Red Raven
-
Posts
487 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Red Raven
-
-
Don't be too upset RR: we (Mr Roo was an anti-matter physicist) know about +100 particle physicists and none are religious (and they include c.30 who work at Cern or who have used it): it really isn't that common!
I have to admit that I got very excited this morning when they switched it on: what an incredible achievement by all involved and certianly kicks the Mars fiasco into the long grass!
The truth will always prevail so I shall continue to be (subtly) optimistic
.I have no background in any kind of physics but I too was excited by this mornings achievement. It really could be the start of new dawn of understanding and despite all the popular complaints of cost I think this experiment is one of the most important adventures the human race has ever embarked on.
-
I don't think there's anything odd about that at all. Do you think these particles "just happened" to exist ? Now that would be odd !
I think you would be surprised how many scientist including in this field are practising Christians.
Simple answer is yes, when answered within the normal restraints of how we humans view the world around us. Outside of that those narrow restraints then the question it's self is flawed. Who created the particles that created the particles that created the nothing - round and round we can go - the artificial stop point of a 'creator' is a deeply flawed theory. The further back you go the more complex and more 'perfect' a creator must be which demands probabilities so massive that even an infinite universe is not big enough.
And am I surprised - no. Disappointed - yes.
-
It's not only very unlikely any collision will take place today and probably not for a few months. It's even more unlikely and if I am to be so bold laughably silly to think this experiment will bring about the end of the earth.
Watching News24, which is of mixed quality, I do find it very odd indeed that an expert who is a particle physicist can also claim to be Christian theologist as well - sorry but thats just as daft as the end of the world stories. It's like a captain of a ship who regularly plots courses across oceans and seas yet still believes the earth is flat.
-
Here's my preferred solution to rising sea levels. I would say start planning this regardless of whether or not people think greenhouse gas reductions will solve the climate change issue or even whether or not you think there is an issue, because sea levels could still rise anyway from natural warming, and if they don't, this plan will still work well.
I'm suggesting that the international community spend the necessary billions of dollars to create a massive desalination project in west Africa, using land in northern Mauretania and southern (disputed territory) southern Morocco where the land is quite flat, just above sea level in most places, and almost entirely devoid of human activity or presence today. This landscape could be transformed into large holding reservoirs for sea water (they could be engineered to 5-10 metres depth below sea level) and then this water would be desalinated and used to irrigate surrounding regions in a gradual extending program over time, most of the irrigation would be directed south and east rather than north to take advantage of the best agricultural potential.
As this would be partly a sea-level maintenance program, some of the reservoirs could be left empty and then filled up later if sea levels were rising. The change in global climate from this agricultural production would be negligible because most of the water used would go into the soil and crops, some would evaporate but there would be little additional rainfall anywhere. So the water would effectively be transferred from ocean to land.
This would have to be a massive program to make a difference to sea level. There are other similar concepts we could be exploring in other regions. Parts of the Baja California peninsula could be used for the same purpose, as well as the potential for Australia to look at similar projects. However, we could also be looking at technology that would evaporate large quantities of sea water in some safe location and force it onto land in the form of steam that would condense into holding reservoirs. The cost of all this might turn out to be less than the engineering required to mitigate rising sea levels. It might also expand the full extent of arable land and feed millions as well as providing new regions for immigration of third world populations.
Not quite at the right scale but this piece of technology being used in Australia could irrigate every fringe of every continent and produce electricity at the same time. http://www.ceto.com.au/home.php
-
Ermmm, i'm a bit concerned about this!!! How can scientists possibly know what the outcome of doing this will be when they have never witnessed it, how can they even imagine when they have no idea....I dont like the sound of this...Mini Black Holes?????? Thats scary!!!
All they're doing is observing what happens, or doesn't happen, naturally. It's an essential and important step towards the understanding of the underlying physical laws that govern everything.
-
The 1st collisions apparently dont take place until 10th september according to Auntie Beeb......thats the day we'll know I guess?...
I better restock on the baked beans and make a new tin foil hat then.
