I am skeptical of global warming because of how much volcanos put out every year.
Let me get this straight...
You think volcanoes might be causing global warming because of their CO2 emissions?
Volcanoes emit roughly 200 million tonnes of CO2 every year. You're probably thinking "wow, that sounds like a lot, it HAS to have an effect on the climate." Hold on just a second though...
Humans emit 26,800 million tonnes of CO2 every year. Volcanoes account for less than 1% of CO2 emissions every year.
Edit: I left the notation in millions to help make the difference clearer.
Volcanoes: 200 million
Humans: 26,800 million
For ever ton of CO2 from volcanoes, humans emit 132 tones.
Oh my. Without sweating much, how do you think those asteroids gravity pull do compare to the one of a much bigger space that pass us all the time, aka the Moon ?I am skeptical of global warming because of how much volcanos put out every year. Also there is an asteroid that has a near miss with us every 20 years or so, this could be a astronomically recent development, and the asteroid would effect our planet with it's gravity, it's possible that the passes of this asteroid are inflaming our tectonic activity and causing volcanos to blow up more often.
Just a theory, but a very possible one.
I did the math for you. The last astreoid to "near-miss" us was Apophis, with a nice 47x10^9 kg mass. That is, 4.7 megaton of rock. Sounds big.
But the Moon is fricking huge, with an estimated mass of 7,3 x 10^21 kg. As in a thousand billion times bigger.
As the average gravitic pull according to good ol' Newton (K = (G x mass) / radius^2) is function of distance squared, to have the same effect on the Earth as the Moon, Apophis should have passed us, distance Earth-Moon divided by the square root of a thousand billion meters... at something like a quarter mile (which isn't called a near-miss in my book).
And dont' forget that last time we looked, the Moon wasn't triggering earthquakes every day. So you can safely bet that your theory about asteroid triggered earthquakes doesn't hold water, either (even if asteroids do look and feel big).
All it took is a five minutes search and three centuries old physics... How are we to take you seriously if you don't even make a half serious attempt to validate such an hypothesis before sending it away in a conversation about science ?
(disclaimer : I may have made a mistake in my calculations, as I'm no physicist. If so, please do point them to me. THEN you can call my an idiot !)
If Apophis has a mass of 47x... and the moon has a mass of 7,3x... then you are only talking about 1,5x10^11, or a hundred billion times bigger. Now, not having checked this, you may just have left out a comma in 4,7.
Even so, though it was a long time since I did my physics studies, I have to say I doubt you can just go to the general size of gravity formula for a question like this. You're going to get some kind of impulse on the system in the form of a differential equation, most likely you would need to calculate the forces acting at and between tectonic plates and BLAH. In general, though, I am with you in your result, that the gravitic effects of asteroids are peanuts and quite unlikely to affect the Earth (with its mass of 5x10^24 kg...) in any significant way. Even so, if an asteroid of that size passed closer to us than the Moon, I feel pretty certain that would be a bad day to wake up. If nothing else, the Earth would probably pull it in.
EDIT: I should also add that the non-earthquakeness of the Moon's pull on the Earth is likely due to the constance of the force involved. If the Moon came slogging along from outside, that could well be pretty apocalyptic.
If Apophis has a mass of 47x... and the moon has a mass of 7,3x... then you are only talking about 1,5x10^11, or a hundred billion times bigger. Now, not having checked this, you may just have left out a comma in 4,7.
Even so, though it was a long time since I did my physics studies, I have to say I doubt you can just go to the general size of gravity formula for a question like this. You're going to get some kind of impulse on the system in the form of a differential equation, most likely you would need to calculate the forces acting at and between tectonic plates and BLAH. In general, though, I am with you in your result, that the gravitic effects of asteroids are peanuts and quite unlikely to affect the Earth (with its mass of 5x10^24 kg...) in any significant way. Even so, if an asteroid of that size passed closer to us than the Moon, I feel pretty certain that would be a bad day to wake up. If nothing else, the Earth would probably pull it in.
Thanks for the reply !
In fact, I didn't even bother with the 7,3 and the 47 : I just compared the 10^9 to the 10^21. My intent was to underscore the HUGE gap in magnitude, not being exact here. If the Moon doesn't trigger eruptions every day, it's not a tiny multi-megaton pebble who is going to do it.
And yes, I just used the centuries old newtonian physics. To get closer to reality, I should have used modern relativistic formulas, which I could only do if my life was at stake (I hope).
Asteroids have already passed between us and the Moon, with no particular results. You have to factor in their velocity (their trajectory probably got bent a little by Earth's pull, that's all).
EDIT: constance of the Moon's pull is relative, as we are spinning under. We ARE under tidal effects (seatides and atmospheric effects). It's just the current pull of the Moon isn't enough to affect the magma.
It seems that the Moon used to be closer to us a loooong time ago and is a possible suspect for the fracturing of the tectonic plates. Also, other moons in the solar system do have an measurable effect on their planet's tectonic activity because theyr are closer and/or more massive.
Their trajectory and their size, yes. If someone tossed Ceres our way, especially if they did so particularly slowly, somewhere on Earth will have a bad day.
Their trajectory and their size, yes. If someone tossed Ceres our way, especially if they did so particularly slowly, somewhere on Earth will have a bad day.
EARTH would have a bad day.
Meanwhile, the CO2 output of volcanoes is miniscule in comparison to human emissions... regardless of whether asteroids are partially responsible or not.
Yep, but you already had that covered.
On both counts, same human bias : impressive events on an individual human scale, meaningless on a planetwide one.
|
Oh my. Without sweating much, how do you think those asteroids gravity pull do compare to the one of a much bigger space that pass us all the time, aka the Moon ?I am skeptical of global warming because of how much volcanos put out every year. Also there is an asteroid that has a near miss with us every 20 years or so, this could be a astronomically recent development, and the asteroid would effect our planet with it's gravity, it's possible that the passes of this asteroid are inflaming our tectonic activity and causing volcanos to blow up more often.
Just a theory, but a very possible one.
The moon is constant, and cyclical, the asteroid is not, and depending on the moon's position, they could be temporarily increaseing gravity on one side of the planet, or if from oppsite sides, could be pulling from two sides at once.
Either way, (or sideways), the asteroid disrupts a stable system.
10+2 all the time doesn't mean you can ignore the occassional +1. When it comes along, it still changes the equation, still has an effect.
The strength of that effect and what it causes is up for debate.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!I don't even know who Anthony Watt is, so there's that.
I should be the one laughing at the fact that you didn't even watch it.
Your response came seconds ago, and that documentary takes two whole hours to watch.
Because I didn't need to watch two hours. I did my due diligence and watched the first 20 minutes or so. At first I was mad, faced with bald-faced lies and propaganda-like rhetoric, but it just got more and more absurd until I couldn't help but laugh myself silly.
My response is the most serious one that a reasonable person ought to manage.
The strength of that effect and what it causes is up for debate.
No. It's not. Not in the way you want.
No more than 10,000,000,000,000,000>1 is up for debate. Which is closer to the actual analogous numbers to your statement "10+2...can't ignore occasional +1". The outrageous orders of magnitude difference should put the very notion that asteroids are causing volcanoes out of your mind. Ignoring the fact that CO2 emissions from volcanoes are negligible compared to human impact.
g@~@!#mit jeff, you freaking ninja. the only reason you beat me to it, mind you, is that I thought better of it and removed a pretty insulting paragraph I'd typed.
NEVER AGAIN will I censor myself! *harumph*
So you're sticking to that one part to refute all of it?
And you seriously believe nobody would abuse power when they have that much money?
Yeah, I'm not really sure of what to say to people here anymore. I feel like I'm talking to a wall.
You're not even talking to us, you're making vaguely insulting comments vaguely related to the discussion at hand
Darklight: .... no. Just no.
Oh my. Without sweating much, how do you think those asteroids gravity pull do compare to the one of a much bigger space that pass us all the time, aka the Moon ?I am skeptical of global warming because of how much volcanos put out every year. Also there is an asteroid that has a near miss with us every 20 years or so, this could be a astronomically recent development, and the asteroid would effect our planet with it's gravity, it's possible that the passes of this asteroid are inflaming our tectonic activity and causing volcanos to blow up more often.
Just a theory, but a very possible one.
The moon is constant, and cyclical, the asteroid is not, and depending on the moon's position, they could be temporarily increaseing gravity on one side of the planet, or if from oppsite sides, could be pulling from two sides at once.
Either way, (or sideways), the asteroid disrupts a stable system.
10+2 all the time doesn't mean you can ignore the occassional +1. When it comes along, it still changes the equation, still has an effect.
The strength of that effect and what it causes is up for debate.
How about this, show your work.
Right now, what you're doing is basically just making up whatever you want. Show me a list of correlations that warrant further investigation. Dates and times that asteroids have past by matched up with volcanic eruptions.
Oh, it just recently passed by 4 times closer to earth than any of the other passby/earthquake date match ups, we should check that day to see what havoc it wrecked.
Hmm... checking... it looks like some people felt some very minor shaking in Vanuatu. That's it. The prior page posts there was a 5.0 quake in Japan, but worldwide we average 3-4 5.0-5.9 earthquakes every day.
Therefore the theory is false. If when passing at 0.4 AU it caused the 8.8 magnitude earthquake in Chile, then it should have caused an earthquake 4 times greater when passing at 0.1 AU, but that didn't happen. Look, science, we've tested your theory and it didn't prove true.
Well, maybe it caused a volcanoe...
A google search turns up only references PRIOR to the asteroids pass by, with zero references to an eruption on the day of it's closest proximity. No volcanic eruptions.
Your theory has easily proven holes.
|
|
First, my comment was a demostration of how easy it is to randomly make a plausable cause and effect relationship that you could then get lots of money to research. Though lots of money will be more to come if you can show theoretically practical solutions (for PR, a carrot for the consumer). Blaming global warming on humans fits that criteria, while the asteroid possibility does not.
Second, I doubt the asteroid thing would simply have a direct effect then be gone. More likely to simply destabilize, or at least alter how something flows in a small way, that may or may not build up into a large effect later.
Third, I have no idea where to find the article about the asteroid (singular btw), that comes by every 20 years. I doubt it is intended to be out and about, because what is so remarkable about said asteroid is that supposedly, astronomers were unsure if it would pass close by, or actually hit earth. That implies distances possibly closer then the moon. Also supposedly, the they can only be so accurate in their calculations, so they said that the next pass will also be close, and possibly hit earth then though they can't be sure because it's so far in the future.
Fourth, because I have yet to find the article again, I use words like supposedly.
Fifth, it would be nice if people could simply consider things as possibilities and chances, instead of taking every word spoken to be my absolute and unquestionable belief.
I take everything I hear with some salt, then compare to other things I've heard, then throw in how my personal experience fits in. Therefore, when I do present some idea or concept (which I admit to being very poor on being clear, one of my troubles) it is supposed to be just and idea or a concept, a new pov from which to look at a problem. Since it's supposed to get you thinking about alternate possibilities, and get you away from the blinders, the statements are not always intended as statements of facts.
I generally see people pick extreme ideas and stick with them when the truth probably lies somewhere in between. As demonstrated by my nature vs nurture example, always argueing about whether one side is right or the other, when the most likely truth would be a combonation. Science itself is a good way to learn more about the world, but scientists are only human, their methods of thinking will always color their methods of experimentation and theories. Also, people who present these ideas to the general populace are usually not scientists themselves, and things can be lost in translation, or twisted to be displayed in a particular light advocating their goals rather then pure truth or theory.
Since all this evidence people get, comes from people who may have ideas and agendas I don't know about, I take it with some salt. Though usually some truth is enbedded in there, some falsehoods are too. It is easy to do experiments to confirm your suspicions, it is easy to find reasons to believe you are correct. Statistical and experimental evidence, however, is only easy to find that which scientists are looking for, so if scientists are focusing on the human contribution to global warming, then the majority of scientific evidence will relating to that possibility rather then other possibilities, simply because other possibilties don't have the same publicity, money, and work to be shown.
Note, They track volcano emmisions and have traced the fact that it can take a year for the volume to spread over the globe, so the the effect of volcanos, wouldn't cause a short term spike in the atmospheric average, I also heard the volcanos put out billions, rather then millions of tonnes, though I'll be back later if I find it again. Phone is slow on research.
Take the documentary icyshadow linked. Many of the things are probably false but many are also true (though I wonder if it's actually intentional on that scale, or if it's just from each small decision, building on top of previous ones to lead to the same or similar result, the latter seems more likely to me).
I skimmed through the video, I'll watch the rest later, but their so called solution won't work. Corruption needs a place to go, there will always be a flow of corruption to a position of power, to believe that we could be free from such corruption is a pipe dream, however, there are a few possible solutions to deal with it. Nature deals with it by having revolutions for example (the viability of this solution is becoming questionable as our weapons become more powerful, and as the governments try to disarm us).
@meatrace, I suggest watching more of the video, not to believe it but because there little seeds of probable truth that they built their crazyness on top of, and most of the video has nothing to do with aliens in our past. And some of it is interesting if you forget that people believe this like the holy truth.
Okay, I can take quite a lot in discussions, but this last one I really had to consider whether to flag or reply to. Please, if you take issue with what I say, do take the time to quote me correctly, or don't waste your time and mine. And, since I am apparently being mocked because of the "conspiracy", I could add that things should be clearer for you if you cared enough to go back in the thread and actually read what I have written about that.
Like I said earlier, I am prepared to stick by the statement that you have behaved in the following was in this thread, in some cases, on more than one occasions.
Option A - You just don't get it/you don't understand science
Example:
Ahhhh, spoken like a person who still doesn't get it. Don't worry, Irontruth, I still like you.
This of course was posted after he had succinctly summed up your stated views to that point very accurately.
Option B - Your sources are untrustworthy, but mine arn't
Option C - Your denying me my opinion
You keep claiming that I don't have the right to question the climatologists' arguments because I am not a climatologist myself, and yet even someone showing a severe lack of basic scirntific principles feels he is entitled to lecture me.
The IPCC and other parts of environmentalism have lied enough times and blatantly enough that they can go die somewhere for all I care.
Cute, thejeff. Cute, but no cigar. Climategate is a big deal. The Hockey stick is a clear fabrication. Ignoring that is stupid. Have you read the Climategate emails?
Of cause you ignore the fact that the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA was was cleared of wrong by two fists full of enquiries, and that that the general implications of the hockey stick graph have been held up by numerous studies published since. You provide no evidence (that I can find with a quick search) of wrong doing by CRU, or the IPPC, nor by individual a significant number of researchers in the climate field.
On the other hand, when it is pointed out that the oil industry is funding significant amounts of research, with scientists and think tanks who have a demonstrable history of taking money to write business friendly opeds, and research that muddies the water, you describe such an assersion as...
And then you claim that there is a conspiracy from big oil. Paranoid much? Awww, flying nazis in the Earth time?
Bare in mind, that this claim is well documented, with a finacial trail, on record quotes which show the scientists and thinktanks ideological opposition to environmentalism, and a history of similar activity in numerous other areas, all of which have been fight they eventually lost.
Option D - There is a massive conspiracy
A Conspiracy is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful".
The Hockey stick is a clear fabrication.
So long as a relatively discrete grouping of people have the ability to distort the peer review process in a field, to the point that scientists who do not agree simply don't get to publish their results, so long as this group actively manages to disrupt investigations of malfeasance in science involving themselves, so long as the media keeps hammering in the ideological message this group wants to spread, so long as debates with dissenters are not held but disagreeing voices are denigrated and ridiculed, so long as data is not checked for accuracy and lies that serve the right purpose are blared out... That is a group no self-respecting scientist taints him or herself by taking money from or works with. Fraud in science makes me sick, and any other field would have made someone responsible for publishing the hockey stick a pariah. Not so in climatology.
Scientific methodology and integrity is what makes scientific results worth trusting. Anyone can produce data of unclear quality, but only someone who follows rigorous method can produce trustworthy data. If your money as a scientist is predicated on producing the right data, that alone makes your data worthless. Be honest, if the IPCC got black on white evidence that global warming was a natural process independent of humanity, do you seriously think they would publish that, given the choice? No more media time, angry politicians accusing them of bad faith, no more international conferences, no more political influence, no more MONEY. It would be back to study the mating habits of squirrels... But the scientists who did THAT are gone in today's world where only AGW-related projects get funding.
