1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Off Topic Science thread

Discussion in 'Everton' started by Tobes, Jan 26, 2016.

  1. Tobes

    Tobes Warden
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    72,888
    Likes Received:
    57,325
    Here's a thread to discuss anything science related.

    A whole myriad of topics will no doubt be brought up.

    However, I must warn you, that if anyone disagrees with any of my 'scientific' claims then I'll call them a retard and get them banned by being a cry arse to the mods. <ok>

    So let's get started, anyone know anything about man made climate change?
     
    #1
  2. Peej

    Peej Fabio Borini Lover

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    25,821
    Likes Received:
    12,372
    Nothing.

    However I was interested to read that some medieval glass was made to be thicker at the bottom of the glass due to the production process. As modern glass is floated it becomes an even thickness and much cheaper as it is a continuos process and not batch
     
    #2
    Peter Saxton likes this.
  3. Peej

    Peej Fabio Borini Lover

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    25,821
    Likes Received:
    12,372
    Renewable energy is also a passion of mine due to my work in the field of fluid dynamics.

    However I was disapointed when people put nuclear in as renewable energy, its not renewable!

    People also question the viability of wind, well I am happy to say they are valid questions. Without a doubt the equipment is expensive £2,000,000 to build and install but with a return of £500,000-£600,000 per year. However the UK has the current capacity to generate between 18-28% of its yearly demands from this source. That is enough to power over 8,000,000 homes who have the average energy consuption of 4,100kWh!!

    As uptake of this technology increases the big players at Boeing have become involved in blade and composite development(I was at the meeting at Farnbrough)to increase efficiency and low wind speed generation.

    If you are interested in current grid split then take a look, 10-11% is being generated by the wind....thats just half the capacity of that source!

    http://nationalgrid.stephenmorley.org/
     
    #3
  4. Tobes

    Tobes Warden
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    72,888
    Likes Received:
    57,325
    That's interesting mate.

    I'd read somewhere that the average wind turbine would only power 20 kettles, it seems I was lied to.

    Whoever wrote that must have been a complete charlatan, or an oil shrill. <ok>
     
    #4
  5. Tobes

    Tobes Warden
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    72,888
    Likes Received:
    57,325
    The idea that old glass being thicker at the bottom of the pane proves the point that glass is a liquid is a myth mate.
     
    #5
    Peej likes this.
  6. Peej

    Peej Fabio Borini Lover

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    25,821
    Likes Received:
    12,372
    If glass finds its solid state after a determined period in time then it is just in transition.

    It can be returned to its transitional state by high energy input.
     
    #6
  7. Tobes

    Tobes Warden
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    72,888
    Likes Received:
    57,325
    Armageddon for Climate Change Deniers
    A leading climate change-denying ‘scientist’ was exposed as a liar and a fraud this weekend—but the Vast Climate Conspiracy Theory still has a lock on Republicans.
    For decades, the fossil-fuel industry has been underwriting a huge, successful campaign to lie about climate change. Like the tobacco industry before it, energy companies have created a body of pseudoscience, created by paid lackeys, and successfully co-opted the mainstream of the Republican Party to their “point of view.”

    This week, that campaign took a serious body blow, as one of its leading pseudo-scientific voices was exposed as a liar and a fraud, having accepted millions of corporate dollars to pose as a climate-change skeptic.

    To be clear, Climate Trutherism is a conspiracy theory. It’s not just that climate change isn’t real, or isn’t certain—it’s that the world’s leading climate scientists and climate organizations (who are all in agreement about it) are perpetrating what Senator James Inhofe calls The Greatest Hoax. This is all to, in Inhofe’s words, “dramatically and hugely increase regulation of each of our lives and business.”

    The answer is money. Lots of money. Billions of dollars, in fact, spent to create an entire industry of scientists, publicists, think tanks, and legislative organizations.

    Willie Soon, for example, should never have been given much credence in the first place. Like nearly all of the Climate Truthers’ scientists, he is not a climate expert. He’s not even an astrophysicist, as he is often presented. As TheNew York Times revealed, “He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering.


    This is par for the course. The Heartland Institute, one of the leading Climate Truther think-tanks, put together a poster (PDF) of “58 experts [who] don’t believe global warming is a crisis.”

    But a review of those “experts” by The Daily Beast found that only three of the 58 actually have any credentials in climatology or atmospheric science. (16 are conservative political pundits, 11 are meteorologists, six are conservative economists, and the rest a hodgepodge.)

    What’s not par for the course is Soon’s history of non-disclosure regarding his funding from the fossil-fuel industry, which was only revealed because, as an employee of the Smithsonian, the funding documents were covered by the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace obtained those documents and made them public.

    To his funders, Soon called his scientific papers “deliverables.” To the scientific community, in violation of professional standards, he said nothing about having been paid to produce the “deliverables” by fossil-fuel interests, including the Southern Company (a utility holding company) and the Charles G. Koch Foundation.

    Ironically, admitting his reliance on oil money might not have mattered much. One of the three actual atmospheric scientists out of the Heartland Institute’s 58 “experts,” Patrick Michaels, has admitted that 40 percent of his funding comes from fossil fuel industry groups.

    Indeed, not only individual scientists, but the entire network of Climate Truther think-tanks is a result of industry funding. Some are focused on climate trutherism specifically: The Global Climate Coalition, Heartland Institute, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Friends of Science, and so on. Others are conservative think-tanks who take oil money and spew Climate Trutherism. ExxonMobil alone has supported the Competitive Enterprise Institute ($2m), Center for Strategic and International Studies ($2.4m), Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy ($1.0m), American Enterprise Institute ($2.8m), and Heritage Foundation ($630k). The libertarian Cato institute is also a leading Climate Truther hub.


    The result has been an avalanche of bullshit. Nine “International Conferences on the Climate” sponsored by Heartland and featuring Climate Truthers disguised as climate experts. 130 books (and counting) denying the seriousness of environmental problems. Lots and lots of talking heads on Fox News.

    The avalanche has successfully buried the science. Today, only 42 percent of Americans believe that human-caused climate change is real. Compare that to 13,926 out of 13,950 peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1991-2012. That’s right, only 24 out of nearly 14,000 peer-reviewed articles reject the scientific consensus that human activity is affecting the climate.

    Yes, among actual experts, there is 99.83 percent agreement that climate change is a thing.

    Ironically, there’s nearly as much consensus among Republican politicians—on the other side. Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum are allon record as being Climate Truthers. Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee have flatly contradicted past statements that weren’t Truthy enough. Scott Walker is not on record, but he has shilled for the Heartland Institute. (Grist has a great primer on this.)

    The reason here is obvious: money. With the Koch Brothers alone pledging $900 million to buy the 2016 election, climate change is a clear third-rail for Republican presidential candidates. Climate change is also a thorny problem that will require international and governmental cooperation to address—neither of which are particularly beloved of conservatives.

    So, will the spectacular fall of one of the Climate Truthers’ favorite fake scientists actually derail the campaign? Don’t bet on it. The paid lackey is dead, long live the paid lackey; if not Willie Soon, then someone else will do.

    I wonder, though, if this particularly visible fall might shed light on the truly bizarre nature of Climate Trutherism as an ideology. 99.83 percent of expert scientists agree—and yet according to all the Republican presidential hopefuls, they are all lying and in collusion. They’re making up facts. They’re trying to get funded. They secretly just want to regulate. They are all conspiring against you.

    This is quite a successful conspiracy, hoodwinking the rest of the civilized world (and now India and China too) into surrendering their freedoms. That’s a better record than the 9/11, vaccine, Obama birth certificate, fluoride, chemtrails, and international Zionist conspiracies put together. “The Greatest Hoax,” indeed.

    If someone tried to sell you this wacko paranoia in a crowded bar, you’d assume they were nuts. And yet, the men who want to lead the free world are saying exactly the same thing—not in a bar, but on stages, on television, and, if one of them gets their way, in the Oval Office too. Terrifying.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/23/armageddon-for-climate-change-deniers.html
     
    #7
  8. Peej

    Peej Fabio Borini Lover

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    25,821
    Likes Received:
    12,372
    That has to be true due to the fact you have copied it from a source and just skim reading the main points.

    Next people will be telling me wind power will make a difference
     
    #8
  9. Tobes

    Tobes Warden
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    72,888
    Likes Received:
    57,325
    I'll have you know I'm an expert in this field. I know way more than you about it, or any other subject that I care to mention, because I have a degree that I wrote myself - in crayon.

    Now stop being a retard and agree with me or I'll get you banned for being a ****tard
     
    #9
    Justovertheline likes this.
  10. Peej

    Peej Fabio Borini Lover

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    25,821
    Likes Received:
    12,372
    I see Bill Nye has changed his view on GMO and is no longer anti GMO!

    What a world we live in when a top scientific mind can look at facts and make two differing conclusions.
     
    #10

  11. Tobes

    Tobes Warden
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    72,888
    Likes Received:
    57,325
    He went to visit Mosanto, had a skeg and decided that everything was now cool with GMO.....

    I wonder what they showed him?

    Could it have been green and oblong?
     
    #11
  12. Big Ern

    Big Ern Lord, Master, Guru & Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    23,534
    Likes Received:
    17,781
    If you paid them enough money a scientist would prove the world is made of cheese, and a lot of people would be stupid enough to believe them, like the current day morons who think pumping hundreds of millions of tonnes of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere will have no effect at all.
     
    #12
  13. Peej

    Peej Fabio Borini Lover

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    25,821
    Likes Received:
    12,372
    That stuff has no effect.

    Unless the effect is a global cooling cycle!
     
    #13
  14. Big Ern

    Big Ern Lord, Master, Guru & Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    23,534
    Likes Received:
    17,781
    hoping something is true isn't the same as it being true, the only scientists who say it has no effect are all paid top say it. every other scientist, and any kid who has done a bit of chemistry at school knows that adding something to something else ALWAYS has an effect, and the more you put in the bigger the effect. Only a complete and utter moron would believe otherwise.
     
    #14
  15. Tobes

    Tobes Warden
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    72,888
    Likes Received:
    57,325
    Have you come across @BringBackFootie. mate?
     
    #15
    Peej likes this.
  16. Peej

    Peej Fabio Borini Lover

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    Messages:
    25,821
    Likes Received:
    12,372
    wow, putting more stuff in will make more of a difference, I have been an idiot for so long;-)
     
    #16
  17. Big Ern

    Big Ern Lord, Master, Guru & Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    23,534
    Likes Received:
    17,781
    glad you see that now, it's basic science they teach ten year old, usually using silver nitrate as the example.

    The other effect the carbon it has is to acidify the sea, which has increased by 30% since the 1750's. Of that 30% there was a 10% difference from 1750 -1990 and the other 20% from 1990 until today. So far no scientist has had the stupidity to blame it on anything other than excess carbon, because they know the moment they do they'll lose all scientific creditability because they can't deny the chemistry.
    but you keep on believing that man paid by the people who profit from selling oil, they don't have anything to gain from it at all, do they.
     
    #17
  18. Tobes

    Tobes Warden
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    72,888
    Likes Received:
    57,325
    I was told it was nothing to worry about, I mean the oceans are massive, and carbon is great as it feeds plants and algae and stuff.

    Is this duff info then?

    Don't tell me I've been conned by Oil shrills?

    What's your view on the massive amounts of cash that the oil companies have put into marine biology research mate?
     
    #18
    Peej likes this.
  19. Diego

    Diego Lone Ranger

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    46,247
    Likes Received:
    21,017
    Ever heard of thermal vents or under water volcano's?

    They pump tons of sulphur into the sea every minute, take a look and see how their activity has changed in the last 50 years or so and also check up on what sulphur does to the oceans :emoticon-0100-smile
     
    #19
  20. Tobes

    Tobes Warden
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    72,888
    Likes Received:
    57,325
    You're not seriously trying to attribute ocean acidification solely to underwater volcanos and vents are you? <laugh>

    Care to show some research that backs this theory?

    Of course it's got nothing to do with the vast increase in man made CO2 production.....nooooo.
     
    #20

Share This Page