Remember me
▼ Content

What caused Pleistocene to start around 2 million years ago which had periodic glacial interglacial perio


What caused Pleistocene to start around 2 million years ago which had periodic glacial interglacial periods?30-01-2019 18:48
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Was it because of lowered CO2 level due to fossilization of plants?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene
Edited on 30-01-2019 18:50
30-01-2019 19:09
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Huh? As the ice retracted due to the Milankovitch Cycles and the Solar Cycles and the fact that during an Ice Age there is little to no humidity in the atmosphere and hence NO CLOUDS, plants life grows rapidly. Over the eons this has reduced our original atmosphere of 40% CO2 to 0.04% CO2.

As the ice sheets retreated, what was left behind was extremely heavy forest. This supported very large animals. As these heavy forests used more and more CO2 out of the atmosphere they started to die off due to the rather inefficient use of the carbon. So as the CO2 levels dropped more and more heavy forest was replaced with thinning forest and then with grasslands such as the Great Plains and the African Savana. These supported only smaller animals though some animals were able to evolve to present conditions such as the much heavier and large Mammoth evolving into today's Elephant. And the African elephant being threatened with reducing forest for which it is designed.

As the atmosphere returns to "normal" temperatures oceanic water solubility for CO2 reduces and CO2 is released into the air by the oceans which cover 70% of this Water Planet of ours.

What man is doing by using fossil fuels is releasing the imprisoned carbon back into the atmosphere where it belongs.

It could be argued that man COULD release too much into the atmosphere with his over-population of the globe. But studies show that man strikes a balance with nature at certain population densities compared to his own comfort - families used to be large in order to support their aging members. With the wealth of the globe due to easy access to energy, they no longer need that and every country that reaches this level of comfort indeed greatly reduces family size.

Mother nature, or God if you prefer, knows what is going on and can and will reach a balance in which the man generated CO2 is in balance with that plants use.
30-01-2019 20:39
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Was it because of lowered CO2 level due to fossilization of plants?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene


No. Or not exactly anyway.

The cycling of the glacial-interglacial periods during the pleistocene was definitely correlated with Milankovich cycles, but those cycles also occurred before the glacial-interglacial sequence began. The most accepted explanation for why he glacial-interglacial sequence began has to do with plate tectonics, with the last necessary event being the closure of the connection between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans where Panama is now. That would have altered ocean circulation.

Most accepted explanation, but maybe not the correct one.

The really slow drawdown of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the Cambrian by the burial of the remains of organisms was also a necessary factor, no doubt.
30-01-2019 22:15
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(985)
Wake
It could be argued that man COULD release too much into the atmosphere with his over-population of the globe. But studies show that man strikes a balance with nature at certain population densities compared to his own comfort - families used to be large in order to support their aging members. With the wealth of the globe due to easy access to energy, they no longer need that and every country that reaches this level of comfort indeed greatly reduces family size.


Actually, large families were traditionally the result need for cheap labor, alcohol, and lack of birth control. Back when currency was still worth more than the paper it was printed on, life was hard work, people grew much of their own food, raise stock, basic transportation was walking, or horses. People did their own construction, repairs, and maintenance. The more kids you had, the less work a parent had to do, many of the daily chores could be put off on the kids. You don't get a choice on gender, well not back then anyway. Don't really understand how it's a choice now, but a lot of that progressive liberal stuff doesn't make sense. Anyway, you need a few kids, and a couple of backups couldn't hurt either, since there were accidents and illness, and ObamaCare hadn't been invented yet. Actually, most did their own healing, best they could, and could only hope to get to a doctor, if something serious happened. What do you think adults did, before cell phones, cable TV, video games, internet pornography? Besides, there is a genetic need to breed, spread your seed. The more offspring you produce, the more that will survive, to contribute your attributes to future generation. We aren't that different from any other species, in that regard.
30-01-2019 23:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
still learning wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Was it because of lowered CO2 level due to fossilization of plants?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene


No. Or not exactly anyway.

The cycling of the glacial-interglacial periods during the pleistocene was definitely correlated with Milankovich cycles, but those cycles also occurred before the glacial-interglacial sequence began. The most accepted explanation for why he glacial-interglacial sequence began has to do with plate tectonics, with the last necessary event being the closure of the connection between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans where Panama is now. That would have altered ocean circulation.

Most accepted explanation, but maybe not the correct one.

The really slow drawdown of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the Cambrian by the burial of the remains of organisms was also a necessary factor, no doubt.


I would expect your last answer to be correct. Plants started growing very rapidly after the formation of the Earth. But with a CO2 level of 40% of the atmosphere animal life could not exist even in bacterial stages.

Over eons of time growing plants could not rot and reconvert to atmospheric CO2 completely due to the only means to do so were molds and parasitic plants. This allowed vast amounts of plants to become buried with incomplete reversion. With each plant that was buried under layers of other plants more and more CO2 was removed from the atmosphere.

Remember that CO2 is the combination of one atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen. In this early atmosphere the ground pressure of the atmosphere was a lot higher than today because CO2 is a heavy molecule. So with a CO2 density that high the levels of nitrogen near the ground were low and the levels of CO2 were probably very high with minimal mixing.

