Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 17 Dec 2006 14:30 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:71a7e$4585765e$4fe75c5$3417(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > <snip for brevity> >> The proposed solutions and public debates are certainly pseudoscientific, >> but I am not sure the actual science present by climatologists is. > > In rebuttal I give you "Piltdown Man". LOL :-) Hoaxes happen in all disciplines. > The problem is that science, especially fledging science > has enough political aspects (call it a survival instinct) > to not play quite as well by the rules as the same science > does when more mature. > > Think of your own discipline, physics, and its early history. Very true and I am not doubting this. As I have said, my knowledge of climatology is limited (to say the least), but the bits I have looked at have been sound from a scientific viewpoint. This is not the same as correct or truthful though. > But now for something completely different! > > Do you think climatology will actually progress enough in > your lifetime to be able to relaibly predict a century > in advance? > No. :-) Unless you have a broad definition of "reliably predict." (Which I do, sometimes).
From: John Fields on 17 Dec 2006 16:21 On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:42:14 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:4585305E.680489E3(a)hotmail.com... >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> > >>> > And yet we hear wailing and gnashing of teeth about the loss of polar >>> > ice >>> > sheets and global sea level rise yet the melting of ice sheets doesn't >>> > raise >>> the >>> > sea level even a millimetre. >>> >>> There is an interesting issue here. get a pint glass, half fill it with >>> water and then put ice in until the water almost flows over the rim. >>> >>> When the ice melts, what happens to the water lever? >> >> It stays the same of course ! Have you actually tried it ? > >If your water level remains the same, I suspect you either mistook the >experiment I was describing or I didn't explain it very well. In hindsight, >I suspect the latter. > >However, the point I was making is that *you* are demanding the sea level >rise to support the theory that the ice is melting. > >In the experiment we see this does not happen. > >Now if you change the experiment so that there is a column of ice which >rises 10" above the rim of the glass, what happens when that melts? > >This brings in the concept of a tipping point. There is a while, where ice >is melting and nothing happens to the water level, eventually as more ice >melts, the level goes up. --- "Tipping point"? LOL, you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. As long as the ice is floating the water level will never change. However, if you fill the glass with enough ice so that the column sinks to, and is supported by the bottom of the glass, then as the ice melts the water level will rise until the column of ice no longer touches the bottom of the glass. --- >We know the theory behind fusion is sound and we see it in practice every >day thanks to nature, but mankind can not to this day recreate it. --- More garbage. Have you never heard of the hydrogen bomb? -- JF
From: Eeyore on 17 Dec 2006 16:45 John Fields wrote: > As long as the ice is floating the water level will never change. Maybe there is yet hope for science ? I wonder how the 'greens' think steel ships float too. No doubt by their simpleton thinking they should sink ? Graham
From: Don Klipstein on 17 Dec 2006 16:58 In article <4585305E.680489E3(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore wrote in part: >How about practical breeder reactors ? They were once the darling of the >nuclear industry and *everyone* 'scientific' believed in them. Not a >single one has been a success. And why? I think the problems are mostly political ones - security concerns, mostly about their ability to produce plutonium, and less legitimate political problems such as political incorrectness of finding places to dump nuclear waste. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 17 Dec 2006 17:09
In sci.physics, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:21:21 -0800 <shbbo25jge8dc082qvu6dfv7fdlht21qpl(a)4ax.com>: > On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:42:14 -0000, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:4585305E.680489E3(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> T Wake wrote: >>> >>>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> > >>>> > And yet we hear wailing and gnashing of teeth about the loss of polar >>>> > ice >>>> > sheets and global sea level rise yet the melting of ice sheets doesn't >>>> > raise >>>> the >>>> > sea level even a millimetre. >>>> >>>> There is an interesting issue here. get a pint glass, half fill it with >>>> water and then put ice in until the water almost flows over the rim. >>>> >>>> When the ice melts, what happens to the water lever? >>> >>> It stays the same of course ! Have you actually tried it ? >> >>If your water level remains the same, I suspect you either mistook the >>experiment I was describing or I didn't explain it very well. In hindsight, >>I suspect the latter. >> >>However, the point I was making is that *you* are demanding the sea level >>rise to support the theory that the ice is melting. >> >>In the experiment we see this does not happen. >> >>Now if you change the experiment so that there is a column of ice which >>rises 10" above the rim of the glass, what happens when that melts? >> >>This brings in the concept of a tipping point. There is a while, where ice >>is melting and nothing happens to the water level, eventually as more ice >>melts, the level goes up. > > --- > "Tipping point"? LOL, you haven't the slightest idea what you're > talking about. > > As long as the ice is floating the water level will never change. > However, if you fill the glass with enough ice so that the column > sinks to, and is supported by the bottom of the glass, then as the > ice melts the water level will rise until the column of ice no > longer touches the bottom of the glass. I should point out that a floating ice cube is less dense than the water bouying it; therefore, as it melts, the total volume of ice + water will lessen. What that does to water level in, say, a tank of water with free floating ice, I'm not entirely certain. Say I had a tank of water which can hold 1 m^3 or 1000 kg of water (at a certain marker line), with approximate dimensions 1m x 1m x 1m, and it is filled with 900 kg of reasonably pure water and 100 kg of ice. If I assume ice has density 0.9 kg/liter, this gives a total volume of 111.11 liters (or, if one prefers, 0.11111 m^3) of ice, but only 100 liters of water will be used in bouying that ice, with 11.11 liters of ice sticking out of the top. (Since it depends on shape, the actual height sticking out is not clear.) Since that ice is displacing 100 liters of water, it is as though that ice *is* in fact 100 liters of water, and therefore the still-liquid water in the tank will be at the 1 m^3 waterline, with a bit of ice sticking out of its top. As the ice melts, the waterline will not move (absent effects such as water expansion from heating it to accelerate the melting of the ice). As the water/ice weight ratio approaches 500/500 kg, it becomes increasingly more complicated to shape the ice so that 500 kg of water can bouy it up. The best I can do is make the ice into a parallelpiped just fitting into the tank, with a layer of water surrounding it on the sides. This should give me a column of ice sticking up about 5.556 cm above the tank, in the limiting case of a parallelpiped which just slides into the tank. If there's more ice than water (by weight), then your scenario applies, and the water level will initially be below the tank marker. A variant of this idea is actually in use, although it's for building cooling. The tank in that case is conical and filled with brine; the chillers (basically, big refrigeration units) cool the brine during the night (when power is cheaper) until the water floats (between 0 and 4 C pure water is less dense than 4C water) and freezes. During the day the air is blown over the ice, and the air gives up heat to the ice, melting it and cooling the air. The air is then returned back to the building. > --- > > >>We know the theory behind fusion is sound and we see it in practice every >>day thanks to nature, but mankind can not to this day recreate it. > > --- > More garbage. > > Have you never heard of the hydrogen bomb? > I think he's referring to more controlled releases of hydrogen fusion energy, but that's wrong anyway; the main problem is that we're not at the point of economic viability/competitiveness with other energy sources such as coal and hydroelectric. I am keeping half an eye on ITER; we shall see. -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #104392: for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) sleep(0); -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |