Tahir Gorgen Posted December 25, 2016 Author Posted December 25, 2016 You've shared nothing that demonstrates this. This being a science discussion board, I'd like to discuss some science. Which has nothing to do with global warming. I know. I am not mad. But anyone else can make an input. I opemed this topic and shared. That doesn't mean I know better and others not
swansont Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 I know. I am not mad. But anyone else can make an input. I opemed this topic and shared. That doesn't mean I know better and others not You are claiming that you do know better than others, though. And you haven't been able to back that up.
Tahir Gorgen Posted December 25, 2016 Author Posted December 25, 2016 You are claiming that you do know better than others, though. And you haven't been able to back that up. No. I aimed that KNEW more than others and shared. And others know more than me. I could learn that to Btw what do you want me to back up? 'Their lest disered particles that absorbe more the ligth/radiation'? I am not going to learn and explain the why. That's there work. That is the question to ask and the why. -1
Sensei Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 (edited) I know. I am not mad. That's debatable.. But anyone else can make an input. Input, which you will ignore.. I opemed this topic and shared. But what you shared? I don't see anything valuable. That doesn't mean I know better and others not If you don't know, you should make thread with ask "how something works" in mainstream physics section. Then people will try to answer question. And you will learn something new. After opening thread in speculations, you have to have ready theory. You have to follow rules of speculation. I think it's about time to lock this thread, as OP does want to just preach instead of discuss, ignoring the all inputs made by other members of this forum. Btw what do you want me to back up? Calculate energy absorbed/reflected by the Earth atmosphere. And show how it changes in time on graph preferably. 'Their lest disered particles that absorbe more the ligth/radiation'? Experiments are done routinely by professional true scientists, that are checking "how things work". Unlike you, which prefer preaching.. I am not going to learn and explain the why. That's obvious, because you wouldn't have idea where to start.. That's there work. You meant "That's their work." rather? It has been done more than century ago.. That is the question to ask and the why. I don't see any question made by you.. Edited December 25, 2016 by Sensei
Tahir Gorgen Posted December 25, 2016 Author Posted December 25, 2016 That's debatable.. Input, which you will ignore.. But what you shared?I don't see anything valuable. If you don't know,you should make thread with ask "how something works" in mainstream physics section.Then people will try to answer question.And you will learn something new.After opening thread in speculations,you have to have ready theory.You have to follow rules of speculation.I think it's about time to lock this thread,as OP does want to just preach instead of discuss,ignoring the all inputs made by other members of this forum. What do you want me to back up? Ask the question. If you have not the question I am rigtht. You all are pushing and I gave you the question to ask. The why of climate change. So what is youre and others their question for me? You can push me to get out something you do'nt have even the question for. That is not a discussion.
Strange Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 I am not going to learn and explain the why. That's there work. You are right. It is much easier to not learn and remain ignorant. That is the question to ask and the why. The question has been asked and answered by science. The fact is that you appear totally ignorant about this. What do you want me to back up? Ask the question. If you have not the question I am rigtht. You all are pushing and I gave you the question to ask. The why of climate change. You have given no answer to the "why" of climate change. You have made some vague, and partly incorrect, statements about seasons. That is all.
Tahir Gorgen Posted December 25, 2016 Author Posted December 25, 2016 I said climate change CAUSE and not REASON. The cause I explained. The reason I gave the question for free. -1
Strange Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 So what is youre and others their question for me? What is the cause of climate change over the last 100 years or so? What evidence do you have that it is not the release of CO2 by human activity? I said climate change CAUSE and not REASON. what is the difference? The cause I explained. No you haven't. Nothing you have said appears relevant to climate change.
Sensei Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 (edited) What do you want me to back up? Ask the question. If you have not the question I am rigtht. You all are pushing and I gave you the question to ask. The why of climate change. So what is youre and others their question for me? You can push me to get out something you do'nt have even the question for. That is not a discussion. You obviously don't understand. Science discussion, is discussion using mathematics, and equations. To check somebody claim, there is performed experiment, to check whether predictions match theory. f.e. I have "speculation" how long it will take to heat 1000 grams of water, using heater. Measure resistance of heater, measure voltage, measure current, measure time, measure how fast water is cooling down with time, when no energy source is present anymore And coming up with math equation at the end. And you end up with theory that you need to spend 4.1855 J/g*K energy for every gram of water for every 1 K temperature. That's how science work. Edited December 25, 2016 by Sensei
Tahir Gorgen Posted December 25, 2016 Author Posted December 25, 2016 You obviously don't understand.Science discussion, is discussion using mathematics, and equations.To check somebody claim, there is performed experiment,to check whether predictions match theory.f.e. I have "speculation" how long it will take to heat 1000 grams of water,using heater.Measure resistance of heater,measure voltage,measure current,measure time,measure how fast water is cooling down with time, when no energy source is present anymoreAnd coming up with math equation at the end.And you end up with theory that you need to spend 4.1855 J/g*K energy for every gram of water for every 1 K temperature.That's how science work. I could not have that speculation because I learned on the Rsg in 1988 about water. Density at 4degrees heaviest. Dm^2. And more. All now water can't be heaten more than 100degrees celcious. Or should know. O 1000grams and not Celsius. I wrong youre right. Lol I realy have difficultys to understabd you all. I explained uv and the 2 factors of the heat of the radiation of the sun.
Strange Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 I explained uv and the 2 factors of the heat of the radiation of the sun. Which has nothing to do with climate change.
Sensei Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 What I said about water and 1 calorie definition, it's just example of "speculation baked up by evidence" (experiment).. It's how scientific speculation should be performed.
Tahir Gorgen Posted December 25, 2016 Author Posted December 25, 2016 Herschel found the uv. He had an prisma and an thermometry. He measured all the colours of the spectrum of ligth. Uv the not seen 'colour' had the highest temperature. He discovered it when he layed the thermometry near the blue colour of the spectrum to do something else. When he came back he saw the highest value. Infrared is near red. So the heat is less. So we can measure uv at least as this. I observed and saw the flora act. I know the 2 factors for the heat of the ligth of the sun. I do'nt want to offend others but they didn't know. I explained this to. So I do'nt know what you all want me to back up. The cause is the warming up ofcourse. And it is due to us. I learned also back in 1988 about acid rain on school.
swansont Posted December 25, 2016 Posted December 25, 2016 All now water can't be heaten more than 100degrees celcious. Or should know. Um, no. " it is better to know nothing than to know what ain’t so" - Josh Billings ! Moderator Note This farce is over. We expect you to follow the guidelines of speculations, and this doesn't come close. If you can't present evidence, or a model, or describe how to test an idea, that's it. You need to ask questions and learn more, rather than tell anyone what's going on. Don't re-introduce this, or start up any any thread for that matter, unless you have enough science in it to satisfy the rules. (Normally another moderator would be looking at reported posts and do this, but that's still not working after the update)
Recommended Posts