-
Seems the end of the world didnt arrive after all. :lol:
-
:lol:
Only if you try to be less cynical.
It would be sad world if nothing was invented and developed because someone 'evil' may use it. Reminds me of the silly argument for banning kitchen knives because someone may use them to kill - was the inventor of the kitchen knife evil?
Now those 'evil' scientists have said the technology can be used to improve internet speed. It's really awful this progress malarkey. :lol:
-
Oh yes...and does that include evil scientists like those who work for Monsanto; often in the pockets of governments.
Science is not always positive..and there can be untold multi-faceted costs and some things we are better off without. Try being less naive in future, Red Raven.
:o
Only if you try to be less cynical.
It would be sad world if nothing was invented and developed because someone 'evil' may use it. Reminds me of the silly argument for banning kitchen knives because someone may use them to kill - was the inventor of the kitchen knife evil?
-
Why don't the scientists do something useful and find cures for diseases?
I just cannot see the benefits from wasting money on this.
There would be huge benefits from such a development. The technology works on bending light around corners which has huge potential not just in getting to light into areas not previously possible but being able to see around corners etc. etc.
Also imagine how useful it is to be invisible to high level radiation - all possible with this invention.
Let the scientists do what they do best and that's discover things.
-
Or you could just have them offshore.
True but much cheaper on land and the farmer gets an additional rent income.
-
I think that if we can create these things then we should do it...people always look at the negatives of things they are unsure about. Why not advance ourselves...other technologies can come from this and it doesnt need to only be humans that become invisible, there are many things out there that i wouldn't mind seeing hehehe!!!!
I agree. Think broader about the applications.
I live in the Lake District and there are a lot of people very much against wind turbines because they 'dont look nice' - imagine this technology applied them and how much happier the protestors would be.
-
Scientists in the US say they are a step closer to developing materials that could render people invisible.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7553061.stm
My personal opinion is that this is bad news; and the whole program should be stopped. It really is un-natural and open to abuse; and leaves me even more untrusting of scientists these days.
It's un-natural to fly. Should we stop that?
-
Any indications or predictions of sulphur content?
-
Interesting post. What, though, changed people's minds? It would appear that most people were swayed (and still are) by computer simulations of the climate system. Taking two names from your 1992 quote, Michael Schlesinger is involved in computer modelling, and Tim Barnett said this in an abstract from a 2001 paper he wrote with David Pierce and Reiner Schnur:
(Abstract available here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5515/270 )
Has there been any significant advance in AGW theory that doesn't involve computer models?
As I have said before, if someone asks you to solve X+Y=10 then you can say that X=2 and Y=8. If X=9 and Y=1 then those values are clearly different but result in the same answer. Is your answer valid? Yes. Is it correct? No.
CB
Good question and I really don't know. In an attempt to see why at the time I looked at the history of science, particularly when natural philosophy became modern science around the time of Francis Bacon. What I did find was a fault in the 'new' inductive logic which replaced the deductive logic of natural philosophy.
What I am certain of though is that there is no conspiracy, maybe mass hysteria. <_<
-
It's interesting that no one has mentioned the hard time Jim Hansen got in the 80's when he first claimed he had found evidence of AGW.
Here's somthing I wrote back on 1992 about it all:
It is not surprising that the politicising of these findings, and the use of James Hansen as an expert witness to give evidence to a Congressional committee, has led to the setting up of the two opposed camps I talked of earlier.In front of a Senate Commerce Committee on 8 May, 1989, global warming was discussed in order to examine the scientific research issues. Toward the end of the meeting, the final panel submitted their evidence. The panel consisted of Jerry Mahiman of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Stephen H Schneider of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research and James Hansen of NASA.
The Chairman, Senator Albert Gore, Jr. uncovered “censorship” of Hansen’s testament, by the Office of Management and Budget of the Bush administration. This apparent alteration of Hansen’s text was to water down the strength of his conclusions. Hansen strongly objected to this and the added sentence placed in his testimony Modelling Greenhouse Climate Effects.
Again, I must stress that the rate and magnitude of drought, storm, and temperature change are very sensitive to the many physical processes mentioned above, some of which are poorly represented in the GCM’s. Thus, these changes should be viewed as estimates from evolving computer models and not as reliable.The Bush administration added;
One point that remains scientifically unknown is the relative contribution of natural processes and human activities to [CO2 and methane increases since 1850].This changing of Hansen’s testimony became the centre of a large scale public debate with Hansen in the middle. As Hansen had been in the press the year earlier over something he had said the members of the opposing camp did not believe the Bush administration had acted unfairly.
On June the 23rd of 1988 Hansen made his famous “99% confident” speech. In front of the Senate Energy Committee, television cameras and journalists he said;
I believe the Earth is getting warmer and I can say that with 99% confidence. With a high degree of confidence we could associate the warming and the greenhouse. In our climate model, by the late 80’s and early 90’s, there’s already a noticeable increase in the frequency of drought.It is time to stop waffling and take the greenhouse theory and its apparent detection very seriously.
All very good for the journalists and exactly what the environmentalists wanted to hear. But as a scientist he had gone too far. Hansen claimed that “the greenhouse is here”, although most of his colleagues and fellow researchers are not so sure.
Michael Schlesinger, at Oregon State University questions Hansen’s confidence,’
…our current understanding does not support that [the greenhouse has been detected with certainty]. Confidence in detection [of the greenhouse] is now down near zero.Tim P Barnett an oceanographer at Scripps Institution of oceanography;
…to say that we’ve seen the greenhouse signal is ridiculous. It’s going to be a difficult problem.At a conference on climate at Amherst, Massachusetts, it was said;
It is tempting to attribute the 0.5°C warming of the last 100 years to the increase in greenhouse gases. Because of the natural variation of temperature, however, such an attribution cannot now be made with any degree of confidence.W. S. Broecker in Hansen’s defence claims that
...the records of the last 150,000 years found in ice-cores and in marine sediments scream to us that the Earth’s climate system is highly sensitive to nudges... .The fact that we cannot prove that the warming during the last century was caused by man-induced greenhouse gases is not the major issue. Rather the issue is that, by adding infrared-absorbing gases to the atmosphere we are effectively playing Russian roulette with our climate... .Hansen may prove to be incorrect in his prediction of the potential seriousness of the greenhouse gas buildup, but it should be understood that concerns such as his are born of a deep regard for the future of our planet and not by fame or funding.Scientists like the attention the greenhouse effect is getting on Capitol Hill, but they shun the reputedly unscientific way their colleague James Hansen went about getting that attention.
Was this declaration straight from the heart or was it a cold calculated manoeuvre, made in order to encourage the inherent scepticism within all scientists? The climatological research world was now looking to prove Hansen wrong, to put him down and discredit him, but in so doing they may turn up the evidence which can be described as “99% confident.”
The theory of AGW has had a tough ride over the years - to say that it has not gone through rigourous testing is, quite frankly, nonesense.
-
A question for Noggin, Bluecon, GWO and Laserguy:
With oil companies ploughing so much money into skeptic climate research (e.g. Exxon paid $2.9 million dollars to 'alternative scientists' last year alone) why is there still not concrete peer reviewed evidence which shows AGW to be wrong?
It is a complete falacy that AGW is only where the money goes: grants go to good research projects, irrelevant of their background. And, even if you don't believe that, the oil companies will fund skeptical research. So why the continuing 'skeptics can't get funding' conspiracy theories?
And where is the evidence for all these silenced skeptics being turned down for funding/publication? I, and others, would love to see chapter and verse.
I have to agree with that. If there is a conspiracy (which i don't believe there is) why on earth would that conspiracy's aim be to call for dramatic changes to our carbon based economy. It's surely in government and big industry interest to fight for the other side (ie the none AGW side).
-
It's getting cold!
-
The trucks are huge diesels of 500+ hp carrying 100,000lb loads across the ice.
Teensy weensy lorries by English standards?
And with modern technology soot traps are standard on the new diesels. Could be put on any diesel. Now you can sleep better I hope.
The St. Roch took the southern poute the first time through the passage and was froze in for a couple years. On the return voyage they took the more northern route and I don't believe they had to break any ice.
Economies of scale have dictated an upward trend in sizes of container ships in order to reduce costs. One limit on ship size is the "Suezmax" standard, or the largest theoretical ship capable of passing through the Suez Canal, which measures 14,000 TEU. Such a vessel would displace 137,000 metric tons of deadweight (DWT), be 400 meters long, more than 50 meters wide, have a draft of nearly 15 metres, and use more than 85 MW (113,987hp) to achieve 25.5 knots, specifications met by the Emma Mærsk.Beyond Suezmax lies the "Malaccamax" (for Straits of Malacca) ship of 18,000 TEU, displacing 300,000 DWT, 470 meters long, 60 meters wide, 16 meters of draft, and using more than 100 MW (134,102hp) for 25.5 knots. This is most likely the limit before a major restructuring of world container trade routes.[5] The biggest constraint of this design, the absence of a capable single engine, has been overcome by the MAN B&W K108ME-C.
100,000hp is a little larger than even the american sized truck.
-
The more and more I look at the facts of G.W the more it seems that the all bandwagon started off as a one man political crusade....... And I think we all know who that man was!
Who?
-
You have no proof increased CO2 levels are harmful. On the contrary they make plants and the Earth thrive. Greenhouse operators actually pump CO2 into the greenhouses to promote growth. And the oceans release CO2 as they warm. CO2 has no potential to destroy the planet, it is a trace gas and the whole idea is bogus as will be seen as the Earth enters the current cooling phase.
Please provide me the location where the Earth is experiencing such a dry effect. It is raining more than ever here after a huge increase in AGW gasses. AGW gas emmissions have probably doubled in the last ten years ands the Earth is showing a slight cooling. How do you explain that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=169
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6070400772.html
http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/245
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html
http://www.physorg.com/news134314354.html
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?a...7626&page=0
...and on and on and on.
To argue against the science of AGW is a valid one but to also argue that C02 is harmless in all contexts is not only naive but blatantly wrong - even the ardent anti-AGW scientists do not propose such a view.
-
Increased CO2 and warmer temperatures are a benefit to mankind.
The whole AGW thing is ridicolous.
And if you left your fridge open it takes more energy to remove the heat so you would actually be warming the Earth as your food spoiled. AGW in a nutshell.
That's a whole different argument. Whether AGW is happening or not a world with increased C02 and a warmer one has the potential to devastate the planet as we know it. Increased C02 means more acidic oceans, more acidic oceans means less life in them. A warmed world means a change in rainfall patterns, which in turn means areas now providing food may no longer be able to and with such large immovable populations we now have the consequence is unthinkable.
Come on Bluecon present a valid counter argument
-
I thought it was built so far underground to try to exclude as many "outside" particles as possible?
Dave
It is - nothing to do with any safety concerns. And if quantum theory/M theory is right some of these 'new' particles are not containable in the realms of our perceived reality.
-
The thing is, not even the scientists know quite what to expect... Both of the following quotes are from http://www.lhc.ac.uk/
Suppose those microsinglularities were sustained ones? Doesn't bear thinking about. Before putting too much trust in scientists beacuse "they know more that we do".... well, consider that nobody quite knew what was going to happen on the first A-bomb test - and it was a subject of much debate and concern as to whether it might start a reaction that would burn away the whole of Earths breathable atmosphere.
It's common sense to avoid certain risk. But taking risks is what being human is all about - it's what drives our development as a species. The experiment at the LHC is all part of that development. There is a very very small risk that something bad will happen but the insights that may be gained of the complexities of the universe are so great the risk is well worth taking.
http://www.lhcountdown.com/ Is this count down correct? Various other sites seem to suggest that collision doesn't take place until August.
.
The Hadron collider
in Space, Science & nature
Posted · Edited by Red Raven
Well remove the question of a 'god' from the world and we may well achieve your goal.
And to put 5 billion in context its less than a dollar for every person in the world. The spin offs and benefits that will come from this will pay everyone back many times over.
or as the BBC puts it.