So CO2 was worked out of the atmosphere to the levels at which animal life could exist. Bacteria evolved into reptiles and reptiles evolved into small and relatively minor mammals. Then we had the first major extinction event. This is thought to have been either a large meteor strike of a super-volcano that essentially stopped all plant life and hence caused the reptiles to starve to death if they weren't freezing to death from all of the Sun's emissions being held to the far upper reaches of the atmosphere and radiating back into space instead of warming the hard surface of the Earth.

All through this time animals were converting carbon from their food supply - plants - and their O2 intake from the atmosphere back into CO2. So after the age of high CO2 levels the Earth began to find a balance of plants converting CO2 into oxygen and vented into the atmosphere and using the carbon as buildihg blocks for the plant tissue and animals converting O2 into CO2 and therefore having to have an input of carbon to arrive at these conversions. But every day slightly more plants were buried to not reconvert to atmospheric gases and the carbon of their forms became fossil fuels.

Animals consume hydrocarbons to have materials to generate energy to find more hydrocarbons.

Hydro-carbons of different types are the building blocks of all Earth's life. Well, 99.999999% of them. They have discovered some deep sea life forms that are silicon based. But these could not evolve because the elemental interconnections of silicon are far too few.
31-01-2019 00:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8656)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Was it because of lowered CO2 level due to fossilization of plants?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene


No. Or not exactly anyway.

The cycling of the glacial-interglacial periods during the pleistocene was definitely correlated with Milankovich cycles, but those cycles also occurred before the glacial-interglacial sequence began. The most accepted explanation for why he glacial-interglacial sequence began has to do with plate tectonics, with the last necessary event being the closure of the connection between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans where Panama is now. That would have altered ocean circulation.

Most accepted explanation, but maybe not the correct one.

The really slow drawdown of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the Cambrian by the burial of the remains of organisms was also a necessary factor, no doubt.


I would expect your last answer to be correct.
Why?
Wake wrote:
Plants started growing very rapidly after the formation of the Earth.

How do you know? Were you there?
Wake wrote:
But with a CO2 level of 40% of the atmosphere animal life could not exist even in bacterial stages.

How do you know how much CO2 was in the air back then? Did you measure it? Were you there? We can't even measure the global CO2 concentration today! We don't anywhere near enough stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
Over eons of time growing plants could not rot and reconvert to atmospheric CO2 completely due to the only means to do so were molds and parasitic plants.

How do you know? Were you there? You're guessing, Wake.
Wake wrote:
This allowed vast amounts of plants to become buried with incomplete reversion. With each plant that was buried under layers of other plants more and more CO2 was removed from the atmosphere.
How do you know? Where you there?
Wake wrote:
Remember that CO2 is the combination of one atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen. In this early atmosphere the ground pressure of the atmosphere was a lot higher than today because CO2 is a heavy molecule.
How do you know how much CO2 was in the atmosphere, Wake? Were you there?
Wake wrote:
So with a CO2 density that high the levels of nitrogen near the ground were low and the levels of CO2 were probably very high with minimal mixing.
Extension of your guessing.
Wake wrote:
So CO2 was worked out of the atmosphere to the levels at which animal life could exist.
How do you know? Were you there?
Wake wrote:
Bacteria evolved into reptiles and reptiles evolved into small and relatively minor mammals.
How do you know? Were you there? Did you know that the Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science, Wake? It is just the same as the Theory of Creation. Neither are science. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. Both theories remain circular arguments...and religions.
Wake wrote:
Then we had the first major extinction event.
You mean that layer devoid of fossils in the soil? Did the extinction of any animal (including any dinosaur) occur at that time, or just near that time and the layer is unrelated to any extinctions?

You're guessing, Wake.
Wake wrote:
This is thought to have been either a large meteor strike of a super-volcano that essentially stopped all plant life and hence caused the reptiles to starve to death if they weren't freezing to death from all of the Sun's emissions being held to the far upper reaches of the atmosphere and radiating back into space instead of warming the hard surface of the Earth.
WTF??? Doesn't this go against your argument for how the Sun heats the Earth, Wake? Which is it, dude??
Wake wrote:
All through this time animals were converting carbon from their food supply - plants - and their O2 intake from the atmosphere back into CO2. So after the age of high CO2 levels the Earth began to find a balance of plants converting CO2 into oxygen and vented into the atmosphere and using the carbon as buildihg blocks for the plant tissue and animals converting O2 into CO2 and therefore having to have an input of carbon to arrive at these conversions. But every day slightly more plants were buried to not reconvert to atmospheric gases and the carbon of their forms became fossil fuels.
How do you know all this history, Wake? Were you there?
Wake wrote:
Animals consume hydrocarbons to have materials to generate energy to find more hydrocarbons.

WRONG. Animals do not generally consume hydrocarbons. We don't eat oil or coal. Some bacteria do, though.
Wake wrote:
Hydro-carbons of different types are the building blocks of all Earth's life.

WRONG. Carbohydrates are the food that generally everything eats, not hydrocarbons. Go study some chemistry and biology books.
Wake wrote:
Well, 99.999999% of them.

