Intelligent Design

NRM on the Climate Alarmists’ Unspoken Goldilocks Fixation

Spread the love

In a comment to a prior post, Net Research Man makes some pertinent observations and asks the climate alarmists penetrating questions.  All that follows is his:

The thing that frustrates me is that the alarmist side does not even attempt cost benefit analysis. For example, they claim that droughts can reduce crop yields, while ignoring that CO2 increases crop yields. Crop yields are way up over the last century — there is yet no direct evidence that warming so far has caused any crop yield reduction, although it is possible technology has merely outpaced losses due to warming so far, and will eventually be overwhelmed.

What evidence is there that any catastrophe will occur? There is no statistically significant trend in drought, no trend in flooding, no trend in tornadoes, and no trend in tropical storms worldwide. The present represents the longest recorded period with no category 3 or greater hurricanes making landfall in North America. All belief that catastrophe will occur is based on computer models, not evidence. Even the EPA’s website says that scientists only have “medium” confidence that storms will be worse with warming.

The only “catastrophe” with actual evidence to support it is sea level rise affecting coastal regions, but that will occur in such slow motion that it’s not going to kill anyone. And sea level rise has been occurring for the past 12,000 years, including pre AGW, and there is yet no sign of the rate accelerating. It’s unclear what percentage of current sea level rise would have occurred anyway due to the pre-existing natural trend.

Besides sea level rise, the only observable result that agrees with computer models is an increase in average precipitation levels. It’s hard to say how the warmists can predict both increased precipitation and increased drought. I guess they are saying that drought will increase in some places, and decrease in others. The computer models themselves are at such a coarse resolution that they have no ability to simulate regional variation, so at best claims that certain regions will be worse or better off with warming are completely unfounded speculation. The computer models can’t physically simulate El Nino, oceanic cycles, clouds, storms, etc.

Let me ask you a question — how do scientists know that the current specific temperature of the planet is optimal for life and humanity? I think we can all agree that colder is infinitely worse, such as during the last ice age when mile thick glacial ice covered the present locations of Chicago and New York. So if you were trying to decide an optimal temperature, we know that there would be a curve where cold is bad, and life gets better with increased temperature up to a certain inflection point, where further warming makes it get worse. How do we know we are at that point?

We know that in the peak of the last interglacial, temperatures were around 3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. In prehistoric times, it has been 5 degrees warmer or more, with no ice at the poles. None of those previous warm periods resulted in runaway warming, or mass extinctions.

Yet scientists are saying we need to limit temperature to 2 degrees above pre-industrial. Maybe they are saying that the warming is going to be “too fast” for the planet to handle. A 2 degree temperature difference is equivalent to moving poleward around 300 miles, or up in elevation around 600 feet. Are we saying that animals won’t be able to move fast enough to adjust to that? How did animal and plant species survive the 7 degree swing in temperature at the end of each interglacial?

These are all questions I would like to ask a climate scientist…

25 Replies to “NRM on the Climate Alarmists’ Unspoken Goldilocks Fixation

  1. 1
    daveS says:

    Barry,

    Let me ask you a question — how do scientists know that the current specific temperature of the planet is optimal for life and humanity? I think we can all agree that colder is infinitely worse, such as during the last ice age when mile thick glacial ice covered the present locations of Chicago and New York. So if you were trying to decide an optimal temperature, we know that there would be a curve where cold is bad, and life gets better with increased temperature up to a certain inflection point, where further warming makes it get worse. How do we know we are at that point?

    I don’t follow this issue that closely, but do any scientists claim to know that the current temperature is optimal for life and humanity?

    A related question—if it were possible to calculate such an optimal temperature for life and humanity (globally), and it was found that at this optimal point, productivity in California’s Central Valley dropped by 20%, what should we do?

  2. 2
    Barry Arrington says:

    DaveS: “do any scientists claim to know that the current temperature is optimal for life and humanity?”

    Of course they do Dave. Otherwise they would not be advocating for us to destroy our economy trying to keep the mean temp from increasing. That is so obvious, I have to wonder whether you asked the question in good faith.

    As to your second question, you provide far too little data to answer intelligently. What is the cost of trying to stop the change? What is the cost of letting it change? Until you know, or at least try to approximate, the answer to those two questions, there is no way you can answer.

  3. 3
    daveS says:

    Barry,

    Of course they do Dave. Otherwise they would not be advocating for us to destroy our economy trying to keep the mean temp from increasing. That is so obvious, I have to wonder whether you asked the question in good faith.

    I am indeed asking in good faith. My understanding is that the potential problems would be caused by change that is too rapid for us (and other lifeforms) to adapt to comfortably, not that we would be moving away from some optimal point.

