Climate-gate

billvon said:
If you want to know why rotation will slow, it's because you are moving mass away from the center of rotation.

If you want to see the actual math, there is a good analysis here: https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/IceCaps.HTM
Click to expand...
Interesting link but limited to only discussing rotational speed.
Let us assume he is relatively correct in his assessment.
What can we conclude about Axial tilt?

Or to use a classic example (just for fun):
Take a weighted spinning top and disperse the weight equally.
What happens to the spin of the top?
Possibly:
1/ It starts to wobble (excessively)
2/ it looses it's vertical orientation, "top can become bottom"
3/ Any axial tilt stability it may have had would be lost
3/ It fails to maintain spin for as long due to inherent wobble, due to inequities in it's balance, setting up energy using harmonics.

Then include a Moon in the system and ask again what happens to tidal forces and lunar orbit etc..

Hee hee maybe we will get to see the "dark side" of the moon from home...

maybe this video would help... then again maybe not..
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Or to use a classic example (just for fun):
Take a weighted spinning top and disperse the weight equally.
What happens to the spin of the top?
Possibly:
1/ It starts to wobble (excessively)
2/ it looses it's vertical orientation, "top can become bottom"
3/ Any axial tilt stability it may have had would be lost
3/ It fails to maintain spin for as long due to inherent wobble, due to inequities in it's balance, setting up energy using harmonics.
Click to expand...
Or it becomes more stable, as gyroscopes do when you relocate weight away from their axes to their equators.
 
Quantum Quack said:
... What can we conclude about Axial tilt? ...
Click to expand...
As angular momentum (a vector) is constant when no other body applies a torque, the only thing that happens when the some of the mass of the body moves wrt where it was, is the axis of rotation may pass thru a slightly different point in the body and the RPMs can change, but the spin VECTOR can not change direction.

When ice skater stuck her leg out, she slowed her RPM, but did not start to spin on her head, etc.
 
billvon said:
By what sane mechanism do you postulate that the Moon will become tidally unlocked from the Earth due to melting ice?
Click to expand...
hee hee no sane mechanism...
I just thought it was like comparing the spin of a weighted ball with a non-weighted ball.
"Thinking Lawn or carpet Bowls"
or balanced dice and non-balanced (weighted) dice...

Keeping in mind that the Earth is spinning in a vacuum.
 
Last edited:
Regarding Climate gate controversy.

Due to the coincidence of the latest air disaster occurring relatively close to one of those high altitude research stations I mentioned in an earlier post, I had to revisit old ideas etc. ( I do not believe in coincidence - chance)

I tend to believe that if the worlds population actually had a clear idea of what to expect in the near future, according to our current confused AGW-ACC understanding, many would become extremely depressed.(suicidal)

The latest apparent suicidal dash into a mountain by a young intelligent co-pilot in France; taking his passengers and flight crew with him and the latest string of similar incidences indicate to me at least that the reality of climate change and what that may mean to our individual futures maybe starting to be understood by the wider population, with tragic results.
  • Is it possible that the confusion over AGW etc is due to the fear of provoking a huge increase in the global suicide rates ( and associated negative behavior - violence etc)?
  • That by keeping people ignorant and hopeful due to that confusion, they (we) may go on longer before having to deal with the reality of it all?

If the world had to deal with the reality of, for example Billy T's prediction of mice being the only surface animals to exist and even then only for a short while, in 100 years or so from now, what mood could we possibly expect of our teenagers and young adults and older generation?

As I mentioned earlier I do not believe in the end times scenario and I have solid reasons for not doing so. However I have had to accept that significant and somewhat painful change MUST and will occur to prevent such a situation from arising.

Question:
Why would a person who is committing suicide decide to take 150 odd people with him?
Possible answer:
Because only a few may notice his suicide if he died alone.

So I ask:
What is the young pilot trying to say by doing what he did?
Possible answer:
Perhaps, that he has lost hope for a future for himself and most importantly others.

May they all RIP.
 
Last edited:
What is known about the copilot?
...........
entertaining irony:
The secure door to the cockpit was put there for the safety of the people on board.

...........
The best laid plans of mice and men Gang aft agley, An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain.

thanx Robbie
 
sculptor said:
What is known about the copilot?
...........
entertaining irony:
The secure door to the cockpit was put there for the safety of the people on board.

...........
The best laid plans of mice and men Gang aft agley, An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain.

thanx Robbie
Click to expand...
Guessing:
Well for starters, he would have had to be extremely career focused. as a co-pilot wishing to be the commanding pilot would normally be...
Devoted (24/7) and disciplined. Highly intelligent and trained to react to emergencies with high precision and speed.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Well for starters, he would have had to be extremely career focused. as a co-pilot wishing to be the commanding pilot would normally be...
Devoted (24/7) and disciplined. Highly intelligent and trained to react to emergencies with high precision and speed.
Click to expand...
Knowing more than a few pilots, they are people just like anyone else. Perhaps slightly less likely to freeze under pressure, but not exclusively so. And as history has shown, not above making dumb mistakes, ignoring clear threats and doing exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time.
 
2 in the cockpit at all times has been the rule on United States airliners since the locked door practice started.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Is it possible that the confusion over AGW etc is due to the fear of provoking a huge increase in the global suicide rates ( and associated negative behavior - violence etc)?
Click to expand...
absolutely not
there is no correlation/causation and you cannot show correlation/causation between your belief in confusion re: AGW and the suicide
that is because there is no confusion in the science

you only "perceive" there to be some confusion becuase you are willing to suspend critical thinking skills and logic in order to believe (and to justify your own belief in) conspiracy

You still have not been able to show any logical reason to refuse the science other than "because you said so"
this is not logical, critical thinking, nor is it scientific reasoning

When you can present the actual science, and then show where, in a study, there is a flaw in the data, interpretation or the observed effects, then you will be able to get the studies and science altered to your line of thought... and neither you nor the BULK of the scientific community paid for by big oil etc has been able to do that

Considering that the studies are NOT deleted, altered, changed, excised, refuted, debunked or in any other way threatened by the "denialist" crowd, then we can safely state that the science is Valid, logical and correct.
There is no confusion
only your assertions that you are confused
and that is NOT due to the science
 
Truck Captain Stumpy said:
absolutely not
there is no correlation/causation and you cannot show correlation/causation between your belief in confusion re: AGW and the suicide
that is because there is no confusion in the science

you only "perceive" there to be some confusion becuase you are willing to suspend critical thinking skills and logic in order to believe (and to justify your own belief in) conspiracy

You still have not been able to show any logical reason to refuse the science other than "because you said so"
this is not logical, critical thinking, nor is it scientific reasoning

When you can present the actual science, and then show where, in a study, there is a flaw in the data, interpretation or the observed effects, then you will be able to get the studies and science altered to your line of thought... and neither you nor the BULK of the scientific community paid for by big oil etc has been able to do that

Considering that the studies are NOT deleted, altered, changed, excised, refuted, debunked or in any other way threatened by the "denialist" crowd, then we can safely state that the science is Valid, logical and correct.
There is no confusion
only your assertions that you are confused
and that is NOT due to the science
Click to expand...
Oh I am not confused. I agree that AGW is a significant factor regards climate change. However the general world population may not be so uhm...enlightened. Blissful in their confusion and therefor denial.
Your persisrance in painting people as trolls, denialists, crackpots, when there is no real justification reeks of your own paranoia. Your claim that I am a denialist is absurd.
I am only suggesting that there may be other factors at play, both natural and anthroprogenic.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Your persisrance of painting people as trolls, denialists, crackpots, when there is no real justification reeks of your own paranoia. Your claim that I am a denialist is absurd.
Click to expand...
i can only offer the following evidence:

Quantum Quack said:
He talks of rising water up to the statue of liberties elbow.
He says if we loose the ice caps blah blah blah.

Gosh, he is a re-known astrophysicist and he is talking about a massive weight dispersal from the South pole globally. He fails to consider orbital dynamics, planetary axis, rotational speeds etc etc. and how if the South pole melts this planets ability to sustain life is more or less over.
Go on, ask him if you can, what happens to orbital dynamics if the South Pole's ice disperses globally.
Click to expand...