It is interesting that you do not qualify this by "peer reviewed" or "in the field of climatology". It used to be standard practice, once the peer review process was "redefined", i.e. they got their people into the boards of journals that dared to publish data that did not support AGW, thereby making sure nobody that was not approved could actually get peer reviewed or published. This extended only to the field of climatology, of course, so they tend to draw a strict demarcation line between their own field and every other field.
Your describing a conspiracy, and massive one at that.
You might not use the term conspiracy to describe it, but you do imply that the IPPC, and proponents of Anthroprogenic global climate change, have taken control of the journal process to prevent free publishing. That they are engaged in academic fraud. You imply they are engaged in defrauding the international public purse and much more besides. You do it time and again.
And despite a willingness to call other paranoid, and suggest they are seeing a conspiracy(in the conspiracy theory sense), when some one calls you on this, your responce is the thread of flagging their post...effectively a threat of attempted censorship.
First, my comment was a demonstration of how easy it is to randomly make a plausible cause and effect relationship that you could then get lots of money to research.
And obviously its not as easy as you think it is, because your example was a failure of epic proportions. Its patently ridiculous based on information already hand. I don't know how you think science works, but you do not just grab two random events, put out your hand and say "funding please" and start experimenting. You have to look at the already available data, get an inkling about what might be going on, and THEN do the experiment to see if you're right.
Though lots of money will be more to come if you can show theoretically practical solutions (for PR, a carrot for the consumer). Blaming global warming on humans fits that criteria, while the asteroid possibility does not.
Where is this mystical "global warming" money coming from? Seriously,
Second, I doubt the asteroid thing would simply have a direct effect then be gone. More likely to simply destabilize, or at least alter how something flows in a small way, that may or may not build up into a large effect later.
Its far too small. We know how gravity works. If an asteroid like that could heat up the earth the moon would have boiled the planet before the trilobites roamed the shores.
Fifth, it would be nice if people could simply consider things as possibilities and chances, instead of taking every word spoken to be my absolute and unquestionable belief.
Even possibilities are supposed to be grounded in SOME reality.
I take everything I hear with some salt, then compare to other things I've heard then throw in how my personal experience fits in.
Given your support for the tetrahedronal quackery above I find where you decide to put your salt shaker somewhat selective.
Since it's supposed to get you thinking about alternate possibilities, and get you away from the blinders, the statements are not always intended as statements of facts.
So when you say that carbon dating isn't accurate its supposed to mean "what if carbon dating isn't accurate" ?
Since all this evidence people get, comes from people who may have ideas and agendas I don't know about, I take it with some salt.
You don't need to be a world class mechanic to spot a bad weld.
It is easy to do experiments to confirm your suspicions, it is easy to find reasons to believe you are correct.
Obviously, it is not, or you could have done better than the asteroid.
so if scientists are focusing on the human contribution to global warming, then the majority of scientific evidence will relating to that possibility rather then other possibilities, simply because other possibilities don't have the same publicity, money, and work to be shown.
Absolutely not.
You actively try to disprove your theory with statistics and evidence And then everyone ELSE tries to disprove your theory with statistics and evidence. The entire process is set out to disprove the idea.. to the point that the idea is technically never proven. The idea that you can't disprove a theory you're looking for is so mind boggling inane that it defies description.
Note, They track volcano emissions and have traced the fact that it can take a year for the volume to spread over the globe, so the the effect of volcanoes, wouldn't cause a short term spike in the atmospheric average, I also heard the volcanoes put out billions, rather then millions of tonnes, though I'll be back later if I find it again. Phone is slow on research.
People are more than capable of accounting for a delayed reaction.
Take the documentary icyshadow linked.
I realize that a documentary isn't exactly highbrow science, but i still believe that the word is insulted by having that video applied to it. I was waiting for "Slee stacks for David Icke!" protestors to walk across the screen.
Many of the things are probably false but many are also true
What do you think is true?
Brevity is the soul of wit -- William Shakespeare
|
|
First, my comment was a demonstration of how easy it is to randomly make a plausible cause and effect relationship that you could then get lots of money to research.And obviously its not as easy as you think it is, because your example was a failure of epic proportions. Its patently ridiculous based on information already hand. I don't know how you think science works, but you do not just grab two random events, put out your hand and say "funding please" and start experimenting. You have to look at the already available data, get an inkling about what might be going on, and THEN do the experiment to see if you're right.
What makes you think the asteroid doesn't have an effect on volcanos? Did you know the people have a natural 25 hour cycle? Why would we have a 25 hour cycle when the planet has 24 hour days?
Did you know that an outlying geologist found that if you shrink the size of the planet, that the tetonic plates fit together 100% and not just mostly fit together like they do if the planet stays the same size?
Frankly, it seems that the planet has sped up it's rotation. A series of near misses by an asteroid could do that, and not only that but the increased rotation would cause a lot of volcanic activity, and thin the atmosphere which gives plants problems, and could be why many ice age animals are now extict, particularly mammoths.
The time scale on this is large enough that human observation wouldn't have caught the direct effects yet, because it requires measurements from before humans started taking measurements.
Humans have only been making measurements of such things for a very small amount of time, and the majority of that time was using rather crude and inaccurate tools.
Where is this mystical "global warming" money coming from? Seriously,
You really need to ask this? Who has a lot of money and wants to make more money and would benefit?
Corporations the want to sell expensive "green" solutions.
Did you know that a few products exist that could be make cheap energy on a household scale? But why aren't these products in infomercials? Why aren't they hot sellers? Because the big corporations make money by makeing sure people don't buy such products and the easiest way to do that is to prevent marketing of such products and force difficulties in obtaining the materials for the products to be made, thus raising the cost.
Look at what happened to Dalorean. He made the best car out there, with safety features that still aren't implemented by other companies. He made cars that were easy to maintain and that were safer, and that would outlast any other car by 10 fold. So the big companies shoved him out of the market.
People with money will use it against any threat to their empire. Right now, they make tons of money off of the Global Warming thing, and mostly because it is commonly believed to be mankinds fault. Only because it's mankinds fault can they truly make money selling items to "reduce our effect".
Our effect on global warming may be true, but the above is more then enough reason to question any public info on the subject.
If companies would get together to lock Dalorean out of the market as a threat to their empire back then, of course they would throw their weight around in modern day to get what they want. And nowadays they have much more ability to throw weight around.
Its far too small. We know how gravity works. If an asteroid like that could heat up the earth the moon would have boiled the planet before the trilobites roamed the shores.
The asteroid doesn't cause heat. It causes faster rotation and "jiggles" things around causing greater volcanic activity, which increases greenhouse gasses, and probably has a very minor effect on our orbit (which would be near impossible for us to spot, but still could have enough effect to be closer to the sun. Astronomical scale is so large that a .00001% change would have devestaing consequences and be extremely difficult if not impossible to notice)
The presence of gravity doesn't cause heat, but a short term presence can upset the stability. The moon is constant, and thus is part of a stable system with the earth. The asteroid is not a stable element.
So when you say that carbon dating isn't accurate its supposed to mean "what if carbon dating isn't accurate" ?
Carbon dating can be off by more then a few years, and if the carbon was already somewhat decayed before getting wherever it is found, then that makes any dating attempt, superflous, though I'm sure scientists try to avoid the later case, but sometimes I wonder if they forget about that possibility.
You don't need to be a world class mechanic to spot a bad weld.
Sometimes you do. Particularly with the more complex and difficult welds that only major professionals use. Plenty of chances for air pockets or such to go unnoticed.
Granted some welds are jus so messed non-welders can see it's bad, but I figure those are being excluded from the metaphor.
Absolutely not.You actively try to disprove your theory with statistics and evidence And then everyone ELSE tries to disprove your theory with statistics and evidence. The entire process is set out to disprove the idea.. to the point that the idea is technically never proven. The idea that you can't disprove a theory you're looking for is so mind boggling inane that it defies description.
You missed my point on this one.
There is a large difference between showing humans have minimal effect, and showing that something else, has a large effect. Particularly with such a large and complex system as the weather.
My point being is that all the focus is on humans effect, and not at all on other possible causes (I only ever hear of volcanos, and only as a ruler for humans effect, and sometimes I hear that volcanos are a magnitutde more then humans, and sometimes I hear the opposite, the later is more common nowadays, but what happened to all the prior reports of volcano emmisions in the billions of tonnes?).
People are more than capable of accounting for a delayed reaction.
The larger and more complex the system, the more difficult it becomes, particularly when there is still debate about all the potential causes.
I realize that a documentary isn't exactly highbrow science, but i still believe that the word is insulted by having that video applied to it. I was waiting for "Slee stacks for David Icke!" protestors to walk across the screen....
What do you think is true?
I certainly don't believe in some huge conspiricy.
But, I do believe those with money, have, and will use their resources to illegally, or better yet, legally change things in favor of them getting more money, particularly in capitalism, where they are rewarded with more money by cheating everyone else out of money, and everyone else suffers for lack of money.
I believe the prussian education system was intentionally selected to use for the american education system because it would maintain the the rich vs poor divide, and make it easier for the rich to stay rich.
(And before you go spouting how it's been changed, the entire system works because of implicit learning, most changes only focus on explicit learning, and of the major things I know of, one (the standardized test with the leave no child behind junk) have made things worse. Teachers don't teach kids the knowledge, they teach how to pass tests. And two, removing a teachers authority in the classroom teaches kids that authority is a joke, there's more but another time)
I believe that some of the things in that video, that the makers look at as evidence, do actually occur. I just believe that it isn't some world domination thing, but rather the logical and natural consequence of capitolism.
For example, the bailouts were theft. There are no ifs, ands, or buts, about it. They stole the value of the american dollar, thus they didn't need to steal actual money, and given that banks can loan out 11 times the value of money they hold, that equates to big bucks.
To demonstrate this,
Numbers are used to demonstrate the Bailout effect and do not represent the actual values.
D = The dollars in circulation
V = The value of the economy in total
R = Rich people who received bailouts
P = Poor & middle class people who didn't.
An individual dollar equals V divided by the total number of bills in curculation
For this demostration, V = 200 ounces of gold
D has 100 bills in circulation and thus each bill is worth 2 ounces of gold.
Before bailouts
R has 50 dollars, and thus 50% of the value or 100 ounces of gold.
P has 50 dollars, and thus 50% of the value or 100 ounces of gold
After bailouts,
R has 150 dollars, and thus 75% of V, or 150 ounces of gold.
P has 50 dollars, and thus 25% of V, or 50 ounces of gold.
Therefore, theft. Our bills are safe, but the value of them is not.
In reality it takes time for the value to shift, but not very much time.
What makes you think the asteroid doesn't have an effect on volcanoes?
this was explained to you above in excruciating detail.
On a theoretical level it is far, far FAR too small to do that. Gravity is not some SpoOOOOooky mysterious power that man cannot comprehend. We've know how (if not why) it works for the past 400 years.
I realize to you that a rock the size of texas is pretty big, but as far as planetary objects go its absolutely tiny.
2) On an experimental level there is no correlation between the two.
