P.O. Box 98199
Washington, DC 20090-8199
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
You’re back! I am explaining it to you, but using physics. It is pretty obvious once you understand that, so.
What does F=ma mean?
I have a horrible feeling your lost already.
Do you really want to do this GSW? Really?
The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m
Do go on. I can’t wait.
Excellent! so in the example discussed what force would you have to apply (with your hand) to move the matchbox across the table at constant 0.1m/s, assuming a frictional force of F friction?
A more pertinent question is whether friction is a conservative force?
Can you answer that one, GSW?
|Fhand| = |Ffriction|
Oh, the anticipation…
Correct! and the same question at 0.2m/s?
Identical. Are these steps the largest size you can grok?
We’re getting there, stu . So how could I tell when you are applying, with your hand, a force greater than F friction?
When the velocity of the box increases. Of course, that’s fudging a little bit, but I wouldn’t want to confuse you.
For the record, I’m not saying that the force required to maintain constant momentum is anything other than the constant force of kinetic friction. What I’m really concerned with is what it does to calculations of work and power while momentum is increasing or decreasing.
Can you answer my question and what it means vis~a~vis power differentials?
Increasing velocity is ‘acceleration’, and your hand is contact with the box, so -
“and the applied force was your hand, then to apply a greater force than F friction, your hand would have to move quicker (accelerate) across the table also”
This is what you didn’t see the relevance of earlier. Its pretty straight too.
You can visibly tell if you are applying a greater than force if the matchbox and your hand are accelerating, just being faster isn’t enough, it needs to be accelerating.
If it’s a constant speed, pretty much irrespective of what that speed is, you’re only applying F friction.
That’s it? Really? That’s your big payoff? You might very well be the dumbest person alive.
You read #1490 and did not understand it. I explained again at #1500 and you still did not understand it.
The velocity of the hand is the same as the velocity of the box. It is equal to the velocity of the box. We only need to know the velocity of the box to know the velocity of the hand. We can deduce the velocity of the hand by measuring the velocity of the box.
Because of this, when we model a box being pushed over a surface, it is irrelevant. So is the velocity of the air in the box. So is the velocity of the dust on the box. So is the velocity of the fingernails. It is superfluous.
Anyway, good job. It’s been a while since I’ve seen such a spectacle.
You kept asking stu, again and again. And now you know!
The question Stu keeps asking, over and over again, is “What percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?”
You haven’t answered that. We still don’t know.
I’ve just read your post again
“The velocity of the hand is the same as the velocity of the box. It is equal to the velocity of the box. We only need to know the velocity of the box to know the velocity of the hand. We can deduce the velocity of the hand by measuring the velocity of the box.
Because of this, when we model a box being pushed over a surface, it is irrelevant. So is the velocity of the air in the box. So is the velocity of the dust on the box. So is the velocity of the fingernails. It is superfluous.”
It’s gibberish. I’m gonna keep this to show to people. Best joke of the week. They will have a laugh!
GSW, you still don’t get it? That is absolutely flabbergasting. One last try.
Say we have an equation like
a = b + c
Following your reasoning, it is necessary to add
x = b
y = b
z = b
The question is where your malfunction is. Do you not understand that this is what you are saying, or do you not understand how idiotic adding those additional equations is?
>I’m not saying that the force required to maintain constant momentum is anything other than the constant force of kinetic friction
Good! Finally! But you’ve said very many things to the contrary before. And other funny things about the laws of motion and physics …
Re: A simple experiment to help lumionus observe the acceleration he feels is missing.
One could just tilt the table with the box (sufficiently to overcome friction, tan(α) > µ ) and note that the (constant) component of weight/gravity downwards increases the speed until it falls over the edge. And one could experiment by releasing it at different distnaces from the edge
And what you mean by the hand needing to keep up with box when accelerating it was perfectly clear.
But it’s amazing on how basic a level even the simplest things need to be explained. And first get ‘challenged’. And when they finally get it, they try a triumphant ‘But that’s what I meant the entire time’.
This has happened a number of times. But I guess it should be considered ‘progress’. Everybody(?) now seems to agree that summer water flow is not from shrinking glaciers. And many seem to realize that what commonly is referred to as ‘glacier melt’ is nothing but seasonal snow melt. And some also have grasped that ‘half a billion people threatened’ should be understood as merely meaning ‘half a billion people living there’ …
But hey … even small steps in the right direction are progress .. but to cover any distance, speed matterst too
Agreed. None so blind as those who will not see…
I like your experiment better – it was how we did it at school. I tried to make it as close to LB’s 100kg box example as possible for the sake of keeping it simple. But as we’ve agreed, keeping it simple doesn’t help much for “those who will not see”.
You & Olaus are doing a good job by the way. Very entertaining!
The Jonases said: “Everybody(?) now seems to agree that summer water flow is not from shrinking glaciers. And many seem to realize that what commonly is referred to as ‘glacier melt’ is nothing but seasonal snow melt.
Not so. Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and one of the things Singh and Kumar found in their ten year survey is that precipitation in is being exceeded by flow out. In short, glacier melt is being enhanced by melting glaciers.
And those half billion people’s water supply is under threat if rising temperatures cause immediate wet season run off rather than dry season storage by slow melt of precipitation. Flow rates vary from up to 70,000 m3/s in monsoon season down to to 180 m3/s in the dry season. Obviously that low level will decrease further.
Btw, Tim Barnett (now at Scripps) wonders how building all your dams solves the problem of ocean acidification.
Like the other topics Jonas dabbles into superficially, his discussion of the impacts of climate warming on glacial loss in the Himalaysas is a no-brainer. There are 232 studies in the Wos that have examined the process. How many have you read, our resident D-K model? They primarily agree that (1) warming is reducing glacial extent significantly, and (2) that this will profoundly impact the hydrological cycles of the catchments there, as well as the health and viability of regional ecosystems and their biodiversity and ultimately many, many millions of people. Thus the effects go far beyond the provisioning of freshwater supplies but have huge repercussions on natural systems and the services that emerge from them. Trust the denialati to try to put their own spin on it.
Here are just a few:
Water storage change in the Himalayas from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and an empirical climate model
Author(s): Moiwo, JP (Moiwo, Juana Paul)1; Yang, YH (Yang, Yonghui)1; Tao, FL (Tao, Fulu)3; Lu, WX (Lu, Wenxi)2; Han, SM (Han, Shumin)1
Source: WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH Volume: 47 Article Number: W07521 DOI: 10.1029/2010WR010157 Published: JUL 13 2011
Abstract: The Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau harbor hundreds of mountain lakes along with thousands of glaciers and high-elevation snowfields. This is the source of water for the upper reaches of Asia’s main river systems, providing the livelihood for millions of people in the subregion. Climate change is therefore critical for the Himalaya snow and glacier hydrology, the dependent ecosystems, and the people. Whereas temperature and precipitation are common indicators for climate change, snow and glacier dynamics are reliable precursors of a warming or cooling climate. This study uses a simple empirical climate model (ECM) and the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite data to analyze water storage dynamics in the 5.072 x 10(6) km(2) Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau region. About 72 consecutive months (January 2003 through December 2008) of data are used in the study. The temperature and precipitation (snow plus rain) data are acquired from the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) Noah land surface model and are validated with ground truth data from 205 meteorological stations. Total water storage change derived from the GRACE gravity data is fitted with a simple sinusoidal least squares regression model. A favorable agreement exists between the GRACE and sinusoidal curve (R(2) = 0.81 and root-mean-square error (RMSE) = 8.73 mm), suggesting that random errors in GRACE data are small. However, the sinusoidal fit does not quantify systematic errors in GRACE data. Agreements between the GRACE- and ECM-estimated storage changes are also favorable at both monthly (R(2) = 0.93, RMSE = 5.46 mm) and seasonal (R(2) = 0.83, RMSE = 7.64 mm) cycles. The agreements (significant at p < 0.01) indicate not only GRACE's ability to detect storage signal but also that of the ECM model to characterize storage change in the snow and glacier hydrology. There is clear seasonality in the storage anomaly, with the highest in summer and lowest in winter. The corresponding storage change is delayed by a quarter of the year. The GRACE and ECM model indicate an overall negative storage trend of 0.36 +/- 0.03 mm/month or 21.91 +/- 1.95 km(3)/yr for the study area (significant at p < 0.1). Given that snow and glaciers are particularly sensitive to temperature change, the negative storage trend could be indicative of warming climate conditions in the region. Groundwater abstraction (mainly for irrigation) in the southern plains, coupled with dwindling snowfall in the northern massifs, is a critical storage loss factor in the region. Invariably, storage loss in the Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau region could have negative implications for the hydrology, dependent ecosystems, and livelihoods of millions of people.
An analysis of snow cover changes in the Himalayan region using MODIS snow products and in-situ temperature data
Author(s): Maskey, S (Maskey, Shreedhar)1; Uhlenbrook, S (Uhlenbrook, Stefan)1,2; Ojha, S (Ojha, Sunal)3,4
Source: CLIMATIC CHANGE Volume: 108 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 391-400 DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0181-y Published: SEP 2011
Climate change in Nepal and its impact on Himalayan glaciers
Arun B. Shrestha1 and Raju Aryal2
(1) International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), PO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Nepal
(2) Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada
Abstract: Amidst growing concerns over the melting of the Himalayas' snow and glaciers, we strive to answer some of the questions related to snow cover changes in the Himalayan region covering Nepal and its vicinity using Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) snow cover products from 2000 to 2008 as well as in-situ temperature data from two high altitude stations and net radiation and wind speed data from one station. The analysis consists of trend analysis based on the Spearman's rank correlation on monthly, seasonal and annual snow cover changes over five different elevation zones above 3,000 m. There are decreasing trends in January and in winter for three of the five elevation zones (all below 6,000 m), increasing trends in March for two elevation zones above 5,000 m and increasing trends in autumn for four of the five elevation zones (all above 4,000 m). Some of these observed trends, if continue, may result in changes in the spring and autumn season river flows in the region. Dominantly negative correlations are observed between the monthly snow cover and the in-situ temperature, net radiation and wind speed from the Pyramid station at 5,035 m (near Mount Everest). Similar correlations are also observed between the snow cover and the in-situ temperature from the Langtang station at 3,920 m elevation. These correlations explain some of the observed trends and substantiate the reliability of the MODIS snow cover products.
Arun B. Shrestha
Accepted: 19 October 2010 Published online: 17 November 2010
Climate change can be particularly hard-hitting for small underdeveloped countries, relying heavily on natural resources for the economy and livelihoods. Nepal is one among these countries, being landlocked, with diverse physiographical characteristics within a relatively small territory and with rugged terrain. Poverty is widespread and the capacity of people and the country to cope with climate change impact is low. The country is dominated by the Asian monsoon system. The main occupation is agriculture, largely based on rain-fed farming practices. Tourism based on high altitude adventures is one of the major sources of income for the country. Nepal has a large hydropower potential. While only 0.75% of the theoretical hydropower potential has been tapped, Nepal can greatly benefit from this natural resource in the future. Climate change can adversely impact upon water resources and other sectors of Nepal. The source of water is mainly summer monsoon precipitation and the melting of the large reserve of snow and glaciers in the Himalayan highlands. Observations show clear evidences of significant warming. The average trend in the country is 0.06°C per year. The warming rates are progressively higher for high elevation locations. The warming climate has resulted in rapid shrinking of majority of glaciers in Nepal. This paper presents state-of-knowledge on the glacial dynamics in the country based on studies conducted in the past in Shorong, Khumbu, Langtang, Dhaulagiri and Kanchenjunga regions of Nepal. We present recent trends in river flow and an overview of studies on expected changes in the hydrological regime due to climate change. Formation, growth and likely outburst of glacial lake are phenomena directly related to climate change and deglaciation. This paper provides a synopsis of past glacial lake outburst floods impacting Nepal. Further, likely impacts of climate change on other sectors such as agriculture, biodiversity, human health and livelihoods are discussed.
The Melting Himalayas: Cascading Effects of Climate Change on Water, Biodiversity, and Livelihoods
JIANCHU XU1,2,*, R. EDWARD GRUMBINE3, ARUN SHRESTHA4, MATS ERIKSSON4, XUEFEI YANG1, YUN WANG1, ANDREAS WILKES2Article first published online: 15 MAY 2009
©2009 Society for Conservation Biology
Volume 23, Issue 3, pages 520–530, June 2009
Additional Information(Show All)
How to CiteAuthor InformationPublication History
How to Cite
XU, J., GRUMBINE, R. E., SHRESTHA, A., ERIKSSON, M., YANG, X., WANG, Y. and WILKES, A. (2009), The Melting Himalayas: Cascading Effects of Climate Change on Water, Biodiversity, and Livelihoods. Conservation Biology, 23: 520–530. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01237.x
Abstract: The Greater Himalayas hold the largest mass of ice outside polar regions and are the source of the 10 largest rivers in Asia. Rapid reduction in the volume of Himalayan glaciers due to climate change is occurring. The cascading effects of rising temperatures and loss of ice and snow in the region are affecting, for example, water availability (amounts, seasonality), biodiversity (endemic species, predator–prey relations), ecosystem boundary shifts (tree-line movements, high-elevation ecosystem changes), and global feedbacks (monsoonal shifts, loss of soil carbon). Climate change will also have environmental and social impacts that will likely increase uncertainty in water supplies and agricultural production for human populations across Asia. A common understanding of climate change needs to be developed through regional and local-scale research so that mitigation and adaptation strategies can be identified and implemented. The challenges brought about by climate change in the Greater Himalayas can only be addressed through increased regional collaboration in scientific research and policy making.
But, of course, to keep the denialists happy, I should have added to the above studies (and there are many more of them) that the evidence for the negative effects of rapid glacial melt in the Himalayas and elsewhere on natural ecosystems and on regional human populations is only strong but not absolute (although it is growing). Out of interest, Jonas and Olaus, how many of the above studies have you read?
This, will of course come as a relief to Olaus, Jonas and others, who demand 100% proof that it will be a serious problem before they think that we ought to do anything about it. Until then they insist that we sit back and do nothing at all, watching the retreating glaciers until local ecosystems begin collapsing and the locals find soil coming from their taps when they turn them on. A colleague of mine who works on the restoration of freshwater ecosystems said that this is effectively what is happening in Mexico City. So much groundwater is being pumped from the underground aquifers that parts of the city are beginning to sink into the ground. At some point there will be no water left in them and then what?
Same thing is happening to the Oglalla aquifer underlying the great plains and the great aquifer underlying the China plain. They are being pumped dry. Eighty per cent of China’s rivers are biologically dead. The situation with the glaciers is symptomatic of a greater malaise. Like I said earlier, I would like to know at what point the deniers on this thread think that it is prudent to be concerned over the situations I explained above. I would also like to ask them if they think there are ANY human-mediated environmental threats that they think we should be concerned about:
1. Other forms of pollution
2. Loss of biodiversity
3. Habitat loss and fragmentation
4. Overharvesting of natural capital (e.g. fisheries)
5. Changes in the epidimeological environment
chek .. you got that on right:
The glaciers are shrinking (or at least have been since many hundreds of years).
But do I understand you correctly, that **mass loss** in it self constitutes a relevant contribution to those in dire need of summer freshwater?
Because if so, you seem at odds with quite a few others here who boasted that there ‘understanding’ really is and always was a ‘no brainer’
Re: Your other question?
Let me instead ask you what methods you propose for chasing and frezzing that (melted) ice back up in the Himalayans?
And I can ask Jeff H the same, because he thinks that politicians can accomplish such deeds if only given enough power and money …
Exactly Jeff H!
>who demand 100% proof that it will be a serious problem before they think that we ought to do anything about it
Or not! The first part is once again your derailed fantasy. But the second one is right to the point! The part:
>we ought to **do anything about it**
Now there is the relevant question for you. What would you do about them glaciers? How would you reinstate their former grandeur they had around the LIA, pray tell!
Because you have spent 1½ month here telling people to shut up and shove off, and instead listen to you and your empty posturing and CV-rambling …
So please tell us: How would ensure that those glaciers start growing again?
With what methods, at what cost, and which impact on the rest of the world, including the environment and everything you hold dearly?
Because if you don’t have a viable method, all you have been doing is shouting out your frustration … like a kid in the playground who droped his icecream in the dirt!
1. Climate change is not happening.
2. Climate change is not caused by people.
3. Climate change might be caused by people but it’s too difficult to do anything about it.
I see you are now at #3. We seem to be making progress.
GSW, care to answer #1516, or was it all too embarrassing for you and will you just go back to cheerleading? Did you finally understand, or should we have a deep and meaningful discussion of fingernail velocity?
Jonas is back to true, intrepid lying form I see. Here we go:
Good! Finally! But you’ve said very many things to the contrary before.
Really? Name one time.
And when they finally get it, they try a triumphant ‘But that’s what I meant the entire time’. [...]
Everybody(?) now seems to agree that summer water flow is not from shrinking glaciers.
Nobody here said anything to the contrary. You made that up. Why is that, I wonder?
And many seem to realize that what commonly is referred to as ‘glacier melt’ is nothing but seasonal snow melt.
Ah, that’s why. It is not, nor has it ever been called “glacier melt”, moron. It’s “glacial melt”. Stop lying and making things up. Your idiotic “net loss of glacier mass” strawman was bad enough, but this is getting pathetic, even for you.
And some also have grasped that ‘half a billion people threatened’ should be understood as merely meaning ‘half a billion people living there’ …
If the water supply for an area where half a billion people live is threatened, what would you call it then? What new magical term would you make up for that?
But do I understand you correctly, that mass loss in it self constitutes a relevant contribution to those in dire need of summer freshwater?
Nobody said that. Stop lying and making things up. Loss of glaciers threatens the ability of the Himalayas to act as a reservoir. This has been pointed out to you in #1381, #1382, #1383, #1457 and others. Again, your tactic seems to be to say something idiotic, ignore the rebuttals, wait a few days and pretend something else was said. Again, this does not work when people can simply scroll up.
Let me instead ask you what methods you propose for chasing and frezzing [sic] that (melted) ice back up in the Himalayans? And I can ask Jeff H the same, because he thinks that politicians can accomplish such deeds if only given enough power and money …
Again, you’re pretending this was not addressed… when it was way back @1406.
You’re very transparently attempting to go in circles Jonas, hoping very hard that nobody is paying attention. Or is the idea being so blatantly idiotic and childish that people will get sick of you and leave, so you can drop a few parting nuggets and hope that posterity will come in and take your word for it instead of reading the entire thread?
It really is starting to look like it is the latter. But you can prove me wrong Jonas. Wouldn’t you like that? All you need to do is answer a simple, substantive question: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Richard, you forgot
2a: Climate change is not catastrophic because we can just build dams.
As I’ve said many times by now: I assume that people use the best arguments the have (left)
And everybody can see what its worth. I hope you are comfortable here around the others …
So Jonas, why is #3 (Climate change might be caused by people but it’s too difficult to do anything about it) a strawman?
Did you not JUST say, right before that, and I mean mere minutes before that:
Let me instead ask you what methods you propose for chasing and frezzing that (melted) ice back up in the Himalayans? And I can ask Jeff H the same, because he thinks that politicians can accomplish such deeds if only given enough power and money …
Do tell, are you just lying again or do you have your own, magical definition of strawman that includes “directly addressing what I just said”?
And while you’re at it, Jonas… why is it so hard for you to tell us what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists? What in particular is so scary about that simple question?
We’ve had a deep and meaningful conversation already stu, you lost!
Your (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5554186 “”), a stu classic!
You wanted science and I gave it to you. Now you are backpeddling to attack me personally. Sure my academic CV blows yours out of the water (many thanks for this admission, by the way) but why keep reminding everyone of that? I have not mentioned my professional work in a long time. I put up articles for you to comment on and you move on to a new approach: the ‘humans are too insignificant to affect hydrological cycles and climate and glacial melt thus we should just keep burning those fossil fuels’.
Have you read any of the articles I posted above? Have you done any Web of Science searches for relevant literature? What about the ecological effects of climate warming as described?
Your approach seems to be, “Humans have f*&%@# up much of the biosphere and its too late to try and remedial action so let’s just keep on f&*&%$# things up. Business-as-usual”.
Despite what your fan club keep saying about you, what you are in effect doing is painting yourself into a corner. What it comes down to is this: humans are a potent global force.We have altered the chemical composition of the air and water, are driving species to extinction at rates unseen in 65 million years, are consuming natural capital far faster than it is being replaced, and on top of that are altering global climate patterns. Yet you are saying that its too late to stop the runaway train so lets ride it over the cliff, because the landing might not be so bad.
And we are all supposed to be debating this level of insidious logic?
Go ahead Olaus and GSW. Take Jonas. You can have him.
GSW, if between 1490, 1500 and 1512 you do still do not understand that when modeling a box being pushed, if you have the velocity of the box you do not need the velocity of the hand because they are the same thing… you’re beyond hope.
If you don’t understand how embarrassing that is for you, and come out and claim victory the way you just did… sorry, I don’t even have words for how sad and pathetic that is.
Sorry stu, the initial description of the experiment was very clear on this, even a moron what understand it. It took a while, but you did get there in the end!
Oh Jeff ..
Do you feel that I am now attacking you personally?
Oh dear, how inconsiderate and disrespectful of me!
And what could possibly have moved me to mention your CV? And on top of that, in a way that doesn’t express pure and devoted admiration of your grandness!?
What can possibly have flown into me?
I am so very very sorry to have hurt your feelings. I am certain your feelings are just as noble and fine as every other aspect of your fine person and personality ..
Well no Jeff. I am not backpedaling. And you are still making up strawman positions and claims. Humans are definitely affecting the hydrological cycle. But the topic here is the glaciers:
Their size comes up again and again and often in combination with freshwater supply and threatened half a billion people. And of course climate change (and implying the A in AGW).
So wrt to annual water availability (it seems, at least most of us) realize that glacier size isn’t an issue at all. Neither is glacial melt an issue for the summer flow. (which is hardly anything but snow from the same season)
The only aspect where glacier size might very marginally influence anything is when in the season the snow that fell just around the edges will melt and run down through the systems. But it would still be the same water.
This is what is being discussed, what is the core of the matter. The amount of seasonal snow that fell on bare ground, compared to if that ground would have been covered by a glacier. And how much earlier the (same) resulting flow would occur.
I would say that glacier size is one of the least relevant issues wrt to freshwater supply for people in those plains. And (it seems) that most here start agree on what the issue is with that (albeit muttering al sorts of ‘what if:s’).
I would also surmise that showing shrinking glaciers with climate change doomsday propaganda is as relevant as showing cute polar bear cubs.
But such statements (although self evident) seemingly are very threatening to some. Who fall over their heels to ‘rebutt’ them, scream and conjure up all kinds of other threats …
As were you, Jeff. Your references seem to say that glaciers will continue to shrink followed by projections and cascades of *what if:s*
I can’t really comment on the quality of that. Only point out they mostly make quite sweeping speculations about the future.
But my question to you Jeff is still the very same:
**If** it is the **gacier size** that **is the core issue**, what are you going to **do about it**? With what methods? At what cost? What can you hope to accomplish?
And if it isn’t primarily the glacier size (as it wasn’t for freshwater for ½ a billion), then you are essentially on my side of the argument (and I hope your fragile emotional life can handle that)
the initial description of the experiment was very clear on this
Really? Wow! Maybe I missed something here. Let me see.
luminous sets up the initial experiment @1480:
which is that a body at rest, subjected to a constant force opposed by a frictional force over a surface with unvarying smoothness
Nothing specified. No hand, no rubber band.
And here you come to flesh out the details, @1481:
If it was a matchbox on a table, and the applied force was your hand, then to apply a greater force than F friction, your hand would have to move quicker (accelerate) across the table also.
So now you establish that we are talking about a box, and a hand, and nothing else. Unless we’re talking telekinesis, I think it would not be too esoteric to say we are talking about pushing a box with your hand.
And here’s the problem: you bring up hand velocity here as being relevant separate from the box velocity. At least, that’s what “also” implies. But hey, that could be an honest mistake, right? So I ask @1482:
Why the hell are you bringing the velocity of the hand into this? Luminous did not bring it up.
You do not address this (instead handwaving about this great way you’re going to prove luminous wrong), but all of a sudden go here @1484:
Perhaps with a book and an elastic band. You could try attaching the rubber band to a book , say, and try pulling it across the table at two different, constant speeds.
So now we’re doing another experiment altogether? Or are we? I mean, I still think we’re talking about pushing boxes here @1487:
Still haven’t answered me though: what the hell does the velocity of the hand have to do with it?
And here is your answer:
Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox in order to apply further constant force, therefore your hand needs to accelerate as well. If your hand is left behind as it were – then your not pushing anymore and F applied = 0.
Huh? So we are talking about pushing a box! Awesome!
So, now that that is out of the way, what are you saying here? That unless the velocity of the hand is not exactly the same as the velocity of the box, you’re not actually pushing the box. What you are saying here is that by definition, the velocity of the hand is the same as the velocity of the box.
But I must have completely not understood that. Let’s see what I reply @1490:
Yes, since that is the case, the velocity of the hand is the velocity of the box and is completely irrelevant.
Hmm. It actually seems that I agree with your definition and your experiment here. We’re pushing the box, and if we know the velocity of the box, we don’t need to know the velocity of the hand because it is the same. If it was not the same, we would not be pushing the box and not actually be conducting the experiment. That you came up with.
Again: you have defined the velocity of the hand to be exactly equal to the velocity of the box at the same time at this point. All I want to know is why you bring it up as something separate (because by your definition, it is not):
So again, why the hell did you bring it up? It only makes sense in your particular rubber band experiment, which you only posited afterwards.
Still giving you an out here. Going out of my way to allow you to graciously get out of this one, in fact:
Is it safe to assume you already had that particular situation in mind, and simply communicated poorly?
But no. You soldiered on.
The velocity of the hand, when pushing a box, is completely irrelevant since it is (by definition) always the same as the box, therefore a dependent variable, and therefore completely irrelevant.
We already have the velocity of the box. It’s kind of the entire point of the experiment. By your definition, the velocity of the hand is the same. Why do you think it’s an independent variable?
“Really? Wow! Maybe I missed something here. Let me see.”
Yes, you did miss something – the bleeding obvious – and now you feel a bit of mug.
I’ll close with a repeat of that moment of pure stu clarity,
“The velocity of the hand is the same as the velocity of the box. It is equal to the velocity of the box. We only need to know the velocity of the box to know the velocity of the hand. We can deduce the velocity of the hand by measuring the velocity of the box.”
[@Jeff] Do you feel that I am now attacking you personally?
You have been for weeks. Are you now denying that?
And what could possibly have moved me to mention your CV?
Gee, I don’t know, your insecurity?
And of course climate change (and implying the A in AGW).
Are you now questioning that climate change is anthropogenic? Or can you just not help yourself from using weasel words?
So wrt to annual water availability (it seems, at least most of us) realize that glacier size isn’t an issue at all. Neither is glacial melt an issue for the summer flow.
Obvious and stupid lies. See #1360, #1381, #1382, #1383, #1416, #1421, #1457 and others.
Glad to see you’ve finally started to use “glacial melt”. I’m sure that with a week or two of hard work, you might even understand what it means.
(which is hardly anything but snow from the same season)
Really? Do you have anything to back that up?
I would say that glacier size is one of the least relevant issues wrt to freshwater supply for people in those plains.
That’s cute. You’re also the only one, but good luck with that.
Yeah! Totally! And that is totally relevant if people had been doing either of those things in this thread!
Except nobody has, so it’s yet another asinine, non-sequitur strawman.
And if it isn’t primarily the glacier size (as it wasn’t for freshwater for ½ a billion)
You just can’t stop lying, can you? I asked you @1526:
That must be one of those things you have trouble answering. Kind of like how you’re having trouble backing up your allegations that luminous contradicted himself. Kind of like you are having trouble answering what percentage of climate scientists you think are real scientists.
GSW, poor thing, you didn’t read all of 1535 did you?
Andrew Strang #1464
Correcting or educating people about how to use the simplest laws of physics is hardly rocket science.
Neither is the notion that glacier **size** isn’t a primary concern wrt available fresh water.
Or that half a billion people somehow are dependent on glaciers shrinking (or not shrinking)
But as to your question:
You may view it as an act of solidarity. To give of that of which I have plenty, to those unfortunates who were furnished with less ..
And not expecting so much as a ‘thank you’ even …
“You may view it as an act of solidarity. To give of that of which I have plenty, to those unfortunates who were furnished with less .. ”
You’re a good man Jonas.
Jonas, you’re starting to save me quite a bit of time by repeating the same lies over and over. I can just cut and paste rebuttals until you actually address something now.
I do appreciate your consideration.
Neither is the notion that glacier size isn’t a primary concern wrt available fresh water.
Yeah, sorry Jonas, but that’s still a lie, no matter how many times you repeat it. See #1360, #1381, #1382, #1383, #1416, #1421, #1457 and others.
What is it with this denialist fascination with Gish-like two- or three-stepping, Jonas?
1. Glacial melt doesn’t affect fresh water supply
2. Even if it did, it’s not 500 million people
3. Even if it were, they can just build dams
1. Global warming isn’t anthropogenic
2. Even if it was, it’s not catastrophic
3. Even if it was, there’s nothing we can do about it
(Do note that with all his lying, these gallops contradict eachother at 3., but if anyone points that out you just say “strawman” and after that ignore the entire issue for a few days)
You know, I was wondering whether I had been a bit too harsh of you with my diagnosis of delusions of grandeur…
To give of that of which I have plenty, to those unfortunates who were furnished with less ..
Phew. Problem solved.
Anyway, give what? Bluster? Arrogance? Dyslexia? Surely you’re not talking about paying for those dams, are you?
So Jonas, will we see any substance? What would you call the water supply of an area that is home to half a billion people being threatened? Would you care to point out where luminous contradicts himself? Have you given any thought to what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
“OK so your “more snow on the himalayas and tibetian plateau” was just a non-sequitur hypothetical and you didn’t really mean that higher temperatures would be expected to increase snowfall on the himalayas and tibetian plateau.”
Chris, to be honest I don’t read this a central to Jonas point about glacial melt.
“OK so your “more snow on the himalayas and tibetian plateau” was just a non-sequitur hypothetical and you didn’t really mean that higher temperatures would be expected to increase snowfall on the himalayas and tibetian plateau.”
Chris, to be honest I don’t read this a central to Jonas point about glacial melt.
Of course you don’t, you’re an idiot. Regardless of what you mean by “central”, the amount of snowfall directly determines the amount of water that is stored in glaciers (along with other factors of course).
but I’m sure it’s irrefutable gospel to you.
No, the issue is that you have the delusion that anything published by the IPCC is automatically disproven.
