BTW there is a type of bullet-point summary at the end of the article.

 

Also, I am writing a publication-level paper mostly based on this one, which will be submitted for peer-review, and I see no reason it will not be published as the ONLY thing I need to discuss, as I did in the linked paper, is simple science, math, and logic.

I'll post that paper here when it is done.

 

You might like this little article I wrote. It hasn't been published yet, but I'm still waiting on review.


Physics of Physicists

There is another poorly studied phenomenon called retrograde non-linear weak attraction. What at first appears to be a weak attractive force, under the right conditions actually becomes a much stronger repulsive force.

The strength of the repulsive force varies as an inverse cube in relation to proximity to the physicist. Although there seems to be a mechanical resonance that triggers the phenomenon, particularly the rising inflection added to the end of a sentence when asking a question. There is a brief transition phase that usually begins with a statement similar to "It's really pretty simple", and very quickly progresses into vast run-on sentences sprinkled increasingly with the names of dead physicists, mathematical terms, as well as common words and phrases hijacked to describe esoteric concepts.

At this point the listener is often already subconciously moving away as the repulsive force kicks in with full force. It's best to have an exit available when approaching, since retrograde non-linear weak attraction has the odd property of being mirrored. The stronger the poor sap is repulsed, the stronger the physicist is attracted. If cornered, you could very well die with some transform or theorem punching a hole right through your skull. Remember, you need to use the bathroom. Somewhere else. Right now.

Once you have put some distance between you (inverse cube, distance is your friend), you may observe the phenomenon often continues unabated as the physicist will continue the momentum of the process until the initial question is answered to their satisfaction. An audience is not necessary at this point, although it will be directed at anyone still close enough to engage.

When two physicists come into close proximity we can observe that there seems to be a net attraction. As the number of physicists increases, there is a critical mass that will be reached wherein a new phenomenon called a "conference" will occur. The momentum built seems to be exponential at this point, and the conference can persist for days reaching a fever pitch with unwary bystanders being forcefully blown clear if approaching too closely. Eventually the conference will return to a weaker state when the initial thread is sufficiently beaten to death, or the supply of microwave burritos is exhausted. At that point the conference will collapse into individual physicists again and they can be safely handled for a time.

 

You might like this little article I wrote. It hasn't been published yet, but I'm still waiting on review.


Physics of Physicists

There is another poorly studied phenomenon called retrograde non-linear weak attraction. What at first appears to be a weak attractive force, under the right conditions actually becomes a much stronger repulsive force.

The strength of the repulsive force varies as an inverse cube in relation to proximity to the physicist. Although there seems to be a mechanical resonance that triggers the phenomenon, particularly the rising inflection added to the end of a sentence when asking a question. There is a brief transition phase that usually begins with a statement similar to "It's really pretty simple", and very quickly progresses into vast run-on sentences sprinkled increasingly with the names of dead physicists, mathematical terms, as well as common words and phrases hijacked to describe esoteric concepts.

At this point the listener is often already subconciously moving away as the repulsive force kicks in with full force. It's best to have an exit available when approaching, since retrograde non-linear weak attraction has the odd property of being mirrored. The stronger the poor sap is repulsed, the stronger the physicist is attracted. If cornered, you could very well die with some transform or theorem punching a hole right through your skull. Remember, you need to use the bathroom. Somewhere else. Right now.

Once you have put some distance between you (inverse cube, distance is your friend), you may observe the phenomenon often continues unabated as the physicist will continue the momentum of the process until the initial question is answered to their satisfaction. An audience is not necessary at this point, although it will be directed at anyone still close enough to engage.

When two physicists come into close proximity we can observe that there seems to be a net attraction. As the number of physicists increases, there is a critical mass that will be reached wherein a new phenomenon called a "conference" will occur. The momentum built seems to be exponential at this point, and the conference can persist for days reaching a fever pitch with unwary bystanders being forcefully blown clear if approaching too closely. Eventually the conference will return to a weaker state when the initial thread is sufficiently beaten to death, or the supply of microwave burritos is exhausted. At that point the conference will collapse into individual physicists again and they can be safely handled for a time.

LOL! Dude, loved it!

I'm posting it outside my office door.

 

Well, the Earth is getting warmer. Glaciers are melting so are ice caps and shelves. The only question is the mechanism, and the vast majority believe it is due to the greenhouse effect with some attributing other mechanisms such as sun activity etc. In my mind, the only question is whether this is a man-made or natural phenomenon.

 

The Earth has actually been stable or cooling in the last 10 years. It is expected to continue cooling inline with the weak solar cycle. All the historical precedents point to a possible Maunder-type minimum, otherwise known as a mini ice-age.

Glaciers have been melting since the end of the last ice-age. So have ice-caps and shelves. They are no melting any faster today than they did before. Sea level is rising slower than it has before. These are all natural and ongoing phenomena which having nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, and everything to do with that we are in a warm inter-glacial, which is a good thing.

