Atlantic Ocean circulation is weakest in at least 1,600 years ( 2/26/21 ) .

[MolaKule]

Of course they know. There's carbon dating along with the type of rock in which the water was found and the "impermeable" rock around it. They know by looking at the fossil record. Certain species for example only live in tidal areas (ex Coral) or say you find non-aquatic fossils (ex, ferns, woody plants, mammals) . So if you find fossilized coral or whatever 100, 500 miles off the current coastline then you have a fairly good idea of the depth of the ocean.

Other examples would be the Bering Land Bridge. The melting of glaciers caused ocean levels to rise so up until 12,000 years ago you could walk from Canada to Vancouver Island. This is geology.

Better check your radioisotope theory. Carbon dating is only good to about 9 half-lives of C14 or about 50,000 years, and then even C14 dating is based on dubious assumptions.

"The half-life for 14C is approximately 5700 years, therefore the 14C isotope is only useful for dating fossils up to about 50,000 years old." http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biomath/tutorials/applications/carbon.html

As I stated earlier, attempting to recreate or to describe the conditions of the past is fraught with scientific problems, because the past conditions that existed are gone, and cannot be verified or recreated in any laboratory to support any theory of the conditions of the past.

In addition, if your conjectural theory about the past isn't falsifiable, then it cannot be considered science.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Assumptions are key to science.
No we cannot go back 1600 years or even 1 day for that matter.
Science uses assumptions to develop theories and then test them.

If you cannot make assumptions based on our best understanding, it seems to me science kinda comes to a halt.
We would have to throw out natural and social science and certainly theoretical science.

And I don't want to do that as my life and career have been based on science.

 

[MolaKule]

Other examples would be the Bering Land Bridge. The melting of glaciers caused ocean levels to rise so up until 12,000 years ago you could walk from Canada to Vancouver Island. This is geology.

I suggest you study the scientific method. There is field geology and Historical geology. What you are referring to is historical geology.

Field geologists study current earth processes as they exist today. Many geologists search for minerals, oil, gas, etc. Many geologists study landslides, earthquakes, floods, and volcanic eruptions.

Paleontology is a branch of science concerned with the study of fossil animals and plants.

Here is one fact many of you are missing in this interesting discussion: Prehistory isn’t an empirical conclusion, rather it’s a historical presupposition.

 

[PandaBear]

We all need to base our trust on something. Currently C14 dating is the standard way for dating something, until something else come along we have to base our assumption on that. We can always disprove something in the future when we see what works and what doesn't. There's nothing wrong with that.

I wouldn't just go out and call everything against my believe "pseudo science" just because there is a way it could fail. If somebody want to disprove it that's fine, they can come up with their peer reviewed paper to disprove it. We've already got enough pseudo science and brain washing from the past, who knows if what we know now isn't just like that.

Which is why I don't care too much about the past, it is cool but to me it is not worth debating too much. What we can do now effectively, efficiently, is what I'm interested in. Reducing world population gradually via birth control and prosperity, so everyone will have a gradually declining population, and let people move to newer places and clean up their messes before they leave, IMO is good regardless of what we believe in.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Better check your radioisotope theory. Carbon dating is only good to about 9 half-lives of C14 or about 50,000 years, and then even C14 dating is based on dubious assumptions.

"The half-life for 14C is approximately 5700 years, therefore the 14C isotope is only useful for dating fossils up to about 50,000 years old." http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biomath/tutorials/applications/carbon.html

As I stated earlier, attempting to recreate or to describe the conditions of the past is fraught with scientific problems, because the past conditions that existed are gone, and cannot be verified or recreated in any laboratory to support any theory of the conditions of the past.

In addition, if your conjectural theory about the past isn't falsifiable, then it cannot be considered science.

Well there isn't just carbon dating as there are other isotopes which can be used and go out millions of years. We may think we need a certain piece for our own validation but that's only due to our own ignorance. We don't know what we don't know.

 

[MolaKule]

Isn't subatomic particle physics a bit of a guessing game right now too?

But Black Holes are also inferred from X-ray telescope images and relativity equations, and the recent LIGO experiments on gravity waves also inferred the collision of two Black Holes.

However, cloud chamber and other subatomic particle experiments are still observations in the present and are repeatable.

 

[MolaKule]

Assumptions are key to science.
No we cannot go back 1600 years or even 1 day for that matter.
Science uses assumptions to develop theories and then test them.

If you cannot make assumptions based on our best understanding, it seems to me science kinda comes to a halt.
We would have to throw out natural and social science and certainly theoretical science.

And I don't want to do that as my life and career have been based on science.

And I too base my life on science as well and it is based on what I refer to as "the scientific method" which is defined as: the method of testing claims by observation and experimentation, or the body of knowledge acquired by such a method. Testability by repeatable observation and experimentation is the key to distinguishing science from other pursuits.

Example: I see a bird's wing which seems to be the only mechanism for creating lift to the bird. (Observation)
I should be able to artificially create man-made lift with any wing-type structure. (My presuppositions, conjectures, and assertions then give rise to the formation of an Hypothesis).
I place various wing profiles in a wind tunnel for testing. (testing for verification of the Hypothesis).
Testing shows some wing profiles actually provide lift whereas others may not. I then reject my original Hypothesis that any wing-type structure can provide lift and I modify my hypothesis to state ONLY what my testing shows. Others repeat my experiments and verify that indeed the wing profiles I tested under the same conditions do indeed provide lift. My theory of wing lift may then become a LAW upon further verification by repeated testing.

 

[JeffKeryk]

@MolaKule I both admire and respect your knowledge and can only imagine what it took to acquire.
After all, I am just a lowly programmer in comparison.

I guess I struggle with the idea that we have to have impiracle knowledge to move forward, especially when it comes to possible future dangers.

I'm sure you know this Einstein quote:
“The wing structure of the hornet, in relation to its weight, is not suitable for flight, but he does not know this and flies anyway.”

I come from the world of semiconductors... 65nm was the limit when I started. Now...

 

[4WD]

@MolaKule I both admire and respect your knowledge and can only imagine what it took to acquire.
After all, I am just a lowly programmer in comparison.

I guess I struggle with the idea that we have to have impiracle knowledge to move forward, especially when it comes to possible future dangers.

I'm sure you know this Einstein quote:
“The wing structure of the hornet, in relation to its weight, is not suitable for flight, but he does not know this and flies anyway.”

I come from the world of semiconductors... 65nm was the limit when I started. Now...

It helps to have two F414-GE-400 engines

 

[OilReport99]

I guess I struggle with the idea that we have to have impiracle knowledge to move forward, especially when it comes to possible future dangers.

We don't have to empirically test everything to move forward, we move forward because we test everything with the tools we have on hand and it works until someone else proves it wrong (Newton --> Einstein is a perfect example, and the former still works for most day-to-day choirs). That's a far cry from predicting the future or emphatically assert we know the past. To the point: Blaming X, Y, Z for the increase or decrease of - insert your favorite nuisance - without empirically testing is not a good example of the scientific method. Much less a good basis for policymaking.

Going a bit deeper, we "believe" in the Axiom of choice - and all of us use it when thinking logically - because it *empirically* works! Not because it's written in the Golden Book...and you want to make policy based on what you've heard on CNN or Scientific American for that matter?

 

[MolaKule]

After all, I am just a lowly programmer in comparison.

I come from the world of semiconductors... 65nm was the limit when I started. Now...

In my book, no one is a lowly anything.

That is cool, I started out of school designing and characterizing Silicon-on-Sapphire IC's for gov. entities I still cannot mention.

Empirical is taken to mean:
Relying on or derived from observation or experiment; for example, empirical results that supported the hypothesis; verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.

So empirical evidence can be used to support a hypothesis. A hypothesis can then be used to support a theory which is: a well-tested body of related ideas often accompanied by mathematical formulation that can be applied to a variety of cases and often supported by interpretations of physical data or empirical evidence. However, we must never attempt to force observations and data to fit a theory.

Sadly, the scientific method is no longer taught it seems in most undergraduate and graduate schools, and people are being led to think that modeling and simulations are the ONLY science they need to know or believe.

 

[Cujet]

Thinking of you guys, we took the helicopter up and grabbed a pic of the Jupiter inlet, and the associated flow of the Gulf Stream. One can clearly see the brackish water leaving the inlet and heading North (North being to the left) almost instantly. With a small initial eddy to the South.

The Gulf Stream has some flat-out righteous current. And again, it's not slower this year.

I hope this helps people visualize the local current and it's behavior.