Runaway Global Warming
- Thread starter Facial
- Start date
No. have not calculated. I only know it is the main time dependent term in the mathematical expression describing the gravitational field of the earth. Changes in the spin axis (not externally caused) would not change earth's orbit about the sun, but would change the duration of weather patterns at various current latitude points. One of the planets, (Neptune?) I seem to recall, but forget which, has its spin axis nearly pointing at the sun, twice per year, thus one hemisphere is most constantly in daylight (summer for ~1/3 the long year) and the other in dark (winter for ~1/3 the long year). It got badly tilted in some interactions that as I recall freed a moon, which we now call Pluto - but that is just memory speaking - too lazy to check.
Last edited by a moderator:
It must take an enormous ego to call, with nothing but your opinion, a 175 page report written by several dozen scientists who reviewed the 10,000 or so scientific studies produced mainly during the last 14 years, "BS." (or insanity or great ignorance)
Hmmmm.... So who were these scientists ?
Were they affiliated with the UEA ?
Or was it a Summary ( SPM , the Summary for Policymakers ) of the scientific findings of the Group 1 of the IPCC ?
Last edited:
The make up of the four panels is available - I have seen parts of it at the IPCC's site but just learned more than 800 (not my "several dozen" guess), contributed to this just released report - See this link for more details: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2014-11/03/content_18851363.htm
At the formal presentation of the report, the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman Rajendra Pachauri sat next to each other (with others at the table too). See photo at above link.
Last edited by a moderator:
as a famous philosopher once said "Humans only change when they have to and not before"
From what I have learned from Tims' book
I trust none of them to give an honest evaluation on the climate of Earth
And that plus all the oil companies with vested interest in not changing plus the 40 to 50 year time lag for the full effects of current CO2 etc. feed backs amplifying the problem to be felt, is why I doubt there will be many if any humans left in 2100 to regret that governments and many people did not act some decades ago to change to a renewable energy system (sugar cane alcohol fuel, as Brazil did) before they were doomed.
You say this , about oil companies , yet the car companies are rigorously trying to make engines more efficient
I had a quick read of Dr Tim Bills web site and wondered through out why he didn't clearly explain what he believed were the expected benefits to the UN, by telling the world that climate change 1] existed and 2] that it was anthropogenic.
I fail to see what possible benefit the UN could possibly gain by scaring the sh*t out of the world with their so called propaganda?
What is the motive behind recommending such urgent and "stock market" deflating requirements?
It puzzles me that Dr Tim Ball, has claimed a political agenda/conspiracy when if anything else it is a negative political position to take to claim that your nations major companies need to take drastic steps to alter their carbon footprint.
I see no significant corrupting motive behind a CC conspiracy however I do see a lot of confusion. [in the context of Dr Tims position.]
What benefits do you think the world or the UN, are gaining by falsely promoting the need for action regarding Climate change?
Last edited:
"totally wrong" only if one ignorantly thinks the video is giving their current locations. However, speed of light is so much faster than their speeds, the angular error - the difference between where the are now and where the appear to be is very tiny (much less than a degree, I bet in all cases without doing any calculation and there is no error in the direction their gravity is acting on us. - we are being attracted by that force to where they were, not where they only appear to be.)
If you mean by this that we see them where they are now, that is wrong. It is "real time" in the sense our sun is slightly accelerated by Andromeda galaxy now to the point where that galaxy was 2.5 million years ago.
Data below from: http://www.pbs.org/seeinginthedark/astronomy-topics/light-as-a-cosmic-time-machine.html
Here is what we see when we look at the heavens at night we see object with this delay:
The Moon 1 1/3 sec
The Sun 8 minutes and ~30 (exact number of seconds depends on where Earth is in its slightly elliptical orbit)
Jupiter 35 to 52 minutes (depending on where Earth is in its elliptical orbit
Pluto 5 1/2 hours (on average, harder to compute as its orbital plane is tilted wrt to that of the others)
Alpha Centauri (nearest star system) 4.3 years
Sirius (brightest star in our sky) 9 years
Betelgeuse (bright star) 430 years
Orion Nebula 1500 years
Andromeda Galaxy 2.5 million years
Again, although we can calculate approximate (to much less than a degree angular error, where this distant object are there is little interest or reason to do that. What is important is that their light tells us that the laws of nature have not changed:
Due to differential refraction (which makes the setting sun's image "vertically squashed" as you can see - image it on paper don't look directly at the sun, even with "sun glasses." Use a small "pin hole" not the glasses of some "far sighted" person, which probably are not a purely spherical lens.) its vertical angular width is less than 0.5 degrees. The time from first contact (with say surface of an ocean horizon) until none of the sun can be seen is: ~(0.45/ 360)24x60 = 1.8 minutes and the light took ~8.5 minutes to come to Earth, so you are watching for 8.5 -1.8 = 6.7 minutes a conical region with nothing in it - in some sense only the illusion you see the sun set.
Likewise, if you ignorantly believe that the stars are actually where they appear to be, an illusion is tricking you, but not as greatly as the sun does twice each day.
I have never seen it but sun has an even greater illusion - the Green Flash at sunset. It is based on atmospheric dispersion. A older co-worker at APL/JHU who had been a sailor in WWII and had seen it twice! He was a physicist too and looked for it often when at sea. I sailed my small sailboat into the Atlantic beyond the sight of land, hoping to see the green flash, but never did - Sailing back west by the stars was my only reward.* It only last a tiny fraction of a second - this video repeats that part so don't jump too close to the end - start just after a minute.
* I had a compass too as "cloud protection" but did not need it. (Went when air was very clear - chance is best then.) I have seen St. Elmo's fire in a larger boat with an aluminum mast. That will make an agnostic, like me, who knows well what causes it, pray. At times like that, Pascal's Wager is completely irrefutable logic.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, you miss my point. To me they are indeed where they appear to be... as I do not believe light travels across the vacuum. So the video is actually more use to me than it is to you...
Basically: Distance for light is zero however the inertia of matter generates the time delay (dissonance <=> resonance) and the effect of reflected light.
Of course in the context of sciforums, this is alternative theory....
To me what I see in the night sky is what I get... it is exactly as I observe it to be...
and No I am not going to debate the issue here. But it is my belief and it is not one i take lightly. [excuse the pun!
]Note: "Seeing" is actually a misleading term, being "conscious of" would be more accurate.
Which provides a clue as to how I combine human consciousness within a universal unified physics/metaphysics paradigm.
Last edited:
Perhaps you posted before I finished posting - may not have read this:
Likewise, if you ignorantly believe that the stars are actually where they appear to be, an illusion is tricking you, but not as greatly as the sun does twice each day.
Also interesting is your inertia of matter must also have "differential refraction" that is pressure dependent to "squash the setting sun" out of round AND even dispersion to make the green flash, but I'm sure that is no problem for your inventive mind - you just say yes, O2 & N2 molecules have that property when the sun is setting, but not at other times near noon. I guess it would be bad taste for me to mention that sun is setting in Paris when it is Noon in the US.
Perhaps these refractive and dispersive properties depend on the angle the sunlight is passing thru the O2 & N2 wrt the vertical devinded by Earth's gravity, but those molecules are clever and don't do that in lab during measurement at various angles wrt to the vertical?
BTW I think "seeing" is the better term than "conscious of" as I believe neither cameras nor their film is "conscious."
Last edited by a moderator:
What do you believed when Photo taken of the night sky from the surface of the moon, or a satellite also in vacuum or just after sun set in Paris and just before sun rise in US western state, all show the same points of light geometry / constellations, etc.
What theory of yours can explain that?
Last edited by a moderator:
I already linked you and the forum to it, partly to forestall anyone taking the guy seriously and partly in hopes you in particular would read that silly and incoherent (and corrupt) crap he is known for and quit spamming this site with his special book.river said:
My guess is this is an example of the one book problem. You should read another book on the topic. Here's a recommendation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
While you are reading it, note the role of your guy Ball there as one of the Marshall Institute's fronting scientists (http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/SciNotSettled.pdf) these past few years - as with the others, coincident with his retirement from active research, loss of professional reputation, and substantial upgrade in lifestyle.
I thought this might be of some interest.
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/11/03/far-infrared-arctic/
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/11/03/far-infrared-arctic/
When you and others demonstrate an interest in finding alternative explanations to current light effect paradigm I may entertain joining in...
To eventually lead to a unified theory that includes the constancy of gravity, inertia, magnetism, consciousness, life, self-animation etc a good rethink is essential IMO.
so your question:
is a good one...
Last edited:
No need to fix what ain't broken. It is your alternative theory, the one with zero proof, that is Broken - disproved by many simple observations.
I.e. Light DOES travel thru vacuum as a simple evacuated glass "bell jar" and a flash light will show. It does so too fast to measure in the lab, the time it takes to transvers the bell jar without some more technology, like rapidly spinning pair of hexagonal mirrors and a laser beam or high speed electronic shutters. Michelson used a mile long vacuum tube (with end mirrors that folded it 18 times) almost, but not quite back on its self, as I recall to get the vacuum speed quite accurately.
If you add a slow turning fan inside the bell jar where according to you, the light does not even go, the paper on the other side from the flash light will show a flickering light / darker change in sync with the fan blades.
Ole Roemer was first to accurately measure light's speed, 100 years before US became a nation, back in 1676. He knew what you deny: light DOES travel thru vacuum and does so in time directly proportional to the distance, which in his case was large - twice diameter of Earth's orbit (2AU) as he did not have even Timex wrist watch accuracy available - just a floor-standing "Grand Father" pendulum clock.
http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_roemer.html said:
Please describe what Roemer did within your theory that light takes no time to travel and does not go thru vacuum. Why was the eclipse of moon Io seen about 17 minutes delayed when in position 2 of the drawing?
Your said, in your theory:
So does the inertia of earth vary with where the earth is wrt to Jupiter? Can be either max or least at any point in the earth's orbit? What does travel across the vacuum to tell Earth when to have max and when to have least inertia? How does it command this change? What if moon of Neptune were used too? Can earth have max inertia for it when it has least inertia for Jupiter? Don't you feel a bit foolish for fixing what ain't broke with something that clearly is?
Last edited by a moderator: