Species don't change into other species, we have never seen it happen!"

What species has changed into a totally new species that can be proven without a shadow of a doubt?

[Blue]

@graphicgr8s vs. Ratmagiclady wrt earth orbit:

Ratmagiclady is right. graphicgr8s is wrong. My word on such matters normally suffices to end this sort of childish debates. It is all high school physics. BTW, earth mass is 6E24 kg (and don't argue with me how I can know it -- because if you do then please, stop to use film or digital photography as well -- it won't never work).


@Blue "has there been changes in obliquity of the ecliptic regarding the earth's axis and if so, what effects could that have on the earth's climatology?":

Obliquity of the ecliptic varies between 21° 55′ and 24° 18′ (an ~40,000 years cycle) and is one of four major factors determining if earth is in ice age (like now) or not. The other three factors are eccentricity (100,000 years), precession (25,780 years) and continental drift (million of years). None of these four factors is or can be man made.

That is what I was after. It does matter but is largely ignored by the over all debate. I never said or implied that they are man-made. The above list of primary literature demonstrate that axis matters in regards to ice ages and warming and they aren't a simple cause and effect matter in the way they effect sea level. In other words, these things in conjunction with the sun are very important in the dynamics of these systems. Sheet melting in Greenland may not increase sea levels around Greenland and Iceland but could effect it in Australia. The other issue is the weight shifts when the sheets are moved are going to have effects as well. Water gets kind of heavy.

@graphicgr8s vs. Ratmagiclady wrt earth orbit:

Ratmagiclady is right. graphicgr8s is wrong. My word on such matters normally suffices to end this sort of childish debates. It is all high school physics. BTW, earth mass is 6E24 kg (and don't argue with me how I can know it -- because if you do then please, stop to use film or digital photography as well -- it won't never work).


@Blue "has there been changes in obliquity of the ecliptic regarding the earth's axis and if so, what effects could that have on the earth's climatology?":

Obliquity of the ecliptic varies between 21° 55′ and 24° 18′ (an ~40,000 years cycle) and is one of four major factors determining if earth is in ice age (like now) or not. The other three factors are eccentricity (100,000 years), precession (25,780 years) and continental drift (million of years). None of these four factors is or can be man made.

Your word? I don't know you from Steve Stromberg. What is your word suppose to mean?

I didn't ask what the mass was. I asked how much does the earth weigh.

So you agree that GW is a hoax if you say we are in an ice age?

[falconeye]

I never said or implied that they are man-made. [...] these things in conjunction with the sun are very important in the dynamics of these systems.

I didn't assume you implied anything.
You asked a question and I provided an answer hoping that the question wasn't rhetoric. That was all and it was ok, I hope.

Seriously though, if you seriously want to discuss climate change (which I won't -- not in this forum -- not with some in this thread anyway) then I recommend to subscribe to Journal home : Nature and do it.

This photo forum thread about it is entertaining but pointless as soon as everybody switched into "speak, don't listen" mode.


- unsubscribed --

[Ratmagiclady]

Don't suppose any you righteous dudes got a *plan?*

Otherwise I'm gonna proceed by the assumtion that theoretical things beyond our control don't obviate any kind of obligation to do anything so left-wing and kooky as ..oh, I dunno... Not do things that'd make it worse on geometric scales?

[Blue]

Care to elaborate?

Actually that was a typo and should have said isn't too far off base relative to the literature I referenced on the subject.

[Ratmagiclady]

What species has changed into a totally new species that can be proven without a shadow of a doubt?

I think I'd be more inclined to ask you to prove you *are* a different species than our nearest surviving cousins.

(I mean, you do realize Blue was *literally throwing poop* (if in a 'graphic' way') not a few hours ago?

[Ratmagiclady]

See, I spend an afternoon trying to explain some things about orbital mechanics: here's the answer of the 'creationist:'

:bs:


. . .

Sure we ain't primates, Mr. Greatness?

edit: OK, I guess you can't see the little graphc of cattle pooping.

But, seriously: If that's your answer to basic physics... 'Monkeys' Or not? I'm leaning toward 'monkeys.' Go figure.

