence.

The key term in that case was sustained. The twist in this case was more subtle than in some past examples to be sure, but a twist none the less.

I get the twins are true believers. They seem genuine in their beliefs. Unfortunately in their zeal they are willing to resort to underhanded gimmicks and word tricks.

It‘s not my fault that you failed to be more specific.
How was anyone to know that what you meant to say was “sunLIGHT“ as opposed to “the sun“?

When you said “gimmicks” just then, did you mean actual “gimmicks” or did you mean to use a different word and I need to guess what you meant?

 

[K4fxd]

How was anyone to know that what you meant to say was “sunLIGHT“ as opposed to “the sun“?

I understood him

 

[Burkey]

I understood him

I’m unsurprised.

 

[Burkey]

One asking for a source for my comment that warming will continue no matter what we do and that with total compliance we may only reduce warming by 1/2 degree

You’re missing the point entirely.
FEEDBACK LOOPS.
What they’re trying to explain is that even if the current CO2 concentration remained static, the planet would continue to warm for a period of time, due to feedback loops.
There is a lag between concentrations and the effect they have. Think of it as turning your heater off. The house doesn’t cool down instantly. Now imagine that you’ve turned off the main heater, but the other heaters are gong to continue to run for a while.
THAT is what you’re missing.
You‘re misinterpreting what they’re saying because you’re missing vital pieces of the puzzle.

For absolute clarity, CO2 doesn’t always lead temp increase, nor is the reverse true. If you want to be even more specific, you can learn that in the past, the hemispheres have reacted differently at different times, for reasons that are well documented.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

 

[CJJon]

Jesus Christs this thread...

So the "theory" that sunlight is required to sustain life is not discarded entirely because one small exception is found. We don't go back to square one and ignore the science up to that point. The explanation behind the data changes, the theory then changes to explain it. IT IS A FEATURE OF THE PROCESS AND NOT A NEGATIVE THING!

Sunlight is required in almost all instanced for life on earth to be sustained. There are some extremophiles that do not. There is bacteria that lives in an otherwise sterile environment that uses the decay of uranium that produces the hydrogen and sulfate they use to survive. Sunlight and O2 kille them. They have been around for about 25 million years, by the way.

Now, so far the data suggests that all life needs liquid water, so the heat of the sun is needed for that.

Also-and this is a huge point-we then cannot use this fact (that there is an exception to the sunlight theory) as evidence or as an explanation why other scientific theories can be discounted and/or ignored-WITHOUT PROOF!

Science does not equal perfection-you need religion for that.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; I will reply to you as replying to the twins will become twisted anyway. I hope this will illustrate what I already contend about their responses. Either one will misrepresent what you or I state.
I did not say nor imply that the deep sea vent ecosystem was possible without the sun's existence.

Here is my statement. " the theory that all life was sustained by the sun. I grew up thinking those two were true, yet new evidence put both old theories into the trash bin. "

The sun sustains life thru photosynthesis and of course warmth. The deep sea vents are sustained by the heat from the volcanic vents and the minerals in the vent water. As you stated a bacterium can use the vent minerals and heat.
I did grow up thinking those two things were true. As an adult and with training in science I learned that even theories in place for decades can change with new evidence.

The key term in that case was sustained. The twist in this case was more subtle than in some past examples to be sure, but a twist none the less.

I get the twins are true believers. They seem genuine in their beliefs. Unfortunately in their zeal they are willing to resort to underhanded gimmicks and word tricks.

"the twins" "misrepresent" "true believers" "underhanded" "gimmicks" "word tricks"

You bias is showing again.

Language is important, even more so in technical fields. Your words are misinterpreted because your language is not precise. It isn't our fault you are not clear.

 

[sk47]

I understood him

Hello; I am fairly sure the twins understood as well. They are sneaky but not dumb. I also figure you noticed the conversation was deflected away from the points I tried to get into the discussion. We wound up with several posts about the use of the word sun versus sunlight.
Same sort of thing could have happened about the way I refer to the term theory if I had taken the bait and tried to argue about it.