    Do you have any examples of climate scientists referring to the current temperature as optimal for life and humanity?

  4. 4
    Barry Arrington says:

    DaveS
    “My understanding is that the potential problems would be caused by change that is too rapid for us (and other lifeforms) to adapt to comfortably”

    Seriously? Then your first observation (“I don’t follow this issue that closely”) is certainly true.

    “Do you have any examples of climate scientists referring to the current temperature as optimal for life and humanity?”

    Dave, do you have another explanation for why they want us to bankrupt ourselves in a quixotic effort to stop the climate from changing? Again, I have a hard time believing you are asking in good faith.

  5. 5
    Chris Doyle says:

    Good to see Climate Change coming up in discussion here. There are a number of interesting parallels with the establishment’s attitude towards Climate Change and neo-Darwinism.

    I have long felt that Climate Change, or should I say Warmism, is on even shakier scientific grounds than neo-Darwinism. The main reason for that is the mechanism: the greenhouse effect.

    The atmosphere of Venus contains over 95% carbon dioxide. Or more than 950,000 parts per million. It makes sense to talk about the greenhouse effect on Venus, even a runaway greenhouse effect.

    But, on Earth, it’s a completely different story. Less than 0.05% of our atmosphere contains carbon dioxide. That’s less than 500 parts per million. As far as CO2 is concerned, Earth is a greenhouse with every piece of glass smashed out with just tiny fragments remaining.

    There is nowhere near enough CO2 in our atmosphere to cause a greenhouse effect. Contrast this with water vapour. About half off the planet is covered in clouds. And there is no doubt that clouds have a local warming effect. But, it is temporary. A cold night is warmer than it would be with cloud cover. But once those clouds break up or move on, the temperature soon drops.

    We’re not worried about clouds. No-one is claiming that cloud coverage is increasing due to man’s activity. It’s just that tiny fragment of CO2 that we’re fixated on. Of course, the political reasons for this fxation are obvious. But what I want to know is: what are the scientific reasons?

    A greenhouse with almost no glass will not retain heat. Earth’s atmosphere has almost no CO2. Therefore it is not retaining extra heat from CO2.

    If I’m wrong, then I’d like to know how.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    A few notes as to the “Unspoken Goldilocks Fixation”

    Atheists have no explanation for why the climate on Earth has remained ‘surprising stable’ for billions of years in the first place

    A Stable Atmosphere: Another Reason Our Planet Is Special – Daniel Bakken – January 20, 2015
    Excerpt: David Waltham’s central argument in Lucky Planet is that the geological evidence shows the Earth has had a “surprisingly stable climate.”1 There are many reasons the Earth shouldn’t have one. He observes, “[O]ur beautiful, complex biosphere could never have occurred if Earth had not enjoyed billions of years of reasonably good weather.”2
    There are many processes that keep Earth’s environment habitable, “which [in] the Earth’s case may be special rather than universal.”3 
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92851.html

    Thus the atheist’s assumption for a stable climate that is optimal for life is actually a hidden Theistic assumption on his part. On Atheism there simply is no reason to presuppose that the climate should have been ‘surprisingly stable’ for life for all these billions of years, or to presuppose that the climate will remain ‘surprisingly stable’ for any extended period of time hereafter.

    In fact, uncontrollable randomness, all by its lonesome, is held to be the ultimate creator of all things in the Atheistic worldview. Thus, for the Atheist to presuppose he can rise up and control that uncontrollable randomness, that he himself believes created the climate, is for him to rise up and rebel against the very god that he believes created the climate.

    I tell you, this refusal by atheists to submit to their uncontrollable god of randomness is nothing short of an all out atheistic rebellion against the god of randomness that they have pledged their undying loyalty to. 🙂

    There ought to be an Atheistic inquisition of some sort so as to put to death these heretics against their all powerful god of randomness. 🙂

    Moreover, there simply is no reason, on Atheism, to believe that creatures created via random mutations, via a random climate/environment, (i.e. via the variance of Natural Selection), will have any power whatsoever over the uncontrollable randomness that they say created them in the first place.

    I tell you, with this all out rebellion by Atheists against random climates, there has not been such foolishness displayed in all of creation since Satan himself thought he could do God’s job better than God could. 🙂

    Isaiah 14:13-17
    You said in your heart,
    “I will ascend to the heavens;
    I will raise my throne
    above the stars of God;
    I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
    on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.

    I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
    I will make myself like the Most High.”

    But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
    to the depths of the pit.

    Those who see you stare at you,
    they ponder your fate:
    “Is this the man who shook the earth
    and made kingdoms tremble,

    the man who made the world a wilderness,
    who overthrew its cities
    and would not let his captives go home?”

