Thread: I love when I'm right RE: "Global Warming"

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Do relative and particle gravity theories reconcile, yes or no?

Of course, the answer is no.

"Gravity is a property of matter just like the other forces.
"It is not necessary to understand what causes it to model its mechanics."

That's true for most things. I don't need to know how a bullet works to model it's effects, i merely need to shoot someone to observe them in action.

It would still be preferrable to understand what's at play wrt terminal ballistics though. Ironically enough, we don't fully know what's going on there either.

"Really? Which ones? Gravity is such an infintesimally weak force at the QM level that it's almost always safe to ignore it."

To answer that with specific examples will require me to pick up one of my Hawking books and hurt my head for many hours until i find the proper reference(he does note them- in both of his books). I am simply not familiar enough with the problems of reconcilliation to casually discuss the issue without a ready at hand reference material by my side.

Sorry, but i'm a dumbass.

Not at all. I bring a lot of brain baggage to the topic that may be confusing things, and I'm not as up-to-date on this stuff as I used to be; maybe a re-visit of Hawking would do me some good. I tend to focus on the REALLY weird stuff, like the double slit experiment.

Have you read any Gribbin? His followup to "Schroedinger's Cat" is another real mind-blower.

-dale

No, never read any Gribbin. I would like to though. This stuff utterly fascinates me(even if it does at times gimme a headache, lol).

I just finished Hawkings "universe in a nutshell"(for the third time) a few weeks ago, which is the only reason i remember any of this stuff at all in any detail.

When i read a book i take away the theme and general conclusions, but the details fade very quickly on me. At 36 my memory just isn't what it used to be, sadly.

Originally Posted by clegane

Its true that they don't reconcile, but it's only a problem when you're studying particle behavior next to black holes, with enormous masses and tiny distances. There aren't any black holes on Earth.

We certainly hope not!

And more:

I love being right.

Collusion? Forget the oil industry. You have to wonder about the media and environmental scare-mongers. TIME magazine's recent cover story on global warming warned ominously: "Be Worried, Be Very Worried." This week CNN reported: Experts: Global warming behind 2005 hurricanes. And conveniently, this latest round of alarmism comes just in time for the release of Al Gore's global-warming shockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth".

Fortunately not all media are on the apocalyptic band wagon. More articles are appearing that critique "climate change" doomsaying and environmentalism. Here are a few:

Good collection of links and commentary there.

-dale

For nightsoil.

-dale

"None of the models used by IPCC is initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.

"The state of the oceans, sea ice and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

"There is neither an El Nino sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond . . . the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors" and "regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialised".

GCMs "assume linearity" which "works for global forced variations, but it cannot work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle . . . the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate".

KEVIN Trenberth is head of the large US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and one of the advisory high priests of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Source

I love it when I'm even righter.

Good summary from Captain's Quarters.

"Evidence For Global Warming Evaporating?

Al Gore has transformed global warming from scientific theory to political crusade, writing books and producing a documentary to scare people into action. Gore and his supporters claim that scientific consensus is nearly unanimous that the climate changes measured over the last two decades are anthropogenic, and that we may already have run out of time to save the planet. However, James Taylor, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, points out that Gore has some of his "evidence" completely wrong -- and that consensus does not exist on his central argument:

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

I love it when I'm even righter.

Good summary from Captain's Quarters.



-dale

Please tell me there is no word...righter even American /English!!

Originally Posted by dave lukins

Please tell me there is no word...righter even American /English!!

Is "funner" a word? I've actually heard people use that word.

This game is funner than that game.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Is "funner" a word? I've actually heard people use that word.

This game is funner than that game.

No! No! No! at least on this side of the Pond..Yet!

Originally Posted by gunnut

Is "funner" a word? I've actually heard people use that word.

This game is funner than that game.

Funner? I think I should send a gunboat to New Albion so that they may mend their ways.

Don't forget "funnest."

This is by far the funnest thread I've ever participated on.

glyn,

cor blimey guv'nor! 'av a 'eart! we septic tanks just 'alf-inched the funny talk from the originals, we did!

:runs from the lynch mob coming from st mary-le-bow:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Don't forget "funnest."

This is by far the funnest thread I've ever participated on.

That's worster than righter but funner than badder.

What do the Limey's know about English anyway? Everyone knows the Russians invented it.




'IFUN DA TEARBLE'