Jump to content

Airbrush

Senior Members
  • Posts

    3224
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by Airbrush

  1. 4 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

    @Airbrush Careful they don't wear you out working out why their arguments are wrong only to just shift to different wrong arguments whilst conceding nothing; those debates rarely change minds. If you want to know why those arguments are wrong (or not even wrong ie irrelevant) it will only be for your benefit; anyone who can't see the logical problem with evidence of instances where warming preceded CO2 and the CO2 amplified it implying CO2 cannot be the cause of warming now (but when we get enough warming, cause CO2 stores to be released and amplify it?) isn't going to be much open to logical arguments. And if someone thinks not being convinced means the science is wrong they are not being properly skeptical - if they don't know they cannot know that it is wrong.

    It may be better to shift the argument to one of whether and why to trust the institutions, practices and practitioners of climate related science - to trust in the studies and reports by science agencies and science teams tasked with working out what is really going on, versus "do your own research" on a point by point basis. Why for example is every Intelligence Agency, who's job is sorting truth from lies and uncovering nation damaging conspiracies, unable to find evidence of falsification in climate science? Or are they in on it?

    Some points (for your benefit) - graphs of CO2 vs temperature with 1,000 year increments can't really demonstrate the connection between temperature and CO2 over very short timescales, such as between 1800's to present, where CO2 has been preceding warming that shows very rapid response to it, measurable within decades - and it is an observation that the CO2 rise is a consequence of fossil fuel burning and not a response to warming from other causes, or what do they think comes out of exhaust pipes and smoke stacks? Just CO2 and temperature seems inadequate for arguing for other causes than CO2; they need to show the other causes, and then show how those causes are working now.

    Looking at too long to be relevant timescales is a common way people get misled or mislead themselves - just as too short time scales where internal climate variability dominates - where each year is not incrementally warmer than the preceding one, but over time averages to a clear warming trend (remember The Pause?) - is misleading.

    Effects of raised CO2 on plants in isolation from the full range of environmental changes - temperatures, rainfall, growing season length - is also likely to mislead. More crop growth with raised yields but reduced nutritional value (where all else is equal) needs to be put into the context where all else is not equal. And increasing global biomass (vegetation) isn't so easy to attribute to plant response to elevated CO2 - temperature change and rainfall change seem to be more significant factors, with overall increased global precipitation a major one. But that is not leading to increased rainfall everywhere; warmer air will hold more water vapor and deliver more rain where conditions suit, whereas in arid conditions warmer air needs higher levels of water vapor to rain at all. More tundra spending more time thawed (Arctic greening), some regions getting more rainfall (eg NW Australia) seems more directly significant to change in vegetation in those places.

    I don't mind people asking questions - feel free - but I am not a fan of being JAQed around by people who aren't interested in the answers.

    Excellent reply, thanks for the info!

    Another thing the climate skeptics were arguing was that hotter climate is better, as the temperature peaks were literally "optimums" meaning it was great for plants to have hotter climate and more co2.  I figure climate change alters normal weather patterns, so the "bread baskets" become dried deserts, and the deserts get flooded and become lush tropical forests.  People are all mixed up because it will require all new infrastructure to move agriculture to new areas, as coastal areas flood more with rising sea level.  So coastal people are forced to move inland, causing wars, etc.

  2. On 7/10/2024 at 11:55 PM, atom_cosmic10 said:

    What are some massive black holes?

    Remember this "Ton 618" at 40 BILLION solar masses. 

    I just learned that the theoretical upper limit for SBH mass is about 270 BILLION solar masses!  But probably not much bigger than 50 BILLION solar masses.

    "The limit is only 5×1010 M for black holes with typical properties, but can reach 2.7×1011 M at maximal prograde spin (a = 1).[7][8][9][10] 

    List of most massive black holes - Wikipedia

  3. 16 minutes ago, iNow said:

    It’s hard using logic and reason to change the mind of a person who arrives at their position using neither 

    I saw a debate where the climate skeptic showed a graph of world co2 compared to temperatures and it looks like first temperature rises, then co2 rises later, so it doesn't look like rising co2 CAUSES warming of the GLOBAL AVERAGE.  The "climate alarmist" in the debate had no response to that.

