Hawking's blunder on black holes shows danger of listening to scientists!

[printcraft]

I'm just going to leave this here with props to sloughfoot in the survival section for making me aware of it.

Mount Tambora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really think people are that big of a threat to the ****ing planet??

One volcano............. ****ed up the entire planet.

We couldn't do that IF WE TRIED.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I think global thermonuclear war would give a pretty good artificial emulation thereof.

 

[RockofStrength]

I think global thermonuclear war would give a pretty good artificial emulation thereof.

For people, perhaps. Nature responded to Chernobyl with radiation-consuming mushrooms pretty rapidly.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I don't think your snide reference to whether or not I've studied various scientific journals is sufficient to demolish my doubts about MGW in view of these facts, but I'll certainly be curious to see how you respond.

I certainly wouldn't expect to do anything to your doubts. I've come to learn that people believe what they want to believe, and in your case I suspect you want to believe it pretty badly.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Politically-based sources? How about the historical fact that there was much more global warming in the 1300s than our so-called scientists are sh*tting themselves over now? How about the fact that the politics of fear are obviously alive and well, and how do you trump the fear of destroying the planet out from under ourselves?

As for your analogy, are you suggesting that we should get our information from those who accept global warming as both a scientific fact and a religion? Sounds just a bit biased to me.

Enjoy your squid.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I certainly wouldn't expect to do anything to your doubts. I've come to learn that people believe what they want to believe, and in your case I suspect you want to believe it pretty badly.

A classic case of projection.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Enjoy your squid.

Explain please.

 

[octalman]

And this statement is based on what evidence? Or only an assumption based on the unwillingness to believe it?

Humans have driven many species extinct. Reshaped the entire ecosystems of continents. One can stick their head in the sand, but without data I'm not buying it. Not that I'm convinced one way or another of our effect on the climate, either.

I find it highly, highly unlikely that a single person on this forum has the comprehensive knowledge of the relevant body of data to comment intelligently on the validity of any climate change hypothesis. Myself included. So watching people arguing so vehemently about it, I think you could make better use of your time.

Finally please, as a Christian and a scientist, quit confusing religion and science. Religion is taken on faith without proof. Science is based on hard evidence, reproducible, and interpreted with deliberate skepticism. There is a range in the level of proof behind various scientific findings....law, theory, model, hypothesis, etc. Laws govern things like internal ballistics, things we reproduce every day and are largely beyond question. Climate change findings are only theories or hypotheses, largely based on models built from incomplete data collected over far too short a time and and far too few variables to fully capture an extraordinarily complex system.

There is even one model out there that shows what begins as global warming, triggering polar melting, will lead to a salinity imbalance in the ocean which will shut down the Gulf Stream and throw northern Europe into an ice age. Average temperature change is only one data point of thousands.

Edited to add: I do believe it is poor practice to drive policy affecting the livelihoods of millions of people off science that still has a LOT of holes in it and unanswered questions.

Species extinction is a fact of Nature. Human activity is not the exclusive cause. Dinosaurs reshaped ecosystems in their day. Every species that experiences a period of dominance shapes its environment. Nothing more - nothing less than a fact of nature. Humans are the only species with the ability to ponder whether changes are good or bad. The mantra that we must "Save the Earth" is nothing but ignorant nonsense. It tugs at emotions, not logic or fact. It is destructive and counterproductive in that it inhibits thoughtful and dispassionate examination of facts. Humans are not capable of saving, or destroying the Earth. We can make our time on this Earth easier or more difficult. When emotions are allowed to run amok, bad decisions follow.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Explain please.

I guess I took it that you intended to keep getting your science from wherever you had been getting it and I was making a (I admit, lame) attempt at humor.

Really, the climate science debate isn't what got me interested in this thread, it was the notion expressed that ALL science is suspect, or at best "unsettled".

I don't have much of an opinion on climate science for two reasons. 1. I'm into life science, Biology stuff and I haven't done much reading about climate science. 2. I am convinced that it doesn't matter anyway because if it's happening and if humans are causing it, there is no evidence that humans could stop doing the things that are causing it.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I say, "Return the Earth to its original, pristine state!"

"A volcanic wasteland!"

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I say, "Return the Earth to its original, pristine state!"

"A volcanic wasteland!"

If science is correct, it's going to get there eventually. In about 4 billion years, if I remember right. That's about how much time the Sun has left to decide if it's going to expand to become a Red Giant (in which case we'll get back to the Earth's "original pristine state") or if it's going to nova, in which case the Earth will STILL return to its "original pristine state," for a very, very, brief period before it becomes a cinder.

 

[DarkLight]

If science is correct, it's going to get there eventually. In about 4 billion years, if I remember right. That's about how much time the Sun has left to decide if it's going to expand to become a Red Giant (in which case we'll get back to the Earth's "original pristine state") or if it's going to nova, in which case the Earth will STILL return to its "original pristine state," for a very, very, brief period before it becomes a cinder.

Currently the theory is that our Sun does not possess the mass to nova. When it no longer has enough Hydrogen to sustain its thermonuclear reactions it will collapse into a white dwarf and eventually fade into a brown dwarf. Though if I recall properly, there very well could be a coronal mass ejection during either of these phases that could obliterate the earth. Ultimately, our fate will be to freeze into a lifeless ball of dirt.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I thought I understood that the Sun is a variable star, which probably won't explode, but could. Obviously I mis-read something somewhere.

 

[rhino]

Hey! That all could happen in just three or four billion years. We'd better get prepping for it!

 

[CathyInBlue]

Stars are not like gasoline engines, only burning one fuel for their lifespan and then stopping. They're like multi-fuel diesels. For the first half of their life, they're burning high c-tane diesel and life is good. Then, the high-test stuff starts to run out, so they start burning the low-grade stuff. Then that starts to get rarer, so it gets mixed with gasoline. When the gas runs out, it's kerosene. When the kerosene gets lean, add in avgas. At each fuel change, a bit of the older stuff is still around in the mix and being burned, but at a slower and slower rate. Each fuel change also results in a marked decrease in performance. In the case of a star like the sun, it means the sucker puffs up a bit and changes color because it's running cooler. Eventually, it will swell to a red giant, where it engulfs the Earth, scouring its surface clean with plasma. When a star's ratio of fuel supply versus its mass in unfusable waste products gets too low, its outward radiation pressure from nuclear fusion can no longer keep it a full-fledged working star, and it collapses.

If the mass of this collapse is high enough, nova. If it's really high, super nova.

Our sun is not nearly massive enough, so its fate is a white dwarf.

If it were lighter weight still, red dwarf or brown dwarf could have been its fate.

 

[rhino]

So, our sun is kind of puny, but not quite a midget.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So, our sun is kind of puny, but not quite a midget.

It prefers to be called fusion-material-challenged.

 

[rhino]

It prefers to be called fusion-material-challenged.

How about "Differently Massed"?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How about "Differently Massed"?

That's much better.