  7. 7

    CD @ 5: “I have long felt that Climate Change, or should I say Warmism, is on even shakier scientific grounds than neo-Darwinism.”

    Agreed. And atheists/leftists are behind both false ideas.

  8. 8

    BA77 @ 6: “Moreover, there simply is no reason, on Atheism, to believe that creatures created via random mutations, via a random climate/environment, i.e. via the variance of Natural Selection, will have any power whatsoever over the uncontrollable randomness that they say created them in the first place.”

    Agreed. It is craziness.

  9. 9
    Tom Robbins says:

    complete scam – arctic temps and our temps are right about the same as in the 1930’s and 40’s.. NASA confirms that Arctic temps were the same during these times, similar melt offs reported… on and on – but here is an all telling graph for ya.. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/cru-temperature-fraud/ Actually this is a link to the entire article, a great read, one of his many that point out blatant fraud, using their own words, own globally accpeted data..

  10. 10
    Tom Robbins says:

    And remember we are not talking about 400PPM (which is NOT the highest it’s been in the 20th century – it was 425 in the mid 40’s AFTER a warm period, but they took the very lowest Ice core c02 samples they could find and then applied a 70 year smoothing average!).. we are talking about the difference of what they say is “safe”, lets say 250 ppm – so that’s 150 ppm controlling the global temp – this ignores 40K chemical analysis of c02 which shows it is highly variable during the 20th century and beyond, AND the models assume a 100 year lifespan for c02 – real world it’s SIX years, maybe 7 tops – man adds no more than 4% by burning fossil fuels – Termites, as one example put out 10X’s that amount… THEY BUILT THE THEORY FROM THE GROUND UP – and BTW, NOAA adjustments have gone up exponentially since 1989, and correlate to 99% with c02 – what does that tell ya?

  11. 11
    daveS says:

    Barry,

    “Do you have any examples of climate scientists referring to the current temperature as optimal for life and humanity?”

    Dave, do you have another explanation for why they want us to bankrupt ourselves in a quixotic effort to stop the climate from changing? Again, I have a hard time believing you are asking in good faith.

    Yes, again, the perceived dangers of rapid climate change (whether real or not) would be another explanation. Say I believe that the current climate is optimal for humans. You disagree, but feel that too rapid a change in climate could be harmful to humans and other forms of life. We might both conclude that it would be prudent to moderate our activities so that we don’t push the climate too rapidly away from its current state.

    We could have a similar discussion about sea level. I don’t think there is some “optimal” sea level for humans; we would do just fine if it were many meters higher or lower than it is presently. If it rises quickly, however, that’s a problem.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    as mentioned in post 6:

    “[O]ur beautiful, complex biosphere could never have occurred if Earth had not enjoyed billions of years of reasonably good weather.”2
    There are many processes that keep Earth’s environment habitable, “which [in] the Earth’s case may be special rather than universal.”

    And the following articles highlight just how ‘special’ Earth’s case turns out to be:

    We may be overlooking a critical factor in our quest to find alien life – August 2016
    Excerpt: Many scientists assume that plate tectonics is a given on rocky, Earth-like worlds, but this may be rarer than anyone imagined.
    A new study in the journal Science Advances questions the idea that rocky worlds “self regulate” their heat after forming.
    The implications could be enormous, says study author Jun Korenaga, a geophysicist at Yale University. Essentially, we could be overlooking another “Goldilocks” factor in our searches for worlds habitable to aliens: a planet’s initial temperature.
    If you’re a planet and you start out too hot, the thick layer of rock below the crust called the mantle doesn’t give you plate tectonics. If you’re too cold, you also don’t get plate tectonics. The mantle is not as forgiving as scientists once assumed: you have to have the right internal temperature to begin with.
    “Though it’s difficult to be specific about how much, it surely does reduce the number of habitable worlds,” Korenaga wrote in an email to Business Insider. “Most … Earth-like planets (in terms of size) probably wouldn’t evolve like Earth and wouldn’t have an Earth-like atmosphere.”
    That would mean that many planets in the “Goldilocks” zone may not be habitable after all.,,,
    ,,, Mars and Venus weren’t so lucky. Those planets have a “stagnant lid” of relatively unbroken crust, and in Venus’ case, the consequences are clear: Without the ability to bury carbon in the atmosphere, the surface turned into an 860-degree-Fahrenheit hell.
    The new models suggest that rocky planets which can regulate their temperature, and thus develop all the geologic support systems life needs to emerge and thrive, are much rarer than we might hope.,,,
    he wrote. “[A] planet like Earth could well be the one of a kind in the universe.”

