AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 4 Aug 2007 12:44 On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:25:52 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Aug 3, 11:58 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: >> >On Jul 27, 11:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE TOPIC >> >> of the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the ice cores >> >> which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to temperature. >> >> >Sure, that's easy enough for you to say. >> >> Nowhere in his comment does he show any knowledge about the error bars >> in the ice core time measurements. I believe they quite often exceed >> 900 years. Not that it matters, as there wasn't 6 billion people on >> the planet at the time dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the >> atmosphere and no one is arguing that CO2 must always __lead__ a >> temperature rise, back then. CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be >> driven by Milankovitch cycles, for example. And none of that takes >> away from the idea that CO2 driven by human activities can also be the >> __lead__ in a rise in temperature, with all the attendant positive >> feedbacks that naturally exist in the mix, as well. >> >That is funny. You work your logic to satisfy your superstition. No, but then this is you saying so. As such, it's meaningless. >There >is record of relative changes in CO2 levels in the ice cores. Yes, that is generally correct though I'm sure that even on this simple idea you don't understand the whys of it very well. >THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THIS OF ANY EFFECT ON TEMPERATURE. There is no means to measure global temperatures directly in the ice cores. It's inferred from O16/O18 ratios. Of course, you don't understand that, either. But I've decided your opinion about this really isn't relevant. You just spout words and have absolutely no capacity to understand any science, at all. Even the meaning of a simple expression completely escapes you. So you are in a blur, a fog, and completely incapable of putting 2 and 2 together. Why should anyone care what you think on the subject? I'm not even going to try, anymore, to explain the nuances about science theory on this subject and why laws of physics that operate today must have applied a few millennia ago, as well, to you. There is no point. I enjoy talking to a brick wall as much as the next guy, but there is a limit. >When one is attempting to determine cause and effect, it is a very >important point that the temperature preceeds the CO2. This shows that >the temperature change is very probably causing CO2 changes. Careful >studies have determined the lapse to be about 900 yrs. My point on this topic stands, I believe. But I can't even expect you to understand what I wrote about it. You don't even understand what YOU write. >The important point also is that when the CO2 levels begin to rise, >there is no indication of effect on temperature gradient whatsoever. > >In any of the ice cores there are differences in the readings even in >the same ice core. But even with your allowance for choosing the data >you wish, it is clear that CO2 increases AFTER temperature increase. > >Studies have also failed to show methane increases at the time of >temperature increases. > >The point is that you have no scientific evidence of CAUSE AND EFFECT >from the ice cores. >So go ahead twist your little mentality and it's beliefs in order to >IGNORE THIS DATA. I just think you are unable to read with understanding. Sadly, I have to admit that such folks actually do exist and accept the idea that they are beyond help. my sincere pity to you, Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 4 Aug 2007 12:56 On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:25:53 GMT, <claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >news:ro27b352vi09k66ge2mu0lap07kq6j4hjg(a)4ax.com... > >> My purpose was just as I said, that Kent's comment about a 900 years >> lag (whether taken from a factual source, or otherwise) isn't >> determinative. > >Oh, so you admit you have no evidence of a 900 year lag. Right? (Answer >the question you evasive twit. I never evaded this question. It was never asked of me, until now. The "900 year lag" figure is what Kent wrote. Why in the world should I care to have any evidence on hand about what Kent claims as fact, in here? He can't even understand his own writing about science. It would be pointless to bother with such sillyness. So what are you asking, really? Jon
From: claudiusdenk on 4 Aug 2007 13:46 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:kob9b3lkm3qf2uvaie1jvnv4sntg5a58tp(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:25:53 GMT, <claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>news:ro27b352vi09k66ge2mu0lap07kq6j4hjg(a)4ax.com... >> >>> My purpose was just as I said, that Kent's comment about a 900 years >>> lag (whether taken from a factual source, or otherwise) isn't >>> determinative. >> >>Oh, so you admit you have no evidence of a 900 year lag. Right? (Answer >>the question you evasive twit. > > I never evaded this question. It was never asked of me, until now. > > The "900 year lag" figure is what Kent wrote. Why in the world should > I care to have any evidence on hand about what Kent claims as fact, in > here? He can't even understand his own writing about science. It > would be pointless to bother with such sillyness. > > So what are you asking, really? I'm asking you to answer the question.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 4 Aug 2007 13:54 On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:46:09 GMT, <claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >news:kob9b3lkm3qf2uvaie1jvnv4sntg5a58tp(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:25:53 GMT, <claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>news:ro27b352vi09k66ge2mu0lap07kq6j4hjg(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> My purpose was just as I said, that Kent's comment about a 900 years >>>> lag (whether taken from a factual source, or otherwise) isn't >>>> determinative. >>> >>>Oh, so you admit you have no evidence of a 900 year lag. Right? (Answer >>>the question you evasive twit. >> >> I never evaded this question. It was never asked of me, until now. >> >> The "900 year lag" figure is what Kent wrote. Why in the world should >> I care to have any evidence on hand about what Kent claims as fact, in >> here? He can't even understand his own writing about science. It >> would be pointless to bother with such sillyness. >> >> So what are you asking, really? > >I'm asking you to answer the question. And you call me evasive? ;) I can't answer for Kent. What question, again? Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 4 Aug 2007 14:24
I should have added a few notes.... On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:48:22 GMT, I wrote: ><snip> >Now, from Kepler's 2nd we also know that the rate of area swept is a >constant. Thus, we know that: > > d^2A/dt^2 = 0 > >So, this means: > > (1/2) r [2 dr/dt dz/dt + r d^2z/dt^2] = 0 multiplying both sides by 2, > r [2 dr/dt dz/dt + r d^2z/dt^2] = 0 > >and since r may be non-zero, By this, I mean that 'r' cannot be said to be zero in order to satisfy the equation, so it must be the other part of it ... namely, > 2 dr/dt dz/dt + r d^2z/dt^2 = 0 that must therefore be always zero in order to satisfy the equation. >Note that we have previously realized that: > > a_r = d^2r/dt^2 - r (dz/dt)^2 > a_t = 2 dr/dt dz/dt + r d^2z/dt^2 > >So we know that a_t must be zero. The point here is that what must be zero, if equal areas are swept in equal times, is the transverse acceleration. The presence of a non- zero transverse acceleration is, in effect, a change in the rate of area sweeping (and essentially by definition, the angular momentum.) >In other words, the transverse >acceleration must always be zero. In cases where the rate of area swept remains a constant, such as in orbital motion. But this also applies just as well to flywheels and other rotating solid bodies. It is the very essence of angular momentum as an idea. (Every single atom present in a flywheel sweeps out equal areas in equal times and all of the force acting on them is always central-acting, which accounts for the very idea of angular momentum.) >Thus, any acceleration that is >present must be entirely due to a_r, the radial acceleration part. Bingo. >Kepler's 2nd tells you that the acceleration MUST be radial and cannot >be anything else. > >Furthermore, the reverse is also true. If there is no transverse >acceleration present, if all acceleration happens to be radial, then >the second derivative of area swept with respect to time must be zero >and therefore the area swept must remain constant, regardless of what >the radial acceleration (in the presence of zero transverse >accererations.) In other words, the area swept is conserved in those >cases. ><snip> This is how the concept of angular momentum arises as an important idea. It's really NOT some discovered thing about nature as much as it is an obvious result of mathematics, in cases where the transverse acceleration is zero. It turns out in practice that nature includes processes like flywheels and orbits where all acceleration due to forces operating happens to be central acting. Because of that happy coincidence, the idea of angular momentum (which is nothing but the same thing as saying equal areas are swept relative to a point) arises as useful. Put another way, if you imagine a particle moving past another particle without any force acting at all, areas will be swept out equally in equal times. This is very basic geometry, as the base of these triangles are determined by the relative velocity and the heights always remain the same (the length of the perpendicular that proceeds from the passing particle's path and the passed particle.) Adding any central-directed acceleration or repulsion does not have any impact whatsoever upon the areas being swept. It's a constant determined by the initial conditions. That constant is given a name, 'angular momentum,' to highlight its useful value in analyzing problems. Now, I could proceed to follow up on the very obvious ideas of orbital energy and angular momentum as it applies in celestial mechanics and elliptical orbits. Or I could re-derive some of the above using instead the polar equation of the ellipse and also, perhaps, using simple relationships of the basis vectors. Or? (Of course, none of this will have any impact on Kent or denk, who are both completely without an oar in the water on these subjects.) Jon |