To answer your question: it is a natural phenomenon. Solar activity is the primary attributer to climate, not some secondary influence..

There is no precedent and no evidence that CO2 has ever caused climate change, either now, or in all of the geologic past. The only precedent is that CO2 concentration changes as a result of previous climate change. And since there is no greenhouse effect as popularly postulated and formulated, it is impossible to establish whether current changes in CO2 are going to cause climate change, or if it is a result of climate changes which already occurred hundreds of years ago. The latter is the more likely, and would fit within historical precedent and observation. There is no valid mechanism, particularly the GH effect, by which we could postulate that changes in CO2 will cause climate change.

 

Good thing AL Gore discovered the greenhouse effect and got a Nobel Peace prize because if he didn't discover it where would we be?

 

We'd still be in the lockbox, with no interwebz.

 

All kidding and Al Gore aside, the concept of the greenhouse effect was formulated by Fourier in the early 1800's.

 

That proposition has in fact been wrongly interpreted. This paper explains how and why:

http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/

And my paper explains what is wrong with the modern paradigm behind the greenhouse postulate.

 

Well first of all one guy's paper on the internet does not a credible theory make. A theory without peer review is just bad science. Secondly, according to countless sources, including the American institute of Physics et al, Fourier was indeed correct and so was Tyndall and his concept that certain gases were "opaque" to infrared radiation. Thirdly, the greenhouse effect does occur. Otherwise, we would have temperature extremes like seen on the moon. Atmospheric gases do trap radiant energy. The collective scientific body of work backs this up.
The only real question is whether humans are contributing enough greenhouse gases to cause climate change.

You are of course welcome to your opinions but you stand at odds with the scientific community. By the way, are you a climatologist or geologist?

 

Boy you guys are everywhere aren't you?

Blablabla, you're wrong. Deal with it.

 

Hey, nice answer. So well thought out. Who are "you guys"? So I guess you have no credentials in either climatology or geology? Why am I not surprised?

 

Good luck, friend. May the Lord Jesus bless you.

 

And may He also bless you and yours.

 

Somewhat unrelated, but the thing that cheeses me off the most about global warming alarmists is their almost total ignorance of other gases. Water vapor is a factor, but we cannot outlaw clouds (can we?). But the real danger is probably methane, too much of that and this planet turns onto a gas chamber. Yet I have only heard the so called experts talk about it a few times and only twice in detail.

 

I am not ready to easily give in to the idea that the current warming period is "natural".

 

What warming period? It has been cooling for 10 years. Look at all the past warming periods...the one that lasted from 1975-2000 wasn't any more interesting or faster than any previous warming period. It is always either warming or cooling.

 

Total BS Astroman. ANY scientific paper worth it's salt should be subject to peer review. You KNOW that or at least you should. It doesn't matter if your idea contains common knowledge information or not. If you are proposing a new idea or hypothesis, which you are, then it should be peer reviewed. That is how the body of knowledge moves forward. Otherwise, you might as well just say the Moon is made of green cheese.

Btw, do you actually own an XCR or have an interest in firearms or do you just troll forums?

 

You should read my previous post where I justify everything I said. You are simplifying far too much. And of course, I did point out that I AM writing an article for peer-review. And in any case, publishing the paper linked to in the opening post IS opening it to peer-review, and I have received and participated in a MUCH WIDER and MUCH MORE INTENSE form of peer-review than a scientist would EVER receive via internal means. This isn't the only place I posted this paper...it's been out for a few months now. It has been quite successful actually. The only criticisms I've had to defeat have been equivocations over definitions.

You see, the regular Climate Change crowd get each other to peer-review their papers, and since they're all buddies and working towards the same goal, they get to publish whatever crap they want. This has been documented proven, and what they've published has been shown to be crap.

Who's trolling Bubba? I'm a practicing scientist, have given out my real name, what I do for work and what my qualifications are, and anyone can find out where I work and what office I sit in. I'd say that's pretty honest and genuine. I'm not presenting a new hypothesis, I'm pointing out that that the GH Effect is the new hypothesis and AGW is the new hypothesis, and based on commonly held knowledge, these hypothesis are likely incorrect. And I am also writing a science-level paper for peer-review publication.

So, who's actually trolling here, Troll?

Look at the list of topics in this "Socializing" sub-forum...a lot of random stuff. I posted my paper here because most gun-owners are conservative and most conservatives are more intelligent than liberals, and would appreciate the knowledge in my paper.

Yes I do own an XCR...here is a vid of me shooting it:

http://www.youtube.com/user/thepostman1#p/u/8/owDBWHGBeRw

Now everyone can even know what I look like.

That's how genuinely and honestly I stand behind my science, and I have the creds to back it.

 

You are misquoting Feynman and taking it out of context. The quote is "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled". This was published in the final report on the Challenger shuttle disaster.

 

You are misquoting Feynman and taking it out of context.

I'm not. I also linked the entire text of both Feynman's appendix and the full committee report. How could I possibly be taking it out of context when I linked the entire context in my post?

The quote is basically Feynman's final sentence in his report on the Challenger.

He wrote that report because the rest of the committee refused to endorse his conclusion, which was basically that the shuttle program had become a public relations program instead of a scientific endeavor. His point was that pandering to public perception, instead of critically analyzing real data, was the underlying cause of the Challenger accident.

"Good Science" is full of examples of this happening--people slant the facts to support their conclusion, and since it's the politically correct conclusion, their colleagues turn a blind eye when they "review" the work.

Here is an excellent example of how political correctness has overrun scientific merit in the supposedly impartial world of big money science.

 

Sort of Feynman-esque, do a simple experiment and see what happens: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=387247

 

A good example of a basic experiment with feedback.

 

Lol, I could post a video of me walking on the moon. Doesn't mean it is me. If that is you, you look like you are 21. So whats wrong with publishing your original paper? Too full of holes? What journals are you going to publish it in? I can't wait.

Trolling? I have been here on this forum for since 2008. I have nothing to gain by this exchange. By looking at your website, it seems you do have an agenda in place.

I will match creds with you any time brother. University of Texas, BS Geology, MS Geochemistry- Thesis topic Depositional environment and Diagentic History of the Warrior Basin. Currently working part time at University of Houston on my doctorate.

Work experience (30 years): Exploration Geologist, Consulting Geologist, Environmental Geologist, currently teaching Physics. I prefer not to put my real name on this public forum, but I have done business with several folks and RA on this forum over the years that have my real name and address.

 

Lol, I could post a video of me walking on the moon. Doesn't mean it is me. If that is you, you look like you are 21. So whats wrong with publishing your original paper? Too full of holes? What journals are you going to publish it in? I can't wait.
...
I will match creds with you any time brother. University of Texas, BS Geology, MS Geochemistry- Thesis topic Depositional environment and Diagentic History of the Warrior Basin. Currently working part time at University of Houston on my doctorate.

Lol, Pffft! I could tell you I was the Lucasian prefessor of mathematics at Cambridge for 30 years. Doesn't mean I roll around in a wheel chair and talk like I do the voice overs for Anonymous...

 

Whoa Whoa Whoa WHOA!!!

Haven't you guys learned to leave intelligence off the internet?!? Nobody wins when people come to the internet spewing off bits of intelligence... It just screws up the whole thing for everyone... Leave the internet to what it was intended for when Al Gore invented it... Russian midget porn...

 

There's porn on the interwebs????

 

Only dolphin porn.

 

opcorn:

 

So now your true colors come out! You are a troll. Name calling and insults? Did I hit a nerve? Gee, so mature for such a prominent "scientist" and "educated" individual. Are you going to insult and name call all of those who peer review your paper if they do not agree with you? How can you defend a point of view if you start spewing profanities and insults? Oh, wait, you can't. You just proved that with your "mature" approach.

Your 31 page overview of science is not a big deal dude. I have seniors that write comparable stuff for their extended essays. Where is your original research? You can insult me all you like if that makes you feel better. I have done original published research. And by research, I mean actual data collection and experimentation, not a review of published materials.

I am proud to be a teacher. It is the hardest job I have ever done, including my thesis and working in industry. So yes, you are arguing and LOSING to a current teacher. Being a "just" a teacher does not negate my research or previous education and work experience.

 

LOLOLOL! I KNEW this was coming. Yep there ya go buddy.

Never mind reality or who started with the idiocy of making fun of who's appearance. Never mind that junior-high.

This is a WONDERFUL example for all the true humans here of the tactics that the left and environmental crowd uses. This is just a BEAUTIFUL exposition.

They start with the ad-homs and the ridiculous statements...inspire a response in kind, and then jump on it with a louder voice before anyone really understands what just happened.

Observe their tactics and learn them well...learn to identify them. And hey man, thanks for this. I knew that I should expect it and I've studied these tactics in detail...I've read Saul Alinsky too! Every time you guys do this you confirm the mechanics of the tactics like clockwork. And you darned well know that it doesn't actually work with people who are thinking and awake. You totally hit a nerve buddy...my nerve that dislikes obvious idiocy and trolls. Anyone who reads this thread can perceive who's being genuine here.

It's not your lot that I produce original research and science for...it is for the real humans.

 

opcorn:

 

Astroman, YOU are the one that started the ad homs so please retain some faction of reality and do not attribute this to me. So now you are saying I am some sort of leftist because I do not agree with you? Oh, and I used some sort of leftist Jedi mind trick to state my point? I was voting republican before you were even born but that is besides the point. One again, I have nothing to gain or lose here. I have no agenda like yourself.

So my original research is not for real humans? Really? Finding oil in a basin is not for humans?

 

I mean for goodness sake this is so childish...YOU STARTED IT YOU STARTED IT.

Jedi mind trick? So you actually don't know about Alinsky then. You should read him. You don't know my age so you don't in fact know how long you've been voting republican.

It was clear what my comment was: your type of thinking is not what's for real humans.