• Day After Tomorrow

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:18 pm**

I accidentally caught part of a movie which I think was titled 'Day after Tomorrow." Not from the start, but I think it was about global heating generated such great winter storms that New York City froze over. Something like that. Dennis Quaid is in it.

Anyway, the point is that they were able to take the idea and build in some great jokes.

All of a sudden there was a TV news clips of a wave of Americans fleeing the cold to Mexico. Americans hauling their suitcases across the Rio Grande and crashing the fences as the Mexican police stand around dumbfounded. Ah, illegal immigration.

So anyway there was a group of refugees trying to survive in a library in New York. One born leader organizes people and tells them that they are going to burn books to stay alive. There are two intellictuals who are just having a tough time coming to grips with burning books. Finally they accept it until a Neitzsche comes up and then they get into another discussion if they should burn a book by the greatest philospher. Then another guy comes in and tells them to knock it off, he has found a whole section on the tax code which they can burn instead.

Posted: **Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:04 pm**

In the plot the polar ice caps melt and flood the oceans with enough fresh water that the gulf stream shuts down warm water is no longer delivered to northern latitudes.

Oh, and by the way, for you knot-headed Conservatives out there. TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THIS SITE... (http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/45202.html)it is not a Federal Government site, it is a site paid for by the government of the State of New York.

Do States have a right to fight this?

READ ON!!!

Sea Level Rise ~~ New York Projections and Impacts

Rising seas and increased storm surges will

put New York's coastlines at risk.

Global mean sea level has been generally rising since the end of the last ice age. In the 18th and 19th centuries the rise was small, but during the 20th century the seas rose faster, primarily because ocean waters have warmed and expanded, and larger volumes of meltwater from mountain glaciers are now reaching the sea.

Conservative projections expect the seas will rise by 7 to 23 inches by 2100, but do not account for rapid melt of land-based ice. The latest studies take into account rapid ice melt, which we are already observing, to project a rise in global mean sea level of three feet or more.

Rising sea levels pose serious threats to coastal communities and natural resources, both worldwide and in New York. To ensure the future usability and security of facilities, transportation and critical resources (such as drinking water), government officials and private sector planners need the best available sea level rise projections.

How Sea Level Rise Will Impact New York

Well over half of New Yorkers live in marine coastal counties. Already, many communities and natural resources along the ocean coast and tidal portions of the Hudson River are at risk to damaging storms. This risk affects not only built resources, but also critical ecosystem services such as flood buffers, drinking water protection and species habitat.

According to the 2007 Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment by the Union of Concerned Scientists, as seas rise

The risk of severe flooding and storm damage will increase;

Beaches and bluffs will suffer increased erosion;

Low-lying areas will be inundated, with potential for saltwater to infiltrate into surface waters and aquifers;

Sewage and septic systems, transportation and water treatment infrastructure will be at risk from flooding and erosion.

Sea Level Rise Projections

Global Mean Sea Level Rise

During the past century the rate of global mean sea level rise was about 1.7 millimeters per year (0.7 inches per decade), and observations indicate that the rate of global sea level rise is accelerating.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an ongoing international scientific study sponsored by the United Nations, projects a rate of sea level rise during the 21st century faster than the rate observed since 1970. The panel's 2007 projection assumed gradual melting of land ice, leading to a likely rise in global sea levels of 7 to 23 inches by 2100. More recent analysis, which takes into account rapid melting of land-based ice sheets (particularly in Greenland and west Antarctica) and probable future warming scenarios, projects a global mean sea level rise of 20 to 55 inches above the 1990 level by 2100.

Relative Sea Level

The term relative (or local) sea level refers to the height of the sea relative to some land benchmark. Relative sea level takes into account both global sea level and certain local factors, including subsidence or uplift of the earth's crust in response to changes in glaciation or extraction of groundwater, oil or gas; tectonic activity; sediment consolidation; and short-term climatic fluctuations (e.g., El Nino Southern Oscillation).

New York State Sea Level Rise Projections

Tide-gauge observations indicate that rates of relative sea level rise in New York State were greater than the global mean, ranging from 2.41 to 2.77 millimeters per year (0.9 to 1.1 inches per decade) over the last century.

The State Sea Level Rise Task Force, charged by the Legislature with developing recommendations for adapting to sea level rise, adopted the sea level rise projections in the table below for two regions of New York State. Although these projections have not been officially adopted by the Legislature or any New York State agency for regulatory purposes, DEC considers them the best available projections for planning purposes.

Projected Sea Level Rise in Two Regions of New York (ClimAID Integrated Assessment, 2010)

Lower Hudson Valley & Long Island 2020s 2050s 2080s

Sea level rise 2 to 5 in 7 to 12 in 12 to 23 in

Sea level rise with rapid ice-melt scenario 5 to 10 in 19 - 29 in 41 to 55 in

Mid-Hudson Valley & Capital Region 2020s 2050s 2080s

Sea level rise 1 to 4 in 5 to 9 in 8 to 18 in

Sea level rise with rapid ice-melt scenario 4 to 9 in 17 to 26 in 37 to 50 in

The figures for sea level rise represent the central range (middle 67%) of values from model-based probabilities (16 global climate models by 3 greenhouse gas emissions scenarios) rounded to the nearest inch.

The figures for sea level rise with rapid ice-melt scenario are based on acceleration of recent rates of ice melt in the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets and paleoclimate studies.

How Sea Level Rise Projections are Made

The technical basis for sea level rise projections is found in the following peer-reviewed publications, as well as in the report of the Sea Level Rise Task Force and the ClimAid Integrated Assessment for Effective Climate-change Adaptation Strategies in New York State (available from New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, 17 Columbia Circle, Albany, NY 12203).

Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science, 315(58):368-370.

Titus, J.G. 2009. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1. U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 298pp. This work can be found at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effect ... ap4-1.html (see Mid-Atlantic Coastal Sensitivity link on right).

More about Sea Level Rise:

Sea Level Rise Task Force - Learn about the work of the Sea Level Rise Task Force that was created in 2007 by the New York State Legislature.

Posted: **Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:54 am**

It's a move, based upon theory.

Theory is like belief.

It ain't true.

Might be, might not be.

But lack of facts do little to sway people away from their hard and fast theories and beliefs.

Unfortunately I won't live long enough to find out how this all plays out.

Not thinking about it makes my days much more relaxing.

There is so much going on, and not going on, in the world, so much to fret about.

It is far easier on my psyche to follow the lead of Alfred E Neuman; "What? Me worry?"

But if worry, conjecture, fear, anxiety make people feel better, I am happy for them.

i do however still abide by my guiding rule: Trust No One. Maybe not even yourself.

Posted: **Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:31 am**

>>Global what?

>>Oh, it's sunspots. It's only some ignorant dirty hippie tree hugger making noises...

>>It's nothing to worry about. It's only a movie.

>>It's Jove raping Venus and she's weeping.

>>

http://www.policymic.com/articles/10551 ... punishment

This week, the Republican Party of Texas released its official 2012 platform, with provisions including the repeal of the Voting Rights Act, recommendations for the use of corporal punishment in classrooms, and opposition to the teaching of higher order thinking skills.

Its almost too easy a target to even pick on, and most of the claims are too outrageous to be taken seriously. However, Texas has a long-standing record of extreme fringe control over what and how its students are learning.

This recent platform rollout is reminiscent of the debate that was conducted in 2010 over the content of Texas textbooks, which gives the current situation more context. Because of the large population of Texas, they have an enormous amount of buying power in the textbook industry, purchasing 48 million textbooks annually. Therefore, the very conservative Texas Board of Education has more clout in deciding the content of the nation's textbooks than almost any other Board across the country.

A curriculum with a distinct conservative color was passed in a series of amendments that characterize America as a Christian Nation, downplaying the role of Thomas Jefferson, excluding most Hispanic Americans, and including a plank to ensure that students learn about the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Shlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.

What is breathtaking about these amendments is their power to actually rewrite history for millions of students due to the whims of a few Board members. Compounding this is the recent release of the Texas GOPs platform; the most offensive and authoritarian aspects of it concerned--surprise, surprise--education.

An educated population is absolutely integral in any society. Instead of empowering future voters, the GOP seeks to prime them for the same kind of group-think that has befallen their party.

The platform states its opposition to the teaching of critical thinking skills as it holds the purpose of challenging the students fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority. The assumption that a childs beliefs are fixed in middle or even high school is absurd to begin with, along with the affirmation of a parents absolute authority over those beliefs.

In the same authoritarian vein, the GOP recommends that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems and that corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas. The current multicultural curriculum is divisive in their minds, and nurtures alienation among racial and ethnic groups.

For a party that prides itself on protecting liberty, this is an extraordinary breach of basic exercises of freedom. They are doing their state and its children a disservice by not equipping them with the tools to thinking critically and seek out information in order to make rational and empathetic decisions in the future. It speaks volumes to the insularity that is now required for the GOP to succeed; in other words, keep them stupid and well win.

Posted: **Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:16 am**

Just a small foot note to the last two posts, Science, a theory is in fact a fact. You can take it to the bank, it is not going to change but only added to. The people in Texas are the same people that a few centuries back knew that the world was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, but fear not, when they are totally proven to be wrong again and they have no choice but to except it, they will come up with something new because lets face it, this world was made just for them by god 6000 years ago.

In other parts of the news, a Russian travel cruse liner is offering a special to go to the north poll and lie in the sun all summer.

And to think Perry had to use sled dogs, what was he thinking?

Even his second trip he had to cross Ice, I guess he went in the winter, yea, thats what he did.

Peary's next expedition was supported by a $50,000 gift by George Crocker,[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Peary#cite_note-2) who was the youngest son of Charles Crocker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Crocker). Peary then used the money for a new ship. Peary's new ship Roosevelt battled its way through the ice between Greenland and Ellesmere Island to an American hemisphere farthest north by ship. The 1906 "Peary System" dogsled drive for the pole across the rough sea ice of the Arctic Ocean started from the north tip of Ellesmere at 83° north latitude. The parties made well under 10 miles (16 km) a day until they became separated by a storm, so Peary was inadvertently without a companion sufficiently trained in navigation to verify his account from that point northward. With insufficient food, and with the negotiability of the ice between himself and land an uncertain factor, he made the best dash he could and barely escaped with his life off the melting ice. On April 20, he was no further north than 86°30' latitude[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Peary#cite_note-3) yet he claimed to have the next day achieved a Farthest North (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farthest_North) world record at 87°06' and returned to 86°30' without camping, an implied trip of at least 72 nautical miles (133 km) between sleeping, even assuming undetoured travel.

Global Warming is a left wing socialist conspiracy.

River

Posted: **Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:14 pm**

Posted: **Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:21 pm**

River

What of Matthew Henson?

Moi

'nuff said

Posted: **Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:52 pm**

Webster's also defines "theory" as:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact

That the average temperature for sixteen of the past seventeen years has been higher than in recorded history seems to be a fact.

That the oceans are rising seems to be a fact

That humans are pouring co2 into the atmosphere seems to be a fact

That glaciers are melting at a rate never before recorded.. ya da ya da ya da.......

does give rise to a plausible theory that there might be a trend here.

Posted: **Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:29 am**

Theory From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation

Theory#mw-head), searc

Theory#p-search)

For other uses, see Theory (disambiguation)

Theory_%28disambiguation%29).

The English word theory was derived from a technical term in philosophy

Philosophy) in Ancient Greek

lassical_Greece). The word theoria

Theoria), θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation

ontemplation) or speculation

Speculative_reason), as opposed to action

Action_theory_%28philosophy%29).[1]

Theory#cite_note-0) Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/praxis), πρᾶξις) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because theory involved no doing apart from itself.

A classical example of the distinction between theoretical and practical uses the discipline of medicine: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes

auses) and nature

Nature_%28philosophy%29) of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[2]

Theory#cite_note-1)

In modern contexts, theories in the arts

The_arts) and philosophy

Philosophy) may address ideas and empirical phenomena

Empiricism) which are not easily measurable. By extension of the philosophical meaning, "theoria

Theoria)" is also a word still used in theological

Theology) contexts.

In modern science

Science), the term "theory" refers to scientific theories

Scientific_theory), which are proposed explanations

Explanation) of empirical

Empirical) phenomena, made in a way consistent

onsistency) with scientific method

Scientific_method), that fulfill certain criteria

Scientific_theory#Characteristics_of_theories). Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify

Proof_%28truth%29)") or empirically contradict ("falsify

Falsifiability)") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[3]

Theory#cite_note-2) in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.

Theory#cite_note-3) Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses

Hypothesis), which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws

Scientific_laws), which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[5]

Theory#cite_note-4)

Scientific theory From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation

Scientific_theory#mw-head), searc

Scientific_theory#p-search)

For a general treatment of theories, see theory

Theory).

scientific theories: John Dalton

John_Dalton) (atomic theory

Atomic_theory)), Charles Darwin

Darwin) (theory of evolution

Theory_of_evolution)), and Albert Einstein

Albert_Einstein) (theory of relativity

Theory_of_relativity)).

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed

Reproducibility) through observation

Observation) and experiment

Experiment)."[1]

Scientific_theory#cite_note-0)[2]

Scientific_theory#cite_note-AAAS_Evolution_Resources-1) Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses

Hypothesis) that have been corroborated through the scientific method

Scientific_method), then gather evidence

Evidence) to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive

Inductive_reasoning) in nature and do not make apodictic

Apodicticity) propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3]

Scientific_theory#cite_note-Schafersman-2)

Scientific_theory#cite_note-Project2061-3)

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable

Falsifiability) predictions

Prediction#Prediction_in_science) with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology

Technology) or curing disease

Disease).

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

Scientific_theory#cite_note-Schafersman-2) This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]

Scientific_theory#cite_note-4)

Theory#cite_note-4)

Theory#cite_note-4)

Posted: **Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:44 am**

And if you did not like Wikipedia how about WiseGeek

The word “theory” means a number of different things, depending on the context. In the maths and sciences, for example, a theory is a tested and testable concept which is used to explain an occurrence. For students of the arts, “theory” refers to the non-practical aspect of their work, while laypeople refer to unproven ideas and speculation as theories. The multitude of meanings for this word can get confusing, but the intent is usually clear from the context; a mathematical paper talking about a theory, for example, is probably referring to a theory in the scientific sense.

In English, the word dates back to 1592, when it was used to mean a concept or scheme. By the 1630s, scientists had co-opted the word, using it to describe an explanation or thought which was based on observation and testing. “To theorize” also emerged at around the same time.

In the sciences, theories are created after observation and testing. They are designed to rationally and clearly explain a phenomenon. For example, Isaac Newton came up with a theory about gravity (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-gravity.htm) in the 17th century, and the theory proved to be both testable and correct. Scientific theories are not quite the same thing as facts, but they are often very similar; scientists usually test their theories extensively before airing them, looking for obvious problems which could cause the theory to be challenged.

or

Definition for scientific theory:

Web definitions:

a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable".wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

More info » (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&clie ... d=0CFcQkQ4)Source (http://www.google.com/url?q=scientific+ ... j9c0LSlHWg) - Wikipedia (http://www.google.com/url?q=scientific+ ... xitPGs29Ug) - Dictionary.com (http://www.google.com/url?q=scientific+ ... 8FO8qchhWA) - Merriam-Webster (http://www.google.com/url?q=scientific+ ... rmz0ivYFBg) - The Free Dictionary (http://www.google.com/url?q=scientific+ ... qVVNhIagWg)

And

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.

The claim "No human lives forever" is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. In theory, one would have to observe a human living forever to falsify that claim. On the other hand, "All humans live forever" is falsifiable since the presentation of just one dead human could prove the statement wrong (excluding metaphysical assertions about souls, which are not falsifiable). Moreover, a claim may be true and still be falsifiable; if "All humans live forever" were true, we would never actually find a dead human, and yet that claim would still be falsifiable because we can at least imagine the observation that would prove it wrong.

Some statements are only falsifiable in theory, while others are even falsifiable in practice (i.e. testable (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testability)). For example, "it will be raining here in one billion years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.

Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) and the philosophy of science (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science). The concept was made popular by Karl Popper (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). Popper concluded that a hypothesis (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis), proposition (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition), or theory (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) is "scientific" only if it is, among other things, falsifiable. That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, although not without relevance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroboration) by past experience, though in Popper's view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not guarantee that the theory is true or even partially true.

Popper invented the notion of metaphysical research programs to name such ideas. In contrast to positivism (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism), which held that statements are senseless if they cannot be verified or falsified, Popper claimed that falsifiability is merely a special case of the more general notion of criticizability. Still, he admitted that tests and refutation is one of the most effective methods by which theories can be criticized.

Contents

1 Naïve falsification

Falsifiability#Na.C3.AFve_falsification)

1.1 Two types of statements: observational and categorical

Falsifiability#Two_types_of_statements:_observatio nal_and_categorical)

1.2 Inductive categorical inference

Falsifiability#Inductive_categorical_inference)

1.2.1 Deductive falsification

Falsifiability#Deductive_falsification)

2 Falsificationism

Falsifiability#Falsificationism)

3 The criterion of demarcation

Falsifiability#The_criterion_of_demarcation)

3.1 Verificationism

Falsifiability#Verificationism)

3.2 Use in courts of law

Falsifiability#Use_in_courts_of_law)

4 Criticisms

Falsifiability#Criticisms)

4.1 Contemporary philosophers

Falsifiability#Contemporary_philosophers)

4.2 Kuhn and Lakatos

Falsifiability#Kuhn_and_Lakatos)

4.3 Feyerabend

Falsifiability#Feyerabend)

4.4 Sokal and Bricmont

Falsifiability#Sokal_and_Bricmont)

5 Examples

Falsifiability#Examples)

5.1 Economics

Falsifiability#Economics)

5.2 Ethics

Falsifiability#Ethics)

5.3 Evolution

Falsifiability#Evolution)

5.4 Historicism

Falsifiability#Historicism)

5.5 Logic and mathematics

Falsifiability#Logic_and_mathematics)

5.6 Solipsism

Falsifiability#Solipsism)

5.7 Theism

Falsifiability#Theism)

6 Quotations

Falsifiability#Quotations)

7 Notes

Falsifiability#Notes)

8 See also

Falsifiability#See_also)

9 References

Falsifiability#References)

10 External links

Falsifiability#External_links)

I sure hope this clears things up, I know it has for me.

River

Day After Tomorrow

Day After Tomorrow

Re: Day After Tomorrow

Re: Day After Tomorrow

Re: Day After Tomorrow

Re: Day After Tomorrow

Re: Day After Tomorrow

Re: Day After Tomorrow

Re: Day After Tomorrow

Re: Day After Tomorrow

Re: Day After Tomorrow