You are, yet again, verifiably, objectively, really really really really really really reaaaaaly wrong.
I'm sorry. This is not religion. This is not literary interpretation. This is not film class. This is not white wolf's Existentialism: the navel contemplation. It doesn't matter that it seems like it must be "to you". You are dealing with an objective reality and when you try to impose some half baked sophomoric hypothesis based on less than rudimentary knowledge of the subject you should prepare to be wrong.
Did you know the people have a natural 25 hour cycle? Why would we have a 25 hour cycle when the planet has 24 hour days?Because only mad dogs and englishmen go out in the midday sun
Did you know that an outlying geologist found that if you shrink the size of the planet, that the tetonic plates fit together 100% and not just mostly fit together like they do if the planet stays the same size?*looks down*
They fit together quite well as it is.
Frankly, it seems that the planet has sped up it's rotation. A series of near misses by an asteroid could do that, and not only that but the increased rotation would cause a lot of volcanic activity, and thin the atmosphere which gives plants problems, and could be why many ice age animals are now extict, particularly mammoths.Thinning the atmosphere would DROP global temperatures.
You really need to ask this? Who has a lot of money and wants to make more money and would benefit?
Corporations the want to sell expensive "green" solutions.
Globally, we spent about 70 billion on solar panels.
as near as i can figure after a few google searches we're spending 10 billion a year on global warming research.How high of a profit margin would these green companies have to be running to be able to afford 15% of their GROSS on a propaganda scheme? What kind of monetary conspiracy lasts for 40 years without the perpetrators taking the money and running?
The scenario just isn't plausible
and on top of that for some reason
the oil companies (who have magnitudes more cash) can't counter this with their own research independent research can't counter it?
AND you can't substantiate this claim with a money trail?
This isn't a reason not to believe its an excuse, and a very poor one at that.
Carbon dating can be off by more then a few years, and if the carbon was already somewhat decayed before getting wherever it is found, then that makes any dating attempt, superflous, though I'm sure scientists try to avoid the later case, but sometimes I wonder if they forget about that possibility.They haven't forgotten you just don't know how it works. It runs off of the RATIOS of the different carbon atoms to each other. That some of them are already decayed is accounted for.
Carbon 14 undergoes Beta decay into Nitrogen 14. I'm not sure what you mean by partially decayed: ie, whether you're trying to apply the term to a molecule or the carbon in the sample. Carbon 12 and carbon 13 are both stables.
It has also been tested against dendrochronology, which itself can be tested against history. So again..your understanding of the theory is incorrect and you are again factually wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stopped counting/reading after he said 8 things in a row that are false.
I stopped counting/reading after he said 8 things in a row that are false.
You mean the first post of his you read, months ago?
Okay, folks: Ceres, the (by far) largest asteroid of the solar system, indeed the one that was the reason to coin the term asteroid, has a diameter of 952,4 km. The state of Texas has a width of 1065 km, and a height of 1270 km. Since we are discussing asteroids, I am baffled by your claim that a rock the size of Texas is "absolutely tiny". Are you suggesting extrasolar rocks might come visit, BigNorseWolf?
|
I've been thinking a lot lately about how much time we have until the civilization we have grown to take for granted comes crashing down around us. It would contend that given that it is built on the premise of ever expanding consumption and economic growth in a world that has finite space and resources it is only matter of time before it collapses. How long though? 10 years, 20, 100?
The US has a plan...Its going to Use a Man made black hole on the rest of us and wipe us from existence: Whamo! More Resources for America.
Well, if we're considering stuff like asteroids, it occurs to me that the sun will one grow into a red giant and engulf the planet, so our civilization has a maximum lifespan of 2 or 3 billion years. We're doomed.
Bummer. Now I haz a sad. :(
Incredible. They're still talking about rocks causing volcanoes... while completely ignoring the bit about volcanoes being irrelevant to global warming.
It's as if logic were irrelevant.
oh like YOU would have gotten every single logical error in that mess...:)
|
|
Adding in a few seconds every year doesn't mean the planet is slowing it's rotation.
That said, the planet would eventually become tidally locked, but other forces can stop or delay that effect, speed us up for awhile, then when that force is gone, the planet slows (well, if it needs to slow down to be tidally locked, which earth does, another might actually need to speed up to become tidally locked, an in those cases that is what would happen)
The speed of this change is much too slow for us to be adding or subtracting seconds over it.
The reason we add seconds every year is because the inaccuracies of our time system. Days are not exactly 24 hours, while years are also not exactly 365.25 days. Because of these inaccuracies we adjust our clocks to compensate.
|
|
Incredible. They're still talking about rocks causing volcanoes... while completely ignoring the bit about volcanoes being irrelevant to global warming.
It's as if logic were irrelevant.
I do believe I stated somewhere, that those emmission estimates used to be reversed. They used to estimate volcanos in the billions, while recent reports estimate millions.
Whatever the reason for this change (legitimate or not), I remain skeptical. It would be easy for someone who knows how to change such information. There is no such thing as internet communication that cannot be altered. No such thing as untouchable information.
Because companies could do such such a thing, it merits some skepitisism. It doesn't really matter if they actually do or not, because there is no way to show or prove whether they do or don't.
And there is no reason to expect things to eventually come to light just because a few years passed by.
Also, LaserX points out how the sun gets hotter, this would be a very tiny effect in the timescale of human existance, but it would be enough to say that each cycle would be warmer then the last. Mix in a few other minor effects with just the right timing, and boom global warming.
There is no reason to believe global warming even requires millions of tonnes of emmisions to get an effect, because that could go in any direction in light of other factors.
