First and formost, my main concern is who really support the idea of global warming and how the plan to deal with it. First, many of the most vocal supporters of "climate change" are the green and pink hair, body pierced "OWS" crowd (The "lady gaga" types). The individuals that were critical of the editorial probably never seen, much less solved a differential equation (ok, I havn't solved one since the 80's, but at least I once could). Most of the supporters of "climate change" have an agenda. Heck, it has recently come to light that Al Gore's net worth matches Mitt Rommneys. Folow the money and power and you will see some other their motivations for the Green Economy. The oil companies may be "greedy", but the other side is just as every bit dishonest and greedy. My concern is how they want to "solve" the problem. By transfering all economic control to the government, who with its infinite wisdom, will then dole out resources to each of us "according to our needs" (and our party affiliation).
So, you still have nothing to refute global warming science I see . Instead you post absolute nonsense.
If you are a physicist, and that is becoming a rather large if, then you know that you are required to provide evidence for this "theory", not simply state it. Those that performed the research supporting anthropogenic global warming have done that. Their data aligns very well with the theory that we have caused this climate change event through our use of fossil fuels.
Your problem is that you can't refute their science. It's very sad that you continue this nonsense rather than acting like a physicist.
My theory is that there is a race of green people who live in the core of the Earth and from the time when the surfrace humans had the technology to detect them (early siesmographs for instance) and the methods they use to live in such a harsh environemtn, they have employed advanced shielding techniques to remain mostly undetected. However, there is a telltale sign of their presence and that is the heat produced by the shielding. There is a warming trend that began at the time the shielding became necessary. The correlation is nearly optimal and far better than the green house gas correlations.
According to to you, if you disagree it is now your job to prove that my theory is not correct. You can not simply point out flaws in my methods or errors in my measurements and demand more details. You must prove the green people do not exists or at the least, do not produce heat with shielding. Please give references to your research and detailed refutations.
(Note: You will fail. This is the grue-bleen paradox of the phiolosophy of science. And the reason it is not my job to prove alarminsts are wrong. This is also why the true believers are a serious PITA).
So, you claim to be a physicist and haven't provided any valid refutations to the the theory that humans via the burning of previously sequestered fossil fuels have added energy to the earth's system, due to the release of greenhouse gases that were not part of the existing carbon cycle, and so are the primary cause of this observed increase in temperature. Is this how you did physics?
That you say that you're a skeptic, it's your obligation to put your refutations in writing, to allow others to objectively evaluate your claims and thus judge previous claims and findings. It's that simple.
So, you still have nothing to refute the current research I see, which means that you've shown no flaws . That's pretty sad for a person who claims to be a physicist and who purports to understand the process.
I suggest that you stop this nonsense until you have something to offer to support your position, other than nonsensical opinions.
A last comment. Your schoolbook idea of strict scientific method science can't even apply to this situation. With a time machine, a planet duplicator and 4 billion years you might be able to do it.
It is the job of the climate alarmists to prove their case. Like everyone in science, they are highly prejudiced towards their theories. If they are not, they should be in a different profession. And it is the role of every other qualified scientist to be skeptical of their claims. It is not the skeptic's job to produce a proof or research to show the alarmists wrong. This is how it works. The critics point out problems and ask for explanations. Either a satisfactory set of results is demonstrated or it is not. Besides, many of the critics are more qualified than the leading alarmists. This notion of a consensus is both a fiction and of no particilar value. Science by consensus would still have a flat world at the center of a crystal dome.
The moving target response is really boring. "Show the flaws", flaws are shown, "Where is your research", research not needed, ...........
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!
Festo's BionicKangaroo combines pneumatic and electrical drive technology, plus very precise controls and condition monitoring. Like a real kangaroo, the BionicKangaroo robot harvests the kinetic energy of each takeoff and immediately uses it to power the next jump.
Design News and Digi-Key presents: Creating & Testing Your First RTOS Application Using MQX, a crash course that will look at defining a project, selecting a target processor, blocking code, defining tasks, completing code, and debugging.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.