WRONG. We eat carbohydrates, not hydrocarbons, Wake.
Wake wrote:
They have discovered some deep sea life forms that are silicon based.

There is no deep sea life that is silicon based. There is no life that is silicon based. Not on Earth, anyway, and not likely to be found on any other planet either. Silicon is too heavy and unable to form the complex compounds necessary to life.
Wake wrote:
But these could not evolve because the elemental interconnections of silicon are far too few.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'elemental interconnections'.


The Parrot Killer
31-01-2019 17:25
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(164)
Woooooooooooooooow... Wake sure knows A LOT about history that no one directly experienced...
31-01-2019 20:37
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(985)
Plants are fairly complex, doubt they were the first life forms. Likely it was bacteria, or similar single-cell critters. Then, maybe molds and fungus, sort of in between plant and animal. Everything else evolved, by being better at feeding off the environment, or better at not being the meal, least long enough to reproduce.

There is also the biblical explanation, the big guy in the sky, experimented some, before planting the garden, and creating mankind. The big flood was to get rid of some of the weirder or stuff, and get a fresh start, for his better work.

Then, there's the extraterrestrial origin of life. Either some space aliens stopped by, partied for a while, and left a few seed-soaked towels and sheets behind. Or, a chunk of a destroyed inhabited planet slammed into our planet, leaving so DNA behind.
31-01-2019 21:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Plants are fairly complex, doubt they were the first life forms. Likely it was bacteria, or similar single-cell critters. Then, maybe molds and fungus, sort of in between plant and animal. Everything else evolved, by being better at feeding off the environment, or better at not being the meal, least long enough to reproduce.

There is also the biblical explanation, the big guy in the sky, experimented some, before planting the garden, and creating mankind. The big flood was to get rid of some of the weirder or stuff, and get a fresh start, for his better work.

Then, there's the extraterrestrial origin of life. Either some space aliens stopped by, partied for a while, and left a few seed-soaked towels and sheets behind. Or, a chunk of a destroyed inhabited planet slammed into our planet, leaving so DNA behind.
Maybe you'd like to show us a bacteria that can survive in probably what was 60%+ CO2 on the surface of the Earth.
31-01-2019 21:28
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(985)
That's kind of an odd request, specially since there is no way to know how much CO2 was there... It's just guess, a fantasy, like much of the IPCC scenario work.
31-01-2019 23:27
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(164)
HarveyH55 wrote:
That's kind of an odd request, specially since there is no way to know how much CO2 was there... It's just guess, a fantasy, like much of the IPCC scenario work.


An odd request indeed... Wake's anger issues cloud his reasoning skills...
01-02-2019 00:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8656)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Plants are fairly complex, doubt they were the first life forms. Likely it was bacteria, or similar single-cell critters. Then, maybe molds and fungus, sort of in between plant and animal. Everything else evolved, by being better at feeding off the environment, or better at not being the meal, least long enough to reproduce.

There is also the biblical explanation, the big guy in the sky, experimented some, before planting the garden, and creating mankind. The big flood was to get rid of some of the weirder or stuff, and get a fresh start, for his better work.

Then, there's the extraterrestrial origin of life. Either some space aliens stopped by, partied for a while, and left a few seed-soaked towels and sheets behind. Or, a chunk of a destroyed inhabited planet slammed into our planet, leaving so DNA behind.


You have stated both the Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Creation here (the Theory of Creation includes the alien scenario).

Neither theory is a theory of science. The Theory of Evolution, which is compatible with both the Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Creation, is also not a theory of science.

They are all non-scientific theories. None of them are falsifiable.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2019 00:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8656)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Plants are fairly complex, doubt they were the first life forms. Likely it was bacteria, or similar single-cell critters. Then, maybe molds and fungus, sort of in between plant and animal. Everything else evolved, by being better at feeding off the environment, or better at not being the meal, least long enough to reproduce.

There is also the biblical explanation, the big guy in the sky, experimented some, before planting the garden, and creating mankind. The big flood was to get rid of some of the weirder or stuff, and get a fresh start, for his better work.

Then, there's the extraterrestrial origin of life. Either some space aliens stopped by, partied for a while, and left a few seed-soaked towels and sheets behind. Or, a chunk of a destroyed inhabited planet slammed into our planet, leaving so DNA behind.
Maybe you'd like to show us a bacteria that can survive in probably what was 60%+ CO2 on the surface of the Earth.


How do you know the CO2 concentration of that time, Wake? Were you there?


The Parrot Killer
02-02-2019 00:18
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(985)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Plants are fairly complex, doubt they were the first life forms. Likely it was bacteria, or similar single-cell critters. Then, maybe molds and fungus, sort of in between plant and animal. Everything else evolved, by being better at feeding off the environment, or better at not being the meal, least long enough to reproduce.

There is also the biblical explanation, the big guy in the sky, experimented some, before planting the garden, and creating mankind. The big flood was to get rid of some of the weirder or stuff, and get a fresh start, for his better work.

Then, there's the extraterrestrial origin of life. Either some space aliens stopped by, partied for a while, and left a few seed-soaked towels and sheets behind. Or, a chunk of a destroyed inhabited planet slammed into our planet, leaving so DNA behind.