Also has anyone heard of the butterfly effect? One tiny change here, and suddenly a huge change later on?
So yeah, the possibility exists that we could be causing global even if we had no cars, industry, or anything else like it.
Though frankly, I see deforestation as our only real contribution (that I am not skeptical of), dead trees don't breath CO2. But just how big is that effect? Kinda hard to measure.
But did you know that many of the man made islands in europe, that were made in the middle ages were made from trees that are giants compared to what exists in europe now?
The loss of such trees from europe would be as bad as clearing out entire forest of small trees, perhaps we've been helping global warming for a thousand years. Or the global tree pandemic is doing it all for us.
Trees around the world are dying, even without our lumber industry. Have any of your sources even looked at that effect?
The earths rotation is exceptionally stable, but it is in fact slowing, NOT speeding up. This has been measured. Your claim is false, but I don't expect the facts to change your opinion.
Trees around the world are dying, even without our lumber industry. Have any of your sources even looked at that effect?
Could you provide some citation that this is an actual thing?
|
|
Sounds like you didn't actually read my entire post.
First, not only did I actually state that the earth's rotation would be slowing down without outsides forces, I merely also stated that temporary forces could cause an increase, obviously we are not currently under such a force. That doesn't change possible occurances in the past or future.
Thinning of the atmosphere should probably have been phrased as a lowering of the air pressure. What level of atmosphere has the greenhouse gases would change how strongly the greenhouse effect is diminished, particularly since a lower atmosphere pressure doesn't equate with atmosphere loss (which is being very slowly lost anyway)
Regardless of the effect on global warming, the theory of the planet having been smaller has merit.
Plants and animal were huge campared to modern day, also it has been proven and shown that doubling the atmosphereic pressure has an extremely huge effect on plants (a japanese scientist grew a cherry tomato plant in a chamber with double the normal air pressure, the plant grew to 16 feet tall and the fruit was larger then even normal tomatos even though the plant was a cherry tomato plant. Plants are known to be much smaller now than in the past. Also insects and spiders that have external lungs on their sides are much smaller now then in the past, lower pressure would account for this fact.
Considering also that athletes and such use pressure chambers and similar for health purposes, I think it can be concluded that air pressure was higher in the past.
A scientist also noticed that tetonic plates fit 100% in modal with a smaller earth. An increase in rotational speed would increase the planet size and decrease air pressure. The exact cause of an increase in the rotational speed is up for debate, but near misses could have this effect, depanding on several factors.
However, between the bursts of speed gained from such passes, the planet would lose speed, though at a much slower rate then it being gained during a pass.
Since there is no way to confirm the rotational speed of the planet in the past we can only state for sure what is happening now. Also astronomics are at such a scale, the accuracy of our measurements are likely still less then desirable and with no objective reference, there is no way to check our measurment methods, to determine exact accuracy.
I did read your entire post. Kindly don't blame your inanity on my reading comprehension.
Can you cite anything for the tectonic plates not fitting now? You keep jumping from disproven claim to yet another unevidenced claim. I don't know what creationist books you're getting your rhetorical techniques from but its annoying. Its like you're saying "AHAH! but that doesn't explain Wayne Newtons death!"
Plants and animal were huge campared to modern day,
Yeah, we had an asteroid take out most things bigger than a mouse. Then the mammals took over. Then prehistoric humans pretty much ate their way through most of the bigger things.
Limitations on oyxgen would limit size well before atmospheric pressure would.
"they can't disprove it so i can say its true" doesn't fly.
The earths rotation is exceptionally stable, but it is in fact slowing, NOT speeding up. This has been measured. Your claim is false, but I don't expect the facts to change your opinion.
Do we have a record of it back into prehistoric times? I can't think of a way that would be preserved or find a way that would be preserved.
The earths rotation is exceptionally stable, but it is in fact slowing, NOT speeding up. This has been measured. Your claim is false, but I don't expect the facts to change your opinion.Do we have a record of it back into prehistoric times? I can't think of a way that would be preserved or find a way that would be preserved.
The Moon tells us a lot of information about the Earth's rotation. Our rotation, the Moon's rotation (or lack of from the vantage point of Earth), the Moon's orbit, all of this stuff is incredibly consistent, is measurable and paints a pretty vivid picture.
Do we have a time machine, or photographic proof? No, of course not.
Things like earthquakes affect the Earth's rotation, but it's so insignificant as to be nearly pointless in measuring. Like in pico seconds kind of pointless.
As our ability to model and simulate improves, the picture of how the Earth and Moon affect each other improves. Of course that does mean that we have no picture of what it was like prior to the creation of the Moon. But the simple fact is, we HAVE measured a slowing of the Earth's rotation. We HAVE NOT measured a speed up of the process.
Also, the study that showed humans have a 25 hour cycle was found to be fundamentally flawed. Participants had access to electric lights which they could keep on during the "evening" until they wanted to sleep. The illumination from lights delays the circadian rhythm. Better research has shown that 24 hours is the average natural rhythm in adults.
|
|
OMG, I am not claiming that we have a constant or consistant increase in rotational speed. To have had an increase at some point in the past, does not equate to speeding up right now.
And any signs we get from the moon for gravity and rotation, etc are current events spanning the time that we have been making measurements, we can extrapolate and make usually accurate guesses and predictions, but we have no way of measuring something from before we started measureing things, so the idea that earth used to spin slower is valid, and in fact the asteroid strike BigNorseWolf mentioned could even be the cause. I doubt it, because I doubt it would take millions of years for trees to shrink to current size (because trees size isn't completely from genetics so it isn't waiting for genetic changes), but it could be it.
@BigNorseWolf
Reducing air pressure reduces the available oxygen (or CO2 for plants). Aka the reduced air pressure caused a reduction in size because reduced air pressure reduces oxygen/CO2.
It doesn't change the percentage or total amount, but at a reduced pressure, less actual oxygen/CO2 reaches where it is needed. External lung creatures and plants are affected more heavily by this, then internal lung creatures, but internal lung creatures still get less.
----
Even elementary schoolbooks say the plates fit at only 96-98%. This isn't exactly secret knowledge.
The earths rotation is exceptionally stable, but it is in fact slowing, NOT speeding up. This has been measured. Your claim is false, but I don't expect the facts to change your opinion.Do we have a record of it back into prehistoric times? I can't think of a way that would be preserved or find a way that would be preserved.The Moon tells us a lot of information about the Earth's rotation. Our rotation, the Moon's rotation (or lack of from the vantage point of Earth), the Moon's orbit, all of this stuff is incredibly consistent, is measurable and paints a pretty vivid picture.
Do we have a time machine, or photographic proof? No, of course not.
Things like earthquakes affect the Earth's rotation, but it's so insignificant as to be nearly pointless in measuring. Like in pico seconds kind of pointless.
As our ability to model and simulate improves, the picture of how the Earth and Moon affect each other improves. Of course that does mean that we have no picture of what it was like prior to the creation of the Moon. But the simple fact is, we HAVE measured a slowing of the Earth's rotation. We HAVE NOT measured a speed up of the process.
Also, the study that showed humans have a 25 hour cycle was found to be fundamentally flawed. Participants had access to electric lights which they could keep on during the "evening" until they wanted to sleep. The illumination from lights delays the circadian rhythm. Better research has shown that 24 hours is the average natural rhythm in adults.
I could be wrong about this, of course, but the relevant result would be how long people stay awake if they have an artificial day, i.e. How long should such a day be. Turn the lights off after a 24 hour schedule and, duh, I think people are going to go to sleep. But perhaps the study aimed to find out how people would live if they were denied light?
Even elementary schoolbooks say the plates fit at only 96-98%. This isn't exactly secret knowledge.
Like most of the rest of your understanding of science, I don't think the books are saying what you think they're saying.
so the idea that earth used to spin slower is valid
NO.
You need to show evidence for the thing you're claiming. You haven't so its NOT a valid conclusion.
. I doubt it, because I doubt it would take millions of years for trees to shrink to current size (because trees size isn't completely from genetics so it isn't waiting for genetic changes), but it could be it.
The strike i mentioned was 65 million years ago. Trees have changed so much they're (with one exception i can think of, the ginko) not even the same species anymore.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that trees used to be bigger because of air pressure. I think there used to be more giant redwood type trees, but the climates that supported them just aren't there anymore. It was a species change, not air pressure.
|
|
I could be wrong about this, of course, but the relevant result would be how long people stay awake if they have an artificial day, i.e. How long should such a day be. Turn the lights off after a 24 hour schedule and, duh, I think people are going to go to sleep. But perhaps the study aimed to find out how people would live if they were denied light?The earths rotation is exceptionally stable, but it is in fact slowing, NOT speeding up. This has been measured. Your claim is false, but I don't expect the facts to change your opinion.Do we have a record of it back into prehistoric times? I can't think of a way that would be preserved or find a way that would be preserved.The Moon tells us a lot of information about the Earth's rotation. Our rotation, the Moon's rotation (or lack of from the vantage point of Earth), the Moon's orbit, all of this stuff is incredibly consistent, is measurable and paints a pretty vivid picture.
Do we have a time machine, or photographic proof? No, of course not.
Things like earthquakes affect the Earth's rotation, but it's so insignificant as to be nearly pointless in measuring. Like in pico seconds kind of pointless.
As our ability to model and simulate improves, the picture of how the Earth and Moon affect each other improves. Of course that does mean that we have no picture of what it was like prior to the creation of the Moon. But the simple fact is, we HAVE measured a slowing of the Earth's rotation. We HAVE NOT measured a speed up of the process.
Also, the study that showed humans have a 25 hour cycle was found to be fundamentally flawed. Participants had access to electric lights which they could keep on during the "evening" until they wanted to sleep. The illumination from lights delays the circadian rhythm. Better research has shown that 24 hours is the average natural rhythm in adults.
Actually the study denied them anything that might inform of the time. They were in a completely shut room so no hint of natural light, only artificial light. There were no clocks either. They had books, but nothing that could track or indicate time.
I could be wrong about this, of course, but the relevant result would be how long people stay awake if they have an artificial day, i.e. How long should such a day be. Turn the lights off after a 24 hour schedule and, duh, I think people are going to go to sleep. But perhaps the study aimed to find out how people would live if they were denied light?
The study, where people get the false '25 hour natural cycle' from was trying to determine what a natural cycle would be without clocks and as little information to tell what time it was. This was prior to the knowledge of the association between light sensors in the eyes (not related to vision) and the production of melatonin in the body, so the study didn't account for it. It's a known flaw of the study and has been accounted for in future studies that have found a 24 hour average human rhythm.
That is interesting. Do you have a link? If people do not get light, I would expect them to go to sleep. Saying that there is a natural 24 hour cycle means very little if you shut down the lights...
That is interesting. Do you have a link? If people do not get light, I would expect them to go to sleep. Saying that there is a natural 24 hour cycle means very little if you shut down the lights...
24 hours and 11 minutes, with a range of variation of 16 minutes.
They talk about having to manage and account for light exposure.