Just sour grapes, nothing else. And untruths. And from someone saying:
>I just have a thing about intellectually dishonest misdirection
Yep, again with the “let’s wait a few days and hope nobody notices me slinking back in”.
Jonas, when will we see any substance? What would you call the water supply of an area that is home to half a billion people being threatened? Would you care to point out where luminous contradicts himself? Have you given any thought to what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
Stu – That question should be read as ‘When will **you** see any substance’?
And the answer is the obvious one.
But just for the record Stu, do I understand (part of) your ramblings correctly
That you have not seen or noted anything wrong with luminous’ versions and descriptions of ‘physics’?
Whine, bluster, avoid, evade.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I have or have not noted about luminous’ postings, Jonas. Stop trying to change the subject because you are afraid to back up anything you say.
Once again. It’s very simple:
You accused luminous of contradicting himself. Point out an instance or admit that you were lying.
And while you’re at it:
You’ve whined about real science and real scientists for weeks. Why won’t you tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
Stu – It is a Yes/No question, and it is on to which you actually and for once have the (true) answer
Jonas, you are a pathetic troll. Stop trying to change the subject.
I’ll consider answering your question once you answer mine, a simple question that I first asked @1352, a week ago, and that you have studiously avoided ever since: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
As long as you refuse to answer even that, you’re trolling.
What Stu means by substance is encapsulated in these four rules for [How To Have A Rational Discussion](http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/how-to-have-a-rational-discussion/)
As well as failing to comply with the basic elements of principled discourse you are in breach of all four rules. I call your attention to rules three and four in particular:
3. Provide evidence for your position or arguments.
4. Do not argue that you do not need evidence.
I’d also draw the Jonases’ attention to Rule 4 subsection A, namely: “On no account import slack-jawed fluffers from Climategimps (or similar) to proclaim your ineffable brilliance, as this will invariably result in your alleged ‘brilliance’ becoming entirely and repeatedly effable”.
You brought up the topic, regarding luminous’ contradictions (or absence thereof). That’s why I asked, just for the record:
>Do I understand (part of) your ramblings correctly, that you have not seen or noted anything wrong with luminous’ versions and descriptions of ‘physics’?
As I said, it’s a simple Yes/No question. And one of (few) question where you actually have the answer. And on top of that, I am even asking you for it!
But if you don’t want to answer, you don’t have to …
Still going at this Jonas?
The Yes/No question shouldn’t be hard to answer for someone that’s studied physics for 6yrs. Can’t wait to see the response!
In one way you are right: I have not engaged in a rational discussion with you here. Instead I have been trying to teach you about how to apply some of the
simplest laws of physics (Newton’s) to simple (one dimensional) systems you can envision (and even expertimentally try out by yourself).
My failure (if any) was to not assume (beforehand) how shallow your understanding of those things were. To give you the benifit of the doubt when whings came out (quite) a bit awkwardly. But that has been settled now. After more than three weeks, you are still incapable of understanding the simple laws of motion (which I’m certain you have looked up on Wikipedia, or such) and how to apply them in a imple situation. And this has been demonstrated beyond any doubt.
I must admit that I knew what you were about already after your #334:
>it is carefully explained and graphically shown, using the combined data, complete with carefully calculated uncertainty bounds using a number of robust statistical methods, directly from the referenced sources, how it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes. A conclusion that is statistically significant even accounting for the most implausible unknown and scientifically unexplainable serial correlation of natural variability w
here you obviously use words you haven’t the slightest clue about, and about things which are far more comlicated and uncomprehended than the laws of Newton.
But going from there, to establishing your ignorance even about those, required to give you some more rope to get entangled in and even tying your own noose. And that has been done too now.
So I perfectly understand you (after having tried the term ‘idiot’ countless times in your ‘argumnets’) and your dire wish to talk about something very very diffentent. And to try to ‘explain all your failures somehow to be caused by my persona (haven’t we seen that for a very long time now?)
But as I’ve said from early on: Using the term ‘idiot’ as an argument almost inevitably blows up in your own face (unless you are really and I mean really superior in the field)
Chek, I can extend the same question to you:
>Do I understand you correctly, that you have not seen or noted anything wrong with luminous’ versions and descriptions of ‘physics’?
Because signuture ‘Jeff Harvey’ has been supporting the same idea, that you all are in on the ‘righteous side’ here .. and that facts don’t really matter. I’m just checking if I got your positions right …
The Yes/No question shouldn’t be hard to answer for someone that’s studied physics for 6yrs.
Christ on a crutch, you witless little cheerleader. It’s amazing you even dare show your face here after you spent days saying that when you push an object, the hand pushing it can have a different velocity than the object.
Either provide compelling evidence for The Force forthwith or spare us our stupidity completely.
You are still a pathetic troll. Your comment #1553 won me denialist and fallacy bingo all by itself:
My failure (if any) was to not assume (beforehand) how shallow your understanding of those things were.
By the rules of civil conversation, you have now tacitly conceded that you cannot point out any of the contradictions you’ve been whining about, because there aren’t any. So you can take your witless attempts at changing the subject such as
Do I understand you correctly, that you have not seen or noted anything wrong with luminous’ versions and descriptions of ‘physics’?
…and put them where the sun does not shine. This, Jonas, is not the subject. If you want to make it the subject, make a point. You’ve had the opportunity to do so for days and have failed. Let it go, Jonas, you have conceded the point. There is nothing wrong with what luminous said. Your only hope is to derail the conversation away from you, your trolling and your avoiding of my very, very simple question.
benifit [...] imple [...] comlicated [...] uncomprehended [...] ‘argumnets’ [...] diffentent [..] signuture
You are too stupid to install freely available spell checking software. By the rules of polite conversation, you have now tacitly conceded that you are an idiot, and any more whining about it is asinine trolling.
here you obviously use words you haven’t the slightest clue about
Attempt at ad hominem.
and about things which are far more comlicated and uncomprehended than the laws of Newton.
Argument from willful ignorance.
after having tried the term ‘idiot’ countless times in your ‘argumnets’
Tone trolling. Also, you are, in fact, an idiot (see above for one of the many reasons). No need to get upset about it, it’s a simple fact.
and your dire wish to talk about something very very diffentent.
Obvious projection. You’ve been dodging one simple question for over a week and 200 posts.
And to try to ‘explain all your failures somehow to be caused by my persona (haven’t we seen that for a very long time now?)
Attempt at tone trolling. Raging incoherence. Strawman.
Tone trolling. Raging insecurity. Projection. Hypocrisy.
Because signuture ‘Jeff Harvey’ has been supporting the same idea, that you all are in on the ‘righteous side’ here ..
Playing the victim. Strawman.
and that facts don’t really matter
I’m just checking if I got your positions right…
Obvious lie. Attempt at diversion.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand.
As long as you refuse to answer even that, you’re still trolling and embarrassing yourself. You do realize that this is out here for all to see, right?
Oh no! Stu jumps up and down cursing and crying for mama (Jeff). That was a first.
No wonder though, the truth hurts Stu. What are you going to do about it? Take it in or keep on blaming “others” for your own embarrassing shortcomings?
“There is nothing wrong with what luminous said.”
Can I just clarify? You believe “the physics” as described by LB is correct?
“Christ on a crutch, you witless little cheerleader. It’s amazing you even dare show your face here after you spent days saying that when you push an object, the hand pushing it can have a different velocity than the object.”
So, not only do you seem to
have no understanding of basic ‘physics’; after studying for a whole 6 yrs – LB’s mistakes would be ‘obvious’ if all you had understood was the first year.
You are rude and abusive, but we knew that already.
And, you also suffer from some form of short term memory loss.
Altogether, it’s not a good combination stu – have you considered seeking some type of professional help? psychiatrist, anger management therapist or even a physics tutor?
By the way, have you guys read professor Judith Curry’s review of Donna Laframboise’s new book?
It seems rather interesting.
Yeah, just read it Olaus. Liked the Mark Twain quote
“people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.””
Very appropriate, as we’ve already discussed here – the CAGW crowd, somehow along the way, lost the ability to think for themselves, just regurgitate the opinions of others as, bizarrely, absolute truths. If this thread is anything to go by, their understanding of physics is such that you could feed them any old crap – and there are many ‘climate experts’, and Jeff, that are happy to oblige
GSW, I have heard a rumor that Judith Curry is a climate scientist. Is it true?
But I have responded to you already in #1426.
But just to clarify: You will not answer that simple Yes/No question about your position on the topic you brought up. Instead(?) you write:
>There is nothing wrong with what luminous said
As I said, you don’t have to answer. It already makes ‘perfect sense’
But you somehow seem to be under the delusion that you get to decide what *the subject* here is. Well maybe you do, in that game you’ve declared to be winning over and over again. But don’t involve me in your playing with yourself ..
Just one final pointer: Since you seem to be so very fond of the terms *troll* and *trolling* (too), why don’t you look it up to see what it actually means?
Jonases and GSW – you’re probably best taking your little circle jerk back to Klimatwanken or wherever it is you came from. I’m pretty sure there is no longer any interest in straightening out your tortuous mental contortions.
As for Curry, she hasn’t learnt anything from the pasting she took when promoting Montford’s conspiracy novel in polite society. We did however in turn learn that she is jealous to the point of being unbalanced by Mike Mann’s achievements.
Here comes the peanut gallery. What a shock.
Stu jumps up and down cursing and crying for mama (Jeff).
“Christ on a crutch” is cursing to you? You don’t get out much, do you? Also, could you please point out where I call for Jeff or admit that this was yet another obvious and stupid lie?
Tone trolling. Strawman.
Take it in or keep on blaming “others” for your own embarrassing shortcomings?
Point out these shortcomings (with backup) and where I blame them on “others” or admit that this was yet another obvious and stupid lie.
Raging incoherence. Strawman. Joining Jonas in his attempt at diversion.
Joining Jonas in his attempt at diversion.
You too, by the rules of polite conversation, by failing to point out any of the alleged contradictions in luminous’ comments have now conceded that there aren’t any. That subject is now closed for you.
So, not only do you seem to have no understanding of basic ‘physics’
By the rules of polite conversation, you have now tacitly admitted that you believe that when you push an object with your hand, the hand can move at a different speed than the object. By failing to provide evidence of the Force, you have tacitly admitted that you have no concept of physics. This subject is now closed for you.
Statements of fact that you don’t like are not rude and abusive. Obvious and stupid lie.
Also, tone trolling. Hypocrisy.
Projection. Obvious lie.
Attempt at diversion. Argument from authority.
the CAGW crowd, somehow along the way, lost the ability to think for themselves
Projection, cheerleader. Strawman. Obvious lie.
just regurgitate the opinions of others as, bizarrely, absolute truths.
Projection. Strawman. Obvious lie.
But I have responded to you already in #1426.
Obvious and stupid lie. “I don’t wanna” is not an answer.
You will not answer that simple Yes/No question about your position on the topic you brought up.
Jonas, you have already admitted that there are no such contradictions and that there is nothing wrong with what luminous said. This subject is closed for you.
Also, attempt at diversion. Asked and answered:
GSW, Olaus, please have a try answering as well. You carry water for Jonas in everything else, why not this?
I’m pretty sure there is no longer any interest in straightening out your tortuous mental contortions.
Nope, but I’m bored enough to point them out.
(Yes, it’s still me — I had to sign in for a different site and it obviously carries over).
She certainly is Olaus – Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Been a good thread this, IPCC, Biodiversity Armageddon, Himalayas, and a bit of physics as well, can’t beat that. Jonas has communicated a few ‘Home Truths’ to the faithful, not that they would ever thank him for sharing this enlightenment.
We’ve pricked a few of their ego’s along the way, and they’ll be better for it when they’ve all calmed down. A moment of reflection for them I feel, to let it all sink in.
GSW: being condescending works a lot better when you’ve not just made a complete fool of yourself. And for crying out loud,
Jonas has communicated a few ‘Home Truths’ to the faithful, not that they would ever thank him for sharing this enlightenment.
Could you please, for all that is good and holy get a room and get it over with? This is hardly the place for public affection between the clinically insane.
We’ve pricked a few of their ego’s along the way
You are either blustering to hide your embarrasment, or bring-the-thorazine-stat delusional if you think that. You have objectively proven yourself too stupid to address any of the issues. By the rules of polite conversation, you have conceded every single material point brought up over 1500+ posts and several weeks. How on Earth do you think you have the intellectual standing to even scratch anyone’s ego here?
and they’ll be better for it when they’ve all calmed down.
Why do you think anyone here is upset, GSW? Besides the pathetic amount of wishful thinking, is it because I have been rude to you and your sweetheart?
I bet it is. Sorry to disappoint you. I’m not upset, and I’m not rude to you because I am upset. I am rude to you because you are sad, lying, delusional, denialist morons. And you have earned every single one of those qualifications in this thread.
A moment of reflection for them I feel, to let it all sink in.
The only think still sinking in is the complete and utterly impressive set of brass balls you have, hanging around this thread after your Physics According to The Force episode, Obi Wan.
We’re getting somewhere now: Judith Curry qualifies as a real scientist, guys? So is it safe to assume that you consider 0.0056% of climate scientists to be real scientists, or are there others?
Stu in 1565 to GSW:
> This is hardly the place for public affection between the clinically insane.
Actually, it kind of is. After all, it’s the “Jonas Thread”.
Jonas & GSW,
Have either of you tried any experiments to test friction? I’ve been playing with inclined planes. Using a clean double strength plate of mirror quality polished glass backed with a boxed sheet steel frame for the plane and a variety of household objects for the slider, the most coherent results I have come up with are very much in line with Einstein’s dictum, “In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they are not.”
However, the most consistent result I have found is that the slider accelerates from zero velocity to some constant velocity, usually without even a sideways nudge to overcome static friction, surprisingly enough. This would suggest, for at least that initial duration of time, the force of friction is not independent of velocity. A more precise and vigorously defined statement of principle might be this:
>For ideal smooth surfaces, frictional force is _nearly_ independent of velocity.
Uh-oh… see what happens when denialists fund actual research by accident.
You are the one who introduced the condition “constant friction” and thereafter mangled the laws of motion and other physics. But you are of course right: there are limits to the validity of most model’s descriptions, even Newton’s laws of motion. But these were hardly the topic here ..
chek – I don’t recall you having any points other when you agreed (but I may have missed some).
Andy S – siding with the Stu:s on this site? Less wise move, I’d say.
Stu – You are a true asset to this site. I’m sure you are appreciated. You certainly are by me Particularly cute is how you time and time again declare how you’ve won every question (in that ‘game’ of yours)
Will all those **not** having been **in denial** of the laws of motion stand up, please?
Particularly cute is how you time and time again declare how you’ve won every question (in that ‘game’ of yours)
How can you possible hope to be taken seriously when you have no idea what is going on?
Since you missed it the first time @1549:
How to have a rational discussion
Note that I refrained from going by those rules until after luminous brought them up, even though they should be obvious to anyone who is not dense as a post and/or a pathological liar. I was just ensuring that there wouldn’t be any “you’re making up new rules” baloney, and that if it were attempted it would be obvious and idiotic.
Of course, you did not disappoint, Jonas.
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. All you have to do is answer one simple and pertinent question. For over a week you have refused to do so. You’re in violation of rule #1:
Do not introduce new arguments while another argument has yet to be resolved.
If you fail to do so, you are deemed to have conceded all opposing arguments up to this point. You forfeit any rights to complain about the discussion.
Answer the question or go away, Jonas. You have no other option. What percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
From the guy too stupid to use preview, here’s attempt is #2:
>You are the one who introduced the condition “constant friction” and thereafter mangled the laws of motion and other physics.
Yes I did, and I admitted my error in characterizing constant friction so vaguely and ambiguously that it allowed you to misinterpret my meaning in a way that suggested I was __seemingly__ mangling the laws of motion. And I apologized and attempted to clarify my meaning. Twice. Once again, you have persistently failed to take my further elucidations to heart and continue to cling to the notion that your misconstruing of my words is what I actually meant: an act of mentalism even The Great Randi would find difficult to unravel.
Am I to conclude that the statement, “But you are of course right: there are limits to the validity of most model’s descriptions” is an implicit admission that the statement, “the force of friction is constant for all velocities greater than zero”, which was undeniably a topic central to our little contretemps, is fundamentally in error and an __explicit__ mangling of the laws of motion? Or did you mean something else?
Pending your apology and clarification, I am ready to apologize and admit you’re not quite the total idiot you have thus far made yourself out to be.
Of course, it’s The Amazing Randi and not The Great Randi. My apologies.
See how it’s done, Jonas?
Well fair enough, I suppose. And let’s not forget that in summation many here at Deltoid have found Jonas to be appallingly dull, unimaginative, lacking in initiative, no sense of humour, tedious company and irrepressibly drab and awful. But so much for the positive side.
Following on, is it really necessary to itemise the many negative aspects of Jonas’ ongoing sluice of denier howlers?
is it really necessary to itemise the many negative aspects of Jonas’ ongoing sluice of denier howlers?
Necessary? Of course not. But it might be educational for some.
Of course, there’s also quite a bit of SIWOTI syndrome.
The farinelli-whining of little Stu and chek hold Nobel peace prize standard. So empty and yet so high pitched.
This was especially refreshing: Judith Curry finds it inappropriate that the IPCC is so heavily mixed up with WWF etc, ergo she is jealous of Mr Hockey Schtick.
Only at Deltoid and in other shaking climate tents.
Olaus, vapid as always. Answer the question or go away. You have no other option since you have tacitly conceded every point.
What percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Stu, why so angry?
I’m afraid to tell you this Stu, but your hysterical outbursts of nonsense are not improving your case, whatever that case is. Do you have one by the way?
Oluas/Olaus – nobody should ever call you the irrelevant little tosspot you are, regardless of how many sinking ships you leap aboard.
For Judith hath already found out that LaFrameup has used rubbish material that even the posing idiot Curry has previously disowned, only Curryfool was too stupid to spot it beforehand. (h/t Phil Clarke) Such is her irrational hatred of Mann and by association the IPCC, she doesn’t mind and willingly flounces around about it in public because she … well because she … she should gave been a princess by now, by golly.
Denial means never having to remember beyond yesterday. Much like Wattamoron’s undertaking to accept the BEST results, come what may. Until they came.
Asked and answered, troll. See #1562 and #1565.
your hysterical outbursts of nonsense are not improving your case
It looks like you don’t know what hysterical means. Hint: it is not a synonym for “things you don’t like”.
It looks like you don’t know what nonsense means. Hint: it is not a synonym for “things you don’t like”.
Either point out exactly what I have said that, according to you, is nonsense and/or hysterical or admit that you are still producing nothing but lies, and stupid ones at that.
whatever that case is. Do you have one by the way?
You do not get to ask questions until you answer the one your entire denialist knitting club has been avoiding for over a week. This collective avoidance is stupid, arrogant and rude. It is behavior that would be unacceptable for a toddler.
It is not a difficult question. Even you are capable of answering it. Not doing so is trolling.
Sorry, but you still are in error
Yes, you have admitted vagueness and typos. And I have acknowledged them, and told you that those not at all are the objections I have to your ‘descriptions’. And I have pointed out the many violations of fundamental, and simple laws of physics, you’ve commited (they are all visible above and easily found: They are addressed at ‘luminous’ and signed by ‘Jonas N’)
And I have been both very explicit detailing the preconditions/premisses for the description we are discussing, and I have pointed out where you got your physics wrong (not only the laws of motion), often repeatedly.
Even in those instances where the root of your error was not quite obvious to me (because of a combination of your ‘vagueness’ and misunderstandings) I have tried to
a) explain what is wrong, and
b) how it should be instead, but also
c) where I think your misconception lies.
where the c)-point of course was speculative, and I upon revisiting (I think) I better understood you complete misconception. These are all available above, and nothing I have said has been i error. I even stated the preconditions in my 1st post on the topic (#1181):
>constant (coefficient of) friction µ
and you **confirmed** that in #1234:
>I chose kinetic friction rather than aerodynamic drag as an example because the mechanics are simpler
>an implicit admission that the statement, “the force of friction is constant for all velocities greater than zero”, which was undeniably a topic central to our little contretemps, is fundamentally in error
is still as false as it was the first time you tried to oppose it. And if you maintain that this is your ‘primary defence’ you are still in as much violation of the laws of motion as you have ever been.
Sorry, but I can only laugh at your attempts to now **demand** my ‘appologies’ for mildening your insults (from *’idiot’* to *’not quite the total idiot your made yourself out to be’*)
The whole things still sits there. Firmly planted right there, and repeatedly, in the middle of your face. Since it first blew up there .. And your removining it, wiping it off will take quite a lot more. And it will take your realization of everything that went worng above .. which doesn’t seem anywhere close …
Yes, I guess your have a point, that:
>many here at Deltoid have found
found adhering to even the simpler laws of physics is indeed
>appallingly dull, unimaginative, lacking in initiative, no sense of humour.. and irrepressibly drab and awful
And quite a few have even explicitly stated that they stand behind such **denial**. While the rest I presume merely are incapable of distinguishing such from other pure gibberish.
No wonder that so many here can only ‘navigate’ by blindly guessing, wishfully hoping, fantasizing about how things are in reality. And claiming that this has anything to do with ‘science’. Let me rub this in your face:
Not one single individual on your side of the argument has managed, not even attempted, to guide guide luminous back out from la la land. And quite a few have actively cheered him on in there.
What a farce …
Jonas, the subject of luminous’ alleged errors is closed for you. You were asked to point out contradictions and failed to do so. Stop whining about it.
You have better things to do, such as answering one simple question: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists? Until you answer, you are not even attempting to have a real conversation. Stop trolling and answer.
By your own admission: You claim to have studied physics for six years, and yet fail to comprehend and correctly apply the laws of motion.
And I think that this is a fairly accurate description of you and your capabilities.
Regardless of whether your claim indeed were true, or not …
You claim to have studied physics for six years, and yet fail to comprehend and correctly apply the laws of motion.
Point out where and why, or admit that you are telling yet more stupid lies.
Oh, wait. You’re not subscribing to GSW’s “when pushing a box, knowing the velocity of the box is insufficient, you also need to know the velocity of the hand” howler, are you? Jonas, are you too a proponent of the physics of The Force?
Regardless of whether your claim indeed were true, or not …
I know you think you’re being very slick with this kind of tripe, but you’re not. It’s very, very transparent and juvenile. ‘I think you’re stupid, but I don’t say it’. ‘You’re lying about this irrelevant thing, but it doesn’t matter’. You’re weaseling vapidly, because it is all you have left.
And you continue trolling. Answer the question: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists? Would answering that simple, simple question be too embarrassing for you?
>I didn’t “do” physics at school. I merely studied it for 6 years
>There is nothing wrong with what luminous said
I don’t want to exacerbate your personal embarrassment any further but,
“when pushing a box, knowing the velocity of the box is insufficient, you also need to know the velocity of the hand”
This is in quotes, but it is no quote of mine, THESE ARE YOUR WORDS.
The requirement to independently know both, even though they are the same, has been the folly you have pursued all along.
Your words during your moment of “bleeding obvious” revelation still amuse me, so I will repeat them here.
Also, as Jonas has pointed out, your
“There is nothing wrong with what luminous said” still needs to be reconciled with your 6yrs of physics.
Take care stu!
Hand waving circular gibberish.
Do you stand by the statement that the force of friction is (always) constant for all velocities greater than zero or not?
Yes! Under the stated preconditions:
With constant friction µ and (viscous) drag excluded, the force of friction is and remains constant and independent of velocity v > 0. By definition!
If you don’t understand that (your own premisses), you don’t understand anything about physics. And even if you get some parts right, you still have violated others with a vengeance, and continued to do so even afther they were pointed out to you! So that this conclusion still holds:
>You don’t understand anything about physics
Which explains much about your efforts here! But you are not alone, if that is any consolation to you ..
Where your error lies is not so much in your application of the laws of motion, but in applying them to a simplified introductory course description of friction as if that description was itself a law of physics and not a general rule of thumb constrained to particular conditions under particular assumptions that does not apply when those particular conditions and assumptions are not met.
You are as stubbornly incapable of understanding that as you are of understanding the actual nature of my argument and instead inventing a straw man by selectively misconstruing the language of elements of that argument.
You are a hopelessly willful idiot. Discussion with you is no more rational than talking to a rock.
As the saying goes:
>Never argue with an idiot. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
For attempting that I admit that I am almost as great a fool and apologize to all and sundry.
This seems to contradict what you wrote when you first mentioned friction (@176):
If you extrapolate: It has been accelerating, ie gaining speed for the previous 20 seconds, and thus it will continue to do so, you are speculating that the driving force will continue to increase, and faster that linear, not only to maintain the imbalance but also to overcome the increasing negative feedbacks due to drag, friction and engine efficiency.
I have not been following this closely, but I am confused. In this discussion about friction, are you not talking about it in the context of a pendulum, in which case it is not appropriate to exclude fluid friction?
No, you are completely wrong here!
I know the laws of motion, of Newton, and other physics. And haven’t violated them one single time!
I am totally aware of that the simple descriptions and models have limited (range of) validity. But that is not what we’ve been discussing! Instead what has been discussed is what those (simple) descpritions and laws of motion (etc) describe and imply for equally simple empirical situations. And you’ve bungled essentially everything that is ‘holy’ in physics while doing so! **Everything!** And its clearly legible for anyone above!
You have violated Newtons laws, the laws of motion in your attempts. And you have violated a bunch of similarly simple principles of physics while trying to get out of the same mess. Violiating dimensionality, trying to describe (get rid of) a higher ‘momentum’ by dividing it to partly a ‘force’ and remaining (net) momentum. To be counteracted by that (as you admitted) constant frictional force.
And similar other non-physical ‘explanaitions’. And you still seem to feel that ‘idot’ is a usful term trying to get out of that mess.
Well, it’s applicable. But that doesn’t mean **useful to you**!
And I am serious:
You have been not only totally out of your leage .. you have remained there with a vengeance and while doing so, draging out a few others, equally disconnected from what is required when understanding a physically admissable reality. Showing the total disconnect between physical reality and religion so often observed among the climatic cultists ..
Not one thing I have said wrt to this topic has been wrong or violated any principles of physics (or Newton). What I state in #176 is that you need to maintain this imbalance, that externally applied driving force to maintain that preciously observed acceleration, also for the seconds to come. And that drag, ie resistance to increased velocity couneracts shis. On top of frictional loss.
I was talking what that *imbalance* needs to overcome. Not what resistance depends on …
Fluid friction is nowhere disregarded! On the contrary, it is what I’ve been saying all along. That is what has been missing, and what I’ve described (as missing)
>Violiating dimensionality, trying to describe (get rid of) a higher ‘momentum’ by dividing it to partly a ‘force’ and remaining (net) momentum. To be counteracted by that (as you admitted) constant frictional force.
Are you saying that a force applied to an object greater than any opposing forces doesn’t increase the momentum of that object as the vector sum of all forces, which is clearly what I was saying and not the gibberish speaking straw man you have invented?
Also, I am saying the frictional force is constant and independent of velocity only when the applied force and the frictional forces are in balance, and not constant nor independent of velocity when they are unbalanced, as can be empirically demonstrated by the very experiment you proposed. This is the part of my argument you are unable to mentally assimilate due to your hopelessly willful idiocy.
>I am totally aware of that the simple descriptions and models have limited (range of) validity. But that is not what we’ve been discussing! Instead what has been discussed is what those (simple) descpritions and laws of motion (etc) describe and imply for equally simple empirical situations.
Jonas: You misunderstand my point. I should have highlighted “the increasing negative feedbacks due to drag, friction and engine efficiency.”
No, that’s not what I’m saying! A larger velocity implies a larger momentum. Of course. Your (latest) violation of dimensionality instead was #1443:
>**a part of** the larger Fapplied is now consumed by the now constant but greater **momentum** at the now constant but greater velocity, thereby becoming **not** a **force**, the (net) Fapplied is equal to the constant Ffriction
A frictional force under the (by you) stated condtions of constant/kinetic friction is independent of velocity > 0. By definition: F = µ·N !
And once more you are coming up with new nonsense, violating your own statements and I don’t know what else:
>I am saying the frictional force is constant and independent of velocity only when the applied force and the frictional forces are in balance, and not constant nor independent of velocity when they are unbalanced
First you say that friction is independent of velocity only if forces are in balance, ie if velocity (momentum) remains constant!? This statement contains no information. You say: ‘Doesn’t change with velocity, **if** velocity doesn’t change’!?
Thereafter you claim that it indeed does depend on velocity if forces are unbalanced, ie if the body accelerates/decelerates, meaning **if** velocity changes!? And that this ‘variation’ is determined by its accelreation (force unbalance)!?
This makes no sense at all. It looks like you are claiming that for one velocity v, the frictional force is constant (F = µ·N), but may be something else if and when this velocity is reached by accelerating (or decelerating) towards it!? Are you claiming that the momentary physical process of friction/sliding is history dependent (depending on what (different) velocity it had one instant earlier)? Or are you just once more trying to ‘invent’ a velocity-dependet friction for your own (choice of) constant friction?
Don’t answer that!
I know! You are still trying to save that face, now completely unrecognizable from all those terms like ‘idiot’, ‘Newton’s laws’, ‘dimensionality’, ‘gravity’, ‘robust statistical methods’, ‘uncertainty bounds’ etc etc repeatedly blowing up in it … And you make up new ‘physics’ as you go, only worsening things!
Sorry kid, there is no way out from your mess. So please let me rub this in your face once more (it can hardly get worse by now):
You are an absolute nitwit when it comes to understanding, applying and interpreting even the simplest physics. Almost three weeks later, you still are defending the same nonsense you started with .. In spite of having the correct answer spelled out for you repeatedly!
A total incompetent is what you are! (*)
And still, you step up to me and try your silly nonsense. For everybody to see. And call me the idiot!?
It’s truly priceless!
But I appreciate what you’ve done. And it has dragged out quite a few more nitwits, siding with you. (And no one else has come to your rescue). It is all very telling ..
(*) And I would (for lack of more information) assume that you are equally skilled at understanding any other question or topic of similar complexity or higher. Meaning: Not at all!
I see. What I meant was negative feedbacks generally will increase with speed, and I named a few of those. Engine efficiency for once, hardly increases beyond optimal rpm.
How friction influences the engine, or energy consumption depends on several factors. For instance, with constant friction (as ‘discussed’ with luminous) ie F = µ·N, the coefficient of friction µ is independent of speed. In an engine with moving and rotating parts however, contact forces (N) may very well increase with rpm. But usually moving parts are lubricated, so there will be viscous losses as well.
But I still don’t see your point? Are you actually making one? Or are you just hoping to assist a fellow traveler in distress?
Jonas old man.
Can you be honest, for even a single post?
Past time for more thread.
Sorry it’s late, I blame the carbon tax!
Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?
By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.