You have stated both the Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Creation here (the Theory of Creation includes the alien scenario).

Neither theory is a theory of science. The Theory of Evolution, which is compatible with both the Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Creation, is also not a theory of science.

They are all non-scientific theories. None of them are falsifiable.


They aren't even theories, just imagination, much like global warming. Nothing to observe or compare with, nothing to test, just faith, and belief. You can present a convincing argument, possibly get some to agree, sort of a consensus of followers. Of course, those have blindly given their faith, heart, and soul to one of these 'scenarios', it's tough to break, and they will fight and kill, rather than believe any other way. Evolution has inbreeding (democrats, mostly) and a stagnated gene pool. Creation has the book of revelations. Not sure about space aliens, little far out there for me, war of the worlds? And of course, the IPCC has bad weather, like we have never seen, scorched earth, dead polar bears and penguins, the horror of it. Still scratching my head... but this past week's record cold temperatures across most of the continent, was caused by global warming.
02-02-2019 03:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8656)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Plants are fairly complex, doubt they were the first life forms. Likely it was bacteria, or similar single-cell critters. Then, maybe molds and fungus, sort of in between plant and animal. Everything else evolved, by being better at feeding off the environment, or better at not being the meal, least long enough to reproduce.

There is also the biblical explanation, the big guy in the sky, experimented some, before planting the garden, and creating mankind. The big flood was to get rid of some of the weirder or stuff, and get a fresh start, for his better work.

Then, there's the extraterrestrial origin of life. Either some space aliens stopped by, partied for a while, and left a few seed-soaked towels and sheets behind. Or, a chunk of a destroyed inhabited planet slammed into our planet, leaving so DNA behind.


You have stated both the Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Creation here (the Theory of Creation includes the alien scenario).

Neither theory is a theory of science. The Theory of Evolution, which is compatible with both the Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Creation, is also not a theory of science.

They are all non-scientific theories. None of them are falsifiable.


They aren't even theories, just imagination, much like global warming. Nothing to observe or compare with, nothing to test, just faith, and belief.

Actually, they are ALL theories, just not scientific ones.

A theory is an explanatory argument. The Theory of Abiogenesis explains how life came to exist on Earth today. The Theory of Creation also explains how life came to exist on Earth today. These two theories mutually exclusive, at least one of them MUST be False.

The Theory of Evolution explains how the variety of life came to exist today. Because it assumes that life today came from simpler life forms (at some unspecified level), and because these are unobserved past events, the theory is not falsifiable.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You can present a convincing argument, possibly get some to agree, sort of a consensus of followers. Of course, those have blindly given their faith, heart, and soul to one of these 'scenarios', it's tough to break, and they will fight and kill, rather than believe any other way. Evolution has inbreeding (democrats, mostly) and a stagnated gene pool. Creation has the book of revelations. Not sure about space aliens, little far out there for me, war of the worlds? And of course, the IPCC has bad weather, like we have never seen, scorched earth, dead polar bears and penguins, the horror of it. Still scratching my head... but this past week's record cold temperatures across most of the continent, was caused by global warming.


ALL theories began as circular arguments. What takes a theory beyond a simple circular argument IS the test of falsifiability. If, and only if, a theory is able to withstand such tests intending to destroy it, and those tests are definable, specific, and produce a specific result, then that theory can stand on more than just a simple circular argument. It is now a theory of science. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. It is only interested in conflicting evidence. The theory itself is all the support a theory of science needs. No theory of science is ever proven. Indeed, no theory at all in an open functional system is ever proven.

Religions are best defined by their common properties. All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. In Christianity, for example, that initial circular argument is that Christ exists, and He is who He says He is. All other arguments in Christianity stem from that initial circular argument. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'.

Hence, I refer to those that believe in 'global warming' or 'climate change' to be members of a religion. A fundamentalist style religion at that. I call this religion the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
03-02-2019 02:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
HarveyH55 wrote:
That's kind of an odd request, specially since there is no way to know how much CO2 was there... It's just guess, a fantasy, like much of the IPCC scenario work.

Certainly it is a guess. But an educated one. We know that the Early atmosphere was composed of Nitrogen and CO2 and we can tell the ratios by geological estimations from the sorts of rocks that formed. We can also tell much by knowing the compositions of the atmospheres of Venus and Mars. Venus has an atmosphere of over 95% CO2 and Mars the same.

We know that the Nitrogen from the formation is still in the atmosphere because it is an inert gas. So the percentage of other more active gases can be approximated fairly closely.

Remember that above I noted that when you have a very high percentage of a heavy gas and a light one that the heavy gas would not mix well with the lighter one. This means that the surface levels of CO2 were much higher than that at the tropopause. From an approximated atmospheric level of 40% CO2 I would estimate the surface levels of about 60%.

Also Oxygen was nearly non-existent as we also can tell from geological studies.

This means that NO animal life even as low as bacteria could exist. While today after eons of time we do have bacteria and other one cell organisms that can exist in very high CO2 atmospheres this is from millions of years of evolution under very heavy competition.

As I said, a theory yes, but an educated one.
03-02-2019 02:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Plants are fairly complex, doubt they were the first life forms. Likely it was bacteria, or similar single-cell critters. Then, maybe molds and fungus, sort of in between plant and animal. Everything else evolved, by being better at feeding off the environment, or better at not being the meal, least long enough to reproduce.

There is also the biblical explanation, the big guy in the sky, experimented some, before planting the garden, and creating mankind. The big flood was to get rid of some of the weirder or stuff, and get a fresh start, for his better work.

Then, there's the extraterrestrial origin of life. Either some space aliens stopped by, partied for a while, and left a few seed-soaked towels and sheets behind. Or, a chunk of a destroyed inhabited planet slammed into our planet, leaving so DNA behind.


You have stated both the Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Creation here (the Theory of Creation includes the alien scenario).

Neither theory is a theory of science. The Theory of Evolution, which is compatible with both the Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Creation, is also not a theory of science.

They are all non-scientific theories. None of them are falsifiable.


They aren't even theories, just imagination, much like global warming. Nothing to observe or compare with, nothing to test, just faith, and belief.

Actually, they are ALL theories, just not scientific ones.

A theory is an explanatory argument. The Theory of Abiogenesis explains how life came to exist on Earth today. The Theory of Creation also explains how life came to exist on Earth today. These two theories mutually exclusive, at least one of them MUST be False.

The Theory of Evolution explains how the variety of life came to exist today. Because it assumes that life today came from simpler life forms (at some unspecified level), and because these are unobserved past events, the theory is not falsifiable.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You can present a convincing argument, possibly get some to agree, sort of a consensus of followers. Of course, those have blindly given their faith, heart, and soul to one of these 'scenarios', it's tough to break, and they will fight and kill, rather than believe any other way. Evolution has inbreeding (democrats, mostly) and a stagnated gene pool. Creation has the book of revelations. Not sure about space aliens, little far out there for me, war of the worlds? And of course, the IPCC has bad weather, like we have never seen, scorched earth, dead polar bears and penguins, the horror of it. Still scratching my head... but this past week's record cold temperatures across most of the continent, was caused by global warming.


ALL theories began as circular arguments. What takes a theory beyond a simple circular argument IS the test of falsifiability. If, and only if, a theory is able to withstand such tests intending to destroy it, and those tests are definable, specific, and produce a specific result, then that theory can stand on more than just a simple circular argument. It is now a theory of science. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. It is only interested in conflicting evidence. The theory itself is all the support a theory of science needs. No theory of science is ever proven. Indeed, no theory at all in an open functional system is ever proven.

Religions are best defined by their common properties. All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. In Christianity, for example, that initial circular argument is that Christ exists, and He is who He says He is. All other arguments in Christianity stem from that initial circular argument. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'.

Hence, I refer to those that believe in 'global warming' or 'climate change' to be members of a religion. A fundamentalist style religion at that. I call this religion the Church of Global Warming.

Is there anything you could get correct?

The Talmud was written from about a thousand different contributors from what was originall word of mouth legends. These people measured time by the livespans of great leaders and had little to no understanding of time.

Save for the understanding of time, there is not one single element that the word of Creation and the Big Bang or whatever you call scientific theories of the beginning of the universe do not almost perfectly match.

Your intelligence was falsified years ago.
03-02-2019 23:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8656)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
That's kind of an odd request, specially since there is no way to know how much CO2 was there... It's just guess, a fantasy, like much of the IPCC scenario work.

Certainly it is a guess. But an educated one.

A guess is not 'educated', Wake.
Wake wrote:
We know that the Early atmosphere was composed of Nitrogen and CO2

Yup. Just like today! Don't forget those other gases, though!
Wake wrote:
and we can tell the ratios by geological estimations from the sorts of rocks that formed.

Rocks don't form in the atmosphere, Wake. Most form underground as lava cools.
Wake wrote:
We can also tell much by knowing the compositions of the atmospheres of Venus and Mars. Venus has an atmosphere of over 95% CO2 and Mars the same.

Funny how Venus is so hot and Mars is so cold. Guess CO2 doesn't warm a planet, does it?
Wake wrote:
We know that the Nitrogen from the formation is still in the atmosphere because it is an inert gas.

So is CO2, Wake.
Wake wrote:
So the percentage of other more active gases can be approximated fairly closely.

CO2 is less 'active' than nitrogen, Wake. Among other things, nitrogen can form ammonia when exposed to sunlight, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Remember that above I noted that when you have a very high percentage of a heavy gas and a light one that the heavy gas would not mix well with the lighter one.

You just denied your earlier argument. YOU said CO2 is uniform in the atmosphere. Which is it, Wake?
Wake wrote:
This means that the surface levels of CO2 were much higher than that at the tropopause.

Of course they were. Air pressure decreases with altitude, Wake. The surface level of ALL gases is much higher than at the tropopause.
Wake wrote:
From an approximated atmospheric level of 40% CO2 I would estimate the surface levels of about 60%.

The air pressure at the tropopause is only about 22% of that at the surface, Wake. You are making up numbers again.
Wake wrote:
Also Oxygen was nearly non-existent as we also can tell from geological studies.

Uhhhh...there was WATER on Earth, Wake. That has OXYGEN in it! CO2 has OXYGEN in it!
Wake wrote:
This means that NO animal life even as low as bacteria could exist.

Do you know what an anaerobic organism is? Yes, bacteria and amoebas can exist without free oxygen in the air.
Wake wrote:
While today after eons of time we do have bacteria and other one cell organisms that can exist in very high CO2 atmospheres this is from millions of years of evolution under very heavy competition.

How do you know? Were you there to see this evolution?
Wake wrote:
As I said, a theory yes, but an educated one.

No, not even an 'educated' one. It's based on a religion.


The Parrot Killer
03-02-2019 23:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8656)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Plants are fairly complex, doubt they were the first life forms. Likely it was bacteria, or similar single-cell critters. Then, maybe molds and fungus, sort of in between plant and animal. Everything else evolved, by being better at feeding off the environment, or better at not being the meal, least long enough to reproduce.

There is also the biblical explanation, the big guy in the sky, experimented some, before planting the garden, and creating mankind. The big flood was to get rid of some of the weirder or stuff, and get a fresh start, for his better work.

Then, there's the extraterrestrial origin of life. Either some space aliens stopped by, partied for a while, and left a few seed-soaked towels and sheets behind. Or, a chunk of a destroyed inhabited planet slammed into our planet, leaving so DNA behind.


You have stated both the Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Creation here (the Theory of Creation includes the alien scenario).

Neither theory is a theory of science. The Theory of Evolution, which is compatible with both the Theory of Abiogenesis and the Theory of Creation, is also not a theory of science.

They are all non-scientific theories. None of them are falsifiable.


They aren't even theories, just imagination, much like global warming. Nothing to observe or compare with, nothing to test, just faith, and belief.

Actually, they are ALL theories, just not scientific ones.

A theory is an explanatory argument. The Theory of Abiogenesis explains how life came to exist on Earth today. The Theory of Creation also explains how life came to exist on Earth today. These two theories mutually exclusive, at least one of them MUST be False.

The Theory of Evolution explains how the variety of life came to exist today. Because it assumes that life today came from simpler life forms (at some unspecified level), and because these are unobserved past events, the theory is not falsifiable.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You can present a convincing argument, possibly get some to agree, sort of a consensus of followers. Of course, those have blindly given their faith, heart, and soul to one of these 'scenarios', it's tough to break, and they will fight and kill, rather than believe any other way. Evolution has inbreeding (democrats, mostly) and a stagnated gene pool. Creation has the book of revelations. Not sure about space aliens, little far out there for me, war of the worlds? And of course, the IPCC has bad weather, like we have never seen, scorched earth, dead polar bears and penguins, the horror of it. Still scratching my head... but this past week's record cold temperatures across most of the continent, was caused by global warming.


ALL theories began as circular arguments. What takes a theory beyond a simple circular argument IS the test of falsifiability. If, and only if, a theory is able to withstand such tests intending to destroy it, and those tests are definable, specific, and produce a specific result, then that theory can stand on more than just a simple circular argument. It is now a theory of science. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. It is only interested in conflicting evidence. The theory itself is all the support a theory of science needs. No theory of science is ever proven. Indeed, no theory at all in an open functional system is ever proven.

Religions are best defined by their common properties. All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. In Christianity, for example, that initial circular argument is that Christ exists, and He is who He says He is. All other arguments in Christianity stem from that initial circular argument. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'.

Hence, I refer to those that believe in 'global warming' or 'climate change' to be members of a religion. A fundamentalist style religion at that. I call this religion the Church of Global Warming.

Is there anything you could get correct?

Starting off with your usual bulverism and insults.
Wake wrote:
The Talmud was written from about a thousand different contributors from what was originall word of mouth legends. These people measured time by the livespans of great leaders and had little to no understanding of time.

I'm not talking about the Talmud. WTF??
Wake wrote:
Save for the understanding of time, there is not one single element that the word of Creation and the Big Bang or whatever you call scientific theories of the beginning of the universe do not almost perfectly match.

Why would they be? They are completely separate events, and completely different nonscientific theories.
Wake wrote:
Your intelligence was falsified years ago.

...and ending with your usual insults.


The Parrot Killer
03-02-2019 23:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Yeah, we completely understand what you're saying - that if you drop a lead bar from waist height that you couldn't make an educated guess that it would land on your toe because educated and guess aren't the same thing.

"Where you there"? So you use Stefan-Boltzmann which is a theory but they couldn't possibly know that because you weren't there.

Is there some other pile of Nightmare you could drop?
04-02-2019 00:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8656)
Wake wrote:
Yeah, we completely understand what you're saying - that if you drop a lead bar from waist height that you couldn't make an educated guess that it would land on your toe because educated and guess aren't the same thing.

That's math, Wake. It's not a guess. Guesses aren't 'educated'. I guess you don't know that math either.
Wake wrote:
"Where you there"? So you use Stefan-Boltzmann which is a theory but they couldn't possibly know that because you weren't there.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't about a past unobserved event, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Is there some other pile of Nightmare you could drop?

...and your usual insults.


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2019 00:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Yeah, we completely understand what you're saying - that if you drop a lead bar from waist height that you couldn't make an educated guess that it would land on your toe because educated and guess aren't the same thing.