    http://www.businessinsider.com.....eat-2016-8

    Scientists ‘Iron Out’ Phenomenon That Sustains Magnetic Field Of Earth – 2 June 2016
    Excerpt: “Without Earth’s magnetic field, life on the planet might not exist.
    For 3.4 billion years, this magnetic field has prevented Earth from becoming extremely vulnerable to high-energy particles called cosmic radiation.
    Scientists know that what generates the protective magnetic field is the low heat conduction of liquid iron in the planet’s outer core. This phenomenon is known as “geodynamo.”
    However, although geodynamo has been identified, experts have yet to understand how it was first created and sustained all throughout history….In the end, researchers found that the ability of iron to transmit heat were not at par with previous estimates of thermal conductivity in the core. It was actually between 18 and 44 watts per meter per kelvin.
    This suggests that the energy needed to sustain the geodynamo has been present since very early in Earth’s history, researchers concluded.
    http://www.techtimes.com/artic.....-earth.htm

    Moreover, besides having the just right conditions to enable long term plate tectonics, and a magnetic field, which is a necessary condition for advanced human life, solar systems which are able to maintain a proper ‘goldilocks’ orbit for billions of years for any planet like earth are much rarer than was previously thought:

    “You might also think that these disparate bodies are scattered across the solar system without rhyme or reason. But move any piece of the solar system today, or try to add anything more, and the whole construction would be thrown fatally out of kilter. So how exactly did this delicate architecture come to be?”
    R. Webb – Unknown solar system 1: How was the solar system built? – New Scientist – 2009

    Milankovitch Cycle Design – Hugh Ross – August 2011
    Excerpt: In all three cases, Waltham proved that the actual Earth/Moon/solar system manifests unusually low Milankovitch levels and frequencies compared to similar alternative systems. ,,, Waltham concluded, “It therefore appears that there has been anthropic selection for slow Milankovitch cycles.” That is, it appears Earth was purposely designed with slow, low-level Milankovitch cycles so as to allow humans to exist and thrive.
    http://www.reasons.org/milankovitch-cycle-design

    Evidence from self-consistent solar system n-body simulations is presented to argue that the Earth- Moon system (EM) plays an important dynamical role in the inner solar system, stabilizing the orbits of Venus and Mercury by suppressing a strong secular resonance of period 8.1 Myr near Venus’s heliocentric distance. The EM thus appears to play a kind of “gravitational keystone” role in the terrestrial precinct, for without it, the orbits of Venus and Mercury become immediately destabilized. … First, we find that EM is performing an essential dynamical role by suppressing or “damping out” a secular resonance driven by the giant planets near the Venusian heliocentric distance. The source of the resonance is a libration of the Jovian longitude of perihelion with the Venusian perihelion longitude.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1538.....4_2055.pdf

    Of Gaps, Fine-Tuning and Newton’s Solar System – Cornelius Hunter – July 2011
    Excerpt: The new results indicate that the solar system could become unstable if diminutive Mercury, the inner most planet, enters into a dance with Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest of all. The resulting upheaval could leave several planets in rubble, including our own. Using Newton’s model of gravity, the chances of such a catastrophe were estimated to be greater than 50/50 over the next 5 billion years. But interestingly, accounting for Albert Einstein’s minor adjustments (according to his theory of relativity), reduces the chances to just 1%.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....solar.html

    Is the Solar System Stable? By Scott Tremaine – 2011
    Excerpt: So what are the results? Most of the calculations agree that eight billion years from now, just before the Sun swallows the inner planets and incinerates the outer ones, all of the planets will still be in orbits very similar to their present ones. In this limited sense, the solar system is stable. However, a closer look at the orbit histories reveals that the story is more nuanced. After a few tens of millions of years, calculations using slightly different parameters (e.g., different planetary masses or initial positions within the small ranges allowed by current observations) or different numerical algorithms begin to diverge at an alarming rate. More precisely, the growth of small differences changes from linear to exponential:,,,
    As an example, shifting your pencil from one side of your desk to the other today could change the gravitational forces on Jupiter enough to shift its position from one side of the Sun to the other a billion years from now. The unpredictability of the solar system over very long times is of course ironic since this was the prototypical system that inspired Laplacian determinism.
    Fortunately, most of this unpredictability is in the orbital phases of the planets, not the shapes and sizes of their orbits, so the chaotic nature of the solar system does not normally lead to collisions between planets. However, the presence of chaos implies that we can only study the long-term fate of the solar system in a statistical sense, by launching in our computers an armada of solar systems with slightly different parameters at the present time—typically, each planet is shifted by a random amount of about a millimeter—and following their evolution. When this is done, it turns out that in about 1 percent of these systems, Mercury’s orbit becomes sufficiently eccentric so that it collides with Venus before the death of the Sun. Thus, the answer to the question of the stability of the solar system—more precisely, will all the planets survive until the death of the Sun—is neither “yes” nor “no” but “yes, with 99 percent probability.”
    https://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2011-summer/solar-system-tremaine

    Comparisons to other solar systems that have now been discovered bares out just how special the Earth’s stable solar system actually is:

    Paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Suggests Our Solar System Is Exceptional – Casey Luskin – September 10, 2015
    Excerpt: our solar system stands out dramatically compared to other solar systems we’ve discovered and that getting rocky planets orbiting near their star as Earth does, in the circumstellar habitable zone, requires a very exceptional set of circumstances.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....99171.html

    How weird is our Solar System? Is it odd like your quirky uncle, or odd like a leprechaun riding a unicorn? – May 2015
    Excerpt: “It’s increasingly seeming that the solar system is something of an oddball,” says Gregory Laughlin, a planetary scientist at the University of California, Santa Cruz in the US.,,,
    Once you get over the fact that planets are as common as stars, you’re faced with their startling diversity. “We kind of always vaguely hoped and expected planets to be common,” Laughlin says. “And that’s absolutely right – they are common. But they are weirder than our own solar system would lead us to expect.”,,,
    “Having nothing interior to Mercury’s orbit and having Jupiter itself – a massive planet on a Jupiter-like orbit – combine to make us unusual,” Laughlin says.,,,
    “Every indication right now looks like we might be rare,” Walsh says.,,,
    “There’s zero evidence that Earth-like environments are common,” Laughlin says. “There’s zero evidence that life is common.”
    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story.....lar-system

    Planet-Making Theories Don’t Fit Extrasolar Planets;
    Excerpt: “The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born, according to a leading planet hunter.” We cannot apply theories that fit our solar system to other systems:
    http://www.creationsafaris.com.....#20110223b

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    In particular, the atmospheres, and chemical compositions, of exoplanets are turning out to be far more diverse than was expected:

    Compositions of Extrasolar Planets – July 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,the presumption that extrasolar terrestrial planets will consistently manifest Earth-like chemical compositions is incorrect. Instead, the simulations revealed “a wide variety of resulting planetary compositions.
    http://www.reasons.org/composi.....ar-planets

    Hubble reveals diversity of exoplanet atmosphere: Largest ever comparative study – December 14, 2015
    Excerpt: “We found the planetary atmospheres to be much more diverse than we expected.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-h.....phere.html

    Rains On Different Worlds – info graphic (sulfuric acid rain, glass rain, diamond rain, iron rain, methane rain)
    http://tehgeektive.com/wp-cont.....lanets.jpg

    Molten glass files: Blue alien planet is NOT like Earth – Nov. 3, 2016
    Excerpt: And then there’s the weather. The winds on HD 189733b (which lies about 63 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Vulpecula) blow at up to 5,400 mph (8,700 km/h) — about seven times the speed of sound. And if that’s not crazy enough for you, scientists think the rain on this world is made not of water, but of molten glass.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ike-earth/

    In the following articles, Michael Denton and Eric Metaxus gives us a glimpse at just how special Earth’s atmosphere actually is:

    The Cold Trap: How It Works – Michael Denton – May 10, 2014
    Excerpt: As water vapor ascends in the atmosphere, it cools and condenses out, forming clouds and rain and snow and falling back to the Earth. This process becomes very intense at the so-called tropopause (17-10 km above sea level) where air temperatures reach -80°C and all remaining water in the atmosphere is frozen out. The air in the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere in the stratosphere (extending up to 50 km above mean sea level) is absolutely dry, containing oxygen, nitrogen, some CO and the other atmospheric gases, but virtually no H2O molecules.,,,
    ,,,above 80-100 km, atoms and molecules are subject to intense ionizing radiation. If water ascended to this level it would be photo-dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen and, the hydrogen being very light, lost into space. Over a relatively short geological period all the water and oceans would be evaporated and the world uninhabitable.,,,
    Oxygen, having a boiling point of -183°C, has no such problems ascending through the tropopause cold trap into the stratosphere. As it does, it becomes subject to more and more intense ionizing radiation. However this leads,, to the formation of ozone (O3). This forms a protective layer in the atmosphere above the tropopause, perfectly placed just above the cold trap and preventing any ionizing radiation in the far UV region from reaching the H2O molecules at the tropopause and in the troposphere below.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....85441.html

