Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 18 Dec 2006 19:05 On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 02:40:27 GMT, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu Gave us: >In article <kgpbo2l6601e2mp0roe4ffudebbv3esarm(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes: >>On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:34:14 GMT, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu Gave us: >> >>>In article <1h0h54-2kb.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net>, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> writes: >>>>In sci.physics, Eeyore >>>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> >>>> wrote >>>>on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:45:09 +0000 >>>><4585C875.DCD9A857(a)hotmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In sci.physics, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 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. >>>>> >>>>> And you call yourself a scientist ? >>>>> >>>>> How about doing some basic science and see for yourself ? >>>>> >>>>> Graham >>>>> >>>> >>>>As it so happens I do have a cup with a good amount of ice in it; I'll >>>>fill it to the brim with tap water and then wait a few hours and see how >>>>the level goes. >>>> >>>>It's the best I can do without more sophisticated equipment. :-) In >>>>any event my computations suggest that no change should ensue in the >>>>water level. >>>> >>>>That covers prediction and experimental setup. Results...well, we'll >>>>just have to wait. >>>> >>>It is an elementary problem. The mass of the ice cube is equal to the >>>mass of the water it displaces (Archimedes). After melting, it'll >>>fill the volume it displaces. The level *will not* change. >>> >>>Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, >>>meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" >> >> >> However, as John stated, IF the ice column of ice in the container >>stacks all the way to the base of the vessel, ANY ICE above the water >>line is NOT buoyed up, and will add to the water line height as the >>ice recedes into the container. The moment the ice free floats again, >>the ice above the water line no longer adds to that level. > >Yep. > >Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, >meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" It is like a glacier on land or the side of a mountain. If it melted, the level of a nearby lake or sea could rise, and likely would. Conversely, an already floating glacier has already displaced the sea it is in as much as its mass ever will. It's the law. :-]
From: Eeyore on 19 Dec 2006 01:30 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> > >>>No-one fully understands what drives the weather. > >> > >> That isn't really what climate science is about though, and interestingly > >> not fully understanding what drives something does not affect the quality > >> of the science (inflation, cosmological expansion, even the propagation > >> of gravity all remain "not fully understood"). > > > > We know enough to usually understand what a really good > > model is. Occasionally we get lucky early in the game. > > I don't believe we have with climatology as yet. > > > > Look at some of the diverse elements: > > > > variability of solar energy directed at us > > what happens enroute before that reaches us > > variable atmospheric considerations > > variable ocean currents > > Earth tilt/axis_wobble > > chaotic interactions > > solar eclipses > > Unfortunately I am no where near up to speed with climatology enough to > respond to this in a meaningful manner. Hopefully a climatologist will be > able to chime in and give better detail. I went to http://realclimate.org/ and what do I see there ? " quibbles with technical details which have little or no effect on the answer to the overall question no matter how they are resolved (e.g. whether the NRC/NAS statement in 2001 that post-1950 ocean warming was 0.050C is meaningfully different from the Levins et al. 2005, more recent figure of 0.037C). " Ocean temp rises of 1/20 or 1/30 of a degree in 50 years ! And.... " The precise factors underlying the so-called "Little Ice Age" (LIA) have been intensely debated within the scientific community." So no-one knows what caused it but we'll happily predict the opposite. " One key metric in this debate is the spatial pattern of cooling which may provide a 'fingerprint' of the underlying climate change, whether that was externally forced (from solar or volcanic activity) or was part of an intrinsic mode of variability. " = we haven't the tiniest clue but we'll use some big important sounding words to cover it up ! Note also that volcanic activity *IS* being seen as a significant factor in climate change. Graham
From: Eeyore on 19 Dec 2006 01:51 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > Reducing CO2 emissions seems to be a 'good idea' (tm) from first > > principles anyway. > > Glad to hear it. > > > My objections to the political propaganda surrounding it is primarily that > > (a) > > taxation will have a limited effect, 'punish' western economies and just > > generally annoy ppl (b) the promotin of the daft idea that we can > > somehow stop > > it in it's tracks and (c) a complete lack of anyone seemingly to realise > > the > > importane of insulation - there all maner of hi-tech nonsense going on > > like the > > idiotic 'hydrogen ecoonomy' that actually promotes energy use and hugely > > expensive PV solar power whilst tackilng the problem at source gets > > overlooked ! > > All three of these points are valid but are arguments with the effects taken > to combat global warming (often taken by non-scientists of any discipline). The insane 'hydrogen economy' idea is being proposed as a 'green solution' FFS ! I can't think of anything more energy wasteful. > In the UK we suffer quite badly (and I suspect most westernised nations do > as well) from false authority fallacies. It strikes me that the reaction to > the findings of climatologists is a prime example of this. > > It is critical (IMHO obviously) that the arguments against the reactions are > differentiated from the arguments against the science. And what likelihood do you think there is that the popular press is capable of making that distinction ? Graham
From: T Wake on 19 Dec 2006 06:03 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45878BF2.C5A7C86F(a)hotmail.com... > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > >> > Reducing CO2 emissions seems to be a 'good idea' (tm) from first >> > principles anyway. >> >> Glad to hear it. >> >> > My objections to the political propaganda surrounding it is primarily >> > that >> > (a) >> > taxation will have a limited effect, 'punish' western economies and >> > just >> > generally annoy ppl (b) the promotin of the daft idea that we can >> > somehow stop >> > it in it's tracks and (c) a complete lack of anyone seemingly to >> > realise >> > the >> > importane of insulation - there all maner of hi-tech nonsense going on >> > like the >> > idiotic 'hydrogen ecoonomy' that actually promotes energy use and >> > hugely >> > expensive PV solar power whilst tackilng the problem at source gets >> > overlooked ! >> >> All three of these points are valid but are arguments with the effects >> taken >> to combat global warming (often taken by non-scientists of any >> discipline). > > The insane 'hydrogen economy' idea is being proposed as > a 'green solution' FFS ! > I can't think of anything more energy wasteful. Who is proposing the hydrogen economy? What journals is it proposed in? Are you critiquing science work based on press releases? (www.badscience.net may interest you) Again, with out knowing the specifics as I haven't read anything which pushes the move to a hyrdogen economy, I think I can see the reasoning. Wasting "energy" per se is not the cause of global warming, it is the byproducts of energy production. Eliminate them, and people can use all the energy they want. >> In the UK we suffer quite badly (and I suspect most westernised nations >> do >> as well) from false authority fallacies. It strikes me that the reaction >> to >> the findings of climatologists is a prime example of this. >> >> It is critical (IMHO obviously) that the arguments against the reactions >> are >> differentiated from the arguments against the science. > > And what likelihood do you think there is that the popular press is > capable of > making that distinction ? Non at all. (What have they got to do with anything) The popular press is just that, popular press. You are railing against climate change because of how it is reported in the media - not because of the underlying science. If you were not concerned about the counter measures (such as raised taxes etc), then you wouldn't think the underlying science must be flawed. In reality, you think the policy changes in response to the science are flawed but have (for some reason) directed the ensuing anger towards the base science. The media are well known for taking press releases and spinning them in new directions, as well as scientists (knowingly or otherwise) using press interviews as a change to push non-peer reviewed opinion into the public domain (MMR for example). The problem is that people who are not involved in the discipline often do not have the means, background or interest to fully research the findings for themselves. This does not automatically mean the science is not properly researched. In the MMR example, nothing in the published work drew a conclusive link between the vaccine and autism (as it was peer reviewed work), but during press interviews the link was alluded to and the rest is history.
From: T Wake on 19 Dec 2006 06:09
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:458786EF.F88FF01A(a)hotmail.com... > > T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> >T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>>No-one fully understands what drives the weather. >> >> >> >> That isn't really what climate science is about though, and >> >> interestingly >> >> not fully understanding what drives something does not affect the >> >> quality >> >> of the science (inflation, cosmological expansion, even the >> >> propagation >> >> of gravity all remain "not fully understood"). >> > >> > We know enough to usually understand what a really good >> > model is. Occasionally we get lucky early in the game. >> > I don't believe we have with climatology as yet. >> > >> > Look at some of the diverse elements: >> > >> > variability of solar energy directed at us >> > what happens enroute before that reaches us >> > variable atmospheric considerations >> > variable ocean currents >> > Earth tilt/axis_wobble >> > chaotic interactions >> > solar eclipses >> >> Unfortunately I am no where near up to speed with climatology enough to >> respond to this in a meaningful manner. Hopefully a climatologist will be >> able to chime in and give better detail. > > I went to http://realclimate.org/ and what do I see there ? > > " quibbles with technical details which have little or no effect on the > answer > to the overall question no matter how they are resolved (e.g. whether the > NRC/NAS statement in 2001 that post-1950 ocean warming was 0.050C is > meaningfully different from the Levins et al. 2005, more recent figure of > 0.037C). " > > Ocean temp rises of 1/20 or 1/30 of a degree in 50 years ! Are you saying this is trivial? My recollections of ocean life and its part in the food webs are based on biology and geography classes nearly that long ago themselves. Is raising the mean temperature of the planets oceans by 0.03-0.05K of little importance? > And.... > > " The precise factors underlying the so-called "Little Ice Age" (LIA) have > been > intensely debated within the scientific community." > > So no-one knows what caused it but we'll happily predict the opposite. I am amazed that you read the quote and got that interpretation. You are firmly set in your way of thinking and no form of evidence or rationalisation will sway you. You owe a few appologies to /BAH. Your posts sound very similar to the arguments used by creationists trying to push ID. > " One key metric in this debate is the spatial pattern of cooling which > may > provide a 'fingerprint' of the underlying climate change, whether that was > externally forced (from solar or volcanic activity) or was part of an > intrinsic > mode of variability. " > > = we haven't the tiniest clue but we'll use some >big important sounding words to > cover it up ! Again, there is nothing in that which uses "big important words" to cover something up. > Note also that volcanic activity *IS* being seen as a significant factor > in > climate change. When was this not the case in the scientific research? |