Ask a physicist anything. (7)

[LOCO]

Sounds to me like he's one of a series of formerly-good scientists who lost their marbles.

The work he won his Nobel prize for, by the way, was electron tunneling, which has as much to do with global warming as baseball. Now, electron tunneling is really important stuff in its own right. Understanding its behavior, for example, is important for understanding the behavior of modern microprocessors.


And that statement (by Giaever) is amazingly delusional.


There are quite a lot out there, if you're willing to look. This guy has put together a lot of great videos on the subject, for example:
greenman3610's Channel - YouTube

I also rather like this website, if you're more into reading:
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says


To me, it's really too much to blame scientists for this. The reason that there's a lot of confused information out there isn't because of scientists. It's because there are a number of large PR firms who make it their job to publish wave after wave of misinformation regarding climate science. Nearly all of the literature questioning the consensus on global warming, for example, has been put out either directly or indirectly by conservative think tanks, which derive a good fraction of their funding from fossil fuel companies. Fox News has also been quite instrumental in pushing the disinformation.

Thank you for the informative and quick reply. I love reading. Will definitely check out those links. Let me just say I'm not a climate sceptic.

As a nation we are currently engaged in a huge debate as last week the government introduced a Carbon Tax on the Top500 polluters in Australia which I think is FANTASTIC and long overdue.

However, a lot of the anger and frustration being generated within the public about this is due to people just not understanding the language and practice of Science. I'm not blaming scientists, I just think the language used needs to be simplified. Maybe the Scientists need PR as well.

And yes, if individuals have concerns they can find it out themselves but if they don't understand what they are reading, it makes it a futile exercise.

I tell my sceptic mates to check out the IPCC website for info. but one of them said it made his eyes water and his head hurt. Too much information. Will pass on the ones you gave me.

Blessings

 

[cupid dave]

Originally Posted by cupid dave
The politicians want to tax us.
In states where they have taxed based on Global Warming they have already used those funds for other purposes due to the recession and lower tax base.

What we need is more discussion about what Global Warming will do and what we need to correct or accommodate communities which will suffer.

We need to relate Taxation to the remedial measures necessary where the climate changes will impact us.

Taxation funds more than just mitigating the effects of climate change.

The taxes go to one big pot, and then other projects are thereby funded, making it rather difficult to say "This dollar used to buy X was acquired by taxing gambling/cars/etc".

Are you simply saying that governments should do more to curb the effects of climate change? I should think that's a given.

No, I am not saying that "governments should do more to curb the effects of climate change."

I am saying that they are giving us a questionable reason to ket them raise Taxes.
AND, they are not talking to us about how they will be restricted to use the Tax to remediate the warming problem.

I AM implying that the private Sector is now paying 50% taxes, and that is way more than we paid the British.

 

[cupid dave]

I really don't care about the political side Dave. I'm mainly interested in what science is correct and what science is being deliberately distorted. The latter I cannot and will not tolerate. That is why I post here as well in climate science forums.

Me too.
I am interested in whether the Dun is warn=ming up the planets in general or whether the automobile is the real culprit.

April 29, 2007
Climate change hits Mars

Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

 

[Zippy the Wonderslug]

Isaiah 34:4 All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree.


What could possibly cause such a phenomena such as this?

 

[Chalnoth]

Maybe the Scientists need PR as well.

Yes. But that requires money, which scientists do not have. Not compared to the oil, gas, and coal industries, anyway.

I tell my sceptic mates to check out the IPCC website for info. but one of them said it made his eyes water and his head hurt. Too much information. Will pass on the ones you gave me.

Yes, the IPCC is a bit dense. The nice things about the two I posted is that they directly go after the claims of the denialists, and do so at a level intended for a public audience, complete with references for further reading if you're so inclined.

 

[Chalnoth]

No, I am not saying that "governments should do more to curb the effects of climate change."

I am saying that they are giving us a questionable reason to ket them raise Taxes.
AND, they are not talking to us about how they will be restricted to use the Tax to remediate the warming problem.

I AM implying that the private Sector is now paying 50% taxes, and that is way more than we paid the British.

Once again, the tax itself is what helps the warming problem.

And who, precisely, is paying 50% in the private sector? Because the average total tax rate in the US is right around 27%, which is around the lowest in the developed world. See here:
List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those nations with higher tax rates are usually (but not always) much nicer places to live than the US.

 

[Chalnoth]

Me too.
I am interested in whether the Dun is warn=ming up the planets in general or whether the automobile is the real culprit.

April 29, 2007
Climate change hits Mars

Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

See here:
Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting

Mars isn't actually warming globally.

 

[Tuddrussell]

Can radiation give people super powers? If so what kind, and what negative eggects would go along wiht them?

 

[Chalnoth]

Can radiation give people super powers? If so what kind, and what negative eggects would go along wiht them?

Yes! Side effects include horrible, agonizing death, before the superpowers appear.

More seriously, the effects of radiation vary tremendously depending upon the type of radiation, which parts of the body are exposed, and how much. In general, radiation above a certain energy level (typically a little bit more energetic than visible light, i.e. in the UV range), radiation causes tissue damage. UV light itself is stopped by the skin, so the skin absorbs that damage, which is why UV light causes tanning and can also cause skin cancer (tanning is our body's response to help protect from the damage).

More energetic radiation, such as X-rays, penetrates further into the body, spreading the damage out over a wider area. Mild damage is repaired by the body. But if some bit of DNA is damaged in just the wrong way, it can cause cancer, so that even mild damage always carries with it some risk.

Things get more gruesome when you start to get to significant amounts of radiation damage, as significant portions of our bodies' molecules get messed up. If enough molecules within our bodies get damaged by the radiation, then there is no possibility of recovery, and we die, often without obvious outward appearance of any sort of damage, except for the fact that the person has become very ill (as happened to Louis Slotin, for example).

 

[Tuddrussell]

So... No radiation based super powers? Of any sort, ever?

 

[Chalnoth]

So... No radiation based super powers? Of any sort, ever?

Vomiting, perhaps?

 

[Tuddrussell]

Super vomiting? Also, when do you think will have super soldiers? Like Iron Men and Captain Americas and such?

 

[Chalnoth]

Super vomiting? Also, when do you think will have super soldiers? Like Iron Men and Captain Americas and such?

Well, that is largely down to our understanding of biology and a nation's willingness to conduct unethical medical experiments. I couldn't say anything intelligent to either one.

 

[Tuddrussell]

What's unethical about robot suits or non-sterone chemical enhancements?

 

[Chalnoth]

What's unethical about robot suits or non-sterone chemical enhancements?

Sorry, for some reason I zeroed in on Captain America instead of Iron Man.

And yes, the experiments required to produce the chemical enhancements required to make a sort of Captain America would be highly unethical.

As for robot suits, well, we're already moving in that direction. See here:
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | US army develops robotic suits

I can't imagine this sort of thing being very useful for anything but heavy lifting any time soon. And I'm not sure what military use is hoped to be gained from this. But I could imagine it being used as particularly oppressive crowd control against, for example, the current protesters in NYC.

Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, I expect the primary military use would be to allow a single soldier to carry bigger weapons and more ammo into areas where it is difficult to take vehicles. So basically it vastly increases your potential firepower in exceedingly rough terrain or dense urban settings. The former seems fair enough....the latter sounds downright scary to me.

 

[Self Improvement]

Why can't we have text messages that send tastes and smells instead of just boring words?

Like, if I'm away from my girlfriend and she just showered and I want to smell her awesome cucumber melon hair, why can't she send it to me in a scent message? What gives, physicists?

 

[Tuddrussell]

I don't see the ethics problem. The medical industry is working on stuff that enhances strength, durability, endurance, perception, and agility right now.

What I'm talking about is just the milatary application of such. It's just a matter of time.

 

[Chalnoth]

Why can't we have text messages that send tastes and smells instead of just boring words?

Like, if I'm away from my girlfriend and she just showered and I want to smell her awesome cucumber melon hair, why can't she send it to me in a scent message? What gives, physicists?

My understanding of this is that there is just a tremendous variety of chemicals that we can distinguish. Something like hundreds of different chemicals. So it's a pretty big engineering challenge to make a device which can emit all of those receptors. And it's also quite the challenge to determine how the message should be generated and sent. So it's definitely possible. It's just technically difficult. Though some people are working on similar things:
Electronic nose - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So maybe we'll see this, but I think it's mostly a question of whether or not the product justifies the cost.

 

[RickG]

What's your opinion on Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever resignation last month as a Fellow from the American Physical Society? He doesn't agree with their official stance that global warming is occurring.

He said he "cannot live with the statement" on global warming, and said that global temperature had been "amazingly stable."

This just confuses the general public. I think Scientists bear an obligation to devise simpler and better ways of explaining global warming to the public.

No-one I know understands anything about global warming, what is occurring, how it's occurring, how it is going to affect future generations, how will it affect my hip pocket etc. Throw in the mix dissenting views from Scientists and you have a confused, uninformed, frustrated and angry public.

We are becoming desensitised to the cry 'there will be no earth for future generations'.

Blessings

Ivar Giaever is not a climate scientist nor has he ever published anything concerning climate. His statements on climate change are nothing more than his uninformed opinion and ideology, not the science itself.

He is also associated with the Cato and Heartland Institutes which are funded in part by ExxonMobil. Hmmm, wonder where their interests are.

His name is also included in full pages adds published by many national news organizations including the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Washington Post stating, "there has been no net global warming for over a decade." That is a dead give away that Giaever has not only not looked at any of the climate data, but never intends even intends to so. That's an ideological stance, not a scientific one.

An appeal to authority is an often misused ploy of GW skeptics.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't see the ethics problem. The medical industry is working on stuff that enhances strength, durability, endurance, perception, and agility right now.

My understanding is that this is linked to attempting to treat the conditions of people who suffer from a deficit in one of these areas. Typically if there is a significant physiological change, there are also significant side effects. And that means that it is highly unethical to use these medicines on an already healthy person.