    Existence Itself Is a Miracle – Oct. 2014
    Excerpt: “For instance, if the earth were slightly larger, it would of course have slightly more gravity. As a result, methane and ammonia gas, which have molecular weights of sixteen and seventeen respectively, would remain close to the surface of the earth. Since we can’t breathe methane or ammonia because of their toxicity, we would die.
    If Earth were slightly smaller, water vapor would not stay close to the planet’s surface, but would instead dissipate into the atmosphere. Obviously, without water we couldn’t exist.”
    Eric Metaxus
    https://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/26299

    In the following articles and video, Michael Denton further reflects on just how extraordinary the chemistry of Earth’s atmosphere is for human life:

    The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
    Summary (page 11)
    Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive.
    It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1

    Privileged Species – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoI2ms5UHWg

    A Reasonable, but Incomplete, Account of How Humans Mastered Fire – Michael Denton – August 4, 2016
    In short, the discovery of fire, our subsequent mastery of it, and the road it opened up to an advanced technology were only possible because of our inhabiting a world almost exactly like planet earth, complete with atmospheric conditions exactly as they are, along with the properties of carbon and oxygen atoms (and indeed many of the other atoms of the periodic table), and because we possessed a unique anatomical design (including the hand) uniquely fit for fire-making.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03048.html

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover as was mentioned previously, although other atmospheres on other planets are quite different from Earth’s atmosphere, it is important to note just how fine-tuned our atmosphere for visible light to penetrate it.

    Visible light is incredibly fine-tuned for life to exist on earth. Although visible light is only a tiny fraction of the total electromagnetic spectrum coming from the sun, (and from intergalactic space), it happens to be the “most permitted” portion of the sun’s electromagnetic spectrum allowed to filter through the our atmosphere. All the other bands of electromagnetic radiation, directly surrounding visible light, happen to be harmful to organic molecules, and are almost completely absorbed by the magnetic belt and the earth’s atmosphere.

    Fine Tuning Of Light to the Atmosphere, to Biological Life, and to Water – graphs
    Excerpt:,,,The visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (~1 micron) is the most intense radiation from the sun (Figure 1); has the greatest biological utility (Figure 2); and easily passes through atmosphere of Earth (Figure 3) and water (Figure 4) with almost no absorption. It is uniquely this same wavelength of radiation that is idea to foster the chemistry of life. This is either a truly amazing series of coincidences or else the result of careful design. (Walter Bradley),,,
    ,,,These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe’s entire range of electromagnetic emissions.
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?doc.....aGh4MmdnOQ

    The size of light’s wavelengths and the constraints on the size allowable for the protein molecules of organic life, strongly appear to be tailor-made for each other.

    As the following video and article point out, the specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe’s entire range of electromagnetic emissions.

    Fine tuning of Light, Atmosphere, and Water to Photosynthesis (etc..) – video (2016)
    https://youtu.be/NIwZqDkrj9I

    The ” just right ” relationship of the light spectrum and photosynthesis
    Excerpt: The American astronomer George Greenstein discusses this in The Symbiotic Universe, p 96:
    Chlorophyll is the molecule that accomplishes photosynthesis… The mechanism of photosynthesis is initiated by the absorption of sunlight by a chlorophyll molecule. But in order for this to occur, the light must be of the right color. Light of the wrong color won’t do the trick.
    A good analogy is that of a television set. In order for the set to receive a given channel it must be tuned to that channel; tune it differently and the reception will not occur. It is the same with photosynthesis, the Sun functioning as the transmitter in the analogy and the chlorophyll molecule as the receiving TV set. If the molecule and the Sun are not tuned to each other-tuned in the sense of colour- photosynthesis will not occur. As it turns out, the sun’s color is just right.
    One might think that a certain adaptation has been at work here: the adaptation of plant life to the properties of sunlight. After all, if the Sun were a different temperature could not some other molecule, tuned to absorb light of a different colour, take the place of chlorophyll? Remarkably enough the answer is no, for within broad limits all molecules absorb light of similar colours. The absorption of light is accomplished by the excitation of electrons in molecules to higher energy states, and (are) the same no matter what molecule you are discussing. Furthermore, light is composed of photons, packets of energy and photons of the wrong energy simply can not be absorbed… As things stand in reality, there is a good fit between the physics of stars and that of molecules. Failing this fit, however, life would have been impossible.
    The harmony between stellar and molecular physics that Greenstein refers to is a harmony too extraordinary ever to be explained by chance. There was only one chance in 10^25 of the Sun’s providing just the right kind of light necessary for us and that there should be molecules in our world that are capable of using that light. This perfect harmony is unquestionably proof of Intelligent Design.
    http://elshamah.heavenforum.or.....osynthesis