    Link between CO2 and Earth’s temperature is well-established, despite claims on Fox News ...

    I searched for another graph of co2 with temperature and I found this which shows co2 going up and down over 800,000 years, and temperature peaks seem to COINCIDE with high co2.  One does not seem to lead the other.  Was someone fooling around with these graphs?

    Carbon capture: How can we remove CO2 from the atmosphere? | Environment| All topics from ...

  4. I need a good short debate that is very convincing to climate skeptics.  I have come to believe that humans are making the Earth worst, by making it hotter.  There are some who argue that warmer is better.  The high CO2 is good for plants.  How do you counter that argument?

    There are studies that show sea levels are not rising among Pacific Islanders.  The islands seem to float above the sea level rise by accretion.

    Coral reef islands can accrete vertically in response to sea level rise | Science Advances

    Another climate skeptic claim is that when you compare the graphs of historic, and prehistoric, CO2 levels in the atmosphere, to the graph of average temperature, it seems that the spikes in temperature come BEFORE the spikes in CO2.  They claim that means high CO2 does not CAUSE high temperatures.  Anyone agree?

    "In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months."  Any opinions about this?

    Thanks for any ideas, but I've seen a lot of climate skepticism lately.

     

  5. 11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Well, it used to be god, but for very different reasons (jesus was an anti-bully), failing that perhaps superman...

    I can't think of a better excuse to run them down with my 'better tank' that includes anti-antitank weapons and Molotov cock remover's... 😉

    You can't "run down" thousands of people fighting for their country, IF they are armed.  If they are not armed, maybe you can do anything you want with them.  Russian tanks are getting worse and worse.  Putin is now sending in his oldest, least capable, tanks. 😉

  6. I have always enjoyed Neil's Startalk, and every Cosmos episode I saw was fantastic.  I hope he keeps going.  Why can't a presidential candidate be somebody smart like Neil?  Because people like that don't WANT to be president.

  7. 9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    ...if you want to take the fight to a battle tank, what do think is more effective, a thousand men with hand guns or a single man armed with a flower?

    Even Russia is vulnerable to the flower attack, when the time is right... 

    A "thousand men with handguns" against a tank is absurd, as is a man with a flower.

    Wait until "the time is right" for a flower attack on Russian tanks?  Absurd.  Lots of dead Ukrainians holding a flower.  Russia is not vulnerable to a flower attack.

  8. 8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    As I've mentioned it's a matter of number's, for instance, if you want to take the fight to a battle tank, what do think is more effective, a thousand men with hand guns or a single man armed with a flower?

    How about a thousand men or women armed with antitank weapons, drone IEDs, or Molotov cocktails?

    6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

    Or, in a brave new world, someone thinks for themselves; it's a real struggle to imagine which is best...

    Who is the perfect authoritarian?

  9. Biden's prospects look bad after the debate.  He had a hard time talking, and Trump just lied over and over again without Biden countering them.  After Biden's obviously poor debate performance, Allen Lichtman remains adamant that Biden "blowing" a debate does not change the "Keys" to the election. Lichtman will make another projection in July and the final one in August.

    "Presidential debates have no predictive value in elections. Hillary Clinton won them all."

     

     

  10. Allan Lichtman is famous for correctly predicting 9 of the last 10 US elections.  He says his final prediction will come in August. At this moment it looks like Biden will win in 2024 by 9 out of 13 keys.

    Skip forward to minute 12:00 for the analysis of keys:

     

    To summarize his findings for 2024:

    1  MIDTERM GAINS - FALSE - clearly no Dem midterm gain

    2  NO PRIMARY CONTEST - YES, clearly no primary contest

    3  INCUMBANT SEEKING RE-ELECTION - YES, clearly Biden is incumbent

    4  NO THIRD PARTY CHALLENGE - LIKELY, but not certain about RFK Jr's challenge

    5  STRONG SHORT-TERM ECONOMY - YES, certainly true

    6  STRONG LONG-TERM ECONOMY - YES, certainly true

    7  MAJOR POLICY CHANGE - YES, clearly there were major policy changes

    8  NO SOCIAL UNREST - NOT certain, probably true

    9  NO SCANDAL - YES, clearly no Biden scandals, Hunter Biden is not Joe Biden

    10 NO FOREIGN/MILITARY FAILURE - LIKELY FALSE

    11 MAJOR FOREIGN/MILITARY SUCCESS - LIKELY FALSE

    12 CHARISMATIC INCUMBANT - FALSE, Biden is clearly NOT charismatic

    13 UNCHARISMATIC CHALLENGER - YES, Trump is only charismatic with his base

  11. On 6/5/2024 at 8:30 AM, Janus said:

    One of the producers of The Apprentice has starting talking since the NDA he signed has lapsed.  He said that it took hours of editing to make Trump seem sharp in that show.  They would often resort to putting him into a recording booth to read lines from a script. They would then use those recordings in the shots when the camera was on a contestant and not Trump himself.

    The magician Penn Gillette did 2 tours on duty on the Apprentice.  According to him, Trump would ramble aimlessly for 2 hours, and the producers edited it down to about 3 minutes that made sense.  The following interview is 4 years old and sounds prophetic.

    "With some sort of mental problems, with greed, and a lack of compassion, he was able to "throw off filters...."

    "There is interesting stuff there, yes he is crazy, venal, empty, really weird stuff that you've never seen before.  You have never seen someone who has never laughed sincerely, and never made a joke.  He only laughs in a "bully way."  

    "I've never seen someone with no enjoyment or understanding of music."

     

  12. On 6/1/2024 at 9:25 AM, geordief said:

    So spacetime existed before the Higgs field came  to become a  dominant force?

    Does spacetime  work the same way if there are no sources of curvature?

    Or do the other fields provide sources of curvature even if  there is no mass present ?(I understand ,probably naively that the Higgs field is reponsible at least in part for gravity)

    "Matter acquired its mass during the electroweak epoch, through electroweak symmetry breaking, when the universe cooled to a temperature where the Higgs field could spontaneously break the electroweak symmetry. The timeline for this event is around 10^(12) seconds after the Big Bang." 

    I don't understand this, but does this help answer your questions?

    Cosmic inflation happened before the universe started to "pull" on matter through gravity?  That's how it expanded so fast because there was no gravity to slow it down?

  13. On 6/3/2024 at 5:32 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

    I certainly hope he didn't pay $59.99 to find those quotes...😜

    All you need to do is use the online Bible Gateway.  See below

    2 Thessalonians 2 NIV - The Man of Lawlessness - Concerning the - Bible Gateway

    You can enter any verse you want to find, and the version of the bible you prefer.

    I was wondering if Trump removed verses from his bible describing the Antichrist, because they sound like him.

     

  14. On 5/30/2024 at 8:35 PM, zapatos said:

    Thanks for the link!

    "In 2011...scientists began to study strategies that could deal with 200–1,600 ft objects when the time to Earth impact was less than one year. He concluded that to provide the required energy, a nuclear explosion or other event that could deliver the same power, are the only methods that can work against a very large asteroid within these time constraints."

    "A study published in 2020...researchers ran a model that suggested a nuclear detonation near the surface of an asteroid designed to cover one side of the asteroid with x-rays would be effective. When the x-rays cover one side of an asteroid in the program, they produce propulsion energy that would propel the asteroid in a preferred direction...a nuclear impact offered more flexibility than a non-nuclear approach, as the energy output can be adjusted specifically to the asteroid's size and location."

    Again, thanks.  I had not even thought of searching Wiki for this.

     

  15. This, of course, has little impact on his voters.  Don't forget that other guy who tried to overthrow his govt, was captured, taken to court, and because of his oratory in court avoided the death penalty for high treason, and was sentenced to 5 years in prison, but was pardoned after one year.

    "Hitler's vitriolic beer hall speeches began attracting regular audiences. He became adept at using populist themes, including the use of scapegoats, who were blamed for his listeners' economic hardships.[106][107][108] Hitler used personal magnetism and an understanding of crowd psychology to his advantage while engaged in public speaking.[109][110] Historians have noted the hypnotic effect of his rhetoric on large audiences, and of his eyes in small groups.[

    On 8 November 1923, Hitler and the SA stormed a public meeting of 3,000 people organized by Kahr in the Bürgerbräukeller, a beer hall in Munich. Interrupting Kahr's speech, he announced that the national revolution had begun and declared the formation of a new government with Ludendorff.[117] Retiring to a back room, Hitler, with his pistol drawn, demanded and subsequently received the support of Kahr, Seisser, and Lossow.[117] Hitler's forces initially succeeded in occupying the local Reichswehr and police headquarters, but Kahr and his cohorts quickly withdrew their support. Neither the Army nor the state police joined forces with Hitler.[118] The next day, Hitler and his followers marched from the beer hall to the Bavarian War Ministry to overthrow the Bavarian government, but police dispersed them.[119] Sixteen Nazi Party members and four police officers were killed in the failed coup.[120]

    On 1 April, Hitler was sentenced to five years' imprisonment at Landsberg Prison.[124] There, he received friendly treatment from the guards, and was allowed mail from supporters and regular visits by party comrades. Pardoned by the Bavarian Supreme Court, he was released from jail on 20 December 1924, against the state prosecutor's objections.[125] Including time on remand, Hitler served just over one year in prison."

    Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia

  16. ...and now a bible salesman!  This short video is a good example of Trump's assumption that other people are as hateful and greedy as he is. A lot goes on in this short video.

    "The great John Paulson made plenty of money in Nevada. He doesn't live there but he makes a HELL of a lot of money. He makes money everywhere he goes actually. He's a money machine. You know what? Put him in treasury. You want to make a little money?"

    "....Then we go to South Carolina where we have done really well, where I have done well...."

    Notice how he contorts his mouth as he talks and how he belittles Tim Scott, but Tim just rolls with the punches.

    "Almost every one of them endorsed me. Two great senators. Which is hard. I mean did you ever think that she [Haley] actually appointed you, Tim? And think of it, appointed you, and you're the senator of her state, and she endorsed me. You must REALLY hate her."

    Laughter

    "No, it's a shame. It's a shame." Tim Scott steps forward to the mike. Trump is surprised to see Scott next to him and says "Uh...Oh..." as though he realized that he just insulted him by assumed Scott "REALLY hated" Niki Haley, because HE would hate in the same petty circumstances. But Scott meekly shows his subservience to Trump by saying "I just love YOU!" Trump replies, "That's why he's a great politician!"


     

    The Antichrist has the mouth of a lion – Rev. 13:2 – Trump contorts his mouth as he speaks, always showing he teeth, so you can read his lips from 100 yards, and often roars like a lion

    The Antichrist is arrogant, shall exalt himself above others – Daniel 8:25 - Check

    The Antichrist will love money as it is the LOVE of money, (not money itself), that is the “root of all kinds of evil.” – 1 Timothy 6:10 - Trump said “My whole life I’ve been greedy, greedy, greedy for money. I grabbed all the money I can get. I’m so greedy.”

    The Antichrist understands dark sentences or sinister schemes – Daniel 8:23 - “A king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall standup” - He is a master of intrigue and machination, which is scheming or crafty action, to accomplish an evil end.

    The Antichrist attains the kingdom by flattery – Daniel 11:21 - “And in His estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom: but He shall come in peacefully and obtain the kingdom by flatteries or fine promises (e.g. Mexico will pay for the wall) scheming with a small group of people (the electoral college).

    The Antichrist is connected to gold – Rev. 13:18 - King Solomon became obsessed with gold and pagan gods during his later years. Trump’s obsession with gold and “pleasant things” is comparable to King Solomon. Trump's hair is golden, his face is painted a darker shade of gold, his penthouse is of golden decor, and he changed the Oval Office curtains to gold.

    There you have it in less than 2 minutes, an illustration of Trump's greed, exalting himself, the mouth of a lion, flatterer, hatred, "man of gold" in his golden palace, all characteristics of the classical Antichrist.

     

  17. 4 hours ago, zapatos said:

    Yeah, bad use of terms. I should have said the pieces would be dispersed.

    Do you have a reference for the melting and refreezing causing the mass to be fused together? My understanding was that the radiation only penetrated the exposed surface of the sides facing the radiation.

    Yes, that's how it works.  There are no shock waves in the vacuum of space.  I have no reference; it just makes sense.  You disagree?

    If you explode the nuke close enough it will melt the area facing the blast, cause outgassing (and a push), and quickly solidify because space is cold.  If you explode a number of nukes close enough, each one will melt, fuse, and freeze rock, metal, and ice.  You just keep exploding the nukes on the same side so you can push it in the same direction.  Why not?

  18. 1 hour ago, zapatos said:

    Coalesce due to gravity is a bad thing if the thing you just blew up coalesces into a single object prior to impact with earth.

    It doesn't get blown up.  There is only an intense, very short, pulse of HEAT, no shock wave in space, that should melt any rocks or ice and they would immediately freeze again but fused together, and it gets a push from outgassing.

  19. 36 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Sure, I believe there are secret projects. Who doesn't? What has that got to do with these projects that are out in the open? Are you suggesting that there are even more projects that we don't know about? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

    It is questionable if the asteroid is a certain size rubble pile, both because the rubble pile may coalesce due to gravity or may rain down radioactive material over a large area.

    Also making it potentially inefficient are the impact of politics and the consideration of risk during or after launch. Using nuclear weapons when you don't have to may not be acceptable to many people and governments.

     

    That would be a good thing!  It is not in the news that much is being done to develop a way to divert asteroids.  Do you know of any such projects?  Tell us about it!  I think it would be a good thing to develop deflection methods, using whatever money is available, public or secret.

    "Coalesce due to gravity" would be a good thing.  "Rain down radioactive material" wouldn't happen if done far away from earth.

    The "impact of politics" would need to be addressed.  IF nukes are a good way to divert a wide range of composition and sizes of asteroids, then it would have to be made public and discussed.  IF scientists could convince the world that the way to save earth would be by using nukes, then that method should be promoted and explained to the world.

  20. On 5/28/2024 at 8:56 PM, zapatos said:

    Not likely. Is it most efficient to have one type of vehicle for ALL uses? Or one type of weapon for ALL military situations? Or one type of restaurant for ALL people wanting to go out to eat?

    I haven't heard a reason why a nuclear explosion near an asteroid would not work on ANY composition of asteroid, and a RANGE of sizes, but maybe not the largest ones.  Do you know any reasons it would not?

    On 5/29/2024 at 6:23 AM, dimreepr said:

    Who said the world needs saving?

    If you learned that an asteroid that will destroy a city, or a country, or life as we know it, would you not care?

    On 5/28/2024 at 8:51 PM, Mordred said:

     Ideally yes but as we saw in this discussion no single idea works in every situation.

    What composition of asteroid would a nuclear explosion not give a push?  Also, loose rubble piles may be fused by the heat pulse, and thus keep it together while it gets pushed!  I don't know if it will, but why not?

    On 5/28/2024 at 8:50 PM, zapatos said:

    It was in one of the links I provided and I mentioned it again on this page.

    What is the purpose of your snarky attitude?

    You don't believe in secret, or black projects?

    On 5/28/2024 at 8:50 PM, zapatos said:

    It was in one of the links I provided and I mentioned it again on this page.

    What is the purpose of your snarky attitude?

    I don't understand how what I posted about black budgets is "snarky."  Can anyone explain?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.