Scott Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Off-topic post removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbastheycome Posted December 2, 2017 Share Posted December 2, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpatOilWorker Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpatOilWorker Posted December 3, 2017 Share Posted December 3, 2017 (edited) 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. Edited December 3, 2017 by ExpatOilWorker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieran00001 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpatOilWorker Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The manic Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 Atomic energy is the solution - And population reduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpatOilWorker Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbastheycome Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 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 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 (edited) 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. Edited December 5, 2017 by canuckamuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 (edited) 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. Edited December 5, 2017 by canuckamuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said: Silly unprovable ad hominem attacks. All well-documented occurrences, as 2 minutes with Google would demonstrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now