beecee

Are we all in agreement that other then pin point accuracy with regards to time frames, human induced climate change is having a broad general effect on climate, and that is certainly what the science is obviously telling us, and it is just as certainly what we should be trying to curtail and slow down as much as is humanly and technology possible to do.

All BH's would at the very least be Kerr type metric, or rotating BH's, due to conservation of energy and momentum from the star from whence it was formed. A Kerr BH also has a sphere called an "ergosphere" as detailed here.....https://www.google.com/search?q=kerr+black+hole+diagram&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=lSxu1ufLsf-szM%3A%2CY1UiMFOQlWaGkM%2C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSWYrAlQsVhp9bRKjMsZ1Ynpz2HuA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiAo7CV_eniAhXKXCsKHXTYDmIQ9QEwCHoECAMQDg#imgrc=lSxu1ufLsf-szM: It would be theoretically possible to extract energy from the ergopshere region. Also, all BH's have what we call a "photon sphere" a distance at 1.5 Schwarzchild radius at which light/photons would orbit. We, astronomers that is, use the Schwarzchild metric BH, for ease of calculation. The Kerr BH actually has two photon spheres rotating in different directions. As you can probably see, things do get messy with calculations etc. Suffice to say anything that ventures inside the photon sphere will spiral into the BH and be lost. The EH of a BH can be summed up as where the escape velocity equals the speed of light "c", much as the escape velocity of Earth is around 11kms/sec. The other point is that approaching a BH, one would spiral in, following the curvature of spacetime. A BH of course has no surface to speak of and is formed when any mass is squeezed to beyond its Schwarzchild radius...for the Sun, that would be around 3 kms radius or 6 km diameter, noting of course that the Sun can never become a BH. From that point GR tells us that further collapse is compulsory, at least up to the quantum/Planck level where GR even fails us. So in effect a BH is nothing other then critically curved spacetime with a singularity as defined by the failure of GR at the core, where a surface of sorts may exist at or below the quantum/Planck level. A good site for info on BH's of all types can be found at https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/

Aussie slang for having a bet each way...straddling the fence so to speak, and certainly not in reference to yourself, Why? I was always of the opinion that Earth, Mars and Venus all at one time had Oceans and were in many ways similar to Earth...at best I would have thought that we just as yet do not know enough about greenhouse effects and other natural events to say one way or the other. In saying that I am not pretending to be a climate change expert or meteorologist, but simply someone interested in our planet's welfare and as per other questions asked, would like members partaking here to answer questions direct and not beat around the bush, and again, that is not primarily directed at you. The Chandler wobble, rotational period, axial tilt, tidal effects and tidal locking, are just a few of the motions and effects on Earth that affect climate. And finally in a future age a couple of billion years hence, when the Sun is in the process of becoming a red giant, and if we are still around, will that not be harmful to say the least to Earth and its atmosphere? The question that I don't believe we have a validated answer for, would be, what happened to Venus to produce the runaway greenhouse effect it obviously underwent.... Bingo! As per the Sun's Saro's cycles just to give an example.

Agreed, the attempted inference made with that was very silly. Human induced Climate change as well as that caused by natural Astronomical cycles is happening. I certainly hope no one is arguing against that! Also agreed, though some people seem to be having 2 bob each way and seem reluctant to clearly state that and answer questions. I'm pretty sure iNow does care and he is supportive of reducing climate change due to human activity. Great et pet!! It now appears we all have our hearts in the right place and behind the indisputable science behind human induced climate change, not withstanding probable expected errors in time frames. Although I'm not really sure we can eliminate all of Mankind's deleterious affects...Although there is nothing more that I would be glad to be wrong on.. Yep, that certainly deserves a direct answer

Anyone watch this video yet? About half way down the page at https://www.sciencealert.com/stunning-mirror-pools-and-other-wonders-discovered-on-the-edge-of-deep-sea-vents A must see for anyone interested in the Earth sciences, biology, Climate science, Pollution.......Beautiful, awe inspiring, amazing, and worrying......7 minutes of your time to be convinced once and for all, what we are doing to this planet.

