MigL

While Markus' instincts advocate 'following the math', one must also realize that sometimes the math leads to unphysical solutions, because of limitations with the model. One such is obviously the singularity, which our current theory cannot handle. Solutions such as the Schwarzschild, are unphysical because no BH is expected to be non-rotating; even the slightest rotation will be greatly increased as it collapses. The Reissner-Nordstrum solution is also nonphysical; since the accretion disc consists of ionized plasma, any charge the BH has will quickly be neutralized by infalling opposing charges, and repulsion of like charges. Another non-physical aspects of both the Kerr ( rotating ) and Reissner-Nordstrum solutions are that for certain rotation speeds, and charge, their dual Event Horizons can disappear leaving 'naked singularity' ( which is as un-physical as you can get ).

You have to stop eating fried foods, or drinking coffee, before bedtime, Strange; you have some pretty disturbing dreams. ( I still dream about women )

Why would it be insufficient to explain which is the causal factor ? ( I imagine that is what SergUpstart was alluding to ) Please explain. Or don't, as that belongs in a thread about climate change, not a thread about optimal CO2 concentrations for plant growth.

I stand corrected. Thank you Janus.

And again, Ken brings the argument back to global warming and climate change. So why did we split off this thread ??? And Swansont asks for CO2 solubility data relative to temperature, but what he's obviously after is the 'chicken or the egg' scenario posed by SergUpstart, as to which comes first. I simply gave solubility data as you requested. The real answer to your real question would be a temperature plot of the last 500 years, superimposed over a CO2 level plot during the same period, and note which leads and which trails. Strange is unequivocal in his disdain for this thread, and can't be bothered as he considers it 'junk' ! There are plenty of scientific articles ( if you can be bothered to look ) that relate plant growth rates to CO2 levels. None of them have anything to do with you guys getting so 'stressed' about what it means for climate change science. Addendum: I note that my consideration of these scientists' opinions were labelled 'arguments from authority', previously by Strange. Yet John ( not the Baptist, Studiot ) previously dismissed W Happer's opinions because of his association with D Trump. Also note that Swansont works for the Navy, whose Commander in Chief happens to also be D Trump. I may have disagreements with Swansont's opinion on occasion but I always consider it; and I would never even think of dismissing his science. What makes me wrong for giving W Happer the same consideration ? As to our previous 'confrontation', Strange, forgive my forceful language. You caught me at a bad time.

I would like to add that over the years I've had numerous disagreements with INow ( and Ten oz, Phi for All, and many others ) in the Political ( opinion based ) forum.. Quite a few times you've made me reconsider my position, and a few times, even discard my position, and come around to your point of view. I'd like to think, you equally consider my opinion, and give it due thought. This has come about because we've actually discussed our respective positions and have never outright dismissed each other's opinions. Discussion does some good. Outright dismissal and banning does nothing other than removing that which we consider unpleasant.

It would be a startling coincidence if the Earth was 'captured' at just the right angle to align with the ecliptic plane. All solar system planets orbit in the same plane; the largest deviation is Mercury, at just 7 deg inclination. Most likely because they coalesced from the rotating plane of dust/gas during the solar system formation. Pluto, which is no longer considered a planet, was most likely captured, as it is a full 17 deg out of the ecliptic.

William Happer is a world renowned Physicist. He is not some internet shmuck with an ill-founded opinion.. He has worked on optical pumping mechanisms used in atomic clocks ( which Swansont may be familiar with ). If he has an opinion, I'm sure considerable thought has gone into it. I may not agree with it, but I would be an idiot ( according to INow ), or completely blindered ( biased, intolerant of other opinions, prejudiced, insert whichever you want ) if I didn't read it. And while he may be 'guilty by association' ( with D Trump ), that does not automatically make him 'wrong by association'. Similarly Patrick Moore, the author of the link I posted, might not be a paleobiologists or paleoclimatologists, as Studiot noted, but he does have a PhD in ecology. Again, not some internet shmuck, so I will take his opinion under consideration as to minimum levels of CO2 needed by current flora ( not the flora of previous eras, which was vastly different ) and possibly do more research on my own, if I have any doubts. I will not cover my eyes and refuse to even read it. I'm not saying anyone has to agree with their opinions because I'm not invoking their 'authority'. Just the fact that when they form an opinion, considerable thought goes into it. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja01861a033#

That was uncalled for. I suggest you step down off that high horse, Strange. This thread has little to do with climate change, and is about levels of CO2 required for plant growth. If I'm mistaken, then why was it split off ??? If you go looking for 'confrontation' as a means to signal your virtue, you always find it ( even when it isn't there )

I was just presenting my opinion as a means of furthering discussion. Not fishing for compliments, INow.

No, it isn't. I just attempted to answer John's question. Apparently the minimum level of CO2 needed for plant growth is approx. 150 ppm. Yet we are trying to control AGW for the benefit of humans. The flora and fauna of this world was much more abundant and diverse when CO2 levels were much higher, as were temperatures. So do you consider us 'enemies of the Earth' ? If we are, then AGW is a good thing, as it will reduce our numbers or even wipe us out. If we are not then reducing AGW is to our benefit, at the expense of the world's ecosystem. So I don't see how his position is conflicted; he is not advocating for higher CO2 levels, just stating facts about plant growth. PS This thread need a new title, as it has little to do with climate change.

So now I have made the almost exact same arguments that Essereio made ( other than the A Hitler comments ). I have not gotten any neg reps, been called racist, or been banned. What is the difference ? Is it possibly that you guys somewhat know me, so I'm tolerated, and given the benefit of the doubt ? Whereas Essereio was prejudged by all, not tolerated, and quickly 'convicted and sentenced' ? Doesn't everybody deserve the benefit of the doubt, their opinions tolerated, and not to be prejudged ? Isn't PREJUDICE and INTOLERANCE exactly what we are trying to eradicate in an unjust society ? I'm not hearing those 'dog whistles' that you mention, Zap.

From the first google result for the search "minimum CO2 levels for plant growth" http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/climate.html "He accepts that most of the rise of CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm is caused by human CO2 emissions." "Even at today's concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about 5 times higher."

I don't have a problem with banning Essereio either, JC. Those are the rules of this forum, and I agreed to those rules when I signed up. This is more about the 'discussion' that America ( and some other places ) need to have to resolve this issue, stop the protests which are infecting thousands ( if not millions ) with Covid-19, and move forward as ONE society; not several distinct ( and unequal ) groups. PS I was gonna post the lyrics to Ice T's Cop Killer, Jay Z's 99 Problems, and Snoop Dogg's Gin and Juice. But I get the feeling not too many forum members like rap music either.

I don't follow, Doc. Do you like rap music and the 'gangsta' culture, and disrespect for authority, it promotes ? What about the misogyny, where every woman is a 'bitch' ? What about the fixation that it's all about the money ? But usually I don't even listen to the lyrics; I just dislike ( hate is too strong a word ) rap music ( even when Eminem or Vanilla Ice ( ha ! ) do it. That is what I get out of the above, if I keep an open mind. If my mind is already made up that the writer is racist, then I 'see' it as hate for all black people.

Ahh... So Zap, racism has the same definition as pornography. "I can't define it, but I know what it is when I see it" ( can't remember the totally subjective judge who said that )

As I said to Phi, quote where Essereio states that black Americans are less than human. He made some points about certain groups being loud and obnoxious, and that is certainly true, about blacks, whites, indigenous, etc. One could say the protesters are loud and obnoxious, and they were composed of many different ethnic groups. And he made the point about A Hitler trying to do good... Nowhere does he mention he 'hates' any group based on skin color. That is an assumption you ( and others ) jump to, based on his opinion about loud obnoxious people. Sometimes Dimreepr is loud and obnoxious, but I love the guy ( we kid each other a lot ). In my opinion, divisiveness, as in "you're a bad person"/" No, you are", only leads to more of the same. If, instead, you try to educate a person on what may be offensive/oppressive to a certain group, you try to understand his 'fears', and assure him that his 'fears' of an equitable world are unfounded, then maybe we can get to that equitable world, together. I do believe "trash' refers to religion, not a specific group of people. Please quote the part about Blacks being sub-human. I think you're reading more than is written... He, and many like minded people ( yes there are many in the US; and probably a large number in Canada also ), don't understand that putting certain oppressed groups on equal footing, doesn't take anything away from him. That is the 'education' I received from Esserio. He is afraid of a 'change' in society, that will affect him very little ( if at all ), but will make a world of difference to oppressed people. His banning has resulted in the loss of an opportunity to reassure him of this, and bring another ( or any lurkers who think similarly ) over to 'our' side. Ad the situation remains the same ...

You want to put nearly half the American population in therapy ? Commendable, and sometimes I even think it's justifiable, but it's not gonna fly, Doc . 'Hurt' is apperception of the 'victim', not the 'perpetrator'. I could call my good friend a "N' word in a friendly gesture, but he may not perceive it as such; what I meant has little impact on how he feels. And that is exactly the point. Racism has come to mean that the racist doesn't agree with my point of view on race relations. Please quote me me where Essereio stated any group of humans is less than human, and deserved to be labelled 'racist', per your definition. Sure he made many dubious statements, especially the ones about A Hitler, but I thought all others were discussable, and allowed for changing his mind about at least, some of them. I still maintain that's how we move forward; not by alienating/dividing a large part of the US population.

All of you guys who have made valid points, are the first to assert that certain words have been 'weaponized' by some groups of people. These words have hurtful connotations, like the 'N' word, or calling a gay person a 'cigarette' in the UK. Calling someone a plumber or physicist doesn't stifle discussion; calling them a 'racist' does, exactly because it is meant to 'hurt'. And it furthers the divide between those who consider the other group 'racist', and those who consider the other group 'liberal commie pinkos'. These two groups should be coming together, and, have a meaningful discussion where they recognize that they are both groups of human beings, that have much more in common than differences. That will bring about change, not further polarization. America is already polarized in terms of politics, race relations, global warming, etc. If they don't start coming together soon, they might as well have split into two countries in 1861.

You correctly state that all motion is relative, but then you draw the wrong conclusion. All relative motion of objects with mass is limited to less than c .

If you are of the opinion that a large portion of American society is 'racist', how do you go about changing that ? Certainly not by name calling, and banning their point of view. That solves nothing; you still have a large portion of society who think that way. The only way to move forward is with dialogue, try to understand their position/opinion ( or fears ), and help them see your position/opinion. So, you have to ask yourselves, do you want the 'status quo', or do you think it's time for understanding and change ?

The only solution to this problem is for people to talk to each other, no matter their opinions, so that they are made aware of how others feel. Calling people 'racist' or continuously down-voting their opinions only entrenches their opinions. And banning them removes any opportunity to change their dissenting opinions. And the problem remains ... Just my opinion, for whatever it's worth. If only one viewpoint is 'allowed', as all other opinions are 'racist', then there is no discussion. So what then, is the point of this thread ? May as well lock it.

Axions were first predicted over 40 years ago, as a solution to the 'strong CP problem'. Even if the detection of axions pans out, we are not sure Dark Matter can be attributed to them. ( 'hot', newly generated, as opposed to 'cold', pre-existing particles ) I also thought, or vaguely remember seeing mathematical evidence for magnetic monopoles, if axions are included in Maxwell's equations.

I was going to say that a discussion ( which America needs to have ) has to have dissenting views, or there is nothing to discuss. Then essereio made that comment about A Hitler... Chances are, if they erect a statue of G Floyd, it will be torn down in the future, because he was a flawed human being. But that cannot, in any way, excuse the way he was treated and killed by representatives of a state-sanctioned organization. THAT, is what is being discussed.

These 'impossibilities' that we naively label Black Holes fully account for stellar motions within the central region of our galaxy ( and others ). These 'impossibilities' emit copious amounts of radiation from their accretion discs. And there are many pictures on the internet of one of these 'impossibilities' that was imaged last year. Don't confuse definitions, or the model, with reality. GR is extremely accurate, but has a number of failings with regard to BHs.