USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by Shooter, Jul 17, 2009.

Moderators: 6

Moderators

  1. BrianFromWA
  2. Chris Craig
  3. Darkwebs
  4. Ed O
  5. PtldPlatypus
  6. SlyPokerDog
Page 26 of 26
  1. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko boomer maniac Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    34,329
    Likes Received:
    25,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    I don't dismiss their qualifications out of hand. I accept their qualifications for what they are, but no more. A scientist in one field is not automatically an expert in all scientific fields. I don't dismiss the idea that they could be experts in other fields, but I dismiss the idea of accepting them as experts in fields other than their own without proof.

    Now, I am guilty as charged of not reading what they wrote. I'm not sufficiently interested in what they wrote. While it might or might not be brilliant, I'm not an expert myself, so it would be very easy to be misled. I haven't read the work of those they oppose, either, so I'm not ignoring them specifically.

    My interest in global warming is primarily that it allows me to argue with you. I don't really worry about whether global warming is true or not. Science will figure it out with or without our discussion here. Whichever side science comes down I'll be inclined to go along with. Because, you see, I don't think I know more about it than the experts. And I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

    I don't. Those are political statements, not scientific.

    I don't know what point you are making here. Who doesn't think that, in hindsight? But he ended up at the patent office because at the time, his brilliance (in his own field) was not recognized.

    Sure, from what little I know they sound like serious people, studs, if you will. Why you don't use them as examples more, and webmasters and dead guys less, I can't quite figure out.

    barfo
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2009
    barfo, Aug 4, 2009
    #501
  2. cloudydays

    cloudydays Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    See this is where I disagree. You are talking about scenarios in which life on earth dies, not the earth itself. Global warming, if these climate models are correct (of course) will effectively change the earth as an organism (increased temps, CO2 levels, melted glaciers, raised sea levels, changed ecosystems, etc).
     
    cloudydays, Aug 4, 2009
    #502
  3. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    The science is unconvincing.
     
    Denny Crane, Aug 5, 2009
    #503
  4. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    If you want to be technical about it, I suppose a chunk of rock the size of an ice cube would effectively still be the earth, if we blew it into a bazillion pieces. Not that I think we could do that. We could deflect some big asteroids our way, in theory, which would cause some serious physical damage.

    Given that we're the only planet with any life on it at all (until proven otherwise), removing the life on it (via cobalt bombs, etc.) would leave a corpse of a planet in orbit.
     
    Denny Crane, Aug 5, 2009
    #504
  5. Eastoff

    Eastoff But it was a beginning.

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,056
    Likes Received:
    4,031
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Tualatin
    sorry to just now get to this, but rockets exploit this change in mass over time. Also if you have a chain hanging just over the edge of a table, then start to pull it off, the mass effectively increases as more chain is no longer on the table. (physics major HOLLA!)
     
    Eastoff, Aug 10, 2009
    #505
  6. Eastoff

    Eastoff But it was a beginning.

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,056
    Likes Received:
    4,031
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Tualatin
    black holes can dissipate through Hawking radiation, aka pair production of opposite charged particles straddling the event horizon.
     
    Eastoff, Aug 10, 2009
    #506
  7. Eastoff

    Eastoff But it was a beginning.

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    16,056
    Likes Received:
    4,031
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Tualatin
    Eastoff, Aug 10, 2009
    #507
  8. Minstrel

    Minstrel Top Of The Pops Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    26,226
    Likes Received:
    14,407
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    User Interface Designer
    Location:
    Hello darkness, my old friend
    Yes, I know that, but those are specific applications of physics. I was responding to someone who was talking about Newton's second law of physics. Newton's second law of physics doesn't have an element of mass changing over time. The only time element is momentum by time. Not mass by time.

    I'm aware of that, too. I was making a joke, my friend. ;)
     
    Minstrel, Aug 10, 2009
    #508
  9. maxiep

    maxiep RIP Dr. Jack

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    28,303
    Likes Received:
    5,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Merchant Banker
    Location:
    Denver, CO & Lake Oswego, OR
    maxiep, Aug 17, 2009
    #509
Page 26 of 26

Share This Page