    Moreover, the human eye is apparently ‘tailor-made’ so as to be able to detect a single photon of light

    Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016
    Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons.,,,
    it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,,
    The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance.
    “What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?
    http://phys.org/news/2016-07-humans-smallest.html

    William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined – March 23, 2013
    Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped.
    “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” …
    In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....an-we.html

    Of supplemental note:

    As was pointed out a few days ago, bacteria, instead of eating us as would be expected on a Darwinian view, are instead ‘unexpectedly’ found to play, and to have played, a key role in maintaining a stable atmosphere for humans,,

    “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”
    – Paul G. Falkowski – Professor Geological Sciences – Rutgers
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-622041

    And as was also mentioned a few days ago, and contrary to the grand delusions that some men apparently have in their own ability to control the temperature of the earth, if atheists really want to worry about uncontrollable ‘warming’, then I very strongly suggest they worry about the personal fate of their own souls:

    Special and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbKELVHcvSI&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&t=923s&index=1

    ,,, At least that is a worry about uncontrollable warming that we can personally do something about.

    Verse:

    Luke 16:23-26
    And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
    “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’

    Romans 10:13
    for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

  15. 15
    buffalo says:

    No one can answer what the optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere is. I ask over and over.

  16. 16
    Barry Arrington says:

    DaveS @ 11:

    You obviously did not read the OP before commenting on it, because it addresses the very issue you raise.

    Here, since you don’t seem to have time to read the whole thing, I will pull a snippet out for you that, had you read it, would have answered your question.

    The only “catastrophe” with actual evidence to support it is sea level rise affecting coastal regions, but that will occur in such slow motion that it’s not going to kill anyone. And sea level rise has been occurring for the past 12,000 years, including pre AGW, and there is yet no sign of the rate accelerating. It’s unclear what percentage of current sea level rise would have occurred anyway due to the pre-existing natural trend.

    Do you have ANY evidence to rebut that statement? Do you know of anyone who believes the seas are rising so rapidly that I might die in my sleep tonight (I live at 6,100 feet).

  17. 17
    daveS says:

    Barry,

    I did read the OP, but admittedly didn’t have that passage in mind when I wrote my previous post.

    However, it confirms that you agree with me that the alleged problem with sea level is the claimed rapidity of its rise, not the particular current value. Nobody is talking about some “just right” Goldilocks sea level.

    Is the situation not the same with temperature? That is, is it not true that the alleged problem with global temperature is its claimed rate of its change? I’ve asked a couple of times for examples of scientists stating that the current climate is “optimal” in some sense, but I haven’t seen any yet.

    Do you have ANY evidence to rebut that statement? Do you know of anyone who believes the seas are rising so rapidly that I might die in my sleep tonight (I live at 6,100 feet).

    No, I don’t, and I’m not going to get into a debate now over whether the evidence actually shows the rate of sea level rise is increasing, or more generally that the climate is changing especially fast. I don’t have the background, for one thing. I’m interested only in this issue of “optimal” temperatures that you raised in the OP.

  18. 18
    bjMurray says:

    I have been curious, how quickly some would about face, if the temperature and CO2 alarmism where turned into a fine tuning argument?

  19. 19
    john_a_designer says:

    One of the reasons as a layman that I am skeptical about man-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the politically motivated rhetoric or “spin” that is being used by those who believe in AGW. For example, AGW proponents argue that their position is settled science and supported by an overwhelming consensus of scientists. Is there such a thing as settled science? And how are they arriving at the claims of consensus? Can someone provide me the poll they used, it sample size, who it was conducted by and how?

    Second, they falsely label skeptics as deniers when virtually all of them accept climate change and global warming as facts. What they are skeptical about is how much man-made carbon emmisions have contributed if any to AGW?

    One person they label as a denier is Dr. Richard Lindzen. Here is his view:

    I’m an atmospheric physicist. I’ve published more than 200 scientific papers. For 30 years I taught at MIT, during which time the climate has changed remarkably little. But the cry of “global warming” has grown ever more shrill. In fact, it seems that the less the climate changes, the louder the voices of the climate alarmists get. So, let’s clear the air and create a more accurate picture of where we really stand on the issue of global warming or, as it is now called—“climate change.”

    There are basically three groups of people dealing with this issue. Groups one and two are scientists. Group three consists mostly, at its core, of politicians, environmentalists and the media.

    Group one is associated with the scientific part of the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC (Working Group 1). These are scientists who mostly believe that recent climate change is primarily due to man’s burning of fossil fuels—oil, coal and natural gas. This releases C02, carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere and, they believe, this might eventually dangerously heat the planet.