That's math, Wake. It's not a guess. Guesses aren't 'educated'. I guess you don't know that math either.
Wake wrote:
"Where you there"? So you use Stefan-Boltzmann which is a theory but they couldn't possibly know that because you weren't there.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't about a past unobserved event, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Is there some other pile of Nightmare you could drop?

...and your usual insults.


And yet again you show that you have now answers and hence pretend not to understand the question. Well, at least everyone can plainly see your great knowledge in action.
04-02-2019 21:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8656)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Yeah, we completely understand what you're saying - that if you drop a lead bar from waist height that you couldn't make an educated guess that it would land on your toe because educated and guess aren't the same thing.

That's math, Wake. It's not a guess. Guesses aren't 'educated'. I guess you don't know that math either.
Wake wrote:
"Where you there"? So you use Stefan-Boltzmann which is a theory but they couldn't possibly know that because you weren't there.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't about a past unobserved event, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Is there some other pile of Nightmare you could drop?

...and your usual insults.


And yet again you show that you have now answers and hence pretend not to understand the question. Well, at least everyone can plainly see your great knowledge in action.


More anger an insults. Not even an argument at all, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2019 21:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Yeah, we completely understand what you're saying - that if you drop a lead bar from waist height that you couldn't make an educated guess that it would land on your toe because educated and guess aren't the same thing.

That's math, Wake. It's not a guess. Guesses aren't 'educated'. I guess you don't know that math either.
Wake wrote:
"Where you there"? So you use Stefan-Boltzmann which is a theory but they couldn't possibly know that because you weren't there.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't about a past unobserved event, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Is there some other pile of Nightmare you could drop?

...and your usual insults.


And yet again you show that you have now answers and hence pretend not to understand the question. Well, at least everyone can plainly see your great knowledge in action.


More anger an insults. Not even an argument at all, Wake.


I have no anger but since you respond to nothing else I will continue to insult you as long as you are posting stupid things and presenting them as "science". You cannot even show a passing understanding of science. My estimations of the early atmosphere and the results of that are scientific theory and you believe that it can only be "science" if it is falsifiable. That is because you aren't very bright and don't know that a very large part of science can never be proven and so educated guesses remain a acknowledged part of science. We don't need your crying and carrying on as if you were some sort of teenager.
04-02-2019 23:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8656)
Wake wrote:
I have no anger
Yes you do. Don't lie, Wake.
Wake wrote:
but since you respond to nothing else
But I do. Don't lie, Wake.
Wake wrote:
I will continue to insult you as long as you are posting stupid things
Insults are fallacy, Wake. They don't contribute anything.
Wake wrote:
and presenting them as "science".
Buzzword fallacy. Void argument fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You cannot even show a passing understanding of science.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories, Wake. That's all science is.
Wake wrote:
My estimations of the early atmosphere and the results of that are scientific theory

WRONG. You are making it up. What you described is a religion, not science.
Wake wrote:
and you believe that it can only be "science" if it is falsifiable.
That's right.
Wake wrote:
That is because you aren't very bright

Insults are not an argument, Wake. They are a fallacy.
Wake wrote:
and don't know that a very large part of science can never be proven
NO theory is ever proven, Wake.
Wake wrote:
and so educated guesses remain a acknowledged part of science.

WRONG. A theory is not an educated guess. It is not a guess at all. It is a theory.
Wake wrote:
We don't need your crying and carrying on as if you were some sort of teenager.

And your usual anger and insults.


The Parrot Killer
05-02-2019 00:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
I have no anger
Yes you do. Don't lie, Wake.
Wake wrote:
but since you respond to nothing else
But I do. Don't lie, Wake.
Wake wrote:
I will continue to insult you as long as you are posting stupid things
Insults are fallacy, Wake. They don't contribute anything.
Wake wrote:
and presenting them as "science".
Buzzword fallacy. Void argument fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You cannot even show a passing understanding of science.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories, Wake. That's all science is.
Wake wrote:
My estimations of the early atmosphere and the results of that are scientific theory

WRONG. You are making it up. What you described is a religion, not science.
Wake wrote:
and you believe that it can only be "science" if it is falsifiable.
That's right.
Wake wrote:
That is because you aren't very bright

Insults are not an argument, Wake. They are a fallacy.
Wake wrote:
and don't know that a very large part of science can never be proven
NO theory is ever proven, Wake.
Wake wrote:
and so educated guesses remain a acknowledged part of science.

WRONG. A theory is not an educated guess. It is not a guess at all. It is a theory.
Wake wrote:
We don't need your crying and carrying on as if you were some sort of teenager.

And your usual anger and insults.


You are the one claiming that visible light does not heat anything but only causes chemical changes in the atmosphere whatever the hell that might be.

You are the one claiming that we cannot measure the Mean Global Temperature from orbit because "light isn't heat". Despite your continuous harping on the Stefan-Boltzmann theory which you do not understand.

You are the one saying that heat cannot move through the atmosphere via conduction but only via radiation.

Yeah, not to mention that you are a scientist because you're a certified aircraft mechanic.
05-02-2019 00:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8656)
Wake wrote:
You are the one claiming that visible light does not heat anything but only causes chemical changes

That's right.
Wake wrote:
in the atmosphere whatever the hell that might be.

Never said the changes have to be in the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
You are the one claiming that we cannot measure the Mean Global Temperature from orbit because "light isn't heat".

That's right.
Wake wrote:
Despite your continuous harping on the Stefan-Boltzmann theory which you do not understand.

No, YOU don't understand it. Inversion fallacy. YOU keep trying to change it.
Wake wrote:
You are the one saying that heat cannot move through the atmosphere via conduction but only via radiation.

Never said any such thing. Don't put words in people's mouths, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Yeah, not to mention that you are a scientist because you're a certified aircraft mechanic.

Bigotry. Your continued derogatory remarks about blue collar workers is insulting the people that keep you fed, watered, warm, and comfortable. It lets you drive your car or fly in an airplane somewhere. Fortunately, your kind of arrogance is rare.

Science isn't a credential or a certification, Wake. It is a set of falsifiable theories.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-02-2019 00:39
05-02-2019 20:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
I hate to point this out to you, stupid, but I have worked many "blue collar jobs" be it the military, a BART electronics technician or an part owner in a telephone installation company in San Francisco. It isn't contempt for blue collar workers you detect but for you alone. Had I worked ANY of these blue collar jobs to retirement I would have a far better retirement than I presently have.
05-02-2019 20:59
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(164)
Wake wrote:
I hate to point this out to you, stupid, but I have worked many "blue collar jobs" be it the military, a BART electronics technician or an part owner in a telephone installation company in San Francisco. It isn't contempt for blue collar workers you detect but for you alone. Had I worked ANY of these blue collar jobs to retirement I would have a far better retirement than I presently have.

I dont believe you.
05-02-2019 21:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8656)
Wake wrote:
I hate to point this out to you, stupid, but I have worked many "blue collar jobs" be it the military,

The military isn't a job. It's an organization.
Wake wrote:
a BART electronics technician
You don't know electronics. I don't believe you.
Wake wrote:
or an part owner in a telephone installation company
Part owners don't need to know anything.
Wake wrote:
in San Francisco.
Are you able to FIND San Francisco? You can't even find your own airport!
Wake wrote:
It isn't contempt for blue collar workers you detect but for you alone.
No, it's contempt for the blue collar worker. You think of them as uneducated morons.
Wake wrote:
Had I worked ANY of these blue collar jobs to retirement I would have a far better retirement than I presently have.

Is that why you are so angry?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-02-2019 21:56
05-02-2019 22:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
I hate to point this out to you, stupid, but I have worked many "blue collar jobs" be it the military,

The military isn't a job. It's an organization.
Wake wrote:
a BART electronics technician
You don't know electronics. I don't believe you.
Wake wrote:
or an part owner in a telephone installation company
Part owners don't need to know anything.
Wake wrote:
in San Francisco.
Are you able to FIND San Francisco? You can't even find your own airport!
Wake wrote:
It isn't contempt for blue collar workers you detect but for you alone.
No, it's contempt for the blue collar worker. You think of them as uneducated morons.
Wake wrote:
Had I worked ANY of these blue collar jobs to retirement I would have a far better retirement than I presently have.

Is that why you are so angry?


With every posting you make my contempt for you grows larger and larger. You are such a clown that anyone that wants to "agree" with you has to have a screw or two loose.
05-02-2019 22:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8656)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
I hate to point this out to you, stupid, but I have worked many "blue collar jobs" be it the military,

The military isn't a job. It's an organization.
Wake wrote:
a BART electronics technician
You don't know electronics. I don't believe you.
Wake wrote:
or an part owner in a telephone installation company
Part owners don't need to know anything.
Wake wrote:
in San Francisco.
Are you able to FIND San Francisco? You can't even find your own airport!
Wake wrote:
It isn't contempt for blue collar workers you detect but for you alone.
No, it's contempt for the blue collar worker. You think of them as uneducated morons.
Wake wrote:
Had I worked ANY of these blue collar jobs to retirement I would have a far better retirement than I presently have.

Is that why you are so angry?


With every posting you make my contempt for you grows larger and larger. You are such a clown that anyone that wants to "agree" with you has to have a screw or two loose.


Your anger does not justify bulverism, your math errors, your bigotry, or your lying, Wake.

Me? I don't WANT to retire. I own my own business. I'm having too much fun!


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-02-2019 22:29
05-02-2019 22:29
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(164)
Wake wrote:
With every posting you make my contempt for you grows larger and larger. You are such a clown that anyone that wants to "agree" with you has to have a screw or two loose.

No need to start sobbing, Wake... Just try to get control of your anger issues... The first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem...




Join the debate What caused Pleistocene to start around 2 million years ago which had periodic glacial interglacial perio:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to7106-06-2019 23:39
Ontario government cancels program to plant 50 million trees023-05-2019 04:07
In a Switch, Some Republicans Start Citing Climate Change as Driving Their Policies2602-05-2019 20:26
If Democrats rule America then in 100 years America will be biggest CO2 emitter on the planet126-04-2019 00:41
Earth's carbon dioxide levels highest in 3 million years, study says019-04-2019 15:33
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact