Science Stuff

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Science Stuff

Postby Haggis@wk » Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:59 pm

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Science Stuff

Postby jamiebk » Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:37 pm

gold and platinum eh.....doesn't sound cheap to build
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Science Stuff

Postby analog » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:21 pm

hmmmm gold and platinum are different metals and sulfuric acid is an electrolyte; sounds like a battery to me.

For you AGW skeptics here's another article by that Eschbach fellow.

I think he's nailed it.

His conclusions:
So, those are my results. I hold that they are derivable from my hypothesis that clouds and thunderstorms keep the earth’s temperature within a very narrow level. And I say that these results strongly support my hypothesis. Clouds, thunderstorms, and likely other as-yet unrecognized mechanisms hold the climate sensitivity to a value very near zero. And a corollary of that is that a doubling of CO2 would make a change in global temperature that is so small as to be unmeasurable.

In the Northern Hemisphere, for example, the hemispheric average temperature change winter to summer is about 5°C. This five degree change in temperature results from a winter to summer forcing change of no less than 155 watts/metre squared … and we’re supposed to worry about a forcing change of 3.7 W/m2 from a doubling of CO2???

The Southern Hemisphere shows the IPCC claim to be even more ridiculous. There, a winter to summer change in forcing of 182 W/m2 leads to a 2°C change in temperature … and we’re supposed to believe that a 3.7 W/m2 change in forcing will cause a 3° change in temperature? Even if my results were off by a factor of three, that’s still a cruel joke.
emphasis mine - a.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/28/s ... nsitivity/
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks


Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron