Friday, August 25, 2017
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Friday, August 18, 2017
Fields
We are made off stuff. If you break the stuff down to the smallest possible level, you get elementary particles. But according to Quantum Field Theory, what we experience as elementary particles are just fluctuations in the fields for those particles, in the same way a photon is a fluctuation in the electromagnetic field, and an electron is just a fluctuation the electric field. These fields overlap each other and exist throughout all of space. They interact, like the way the Higgs field gives particles mass. Reality for us is what we perceive, but the true reality may be just the fields. You could think of them as God's computer program for the Universe.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
Monday, August 14, 2017
The Quantum Experiment that Broke Reality | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
There are aspects of this experiment not mentioned that get even weirder. The bottom line is that particles moving through space act like waves. They don't become particles again until they are observed. The act of observing influences the event, and in some cases can influence the event after it has already happened. This is where it gets really weird.
There are alternate theories like the pilot wave theory, that more or less says that particles are just particles, but moving through an invisible field of waves.
Friday, August 11, 2017
Monday, August 7, 2017
Re: Top 10 Climate Change Lies Exposed
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Albert Nelms <alnelms>
wrote:Another quick rundown of global warming lies. You've mentioned most of these issues in your debates with friends online.
https://youtu.be/ICGal_8qI8c
1. There is a long term consequence of raising the temperature 5 degrees celsius or more that is very bad, which is that the polar ice caps will completely melt. Based on current temperature trends, I don't think that this is likely to happen, and if it does happen, it will take 5000 years, giving us plenty of time to do something about it.
2. The direct effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere is an increase of 1.1 degrees celsius. Almost everybody agrees on this. There are a couple of dissenters who say that over geological periods of time you can't find a clear correlation, but there is so much else going on over geological periods, usually solar and orbital variation, that confuses the issue.
There are additional positive and negative feedbacks that are in dispute. Whereas the direct effect is 1.1 degrees celsius, the data since 1880 indicates to me that the Climate sensitivity is slightly under 2 degrees. That means that there is positive feedback, although solar variation could also be the cause. It also means that the climate sensitivity is less than the alarmists are claiming. I heard one lecturer say that the positive feedback was "0.6", which seems to me to be close.
Until about a week ago, I didn't see any evidence of positive feedback, but that was because I had miscalculated the Climate Sensitivity.
#3 and #4 are interesting points.
#12 He doesn't explain his point about acidity very well.
Warming does cause the oceans to release more CO2. There is also very little doubt that CO2 causes warming. The real issue is how much? The warming caused by CO2 is a logarithmic function, which means that you have to keep doubling the CO2 level to achieve the same result. Based on current temperature trends, we will run out of fossil fuels long before we reach an increase of 5 degrees celsius.
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Re: Global Climate
Steve,
As I recall, the human contribution to total emitted carbon dioxide gasses is around 5%. The usual argument is that the CO2 both leaving and being put in the atmosphere was in balance before, and now it is not. Since about 1880 we have seen the atmospheric CO2 level go from about 280 PPM to around 400 PPM. It was 230 PPM in the preindustrial period. It is expected to reach 800 PPM by the year 2100. As long as it doesn't go higher than that, I think that this is more beneficial than detrimental.
Previously, I did my math wrong. I thought that an atmospheric increase of CO2 from 280 PPM to 400 PPm was a 70% increase, but that was because I did a brain fart on the math. Instead, it is about a 43% increase. I just now discovered my mistake. Doing a new calculation, based upon the 0.85 temperature increase since 1880, I get a new climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 of 1.98 degrees Celsius. However, the IPCC changed the low end of their range to only 1.5 degrees because they accepted papers that said that this was the climate sensitivity based upon 20nth century data. So other people are looking at recent data and are coming up with Climate Sensitivity numbers. The generally accepted range by the IPCC is from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. Whereas the skeptics think that 1.5 degrees is the most the climate sensitivity could be, the IPCC think that it will be at least this much, if not much higher. I just watched a climate scientist claim that it is 6 degrees celsius.
I just found yet another source claiming that it will take 5,000 years for the polar ice caps to melt. This is the disaster scenario that the alarmists warn about. The temperature has to warm about 5 degrees celsius for this to happen. Obviously we have plenty of time to change course if the Climate Sensitivity is more than I think it is.
Correlation is not the same as causality. The biggest driver of temperature is solar variation. Ice core samples going back hundreds of thousands of years show that temperature increases precedes CO2 increases, and not the other way around. This is because warmer air causes the oceans to release more CO2. Although the two things are correlated, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is a clear causality relationship between CO2 and temperature. When I looked at temperature data, sometimes the two went in opposite directions. Although I am certain there is a greenhouse effect, CO2 may not the main driver of temperature.
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)