andrewcellini

So NASA is trying to kill two birds with one stone. Predictions of global temperature rises that were not met have been explained away as based on too simplistic a model that did not incorporate all the data. A new, more complex model incorporates data not included in the earlier, simpler model. Climate drivers other than CO2 have been added for the new calculations. These non-CO2 drivers have a cooling effect that accounts for the difference in the predicted, global temperatures and the actual temperatures.

 

Future predictions will be based on the new, complex model with the implication that those predictions might have to be adjusted if they prove to be as inaccurate as the present predictions.

from what you've quoted:

"This means that Earth's climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide--or atmospheric carbon dioxide's capacity to affect temperature change--has been underestimated, according to the study"

and:

"Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling," she said. "They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution. Theres more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes."

and:

"Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere"

one more:

"The result dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the estimate at 1.8°F (1.0°C)."

this is outside of what i study and i am open to correction but it seems this article you've quoted is saying that the average surface temperature change on a 20 year time scale (that is the time scale according to the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity ) is worse than previously thought; it's increasing at a faster rate.

Discussing a topic out of general interest is a valid reason to join in.

do you really think it is reasonable to hold a "discussion" where every participant is merely restating beliefs? where is the progress? that is, how can you expect people to understand how you came to your conclusions and reasonably consider them other than for readers to assume they were synthesized from your back end?

The green ones only seem outgoing; they're trying to pick your pocket so they can go to McDonald's.

can you blame them? they serve breakfast all day now.

Alcoholics and drug abusers are usually depressed and dependent on external dopamine fixes and this makes them cold and aloof, with a high threshold.

are they? citation needed, this claim cannot be taken for granted.

Socialites on the other hand have a low threshold.

then what "threshold" would a socialite who is also a drug addict have?

and i ask again, how do you quantify the "threshold?" what other quantities are related to it?

I opine that something exists called as the socilaization threshold

okay but you're probably going to have to describe in detail what that is and how you can quantify it such that you can make statements like

People with a high threshold resort to substance abuse to gain social acceptability.

without it sounding like you pulled it from your... well you know

what is a socialization threshold? this isn't a term that I can find in literature (though obviously a lot of papers for each of these terms individually)

I see i see, flash disk as in usb or SD card? I'm not very updates with tech.

like NAND and NOR flash memory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory

tunneling is also used to erase the data that has been stored.

edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_flash_drive- NAND flash is used in usb flash drives.

i didn't know children were ancient animals.

this changes everything.

energy is a property not a substance.

I have citations, and I have speculation, My citations are observable and simple

citation - "a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work." from google

my speculation is a twisted, tangled, wibbly wobbly ball of thought mixed with theory mixed with a can of What the.....

so your speculation is nonsense.

Most of my posts here are speculative, or logical

i get the impression that you think that logic and speculation are mutually exclusive and that, when you speculate, you can speculate wildly assessing every bit of nonsense you can think of as being meaningful to the discussion.

thinking this way tolerates inconsistencies very well

I think you have intelligence enough to discern between the two

i guess i don't because i disagree with your distinction

This isn't rewriting physics, it's taking physics and adding to it.

what have you added to physics?

Do you agree ?

no

i get the impression you put "neuronal" in there to try and make the idea seem a little more palatable and scientific. it didn't work.

what makes you think that we only learn during infancy?

what is the difference between "absorbing" and "collecting?"

These are clear phases with marked characteristics.

these "phases" don't have clear definitions, and it's not apparent that you could actually measure them or what connection they have to "neuronal excitations."

OUT SIDE OF 3 DIMENSINAL SPACE

it's easy to demonstrate (or rather give the illusion of demonstration of) ones case when one quote mines.

the actual quote is "creating the illusion of a magnetic field propagating through a tunnel outside the 3D space. "

watch the dnews episode

its on the dnews episode strange

i presume you're referring to this

which if you are, it's referring to the work in this paper http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12488

which says absolutely nothing about the magnetic field going into another "dimension."

from the abstract:

"Using magnetic metamaterials and metasurfaces, our wormhole transfers the magnetic field from one point in space to another through a path that is magnetically undetectable. We experimentally show that the magnetic field from a source at one end of the wormhole appears at the other end as an isolated magnetic monopolar field, creating the illusion of a magnetic field propagating through a tunnel outside the 3D space. Practical applications of the results can be envisaged, including medical techniques based on magnetism."

now I am a scientist and gamer with no real expereance besides watching sci channel

you are not a scientist

all I am doing is asking the community to help me

the suggestion that you are actually misunderstanding what you're reading is helpful.

also megaman starforce dragon is a game were you travel through another dimension based on em waves and you have to fight alien computer viruses

i doubt that the creators of this game provide any real depth of explanations of the supposed mechanisms of phenomena in the fictional world they created to lead you to such a conclusion.

regardless, it's a fictional world and does not need to abide by the rules that nature follows; the rules are at the whim of the creators.

 

I suggest you have not understood any of the articles you have read.

x2

in order to prevent further divergence from the topic, i think this topic should be closed.

i was personally provided with enough good and thought provoking answers and further questions to rethink my original question.

"Dimensions are mathematical axes upon which matter exists/translates that can be described by dependent quantum states relying on the existence of other dimensional planes down to the first dimension which is the only independently describable dimension."

Tj

i encourage you to hold off on trying to rewrite physics until you learn mainstream physics. you seem to enjoy coupling words which have precise meanings (which you use in your own, undefined way) to woo buzzwords, which produces sentences which may conform to the rules/conventions of the english language but do not convey any clear points. i'm not sure how these discussions could progress beyond pointing out the misuse in language or the lack of clarity, and telling you to actually study a bit further than pop science explanations.

wow, quite the response. full of substance, and actually answers the questions.

do you actually have any citations or are you just making stuff up? the latter seems more consistent with your posts.

Einstein's 10 dimensions

what are you talking about?

do you have a paper by einstein that refers to 10 dimensions?

seems like you're mixing something you heard about string theory with einsteins work

I saw AJB say that the mass of a free electron + free proton is larger than that of a hydrogen atom....why is that?

the mass of hydrogen is lighter because of the binding energy which is negative.

m = mp + me - E/c^2

m is mass of hydrogen (in ground state), mp mass of proton, me mass of electron and E/c^2 is the mass contribution due to the binding energy. the energy required to separate the electron is equal to the absolute value of the binding energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy

1. Murphy's Law

that's just an old saying, and it implies that the situation has a will and desires, specifically the desire to go wrong and annoy us. it has no relation to nature.

probably not a good first proposition.

dont reply with something thats as meaningless to the conversation and now how meaningless this conversation is.

i asked for clarification of what you mean. how is that meaningless to the conversation? do you expect anyone to answer your questions if they don't know what you're really asking?

and i never said how meaningless the conversation is, not sure where that came from. i said that your question isn't clear (really what i meant is that it's not clear to me what you're asking), but i noted that it seemed like you were talking about uniform circular motion with your rope and rock system and not that the rock and rope are spinning, which is why i asked for clarification.

 

I dont care for semantics

it's more about clarity.

i don't know how you can expect a satisfactory answer without a clear question.

 

Spinning a rock around myself, not myself spinning.

are you using "spinning" in place of "traveling in a circle?"

Yes, they are all quantum states of matter because they are states of matter, remove them and matter is stateless which is impossible, so the only conclusion is that they are quantum states of matter because they technically don't exist without the quantum state of matter because time is again a quantum state of matter because it is the non-simultaneous-ness of two events, which again is a state of matter, and therefore a quantum state of matter at the same time.

this essentially amounts to "it's a state of matter because it's a state of matter." what do you mean by "state of matter?"

Because entangling entangled particles that are already entangled to another particle on the other side of the universe or to one that exists only as dark matter/energy supplants the nature of the universe and nullifies it's existence.

yea, well, true identity is in the midst of the mechanics of photons so

http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/