Give me ONE peer reviewed science paper that rejects the current theory that climate change is driven by human activity.
Give me ONE quote using the PF quote function where I’ve claimed climate change is not driven by human activity! Go big guy. I’ll wait. I’ll bet you go back to more fallacy when you realize you have bitten off WAY more than you can chew!
In my recent posts to Will I described in detail anthropogenic causes of specific climatic changes. You should try actually reading a person’s posts before embarrassing yourself so.
557 has never claimed to be smarter than scientists at NASA etc. In fact he has stated categorically he is not. 557 has never told you you are too stupid to live. You are now outright lying. Please try to present an argument based on science instead of lying and posting fallacy. You are making environmentalism look like it’s full of a bunch of liars and incompetents who resort to emotional outbursts when confronted with science they can’t accept. I have a deep respect for science and for true environmentalism. You are sullying both with posts like the above. You can do better. Do better.
I failed to address this part of your post the other day. It’s important you and others realize Arxiv.com is an open access cite that publishes non peer reviewed works. Non peer reviewed studies are not inherently bad, but not the best sources of information. I would be less concerned about readability than I would be veracity of methods and conclusions when perusing this curator of information.
Nothing more than common sense reveals the obvious. Nothing that the "climate clan" is doing has anything to do with climate. What it does is raise and spend money and criticize people for trying to maintain their freedom. You have no evidence that climate is a crisis. The scientific evidence is that it is not a crisis.
I've stated that. I've also pointed out that some of those papers have passed peer review and some have been published. The one attribute they share is that they were submitted by registered authors.
NOAA, NASA, the IPCC - none of these and the hundreds of other science organizations in the USA have the power to change what you do. What they and the rest of climatologists around the world describe can legitimately be considered a crisis.
Unfortunately, they've got no credibility with the normal people they're trying so hard to convince. If you can't actually see a crisis, you aren't going to do anything about it. No matter what kind of credentials you claim.
I'm short of time so will give brief points without too much detail to address "the mass of an object is not related to gravity” Higgs Field gives mass to other fundamental particles via Higgs bosun. However what gives mass to the Higgs bosun which is relatively massive compared to other fundamental particles. Higgs Field has spin 0, gravity has spin 2 "Why the Higgs and Gravity are unrelated" Found this link which supports my statement “the mass of an object is not related to gravity” https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/ Massless particles are pure energy yet in theory can form black holes (infinite-ish gravity) and have no interaction with the Higgs Field. Most of the mass of protons and neutrons come from the Strong Force not from the Higgs Field. Gravity effects everything with energy, even massless "particles". Bending of light around a massive object. Speed of gravity thought to be the same as that of light Einstein's general Theory of Relativity does not reference mass. E=mc2 only applies to slow (relative to light speed) moving objects https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-higgs-faq-2-0/ This reminds me of when i was much younger and more clued up than i am now. After reading up on Maxwell's equations and his unification of electromagnetism with light I spent weeks trying to unify gravitation in the same way by trying to mirror Maxwell's approach playing around with all the equations I could find related to gravity (somewhat related to my above question "However what gives mass to the Higgs bosun which is relatively massive compared to other fundamental particles". - light creates its own magnetic and electric field as it moves.) Obviously I got nowhere - me naively thinking weeks is a long time while others have spent their lifetime trying to do the same. Though I got sidetracked into trying to demonstrate the hypothisis that the universe is static and not expanding by allowing the universal speed of light to be not constant over time of emission ie at universal time t1 emitted light speed is c1, at universal time t2 emitted light speed is c2 etc; Energy released due to delta c giving the observation of gravity. The maths got way too difficult for me
Yes, there are certainly deficits in the education of the public. And, the assault on education is gaining steam. Do you have a suggestion for a way to improve that situation?
Who said anything about education? The folks that don't buy your junk are plenty smart. They've just figured out you're full of it.
Your cite is from the year the Higgs bosun was first isolated, 2012. The theory I’m referencing was not formulated until 2014. There are closer examinations in progress where gravity is most certainly part of the equation. I’ll let you read these cites and then we can continue. With all due respect to your blogger he may be out of his league as well as behind the times. https://astronomy.com/news/2014/11/gravity-may-have-saved-the-universe-after-the-big-bang https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/p...eploy/physics-02-00028.pdf?version=1600681009 Apologies for not being more clear on timelines and current research I was referring to.
