Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Springer

$
0
0

Less writing and more reading, Appell. Your mistakes are so basic a free encyclopedia article on physics surpasses your knowledge. Yet it exactly confirms the instruction I tried to give you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Time_dilation:_special_vs._general_theories_of_relativity

Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity

In Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized:

In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running more slowly. This effect is described precisely by the Lorentz transformation.

In general relativity, clocks at a position with lower gravitational potential – such as in closer proximity to a planet – are found to be running more slowly. The articles on gravitational time dilation and gravitational redshift give a more detailed discussion.

Special and general relativistic effects can combine (as seen with ISS astronauts).


Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by JCH

$
0
0

There are some things you just don’t forget. Anhydrous ammonia showed up in our region right around my 4th grade – around 1961 or 1962. It’s memorable first because all the old men were talking about the amazing yields. That I would have probably forgotten, but was we talked about for weeks was a story about some poor guy who had an accident and froze his private parts, which supposedly fell off. This was farming legend of which we boys could not get enough, Now I am not so certain it even happened. I think it got started just so people would understand handling anhydrous ammonia was dangerous.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Danny Thomas

$
0
0

Ouch. Not heard that one.
But Doctor………will I ever play the guitar again?

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by AK

$
0
0
<blockquote>AK wrote: “I’d call that long relative to JCH’s “near instantaneous.”” </blockquote><blockquote>Then you’d be wrong. What was the time period for the discovery of the Higgs boson, after its prediction? The top quark? Neptune?</blockquote>Doesn't matter. What matters is that “<i>near instantaneous</i>” would mean that if the "Stadium Wave" hypothesis is the equivalent of the discoveries of perturbations in Mercury's orbit, the "Science" would already have aligned with it. Using General Relativity as a model for time-scale, the question remains open.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Appell

$
0
0

David Springer wrote:
“In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running more slowly. This effect is described precisely by the Lorentz transformation.”

GPS satellites aren’t “far from all gravitatitonal masses,” are they?

Less insults, more understanding.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Springer

$
0
0
Possibly the same species <i>ignoramus bloviatus</i>

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Appell

$
0
0

David Springer wrote:
“This effect is described precisely by the Lorentz transformation.”

Satellites are in a gravitational field. The strenght of this field is enough to require general relativistic corrections, given the accuracy desired. This requires not just special relativity, but general relativity. (GR includes SR.)

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by schitzree

$
0
0

Who let the spambot in? I thought we’d set out traps for them.


Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Appell

$
0
0

David Springer wrote:
“I wrote “relativistic effects” which includes both general relativity and special relativity. ”

Time dilations mean special relativity. The corrections from general relativity are *spacetime* dilations. There is a big difference.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Appell

$
0
0

AK: It does matter — your claim that the confirmation of GR was typical was false.

There is not much agreement that that stadium wave hypothesis is correct. It simply cannot account for a globally warming ocean, which the data shows.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Appell

$
0
0

David Springer wrote:
“Possibly the same species ignoramus bloviatus”

If, like others here, you cannot refrain from personal insults, then the hell with you. It is an admission you cannot compete on scientific grounds.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Springer

$
0
0

David Appell has 105 of 805 comments in this thread.

Hello? Is there a moderator here?

Comment on Lafayette Climate Debates by sciguy54

$
0
0

Lots of excellent ideas posted above.

As written:

“Resolved: That all states have an obligation to anticipate, prevent and minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects.”

A proposed alternative from an old engineer might read:

“Resolved: That all states have an obligation to understand the causes of climate change, the timeline and impact of each resulting change, both positive and negative, and the costs/benefits/risks of the various strategies for adaptation and mitigation before appropriating and committing manpower and capital towards such ends.”

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Don Monfort

$
0
0

Are you implying that Judith made it up, wee willy? Stop stooping, willy. Try to recall how you felt when you were a man who was about something? You can change.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by edbarbar

$
0
0

This isn’t to say “No temperature change,” but a change that is below the point at which the consequences are significantly negative.

If you understood that, I would say you prove my point, which is essentially no amount of evidence is going to change the political and other processes. I would think that would be an alarming outcome from the behavior of some scientists.


Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Springer

$
0
0

http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/29/6/500.full.pdf+html

Corn field on calm day CO2 fell from 0.6 mg/l to, at 2pm, below 0.5 mg/l.

Paper gives 0.6 mg/l as normal, Reduction was 1/6 or 16%. If normal is 280ppmv then by midafternoon it was 233ppmv.

Productivity increases since 1950 of 150% would make the make the decrease about 40% today or 0.6 * 400 =

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Springer

$
0
0

Great. It worked. I would prefer to correct you just one time instead of needing to correct each your lame rejoinders too. Run your fat stoopid mouth off at someone else.
.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by David Springer

$
0
0

Pay attention Appell. Istvan wrote TCR not ECS.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by Willard

$
0
0

Of course she did, Don Don. I read the comment. I also read a very similar comment a bit before, on this very blog. A blog Judy once said she read every single comment.

Not only did Judy fabricated a story about self-avowal, but she implied that Joshua was somewhat “bragging,” a bit like you said at Shub’s:

Willy is bragging about manhandling you over on Judith’s blog, Shub. Why do you put up with this clown?

https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/censorship-by-judith-curry/#comment-12449

Both the story and the implication are fabricated, Don Don. See? I can own my schtick. I guess you know that, since you seem to prefer to manhandle other Denizens.

***

Your cheap ad homs don’t stop me. They don’t even distract me. Sure, I could use them to show how a pitiful ClimateBall player you are, but what would I waste my time proving what is obvious for everyone to see?

So, any other policy recommendation? Let’s jigger your slow thinking. Tell me more about solar.

Comment on Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge by pppppaaaaa

$
0
0

David Appell | April 17, 2015 at 8:29 pm |
Dallas: Yes, I don’t doubt more details matter, and there are other issues like water. I just don’t see that enhanced CO2 is the blessing some others make it out to be.

For example, a recent study finds the Amazon is past carbon staturation:…

1. The study found this was an effect for some C3 plants only. C4 and some C3 plant absorb nitrogen just dandy.
2. They studied the shoots for some reason.
3. I said it was a blessing, I didn’t say it was perfection.

The visible part of the article seems to be well written. However in my assessment what they are doing isn’t all that useful.

The USDA just needs to take spot samples of wheat and record the analysis each year. If there is a downward trend in the analysis this nitrogen issue might be worth looking at. If the analysis trends up it is a don’t care..

It should be noted that we don’t eat wheat shoots. Some of us eat whole wheat, most people eat bleached flour. Unless bleached wheat flour is banned discussing wheat nutrition is an absurd conversation.

As far as the rainforest being saturated this is completely absurd. You can’t claim 80% of the rainforest has been burned down (a power reset of carbon storage) and claim it is saturated. Burning down the rainforest makes it polyunsaturated from a carbon standpoint.

Viewing all 148649 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images