- This topic has 168 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
could be perhaps the earth’s solar-system centered universe, as far as that objection.
zach
What would be the situation if the earth’s speed was twice what it is now?
Would we feel the spin?
Would we weigh less?
I do not believe we must conform our scientific investigations to arrive at a result that we might believe would be more in accordance with the Torah. Rather,, the Torah wants us to seek the emes, period. See the Rambam in Kiddush Hachodesh (17,24). Anything proved mathematically or scientifically even by a non-Jew, carries the weight of Divrei Neviim. His source is probably the gemara in Pesachim where Rebbe Yehudah Hanasi was not ashamed to say that the Chachmei Umos Haolam were more correct in their understanding of nightfall than were the Chachmei Yisroel.
ZachKessin, while at first relativity seems paradoxical, as how can a moving light source emit light at the same speed as a stationary light source (which we know is not true if a person on a train throws a ball, the ball will travel at the sum of the train’s speed and the speed with which it was thrown from the hand), maybe the following makes it more understandable.
Remember that in Electromagnetics, one can either use a field formulation, or an action at a distance formulation. If we think of electostatic interactions as action at a distance, then it makes sense that the speed with which another particle finds out about the existence of a first particle (feels its effect) should only depend on the distance between them, not on how fast one is moving with respect to the other. Does this make any sense to you?
The Deep-Theory end of the continuum of scientific “knowledge” (being based as it is on primarily extrapolation and reasoned conjecture, based on unproven assumptions) is constantly changing. Most frequently being overturned and replaced rather than “evolving”
a few major examples:
geocentric/heliocentric
gradual evolution/punctuated equilibrium
newtonian/einsteinian motion
cause and effect/quantum non-determinism
steady state/big bang
The other end of the spectrum (technology) being based on repeatable, observable, measurable, existing phenomena, although not sacrosanct, and while subject to frequent modification and clarification is almost infinitely more reliable and changes generally by a process of “evolution”, not “revolution”
When evaluating the reliability of “science” one must be very careful where on the continuum one is referring to.
What would be the situation if the earth’s speed was twice what it is now?
Mod-80, I sat down and worked out the math for this last night (mind you I would not do this for just anyone ;).
SO the force we feel from the earth’s spin is mv^2/r Where m is mass, r is the radius of the earth (at your latitude) and v is the velocity. but v is 2*pni*r/l(day). so this reduces to m(4pi^2*4 / l(day)), which works out to about 3×10-3 n/kg of mass, that is at the equator, as you move away you have to multiply by the cos^2(latitude) so for 30deg north you end up with about .75 that. The force of gravity is about 9.8 N/kg for reference. If you double the speed the earth turns you cut the length of the day in half l(day) so you end up with about twice that.
Mind you that that force points more or less up. At the equator it would point directly up,here at 30° north (I am in Israel) it would point about 30° off of vertical.
In terms of what effect it has you are much better to think in terms of angular momentum. Which to be honest I don’t have time to write up now as I need to go catch a bus to work.
“Also seems to me to be irrefutably conclusive proof.
Nevertheless, against such conclusive logic (and don’s ask me to explain), I have a feeling the earth actually is the center and the universe revolves around us “
One might say that from a philosophical or religious perspective that the earth is the center of the universe. I’m not a philosopher or rabbi or theologian. But not from a scientific perspective. It is a simple fact that the universe does not revolve around the earth.
‘continuum of scientific “knowledge”‘
Indeed some scientific conclusions are better supported by empirical evidence than others. As a scientist I have to draw the line at anyone who denies the empirical evidence just as a rabbi would have to draw the line at anyone who questions the authority of Chazal.
(I also object to empirical proofs of God or Torah. If you set out to “prove” something empirically, you accept that it can potentially be disproven, chas v’shalom!)
ZachKessin
Thank you for the recommendations.
YW Moderator-80
What would be the situation if the earth’s speed was twice what it is now?
Would we feel the spin?
No. Except on Purim.
Would we weigh less?
thanks zach and icot
YW Moderator-80-
It’s my pleasure to add my laypersons knowledge to this thread.
I am also enjoying learning new stuff from the pros and those who may not be pros but know more than I do on this subject.
Well, if the stationary observer asks the moving observer how fast the light is moving, he will answer, at the speed of light. The stationary guy can then do the math and figure out that for himself the light heading toward the moving guy is going faster than the speed of light.
Let me explain this one a bit more. If I am on the earth and you are going by in a space ship at .50c, and I send you a message via light, we will both measure that the light moves at the speed of light, but the apparent distance that it travels, and the time it takes to do it will not appear the same. I will record a longer distance and time than you do, who is right? we both are. (yea this one is kind of hard to wrap your head around)
The thing to know is while the messured distance and time may change the metric x^2+x^2+z^2 – (ict)^2 will be the same. The first part of that is the Pythagorean theorem in 3 dimensions, while the 2nd part
is the relativistic part, the time times the speed of light, times the sqrt(-1), all squared. this quantity will stay constant for any 2 events in space time, regardless of the position of the observer.
Is Gravity Real? Scientist Takes On Newton
Kasha, where and when was this article printed?
Science is “relative” to each generation. Every generation disputes and challenges the knowledge of the previous generation(s). Since the sum total of scientific knowledge is probably impossible, or at least many light years ahead, then how could we state as a fact that science can contradict the Torah or the chachumim?
We may indeed have been looking at gravity the wrong way, for we have not been able to reconcile it with quantum physics as we have the other fundamental forces. We will await empirical proof or disproof of Dr. Verlinde’s conjecture.
It should be pointed out that String theory and Quantum gravity are big topics in modern physics, but that does not mean that the physics of newton does not work. If I take my pencil and drop it, it will still hit the floor (or maybe my foot), and the path it takes will follow the laws set down by Newton 300+ years ago.
What is going on here is trying to understand gravity at a very deep level and understand what it will do on very large scales or in very extreme cases such as near a black hole, in these cases we are not sure on exactly how the laws of physics work. The basics and the common cases we understand quite well, its the strange and the extreme that is still being worked on.
–Zach (Who once considered doing physics for a living)
the path it takes will follow the laws set down by Newton 300+ years ago.
As in previous threads I have to disagree again. It will follow the laws of newton only because there is a single system in your example. For an observer moving relative to the path of the pencil it will NOT follow the physics of newton. It will practically be the same in this particular range of velocity, but it will only be an extremely close APPROXIMATION (for practical purposes it will be the same as newtonian physics, but in truth there will be an infinitesimal difference not significant for practical purposes). If the observer were to move in a large speed relative to the pencil, newtonian physics will give a result quite different from the truth of the matter.
Any time there are two observational systems, moving relative to one another, newtonian physics will give the wrong result in a mathematical sense, (ie 10,000,000,000 is not identical to 10,000,000,001). In the range of speeds in which we generally operate this difference will not have any practical impact, nevertheless this difference always exists and when it comes to particle physics the difference is large and critical.
Ok if we are both in freefall (for example in the space shuttle) it would still follow newtonian mechanics, at least to within the limits of what can be measured by practical means.
In general things can not be measured to infinite precision as in your example. In some parts of particle physics you can get to 14 or 15 digits, but in other cases (for example distances to stars) you are happy if you can get to within 10%. In the case of gravity we only know the value of the gravitational constant to about 4 decimal places. (And that took a few hundred years to do)
And while there is always a difference between classical and relativity or Quantum physics it is often so small you can ignore it, as it will be smaller than other effects. Of course a large part of a physics degree is knowing when that is.
Zach is correct. Newtonian mechanics perfectly describes what happens to the pencil when you drop it. Relativistic and quantum effects can’t even be detected except for things that are either very small, very large, or very fast. And if you can’t detect it, science isn’t interested in it. That is a big difference between science and philosophy: Science is dependent ONLY on things that are detectible through observation or experiment. That is one reason why there will never be a real conflict between science and Torah; science has nothing to say about the nature of the spiritual universe.
Newtonian mechanics perfectly describes what happens
not perfectly. only extremely closely, not the same.
