No, I'll make it simple. CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases. So, what theory are you referring to that is wrong with regard to greenhouse gases?
So, you're claiming that increasing the energy of a system will not result in a different equilibrium and an alteration of said system. On what grounds can you as a physicist make such a claim?
That humans have released greenhouse gases via the burning of fossil fuels is irrefutable. That those greenhouse gases were sequestered and thus not a component of any carbon cycle after they were deposited and prior to their release is irrefutable. So, what do you base your argument on? Where is any study that supports your contention?
OK, I see it it has to be really simple. The experiment is humans adding gasses to the atmosphere and the theory predicts certain results. The results are not agreeing with the theory and the theorists now say that is because they need another 20 to 50 years for the data to average out.
As for the amount of carbon, do you know how much coal is being burned in China and India? How much natural gas in Russia and the old Soviet countries? No. Nobody does. How much methane hydrate is subliming out of the oceans? How much natural gas and oil is seeping from the ocean floor? Are you satisfied with plus or minus 50%? What does that do to a model? Have you done any numerical analysis? Is instability easy to introduce into most techniques or are they inherently robust?
I'll give you a personal example. A friend was at a Geophysical Union convention before the Moon landings. A NASA spokesman was saying that with a Moon rock they could discover the origin and makeup of the Moon. Z.F. Danes stood and asked "What if it is bassalt?". He was asked to repeat the question and after a pause, the speaker moved on. The NASA people were talking up their sleeves and had no idea what they could learn form a Moon rock. Danes did not have to go to the Moon to show that they were making wild claims. QED.
If you're a physicist, then you know how the system works. You know that you haven't presented any evidence to refute any of the published research, period. Now you claim that "the experiment is underway in a rather sloppy form" and don't indicate which experiment that is! You claim that no one knows how much carbon (CO2/CH4?) and don't identify any study or outline how the data collection is flawed for any study!
So, you have revoked my physics credentials. A new theory needs to both explain observed results and predict new behavior beyond any older theory. The experiment is underway in a rather sloppy form - no one knows how much carbon humans are putting in the atmosphere - and the results are not well predicted by the theories. The proponents say they need another 30 or 50 years. Do I need more evidence than that? Why do YOU think this is a done deal? Feynman demonstated the shuttle solid booster failure with a c-clamp and a glass of ice water.
But you haven't shown any flaws in the research. You've merely stated your opinion, without anything to back it up. You claim to be skeptical, say about the increased ice free Arctic Sea during summer, but haven't shown that the seas are NOT as recorded. That's not acceptable for a physicist or an engineer.
So, again, where's your evidence that the researchers' findings and data are wrong? Nothing else is relevant.
Finding flaws in methods and data does not require that I launch a billion dollar research program. I didn't need to build a big lab to know there were serious problems with Cold Fusion, just very poor understanding of their instruments and circuits. And how many promises of "20 years and truckloads of burning money will get you fusion reactors" will you fall for? If anyone is influenced by funding, it is the ones who get paid to not produce. (I wonder how much power you could generate by burning all the fusion research money as $1 bills?)
My friends are not longer in industry, government, or university (also government) research. Have you ever read "The Limits to Growth" and analysed what went wrong with the predictions?
I suppose trippling the arable land on the Earth would be bad if you hate farming. It sounds OK to me. By the way, do you have links to your work that verifies the published claims? Or do you just believe it because they have pictures of ice bergs and a swimming polar bear? I see charts of ice cores and satelite measuremetns through the stratosphere and dozens of other things, and they do not fit together. Through most of the Earth's history there was apparetnly no solid water on the planet except perhaps on the highest peaks. And then totally frozen ice ages. What has caused it to be different now? Basically the distribution of the continents. I don't know what you can do about it, but the next time the ocean currents are pinched off it won't matter how much carbon is in the atmosphere.
Here is a test. Do you think the people of the Maldives would trade their islands for land in, say, Argentina? They have asked for funds to mitigate sea level rise. Do you think they really believe they have a problem? Would the researchers urge them to take the deal? I'll put together a group to make the trade and run the islands as resorts untill they are under water. Want to invest?
TheRegnirps, Thanks for putting it in a better perspective than I had done. You are certainly correct, the whole thing is WAY more complicated than many believe, and the hysterical bleating of those whose agenda is quite questionable is just that. Once again, along the same line, correlation DOES NOT equal causeation. And wishing it were so does not make it so, no matter how hard one wishes, except in cartoons.
One other thing is that would it be all that horribly bad if the world did warm up a bit and the oceans did rise a foot or two? People would have to learn to live with what nature deals to them, a lot like folks have done since before recorded history. The world would not end, although some folks soft jobs would certaily be wiped away. And if some of those coastal cities were underwater then the people would need to move, wouldn't they? After all, the current rate of rise, if it is to be believed, is a bout half an inch a year. So moving away from the rising water should not be too hard.
Besides all of that, there may be some unanticipat6ed benefits to a warmer earth that we have not figured out yet
And it seems like just a few years back there were predictions of an ice age coming upon us.
So, it seems that your friends are more concerned with the implications of global warming than the science behind it, as I stated previously. You're also unbalanced as you bring up a contrived accusal of scientists performing the reasearch with having to line their pockets but fail to mention that industry and individuals lines their pockets from extracting, refining, and using greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels. That's very telling.
That the models might be off isn't a problem, us having negative effects on others do. That we have obligations to those we don't value is your problem, not that we have had an effect. So, where are their refutations? Where is their research? Where is yours? Provide links to your published work contradicting the published science, I'd like to read it.
They are skeptical of consensus as a substitute for science. They know physics, they know numerical methods, they know that no one understands the heat flow across the haloclines and thermoclines of the oceans, they know that the role of wator vapor near the surface is not understood. They know that no one understands turbulent flow. They know that compression of the solar wind from varying densities of interstellar media cause something - unquantified. They know that many people's careers depend on measuring a sea level rise or ice pack decrease. But moslty they know the models are impossibly ambitious, to put it kindly. How many unknows, unmeasured, or unmeasurable effects does it take to invalidate a model? More than one? Are the climate models any less fuzzy than the Drake Equation?
Note that the large number of catasrophy models of the past 60 years may not be proof, but are a strong indicator that the model makers used first order approximations, perhaps not knowing that all first order differential equations have exponential solutions. Also some that were published were indeed that simple minded. See "On Systems Analysis" by David Berlinsky. I had him for Philosophy of Science when it was new in the 70's. Same bad math assumptions then as now. He ripped them a new one, but I think most of his intended readders didn't understand. And we didn't run out of food in 1986 or "peak oil" a year later.
Truchard will be presented the award at the 2014 Golden Mousetrap Awards ceremony during the co-located events Pacific Design & Manufacturing, MD&M West, WestPack, PLASTEC West, Electronics West, ATX West, and AeroCon.
In a bid to boost the viability of lithium-based electric car batteries, a team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has developed a chemistry that could possibly double an EV’s driving range while cutting its battery cost in half.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.