Quite telling obviously that going from an estimate of 150 to around 30, is telling and should lead anyone no matter what doubts, that if we are going to err, we must err on the side of caution. And that fact of the reduction in glaciers, and that fact alone, gives plenty of reason for concern. Not quite Montana, but certainly relative in such an important topic as climate change and the signs and effects......... https://www.pnas.org/content/116/19/9239 Forty-six years of Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance from 1972 to 2018: Significance: We reconstruct the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet for the past 46 years by comparing glacier ice discharge into the ocean with interior accumulation of snowfall from regional atmospheric climate models over 260 drainage basins. The mass balance started to deviate from its natural range of variability in the 1980s. The mass loss has increased sixfold since the 1980s. Greenland has raised sea level by 13.7 mm since 1972, half during the last 8 years. Abstract: We reconstruct the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet using a comprehensive survey of thickness, surface elevation, velocity, and surface mass balance (SMB) of 260 glaciers from 1972 to 2018. We calculate mass discharge, D, into the ocean directly for 107 glaciers (85% of D) and indirectly for 110 glaciers (15%) using velocity-scaled reference fluxes. The decadal mass balance switched from a mass gain of +47 ± 21 Gt/y in 1972–1980 to a loss of 51 ± 17 Gt/y in 1980–1990. The mass loss increased from 41 ± 17 Gt/y in 1990–2000, to 187 ± 17 Gt/y in 2000–2010, to 286 ± 20 Gt/y in 2010–2018, or sixfold since the 1980s, or 80 ± 6 Gt/y per decade, on average. The acceleration in mass loss switched from positive in 2000–2010 to negative in 2010–2018 due to a series of cold summers, which illustrates the difficulty of extrapolating short records into longer-term trends. Cumulated since 1972, the largest contributions to global sea level rise are from northwest (4.4 ± 0.2 mm), southeast (3.0 ± 0.3 mm), and central west (2.0 ± 0.2 mm) Greenland, with a total 13.7 ± 1.1 mm for the ice sheet. The mass loss is controlled at 66 ± 8% by glacier dynamics (9.1 mm) and 34 ± 8% by SMB (4.6 mm). Even in years of high SMB, enhanced glacier discharge has remained sufficiently high above equilibrium to maintain an annual mass loss every year since 1998.

One of the most potentially dangerous asteroids that we know of is called "4179 Toutatis" with a mean diameter of around 5 kms, so if it did hit, it would be a matter of kiss your Granny goodbye! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4179_Toutatis#Close_approaches_and_collision_risk "The probability of the orbit intersecting Earth is essentially zero for at least the next six centuries.[22] The likelihood of collision in the distant future is considered to be very small" Here are a list of some more NEO's and those that will have approaches closer then the mean distance between Earth/Moon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asteroid_close_approaches_to_Earth#Timeline_of_approaches_within_one_lunar_distance

Climate change is something that is scientifically evidenced and happens over long periods, although that appears to be shortening. Not sure of the validity of any "message" in the OP, and being from "down under" was not too familiar with the USA state of Montana and its glaciers, so I did some research....... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.) "There are at least 35 named glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.). At the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, the area containing the national park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park today". "It is estimated that if current warming trends continue, there will be no glaciers left in the park by 2030" https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/ "So far, the results have been positively chilling. When President Taft created Glacier National Park in 1910, it was home to an estimated 150 glaciers. Since then the number has decreased to fewer than 30, and most of those remaining have shrunk in area by two-thirds. Fagre predicts that within 30 years most if not all of the park's namesake glaciers will disappear." :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: It seems fairly obvious what scientifically and logically orientated evidence can be gauged from the above, at least to me. What do others think?

Bingo!! And even if there was any genuine doubt re climate change, with what is at stake, it's far better to err on the side of caution.

The universe is was it is, and we have been bombarded by asteroids/meteors for around 4.6 billion years!

