Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
climate change
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
I think you mean kinetic energy.
[latex] Momentum= Mass*Velocity= mv[/latex]
And
[latex] KineticEnergy=\frac{1}{2}mv^{2} [/latex]
And
Where T is the temperature, and Kb the Boltzmann constant. In other words, temperature is kinetic energy, and kinetic energy is the total momentum.
Temperature is a measure of particle momentum.
Unless you have some fairyland theory, this one is game, set, and match.It might actually give your argument some substance.
Dj, dj, dj, ......dj
Dj....you're giving me a splitting headache.....Can't you play outside with the other children.0 -
-
[latex] Momentum= Mass*Velocity= mv[/latex]
And
[latex] KineticEnergy=\frac{1}{2}mv^{2} [/latex]
And
Where T is the temperature, and Kb the Boltzmann constant. In other words, temperature is kinetic energy, and kinetic energy is the total momentum.
Temperature is a measure of particle momentum.
Unless you have some fairyland theory, this one is game, set, and match.
Dj, dj, dj, ......dj
Dj....you're giving me a splitting headache.....Can't you play outside with the other children.
I for one am completely sold on casey212 lbeard's argument.
Question everything, except his assertions even if they are completely unexplained. Don't worry, you wouldn't understand them anyway.0 -
You seem to have stopped short of showing that [latex]T=mv[/latex].[latex] Momentum= Mass*Velocity= mv[/latex]
And
[latex] KineticEnergy=\frac{1}{2}mv^{2} [/latex]
And
Where T is the temperature, and Kb the Boltzmann constant. In other words, temperature is kinetic energy, and kinetic energy is the total momentum.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No, they’re not. Nitrogen and oxygen, for example, absorb virtually no infra-red radiation and are therefore not considered greenhouse gases.
DJ, I'm not getting into how you have piled misconception on top of misconception. Did you believe red pub heaters (or let's call them "infra red" beer garden heaters) had used "infra red" because it's magically warmer than white light. I've heard the pub heater misconception mixed up with climate change arguments before.
And of course you are wrong. Someone creates the term "greenhouse gases" and others, or the same person, retroactively justifies it. This leads to further misconceptions - the extreme being fluffy headed flower children believing all green house gases are man made. Or even that natural CO2 is fine (because it's organic and natural - like organic and natural yogurt) and man made CO2 is nasty because it's unnatural.
Idiots like Gwyneth Paltrow making claims that supermarket soap is bad because it's full of chemicals. She only uses organic soap that doesn't have any chemicals in it. And anyone who attacks her over it is being mean
because she's nice. And she is nice because she is stupid, because stupid people are nice because they never make you feel stupid.
Man made CO2 is nasty - it's full of chemicals.Not as silly as thinking that different atmospheric gases don’t have different physical properties.
I never said anything of the sort.Well, a quick search turns up over 3,700 research articles on the Nature website mentioning the term “greenhouse gas” – you best get on to them and set them straight.
So what. I mean really, so what. There could be millions, it still doesn't make a difference. I've seen scientific papers that cite a UN report on climate change as a scientific basis for ludicrous claims. And when you read the UN report, you realise it hasn't been written by a scientist - it's some natural yogurt eating krank - no citations to show where their extraordinary assumptions are coming from - simply pulled out of their bottoms.
A well known climate campaigner had a new book out a while back. And it was so bad, I wanted to vomit reading it. It was just rubbish nonsensical claim after nonsensical claim. But it's this halo effect - this guy cares about nature he must be a good guy, everything he says must be true, that people don't really question what these guys are at. Their assertions are often completely from their imaginations. I would be shocked - but not overly surprised if these books did find their way into paper citations.
I do know where some of the other climate change misconceptions came from. Kranks making silly assumptions, and disregarding the laws of physics. The other whatevers blindly citing the krank science - citations on a paper look so sciencey don't they.
DJ, there's no way I could convince you either way. The creationists even have their own science books and science museums these days. There's no talking to them.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
That's not an explanation. Just because a gas is in the atmosphere, it does not mean it contributes to the greenhouse effect.
Oh yes it does.If anyone on this thread has demonstrated a lack of understanding, it is most definitely you.
Know I have demonstrated a lack of people skills. If I had people skills I would agree with you, just to make you happy. I get in trouble all the time for disagreeing with people, and then they get upset when they realise they're wrong. This makes them angry - but they're not angry at themselves for not knowing what they were on about - they're angry at me for making them feel bad about themselves. Instead of kicking themselves in the ass - they find some way to kick me. Usually, it'll be through back biting, or making up stories about me, or just suckily saying I'm not a nice guy. I'm probably not a nice guy. so maybe they have a point.
If you want to get on in life. Just agree with everyone - make them feel good about themselves.Tell you what, why don't you do us all a favour and explain the greenhouse effect to us.
Gravity traps the atmospheric gases around the earth. The sun heats up the gases. And that is the Green House effect.I'm particularly interested to hear about the contributions of nitrogen and oxygen.
Because they're atmospheric gases.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Citrus, before I get into a point by point response, I would like to talk a little about a psychological phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance and creationism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1]
It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold."[4]
A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium.[5] Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.[1]
Now, why do creationist continue to believe rubbish about the earth being 8 thousand years old when there is an abundance of evidence that it is not?
Are the creationists completely stupid? No they're not. Are they mad? No. They're the best kind of people; not too clever and not too thick. "normal" people. And in America, though you might expect them to be dumb poor white trash, they're actually the suburban middle-class. Nice houses, jobs that pay very well, nice cars, good lives. They're no more stupid than Ireland's upper-middle-class, and just as "educated". No more stupid than the teachers I had at school, or the parish priest.
When you argue with a creationist, they first respond with semi-plausible little exceptions to your explanations - they will feel quite confident. When you tear these explanations down, especially when you use examples that make perfect sense to them, they start to panic a little - that's the beginning of the dissonance - they're emotionally aware that their explanation is contradictory. Then they do the cognitive dissonance smile
.........It's not a happy smile, it's an angry teeth bared smile. They may then try to ridicule you.......They are trying to show they're relax, laughing, "your ideas are foolish". There's more than a little aggression in that smile - the eyes are ever so jumpy.
Then they display smugness and condescension.......But the smugness isn't out of confidence, and neither is the condescension - it's the absolute opposite it's anger and panic. The ridicule is nervous laughter. They'll try defenses like "Well all my church believe in creationism, and they all have great jobs, some even teach, and are wealthier than the atheists, we are the superior people, so it must be true" Of course they don't believe this. They know their friend the teacher is as thick as a brick, and only got the job because they were someone's daughter. And the same with the rest of their congregation. They all have their jobs and wealth because they excluded everyone who wasn't like them - didn't believe in the same fairy tales etc. You're a kid and you think everyone who teaches at a university is really clever - you go there, and after a time it dawns on you they may not be - some are really stupid. Often got their jobs because of their social class and family connections.
Then their defense of creationism becomes completely absurd. This is effectively like a psychotic episode for a schizophrenic. The dissonance is so much reality starts to melt. They say things about that sound absolutely stupid.
But they're not being stupid. They're having an episode - an episode of cognitive dissonance. They're not crazy either, the craziness will wear off. But for the moment they're complete irrational. They'll say absurd things about the function of greenhouses, that make them sound they don't even understand how a pane of glass works.
They'll keep clutching at straws. "Well how do we have chickens if the first chicken wasn't around to lay the first egg?....explain that to me?"
They become giddy. Alternating between snarls and fake smiles - they're hopping on the verge of violence. They'll decide you are being evil..........That's right, he's evil.............Because good people believe in creationism, and bad people don't, they work for the devil and they're trying to convince the good people with lies that creationism isn't true. He must be working for an oil company, because the devil owns all the oil companies.
They get angrier - the world is swimming around their heads, the lies seem to have a magical power......the lies seem to have an evil magic, they're causing so much distress, so much confusion. The world is melting and spinning. Have to stop the lies to stop the world spinning, to make reality solid again.
But the lies are not magical. There's no Satanic sorcery at play.
The lies are just not lies.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement