Off-topic post removed.  

On 12/1/2017 at 4:22 PM, RickBradford said:

Well, quite. I confess I didn't appreciate that on a thread ostensibly devoted to sea ice and rising seas, we were supposed to be including quantum mechanics as part of the discussion.

 

It is still BS to suggest, as another poster did, that the heat that emanates from burning is principally due to loss of mass in an E=mc2 type relation.

I  would  like  to  restate  that  I  offer  no  "science"  as  such. But at  this  point  I  would  suggest  that   dogmatic   adherence  to  the   E=mc2

theory is  a limitation  .

I  am  well  educated in  excess  of such  elementary  schooled  concepts and  other   alternatives.

Micro  based application  of   E=mc2  theory  that  suggests   validity is  demonstrably false  in   macro   appliction.

Further to  I  never  referred   to  or in  any way  asserted  to  any  reference  to  E=mc2.

What I did  suggest  is  that  in  relevance  to   climate   change  and   global warming  could  it  be possible that  an  overall  reduction  in  the  total   volume /  mass of  the  planet may  be  worth   consideration in  that  it  could  potentially  have   effect .

It  was  a  teaser to  provoke thought.

If   that   eventuated  in  a  discussion  involving     concepts  of   quantum   mechanics in  relation  to  that suggestion   can  only   confirm  that  there  are  at  least   some  people who  have  the  capacity   to  at  least   connect  the  topic  to the   understanding of " educated" information  either   dogmatically   or   as   free  thinkers.

"Science" and   Scientists are in  the  majority advocates  of  dogma that  they  have  been  educated  to  perpetuate.

Recent  developments  indicate  that   the "c" in  E=mc2  as  a  fixed  quantity  is not  a  finite value. 

"C" being  the  speed  of  light is  now  suspected  to  be  a  decremental   value in  expansional   distribution..

In  general  terms  that  implies   it  is   not   a constant. That  would  shed  light  on  Einstiens ignored acknowlegment  that  his   mathematical "C"  was  imperfect  in  the  equation.

If it   can  ever  be  established  that  the   speed  of  light   has a  variable the  will  that  be   because  the  rate  of  travel  is  co - related  to the  expansion  of   distance or  "time" ?

Time  is  another  " constant " we  define  in   our  own   terms inconsistently but   conveniantly.

 

 

 

 

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 2:04 PM, Kieran00001 said:

 

The latest cost analysis of carbon sequestration shows it to be less cost effective than existing low-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar.

 http://theconversation.com/the-latest-bad-news-on-carbon-capture-from-coal-power-plants-higher-costs-51440

Going by that theory, Britain shouldn't have bought Spitfires before WW2 and stuck with Sopwith Camels because they were too expensive.

Either the human race is going to become extinct in short order, in which case no expense is too great to prevent it, or it's not, in which case we can stop worrying and carry on exactly as we are, but if the latter can we stop hearing about it every sodding 5 minutes.

It will take so long to make a difference using solar/ wind/ wave etc that it will make zero difference given the number of new cars that enter the roads every day.

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 6:56 PM, Dumbastheycome said:

Suns   die. 

But the elements that formed them remain, while in a different form.

Far as I know the mass of the universe that existed at the instant of the big bang will be exactly the same as when every star formed has burnt out.

 

I'd like someone to explain what existed before the big bang, and if it is just the same mass expanding and contracting for ever, where did the elements come from in the first place?

50 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

But the elements that formed them remain, while in a different form.

Far as I know the mass of the universe that existed at the instant of the big bang will be exactly the same as when every star formed has burnt out.

 

I'd like someone to explain what existed before the big bang, and if it is just the same mass expanding and contracting for ever, where did the elements come from in the first place?

First you have to embrace the concept of particle-wave duality. On the quantum level "things" are not solid object as we are familiar with in our macro world. Particles often behave as waves, but we observe them as particles.

 

Try download: TTC - The Higgs Boson and Beyon

It is available on TPB

1 hour ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

First you have to embrace the concept of particle-wave duality. On the quantum level "things" are not solid object as we are familiar with in our macro world. Particles often behave as waves, but we observe them as particles.

 

Try download: TTC - The Higgs Boson and Beyon

It is available on TPB

I'll leave you to that as I have little knowledge of such, but whatever the universe is created from, it is illogical to assume the matter from which it is made came into existence from nothing, so where did it come from?

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'll leave you to that as I have little knowledge of such, but whatever the universe is created from, it is illogical to assume the matter from which it is made came into existence from nothing, so where did it come from?

You think of matter as small well defined and dense little round balls, like in the below, but it is all just and illustration to visually describe an atom.The quantum world is very different and each particle is a wave in it own field.

Think about a black hole, very dense, but still all that mass is concentrated in a singularity with no spacial dimension. The BBC program Horizon did an episode on what was before the Big Bang, and nobody really have a clear cut answer, not even the Alpha Team.

17 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Going by that theory, Britain shouldn't have bought Spitfires before WW2 and stuck with Sopwith Camels because they were too expensive.

Either the human race is going to become extinct in short order, in which case no expense is too great to prevent it, or it's not, in which case we can stop worrying and carry on exactly as we are, but if the latter can we stop hearing about it every sodding 5 minutes.

It will take so long to make a difference using solar/ wind/ wave etc that it will make zero difference given the number of new cars that enter the roads every day.

 

 

Ever heard of battery cars?  They will need powering, the choice being fossil fuel or an alternative, fossil fuels carbon contribution can be eased with sequestration or an alternative non polluting alternative can be used.  We should go with the cheapest option that solves the problem so that we can do the most of it that we can afford, if wind turbines and solar are cheaper then why go for fossil fuels and sequestration?  Your analogy with aircraft makes no sense whatsoever.

I imagine 10 years from now the main environmental discussion will be: What to do with a hundred million car batteries loaded with toxic waste, where will we get the the resources to make a hundred million more, and why has there been no decrease in atmospheric C02?

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

I imagine 10 years from now the main environmental discussion will be: What to do with a hundred million car batteries loaded with toxic waste, where will we get the the resources to make a hundred million more, and why has there been no decrease in atmospheric C02?

Judging from the success rate of the beta team the past 20 years, I would say you are 100% right.

In that light, the best we can all do is to enjoy life to the fullest and use all the energy required to do so.

Atomic energy is the solution - And population reduction.

11 minutes ago, The manic said:

Atomic energy is the solution - And population reduction.

A bit short sighted, if you have a leading by example management style.

9 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

Ever heard of battery cars?  They will need powering, the choice being fossil fuel or an alternative, fossil fuels carbon contribution can be eased with sequestration or an alternative non polluting alternative can be used.  We should go with the cheapest option that solves the problem so that we can do the most of it that we can afford, if wind turbines and solar are cheaper then why go for fossil fuels and sequestration?  Your analogy with aircraft makes no sense whatsoever.

 

There are about a gazillion fossil fuelled cars, buses, trucks, trains, m'bikes being used on the planet right now, zillions of planes using carbon fuel, thousands of millions of houses using oil for heating, and millions of power stations.

Either we are all going to die before they can all be replaced, or we can sequester carbon directly, and if enough plants problem solved in a few years.

They have had since the 70s to solve the oil dependence, but have done so little it is insignificant.

4 hours ago, The manic said:

Atomic energy is the solution - And population reduction.

Congratulations. I think you are the only other poster apart from myself to consider population reduction as a solution to prevent the end of humanity.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Congratulations. I think you are the only other poster apart from myself to consider population reduction as a solution to prevent the end of humanity.

To  be  achieved   by  nuclear  reactor   mishaps  perhaps? Not  directly  of   course.  but  incremental  acquired  sterility.  Meanwhile  the  mutated percentage    could  provide increased occupational potential  for   full time   care  givers ?

 

 

14 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

I imagine 10 years from now the main environmental discussion will be: What to do with a hundred million car batteries loaded with toxic waste, where will we get the the resources to make a hundred million more, and why has there been no decrease in atmospheric C02?

Babies are getting born every minute.  Some of those babies will grow up to become environmental activists and scientists and engineers (they're not exclusive pursuits).  They will have new and exciting ideas of how to deal with challenges.  As we're now the adults, let's try and leave them a planet that at least has some workable challenges, rather than a polluted/trashed wasteland.

 

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Congratulations. I think you are the only other poster apart from myself to consider population reduction as a solution to prevent the end of humanity.

You're referring to another poster.  But I have been a strong proponent of pop reduction, and have made lists of how to go about it.  The suggestions may look painful to some, but so is surgery.  I also think human species is no better than other species, but that's even further off-topic.

13 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

There are about a gazillion fossil fuelled cars, buses, trucks, trains, m'bikes being used on the planet right now, zillions of planes using carbon fuel, thousands of millions of houses using oil for heating, and millions of power stations.

Either we are all going to die before they can all be replaced, or we can sequester carbon directly, and if enough plants problem solved in a few years.

They have had since the 70s to solve the oil dependence, but have done so little it is insignificant.

Well perhaps less than a gazillion eh? But all off these fossil fuel burning machines are for the most part recyclable. But if you are going to stick 50 or 100 kg of toxic waste in each one, in the form of modern fast charging batteries. You are adding massive amounts of toxic poisons to the environment. Whereas CO2 is a beneficial life supporting gas. Greenies are passing the buck because they believe the anti CO2 propaganda. But the battery issue is going to be a real environmental problem, Not just a computer model of doom.

8 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

Babies are getting born every minute.  Some of those babies will grow up to become environmental activists and scientists and engineers (they're not exclusive pursuits).  They will have new and exciting ideas of how to deal with challenges.  As we're now the adults, let's try and leave them a planet that at least has some workable challenges, rather than a polluted/trashed wasteland.

 

"Some of those babies will grow up to become environmental activists and scientists and engineers (they're not exclusive pursuits)" Ha ha, they are hand in glove these days. 

 

Your answer is of course true, about new solutions will be found. The way knowledge is increasing, 10 years from now, all these discussions will likely seem infantile. Especially the paranoia. And this is an important reason why we should keep working on what we know to be true and possible. The only thing that could stop this is to limit discussion and to say things like "the debate is over" With the aggressive single agenda governments, media and education, and hysterical propaganda, the pathway to answers becomes an obstacle course.

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

"Some of those babies will grow up to become environmental activists and scientists and engineers (they're not exclusive pursuits)" Ha ha, they are hand in glove these days. 

 

Your answer is of course true, about new solutions will be found. The way knowledge is increasing, 10 years from now, all these discussions will likely seem infantile. Especially the paranoia. And this is an important reason why we should keep working on what we know to be true and possible. The only thing that could stop this is to limit discussion and to say things like "the debate is over" With the aggressive single agenda governments, media and education, and hysterical propaganda, the pathway to answers becomes an obstacle course.

Not to mention those 97 percent of climate scientists and their aggressive single agenda and hysterical propaganda.

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Not to mention those 97 percent of climate scientists and their aggressive single agenda and hysterical propaganda.

Scientists don't operate an "aggressive single agenda and hysterical propaganda."

 

That sort of trendy and tiresome agit-prop is left up to the UN, the EU, Bob Geldof, Greenpeace, the BBC, the LA Times, the Climate Justice Alliance, Kevin Rudd, Pocoyo, the WWF, MSNBC, 350.org, the Bianca Jagger Foundation, Prince Charles, Angela Merkel, the Maldives government, People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights, the Sydney Morning Herald, David Suzuki, the Maryknoll Sisters, the New York Times, Justin Trudeau, the Basque Centre for Climate Change, Leonardo di Caprio and the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University.

 

Do any of them really care about climate? Probably not. Are they up for some champion virtue signalling? Absolutely.

Just now, RickBradford said:

Scientists don't operate an "aggressive single agenda and hysterical propaganda."

 

That sort of trendy and tiresome agit-prop is left up to the UN, the EU, Bob Geldof, Greenpeace, the BBC, the LA Times, the Climate Justice Alliance, Kevin Rudd, Pocoyo, the WWF, MSNBC, 350.org, the Bianca Jagger Foundation, Prince Charles, Angela Merkel, the Maldives government, People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights, the Sydney Morning Herald, David Suzuki, the Maryknoll Sisters, the New York Times, Justin Trudeau, the Basque Centre for Climate Change, Leonardo di Caprio and the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University.

 

Do any of them really care about climate? Probably not. Are they up for some champion virtue signalling? Absolutely.

Mind reading is always a good way to make a point. Congratulations.

15 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

To  be  achieved   by  nuclear  reactor   mishaps  perhaps? Not  directly  of   course.  but  incremental  acquired  sterility.  Meanwhile  the  mutated percentage    could  provide increased occupational potential  for   full time   care  givers ?