Relativistic and quantum effects can’t even be detected except for things that are either very small, very large, or very fast.
quite true
And if you can’t detect it, science isn’t interested in it.
not at all, unless you are referring exclusively to the technology end of the spectrum of science
for example some of the biggest areas of interest in science today are dark matter, dark energy, and “strings”. none of which have ever been detected directly or indirectly. their effects have never been detected as well but are THEORIZED to exist to try to explain certain problems
Science is dependent ONLY on things that are detectible through observation or experiment
The other end of the spectrum (technology) being based on repeatable, observable, measurable, existing phenomena, although not sacrosanct, and while subject to frequent modification and clarification is almost infinitely more reliable and changes generally by a process of “evolution”, not “revolution”
When evaluating the reliability of “science” one must be very careful where on the continuum one is referring to.
science has nothing to say about the nature of the spiritual universe
that is generally true, however it has nothing to do with anything that i have pointed out
Science is dependent ONLY on things that are detectible through observation or experiment
That’s true in theory, not reality. Not only are scientist continuously theorizing the world’s beginings (computorized models and well skectched images does not make their theories reality) but to come to conclusions they oftentimes first theorize how things can happen and then experiment. And until their experiment doesn’t fail, they don’t always admit that their conclusions are theory’s. Think global warming – mark my words, in twenty years it will be a joke.
The funniest thing is, about 25 years ago “Global Cooling” was all the rage (although the Global Warming fanatics will vociferously deny this today). When that theory fell apart, Global Warming became their new doctrine and theology. They keep getting caught up in their lies, including many exposures on the Warming lie.
myfiend, I saw an article a while ago in the Yiddish newspaper Der Blatt where they brought an article from one of the big secular papers, I think it was The New York Times if I remember correctly, where they had a whole article complete with diagrams and sketchings of the global cooling shtuess.
If you want to know what diagrams and sketchings looked like, just look at the diagrams and sketchings that they have today of global warming and make benahapech hu in your mind.
I won’t say much about string theory as to be honest I am not a fan of the whole Idea and until they get some actual results I am rather dubious. (I had a physics professor in college who called it “Quantum Theology”)
However Dark Matter and Dark Energy we have very much detected.
Dark matter was first theorized back in the 40’s or so when it was noticed that the amount of matter that you can see in galaxies can not account for the mass that must be there to keep them in orbit around each other. While we don’t know exactly what it is we have definite evidence that it really does exist. In a few forms, first we have seen that galaxies have more mass than can be explained by just the matter you can see, and in fact the dark matter may be as much as 95% or more of the mass. In addition in the last few years the Hubble space telescope was able to image the Bullet Cluster and see the results of gravitational lensing from dark matter. (I Can’t explain that in detail sorry, it is over my head, but I think Astronomy Cast covered it at some point).
In terms of Dark energy we don’t know much. Dark Energy is basically a name that was thought up to put a label on an effect that was discovered in the late ’90’s that the expatiation of the universe is in fact not slowing down but speeding up. There are a few ideas about why but no solid evidence yet. Maybe after the LSST* goes online in 2016 we will be able to narrow them down.
The LSST (Large Synoptic Survey Telescope) is a telescope that will image the entire sky every 3 nights from Chile.
Just to clarify one point, while there are things in science that are theorized to exist but have not been seen yet (Such as the Higgs particle and Dark Energy) they are not unobservable, just we have not manged to do it yet.
One problem is that the setup to make these observations tends to be HUGE and cost huge amounts of money, so it takes time. There are people actively trying to figure out Dark Energy, they just don’t have enough data yet, and the current generation of telescopes are not quite powerful enough to get the data that is required.
they are not unobservable, just we have not manged to do it yet.
IF THEY EXIST then they may be observable. one possible reason why they have not been observed yet is because they do not exist. no one knows whether they exist or not. they HOPE they exist.
However Dark Matter and Dark Energy we have very much detected.
absolutely not!
what we have is a contradiction between the detected behavior of orbiting bodies and the amount of mass that SHOULD be present to account for this behavior
we have a problem. dark matter is a PURELY THEORETICAL construct, that if it were in fact to exist it would account for the contradiction. This is a very very far cry from saying it has been detected.
It’s like saying my car is getting 100 times the mileage that it should. Well if my friendly neighbor was putting gas in my tank every night, that WOULD in fact explain the discrepancy, but it is not at all a proof that that is the explanation. I have in no way, by having that thought, detected my neighbor doing so.
the Hubble space telescope was able to image the Bullet Cluster and see the results of gravitational lensing from dark matter
they did NOT necessarily see “the results of gravitational lensing from dark matter”. they saw gravitational lensing and THEORIZED that it was caused by dark matter because they have as of now, no other explanation.
Many prominent physicists have openly statied that we have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of dark matter. It’s not my idea, I don’t know anything substantial about it. All that we have is that IF dark matter does exist, that would explain away a lot of problems.
Mod-80 you are right. And to be honest many particle physics types hope that we Don’t find the Higgs, because if we don’t find it that means that some of what we think about particle physics is wrong, and of course if you are the one who figures out what you get a Noble prize. No one assumes that the standard model is right, it is constantly being tested at CERN and FermiLab. Our assumptions about dark matter and dark energy are also being tested by various large telescopes both on the ground and in space.
In many cases the motivation for building the next generation of accelerator or telescope is that we think that it will allow us to observe whatever the next big thing is (Dark energy or the like) Of course we generally find lots of other stuff along the way.
I am very excited about the future of particle physics and am trying to watch it closely.
I have a personal feeling that the depth of our understanding (or realizing our inability to totally understand) the innermost nature of the Creation is paralleling the course of man’s history and the coming of Moshiach.
I have a feeling that the closer we get to the “final understanding”, the one simple “equation of everything”, the closer is Moshiach.
myfriend,
No lies. The earth got a lot warmer between 1880 and 1940. It then cooled a bit between 1940 and 1980 hence the concern about cooling. (And that was 30-40 years ago, not 25.) 1980 to 2000 saw the most rapid increase in global temperatures ever seen; that rise may have leveled off since then. Global warming is a fact, not a lie, and there is no dispute whatsoever among scientists or anyone else who has looked at the data (and you can find some with a quick internet search); the disputes are as to the degree to which human activity is responsible and what should be done about it. And anyone who rejects scientific facts has nothing to add to scientific discussions.
Moderator-80,
While I agree completely that the more we learn about science, the more we appreciate our Creator, we will never have a “Final Understanding”. Every observation and explanation brings up more questions, more things to learn. Just as HaShem’s Torah is infinite, so is HaShem’s universe.
charliehall, there are scientists who disagree with the global warming THEORY. In addition, the Earth continuously changes tempurature and there is absolutely no guarantee that the Earth will continue getting warmer. It is PURELY speculation.
Also how much warmer is the Earth’s temperature today than 1880? I hardly think the instruments were as accurate then as today in measuring the tempurature and that could be the reason why there could be this slightly variable temperatures. There were no sattelites then to measure THE ENTIRE Earth’s temperature.
And anyone who rejects scientific facts has nothing to add to scientific discussions
Sorry I can’t google on my computer, but maybe you can. I’m sure you’ll find plenty of scientists with scientific facts proving that global warming is a sham.
Is dark matter and dark energy the same as black holes in space that pulls in matter and makes it dissapear?
Philosopher no they are not. Black holes are places in the universe where gravity has caused matter to fall in on itself and you get an area of extreme gravity. We see small size black holes (3-10 times the mass of the sun) around the galaxy. These are the remains of very large stars that have died. (We can see them because sometimes they are in a binary with another star and we can see that star moving). In the center of galaxies you get very large black holes, in our galaxy the black hole is about 3million solar masses but in some other galaxies they can get into the billions of solar masses. How these form is not known and an area of active research.
Dark Matter is the name given to the fact that the mass of galaxies is 95% unseen. When you measure the orbits of stars and gas clouds in galaxies you find that what you can see is only a very small percent of the mass that would be required to make things orbit. In addition the dark matter seems to extend a great distance past the point where the visible stuff runs out.
So far we don’t exactly know what Dark matter is, we do know a bunch of things that it isn’t, but the exact nature of Dark Matter is still unknown.
Dark Energy is the term for whatever is driving the universe to not only expand but to expand *FASTER* over time. It would be like if you threw a ball up in the air and instead of falling back down it would rocket off into space.
As for what Dark Energy is, well to be honest we have no clue. We know something is going on, we can see that the effect is real. But we don’t understand why.
ZachKessin, thanks. Wow! That sounds like a great mystery!
The wonders of Hashem’s creation, the power and vast greatness that I can barely fathom never ceases to amaze me!
Mah rabi maasecha Hashem kilom bchochma asisah…
The Other Side of the Story:
some comments on Global warming by meteorologist John Coleman:
“It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.
Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990’s to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.
However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe me, a mere meteorologist, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.
I suspect you might like to say to me, “John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D’s in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D’s. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.
Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.
And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.
So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90’s they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.
There were a few who didn’t fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.
I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970’s to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn’t accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.
I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D’s, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.
I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.
The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.
I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.
A little less emotional, John Coleman describes the history and origin of the “global warming” movement
“The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam
By John Coleman
January 28, 2009 (Revised and edited February 11, 2009)
The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.
Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.
Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.
Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.
Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.
Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.
At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.
And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain, and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge, negative impact on the economy, jobs, and our standard of living. Considerable controversy still surrounds the authorship of this article. However, I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer and he assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.
Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam. He might well stand beside me as a global warming denier.
Nonetheless, today we have the continued claim that carbon dioxide is the culprit of an uncontrollable, runaway man-made global warming. We are told that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint. And, we are told we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists for this sinful footprint. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US Congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.
We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by the prohibiting of new refineries and of drilling for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that, the whole issue of corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies, which also has driven up food prices. All of this is a long way from over.
Yet I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.”
Mod-80, I will admit that my training in climate issues is rather thin, and mostly related to aviation weather (which tends to be rather short term). But the mass conspiracy just does not wash. First he says that he has read lots of papers, but I would like to see a list of them. In general when I see claims of giant conspiracies I tend to start to question if the person making the claim is a crackpot.
On a side note I personally would like to see a move away from fossil fuels if for no other reason that they supply is limited and often tends to be in some rather unpleasant countries (Like Iran) Denying the Opec countries a few trillion dollars sounds like a good idea to me. Even more so if the US could put it to work in domestic energy production.
I am also very skeptical of conspiracy theories in general. But I dont think he has painted a picture of a bunch of people meeting in a boardroom and saying: “Lets make up this theory and pull the wool over everyones eyes.”
He is describing a number of key people acting irresponsibly and dishonestly in their own interests. I am not skeptical of such an occurrence.
I also would like to see a move away from petroleum
John Coleman is not a meteorologist; he is a television personality. To become a meterologist you need extensive knowledge in physics, usually a doctorate; Mr. Coleman not only does not have that knowledge, he sneers at those who do.
Some real meteorologists have questioned the association between the warming and human activity and or the need to take drastic steps. One of the more prominent is MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, who was one of my undergraduate professors a very long time ago. But he agrees that the warming is real and has said so publicly. (Lindzen has also questioned how strongly cigarette smoking has been linked to cancer, but that may be because he himself is a nicotine addict!) Another of the more prominent scientific so-called skeptics, is Bjorn Lomborg in Denmark, whose training is in economics. But Lomborg himself also says that the warming is real. And these are the two most prominent scientists that the global warming deniers cite! Coleman doesn’t analyze data, he instead engages in *ad hominem* attacks. That is not scientific discourse.
EDITED
Mod-80, thank you very much. I am amazed at this “herd mentality” of humans to follow whatever thought is popular at the time and to see that as fact. I admire those who think for themselves.
The only proof they can provide of this complex hypothesis is by running it in climate computer models
Computor models are favorites of these “scientists” who prove their facts with very “convincing” evidence that are nothing more than computor models. Whether they want to prove the global warming THEORY or the evolution THEORY they resort to these computor models to give their THEORIES wieght. Before that, the evolutionists resorted to well sketched images of how single celled creatures turned into fish, fish into mammals and one of those mammals, the ape turned human. They also sketched how the first apes must have looked and the slow evolution of those apes into humans. Wow, what scientific evidence. I’m really blown away.
Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels.
The government taxing us yet again? So what else is new?
Reducing use of oil would be a good thing. But the US does not get most of its oil from hostile powers. The top four countries sending oil to the US are (in order) Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria. Three of the four are friendly (although it is a wonder that Mexico remains friendly given the racist bigotry against Mexican immigrants to the US). Canada and Mexico aren’t OPEC members. The US still produces 30% of the oil it uses, although that fraction will likely decline as there really aren’t any major new oil fields likely to be discovered in the future and the oil from many of the known fields is very expensive to recover (or even dangerous, as the recent blowout in the Gulf of Mexico showed).
