On Thursday's "Good Morning America," weatherman and global warming alarmist Sam Champion slipped some reassuring words about the validity of climate change into his report on the bone chilling temperatures hitting much of the country. After admitting that NASA had declared 2008 to be the coldest year since 2000, he added, "But they [NASA] caution this was caused in part by a cooling La Nina in the pacific and warn global warming is still playing an important part in our changing climate."
Champion then played a clip of a NASA climate scientist and global warming proponent Gavin Schmidt admonishing, "And, so, it's a little bit difficult to talk about global warming when you're going to have the coldest day of the year. But you have to realize that weather isn't abolished just because there's a long-term trend in the climate."
The liberal weatherman faced a similar problem on April 6, 2007. On that day, he delivered this brutal weather report:
SAM CHAMPION: But it’s a shot of cold air and it’s opened the door for arctic air all the way through the nation. Call it about two thirds of the nation getting this push of arctic cold. This is normally a December, mid-December pattern. As this cold air goes, look at the shades of blue in just about all areas.
Champion then proceeded to segue into yet another discussion of global warming. And, of course, this is the same ABC personality who once hosted a segment that fretted about "billions" dying from climate change.
A transcript of the brief mention of global warming on the January 15 show, which aired at 7:04am, follows:
SAM CHAMPION: It feels like the coldest winter in years. And a report from NASA climate scientists says 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. But they caution this was caused in part by a cooling La Nina in the pacific and warn global warming is still playing an important part in our changing climate.
GAVIN SCHMIDT (Climate Scientist, NASA Goddard Inst. For Space Studies): And, so, it's a little bit difficult to talk about global warming when you're going to have the coldest day of the year. But you have to realize that weather isn't abolished just because there's a long-term trend in the climate.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
How can you have global warming.....
January 15, 2009 - 18:04 ET by superconif it isn't warm...?
Because with a name like Obama... you know it has to be good.
read the fine print ...
January 15, 2009 - 18:26 ET by LionKingIn the long term ...
What he means is that eventually, we will experience the cyclical warming trend ... they will say they were right, except, that it will not be catastrophic.
Global Warmin alarmists come in 2 shapes: the ignorant like Mr Champion, or the conman, like the Goracle.
And the conman will ALWAYS
January 16, 2009 - 09:06 ET by misterbee241And the conman will ALWAYS take the ignorant.
I wish we could sue them for
January 15, 2009 - 18:09 ET by chicagotraumaI wish we could sue them for fraud.
La Nina? Interesting how
January 15, 2009 - 18:23 ET by danboLa Nina? Interesting how they discover La Nina when it cools. Yet ignore all the el ninos that occured after the PDO flipped to it's warm phase.
Sam the PDO is back in the cool phase. The sun is quiet. Welcome to mother nature.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
It always seems to come back to this idiot
January 15, 2009 - 19:17 ET by dboWe have now had 7 La Nina's in the last 11 years. 11 years ago in Oct/97 that master of all scientists and windbag extraordinaire Al Gore implied that because of greenhouse gasses we would be seeing more and more El Nino's and thus La Nina's would become rare.
http://www.sfgate.co...
http://www.ips.fi/ko...
Blah Blah Blah
January 15, 2009 - 18:27 ET by sadAs forest Gump would say"Stupid is as stupid does."
GAVIN SCHMIDT (Climate
January 15, 2009 - 18:30 ET by BDGAVIN SCHMIDT (Climate Scientist, NASA Goddard Inst. For Space Studies): And, so, it's a little bit difficult to talk about global warming when you're going to have the coldest day of the year. But you have to realize that weather isn't abolished just because there's a long-term trend in the climate. \
Gavin can't justify the
January 15, 2009 - 18:36 ET by danboGavin can't justify the large budget when his boss and chief alarmist proclaims october the warmest yet. Yet fails to check his data.
Seems Gavin and company have problems with data checking.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
The same handful of alarmists keep repeating the same thing
January 15, 2009 - 22:22 ET by PopularTechIt is hilarious to see the same handful of alarmist scientists pushing the whole AGW agenda.
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology
What no climatologists?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Gore needs to give Putin
January 16, 2009 - 08:34 ET by Hunter12Gore needs to give Putin some GIM stock or he's going to derail the AGW train, if Mother Nature doesn't do it first. Putin's going to have to rein in those Russian climatologists, who've started predicting a new ice age is looming.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
This moronic peice by Sam
January 15, 2009 - 18:32 ET by Clear thinkerThis moronic peice by Sam Champion reminds me of a post I read somewhere yesterday on one of the liberal blogs. This person was squawking about how we should shut-up as to how cold it is, because global warming was indeed happening, and he had proof.
His proof... he lives in Southern California about 30 minutes from the mexican border, and it was warm there. Duh!
Woeful Future For Military?
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
I guess he never tried
January 15, 2009 - 18:37 ET by danboI guess he never tried checking his proof by looking out the window. That's a problem for warmers.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
danbo... Have you been
January 15, 2009 - 18:42 ET by Clear thinkerdanbo...
Have you been watching the shredding of data over at wattsupwiththat.com? I love that site!
Woeful Future For Military?
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Anthony deserves a lot more
January 15, 2009 - 18:55 ET by danboAnthony deserves a lot more than he gets. He's one of the voices of reason. And unlike Gavin allows those who disagree. I often go there and also Icecap, Climate Audit, Spencers site, and Lucia's, regularly. Also a number of other less frequently. Even that Soros site. ReallyScaredClimatologist that goes by the name RealClimate.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
danbo... Did you get to
January 15, 2009 - 19:08 ET by Clear thinkerdanbo...
Did you get to see the reaction for Anthony getting an award for best science blog? I covered it here... Pissing Off An Ecofascist
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
I didn't know it was final.
January 15, 2009 - 19:23 ET by danboI didn't know it was final. I know he was ahead when they closed it. (I recall even Climateaudit did better than ReallyScaredClimatologist.)
I have little doubt the warmers are upset. But then they lecture me on science and don't know what a standard deviation is. Or why I question .65 as very likely. More likely than not is absurd.
If Anthony did win?. Openness and science won out over pseudo science.
I never considered the shrill Huff Post as having science as a strong suit.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Danbo
January 15, 2009 - 19:31 ET by dboBut then they lecture me on science and don't know what a standard deviation is
Danbo,
Did Giles ever answer that standard deviation question from five months ago or is he still sratching his head?
You've got to be kidding. I
January 15, 2009 - 19:53 ET by danboYou've got to be kidding. I never saw that he had any idea what I was talking about. Obviously if he ever took statistics, he didn't do well in it.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
He claims to have a Phd.
January 16, 2009 - 00:18 ET by NL207He claims to have a Phd. I cannot imagine an accredited Phd program in any field of science that does not require at least one course in statisics. My field recommended it at the BS level and required it at the MS level.
If he's a Post hole digger.
January 16, 2009 - 08:36 ET by danboIf he's a Post hole digger. I have a Nobel in Science.
He apparently didn't understand the links he kept putting up. They definately weren't slam dunks for the warmer team.
He apparently never took a course in research design. Though I have to be honest. There were a number of people in grad school with me (including a number of my professors) who were challenged in research methodology. If he's a PhD he could e one of those. There's a lot of bad research out there.
I had to take stats 3 times. Twice undergraduate. In 2 departments. One department wouldn't accept the stats I already had in another department. But required it to take a demographics course. Their stats course was #2.
I went back to grad school after working a number of years. They said my other stats were too long before. 3rd stats course.
And of course when you get into research you start doing practical applications in stats and moving your knowledge to higher levels.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
The only thing Giles is
January 16, 2009 - 00:13 ET by NL207The only thing Giles is scratching is not his head.
You mean he's scratching
January 16, 2009 - 00:18 ET by Clear thinkerYou mean he's scratching his other head, right?
U.S. Military Eyes Mexico
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
I welcome you to supply
January 16, 2009 - 00:18 ET by NL207I welcome you to supply whatever interpretations as please you!
CT It's fun to watch. AGW
January 15, 2009 - 18:59 ET by danboCT It's fun to watch. AGW is falling apart. Even their choir is starting to question them. So they're saying crazier things. And getting more shrill.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
I love watching it too. And
January 15, 2009 - 19:09 ET by Clear thinkerI love watching it too. And I always keep a lot of popcorn handy.
Pissing Off An Ecofascist
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
(not)
January 15, 2009 - 18:35 ET by In ExcessI'm confused.
Schmidt is right on, on long-term trend(s) in the climate
January 15, 2009 - 19:01 ET by Gary HallSure as heck is a long-term trend in the climate. Oh, about every 300-500 years the climate reverses itself and goes from a warm cycle from a cold cycle, or from a cold cycle to a warm cycle. Thaose are trends. Looks like we could be ending this last warming trend. The bottom of the last cold cycle was - oh my, just about 400 years ago. Global temps
The warming trend they's so
January 15, 2009 - 19:13 ET by danboThe warming trend they's so worried about is probably rooted in the plistocene. Neanderthal had too many camp fires, and started it.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Taking time out of data creation to embarrass himself
January 15, 2009 - 19:27 ET by dbo...Gavin Schmidt admonishing, "And, so, it's a little bit difficult to
talk about global warming when you're going to have the coldest day of
the year. But you have to realize that weather isn't abolished just
because there's a long-term trend in the climate."
I wonder what long term trend he's talking about? Of the last 7 decades, 5 have had a cooling trend while only 2 have had warming.
http://icecap.us/ima...
Global Warming is Real and Conservatives must accept this
January 15, 2009 - 19:39 ET by respectfulconservativeIf a balloon floats upwards does it mean gravity does not exist? Just because we are experiencing a moment of cold means the world is not warming.