 

I'm not advocating mass murder by any means whatsoever, but not paying people to have children and providing free contraception including morning after pill and on demand abortion would be a very good way to have an immediate impact. Also financial incentives to be sterilised for free. Of course, free, on demand euthanasia ( with legal safeguards ) will also figure largely in reducing the human population to levels that will not destroy the human race.

 

AI and robotics will take care of the elderly as less younger people are available. They are already well on the way to that situation.

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Not to mention those 97 percent of climate scientists and their aggressive single agenda and hysterical propaganda.

An aggressive agenda to save our planet?  Are you against that?

 

Only hysterical propaganda I've seen is from those who deny climate change.

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

An aggressive agenda to save our planet?  Are you against that?

 

Only hysterical propaganda I've seen is from those who deny climate change.

1. The agenda isn't about saving the planet. Only a naïf would think that politicians are into climate matters for anything other than their personal vanity projects; most of the NGOs get money from the UN and EU, which they use to lobby for more money from the EU and UN; celebrities are trying to appear noble, and nobody with any sense believes what appears in the press. Journalists are mostly given guidelines to write to, or they're incompetent, or they may have a personal agenda. With some, it's all three.

 

2. Do some reading. You could start with Bob ("Extinction by 2030") Geldof, Prof. Richard ("Death to Deniers") Parncutt, Robert F. ("Skeptics are Traitors") Kennedy, and work your way down from that.

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

1. The agenda isn't about saving the planet. Only a naïf would think that politicians are into climate matters for anything other than their personal vanity projects; most of the NGOs get money from the UN and EU, which they use to lobby for more money from the EU and UN; celebrities are trying to appear noble, and nobody with any sense believes what appears in the press. Journalists are mostly given guidelines to write to, or they're incompetent, or they may have a personal agenda. With some, it's all three.

 

2. Do some reading. You could start with Bob ("Extinction by 2030") Geldof, Prof. Richard ("Death to Deniers") Parncutt, Robert F. ("Skeptics are Traitors") Kennedy, and work your way down from that.

1. Only a naif would confuse scientists with politicians.

 

2. I'll stick with the letter supported by thousands of scientists. Enough for me.

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

1. The agenda isn't about saving the planet. Only a naïf would think that politicians are into climate matters for anything other than their personal vanity projects; most of the NGOs get money from the UN and EU, which they use to lobby for more money from the EU and UN; celebrities are trying to appear noble, and nobody with any sense believes what appears in the press. Journalists are mostly given guidelines to write to, or they're incompetent, or they may have a personal agenda. With some, it's all three.

 

2. Do some reading. You could start with Bob ("Extinction by 2030") Geldof, Prof. Richard ("Death to Deniers") Parncutt, Robert F. ("Skeptics are Traitors") Kennedy, and work your way down from that.

Silly unprovable ad hominem attacks.

13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Silly unprovable ad hominem attacks.

All well-documented occurrences, as 2 minutes with Google would demonstrate.

31 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

1. Only a naif would confuse scientists with politicians.

 

2. I'll stick with the letter supported by thousands of scientists. Enough for me.

I said single agenda governments, media, and education. I left scientists out of that because I believe that There is quite a lot of actual science going on, at the grunt levels anyways.

17 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

All well-documented occurrences, as 2 minutes with Google would demonstrate.

How do you document:

1)Only a naïf would think that politicians are into climate matters for anything other than their personal vanity projects

2)most of the NGOs get money from the UN and EU, which they use to lobby for more money from the EU and UN

3) celebrities are trying to appear noble

4) nobody with any sense believes what appears in the press

5)Journalists are mostly given guidelines to write to, or they're incompetent, or they may have a personal agenda. With some, it's all three.

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

How do you document:

1)Only a naïf would think that politicians are into climate matters for anything other than their personal vanity projects

2)most of the NGOs get money from the UN and EU, which they use to lobby for more money from the EU and UN

3) celebrities are trying to appear noble

4) nobody with any sense believes what appears in the press

5)Journalists are mostly given guidelines to write to, or they're incompetent, or they may have a personal agenda. With some, it's all three.

I wouldn't try.

 

Those are not ad hominem attacks, as no specific person has been identified. And if you want to start a debate about the scope of the phrase ad hominem, you're on your own.

 

For politicians, I could cite several dozen, celebrities likewise, NGOs a handful, and bucketloads of journalists.

 

The cases I cited in person are clear: both Kennedy and Geldof are on video; Parncutt wrote a blog post.