That is the science backed message I hope we all take away from this

Let's all agree that the available science points to human induced climate change. That's a positive beneficial outcome to some apparent questionable suggestions with regards to glaciers and climate change and the message in the award winning doco "Chasing Ice". https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Not sure how many have seen this doco...I highly recommend it Follow National Geographic photographer James Balog across the Arctic as he deploys time-lapse cameras designed for one purpose: to capture a multi-year record of the world's changing glaciers. As frightening and fascinating as it is breathtakingly beautiful, CHASING ICE is a hymn to our changing planet, and a plea for its salvation

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-table-salt-compound-europa.html A familiar ingredient has been hiding in plain sight on the surface of Jupiter's moon Europa. Using a visible light spectral analysis, planetary scientists at Caltech and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which Caltech manages for NASA, have discovered that the yellow color visible on portions of the surface of Europa is actually sodium chloride, a compound known on Earth as table salt, which is also the principal component of sea salt. The discovery suggests that the salty subsurface ocean of Europa may chemically resemble Earth's oceans more than previously thought, challenging decades of supposition about the composition of those waters and making them potentially a lot more interesting for study. The finding was published in Science Advances on June 12. more at link........

https://www.universetoday.com/142451/dont-worry-about-asteroid-2006qv89-theres-only-a-1-in-7000-chance-itll-hit-the-earth-in-september/#more-142451 Don’t Worry About Asteroid 2006QV89. There’s Only a 1 in 7000 Chance It’ll Hit the Earth in September Whenever scientists announce an upcoming close encounter with an asteroid, certain corners of the internet light up like the synaptic rush that accompanies a meth binge, with panicky headlines shouted straight from the brain stem. But never mind that. We’re not that corner of the internet. We’re sober, yo! The fact of the matter is, there aren’t any more near-Earth asteroids than there used to be. We’re just getting good at detecting them. The latest one is called 2006QV89 (We’re going to call it QV for short), and it’s a football field-sized chunk of rock. But don’t let that frighten you, it’s really only 40 meters in diameter (48.5 meters wide x 109 meters long.) Some are feeling panicky, (or they couldn’t care less but want you to panic for clicks). Part of the problem is that the ESA has put it on their risk list, which sounds ominous. All the risk list really means is that the rock has a non-zero chance of striking Earth. It doesn’t mean it’s really big, or that it would threaten civilization if it did collide with us. It just means they’ve taken notice of it and are watching it with one of Earth’s many telescopes capable of keeping an eye on it. No plans to fly into space and make it go boom. According to the ESA, QV has a 1 in 7,299 chance of striking Earth. That’s nowhere near the 1 in 100 threshold that would mean we need to take action. In fact, here’s how insignificant this asteroid is: there are over 850 other asteroids on the risk list, and some of them are near a kilometer in diameter. (The Chicxulub dinosaur-killer was somewhere between 11 km and 81 km in diameter.) more at link......

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-astronomers-mass-small-black-hole.html If astronomers want to learn about how supermassive black holes form, they have to start small—really small, astronomically speaking. In fact, a team including University of Michigan astronomer Elena Gallo has discovered that a black hole at the center of a nearby dwarf galaxy, called NGC 4395, is about 40 times smaller than previously thought. Their findings are published in the journal Nature Astronomy. Currently, astronomers believe that supermassive black holes sit at the center of every galaxy as massive as or larger than the Milky Way. But they're curious about black holes in smaller galaxies such as NGC 4395 as well. Knowing the mass of the black hole at the center of NGC 4395—and being able to measure it accurately—can help astronomers apply these techniques to other black holes. more at link............. the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-019-0790-3 A 10,000-solar-mass black hole in the nucleus of a bulgeless dwarf galaxy: Abstract: The motions of gas and stars in the nuclei of nearby galaxies have demonstrated that massive black holes are common1 and that their masses correlate with the stellar velocity dispersion σ★ of the bulge2,3,4. This correlation suggests that massive black holes and galaxies influence each other’s growth5,6,7. Dynamical measurements are less reliable when the sphere of influence is unresolved; thus, it remains unknown whether this correlation exists in galaxies much smaller than the Milky Way. Light echoes from photoionized clouds around accreting black holes8,9, in combination with the velocity of these clouds, yield a direct mass measurement that circumvents this difficulty. Here we report an exceptionally low reverberation delay of 83 ± 14 min between variability in the accretion disk and Hα emission from the nucleus of the dwarf galaxy NGC 4395. Combined with the Hα velocity dispersion σline = 426 ± 1 km s−1, this lag determines a mass of about 10,000 M⊙ for the black hole (MBH). This mass is among the smallest central black hole masses reported, near the low end of expected masses for heavy ‘seeds’10,11,12, and the best direct mass measurement for a galaxy of this size. Despite the lack of a bulge, NGC 4395 is consistent with the MBH–σ★ relation, indicating that the relation need not originate from hierarchical galaxy assembly nor from black hole feedback.

Or possibly you misunderstand. Because obviously SR is not nonsense and has been experimentally and observationally validated many times.

One can I believe compliment the other at times. Not sure if the following is a valid analogy, but I remember first seeing the movie, [imo the greatest movie ever made] , 2001; A Space Odyssey. While I was infatuated and loved the movie, I was not absolutely sure of its exact meaning/s, and actually saw it 5 more times in the space of about 12 months! Still, that nagging doubt about the exact meaning lingered. Then I purchased the book! Bingo!!! It cleared it up for me admirably and I was ecstatic!

My own process is firstly to gather what info I need from a reliable reputable source, and sometimes that for the uninitiated can be difficult. Science videos are the same. As a member who does post them when I see them needed, I do try and make sure they are "short and sweet" and to the point. Also videos I believe are more appreciated by younger folk. One of my favourites and one I have posted many times is the Richard Feynman/magnetism and "why"explanation video. That certainly can be the case. Again sorting the wheat from the chaff is all that is needed. Sean Carroll has some excellent videos out there, although one or two a bit long.....Carl Sagan I have always classed as the best science educator of our time. Who could forget his original "Cosmos" series in the seventies!

Certainly, and also the makeup of the star around which they orbit, and of course the age of the star. I always like encasing the definition with "Life as we know it"Jim.

More accurately, I think the definition of a "habitable zone" or Goldilocks zone, is a planetary orbit, that can support liquid water?

Perhaps you need to listen to the professionals instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting Lalalala! And it appears as the experts have shown, that your mathematics is wrong...sad!!!

So then, if you are so confident with your findings that repute the many findings and data over the last 100 years, why not then do the professional thing, and write up a paper for professional peer review and make a name for yourself as well as being the recipient of the next Nobel prize for physics. Afterall as is painfully obvious anyone at all, can make whatever claims they like on a forum open to the general public.

Perhaps that while probably factual, stems from the fact that most scientists do believe [even without the evidence] that life should exist elsewhere in this great big wide wonderful universe, with its many trillions of stars in many billions of galaxies. "You mentioned "Bigfoot" and the sometimes over the top ridicule by skeptics of the claims of UFO's of alien origin. Perhaps that ridicule is driven by the fact that on an old forum I once belonged to [and actually still do] we have one individual that continually pushes his beliefs in Alien origin UFO's, Bigfoot, ghosts, and just about anything of a supernatural or paranormal nature. I kid you not! Also with regards to the issue at hand, just found this..... https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/17563-photo-pentagon-ufo-story-fake-expert-reveals extract: "Unfortunately, Express.co.uk has revealed that not only is the photo of the infamous "white Tic-Tac UFO" most likely a distorted picture of a mylar party balloon, the photo wasn't even taken in 2004 near the Nimitz incident—it was photographed in 2005, in Manchester, England. According to UFO investigator Steve Mera, who investigated the original sighting in England: "Truth of the matter is... it was taken in Eccles, Manchester and I investigated the case. Likelihood... it was a novelty balloon, a number 'one.' Someone manipulated the photo a little by increasing its brightness." The photo somehow found its way into an article about the Nimitz incident published in 2015, where it was apparently picked up by members of DeLonge's academy and included in the October presentation, where Mellon commented:" Disclaimer: I am certainly not real familiar with this "Express.co.uk" or its reliablity. Or whether it is or is not in the class of the Daily Mail.