Science hijacked by pseudo

odysseus145 · Nov 23, 2004

What is DiPEWS? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

extrasense · Nov 24, 2004

Just enjoy HW33 ruttling his/her cage <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

extrasense · Nov 26, 2004

--- Rattling of the cage rather depends --- This was cute. I get that from your point of view the whole world is in cage, and you are outside <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

Saiph · Nov 29, 2004

Extrasense: I'm done. You've proven to be highly unreasonable, and merely spout "Heisenberg!" whenever anything comes up. And because of that...everyone's a kook. Right. And you certainly aren't, since you claim that civilizations are on mars... Steve: 1) The resolution of ground based scopes approach or exceed Hubble with the use of adaptive optics. With adaptive optics keck can achieve 0.02 arc-second resolution (visible band) which (iirc) is diffraction limited (i.e. near theoretical maximum). Hubble, with it's smaller mirror size, can achieve only 0.1 arc-second resolution. Now, it doesn't have atmosphere, so it always gets that, and doesn't require an additional set of optics. 2) Why build it? Simple. Being in space is a big advantage. As you say, it's always dark (as long as you point away from the sun). You don't have to worry about weather (only the worst solar ejections). Long integration times, no need to chop it up into ~8hr segments. This can be really nice for really noisy sources. 3) Resolution is no longer an advantage however. It was when hubble was sent up there, but with Adaptive Optics systems, this hurdle has been overcome. Also the long integration times hubble can achieve is also mitigated by large mirror sizes. The purpose of long integrations is to get a large amount of signal (i.e. enough light) which can be done 3 ways: 1) A single long exposure 2) Lots of smaller exposures stacked together in processing (inherently more noisy however) 3) Use a bigger telescope. What takes 10 minutes on our 16" scope on campus takes 3 minutes or less at our 30" scope out of town. However both images are of similar quality when done correctly. So you've got the weather thing going for you, and 24/7 observations. Or at least, the possibility of 24/7 observations. I know there are many half-hour blocks unused on the hubble, as it waits to slew in to new positions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

extrasense · Dec 6, 2004

----All human institutions have faults, so it is counter productive to talk about pseudo science, unless you are ready to take one detail at a time.--- So, you suggest we do not try to address the glaring problems, because nothing is perfect anyway? e <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> s

extrasense · Dec 7, 2004

Thank you . And I have not even started, considering global warming, bornwith homosexuality, discarding of hysteria, etc e <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> s

extrasense · Dec 9, 2004

Global Warming PSEUDOSCIENCE ! It appears, that available data show that CO2 level is rising. The nitwits claim that reason for that is industrial and car-produced poluton. Assumingly, atmospheric CO2 rise is the main cause of observed warming. But it is known, that influx of CO2 is almost precisely balanced by plant photosythesis. It is much more likely that decline in forestation is the reason of CO2 rise, not the fossil fuels. So, the right way to prevent global warming is to have more forestation and more other plants. But the proponents have anti-capitalist agenda. They want to stick it to US, that it is guilty of global warming. The reality is that the poor countries that destroy their forestation are the most likely culprits. ES

Saiph · Dec 9, 2004

let me tell you a few facts. 1) Pollution causes CO2. 2) Pollution is on the rise 3) Therefore, rising pollution is a cause of C02 increases. So they're not nuts, or wrong. They are merely overstating the case. Because, and here's another fact about science: Money matters. You want money to study the atmosphere? you find something people will fund. Solar Science was funded in the 80's by saying the sun is the cause of global warming. The Gov't dumped a lot of money into it. Astronomers grew satisfied with the equipment and programs that grew out of it, and answered some big questions. Atmospherics saw the ploy and screamed it's the atmosphere! Give us money, we'll study it! And so they do. This creates unfortunate swings in popular opinion, since the media only reports the "new" findings. It also creates divisions in the scientific community. However money is required for the science to be done. Eventually the opinions swing back, or in a different direction. But eventualy they settle down into a more moderate, and often more correct answer (sun is a big part, atmospheric contents a big part, and eventually we'll understand how big for both). Science takes time <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

extrasense · Dec 9, 2004

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> 1) Pollution causes CO2. 2) Pollution is on the rise 3) Therefore, rising pollution is a cause of C02 increases. <hr /></blockquote> Sure, a perfect example of pseudoscientific logic. But is being sold as it were science. The crooked parasites should be exposed and punished. Here is the truth. 2.1 Natural carbon fluxes GtC / year Atmosphere -- /> terrestrial vegetation 120 Photosynthesis Terrestrial vegetation -- /> atmosphere 60 Respiration Terrestrial vegetation -- /> soils & detritus 60 Soils & detritus -- /> atmosphere 60 Respiration --------------- atmosphere change = 0 Atmosphere -- /> surface ocean 90 Surface ocean -- /> atmosphere 90 --------------- atmosphere change = 0 Surface ocean -- /> deep ocean 90 Inorganic carbon Surface ocean -- /> deep ocean 10 Organic carbon Deep ocean -- /> surface ocean 100 Mostly inorganic --------------- atmosphere change = 0 TOTAL ATMOSPHERE CHANGE = ZERO !!!!! These fluxes are averages for 1980-1989, with anthropogenic carbon omitted. --------- 2 Anthropogenic carbon fluxes Carbon dioxide sources GtC / year Fossil fuel burning, cement production 5.5 (5.0-6.0) Changes in tropical land use 1.6 (0.6-2.6) Total anthropogenic emissions 7.1

Saiph · Dec 9, 2004

What, so pollution doesn't create CO2? Interesting...very interesting. I see you've cirumvented the combustion cycle of most engines...intersting indeed. Pollution isn't increasing? Really? You sure? If A and B are true, then C (that pollution is a cause of CO2 increase) logically follows. HOWEVER C may not be a significant contributor, or have much of an impact at all. As such then pollution, while being a contributor to C02 levels, is not the primary cause. This is what you point out, that it may very well not be an important contributor compared to the huge amounts of C02 naturally in the cycle from various other sources. Of course, we're also dealing with a chaotic system, where small changes in the initial conditions can cause very different outcomes, and this is the current area of research. Is the system highly chaotic? Are we enough of an impact? Or is our CO2 below the threshold? An example of a chaotic system: I programmed a 3-body simulation at one time, nothing fancy, just used three objects and had the computer calculate the gravity and new velocities at each successive step. I found, however, that a mere 1/10000 th of a % change in the initial velocity created vastly different outcomes in the orbits of the system. That isn't a big change at all, and the system behaved as normal for a brief period, however the end result was remarkably different. It could range anywhere from maintaining all three bodies in an orbit for the duration of the simulation, to ejecting one of the masses after the third encounter (basically immediately). Anyway, There is no problem with the logic I originally stated. The only vague area, which I did not address, is the exact impact of the additional CO2 in the system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

extrasense · Dec 10, 2004

---- There is no problem with the logic I originally stated. The only vague area, which I did not address, is the exact impact of the additional CO2 in the system. --- See, the problem with logic that you "originally stated", is that it does not reflect reality. Which is, that we produce an influx of CO2 into the atmosphere, and this influx potentially can influence the content of CO2 in the atmosphere in many different ways, depending on the processes and interactions involved. The most importent variable global process with regard to CO2 is photosynthesis, and the vegetation cnange along with the CO2 concentrations change, that is effecting the said photosynthesis. The reason why CO2 influx effects an accelerating increase of the content of CO2 in atmosphere is, that normal self regulation - by increase in vegetation in response to CO2 content increase - is mitigated by deforestation. The prognosis is actually much worse than the accepted pseudoscientific view would us to believe, and the proposed reduction of CO2 influx will not help at all. The only cure, as I have mentioned, is to reverse the deforestation process and instead to add about 3 pct of proper vegetation. es

nexium · Dec 10, 2004

Both sides of the global warming debate seem willing to exaggerate, use false inferences, and insults. My guess is; 1 Burning fossil fuel is about one percent of the carbon dioxide budget 2 so humans can only hope to slow the recent warming trend which may have causes other than rising CO2 = carbon dioxide 3 the rising carbon dioxide may be bad science/ most century old (and 1/2 century old) text books say the carbon dioxide is 0.04 %: now we are told it has risen to 0.038% or there abouts. The inference is the old text books should have said about 0.032% 4 forests planted in the last 40 years remove more carbon dioxide than old ,mature forests. The USA and much of the world has replaced most of the old forest with younger trees that are removing carbon dioxide faster. Exceptions are the rain forests, but it is wrong in my opinion for liberals to attempt to force other countries to stop burning rain forests. In my opinion. that is as wrong as the UN telling the USA that all big shopping malls must power down during the peak demand period of electricity and no one can manufacture SUVs 5 We could require that the roof of all new construction provide either 10 watts (average) per square foot of solar energy collection or plants that absorb at least one pound of carbon dioxide per year per square foot. Neil

extrasense · Dec 10, 2004

---- Burning fossil fuel is about one millionth of the carbon dioxide budget --- Your guess is far off the mark, it is about 3 pct. --- it is wrong in my opinion for liberals to attempt to force other countries to stop burning rain forests. --- Liberals? To force somebody? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> If there were ever really good use of force, it is to force everybody to stop reducing forests. This is issue "liberal vs conservative", only because "liberals" are anti American scum, and they promote wrong, pseudoscientific pseudotheory, that we must stop CO2 emissions to fight Global Warming. It is a lie, it would not make any difference if we did. ---- forests planted in the last 40 years remove more carbon dioxide than old ,mature forests. The USA and much of the world has replaced most of the old forest with younger trees that are removing carbon dioxide faster. ---- Do you know it for a fact? I doubt this, since CO2 consumption is about proportional to the size of the tree. Anyway, we need 3 pct more of vegetation than we have. ES

nexium · Dec 10, 2004

Hi extrasence: How can we know anything for a fact, when both sides promote with half truths, instead of facts? I did edit my post to one percent. I appologize for exaggerating. Most of Florida is covered with thick vegetation, including my yard. We could reduce wild fires, by removing dead wood, before the fire and using the dead wood as a substitute for fossil fuel. I do that, but my wife does not like the soot our wood stove occasionally produces, nor the several cords of ugly wood in our small yard. Ugly wood is easier to burn. I think a big fan to over-pressure our house with outside air and/or a 20 foot taller chimney would help. Many of our trees are over 50 foot tall except for the newest part of our 600 square mile city. Have you a solution to the soot and fumes problem? Neil

extrasense · Dec 10, 2004

--- How can we know anything for a fact, when both sides promote with half truths, instead of facts? --- First of all, you better listen to your wife, she seem to be a smart lady. None of us able to influence the global warming personally. They've just eviscirated large chunk of wood next to where I live,NJ, for houses. As to lies that we are getting from so called "science", I am trying to expose that as much as I can. Hopefully people will see how much parasitic pseudoscience we have and pay for. es

Saiph · Dec 10, 2004

once again, there is nothing wrong with my logic. It is, however, an incomplete picture. I never addressed if the environment could handle the influx of CO2, and as my second post pointed out, we're not sure. It probably can, but it may not, it depends on the details of how this large, and complicated system work. You're right, deforestation is a major part in reducing the environments ability to handle the influx of CO2 (both new manmad, and old natural sources). But that doesn't mean man is not introducing CO2 into the system, and contributing somehow (to what degree is uncertain) to the problem. I.e. the logic still holds. You've done nothing to say why C doesn't follow from A and B. Nor have you invalidated the premises. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

extrasense · Dec 10, 2004

Let us do not dwell on the petty issue of logic. We seem to agree, that the only really efficient way to eliminate increase in CO2 concentrations, is to help the vegetation to do it for us. Let us share this knowlege with others <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ES

nexium · Dec 10, 2004

Instead of building houses, some of us could live in buildings ten cubic miles each. I'm thinking 2 miles by 2 miles in the tenth sub-basement tapering to 1/4 mile by 1/4 mile at the top = a 4 sided pyrimid; 6 sides counting the top and bottom. It could be, perhaps, two miles tall, using state of the art materials in the lowest basements. The building could have all the features of a large city, so the inhabitants would rarely want to leave the building. Food could be grown on the sloping south facing wall. I forgot the formula, but I think the volume is a bit over ten cubic miles = 1/3 billion cubic feet, which can easily accomodate 100,000 persons including offices, factories, schools, play grounds and shopping. Such a structure is suitable only for a cold climate as cooling the deep interior will be costly even by bring 32 degree f = zero c air in from the outside. The building would replace about 30,000 single family homes. Traditional transportation however takes up lots of space, so I am thinking moving most of the people and goods, by pnumatic tubes about one yard in diameter. Dressed in teflon tites, 20 mph might be safe. A large air flow rate is needed to move against gravity, so the upper stories would be over pressured thus solving the breathing problems at 10600 feet altitude. Neil

Saiph · Dec 10, 2004

and you're neumatic tranpsortion can double as a cooling and ventilation system. Teflon tights, awesome. Creative thoughts abound today. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Maddad · Dec 10, 2004

extrasense "Let us do not dwell on the petty issue of logic. *BOL* Spoken like a true liberal.

extrasense · Dec 10, 2004

Yea, at what length we are ready to go, just to avoid planting a few trees <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

extrasense · Dec 11, 2004

Believe it or not, we are getting warmer 0.02 C grade every year. Get busy treeplanting es

mcbethcg · Dec 12, 2004

My question: Isn't it a good thing that it will be warmer?

extrasense · Dec 12, 2004

--- Isn't it a good thing that it will be warmer? ---- What good is it for you, if you at Alaska, and it is getting warmer at Florida? The good news is it can only go 33 C grades up, and it would take more than 2000 years to get there <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> es

extrasense · Dec 12, 2004

NASA O'Keefe to resign! But, he is going to become University Pres! Pseudoscience concervation law to be confirmed <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/politics/10396016.htm es

Science hijacked by pseudo

odysseus145

Guest

extrasense

Guest

extrasense

Guest

Saiph

Guest

extrasense

Guest

extrasense

Guest

extrasense

Guest

Saiph

Guest

extrasense

Guest

Saiph

Guest

extrasense

Guest

nexium

Guest

extrasense

Guest

nexium

Guest

extrasense

Guest

Saiph

Guest

extrasense

Guest

nexium

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Maddad

Guest

extrasense

Guest

extrasense

Guest

mcbethcg

Guest

extrasense

Guest

extrasense

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page