Quantum Quack said:
Example of stupid science:
Claim: "Plastic toilet seats contribute towards the development of cancer"
Why: ">85% of persons suffering cancer have sat on plastic toilet seats"
Can the above be tested for? yes
Are the results repeatable? yes
Prediction:
If you sit on a plastic toilet seat at any time in your life you have a >85% chance of developing cancer.

Is the claim founded as valid?: Yes
Click to expand...

Quantum Quack said:
You see, science has a serious credibility issue, Why? Because it pretends to be God (controller of our universe) and lets us all down in the process. It is still pretending to be God and frankly science has, unfortunately, proved itself incompetent and corrupted by it's perceived power.
Click to expand...
The above is only a small sample of your posts that are more in line with delusional, denialist as well as conspiracy thinking (more often associated with trolling and spamming than with actual scientific discourse)
plus, you've not actually presented any scientific or legitimate empirical evidence supporting your conclusions
only conjecture and personal anecdote

so it is not so much absurd when taken as a whole
You have a beef with science that is not rational
 
Quantum Quack said:
I am only suggesting that there may be other. Factors at play, both natural and anthroprogenic.
Click to expand...
This is the most logical thing you've said yet
And science IS actually investigating both natural AND anthropogenic sources

There are numerous ways of telling the sources apart
for starters: http://info.ngwa.org/GWOL/pdf/070681933.pdf

Plus, in some studies (like oceanographic ones) they tend to show, in their methodology, how they differentiate between natural and anthropogenic sources
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/425365a.html

all you have to do is read them
 
Truck Captain Stumpy said:
i can only offer the following evidence:


The above is only a small sample of your posts that are more in line with delusional, denialist as well as conspiracy thinking (more often associated with trolling and spamming than with actual scientific discourse)
plus, you've not actually presented any scientific or legitimate empirical evidence supporting your conclusions
only conjecture and personal anecdote

so it is not so much absurd when taken as a whole
You have a beef with science that is not rational
Click to expand...
and how are the posts you refer to as trolling?
"The most effective way to troll is to constantly accuse others of trolling" Are you a troll?
 
Quantum Quack said:
and how are the posts you refer to as trolling?
"The most effective way to troll is to constantly accuse others of trolling" Are you a troll?
Click to expand...
Troll
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

the intentional obfuscation of science or the deliberate characterization of science can be said to be trolling

you are intentionally trying to obfuscate and sow discord, while also undermining and maligning science, the scientific method and then you add in your conspiratorial leanings as justification for ignoring the science
claiming innocence regarding the topic even though your posts are plainly designed to add hysteria and confusion as well as undermine or distract from the valid scientific findings is very disingenuous
is it intentional?
Quantum Quack said:
Does that mean they are AGW denialists?
By inquiring like they are doing?
Click to expand...
the scientific method tries to review all options as well as all possible explanations
again, that is the power of the method
re-read that link i left you explaining the scientific method
Quantum Quack said:
Does questioning the science behind the claims make someone a troll?
Click to expand...
you are not questioning the science
you are complaining about it, trying to characterize it as being untrustworthy or lacking in credibility
you have provided no scientific evidence supporting your own conclusions, nor have you given any reputable, reasonable, logical or otherwise empirical reason to not trust science, only personal conjecture and what you believe is logical refute in the form of Ad Hoc and other fallacies

being a skeptic is not being a troll
but a skeptic will accept logical scientific evidence
you've ignored it

just like Photozio
what else can it be called?
 
Truck Captain Stumpy said:
This is the most logical thing you've said yet
And science IS actually investigating both natural AND anthropogenic sources

There are numerous ways of telling the sources apart
for starters: http://info.ngwa.org/GWOL/pdf/070681933.pdf

Plus, in some studies (like oceanographic ones) they tend to show, in their methodology, how they differentiate between natural and anthropogenic sources
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/425365a.html

all you have to do is read them
Click to expand...
you site one undated paper that has an obvious and declared petro chemical vested interest. (PDF)
and then you site an article published in 2003.

I suppose that makes you feel credible.... it doesn't to me sorry.

try again...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top