Charles Darwin (if anyone believes Jacob Bronowski and Richard Dawkins) was a Victorian-era gentleman who held the racial views of his time and culture. He clearly did not believe in equality of races, but then neither did Lincoln and virtually everyone else; only Darwin's co-discoverer of Evolution by Natural Selection, Alfred Russell Wallace, rejected the racist views of his day. Paradoxically, this caused him to reject Darwinism as a theory of human evolution, which is one of the reasons why he doesn't have the fame Darwin has acquired. If you enjoy historic irony (as I do), you will find this delightful.

ALL OF WHICH has nothing to do with Darwin's main theories, the discoveries in genetics made during his time (poor Mendel in his overlooked abbey) and after (de Vries in 1901 rediscovering Mendel and making him famous at last), or any of the truckloads of fossil and other evidence from other fields that prove Neo-Darwinism true beyond any rational doubt.Read more (14 lines)Show less

David Strumfels's photos

 

Oh when may reason and fact prevail?
It tries so hard, to no avail.
But fools use both bucket and pail
To provide all lies, both old and stale.

If peace is sought, it will succeed,
If not as swiftly as we need.
Both sides must join to stop the fight
Or there can never be right just might.

Lay down your arms, I beseech you all,
Or death will continue to appall,
Till one day you count up all your dead
And find not one whole heart or head.

Justice will only be for those who heed
The call for peace we desperately need.
Rockets, bombs, and guns shall cease,
And the day come we all want peace.

Read more (15 lines)Show less

David Strumfels's photos

Just over 90 years ago a discovery was made that started a fascinating journey exploring human evolution in Africa. The Broken Hill skull was the first early human fossil to be found in Africa and evidence suggests it probably represents the species that we, Homo sapiens, descended from.

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-early-human-fossil-africa-debut.html#jCp

Read moreShow less

First early human fossil found in Africa makes debut

Phys.org

Interesting article.  We should not underestimate advances in CO2 sequestration, or modest increases in nuclear and hydroelectric power.  I'm more optimistic about renewable energies growth in the coming decades than the authors however (think computer revolution over the last 30 years; very similar science and technology are involved).  Add to this improvements in energy efficiency (as has been happening steadily for decades), substitution of natural gas (with sequestration) for coal, and there is yet more cause for optimism.  If we can meet a goal of keeping CO2 levels =< 500 PPM, a 1 - 1.5 temperature rise is within possibility.

I can't agree with Figure II's details.  GW will not only shift the temperature curve, but should broaden it as well.  This means extreme warm events will increase and the opposite decrease, but there will still be plenty (and more, albeit) of both.

Oh, please don't use pictures of cooling towers emitting plumes of steam.  That has nothing to do with CO2 or warming (even ST plants have them), and can only confuse people.  And phrases like,  "global meltdown"  really are misleading

Interesting article.  We should not underestimate advances in CO2 sequestration, or modest increases in nuclear and hydroelectric power.  I'm more optimistic about renewable energies growth in the coming decades than the authors however (think computer revolution over the last 30 years; very similar science and technology are involved).  Add to this improvements in energy efficiency (as has been happening steadily for decades), substitution of natural gas (with sequestration) for coal, and there is yet more cause for optimism.  If we can meet a goal of keeping CO2 levels =< 500 PPM, a 1 - 1.5 temperature rise is within possibility.

I can't agree with Figure II's details.  GW will not only shift the temperature curve, but should broaden it as well.  This means extreme warm events will increase and the opposite decrease, but there will still be plenty (and more, albeit) of both.

Oh, please don't use pictures of cooling towers emitting plumes of steam.  That has nothing to do with CO2 or warming (even ST plants have them), and can only confuse people.  And phrases like,  "global meltdown"  really are misleading

Read more (16 lines)Show less

Ron Dobbs originally shared:

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/185336-carbon-neutrality-has-failed-now-our-only-way-out-of-global-warming-is-to-go-carbon-negative

Comments such as "global warming is adding four million Hiroshima bombs to the globe everyday" are so absurd they should deserve no comment.  But it's apparently necessary.  Contemplate how much total heat the atmosphere possesses; enough to rise it from -273C (absolute zero if there were no sun) to ~15C average today. That's 288 total degrees for the entire atmosphere, or (I'm neglecting phase changes, which add more energy to the equation).  Now, the addition of (0.8C/century)/(century/100 years)(year/365 days) = 2.192e-5C/day of the total atmospheric energy added to the planet every day.  If that's 4 million atomic bombs, then those four million (Hiroshima sized) bombs increases the atmosphere's energy only by 0.002192% each day.  Of course if a day is unusually hot, say 10C hotter, then that is (10.00/2.192e-5C) X 4 million bombs = 1.8 trillion Hiroshima bombs to produce that extra heat (far, far, far larger than the entire Earth's nuclear arsenals).  And that is nothing compared the heat of the whole atmosphere.

It's just a scare mechanism.  And putting it terms of nuclear weapons (which it has nothing to do with) just nails in the terror.  And worse, if anything, it has the opposite effect.  Global warming and climate change should be talked about -- to the public -- soberly, responsibly, and with as much scientific explanation as the public can handle.  The doubts and problems should be admitted.  PR campaigns, falsehoods, one-sided presentations, exaggerations, and ads like the above will only be seen as they are, leading to further resistance.

Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

17:00 16 May 2007 by David L Chandler

"Water is a major greenhouse gas too, but its level in the atmosphere depends on temperature. Excess water vapour rains out in days. Excess C...O2 accumulates, warming the atmosphere, which raises water vapour levels and causes further warming.

"Is water a far more important a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, as some claim? It is not surprising that there is a lot of confusion about this - the answer is far from simple.

"Firstly, there is the greenhouse effect, and then there is global warming. The greenhouse effect is caused by certain gases (and clouds) absorbing and re-emitting the infrared radiating from Earth's surface. It currently keeps our planet 20°C to 30°C warmer than it would be otherwise. Global warming is the rise in temperatures caused by an increase in the levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity.

"Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky, not least because the absorption spectra of different greenhouse gases overlap.

"At some of these overlaps, the atmosphere already absorbs 100% of radiation, meaning that adding more greenhouse gases cannot increase absorption at these specific frequencies. For other frequencies, only a small proportion is currently absorbed, so higher levels of greenhouse gases do make a difference."

DJS -- I have attached a chart showing these overlapping and separate regions. Green is water vapor and red carbon dioxide. Although there is a lot of overlaps there are still distinct regions where they absorb in different parts of the spectrum. I also have to correct a miscalculation I made. A 1.0 degree C increase in atmospheric temperature should result in a seven percent increase in water vapor; i.e., an increase in ~1500 ppm (the CO2 increase is ~100 ppm). Although pure CO2 appears to have ~20 times the greenhouse effect than pure H2O, the overlaps in saturated regions (all IR blocked) appears to make the contribution of both approximately the same. There is also still some natural warming, which, as I read the 2013 IPCC data, is between 25-50% of the total. -- END DJS

"So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days.

This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2"