I know most people here are eager to belief global warming is just a fraud believed by the majority of americans and the vast majority of climate scientists. As a non-scientist, I tend to believe laymen and politicians should follow the scientific consensus on an issue. The consensus on climate change is very real and it takes an extremely selective approach to information gathering for anyone to claim otherwise.
There is a small chance this consensus will prove to be wrong but we must accept that. If there is a thirty percent chance bin laden is not in a building, should we avoid bombing that building until it is too late?
disrespectfulliberal is back
January 15, 2009 - 19:46 ET by choselife3xOh goody. I needed a laugh.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Come to Minnesota
January 15, 2009 - 19:50 ET by CobraManI dare you to come to Minnesota tonight and tell me that Global Warming is real! We haven't had this many below-freezing days since 1891. So, tell me, if Global Warming is real, why are we matching, and exceeding, cold weather records set OVER 100 YEARS AGO?
If Global Warming were real, we should NOT be getting as cold as we are. The average temperatures should be increasing, and the number of below-freezing days should be decreasing, correct? Yet here we are, reaching, and exceeding, cold weather records set 100 YEARS ago! Care the explain this little anomaly?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
It was the same here
January 15, 2009 - 19:55 ET by bigtimerIt was the same here cobra...who knows, may be a lot more to come yet, plus broke snow level records too.
Champion can stick it...along with the other congress-critters that are going to be picking our pockets with this BS...intentionally of course, all the while Algore pads his pockets some more along with his friends...good ol' Browner and crew will see to that to guide congress along the way.
this country and plain common sense is upside down....while we pay for this all in so many ways.
"You've gone beyond the law"... Sen. Kerry~ Head of Foreign Relations Committee to Hillary at Sec.of State confirmation hearings~1-13-09
GW mass hysteria
January 16, 2009 - 00:20 ET by BO STINKSAhem, excuse me, cobra, sir. I can tell you why. Yes, God has the BEST sense of humor and He decided to tweak the alarmists' just a bit. Some of us have to suffer the cold because of His great joke, but laughter doeth good like medicine and He knew it would keep us warm. Cheers!
So what about
January 15, 2009 - 19:50 ET by general companyGlobal Warming is Real and Conservatives must accept this
All of the proof to the contrary? BTW, what is so bad about a warmer climate?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
gc.... Absolutely
January 15, 2009 - 20:00 ET by bigtimergc....
Absolutely nothing...I would welcome some!
Btw...I didn't see rc above, funny where he implies this is just a momentary freak thing...
NOT! It's been cooling for years now.
"You've gone beyond the law"... Sen. Kerry~ Head of Foreign Relations Committee to Hillary at Sec.of State confirmation hearings~1-13-09
Science isn't about
January 15, 2009 - 19:59 ET by danboScience isn't about consensus. It's about finding the truth. Those who claim a consensus are just putting their hands over their ears and eyes, saying I don't want to hear or see.
From personnal experience. the consensus is often temporary and wrong.
Science is about openness and debate.
Something Warmers are afraid of.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
So right, you are!
January 15, 2009 - 20:20 ET by CobraMan"Science isn't about consensus. It's about finding the truth."
Every time someone talks about scientific consensus, I am remind of the scientific consensus about biology that I was taught back in the 60's. Namely, the "fact" that all life on earth was dependent upon the Sun in one way or another.
Of course, that was before those pesky little microbes were discovered inconveniently living in the deep ocean trenches, microbe that were NOT dependent upon the Sun for metabolic energy, but were, instead, dependent upon the geothermal vents for that energy.
Suddenly all the "facts" about the solar-dependency of life were tossed out and replaced with new "facts." So much for scientific consensus!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
I never used the word
January 15, 2009 - 22:22 ET by RR GOPI never used the word "fact".
"Fact" is a four-lettered word that begins with "F", that is, it doesn't belong in science (and is propagandic anyway).
Something can't 'used to have been a fact'...that makes no sense.
Theories are meant to be fluid, negotiable, modifiable, in short, falsifiable.
That flexibility is their strength, or else you just paint yourself into a corner. How many people out there believe, for example, that the center of the sun is the center of our solar system?
Try viewing science by totally avoiding the word 'fact' and it makes more sense. Just a suggestion.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
"Fact"
January 15, 2009 - 23:35 ET by CobraMan"Try viewing science by totally avoiding the word 'fact' and it makes more sense. Just a suggestion."
That's why I put "fact" in quotes. I was told that these were "facts," only to see those "facts" disproved later on.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
What if it's deflated?
January 15, 2009 - 20:05 ET by CobraMan"If a balloon floats upwards does it mean gravity does not exist?"
It would if it was a deflated balloon. As deflated as the Global Warming theory.
You see, a gas-filled, or "hot-air," balloon doesn't keep floating away into space, like it would if gravity didn't exist. There is an upward limit to how high that balloon can get. Once the density of the air matches the density of the gasses inside the balloon, that balloon STOPS rising, gravity notwithstanding. That's called buoyancy. I suggest you look up, especially if you're going to use it as a comparison.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Hmmm, well, what is even
January 15, 2009 - 22:28 ET by RR GOPHmmm, well, what is even more interesting is this-define gravity.
Is it a 'force'? Is it the bending of space? Does dark matter exist? Why can't our galaxy stay together with all the mass that we know about in it (and thus the gravity that goes along with it) in computer simulations? We don't know what it is. Some physicists even think that our gravity is leaking into an adjoining universe.
J.J. Thompson discovered the electron just a scant century ago, ane we're supposed to have all the answers by now? I think not.
BTW...is an electron a particle or a wave, or both at the same time...
:-)
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
I once heard
January 15, 2009 - 23:46 ET by CobraManI once heard (I can't remember when, but it was in my childhood) Gravity described as one mass "liking" another and that gravitational attraction was due to mass "wishing to be closer" to another mass. That explains it just about as well as any other theory.
I guess that helium just doesn't like the Earth and wishes to be farther away from it. That's why a helium balloon floats upwards, it's trying to get away from all that rock, and dirt, and water, and stuff.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
confoosed "conservative"
January 15, 2009 - 20:07 ET by R D HelmYou are a dumbass.
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
Global Warming is Real and
January 16, 2009 - 14:57 ET by fitzfongGlobal Warming is Real and Conservatives must accept this
I'm a Conservative, and despite your ridiculous demand, I don't and I must not accept the scam of "Global Warming". In truth, "Global Warming" is a myth promoted by charlatans in an attempt to institute socialist economic policies through the back door, using "the environoment" as the excuse. Sorry, I'm not going to accept a bunch of parasites using junk science as a justification to steal my money. Stay out of our business. The less said about your sad Bin Laden moral equivalency, the better. Suffice it to say that most "Global Warming" zealots would avoid bombing that building if there was 100% chance that Bin Laden was inside...even if he was the only one inside.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Sniff sniff
January 15, 2009 - 20:58 ET by Roger the ShrubberI thought I smelled douchebag.
There is No Consensus! Why do you repeat the lie?
January 15, 2009 - 22:14 ET by PopularTech31,000 Scientists Prove No 'Consensus’ on "Man-Made" Global Warming (OISM)
- Qualifications of Signers (OISM)
4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
1500 Scholars, Policy Experts and Theologians sign the 'Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship' (Cornwall Allliance)
1100 Climate Realists sign 'The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change' (ICSC)
650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (The Heartland Institute)
400 Scientists Dispute Man-Made Global Warming Claims (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
170 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign an open letter to the signers of 'Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action' (Cownwall Alliance)
105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
100 Scientists sign an 'Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations' (National Post, Canada)
60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada)
47 Scientists sign the 'Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
41 Scientists debunk global warming alert (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
35 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers' (National Post, Canada)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
There is no concensus
January 15, 2009 - 23:33 ET by richb313The BIG lie is that there is a consensus. There is and never has been a consensus on Man Made Global Warming. The consensus described by Al Gore simply never existed. It was a Hype Job of the first order. Man Made Global Warming is an interesting Hypothosis and nothing more. It does not rise to the testable level of a theory. This is the biggest lie being foisted on the world population.
Another thing, warming is OK, cooling is deadly. More food can be grown when the planet warms, less food can be grown when the planet cools. All the propoganda being force fed to the populace has it completely backwards. We should welcome warming and dread cooling. Rising sea levels do not constitue an emergency as it takes decades to see any measurable change. I think even snails could retreat from the increasing sea level predictions.
One last thought. There is the same amount of carbon on the planet, minus carbon gained from meteors and the like, as there has been since the beginning. There were massive forest fires in the geological past that covered huge portions of the planet, life continued. Carbon Dioxide levels have been greatly higher in the distant past than today, life continued. Carbon Dioxide is absolutely necessary for life. Science should NEVER dictate a political agenda, science should only be interested in the search for the truth.
Global Warming is real, and
January 16, 2009 - 00:24 ET by NL207Global Warming is real, and so is Global Cooling. Liberals must accept this as well.
Warming is not a threat to the biosphere of this planet or to humankind. Cooling most certainly is a threat to the biosphere and the consternation the Little Ice Age caused is clear evidence cooling can be catastrophic to humankind. This too liberals must accept.
Cap-and-trade is not goinmg to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on this planet one iota, but it will abolish economic freedom and perform the greatest transfer of wealth in human history.
I will accept some modest warming anytime rather than risk another down cycle and I utterly reject thye tyranny proposed by the left as a solution to GHG's.
warming
January 16, 2009 - 09:30 ET by cassratIf you're not kidding, you're blithering!!
3 degrees here in Pittsfield today.
Giles err i mean rc, Need to look into the sky in the daytime
January 16, 2009 - 13:09 ET by upcountrywaterThe bright yellow ball almost a MILLION miles across, is having issues. Follow the yellow ball ! The Sun is what controls the weather, not the ocean currents. This trend is countinuing and the history of sun spots has been charted for 350 years..
This next hurricane season will be milder than last year
BTW NO # 5 hurricanes last year.
Next winter will be colder than this winter, guaranteed..
FREEDOM
(D)
So, it's Global Warming that is making me cold?
January 15, 2009 - 19:42 ET by CobraManSo, I should be happy that the 11 below temperature I'm dealing with right now is due to Global Warming, and it would even colder if Global Warming wasn't happening? That, without man-made Global Warming, the winter temperatures would be as cold as they were, say, back in the 1800's before man-made Global Warming occurred?
What about the fact that in 2008, Minnesota has had the most below-freeing days since the 1891? Are you telling me that without Global Warming we'd be as cold as it was back then, even though we're now as cold as it was back then? Ok, now I'm totally confused!
If this "Global Warming" keeps up, we're going to see vast, mile-high ice sheets moving across the norther states again, just like what happened around 150,000 years ago. That's not the kind of Global Warming Al and Co. has been warning me about.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
New T-Shirt
January 15, 2009 - 20:37 ET by Retired GeekRope - Tree - Global Warming Advocate
Some Assembly Required
I don't care if it's freezing - it''s Global Warming, dammit!
January 15, 2009 - 20:42 ET by Chris NormanGlenn Beck had a great caller on the other day who said that every time someone says there's "Global Warming", he asks, "Really? With the temperature in the last several thousand years varying from ice ages to warm ups to mini-ice ages, just exactly what's the temperature supposed to be?"
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Global warming explained
January 15, 2009 - 21:05 ET by cocodrieGlobal warming must be judged as a perception rather than a measurable quantity just as the wind chill factor is given separately from the actual ambient temperature. Global warming perception increases 50 degrees with each one-tenth of one percent increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
At this rate of increase you will be able by next Thanksgiving to roast a 20 pound turkey in 5 hours of direct sunlight instesd of 4 hours in an oven of 350 degrees. The one hour difference is necesssary due the presence of methane. Each 0ne-tenth of one per-cent increase in the percentage of methane in the atmosphere requires an increase of 30 minutes cooking time.
The actual cooking time will vary slightly with different levels of CO2 and methane so be sure of the exact levels of concentration. Cloud cover and the exact location of Algore on the planet must also be given careful consideration.
Bon-appetit
Jesus Loves You.
Awesome. Thanks for the
January 15, 2009 - 21:20 ET by HockeyKidAwesome. Thanks for the how-to. I'm still a little fuzzy on this, though--do I need to pre-heat that sunlight?
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Good evening Kid
January 15, 2009 - 21:29 ET by cocodrieYes, if the ambient is below 72.39 degrees.
By the way, that is not snow on the ground. That is a pigment of your imagination caused by the salinazation of the atmosphere brought about by advanced evaporation of the oceans.
Jesus Loves You.
Ice Melt?
January 15, 2009 - 21:33 ET by CobraManDidn't you just describe Ice Melt? Or, should that be called Polar Ice Melt? Heh.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Good evening Cobra
January 15, 2009 - 21:42 ET by cocodrieYou're right it is. I should have checked with Oddjob, he's the dope, I mean, he's got the dope on that.
Jesus Loves You
Good evening Cobra
January 15, 2009 - 21:43 ET by cocodrieYou're right it is. I should have checked with Oddjob, he's the dope, I mean, he's got the dope on that.
Jesus Loves You
Thaw that Turkey!
January 16, 2009 - 00:44 ET by CobraManJust make sure that you thaw the Turkey first, or it may explode!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Good advice
January 16, 2009 - 00:51 ET by cocodrieGood advice. Wouldn't want to get hit by giblet shrapnel.Jesus loves You.
Double post
January 15, 2009 - 21:33 ET by danboSorry!
"the exact location of
January 15, 2009 - 21:32 ET by danbo"the exact location of Algore on the planet must also be given careful consideration." = "increase in the percentage of methane in the atmosphere"
I think we have a consensus on that formula.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
hhmmm, it's twenty below
January 15, 2009 - 21:37 ET by MidAmericahhmmm, it's twenty below outside right now but if I removed the cold air I would be able to feel the effects of Global Warming. OK, I think I understand now.
mid america
January 16, 2009 - 00:03 ET by RESTLESS 1Rest assured that it is not cold outside. In reality, there is no such thing as "cold", just varying levels of heat. If you remove all heat, then you get "absolute zero". So, throw away your coats and turn off your heaters, there is plenty of heat in the atmosphere. After all, molecules are still moving, right?
Please know I only post this to help. You should be feeling warmer by now. Don't thank me, I am happy to help. :)
(btw, I have no idea where this post came from. I'm just feeling a little loopy right now).
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Absoult IR
January 16, 2009 - 00:49 ET by CobraManI'm not to sure about that absolute zero claim. Mass will continue to emit Infrared radiation even when the temperature drops to absolute zero. Does this mean that IR radiation, once referred to as heat, is actually radiated cold?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, I think
January 16, 2009 - 07:53 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
I think RESTLESS 1 was referring to the fact that science defines "heat" but doesn't define something called "cold". Even at very low temperatures, you talk about the heat exchanged between two systems, not the "cold" exchanged.
Regarding absolute zero - that's the temp reached when all of the molecules or atoms in a system stop moving (and I guess all atoms in their ground state). So there would be no radiation given off by the system. However, quantum mechanics says you can't ever get a system in that state since it would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle (since a particle that isn't moving has a precise momentum - zero - and a precise location, which is a no no).
As a side note - objects at around room temperature tend to radiate in the IR spectrum. But as you drop the temperature, the radiation tends to shift to lower frequencies.
Hydro
January 16, 2009 - 17:48 ET by RESTLESS 1As usual, you have stated it better than I can. I know that "absolute zero" cannot be attained, hence the snarky "...molecules are still moving, right?" statement.
Like I said, I my mind was not in the game last night, and I don't even know why I posted it. :)
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Probably for fun
January 16, 2009 - 21:42 ET by CobraMan"I don't even know why I posted it."
Probably for the same reason I commented on it; for fun. :)
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
I thought the Heisenberg
January 16, 2009 - 17:55 ET by celatorI thought the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was when you didn't know if you could get through a yellow traffic light in time? :+}
For liberal Democrats and the Old Media, everything is crisis, chaos, calamity and catastrophe. That justifies stealing your property and liberties.
Are stars still moving away?
January 16, 2009 - 21:40 ET by CobraManOk, objects shift their wavelengths to longer and longer frequencies as temperatures decrease. Does this mean that the supposed Doppler effect observed in stellar objects is really just the result of the photon cooling at it travels through space and that the stellar objects are not really moving away from us as previously thought?
That would explain the relative motions observed in the stellar objects at the exterior of our galaxy and the apparent contradiction that they are moving faster than gravitational theory predicts. Those objects are not really moving as fast as we think, the photons emitted by those objects simply have cooled during travel and we have failed to account for that cooling in our calculations.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
cobra
January 16, 2009 - 21:48 ET by botgare you sure you're not confusing the wavelenghts radiated and the wavelenghts of the interference bars?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
I stopped going to bars
January 16, 2009 - 21:54 ET by CobraManI stopped going to bars, so I really couldn't say.
All kidding aside, I'm not sure what you mean by "interference bars." Are you referring to the spectra shifts?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
that's why you need a wing man
January 16, 2009 - 21:59 ET by botgto run interference ; )
yes the spectra shifts or are they directly proportionally effected?
i was going to say the stars are moving away cuz we've trashed this neighborhood
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
LOL
January 16, 2009 - 22:04 ET by CobraMan"i was going to say the stars are moving away cuz we've trashed this neighborhood"
LOL, that could be. According to the Goreacle, we're trashing everything we touch, so I'm not surprised that our stellar neighbors want to get away from us.
As to the spectra shifts and photon cooling, since all of the photons emitted by a stellar object are traveling the same distance, wouldn't they all cool at the same rate and, therefor, shift their apparent spectra the same amount, just like they do in Doppler theory?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
as i think of it
January 16, 2009 - 22:07 ET by botgi think you are correct
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Cool (relatively)
January 16, 2009 - 22:14 ET by CobraManCool! That means we can actually calculate the base, or true, temperature of the Universe! All we need to do is observe the amount of heat lost by photons as they travel through space and we can then extrapolate the base temperature of the universe. I wonder if it will be 3 degrees absolute, the same temperature that the microwave background radiation indicates?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
On second thought...
January 16, 2009 - 22:18 ET by CobraManOn second thought, maybe that's not such a good idea. I'd HATE for Al Gore to get a copy of the results and start preaching about the dangers of Universal Cooling.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Kobe for three?!? “The
January 16, 2009 - 22:22 ET by botgKobe for three?!?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Swish!
January 16, 2009 - 22:27 ET by CobraManSwish! Nothing but Net!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, You
January 17, 2009 - 02:22 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
You asked:
No. "Cooling" happens when two or more systems are in thermal contact with one another and one is at a lower temperature than the other. When a photon travels through space, it isn't in thermal contact with any other system (other than virtual particle and that doesn't factor in). The vacuum doesn't count as a system - it has nothing in it.
To put it another way - what objects would the photon give up energy to? None.
This observation has nothing to do with your previous comment. The fact that galaxies seem to have more mass than is visible has been known for decades - it's one of the empirical observations that lead some to suggest that there is "dark matter" or some other such thing in the universe.
Hydro, Thatt's not true
January 17, 2009 - 17:13 ET by CobraMan"No. "Cooling" happens when two or more systems are in thermal contact with one another and one is at a lower temperature than the other."
That's NOT true. Cooling can occur when energy is LOST from an system, or "object." If you put an object into a vacuum and shield that object for any energy sources, that object will radiate its internal energy until an equlibriam is reaced with the surround space. As the energy is radiated, the temperatures of that object will decrease in direct proportion to the amount of radiated energy.. This is why thinks get COLD in space when they are shielded from a heat source, like the Sun.
Space is "mostly" a vacuum, correct? If there is not "thermal contact" between an object in space and another object, how can cooling occur? Yet, despite this lack of "thermal connect," things like comets are very COLD, even thought they formed at the same time as everything else in the solar system and the mechanics of that formation, gravitational attraction being the most prevalent, added energy, and heat, to that object while they were forming.The comets also gain energy, and heat, as they travel into the inner solar system.
Once they orbit the Sun and travel into the outer solar system, that gained energy, and heat, is, once again, lost. Were does all the heat go, once the comet is outside the orbit of Jupiter, for example? Well, that energy, and heat, MUST be radiated into "open" space, correct?
So, yes, just like a comet, a photon CAN lose energy in the form of radiated heat as it travels through space.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, You are correct
January 17, 2009 - 19:18 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
You are correct about systems losing energy via radiation. But that doesn't apply to a single photon moving through space - see my comments below.
Photons
January 17, 2009 - 19:23 ET by CobraManWhy can't a photon lose energy? Everything else in this universe does. Why should a proton be any different? I think that the current theories about photons and their properties are wrong.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, A photon can
January 17, 2009 - 19:33 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
A photon can lose energy. It can via the redshift mechanisms I mention in my other posts to you (below) or via interactions with other objects (like in a collision with an electron, for example).
But, as far as I know (and who knows, maybe I'm wrong - it's been a while since I studied this stuff) a photon that's travelling through empty space and not interacting with anything will not simply radiate away other photons. I'm pretty sure that would violate a number of conservation laws (like conservation of momentum, for one).
CM, Photons have no mass, just momentum.
January 17, 2009 - 19:40 ET by upcountrywaterheres a question like yours
great question BTW
FREEDOM
(D)
upcountrywater, Thanks
January 17, 2009 - 19:56 ET by hydrodynDMupcountrywater,
Thanks for that link.
Honestly, as I read through it, I was afraid it would say something that completely contracted what I told CobraMan. Then I'd look like a total moron.
hydrodynDM, Yea something about pressing that "POST" button
January 17, 2009 - 21:33 ET by upcountrywaterThen I'd look like a total moron.
As far as I've seen; you are NOT EVER A moron.
However it's nice to check once in a while. Ha Ha
FREEDOM
(D)
upcountrywater, You're
January 17, 2009 - 22:02 ET by hydrodynDMupcountrywater,
You're right about that. Thanks for the link and the compliment.
However, it's starting to look like CobraMan is developing the opposite view of me :(
yea , hDM, Tis why i threw in a that link..
January 17, 2009 - 23:30 ET by upcountrywaterHow else can you describe, something (wave/particle) with ZERO mass?
Be nice if I had a gallon of the stuff, power my electric car for a year (a light year)
No one should take massless photons personally
FREEDOM
(D)
That's ONE theory.
January 17, 2009 - 17:22 ET by CobraMan"The fact that galaxies seem to have more mass than is visible has been known for decades - it's one of the empirical observations that lead some to suggest that there is "dark matter" or some other such thing in the universe."
Dark Matter is one theory. I've just given you another. Since there is no evidence of Dark Matter, other than the realization that gravitational theory doesn't match the observed motions of stars, that theory is just as probable, and/or improbable, as the one I've given you. Don't discount a theory until you have better evidence that another theory is more plausible. No Dark Matter has ever been been discovered, let alone studied, so there is NOTHING on which to judge the validity of Dark Matter theory.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, See my comment
January 17, 2009 - 19:15 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
See my comment below regarding lose of energy by photons.
Even if your theory was correct - that photons could lose energy as they move through vacuum without interacting with anything - we could tell by the asymmetry that would appear in a rotating galaxy's light spectrum.
The side of the galaxy moving (rotating) toward us would normally be blueshifted but this would be decreases as a result of your (theoretical) redshift mechanism. The side moving (rotating) away from us would be naturally redshifted by that motion but would be redshifted even further via your mechanism. Consequently, there would be an asymmetry in the spectrum (when normally, the amount of blueshift would be the same as the amount of redshift).
Please let me know if I've missed something.
Don't we already see that?
January 17, 2009 - 19:56 ET by CobraMan"we could tell by the asymmetry that would appear in a rotating galaxy's light spectrum"
Don't we already see that asymmetry in the apparent red shifting which we contribute the star's motions? Doppler theory states that the red shifted spectra of the stars moving towards should be less that the shift of the stars moving away from us, correct? This asymmetry in the spectra of similar stars in various parts of a galaxy is used to calculate that galaxy's relative motion, including direction and rate of spin. If we're not ALREADY observing this asymmetry, then how to the scientists know which way the stars are moving? It would take centuries to to an actual parallax distance calculation and comparison, if such a comparison could be made at all. So how do the scientists know which way a galaxy is spinning?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, You are
January 17, 2009 - 20:03 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
You are correct. However, we could find a rotating galaxy that has the same relative motion as ours (that would get rid of the motional redshift) and then check for an asymmetry.
As far as I know, such an asymmetry hasn't been observed. But, hey. I'm not an astronomer so I might be wrong. The problem is that the loss of energy mechanism you are suggesting doesn't fit in with Quantum Mechanical predictions about how photons behave.
Besides, the mechanism you are suggesting could be tested for directly in labs. Photons are easy to create and detect.
Don't worry, nether am I
January 17, 2009 - 20:19 ET by CobraMan"But, hey. I'm not an astronomer so I might be wrong."
Don't worry about it, nether am I. But I do enjoy the debate.
"The problem is that the loss of energy mechanism you are suggesting
doesn't fit in with Quantum Mechanical predictions about how photons
behave."
I wasn't aware that photons were observed in a vacuum over a period of time as to measure their energy states and compare their initial states with a later state. If not, how can we say that a photon isn't losing energy due to some type of radiation mechanism?
I suppose we could bounce a photon off several reflecting surfaces for a day or to and measure the different energy states, but how would we account for such variables as transfer of momentum, the absorption and re-emission (? can't think of the proper word) of photons from that reflecting surface, and the like? That seems to be a non-viable test.
It would be better to observe a photon as it travels through space, but I have no idea how that could be accomplished.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
How do we store them?
January 17, 2009 - 20:23 ET by CobraMan"Photons are easy to create and detect."
How do we store, or capture, them long enough as to make measurements over periods of time more than a second or two? Also, how do we measure the initial and subsequent energy states without affecting that energy state? We can't test the energy state of a photon without destroying or drastically altering that photon.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, I'm not sure
January 17, 2009 - 20:38 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
I'm not sure why you are fixated on the idea that we would have to observe or measure a single photon over a long period of time to observe your suggested mechanism.
Everything on the atomic scale is statistical (according to quantum mechanics). If your mechanism existed, then the spontaneous creation of one photon by another would occur at some "random" time. If we create a ton of photons and observe them for a second, probability says that at some point, we will see this occurrence, if it exists.
BTW Hydro
January 17, 2009 - 17:31 ET by CobraManBTW, you're describing conduction. There are THREE ways to transfer, or transmit, energy. Convection, conduction, and radiation. Objects can RADIATE heat energy, as well as conduit it. How else can you explain a radiant heater?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, Your original
January 17, 2009 - 19:08 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
Your original post talked about a photon and the possibility of it losing energy while in vacuum. That is what my comments were in relation to.
A single photon doesn't lose energy via radiation. Radiation is electromagnetic energy given off in via photons (which carry that energy away) by matter (i.e. atoms) when their electrons drop into low energy states. A single photon - what you were originally talking about - doesn't radiate. It's the result of radiation.
If you are talking about a system of atoms (an "object") then yes, it can radiate away energy or it can lose energy via conduction. If the system can undergo bulk motion (like a fluid or gas) then it can also lose (or redistribute) energy via convection. Neither of these applies to a single photon.
As a side note, photons do "lose" energy as they travel through space as a result of the expansion of space. As the space a photon travels through expands, its wavelength gets longer - speaking very loosely, the size of the photon expands. Since a photons energy is inversely related to its wavelength, its energy decreases.
There is also something called gravitational redshift, if you want to look into that.
We don't know that.
January 17, 2009 - 20:08 ET by CobraMan"A single photon doesn't lose energy via radiation"
We don't know that since we haven't been able to CAPTURE a photon long enough to actually measure it's energy states over time. To measure energy losses, we would have to capture and study a photon for weeks, months, and even years. We don't have the technology to do this.
On Edit: that's "over time" on not "of time"
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, You don't need
January 17, 2009 - 20:12 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
You don't need to "capture a photon" to study how it behaves - look at how particle accelerators work. We know a ton about how elementary particles behave without having to capture them and study them for years.
A photon doesn't have "energy states" like an atom or molecule. It has a energy which is related to its frequency. A photon has one frequency (in a given reference frame) so it has one energy. That energy can be changed via interactions (or the traditional redshift mechanisms that are already known about).
Besides, as I mentioned in another post, your idea that a photon can simply give off other photons would represent a violation of certain conservation laws (including momentum conservation). Care to explain how that happens?
Or just take a look at the link provided by "upcountrywater". Maybe you'll take Dr. Belkora's word over mine.
Particle accelerators capture and store particals
January 17, 2009 - 20:40 ET by CobraMan"look at how particle accelerators work."
