Comments Posted By joe-6-pack
Displaying 1 To 7 Of 7 Comments


Amid all the worry about the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, has anyone stopped to think about "just how big" 380 ppm is? Or just how small it is?

On my blog, I use the analogy of reducing atmospheric components to 10,000 pennies ($100). Carbon dioxide would represent 4 (actually 3.8) pennies out of 10,000. Before the Industrial Revolution, it is estimated to have been 280 ppm - 2.8 pennies out of 10,000.

Water vapor (humidity) and water droplets (clouds) account for approximately 90 to 95% of the Greenhouse Effect.

I think human activities that are more likely to cause global warming would be the growth of Urban Heat Islands and deforestation.

Comment Posted By joe-6-pack On 2.12.2005 @ 20:48


One Comment Wonder;

Could you please read "The Creeping Storm", an article written in Civil Engineering Magazine,

In it, Al Naomi, the Corps of Engineers levee manager for SE Louisiana pointed out that in order to bring the levees up to Cat 4 or 5 standards could take 30 years. The preparatory study would take six years and cost $8 million.

Comment Posted By joe-6-pack On 2.09.2005 @ 23:31


My dad was in an artillery unit in Europe, after the Germans surrendered they were told to start getting ready to be shipped to the Pacific.

Back to the peripheral issue of Stalin, if the U.S. had pulled too many troops out of Europe to deal with the invasion of Japan, might that have tempted Stalin to further flex his muscles?

Just a few "what ifs?".

Comment Posted By joe-6-pack On 7.08.2005 @ 11:52


Good, contemplative post.

Do you ascribe to the belief that another purpose of using "the bomb" was to send a warning to Josef Stalin?

Comment Posted By joe-6-pack On 6.08.2005 @ 16:16


Writing as a geologist/teacher:

Some considerations in the Intelligent Design discussion include:

Intelligent Design is not a stealth attempt at reintroducing Creationism in the schools. It is a firmly held belief, among a growing number of scientists.

Introducing ID discussions is not going to overturn the Theory of Evolution, though the theory may change in some fashion.

There is evidence of evolution, in some fashion, in the fossil record. Bringing up the issue of Intelligent Design is not going to sweep away the fossil record, though it may change some interpretations. It just raises some questions about the "how and why" of the changes that we see.

There is a recognized progression in the fossil record - invertebrates before vertebrates; fish before amphibians; amphibians before reptiles; reptiles before mammals and birds.

There are transitional forms in the fossil record. There are fossil fish with amphibian features. There are fossil amphibians with reptile features. There are fossil reptiles (and early dinosaurs) with mammal and bird features, etc..

Not all of the Intelligent Design proponents are suggesting that this Intelligent Design happened only 10,000 years ago.

I am not in favor of requiring ID discussions, but I am in favor of allowing them, if the teacher wishes. Allowing these discussions will not cause our present scientific concepts to crumble.

Comment Posted By joe-6-pack On 6.08.2005 @ 14:07


I blog on a regular basis about the carbon dioxide increase = global warming paradigm and its political genesis. See

Water Vapor/Droplets account for an estimated 90 - 95% of the Greenhouse Effect. Carbon dioxide is a Greenhouse gas, but it is far behind in second place.

If all atmospheric components were converted to 10,000 pennies($100), 4 of those pennies would represent carbon dioxide.

Comment Posted By joe-6-pack On 9.05.2005 @ 14:15


"Having said that, a survey I saw showed that something like 75% of biologists who support evolutionary theory believe in God. They may believe in ID as a matter of FAITH…but evolution as a matter of science."

As a Christian and a geologist (BS, MS) (I consider myself to be an Old Earth Creationist), I will cast my lot with the biologists you cited. There is ample evidence of evolution in the fossil record, but evolution by itself seems to be unable to answer the question "How did it start?" (or at least in my mind).

Whatever was first, whether it be single-celled plants, photosynthetic cyanobacteria or something else, where did the energy come from to drive respiration/photosynthesis? How did the ability to convert inorganic molecules into living, growing biomass happen by accident?

When you consider that, among "higher" creatures and plants, one half of the genetic material comes from the male and one half from the female, for the purpose of "stirring the gene pool", how did that happen by accident?

Please don't lump me with the "Young Earth" Creationists.

As for the supporters of evolution, they shouldn't have boycotted the hearings. Regardless of what you believe, if you believe strongly enough, you should be able to withstand a few questions or challenges. Just because some want to raise some questions about evolution, that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is ready to be tossed, or at least it won't be tossed if some sensible people are involved.

I blogged on the subject of the "three sides to this argument" on April 12, 2005.

We are not going back to the days of the Scopes Monkey Trial. It doesn't have to be all or nothing of either side.

Comment Posted By joe-6-pack On 7.05.2005 @ 22:16

Powered by WordPress



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page