The challenges they muster becomes an attempt to belittle my comments and/or belittle my capacity in various ways. I was making a point. The discussion should not be misdirected to a debate about my use of the term theory or sunlight.

We each will get to make up our minds about this climate issue. Unfortunately those on one side hope to stack the deck in favor of what they think is the way to go and are willing to push an agenda onto everyone. This agenda is beginning to take shape in terms of how the lifestyles of millions of people will be changed. I want to know just what I will be expected to change and how it will either cost me or affect my quality of life.

I had hoped for a more "natural" transition into whatever the future may hold. It was expected we were at a "tipping point" for peak oil back in 2004. That was the tune sung by many at the time. Then some tech advances changed things and we now have lots of oil and natural gas available for some time into the future. This new abundance seems to have caused a panic among some. The current abundance of fossil fuels has the chance to push the change they want too far into the future to suit their purposes.

From their point of view they cannot allow us to decide if we wish to stay with a mature technology which uses fossil fuels or try the new tech such as EV's, solar panels, wind turbines and all. They apparently fear too many will stick with ICE vehicles and traditional power generation.

So if they can muster the political and social juice they will push to force a change and do not want to wait for a more natural transition. The proof is how few EV's and solar/ wind units are in use since the early 2000's. Something less than 5% is what I seem to recall. I figure it is because of the several downsides of the technologies. More expensive to buy, range limits and long charging times for EV's, Expensive and very heavy EV battery packs which will have to be replaced after around ten years or so of use. Solar and wind generation currently have some serious limits. In particular what to do when the sun is not shining or the wind does not blow. There are others, such as how to get the power from the sunny/windy places where is is abundant on the old grid to places where it will be needed.

There are some ideas on the drawing boards such as battery storage or very large flywheels to collect the energy during daylight or high winds. That way the excess power can be held to be used at night or when it is calm. May well be some clever combination of things will make solar and wind workable. Maybe some new tech will show up and do well. I am willing to take another look at an EV or solar/wind generators when some of the issues are fixed or improved. I am not very pleased to be forced into a new world order by 2030 /35 where I will not be able to choose a new ICE if I want one.

May be by 2030 or 2035 the limitations of an EV will be overcome and I will voluntarily decide to buy one. That would be the more natural way to transition to a new tech when it makes more sense to me personally.

I have stated several times I think there are more serious and more short term environmental issues we face than climate change. That the outcome of climate change will be in 50 to 100 years or more away is a red flag. Makes me question why that particular issue is being so strongly championed when others are more pressing. I have begun to think it is because there will not be any resolution for decades. The change to the new EV, green energy lifestyle will be long accomplished before we can question it based on outcomes. For sure an idea I cannot "prove", but it has come to mind.

Enough from me for now.

 

[CJJon]

Here you go again

" The challenges they muster becomes an attempt to belittle my comments and/or belittle my capacity in various ways. I was making a point. The discussion should not be misdirected to a debate about my use of the term theory or sunlight. "

This is precisely the point: You are taking things personally, have your own definitions of clearly defined scientific constructs, miss subtleties of language and syntax, and have a very selfish attitude that is clouding your judgement.

When I challenge your ideas and ignorant assumptions you gloss over them and focus on your hurt feelings.

...all from someone who professes to have actually taught the scientific method. Maybe it was a liberal arts school.

 

[sk47]

Hello; I think for the most part I will not respond directly to them. Maybe from time to time to illustrate the tactics they use.

Hello; Here is a link which ought to illustrate how heavy handed the methods might be.
I thought the time line graph was of interest. One item stood out a bit. The part about coal power plants. I know this has been pointed out about how the Chinese are reported to continue to build new coal plants up until 2030. I wonder if those new plants will have all the carbon capture tech?

Sponsored