Particle accelerators capture and store charged partials in a magnetic field. They also accelerate those partials in that same field. This is not the same as observing, ot testing, those partials. In order to "test" those partials, you would have to observe them before and after a period of time expires. But this is not what a particle accelerator does. It takes a stream of partials, accelerates them, and slams them into another material. Instead of observing the actions and properties of those partials, we're observing the EFFECT they are having on another partial stream or other material.
"A photon doesn't have "energy states" like an atom or molecule."
Yes, they do. This energy state is observed in that photon's frequency or wavelength. If you increase the energy state of a photon, that photon's wavelength shortens (increases) as it can not (supposedly) move faster than the speed of light. A photon's wavelength tells us the energy state of that photon.
According to current theory, all photons travel initially at the speed of light. The may "slow down" when traveling through a substance, but the photons themselves are not slowing down, they are actual being absorbed by the atoms they encounter and these atom, excited into a high energy state due to the energy that absorbed photon has transferred to that atom, emit a NEW photon when it returns to it's original energy state. There IS a measureable energy loss (or even an energy gain in some cases) when that new photon is emitted. This change in the energy states of the new photons are measured by THEIR wave lengths.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, Regarding the
January 17, 2009 - 20:55 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
Regarding the observation of your proposed radiative mechanism, see my comment to you above.
Regarding "energy states", I think we are getting tripped up over how that term is used. In physics, we usually use "energy state" to refer to discrete (or quantized) energy states that are available to a particle or system. Unbounded photons (i.e. photons that aren't contained within something), don't have discrete energy states. They can have a continuous range of energies available to them.
I already know about how photons interact with atoms and how their energy is measured - I teach that stuff in my intro to physics classes.
This is where we disagree.
January 17, 2009 - 21:07 ET by CobraMan"nbounded photons (i.e. photons that aren't contained within something), don't have discrete energy states."
This is where we disagree. Photons DO have discreet energy states. Why else would the same material emit photons at different wavelengths depending on that material's energy state?
Run a given current through a material, like tungsten for the sake of argument, and the photons are emitted in one (more or less) wavelength. Increase that current (and increase that material's energy state) and the photons are emitted as a higher wavelength.
Why it this wavelength higher? Because the atoms emitting those photon shave been excited to a higher energy stat than they were using the previous current level. The increased energy state of those atoms have been transferred (partly, but not completely) to the photons they emit.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, Again, we are
January 17, 2009 - 21:17 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
Again, we are getting tripped up on the terminology.
I think what you mean by "discrete energy state" is a definite energy state.
What I mean by that term is one discrete (quantized) energy state among others that the system is restricted to being in.
The electrons in an atom have discrete energy states - they can only be in one of these and not in any in-between state. So, for example, the hydrogen atom's ground state is at -13.6 eV, its first excited state is at -3.4 eV. The electron can't be in an energy state of -10.0 eV, for example.
A free photon can be in any energy state. When it's emitted from an atom, it will have a particular energy, like 10.2 eV, but there's nothing to prevent it from interacting with something and having its energy shift to 10.20001 eV or 10.19999 eV.
See the difference?
Conversely
January 17, 2009 - 20:03 ET by CobraMan"As a side note, photons do "lose" energy as they travel through space as a result of the expansion of space."
Conversely, photons could be losing energy due to radiation of energy and NOT the expansion of space. We can't really tell which one is correct until we travel LARGE distances (like between stars) and accurately measure both the initial and the return trip and see if the two distances are different (I'd hate to be the one that had to do THAT calculation! Although the trip itself would be fun to try). Then, and ONLY then, can we determine if space is actually expanding. Until then, the expansion of space is just conjecture, all based upon the red-shifting of the spectra, the loss of photon energy.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, OK. Whereas the
January 17, 2009 - 20:21 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
OK. Whereas the expansion of the universe has a ton of empirical evidence and is actually a prediction of General Relativity, it makes more sense to invent a new mechanism through which photons give off other photons, even though Quantum Mechanics says that can't happen since it violates things like conservation of momentum.
Yea, you're right. Let's go with your idea.
Look, I know I'm being flippant and who knows - years from now, they might find out that something like what you are suggesting is happening. However, my point is that right now, there is now reason to consider your theory with any more seriousness than any one of a hundred theories out there that seem to explain certain phenomena but which aren't supported by empirical evidence and go counter to current theory.
What evidence?
January 17, 2009 - 20:57 ET by CobraMan"Whereas the expansion of the universe has a ton of empirical evidence"
What evidence? The apparent motions of the stars, motions that were inferred by the red-shifting of the light emitted by that star? That's not evidence, that's conjecture used in PLACE of evidence! We really don't know HOW those stars are moving as we have not measured their ACTUAL positions through parallax, and we sure haven't determined their motion through any repeat parallax measurements!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, Somehow, I get
January 17, 2009 - 21:08 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
Somehow, I get the impression that you don't like the idea of an expanding universe.
Fine - don't call it "evidence". Call it empirical observations that support an expanding universe theory.
Look, there are scientists out there that don't accept the idea of an expanding universe and try to explain the observed redshift via other mechanisms. If you don't want to accept it, it's no skin off my nose.
As a side note: If you tie the expansion of the universe with something like a Big Bang origin (and most do) then support for Big Bang is also support for an expanding universe. And there is evidence to support Big Bang.
But, again, if you don't want to accept it - OK.
That's s not it at all.
January 17, 2009 - 21:26 ET by CobraMan"Somehow, I get the impression that you don't like the idea of an expanding universe."
That's not it at all as I couldn't care ether way. I just don't believe that scientists have the all answers and I am skeptical about their conclusions. I also believe that the latest theory iisn't always the correct theory.
You see, I don't HAVE to believe what you believe. I can have a different opinion, formulate a different theory and there is no reason why MY opinion should bother you. But apperently it does. You've spend HOURS trying to refute MY opinion, disprove MY theory. Why is that? Is it because it's different than yours?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, I've spent this
January 17, 2009 - 21:41 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
I've spent this time explain these things - things you can look up in any physics textbook - become you strike me as someone interested in learning about this stuff. I'm not trying to convince you of anything - I'm just trying to clarify some things and give you some information.
I really don't care if you believe this stuff, but you should at least get straight the details about the theories you are talking about.
But hey - if you view this as some type of confrontation where I'm just some mean jerk trying to make you look bad - then OK.
In the future, if you post something about science and it's incorrect, rather than trying to point out the error or give you an explanation to help you understand, I can just dig into you and try to make you look stupid.
Would that be better?
Your point is, what?
January 17, 2009 - 22:18 ET by CobraMan"'I've spent this time explain these things - things you can look up in any physics textbook - become you strike me as someone interested in learning about this stuff. I'm not trying to convince you of nything - I'm just trying to clarify some things and give you some information."
And your point is , what? That only those things found in a textbook are true? That only the SCIENTISTS are correct and that we all better bow your superior intellect?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to confront you on your theories. They can be just as correct as anyone else's. They can also be just as wrong. Only time will tell.
What I AM confronting you on is your insistence that the things you learned, the things you study, the theories you practice, are the ONLY things that can be correct. You keep insisting that my theories are wrong because they contradict yours, that they don't match what you've been taught.. So what? So they don't match the things you've been taught to believe. That does not make my theories wrong, it just makes them different. It also doesn't disprove them.
I hope you understand what I am trying to show you.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, They can also
January 17, 2009 - 22:40 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
Well, except for a century of empirical evidence to back it up.
Point out to me where I insisted on this? First, no scientific theory can be proven true. Half of the posts I make on this website are about that fact. Second, all scientists know that science evolves. If that's the case, how can someone argue that a given theory is the ONLY true theory?
Show me where I used to word "wrong" to describe your theory. What I've been pointing out is that there is no empirical evidence to support your idea and that, in fact, it seems to violate certain conservation laws (like momentum conservation). If you can explain away those things, cool. If not, you should at least admit that those represent a major weakness in your argument.
BTW
January 17, 2009 - 21:28 ET by CobraMan"Fine - don't call it "evidence". Call it empirical observations that support an expanding universe theory."
BTW, does that qualify me as an Expanding Theory Denier?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
another BTW
January 17, 2009 - 21:36 ET by CobraMan"Call it empirical observations that support an expanding universe theory"
Another BTW. It's the other way around. Those "observations" came BEFORE the expanding universe theory. That theory was created to EXPLAIN those observations and the apparent contradictions those observations were causing with existing theories.
Oh, and Einstein originally believed in the Steady State model.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
The same could be said of you
January 17, 2009 - 21:19 ET by CobraMan"there is now reason to consider your theory with any more seriousness than any one of a hundred theories out there "
The exact same thing can be said about you and your theories.
It's rather ironic that you are dismissing my theory because it counters one that you've been taught to accept, and believe wholeheartedly, and you're doing this in a thread about people being UNABLE to accept that THEIR theories about global warming may NOT be correct.
Just like the Global Warming scientists, you seem unwilling to accept a theory that doesn't match your beliefs.
I do have to give you credit that you admit that "they might find out that something like what you are suggesting is happening." That's better than the followers of the Goreacal have done to date.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, The difference
January 17, 2009 - 21:31 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
The difference is that "my theory" - you know, quantum mechanics - is the most successfully implemented and empirically backed theory in the history of man. As far as I know, there hasn't been a single empirical observation that has contradicted it.
Unlike Global Warming models, which can't even be tested for their accuracy.
And unlike your idea, which has zero empirical evidence to support it.
So no - there is no irony in the fact that I have the audacity to suggest that the fact that your theory conflicts with QM might be something you might want to think about.
Just like Global Warming?
January 17, 2009 - 21:42 ET by CobraMan"The difference is that "my theory" - you know, quantum mechanics - is the most successfully implemented and empirically backed theory in the history of man."
Yea, so says the quantum mechanic theorists! Yet even the quantum mechanic theorists keeps changing their theories to match observed events. I've personally witness several re-writes of quantum mechanic theory over the last 40 years. (I DO read the literature, you know) I guess that theory isn't as "empirically backed"as you believe, is it?
But yes, you at least CHANGE your theories to match the observed universe, something the global warming scientists seem unwilling to do.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, Yea, so says
January 17, 2009 - 21:51 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
Wow. You are seriously going to suggest that QM isn't supported by a mountain of empirical data? Just... wow.
Could you please state specifically (or provide links) to these changes? QM was expanded to Quantum Field Theory, if that is what you are referring to, but that was an expansion - not a change in the fundamental theory.
But please - I'd be very interested to know what fundamental changes in the theory you are referring to.
WOW! Is right!
January 17, 2009 - 22:24 ET by CobraMan"Could you please state specifically (or provide links) to these changes?"
Are you telling me that quantum mechanics has NOT changed since it's conception? I'd like you to prove THAT one!
WOW is right! You keep insisting that the data proves your theories and I keep telling you that large parts of your theories were altered to match the data observed in nature, just as they should be!
Be honest, you know that your quantum theories have changed over the decades because the observed behavior of nature didn't match the original theories. Why keep insisting that altering a theory proves that it's correct?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
it means the current state
January 17, 2009 - 22:27 ET by botgit means the current state of the theory is more correct than the original
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Perhapes
January 17, 2009 - 22:46 ET by CobraMan"it means the current state of the theory is more correct than the original"
Perhapes, I'm not doubting that. I would just like to point out that changing a theory to match observations does not mean that the observations prove the theory. It just means that the theory wasn't correct to beging wih.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, QM has evolved
January 17, 2009 - 22:48 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
QM has evolved - as do most theories - but its fundamental axioms haven't been altered to retrofit it to account for inconvenient empirical data.
You said:
That sounds like you are saying physicist have gone back and changed the fundamentals of the theory to make it fit data. OK - provide me with references or links to those fundamental changes. You said it - now back it up. If you can't, just admit it.
Has the theory "changed" over the years? Yes. It's been expanded. But you are suggesting that physicists have re-written the theory. Tell me how.
I;m not a quantum mechanic
January 17, 2009 - 21:48 ET by CobraMan"the fact that your theory conflicts with QM might be something you might want to think about."
Just who determined this "fact?" YOU? HOW did you determine this "fact?" Because I'm not bowing to your professional opinion of the nature and properties of light?
I'm not a quantum theorists, and I AM thinking about it. I'm just thinking about it WITHOUT the preconceived notion that "quantum mechanics - is the most successfully implemented and empirically backed theory in the history of man."
THAT type of preconception is called bias, something I wish to avoid.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, OK, how about
January 17, 2009 - 21:59 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
OK, how about the opinion of the physicist in the link provided by upcountrywater? Or how about visiting any university or college and asking any grad student or physics professor that works with QM or Quantum Field Theory that you can find their opinion? Or email any physicist working at any particle accelerator and get their opinion?
Or how about doing it the way I did and spend years learing about the theory.
Believe me or don't. I responded to your posts in an attempt to give you some info about I field I'm familiar with. If you want to crap on that information, be my guest. What difference does it make?
And by the way, its "quantum mechanics" - with an "s" at the end. Physicists who work with QM aren't mechanics.
He's intitled to his opinion too.
January 17, 2009 - 22:41 ET by CobraMan"OK, how about the opinion of the physicist in the link provided by upcountrywater?"
He's entitled to his opinion too. Just like I am.
"I responded to your posts in an attempt to give you some info about I field I'm familiar with. If you want to crap on that information, be my guest."
I'm not crapping on your theories, you're crapping on mine! I did try to counter some of our argument's but, hay, sorry for insulting your intelligence with my feeble attempts at logic.
"Or how about doing it the way I did and spend years learing about the theory."
So, because you've spent all that time studying something, you HAVE to be right ad I HAVE to be wrong? Is that what you're saying? Welcome to the Land of the Goreacle, buddy!
"And by the way, its "quantum mechanics" - with an "s" at the end. Physicists who work with QM aren't mechanics."
Thanks for the grammar correction, Professor. How did I do on punctuation and sentence structure?
Oh. btw, you misspelled learning. "spend years learing about the theory"
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CobraMan, You keep
January 17, 2009 - 23:00 ET by hydrodynDMCobraMan,
You keep insisting that it's "my" theory. QM is used by thousands and thousands of engineers and scientists around the world to do industrial, experimental and theoretical work. This isn't some personal thing to me. If you want to view QM as just another theory that isn't really well supported and might be thrown out tomorrow - go right ahead.
But nothing I am saying to you is unique to me. Like I said, ask anyone else who works with QM and get their take. Don't be surprised when they tell you what I have.
Um. No. What I'm saying is I know something about this stuff. Take it for what it's worth. And while you are at it, next time a medical doctor prescribes medicine for you - tell him to stick it since, really, who the hell does he think he is. And if a mechanics suggests that you need some work on your car, tell him to shove his suggestions, since it's arrogant for him to suggest that he knows what he's talking about.
I offered that grammar suggestion to prevent you from sounding stupid. My "spelling" error was a typo. Unless you honestly think I don't know how to spell "learning".
You misunderstand my goal
January 18, 2009 - 00:24 ET by CobraMan"You keep insisting that it's "my" theory"
Forgive me for my impertinence. I shall now refer to it as "The Theory Of Which You Subscribe." Does that sooth your injured sensibilities?
"I offered that grammar suggestion to prevent you from sounding stupid. My "spelling" error was a typo. Unless you honestly think I don't know how to spell "learning"
My missing "s" was a typo, too. Why would you assume that I would look stupid if you DIDN'T correct me? Most people here understand that typing mistakes, even spelling mistakes, happen to everyone. They are also smart enough to understand what I was referring too, just like you did even though I didn't spell the title correctly. Don't assume that people here are less intelligent than you are. If YOU understand something, it's a good bet that others will too.
And no, I don't think you have a problem with spelling. I was simply pointing out that EVERYONE makes mistakes, even you.
"What I'm saying is I know something about this stuff"
And I'm saying that what you know may not, repeat may not, be correct. I don't agree with all the theories you provide. I also don't agree with all the explanations you offer. But that doesn't mean I completely REJECT your ideas, theories, or opinions, or that I am doubtful about your intelligence and knowledge. it just means that I don't agree with all of the same things you do.
Like many before me, I have my own ideas about the phenomena that we observe in the universe. You are just as free to accept or reject those ideas as I am to do the same to yours. I am offering a difference of opinion, yet you accuse me of "crapping" on your opinions simple because I disagree with them.
It is this difference of opinion that is necessary for the advancement of knowledge, and science. If everyone thought the same things, were taught the same lessons, and all agreed that the current explanation is the BEST or CORRECT explanation, then we'd all still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that children spontaneously appear inside the body of a woman, and that the Earth is flat. These were all theories offered by the scholars of their day, theories that were made through observations, and accepted by everyone simply because they couldn't accept the concept that those explanations may be wrong, that the ideas may be flawed, that the theories may be in error. The wise scholars have told us that this is what is happening. Who are we to question the wise scholars? After all, they have been studying this for a long time, their scholars before them have taught them these things as well, and THOSE scholars have been studying this for a long time too. Who am I to question their wisdom, doubt their conclusions? I'm not a scholar like they are, am I?
It was the deniers, the skeptics , the "nonbelievers" that questioned those assumptions, imagined a different explanation, offered a different theory, and began to explore the ramifications of those new theories by reexamining the observations they make with new goal, that goal being the discovery of evidence that the new theory is correct. It was those men and women who DARED to question the scholars, DARED to offer their own explanations, DARED to create their own theories, and may I offer, DARED to debate these ideas with the scholars!
A great many of those men and women were not scholars themselves, were not experts in the field of study they were questioning, were, dare I say, common! Yet is was the common men and woman, those that DARED to question the scholars and their explanations, who actually created the biggest advances in science, the greatest advances in our knowledge of the universe , and, in doing so, created the technologies that we have today.
So I would be very careful about claiming supremacy over any particular subject, no matter the extent of my experience and knowledge in the matter, for as history shows us, I just may find out that I am not as smart as I one thought, that the things I believed, the ideas that I could verify with my own observations, turned out to be far less accurate than I understood and that someone I once considered "common" is a lot smarter than I am.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Cobraman, You
January 18, 2009 - 15:31 ET by hydrodynDMCobraman,
You write:
Well, let's be clear about just what you are not agreeing with. You offer a theory that has no empirical evidence to back it and which clearly violates conservation of momentum. And yet, your theory makes uses of QM ideas (like photonic emission) and the more general idea of conservation of energy. Why reject conservation of momentum but not conservation of energy?
I mean, really. If you're going to pick and choose what's convenient, why not simply suggest a theory where photons, as they travel through empty space, simply blink out of existence and are instantly replaced by other photons with less energy. That would explain away the apparent redshift due to expansion. Sure, you had to get rid of conservation of energy, but who cares, right? That's just a theory and it might be wrong. And since you've already indicated a willingness to get of conservation of momentum (which is just as fundamental as cons. of energy), what's the problem?
You talk about the advancement of science, but you obviously don't really have a handle on the real history of science or how science works. Science hasn't been advanced by people simply questioning ideas for the sake of questioning them. It's advanced by people who offer an alternate theory. You haven't done that.
You also portray science as some kind of close-minded society where junior scientists are afraid to question the authority of their elders. Um, wrong. Every graduate students is required to do original work for their thesis and there isn't a scientist alive who hasn't dreamt of coming up with a completely new theory that replaces some well established one. Only someone completely out of touch with science would suggest the kind of cartoon picture you're suggesting.
And science certainly hasn't been advanced by people who don't have a handle on the current ideas and theories of the time. I noticed that all of your examples involve theories from centuries ago. How about a more recent example?
You cobble together a theory based on some basic physics ideas and suggest a mechanism that violates an important physics principles but offer absolutely no explanation for why that's OK. You provide no theoretical basis for your mechanism - not even empirical evidence.
You suggest:
Really? Who? What laypeople in the last hundred years have made any contributions to physics? You say that history is full of these people - so please, list some of them for me.
You also wrote:
And there's the problem. You seem to think this discussion is about me trying to prove how smart I am. It isn't. I'm not 18 years old. I'm well past the stage of having to prove myself to others. I really don't care what you think of me personally. Take that out of the picture and simply address the actual points in my posts - specifically, the problems I've pointed out in your theory.
But you haven't. All you have done is say "well, your theory might be wrong - stop being so arrogant".
Well, that's quite the argument.
If it turns out that something like your radiative mechanism is discovered in the future, it won't be because of any great insight on your part. I will just mean that you made a lucky guess. If, on the other hand, you could explain to me how QM is wrong in this matter and how your mechanism doesn't violate cons. of momentum (which it seems to), or why it's OK that it does, then I'll give you some credit. Simply saying "you might be wrong" doesn't cut it.
As a side note, regarding the "quantum mechanic" thing - you made that error three times in one post, which lead me to believe that it wasn't simply a typo.
hydro
January 16, 2009 - 21:52 ET by botgone thing i am not uncertain of is that Heisenberg will be updated. also is an approximation of the measurement the same as the actual event? Schrodys cat is dying to know.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Just be glad...
January 16, 2009 - 21:56 ET by CobraMan... that Heisenberg didn't have a cat, like that damned Schrödinger!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
heisenberg had a cat
January 16, 2009 - 22:01 ET by botgand was never certain of its whereabouts
that's probably why Schrody locked his in a box
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
How do we know...
January 16, 2009 - 22:08 ET by CobraMan... that Schrody 's cat really didn't belong to Heisenberg? He could have been trying to punish Heisenberg for his scientific uncertainty by kidnapping, and torturing, his cat. Kinda like the way the Goreacle want's to punish use though our taxes for being uncertain about global warming.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
botg, You might want to
January 17, 2009 - 02:27 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
You might want to look up something called Bell's Inequality and an experiment by a group headed by A. Aspect (link).
will do hydro
January 17, 2009 - 19:34 ET by botgwill do hydro
thanks
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
botg, Sorry I didn't
January 17, 2009 - 19:43 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
Sorry I didn't elaborate more on your comment - it was late.
I'm guessing you mean to suggest that at some point, we might reformulate Quantum Mechanics (or replace it) so that the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation goes away. That principle is basically a result of the statistical nature of QM. Einstein hated it and came up with his EPR paradox to show that QM was basically wrong. The experiment I linked to shows that, in fact, Einstein was wrong about nature and that QM accurately reflects its inherently statistical character.
Consequently, even if (when) QM is replaced by something better, it will still have something like H's Uncertainty principle in it.
hydro
January 17, 2009 - 19:53 ET by botgbetter to say Heisenberg is sure to be refined as Quantom and Relativity are unified. Still the uncertaincy is statistical, my question is 'is the statisical actual?' Side note: is this along the string (more like a loop) ?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
botg, The statistical
January 17, 2009 - 20:30 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
The statistical aspect of nature that QM describes is "objective" in the sense that it isn't the result of a lack of knowledge (in the way that it is in "statistical mechanics").
Einstein thought that the statistical nature of QM meant that it was incomplete. Pro QM folks (like Niels Bohr) said that nature is, if fact, inherently statistical.
The A. Aspect experiment seems to strongly suggest that Bohr was correct.
So no matter what theory replaces QM, if it hopes to describe reality accurately (like what was seen in the Aspect experiment), then it's going to have a statistical aspect to it.
At least, that's the current commonly held view on the topic.
Not sure what your loop or string comment was about - maybe I'm being dense.
hydro
January 17, 2009 - 20:42 ET by botgit's almost like the quanta are statistical (analog)
in his book 'A Brief History of Time' Hawking touches upon string theory and states that loops are a more accurate description than strings.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
botg, Not sure what you
January 17, 2009 - 21:01 ET by hydrodynDMbotg,
Not sure what you mean by quanta being statistical. To use an old example, if you place an electron in a box and let it move around by giving it some energy, QM doesn't tell you where it is at any given moment. It only gives you a probability distribution of where the electron might be.
Most would say that the electron has a definite position but we just don't know it. However, if QM is a complete theory, then in fact, the electron doesn't have a position (well, until we open the box and look).
Sting theory is interesting (I don't really know too much about it). The problem with it is that we don't have large enough accelerators to check any of its predictions - and we probably won't for quite some time. So for now, it's an interesting, untested theory.
Yeah I realize 'cold' is
January 16, 2009 - 01:03 ET by MidAmericaYeah I realize 'cold' is just a relative answer about heat. However... I've talked to a number of relatives today and they are cold too.
It's like the Ministry of
January 15, 2009 - 21:40 ET by RR GOPIt's like the Ministry of Truth. Tell bald-faced lies and force it to be accepted as reality...no matter what.
Something as complex as climate change cannot (should not) be politicized one way or the other. It takes time, data, argumentation and finally a consensus on the behalf of the scientific community for a theory to be accepted...and any theory is still going to be flawed anyway.
But, the thing I find alarming is the Leftist bent on this, that is, that global warming is linked to CO2 emissions and thus fossil fuels and all the modern machinery that goes along with it. With that goes the affluence made possible by Capitalism-thus worthy of attack by the Marxists.
Real scientists should know better than to allow ideology to influence their interpretation of data.
BTW, "Dreams of Obama"???? WTF? ------------------------->
Oh, Proletariat Broadcast System...I see.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Truly Ironic
January 15, 2009 - 21:52 ET by CobraManIt's truly ironic that the liberals keep using fossil fuels as a cause for the perils of Global Warming, never realizing that all that fossil fuel came from plants, which THRIVE in higher CO2 levels. It's obvious that the CO2 levers were MUCH higher when those "fossil fuels" were actually growing, and, at the same time, the largest land animals were roaming the Earth, the Dinosaurs. If the Dinosaurs and the vast plant life that supported them, survived all that extra CO2, what makes the liberals thing that life will become in danger if the CO2 rises one again?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Not fossil fuels
January 15, 2009 - 23:39 ET by richb313The latest research, from Russia of all places, indicates that oil, coal, natural gas etc are not fossil fuels as previously thought. The newest research suggest that these fuels are manufactured deep below the earths crust and are continually being made. The oil etc then works its way to the surface. This can take millions of years. The truest way to look at oil is to call it a renewable resource. In Russia several oil fields are located at the natural pipes that bring the oil up from the deeper levels. The news on this is easily verified but not widely reported, I wonder why?
Not a new theory
January 15, 2009 - 23:57 ET by CobraManThat's not a new theory, BTW. I remember hearing about that back in the 70's, during the (Carter created ) "oil crisis. " I don't remember coal being mentioned though.
I wonder why, if this theory is plausible, that coal is found in sedimentary rock? Did that coal migrate to the surface, due to erosion apperently, only later to be covered by sediments? If so, why didn't that coal, a very soft "rock," erode away along with all the granite that supposedly contained it?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Coal?
January 16, 2009 - 00:06 ET by richb313I might have been mistaken about coal. I am trying to remeber the article I read a few months ago.
rich... I believe the
January 16, 2009 - 00:13 ET by Clear thinkerrich...
I believe the article only mentioned oil. They came to this rather weird conclusion because old dry pockets of oil were filling with oil again. Which could have been found because we have gotten so much better at drilling with being able to drill at almost any angle, we may just be getting into a different area of the same pocket.
However, if there is something to oil reproducing itself at a faster rate than thought possible, then that is very, very, cool!
U.S. Military Eyes Mexico
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Self renewing
January 16, 2009 - 00:27 ET by CobraManOil wells tend to be self renewing. Not all of the oil located in an oil field is actually extracted via drilling and pumping, there's always oil somewhere in the field. After years, that untapped oil will migrate to the areas that were pumped clear. It's kind of like water. When you take out a bucket of water from a source, more water will flow back into the void to replace what was taken. Oil, of course, is far more viscus, so the process takes a lot longer to complete.
I think the Russians are just recovering oil that already existed in the oil fields, it just wasn't available years ago due to that oil's location in the field and the limitations of the equipment used to extract it.
We have, here in America, reopened old oil wells and started pumping them again. Yes, the flow is not as great as was in the past, but with improved drilling methods, and more powerful pumps, that "unrecoverable" oil is now being recovered.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Interesting Theory
January 16, 2009 - 00:27 ET by richb313The thing that most struck me about the article was how the research was conducted when it was still the old Soviet Union. This meant that the research was not shared for years due to the politics of the time. Also you must remember that Russia has developed thier own natural resources, albiet with help from the rest of the western world, to benifit themselves. This is fitting and only natural. The real interesting thing is the locations of some major oilfields in Siberia that use this particular theory. Results from production tests have come in that further support this theory.
The more we think we know the more questions that remain unanswered.
Do have a link?
January 16, 2009 - 00:37 ET by CobraManThis is a very interesting theory. I'd love to read more about it. Do you remember the name of the article, or have a link?
I've tried googling it, but I guess my googling skills leave something to be desired.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
I have the links - Abiotic Theory
January 16, 2009 - 01:04 ET by PopularTechAbiotic Theory:
Doom-and-gloomers say we’re near tapped-out of oil, Rubbish (National Review Online)
Fuel's Paradise (Wired)
Gas and oil may exist in miles-deep wells (The Times, UK)
Petroleum From Decay? Maybe Not, Study Says (The New York Times)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Thank you
January 16, 2009 - 01:11 ET by CobraManThank you, pop. Bookmarked for later perusal. Except for that last one, as I refuse to register with the New York Times, even for "free." I already get enough spam, I don't need the NYT's selling my e-mail address to anyone with cash .
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
No Need to Register with the NYT
January 16, 2009 - 02:15 ET by PopularTechIf you are getting a registration warning, simply clear your browser cache and cookies then reload the page.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I'll try that
January 16, 2009 - 22:24 ET by CobraManI'll try that, thanks. But I always block the cookies, so I hope it still works.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Still want's registration
January 16, 2009 - 22:26 ET by CobraManThat didn't work, oh well.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Try this to bypass registration.
January 17, 2009 - 04:18 ET by PopularTechDownload CCleaner, install it, close all browsers, run CCleaner, go to 'Options', 'Advanced', uncheck 'Only delete files in Windows Temp folder older than 48 hours' go back to 'Cleaner' and select 'Run Cleaner'. Then reload your browser and reload the page. I just tried it again in two different browsers (IE and Firefox) on two different computers and it does not ask for registration.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
I've done all of that.
January 17, 2009 - 20:49 ET by CobraManI've done all of that. Nothing works. But I don't care.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Bypassing NYT Registration Works
January 17, 2009 - 22:21 ET by PopularTechI just tested it again on someone else's computer. I clicked around until I got the registration warning, cleared everything and reloaded the page and it worked fine - no registration warning.
What browser are you using and what type of computer do you have?
If you are using some third party security software to mess around with your cookies and other settings it is probably interfering with it. There is no need to block cookies BTW.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
It would explain a few things
January 16, 2009 - 00:14 ET by CobraManCome to think of it, that theory would explain a few things. Like, for example, how our oil supplies keep getting bigger despite being a finite resource which is always on the verge of running out.
Back in the 70's, we were told that the world's oil supplies were going to run out in ten years. Ten years later, when those supplies DIDN'T run out, we were told that the world's oil supplies were going to run out in 20 years. No one ever told us how that oil supply, which was supposed to be exhausted, suddenly tripled itself as to last for 30 years.
20 years later, and 30 years after that supply was supposed to run out, were we told that the world's oil supply was going to run out in 50 years. Once again, we were never told how that supply, which was supposed to run out 30 years ago, suddenly increased itself by a factor of 15 (3 times 5) as to last 80 years.
I wonder by what factor that long exhausted supply will increase itself 50 years from now? 100? 200? More?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
CM, France believed every word of that..
January 16, 2009 - 13:24 ET by upcountrywaterThat's why 80% their electric power is produced by Atomic power!
FREEDOM
(D)
Global Warming died in 2008
January 15, 2009 - 21:47 ET by TN MomGlobal Warming died in 2008 due to an onslaught of frigid temps. The MSM Attack Machine tried in vain to ressusitate...
Sam Champion - Climatologist? Weatherman? Nope
January 15, 2009 - 22:24 ET by PopularTechSam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Oh. My. Gosh.
January 15, 2009 - 23:55 ET by candanceBut you have to realize that weather isn't abolished just because there's a long-term trend in the climate.
You mean the earth's weather patterns are not defined by a single trend? That goes against everything AGW preachers keep telling us!!
War is peace and peace is war!
I'm a typical white person.
I wonder
January 16, 2009 - 01:01 ET by CobraManI wonder how weather becomes abolished? Wouldn't the Earth have to lose it's atmosphere completely to actually abolish weather?
Gavin Schmidt needs to go back to grade school and learn what the definition of abolished really is.
On Edit: That's Gavin Schmidt and not Sam Champion.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
This is scairy!
January 16, 2009 - 01:24 ET by CobraMan""And, so, it's a little bit difficult to talk about global warming when you're going to have the coldest day of the year. But you have to realize that weather isn't abolished just because there's a long-term trend in the climate."
THIS is what a NASA "climate scientist" thinks? That weather can, or can not be, abolished according to the climate? No wonder NASA keeps having "accidents." Their "scientists" are complete idiots!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Global Cooling is here for 2009
January 16, 2009 - 07:30 ET by PopularTech2009 - Record cold wind chills of -50 C recorded overnight in Saskatchewan (The Canadian Press, January 4, 2009)
2009 - Forget warming, greenhouse gases may trigger ice age (The Times of India, January 5, 2009)
2009 - London colder than Antarctica (The Daily Telegraph, UK, January 5, 2009)
2009 - Poor burn books to stay warm in chilly India, 55 dead (Reuters, January 5, 2009)
2009 - Rochester sees snowiest winter in six years, record snow in December (Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, January 5, 2009)
2009 - Cold streak sets new record, Saskatoon experiences 24 consecutive days of -25 C (The StarPhoenix, January 6, 2009)
2009 - Record cold weather payouts triggered as temperature hits -11C (The Times, UK, January 6, 2009)
2009 - Record-breaking cold -37 in Moose Jaw, Canada (The Moose Jaw Times Herald, Canada, January 6, 2009)
2009 - NCDC’s own graphic shows decadal cooling trend (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, January 6, 2009)
2009 - Global Warming is Really Global Cooling (Right Side News, January 6, 2009)
2009 - Spokane, Wash., residents cope with record snow (Associated Press, January 7, 2009)
2009 - 12 deaths blamed on snow, cold across Europe (The Canadian Press, January 7, 2009)
2009 - Deadly cold, heavy snow grip Europe (National Post, January 8, 2009)
2009 - Ice Age returns to south as the sea freezes over (Portsmouth News, UK, January 8, 2009)
2009 - Minn. sled race canceled because of heavy snow (USA Today, January 8, 2009)
2009 - Extreme Alaska cold 60 below grounds planes, disables cars (The Associated Press, January 8, 2009)
2009 - Record snow takes toll on Great Falls plowing budget, crews (Montana News Network, January 9, 2009)
2009 - Life At Negative 78 Degrees In Alaska (NPR, January 9, 2009)
2009 - Polar Sea Ice Changes are Having a Net Cooling Effect on the Climate (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, January 10, 2009)
2009 - Slovenia with record low temperature -49 (Montenegrin News Agency, January 11, 2009)
2009 - Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age (Pravda, Russia, January 11, 2009)
2009 - Global Cooling Headed Our Way (Newsmax, January 13, 2009)
2009 - Record cold hits eastern ND (Associated Press, January 13, 2009)
2009 - Shocking cold wave drops temps to 40 below zero (Associated Press, January 14, 2009)
2009 - Record snow lands on Bismarck-Mandan again (The Bismark Tribune, January 14, 2009)
2009 - Flint's 95-year-old record low falls as 19 below zero hits city (The Flint Journal, January 14, 2009)
2009 - Biting cold hits Northeast, keeps even skiers home (Associated Press, January 15, 2009)
2009 - On the Brink of Climatic Disaster: the Coming Ice Age (The John Birch Society, January 15, 2009)
2009 - The Ice Age Cometh: Experts Warn of Global Cooling (Business & Media Institute, January 15, 2009)
2009 - Americans suffer record cold as temperatures plunge to -40C (Daily Mail, UK, January 16, 2009)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Good morning Pop
January 16, 2009 - 07:51 ET by cocodrieYou're right again. We're down to 33 degrees. Water freezes at 32 and I freeze at 45.
we're in for a lot more because the sun does look like it's going to work at half speed for a while.
Did you learn anything about computers from Oddjob? Forgive the smartace question, I couldn't resist.
Jesus Loves You
What I have learned
January 16, 2009 - 08:00 ET by PopularTechAll global warming believers are computer illiterate, Oddjob confirms this.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Pop
January 16, 2009 - 08:14 ET by cocodrieYou and I are at opposite ends of computer knowlege. I'm a green as the grass beginner but I'm smart onough to know my limitations.
Jesus Loves You
Mathematicians use computers to fool the public on AGW
January 16, 2009 - 08:37 ET by PopularTechComputers are merely a tool to manipulate data. They can do no more then they are programmed to do. Since computer climate models are nothing more then computer code, absolutely ANYTHING wrong with ANY of the code (there is a lot) will cause the model to be wrong as the models have always been wrong. Computers are the ultimate propaganda tool for mathematicians like Gavin Schmitt. They prey on the fact that not only is the public largely computer illiterate, they also do not understand advanced mathematics. These simple facts are why this scam keeps going on.
I know it is hard for some to accept that all these climate model results are worthless but they are. Working very hard, for a long time and spending millions does not make the results any more relevant.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Commputers can help sort
January 16, 2009 - 08:58 ET by danboCommputers can help sort through a lot of data and find coorelations.
The coorelations I've seen in climate modeling aren't that good and most of us would reject them.
Most importantly, coorelations aren't proof of a cause effect relationship. Coorelation do not imply causality.
There are 4 possible causes for coorelations. A causes B. CO2 causes temperture increases. But there's also B causes A. Temperture increases cause increases in CO2. (A strong possability.) Also both A and B are caused by another variable or set of variables which we will call C. Like the sun, oceans etc. And there's a 4th possability. There is no connection at all. That any coorelation is due to chance.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Oz
January 17, 2009 - 08:10 ET by nadadhimmiPAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.