Many of the “crises” people believe are imminent are either not crises at all or they are caused by factors other than global warming. Above I pointed out an example @WillReadmore brought up—sea level rise. Places like Norfolk, Virginia that NASA uses as photographic example of places susceptible to coastal flooding in it’s discussions of sea level rise are certainly at risk of flooding. But even though NASA makes vague references at times to subsidence, they never mention the subsidence rates of places like Norfolk eclipse the rate of sea level rise. For New Orleans the rate of subsidence is 13 times the rate of sea level rise. Nor do the crisis folks tell you that the subsidence rates are often largely driven by pumping of water from aquifers beneath places like Norfolk etc. Scientist know this and people who consume more than one curated source of information know this. But the public are told sea level rise is a function only of CO2 driven warming. Of course there is no serious discussion of addressing the issue of aquifer depletion driven subsidence. Just more talk about how windmills are the only hope for Norfolk or NOLA. The real crisis and their causes are often obscured.
Yeah, and then there's the issue of the Obama's oceanfront mansions in Martha's Vineyard and Hawaii. If the oceans were really rising that much, they sure as heck wouldn't be living there. You can get a lot more information about the truth of many issues from how people behave rather than obscure science references.
Yes, if there was a crisis a lot more people would be practicing what they preach. The residents of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket also oppose wind power when they are the ones that have to look at it. Hypocrites.
He is a bit more than a blogger. He is a physics professor at Harvard and has had peer reviewed papers published, the latest being in 2021 and his speciality is the LHC. He updated his 2012 paper in 2022 and the updates written in red on that paper. The updates mostly support his 2012 paper. When I have time I will look through the links you've provided. Not sure when that will be though. I used to love this stuff but it was very time consuming and hopefully I will be able to reduce my workload in the next couple of years and feed my interest again.
I’m in no hurry. This is not a subject I’m well versed in so am very happy to have your help with it. I am one of the naive he refers to but I see many other scientists in the field still working the gravity stabilizing inflation theory so he seems alone on rejecting it. I’ll research him some more but his bio I found said he was an associate at Harvard and blogging and writing a book. If he had a work on the subject published outside his blog that refuted the work of published authors I would certainly look it over. Good luck with work. This is my busiest time of year so I’m happy to take our time.
NASA measures sea level, which is affected by ice melt, the expansion of seas due to warming, etc. Coastlines are susceptible to sea rise, subsidence and vertical geological movement. It is a combination of local affects. In the USA, almost all coastal land movement is down, not up. As you point out, when we see NASA measurements of sea level change, the affects on coastlines are sure to be worse, because pretty much our entire coastline is sinking for various reasons. NASA does measure land levels in the US and throughout the world, so it is a source of data on vertical land movement. So, NASA can report on the coastal change. If there is something from NASA that you don't like, you should cite it.
I’m not citing dozens of publications from NASA. You should be well aware of what I’m talking about if you are as up on NASA as you think you are. Here’s one of a few I’ve seen using Norfolk as an example. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3232/nasa-study-rising-sea-level-could-exceed-estimates-for-us-coasts/ There is nothing wrong with NASA data on sea level rise. But they should not be creating a false narrative by reporting on the factors least responsible while not addressing factors most responsible and the easiest to remedy. Worldwide populated areas along coasts are experiencing subsidence rates far above absolute rises from warming. Why? Because of anthropogenic activities affecting aquifers. We should be addressing the biggest problem, not completely ignoring it and presenting the false narrative that warming is primarily responsible for the problems these cities are facing. I’m glad I’ve woken you up to the problem so in the future you can refrain from repeating this false narrative that warming is the primary threat to coastal cities.
I don't see where they created a false narrative. NASA and similar organizations in other countries have the best overall view of actual movement of Earth's surface, including our oceans, which make up more than 2/3 of the area. The average sea level rise is an understatement of the threat to our coast lines, and they do point that out.
I don’t expect YOU to. You deny science and facts at every opportunity. If you haven’t picked up on the false narratives by now it’s unlikely you ever will. Here is a “climate tool” from my cite. NASA is providing no data “relevant” to helping plan for the far greater threat of subsidence components of sea level? Just the lower threat of climate related rise? No data relevant to how cities could SLOW their local sea level rise? NASA is laser focused on the least important aspect of coastal flooding while completely ignoring the greater component and it’s cause and solutions. Of course. That’s not the problem. The problem is misleading people into believing global warming is responsible for the majority of coastal sea rise threat when it’s something else entirely that has workable solutions locally. Information curated to form a false narrative. I don’t know what you mean by understatement.