I don’t understand why the government cannot do something constuctive and make the industries incorporate SOLAR ENERGY!
Solar energy leaves no carbon footprints!
John Coleman is not a meteorologist; he is a television personality. To become a meterologist you need extensive knowledge in physics, usually a doctorate
Many TV weather reporters are meteorologists.
According to the American Meteorological Society, a meteorologist is a person with specialized education, using scientific principles to explain, understand, observe or forecast the earth’s atmospheric phenomena and/or how the atmosphere effects the earth and life on the planet. This requires at least a four year college degree in meteorology or related sciences.
But you can call him whatever you wish. And please feel free to believe in global warming. If I have time later today I’ll try to bring a few suggestions for people to think about when analyzing the issues instead of blindly believing everything they read in the newspaper and see on TV. I don’t know enough about the history of the matter to evaluate whether or not Mr. Coleman brings valid points. I only know he believes that global warming is a scam. That’s enough for me to present his arguments here.
CharlieHall,
If you want to really be accurate its actually Professor Roy Spencer who is cited interviewed by Rush Limbuagh and he is a climateologist.
I do admit that I personally feel the entire Global Warming “debate” is somewhat similar to the Dor Hafloga building support struteres for the sky.
although it is a wonder that Mexico remains friendly given the racist bigotry against Mexican immigrants to the US
Huh? Free emergency room medical care, free schooling for their kids, free social benefits do not exactly translate into bigotry for me.
Of course the gov. is somewhat trying (ahem) to keep ALL of them out, otherwise our economy will collapse yesterday.
Philosopher,
Prof. Lindzen has criticized the computer models for some of the reasons you mention. But he agrees that the the data clearly show that the earth has warmed. That evidence is not from computer models but from empirical observation of temperatures all over the world over the past 130 years, and the observed receding of glaciers and sea ice. Satellite imagery adds to the picture for about the past 40 years and pretty much tells the same story.
Spencer also agrees that the earth has gotten warmer.
The global warming skeptics keep bringing out scientists who agree that the earth has gotten warmer! Those scientists just disagree with the cause, not the fact.
philosopher,
Solar energy is currently not economically competitive with oil, gas, coal, or nuclear without massive government subsidies. (Funny, though, it is rare to hear complaints about the huge subsidies given to the oil, gas or nuclear industries.) And solar energy isn’t practical at all in much of the world because of cloud cover.
Philosopher before you start attacking the scientific evidence you might want to go read up on what it actually is. Of course people use computer models, how else do you solve the millions of equations that would be involved is understanding something complex like say climate or the Rings of Saturn. But here is the key point those models must predict reality in a useful way.
Here’s some points to think about. It also helps to keep in mind the arrogance and unwillingness to admit mistakes (unless under great pressure, academic scrutiny, and media observation) which generally characterizes the scientific establishment.
And the masses who swallow their pronouncements without critical thought tend to mirror those qualities.
Now think:
How old is the earth thought to be now, about 5 BILLION years, I believe is the current estimate. global temperatures have been markedly fluctuating since then, if recent measurements are at all representative. There have certainly been major fluctuations and minor fluctuations, and fluctuations and trends within larger fluctuations and trends.
And what temperature records do we have. Maybe 400 years of any kind of measurements. 100-200 years of somewhat scientifically controlled measurments, 50-75 years of accurate and relatively widespread measurements. And do we have yearly measurements over the vast expanses of the globe, urban areas, jungles, all over the oceans, in the oceans (the vast buffer of global temperatures), on the ground, 100 feet up, 2,000 feet up, 10 miles up, over all areas of the globe.
We expect to determine the meaningfulness of the current trend of temperature change in the context of the equivalent of a few seconds in a million years!
And what is the supposed culprit in this? Carbon dioxide, a small molecule found in 3 parts per 10, 000 in the atmosphere!
That’s enough for me, I’m getting tired. I dont have the time for this, but hopefully someone else will carry on the likely ensuing discussion, I’m not particularly interested.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.