All that data on “EVOLUTION” is fine. But it should only be viewed as reference.
The definition you should follow is “Change towards improving that which exists, preserving the good characteristics and losing any detrimental characteristics.”
Tell me that you can understand the meaning when told – “Let’s go create a baby!”
I can get you pretty close. I don’t think you are not going to get what you are asking for here. We have some catching up to do on Global Warming. The political climate change science is not accepted by the big boys. They will eat that up and spit it out. They are way above my skill level, and many are writing published papers on the subject and recognized by the IPCC. They know and understand all the aspects of Co2 warming. But they get to picking on each other’s work. Never personal. And it is entertaining how they do that on the higher academic levels. They have a wonderful data base of postings and should answer all your questions. We used to have a poster here named Curious George who was sharp on the subject. He has been hanging out at the climatology site for years now. Go to Climate etc.
Thank you for the discussion Mike
I think a far more persuasive source of information would just be an informal conversation with people from around the world who have with their families including grandparents lived in visual proximity of snow capped mountains and ask them all a simple question. That question is; Has the size of the mountain ice cap[s] gotten smaller or stayed the same size? Nearly all would say "We’ve watched the ice cap[s] gradually shrink.
These people aren’t proponents of AOC’s “New Green Deal.” They didn’t do any cameo scenes in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and they don’t own stock in any Texas wind farms. They are just telling the world what they are seeing with their own eyes.
This is so elemental. I’m convinced that those who adamantly deny the plain and open facts confirming the reality of rapid and the operative word here is "rapid’ global warming do so simply as a way to express their psychological autonomy through bald-faced recalcitrance.
Harry Truman was such a man. No, not the president, this harry Truman was an elderly gentleman who lived on Mt ST Helens with his some odd 14 cats. When told he should leave as an eruption was imminent he refused offering the incredulous rationale that the mountain didn’t have enough mass to pose a threat. He was interviewed and said this. (Google)
When the mountain blew it was estimated he had 22 seconds to realize how wrong he was. He and his 14 cats are now under 200 feet or more of planet earth, … and yet he was so sure he was right and those government scientists had it all wrong.
Thanks CC for that very prescient, echo from our past. 1958 was 63 years ago and it was evident to perceptive minds what was happening. Oh if Mr. Baxter could see our world today.
Sorry but that’s a goofy (though very anthropo-centric) way of framing it.
Biology and Life is about meeting the demands of the day, within an environment that’s constantly changing. Only over the course of time we can begin recognizing patterns of change.
Sure, improving is a big part, not saying it isn’t, but there’s more going on, and that also deserves being learned about and appreciated.
Mike Yohe, you god fearing people are left with a very cartoon thin appreciation for what goes on out here in the natural world. It’s really sad that we let this happen over the past decades of brainwashing by corporate’s interests.
[quote=“mikeyohe, post:645, topic:7916”]
All that data on “EVOLUTION” is fine. But it should only be viewed as reference.
LOL. Yes a reference to factual data, fossils, a true history of natural growth phenomena. A record of past natural events. Why should that not be sufficient? It is called evidence and confirms our reality to ourselves. What is there to question?
My on-line searches on the Earth’s temperature and Ice Ages shows that for the last 2.5 billion years the Earth has been cooling and that we have been having more frequent Ice Ages. The recent warm interglacial period may be ending. The several positive and negative feedback conditions produce rather rapid changes. The latest temperature increase looks to be similar to other common conditions preceding dramatic cooling.
I think it is well known that the Earth radiates more energy away from the surface than it receives from the Sun. This seems to be in line with an originally very hot, even molten, Earth cooling over the long term. The core of the Earth is hotter than the surface by a lot. Whether that is due to radioactive decay or heat left over from the original assumed accretion process can be debated. Either way, it seems only reasonable to accept that the Earth has cooled and will continue to cool over the long term.
I believe the recent temperature increase is more likely in the short term to trigger another Ice Age than a runaway heat event. Greenhouse gasses have been much higher in the past without causing a greenhouse Earth. Probably best now to prepare for short term sea level rise, possibly even 200 to 300 feet, and then glaciation with sea levels 300 to 400 feet less than today. The Earth has had both those levels before.
Because of our demonstrated desire to live close to lakes, rivers and oceans I speculate that, if there is anyone around when the sea level is again at a minimum, they may discover much of our long lost civilizations under the mud on the continental shelves. I speculate those civilizations could be much older than than anyone today imagines, probably developed during the last ice age and destroyed by global warming. It just seems to me that there are too many similarities among ancient sites on different continents for them not to have had common origins.
You searched and found data that agrees with what you already believed.
[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:651, topic:7916”]
I speculate those civilizations could be much older than than anyone today imagines, probably developed during the last ice age and destroyed by global warming. It just seems to me that there are too many similarities among ancient sites on different continents for them not to have had common origins.
You may want to look up the difference between Prokaryotic life and Eukaryotic life and see the cause for great change and the explosion of evolutionary growth in all parts of the earth’s biome.
As to common origins, look at this real-time statistic of human activity:
ENVIRONMENT
3,423,186 Forest loss this year (hectares)
4,608,534 Land lost to soil erosion this year (ha)
23,898,331,590 CO2 emissions this year (tons)
7,898,861 Desertification this year (hectares)
Michaelmckinney1951,
Understand what you are saying. There seems to be two pathways here. Those with physiological thinking and those with math and logic.
This has been going on for 40 years now. Can you give me any datum points on Climate Change. That is how science works. Start with a datum point and measure. Climate Change cannot even be measured yet. Doing it by someone looking at a snow cap is just wrong in my option. First, we are in the Global Warming cycle. A mother nature cycle. Everything is supposed to be getting warmer. Second we are in a GSM cycle. The caps should be melting.
Truman was wrong. But where are the government scientists at in Climate Change? The science is being measured by consensus. The grant money is in total controlled and going one sided. And that would be political.
Who is saying the government scientists are wrong? That would be our older and retired scientists who cannot believe the non-science reports being written. You know the ones that have watched the snow caps for 40 years and developed the field of climatology.
Let’s break this down into a simple form of what has been going on. We are talking about 3 molecules of 10,000 molecules. We are told that less than 3 molecules in 10,000 molecules controls the earth’s heat and weather cycles. We are told that adding another molecule or having 4 molecules in 10,000 would doom the earth and mankind. If you disagree or say show me the beef. You are called a denier.
What has the weather shown us in the last forty years. The earth has warmed as expected but not anymore than expected. The oceans have risen. Not quite as much as expected by mother nature alone. Mankind has dumped the 4 molecule in the air. The earth did not end. The plants love it and are now growing more in the way mother nature intended. And the big plus is that we get more rain, and the plants are healthier with thicker leaves and use a lot less water to produce more because they are closer to the atmosphere they were intended to be in.
Another key point is that NASA is staying out of the political battle. But will give grants as instructed. For weather forecasting NASA uses what is call denier scientists. But so does the military, insurance, shipping, and petroleum companies. Why do you think that is? The government scientists give speeches and write books but cannot tell you what to expect the weather to be next year for risk planning. Though I do like the daily and weekly computer forecasts. They are great.
Tell that to all the trees burning right now
Mikeyohe, You really have some interesting insights but let me ask you this;
Do you really think Elvis is dead?
LAUSTEN NAILED IT.
[quote=“michaelmckinney1951, post:656, topic:7916”]
Do you really think Elvis is dead?
ELVIS LIVES depending how you look at it… 
Mike at heart you’re a malicious and destructive character. You don’t have a clue what consensus is about, you just like demeaning it and impugning good professionals for fun and profit. As for the evidence you need to take the time to look at the evidence and you are too busy lying about it.
I’ve been sharing the authoritative sources to the various details and data with you for years, but you haven’t learned a thing. So what game are you playing here? You follow the GOP’s Little Red Book to the tee and become increasing disconnect from what’s actually unfolding in front of us.
Incidentally, there’s all sorts of article explaining scientific consensus and debate. Here’s but one.
CRITERION FOR A CONSENSUS
https://www.intelligentspeculation.com
The scientific consensus has a very precise, philosophical definition that is far more formal than its cousin encountered in common vernacular. However, before we get to the criterion for a scientific consensus, it is important to note that it is entirely predicated on evidence.
A scientific consensus is not an opinion, survey, popularity contest, etc. among scientists. It is entirely dictated by the quality and quantity of evidence published in peer-reviewed journals.
Further, the consensus is not absolute. In other words, being that scientists are an intellectually humble crowd, we are always open to the possibility that new evidence could potentially overturn the current consensus. …
Note where the article says: “The Earth is currently in such an interglacial period of the Quaternary glaciation, …”
“Interglacial period” means “between glacial periods” doesn’t it? To me that says a glacial period has ended and another glacial period is expected to begin after our current warm period.
From Wikipedia, Timeline_of_glaciation:
There have been five or six major ice ages in the history of Earth over the past 3 billion years. The Late Cenozoic Ice Age began 34 million years ago, its latest phase being the Quaternary glaciation in progress since 2.58 million years ago.
Within ice ages, there exist periods of more severe glacial conditions and more temperate conditions, referred to as glacial periods and interglacial periods, respectively. The Earth is currently in such an interglacial period of the Quaternary glaciation, with the last glacial period of the Quaternary having ended approximately 11,700 years ago. The current interglacial is known as the Holocene epoch.
So, are you going to tell us that you don’t agree with the data?
I think you missed what I was trying to say. It was that I speculate that we may have developed civilizations during the last ice age and any evidence of them having spread world-wide, other than mythology, is in the similarities of many archaeological sites on different continents. I believe that travel among all the continents, except Australia and Antarctica of course, would have been easy because of sea levels much lower than today.
No. But that’s data that supports some narrative of yours. I’m not concerned about the temperature 3 million years ago or in the future. We will be a different species by then, of we are anything
My narrative is drawn from the data produced by the science.
It is hard for me to believe your concern is only for the short term. That sounds too much like corporate capitalism.
The facts are that the Earth is a dynamic system. Of course we would prefer to keep some “Goldilocks” climate which we imagine is just right for our species. Sorry, that just ain’t gonna happen. Never mind that what’s so very good for us and allows us to multiply without limit spells doom for tens of thousands of other species (and likely for us too in the longer term). Best to buckle up and recognize we’re not running the roller coaster.
There are only three things that humans can do to survive: population control, population control and population control.
No it’s not. You are doing shallow and silly cherry picked based on self confirmation.
Okay why didn’t you continue your on-line learning? Because scientists do have a pretty good understanding of why that graph looks like that.
I noticed in the following you never mentioned the geologic drivers of climate change - without that deep time climate change can’t be understood!
You are simply repeating Republican misinformers talking points, without understanding the underlying substance.
I say nonsense! Now your challenge is to come up with some authoritative sources that explain the evidence supporting your claim. I’LL BET YOU CAN’T PROVIDE ANY. 
(if you can, I’d love to read what you have read)
Really, well known? Or are you just quoting from your article?
I had to look it up and apparently your claim is not in accord with findings:
Earth absorbing more heat than it radiates
EARTH 28 April 2005
By Fred Pearce
PS. https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy
Perhaps within Answer’s In Genesis it’s debatable, but within the realm of Earth scientists, it’s rather well understood and quantified. With a rich fascinating human history behind the search for answers to those questions.
For you to make this claim, indicates that you’ve never even heard of Lord Kelvin and the ‘age of the Earth controversy’, back in the early days of modern science? You ought to check it out sometime.
Have you ever thought about what that cooling Earth means to what’s going on within the interior and core of our planet? It’s actually rather mind boggling and mind expanding. Do a little homework sometime, you’ll be amazed.
"Runaway heat event is a red herring. Earth’s temperature doesn’t need to ‘runaway’ to make our society impossible. Today’s slow and steady accumulation will be plenty destructive, no runaway needed.
Nope, Earth’s atmosphere at above 400ppm CO2 and methane is becoming a bigger player all the time, is quite probably beyond the point of triggering an ice age*, even if the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) collapses with all the hell that will unleash for portions of the northern hemisphere, we still have all this accumulated CO2 that will continue absorbing more heat into our global heat and moisture circulation distribution engine.
(*logic, are you aware of how much continents and their placement on our globe has influenced past epic ice ages? More of those folds within folds of complexities.)
You have to understand the difference between absorbing heat versus moving heat around - Losing the warm Gulf Stream will set into motion dynamics that allow frigid arctic temperatures free migration down to temperate latitudes. So what you are trying to label Ice Age, will actually only be localized frigid temps.
Yeah, there was a common origin alright. It’s called the developing human mind.
[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:662, topic:7916”]
My narrative is drawn from the data produced by the science.
OK what data suggests a general cooling, when all measurements show a general warming?
More importantly, what is the cause for this current cooling?
