Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #701416
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics, talk.politics.guns, alt.checkmate |
| Subject | Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk |
| Date | 2018-09-06 21:13 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <pms595$2cc$3@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <if1uod55c6sk42983rlqmg1b8lm1aeqrb4@4ax.com> <pmphej$u69$3@dont-email.me> <MPG.35fa02582d81ece4994862@news.altopia.com> <pmq3tt$14sh$1@gioia.aioe.org> <pmre97$19ub$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 10:40:40 -0400, benj wrote: > On 9/5/2018 10:37 PM, Sergio wrote: >> On 9/5/2018 6:10 PM, Checkmate wrote: >>> Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts >>> by Checkmate! In article <pmphej$u69$3@dont-email.me>, nad318b404 >>> @gmail.invalid says... >>> >>> >>> >>>> Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, >>>> melt! On Wed, 05 Sep 2018 14:36:03 -0400, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 11:02:29 -0400, kensi >>>>> <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> As <...> Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke toured California's largest >>>>>> wildfire on record, >>>>>> he proclaimed that fires have ?nothing to do with climate change.? >>>>> >>>>> He's correct because it has been proven that it's tree hugger >>>>> liberal policies that resulted in legislation that prohibits tree >>>>> trimming and removal that is the actual cause. >>>>> >>>>> It requires all sorts of permits which are almost impossible to >>>>> obtain to even be able to trim trees and brush back from a residence >>>>> so it doesn't go up in flames in the event of a forest fire. >>>>> >>>>> Also, there is a stupid liberal prohibition against even removing >>>>> deadwood and brush on public lands which further reduces the chances >>>>> of extinguishing or controlling the spread of forest fires. >>>>> >>>>> Again, it's a case of you ignorant, feel good, >>>>> libtard tree-huggers doing more harm to the forests than good and >>>>> then attempting to blame it on somebody or something else. >>>>> >>>>> FA<SMACKAKOOK!> >>>> >>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4216070/ >>>> >>>> ---------- >>>> These results suggest that management of fuels provided minimal >>>> reductions in risk to assets ---------- >>>> >>>> Nope, it's not accumulating deadwood that is the main risk factor. >>>> >>>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/30/we-cant-log-our-way-to-fewer- >>>> forest-fires/ >>>> >>>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/24/myths-about-wildfires-logging- and- >>>> forests/ >>>> >>>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/03/wildfires-myths-and-realities/ >>>> >>>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/18/logging-wont-stop-wildfires/ >>>> >>>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/13/why-california-is-burning/ >>>> >>>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/27/the-causes-of-forest-fires- climate- >>>> vs-logging/ >>>> >>>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/11/29/forest-fires-lies-and- chainsaws/ >>>> >>>> The big factor is climate change creating longer spells of hot, dry >>>> conditions favorable for fires to start and spread. >>>> >>>> SPNAK! >>> >>> Droughts have been common throughout recorded history. Remember the >>> dust bowl? Yes, I know that plowing was also a factor. It's not >>> uncommon for a drought to last a decade or two. >>> >>> >> kaliforniaites stay plowed. >> >> why all the links from silly 'counterpunch' ? > > Because "Kensi" can only handle "journalist science". Real science is > beyond it's "mind". Cue the kensi-smacking-various-kooks-upside-the-head-with-real-science highlights reel: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.checkmate/LlNxGGayj6g/ ue4rp0AMDgAJ From: kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> Message-ID: <o74m68$7lu$1@gioia.aioe.org> ---------- On 2/3/2017 10:44 PM, The Party Of Trump (The Party For Losers, Racists, and Misogynists) wrote: > Ti<SMACKAK00K!> > > Ha<SMACKAK00K!> > >> kensi, De<SMACKAK00K!> >> >>> Every quantum field (and there's one for every species of fundamental >>> particle) > > An actual astrophysicist would know that gluon bosons (which mediate > the strong force) can interact with all quarks (up, down, charm, > strange, top, bottom); photon bosons (which mediate the > electromagnetic force) can interact with all quarks and leptons > (electron, muon, tau); Z bosons and W bosons (which mediate the weak > force) can interact with all quarks, all leptons and all anti-leptons > (electron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau neutrino); BWAHAHAHAHAHA! By Jove, the tard thinks the neutrinos are the charged leptons' *antiparticles*! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! An actual astrophysicist (that'd be me) would know that the electron neutrino is not the electron's antiparticle any more than the down quark is the up quark's antiparticle. The electron's antiparticle is the positron, which is *not* a neutrino, carries a +1 charge, and has the same mass as the electron, of about 511 KeV. That's how we know you're not an actual astrophysicist, faketard, any more than you are an actual drone pilot, deacon, real-estate magnate, mathematician, electrician, race-car driver, climatologist, architect, or any other non-fake thing about which you've had pretensions over the years, ko0ky. ---------- https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.checkmate/LlNxGGayj6g/ gMEPWkgXDQAJ From: kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> Message-ID: <o6sf58$1ek5$1@gioia.aioe.org> ---------- On 2/1/2017 2:16 AM, uɐɯ And K-man spawns yet another transparent sock, even whilst wildly accusing others of sockpuppetry on the flimsiest of bases. It is to laugh. > BWAHAHAHAHAHAH! The ZPF is a sea of uniform, isotropic electromagnetic > radiation Every quantum field (and there's one for every species of fundamental particle) has energy at its zero point, not only the photon field. > that gives rise to inertial mass, The Higgs field is thought to do that, unless you specifically mean the "inertia" part, in which case ZPF resistance to acceleration is one theory, and Mach's principle is another, but the jury is still out on the exact reasons for inertia. > PS: No physicist worth more than a pinch of shit would use the term > "transmission". Sure she would, when trying to communicate with a lay audience. Especially a particularly dull member of that lay audience, such as, say, you. ---------- https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.checkmate/ V7U8MufSkhw/69RWU7uqDgAJ From: kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> Message-ID: <o7a0bk$1rfv$1@gioia.aioe.org> ---------- On 2/5/2017 11:39 PM, The Party Of Trump (The Party For Losers, Racists, and Misogynists) wrote: > Those large virtual quark-gluon clouds attendant to each atom are the > W and Z bosons after interaction with the Higgs field, hence their > titanic mass. *titter* > And of course, you realize my analogization "analogization" *giggle* > Remember, the strong nuclear and electroweak forces symmetry-broke > from the electronuclear force. "electronuclear force" BWAHAHAHAHA! OK I'll give you one free kl00: us *actual* physicists call that one the "grand unified" force. ---------- From: kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> Message-ID: <n919ml$ps1$1@gioia.aioe.org> ---------- >> 1. On a winter's night, with snow on the ground, is it typically colder >> or warmer when there is cloud cover versus when it is clear? > > clouds over water, snow or ice will have negligible effect on > temperature. BZZZT! http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/activities/atmos1/ ColderOnClearThanCloudy.pdf You bit my shiny hook at last, ko0ky, and thus exposed your l0on climate change denial, and yourself, as intellectually bankrupt. Final victory on the climate change question goes to kensi. Thank you for playing, goodbye. >> 2. What might NASA have meant by "an active Sun" *other* than sunspot >> activity? > > There's no mention of "sunspot activity" in the *three* referenced Non-answer. What I said was mentioned word-for-word was "an active Sun". You have k'lamed that they meant something different from "sunspot activity" by this. You have been asked to state exactly what. Our ruling on question #2 is that you answered with (approximately 200 screedy lines of) *crickets*. Thus, Question 2 remains unanswered. > And you call yourself an astrophysicist? Pshaw, you're not even smart > enough to be an astrologer. To get angles summing to other than 180 degrees the triangle has to be in a curved manifold. The angle sum will be less the more negative the curvature's manifold, and greater the more positive, being 180 when the manifold is flat. A good example: take the meridians at 0 degrees and 90 degrees longitude on Earth, and take the segments of these meridians from north pole to equator. Add in the arc of the equator joining these endpoints by the shortest distance. This is a triangle in Earth's surface as a curved manifold, as the sides are segments of great circles, which are geodesics of that manifold. The interior angles are all 90 degrees, so the angle sum is 270 degrees. From this can be intuited that the relative scale of the triangle and the (possibly negative) radius of curvature of the manifold determines the angle excess/deficit, as making the sphere and triangle smaller by the same factor preserves the angle sum of 270. (Earth is actually (approximately) an oblate spheroid, which doesn't alter the angles, though it makes the triangle a not-quite-equilateral isosceles triangle.) Make only the triangle smaller and the angle excess shrinks toward zero, the angle sum tending to 180, and ditto making only the sphere bigger. The exact quantitative relationship is given by the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, which states: integral_M K dA + integral_dM k_g ds = 2*pi*chi(M) where M is the portion of the manifold enclosed by the triangle (or, actually, any figure) and dA differential units of the enclosed area, K is the Gaussian curvature over M, dM is the triangle itself (or other figure), k_g is the geodesic curvature of this boundary, ds is the differential on the perimeter (so integral_M dA = area A and integral_dM ds = perimeter s), and chi(M) is the Euler characteristic of M (1 for a simply-connected, bounded area with no holes such as our triangle). For a piecewise-geodesic boundary like our triangle, integral_dm k_g ds is the sum of the angles by which the geodesic segments turn at the corners of the boundary, which is pi minus the interior angles. So for the triangle, it's 3*pi minus the sum of the interior angles whose sum with integral_M K dA equals 2*pi*chi(M) = 2*pi, i.e. 3*pi - angle_sum + curvature_integral = 2*pi, or angle_sum - pi = curvature_integral -- the deviation of the angle sum from 180 degrees (but expressed in radians) equals the integral of the curvature of the manifold over the portion enclosed by the triangle. For a manifold of constant curvature (e.g. a sphere) that integral equals the triangle's area times the constant curvature (so, the angle deviation grows as the triangle's area grows, and as the curvature grows); the curvature in question is 1/r^2 where r is the radius of curvature (for a sphere, this is the radius of the sphere; for a manifold of constant negative curvature, it's actually imaginary and of smaller magnitude as the curvature becomes stronger). The importance of the foregoing to an astrophysicist is, of course, general relativity. Space itself (and indeed, space-time) is a curved manifold, and in fact this phenomenon affects not only "plane" figures but solids, and thus spherical angles, in curved space(-time). For instance, a tetrahedron's four interior solid angles' sum will change near, say, a black hole or other dense object. (There's no nice tidy constant in steradians here analogous to angle sum = pi radians for a plane triangle; the sum of the solid angles of a tetrahedron depends on the six dihedral angles of the tetrahedron, being twice their sum minus 4*pi. For the regular, Platonic solid tetrahedron with equilaterial-triangle faces, in Euclidean space, it's 6*cos^-1(1/3) - 4*pi, and will exceed this in positively-curved space and be deficient of it in negatively-curved space.) > <sn<SMACKAK00K!> Since you have now been thoroughly and utterly *destroyed* on every one of your kOoky contentions, our ruling is: Snicker denied. *snicker* ---------- And that's just for starters. I can find countless more if more proof is needed. <snicker> -- FNVWe Nadegda "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." -- Mike Godwin, Aug 13, 2017, 8:03 PM
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Ignoring climate change puts public at risk kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-04 11:02 -0400
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 11:16 -0400
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-04 10:58 -0500
Reckless living/breeding. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-09-04 10:29 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 11:33 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-04 14:58 -0400
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 13:23 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-06 21:16 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-09-05 14:36 -0400
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 13:25 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-05 16:30 -0400
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 13:42 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-05 17:25 -0400
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 16:12 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk "Catalina" <Catalina@beach.sun> - 2018-09-06 15:35 -0400
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 12:37 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-06 20:44 +0100
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 13:05 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-06 21:16 +0100
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 13:41 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-06 21:49 +0100
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 13:52 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-06 22:04 +0100
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 14:09 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-06 22:32 +0100
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 14:37 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-06 22:41 +0100
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 14:43 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-06 21:26 +0000
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-09-06 22:38 +0100
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-09-07 01:49 +0000
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-09-06 13:23 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-09-06 16:39 -0400
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-05 17:27 -0500
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2018-09-05 20:35 +0000
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-05 21:22 +0000
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 16:10 -0700
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-05 21:37 -0500
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-06 03:09 +0000
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 10:42 -0400
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-06 09:45 -0500
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-06 12:23 -0400
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-06 12:15 -0400
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 10:40 -0400
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-09-06 09:51 -0500
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-09-06 21:13 +0000
Re: Ignoring climate change puts public at risk benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 19:37 -0400
csiph-web