Fukushima? comments! facts! myths!

[4metals]

There is a large difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic. The Arctic sits on water and it is made of sea ice, the antarctic sits on a continent. So the warming of the planet warms the air and the water, the Arctic is attacked from below and above and it is logical it would melt quicker than the Antarctic ice which sits atop a continent. This is a good thing because sea ice is already displacing its weight in water so it does not cause the sea levels to rise when it melts, the Antarctic gaining ice may be offsetting to some extent the melting of land based glaciers on the other continents to make the sea rise a bit less. These things, sea level rise and polar caps melting and gaining size are subtle changes and all figure into the global picture.

There are several cases where coal has been known to form in a very short time,

This may be true but it doesn't negate the fact that carbon sequestration is a natural process that has been ongoing for millions of years, if there is any evidence of coal forming in a short time (I have not seen any but I have not looked either) it cannot be on the scale required to form the massive reserves that are on the planet from the much slower natural process.

And it is tough to deny that mankind is using up the carbon reserves that had been removed from the carbon cycle at a much faster rate than the natural sequestration took to create it. That leads to an increase in net carbon in play on the planet and the build-up of greenhouse gasses.

 

[rickbb]

People are too focused on carbon, don't forget the "other" green house gas, methane.

With the increase in fracking our methane output has gone up 10x in the past decade. Every natural gas well head has a pressure bypass valve that vents methane 24x7. Kind of negates the "clean" burning of natural gas, some studies show that when you add all the leakage, and transportation using traditional carbon based fuel vehicles, natural gas actually is worse than carbon based petro chemical fuels, (oil).

 

[pgms4me]

I think this post is an opinion poll,based on some thruth and some lies weve been told.Carbon dating has been proven unreliable,especially since Mount St.helens blew up.there is plenty of evidence that contradicts the earth as being millions of years old.matter of fact, The theory of evolution is falling apart as more evidence comes to light. Recent DNA research points to all of us as having Noah as an ancestor. Lots of tests,(exclusive of unreliable carbon dating)showing the earth to be less than 25,000 years old. Sure the earth is warming up,its not the first time,Must of warmed up a lot after the ice age.We are responsible with part of that warming.Maybe we will get smart enough to slow it down a bit. I do believe GOD created the heavens and the earth and everything in it.The Bible does predict much more world wide havoc,disasters and wars ahead, and this is just the beginning. we are in a time period to witness the beginning of what's ahead. Not looking to start any arguments here,I do respect all you gentlemen, and especially appreciate your refining inputs. I believe we should all be praying about it.I believe that is the most help i can be to my Grandchildren.

 

[4metals]

Technically methane is the simplest carbon chain molecule. (CH4) It is one of the top 3 gasses present and contributing to the greenhouse effect. It has a longevity of about 12 years in the atmosphere. But it is carbon none the less.

Carbon Dioxide is the most prevalent greenhouse gas by far and it is estimated to last in the atmosphere between 30 and 95 years.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is in third place but last over 100 years.

But they all play into the equation, making it incredibly complex.

 

[4metals]

I sense this thread is approaching the dangerous crossover point into Religious debate where we will not go.

If we cannot stay out of it, I will lock this thread.

 

[alexxx]

I believe we should all be praying about it.I believe that is the most help i can be to my Grandchildren.

There's many other very simple things you can do to help your grandchildren and everyone else...

We all have the power to turn things around, on an individual scale first, and also as a society.
- Pay attention to your water & energy consumption... Eat local grown foods... less meat & endangered / vulnerable fishes... recycle... buy a car with a smaller engine / gas consumption... Buy less useless garbage and toys you don't really need... Read the labels, educate yourself... know where your foods and other products you buy are made... Ask questions, read more, and even more... The list of things one can do is infinite...

By reading you will know and learn tons of simple ways to protect & respect this little planet we all love and share, regardless of who / what created it...

 

[Geo]

Man is Fallible and there will be many more disasters like Fukushima, or a lab tech will not follow protocol, or a space rock will be the end. According to Hawking, The only way to ensure human kind's existence is to get off this rock and colonize other worlds. On a global perspective, Fukushima is just another speck added to all of the nuclear sites on earth. Since there's very little that can be done, there is some questions that concerned people want to know but never will get answers. Who is responsible for the clean up? Are they doing their job? Is there more that can be done? If so, by whom? Since the outcome will be the same at the end of it all, it's kind of a moot point. Stopping nuclear energy from proliferating is like poking your finger in the levee. It's going to happen, it's just a question of when. There are forms of energy that people seldom hear about, like wave energy. Especially useful on the west coast, a dam is built in the mountains. Water is pumped up the mountainside and into the reservoir by buoy's anchored where the wave action provides the pumping action. Wave farms can pump enough water to run a very large hydro-electric dam lowering the need to burn fossil fuel to make electricity. Of coarse, studies on the wildlife impact alone may scrub such a useful program. If it comes down between me and the three horn green eyed walloback elk, well, better him than me.

 

[rickbb]

Carbon 14 dating is only one of many ways to date things and the eruption of Mt. St. Helens has had zero effect on a properly done carbon 14 dating. Volcanoes erupt all the time all over the world and do not affect the science of determining how old something is. Carbon 14 dating has an accuracy of plus or minus 80 years on average, with a good sample and done properly.

Other radio isotopes are now being used to date older samples than carbon 14, potassium-argon for dating rocks over 100,000 years old and uranium-lead which can date rocks over 1.5 milling years as the half life of uranium turning to lead is in the billons of years. There is also thermo luminescence and obsidian hydration and uranium trail dating.

There is NOT a plenty of evidence that contradicts how old science thinks the earth is, (it's 4 billion, not millions). In fact the more evidence that is published only confirms that this is an accurate estimation.

There is NOT any credible tests, (let alone lots of), that show the earth to only 25,000 years old. Again the more research that is published the more that this estimate is proven to look more reliable.

DNA research HAS indeed shown us to have a common ancestor, but there is absolutely no way whatsoever to know who they were, let alone prove it was Noah. Mitochondrial DNA research has shown our common ancestor lived in what is now south central Africa about 2 and 1/2 to 3 million years ago.

 

[Geo]

Please guys, pay attention to what 4metals said earlier and keep any aspect of religion out of the conversation. As for my part, I apologize for what I said, I was using it as a reference and did not mean to offend anyone.

 

[Claudie]

Carbon 14 dating is only one of many ways to date things and the eruption of Mt. St. Helens has had zero effect on a properly done carbon 14 dating. Volcanoes erupt all the time all over the world and do not affect the science of determining how old something is. Carbon 14 dating has an accuracy of plus or minus 80 years on average, with a good sample and done properly.

Other radio isotopes are now being used to date older samples than carbon 14, potassium-argon for dating rocks over 100,000 years old and uranium-lead which can date rocks over 1.5 milling years as the half life of uranium turning to lead is in the billons of years. There is also thermo luminescence and obsidian hydration and uranium trail dating.

There is NOT a plenty of evidence that contradicts how old science thinks the earth is, (it's 4 billion, not millions). In fact the more evidence that is published only confirms that this is an accurate estimation.

There is NOT any credible tests, (let alone lots of), that show the earth to only 25,000 years old. Again the more research that is published the more that this estimate is proven to look more reliable.

DNA research HAS indeed shown us to have a common ancestor, but there is absolutely no way whatsoever to know who they were, let alone prove it was Noah. Mitochondrial DNA research has shown our common ancestor lived in what is now south central Africa about 2 and 1/2 to 3 million years ago.

I think to be fair, if you are going to make such statements as fact, you should provide at least some evidence. Maybe you could post some links to where you got this information.

 

[Harold_V]

I think this post is an opinion poll,based on some thruth and some lies weve been told.Carbon dating has been proven unreliable,especially since Mount St.helens blew up.there is plenty of evidence that contradicts the earth as being millions of years old.matter of fact, The theory of evolution is falling apart as more evidence comes to light. Recent DNA research points to all of us as having Noah as an ancestor. Lots of tests,(exclusive of unreliable carbon dating)showing the earth to be less than 25,000 years old. Sure the earth is warming up,its not the first time,Must of warmed up a lot after the ice age.We are responsible with part of that warming.Maybe we will get smart enough to slow it down a bit. I do believe GOD created the heavens and the earth and everything in it.The Bible does predict much more world wide havoc,disasters and wars ahead, and this is just the beginning. we are in a time period to witness the beginning of what's ahead. Not looking to start any arguments here,I do respect all you gentlemen, and especially appreciate your refining inputs. I believe we should all be praying about it.I believe that is the most help i can be to my Grandchildren.

You're headed for a banning. Do NOT make this a religious discussion. It has no place on this board. We are men of science, not witchcraft.

You would have to be living in a complete vacuum to even remotely consider that the earth isn't billions of years old. You have allowed your faith to cloud your thinking. That, alone, should help you understand why there is no room for religion in this discussion.

Harold

 

[pgms4me]

I will post an apolgy,especially to you Harold. I posted" i did not want to start any arguments" but this thread was already loaded with religion before me. religion is ANY type of belief system. evolutionists believe in their religion. Not wanting to cause any more irritation or offense ,which it surely looks like I have ,i wil Not post on this thread any more .You have stated your personal view well Harold, and i respect you for all you do,regardless of what you believe.

 

[Claudie]

You would have to be living in a complete vacuum to even remotely consider that the earth isn't billions of years old. You have allowed your faith to cloud your thinking.

If you are going to promote one belief, shouldn't other beliefs also be allowed as to not come across as close minded. When one is trying to find the best solution to any problem, it's best if they know what all of the alternatives are. By allowing one belief and no others, it isn't a discussion any longer, it's forcing one to accept something as fact when clearly many believe it is not.

 

[Geo]

The science says It is one way and not another. It's not a belief if it's science where things can be weighed and measured. With the technology available, the known universe can be measured. The distance calculated against the rate of expansion. Since light particles travel at a known speed, it's safe to say that light from an object at a certain distance takes a certain length of time to get here. A light year is the distance light travels in a standard earth year. If an object is 4 million light years away, that means that, that light has traveled 4 million years to get here. The Hubble space telescope can see several billions of light years distance. So according to what can be seen, the age of the universe (and earth) is over several billions of years. It's not an argument really or a belief, simply go to the site and do the math. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope
http://hubblesite.org/

You know, people who believed the earth was flat killed any that believed that the earth was round because of their beliefs.

 

[Claudie]

Science requires a lot of belief, as much as any religion.
Do we agree that at some point, light came into existence? If it did, who is to say it started at one point and took 4 years to get to another point?
I have studied history some, and I am not convinced that many people, if any at all, ever believed the Earth was flat. There are a few people around today that believe it is flat, but some people today will believe almost anything.

 

[g_axelsson]

Carbon 14 dating is only one of many ways to date things and the eruption of Mt. St. Helens has had zero effect on a properly done carbon 14 dating. Volcanoes erupt all the time all over the world and do not affect the science of determining how old something is. Carbon 14 dating has an accuracy of plus or minus 80 years on average, with a good sample and done properly.

Other radio isotopes are now being used to date older samples than carbon 14, potassium-argon for dating rocks over 100,000 years old and uranium-lead which can date rocks over 1.5 milling years as the half life of uranium turning to lead is in the billons of years. There is also thermo luminescence and obsidian hydration and uranium trail dating.

There is NOT a plenty of evidence that contradicts how old science thinks the earth is, (it's 4 billion, not millions). In fact the more evidence that is published only confirms that this is an accurate estimation.

There is NOT any credible tests, (let alone lots of), that show the earth to only 25,000 years old. Again the more research that is published the more that this estimate is proven to look more reliable.

DNA research HAS indeed shown us to have a common ancestor, but there is absolutely no way whatsoever to know who they were, let alone prove it was Noah. Mitochondrial DNA research has shown our common ancestor lived in what is now south central Africa about 2 and 1/2 to 3 million years ago.

I think to be fair, if you are going to make such statements as fact, you should provide at least some evidence. Maybe you could post some links to where you got this information.

I've got some rocks that are 4.56 billion years old. Measured with several different geological clocks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Modern_dating_methods http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html) Yes, they are meteorites and formed before the earth was formed. Exactly when the earth was formed isn't known but there are strong clues that it was within 100 million years from the creation of the solar system. The oldest earth rock found so far is 4.28 billion years ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925144624.htm ) and the oldest solid material found in the solar system (Calcium-Aluminum-silicate-Inclusions in carbonaceous meteorites) is dated to 4.5682 billion years old. ( http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n9/abs/ngeo941.html ) That puts two solid limits on the age of the earth. If considering the oldest zircons found in Australia at 4.404 billion years old ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6817/abs/409175A0.html ) it puts even a narrower time scale on when the earth was formed.

Carbon dating is looking at the ratio between the different levels of carbon isotopes. Every living plant is getting a mix of the carbon isotopes via CO₂ in the atmosphere. When a plant is dying the levels are fixed and doesn't change any more. The faster decaying isotopes disappears over the ages and by comparing the levels we can measure the age. Since animals (including humans) are eating plants the same scenario is valid for animal remains.
Even if Mt. St. Helens added a lot of old carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (which it didn't do but humans do by burning fossil fuel) it would only affect carbon dating on stuff that lived after the eruption. Carbon dating isn't done on that modern material but if it was it would be an easy thing to compensate for the changing atmosphere. We are already doing it by looking at CO₂ data from absolute tree ring data. ( http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/geodyn/tutorials/Physik_der_ErdeII/pdf/Muscheler-etal2008_naturegeo.pdf )

And for the mitochondrial Eve the science is a bit vague with several different dates tossed around but they all is in the same vicinity, 95000-200000 years. (I don't like that name, it's too much religion loaded in that name, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve Read the reference segment for more citations)
The hominid genus appeared about 2.3 to 2.5 million years ago ( http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02436432#page-1 )

If you follow some of ancient text, man has been this advanced before, maybe more times than one. Modern man has been around for 200,000 years. Man went from thinking the world was flat to going to the moon in a relative blink of an eye (500-600 years). I can't believe that modern man lived for thousands and thousands of years without advancing. Without naming any particular book, what comes to mind for me is one ancient text that says, (taken out of context) "should a man say, look at this thing, it is new. It has already been of old times and there is no remembrance of former things."

Geo, how can you even suggest that humans have been this advanced before. There are NO evidence that there have been any advanced civilizations on earth before.

If one thinks along these lines, what man is doing is actually natural for man to do. It's not good but it is nature. I in no way condone polluting in any form. I don't throw trash from my vehicle even if it means trashing my car. Industry pollutes unabated and just pays the fine every year. The earnings are such that the fine is considered part of the expenses.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything and am not asking anyone to subscribe to any particular way of thinking. I'm not trying to argue and concede that humans are ruining their natural environment. All I'm saying is I believe it's part of natural selection. Things will come to an end and civilization will end and humans will start over, again. Whether it's an asteroid, comet, biological, nuclear, seismic, solar, man made or whatever the event is, it will have the same effect. one poison is just as good as another. The steel will rust away and the concrete will crumble. Man will move out of the caves and start all over. By the time they reach this point of technology, someone like me will be saying the same things but there will be no remembrance of what we did.

Are you saying that everything is natural since we are a part of nature? That definition of natural is useless since it embraces all and everything.

When our civilization crashes and humans (or mice) is starting up all over again they have a huge disadvantage compared to us. No natural resources left. The easy found oil, coal and metals are all dug up by us. Where I live about 30% of all ores down to 1000m depth are already extracted, the easy ones was cleaned out in the 1980:es and now every mine is 100-200 meters deep at least and down to 1200 meters.

Can we now please go back to discussions with a firm base in science!

Göran

 

[Claudie]

Can we now please go back to discussions with a firm base in science!

If you are going to promote one belief, shouldn't other beliefs also be allowed as to not come across as close minded. When one is trying to find the best solution to any problem, it's best if they know what all of the alternatives are. By allowing one belief and no others, it isn't a discussion any longer, it's forcing one to accept something as fact when clearly many believe it is not.

 

[g_axelsson]

Science requires a lot of belief, as much as any religion.
Do we agree that at some point, light came into existence? If it did, who is to say it started at one point and took 4 years to get to another point?
I have studied history some, and I am not convinced that many people, if any at all, ever believed the Earth was flat. There are a few people around today that believe it is flat, but some people today will believe almost anything.

If I believe I have 99.95% pure gold and you believe it is 98% pure, how could we ever decide who is right unless science could give us some hard facts?
Everyone is allowed his own beliefs, but facts are facts and that is what science is about.
Light doesn't just "come into existence", it is created in a physical process. As black body radiation from an object, for example a star or the filament in a light bulb, as the energy released when an electron drops from one energy level to another in an atom, for example in a laser or aurora borealis, as energy given off when an electron is decelerated in a synchrotron. All these processes can create light and when the photon is created four light years away and directed towards us it would take four years to reach us. It doesn't matter what people believe, it will still take four years.

Everyone has the right to their own beliefs, but no one has the right to their own facts.

Göran

 

[g_axelsson]

Can we now please go back to discussions with a firm base in science!

If you are going to promote one belief, shouldn't other beliefs also be allowed as to not come across as close minded. When one is trying to find the best solution to any problem, it's best if they know what all of the alternatives are. By allowing one belief and no others, it isn't a discussion any longer, it's forcing one to accept something as fact when clearly many believe it is not.

Citation needed, what is it that I presented that that clearly many believe it is not?

Göran

 

[Claudie]

That science is fact.