[Blue]

EDIT:
Oh what the heck, I am a sucker for data. I actually went digging in the NSIDC site and, while I could not find data for individual days, they have the entire set of data by month from 1978 onward. I could not get August data (of course 2009 is not complete), so I picked July just to get a sense. I computed the July data from 1979-2000 and from 2007-2009. The means/st devs are 10.1+/-0.45 and 8.6+/-0.47 million sq km of ice cover, respectively. A quick-and-dirty two-tailed t-test comparison of the two data sets yields a p value of 2.6x10^-5. August data might be a tad less significant because of a higher standard deviation for the 2007-09 set (but on the other hand, the discrepancy from the 1979-00 set is higher, so who knows), but still, that p<0.0001 estimate doesn't seem too far off.

2008 and 2009 had more area on than 2007 had. Where are you using SD instead of SEM? 2007 is the lowest data set that they have on record (which isn't the same thing as the lowest in history). Even then, they aren't separated by a lot. What's the rationale for the data set breaking at 2000 rather than 1989 or 90?

[Blue]

See, I spend an afternoon trying to explain some things about orbital mechanics: here's the answer of the 'creationist:'

You know damn well that wasn't targeted at that. Where did I say anything about creation? Show me? Show me where I said anything about primates?
Unless this has something to do with earth science/physics.

Also, in a sane world, 'young Earth' Creationists wouldn't be able to invoke million year cycles to say I'm too queer to teach science. In schools they don't want to support, but still want to control....

Pardon if I can't help but notice there's a pattern here, and it's not about the quest for scientific understanding of our world. Or even 'responsible stewardship.'

I'm talking to *you,* and it seems you're entirely unfazed by the fact you want to justify failed policy based on not understanding Newton and Kepler all along.

Blue wanted to *mock* me as a 'nuclear physicist' and didn't even know the right *branch of science* to mock so. Still probably thinks he knows better, though.

How about you, 'Elder?'

This is not to say, if you actually are* older, by the way, that I don't respect what you may know.

But this stuff is not something which you know.

And *me* knowing it won't do anybody any good if you strut around trying to claim what Fox news tells you is true, 'fair and balanced,' or offers any darn solutions for that kid we're all so happy you've just welcomed into the world.

"unsubscribed until Florida is under water"

[Ratmagiclady]

=Blue;
"unsubscribed until Florida is under water"

Welp. Seeya some lifetime pretty soon, I guess.


I mean, don't get me wrong: There's nothing wrong with being monkeys if we finally take it in hand.

Just cause I feel like Jane Goodall every time I go out for a pint doesn't mean it's * bad * or anything.

(I will, however say, that boy-monkeys can be kind of dumb. Faking and blustering your way around stuff-you-don't-know only works on other boys, if that)

[Blue]

Welp. Seeya some lifetime pretty soon, I guess.


I mean, don't get me wrong: There's nothing wrong with being monkeys if we finally take it in hand.

Just cause I feel like Jane Goodall every time I go out for a pint doesn't mean it's * bad * or anything.

(I will, however say, that boy-monkeys can be kind of dumb. Faking and blustering your way around stuff-you-don't-know only works on other boys, if that)

You are on my ignore list hence forth. You obviously didn't see the edit above asking about the primate and creation comment neither of which has come up from me.

[slomojoe]

2008 and 2009 had more area on than 2007 had.

So what? Are you back to arguing trends?

Where are you using SD instead of SEM?

Do you mean why? For one, because we would like to know the variance of the actual sample sets, not the variance of the mean estimates of some hypothetical large population the samples were extracted from, but regardless, if you want to calculate the SEMs, just divide the stdevs by the square roots of 22 and 3, respectively. It makes no difference to the statistics.

2007 is the lowest data set that they have on record (which isn't the same thing as the lowest in history). Even then, they aren't separated by a lot.

They are separated by well over 3 standard deviations at the trough, which is usually enough to conclude that a data point is with very high probability outside of a distribution (in this case, we have three consecutive data points outside of the distribution). And indeed, actual statistical analysis shows that the probability that the 2007-2009 data come from a 1979-2000-like distribution is, effectively, nil.

What's the rationale for the data set breaking at 2000 rather than 1989 or 90?

Not sure, other than bigger samples are better, and values were fairly stable throughout those 22 years and seem to have dipped severely only recently.

But anyway, I can't hold your hand through more of these phony statistical concerns. I have shown you where the data are, analyze them whichever way you want and let us know what you find. I don't feel like going back to step one of your four-step dance.