    Group two is made up of scientists who don’t see this as an especially serious problem. This is the group I belong to. We’re usually referred to as skeptics.

    We note that there are many reasons why the climate changes—the sun, clouds, oceans, the orbital variations of the earth, as well as a myriad of other inputs. None of these is fully understood, and there is no evidence that CO2 emissions are the dominant factor.

    But actually there is much agreement between both groups of scientists. The following are such points of agreement:

    1) The climate is always changing.

    2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas without which life on earth is not possible, but adding it to the atmosphere should lead to some warming.

    3) Atmospheric levels of CO2 have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.

    4) Over this period (the past two centuries), the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit or one degree Celsius; but only since the 1960’s have man’s greenhouse emissions been sufficient to play a role.

    5) Given the complexity of climate, no confident prediction about future global mean temperature or its impact can be made. The IPCC acknowledged in its own 2007 report that “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen

    So how can he be labeled a climate change denier if he doesn’t deny climate change? Isn’t that just an attempt to marginalize and demonize an honest skeptic?

    If you commissioned a poll which asked climate scientists about # 1 through 4 of Lindzen’s list above do you think you would get something of a consensus? Do you see how that’s done? Who is pushing propaganda here, the scientists or politicians, activists and the media?

  20. 20
    REW says:

    This is an interesting question posed by Barry and buffalo ( re CO2)

    There can be no single optimal temperature for the earth. Rather, there are hundreds of thousands of individual environments that have temperatures that change on a weekly basis over the course of a year. Each of these environments is different, so whats optimal for Death Valley wont be optimal for Siberia and vice versa. But then you have to consider what you mean by ‘optimal’ If you mean optimal for human comfort then Death Valley should be a lot cooler. But of course that would mean that most of the unique plants and animals there now would have to die. The best thing for us might be to make the entire surface of the earth a uniform 75 F as in the movie Silent Running (great movie btw) but that would mean everyplace on earth would look like New Jersey and most species would go extinct. When you say ‘the best temp for life’ if you mean the life that exists now it should be obvious the present temperature are optimal since every living thing and every ecosystem is tuned that those temps. Changes in temps will benefit some species and harm others but the overall effect must be negative.
    The same should apply to buffalo’s question about C02. From what I’ve read most forests and most crop plants wont grow much better with higher C02, and some will grow slower. Seaweed culture will improve a lot, so the Whole Foods crowd should be happy about that!

  21. 21
    OldArmy94 says:

    john_a_designer,

    You have hit the nail on the head. It all reminds me of the current brouhaha over the US presidential election; it seems that the “progressive” left was so assured that Hillary Clinton would win that they cannot accept they were wrong. It was the consensus that she would win and you were a fool to even think of giving Trump a chance. Now that the unthinkable has occurred, they are accusing others of fraud and blaming all kinds of phantoms for what just shouldn’t be.

    I don’t write this to promote Donald Trump, but I think the religious zeal that has overtaken the left leaves them incapable of doing anything other than expressing rabid intolerance for anyone who questions their faith in Gaia. “Global warming, er, climate change, is a fact, it is consensus and only deniers say otherwise.” Such stridency is akin to that which emanates from only the most intolerant of ideologues and zealots.

  22. 22
    john_a_designer says:

    In the following video Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex) debates Sierra Club President Aaron Mair about the subject of climate change.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw

    Cruz wanted to talk about the scientific facts and data, but Mair kept coming back again and again with the same answers: man caused climate change is “settled science”… It’s a consensus… 97% of scientists agree.

    Ironically, he had to consult his staff several times to give Cruz those answers. I thought I was watching Saturday Night Live.

    Where does the 97% consensus figure come from? It comes mainly from a study which…

    was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! (emphasis added)

    In other words, the opinions of the scientists in 66% of the other papers were not even considered. However, the problems with Cook’s research don’t end there.

    When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ian-tuttle

    In college I took courses in statistics and statistical research methods. If I had done a study and used the methods that Cook used, I have no doubt I would have received an F.

  23. 23
    buffalo says:

    If we do not know what the optimal CO2 level is, how do we know it isn’t better higher? Detractors just resort to – “We know it cannot keep getting higher. We just know it.”

  24. 24
    es58 says:

    Why is this a problem? Isn’t evolution the obvious solution? If the climate changes the fittest will survive, right? Suddenly this isn’t the right way to look at the situation?

  25. 25

    es58 @ 24: Good points, but humanity has transcended natural selection as the only means of species survival. Human technology and design have largely replaced survival of the fittest.

    This is why global warming is such an emotional topic. Believers in man-made global warming view deniers as evil (or stupid) people who willfully refuse to save the planet through means of human technology and design.

Leave a Reply