Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #41  
Old 25-01-2010, 06:09 PM
FredSnerd (Claude)
Registered User

FredSnerd is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canberra
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaroo View Post
Don't think so Richard. At the moment, CO2 is a trace gas consisting only 0.038% of the current atmosphere - that's 380 parts per million. For CO2 to be toxic we need around 1% (or 10,000 parts per million) for some humans to even start to be drowsy. There needs to be over 7% in the atmosphere by volume for dizzyness to occur - at which point it really is poisonous. That's 70,000 ppm, or 184 times the current levels.

I don't think so - not in ours or our childrens lifetimes. This is not to say that at these levels, the greenhouse effect would likely be greatly exacerbated.

When are we all going to stop discussing the politics of climate on this astronomy forum?
Sorry Chris but this post is a very good example of how a little knowledge is dangerous
  #42  
Old 25-01-2010, 06:35 PM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hobart, TAS
Posts: 7,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredSnerd View Post
Sorry Chris but this post is a very good example of how a little knowledge is dangerous
Whatever Claude...you're being fairly presumptuous and sorry, but plainly ditto.

I said I'm out because there's no discussion with you blokes.

Imminent locking I'm sure....

Last edited by Omaroo; 25-01-2010 at 06:46 PM.
  #43  
Old 25-01-2010, 06:59 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
When you all completely understand partial differential equations and their integrals and not to mention Greens Theorem and further triple integrals and their conversion to double integrals you can then comment on climate models. Let alone decry their validity!


We are dealing with science not politics.

First denier to show me he understands something as simple as triple integrals and their conversion to double integrals gets a prize.

Bert
  #44  
Old 25-01-2010, 07:05 PM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hobart, TAS
Posts: 7,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk View Post
When you all completely understand partial differential equations and their integrals and not to mention Greens Theorem and further triple integrals and their conversion to double integrals you can then comment on climate models. Let alone decry their validity!
I agree wholeheartedly with you Bert. It's most probably useless discussing any of this because none (let me say "few" - underlined and cross-hatched) of us have a snowflakes chance of finding a source of relevant, untainted information - let alone being able to knowingly analyse or understand it for the purpose of the debate at hand.

I am one of those that can and will admit to not having said assets. Therefore I gracefully bow out and let those who reckon they know all about it carry on.

Last edited by Omaroo; 25-01-2010 at 07:16 PM.
  #45  
Old 25-01-2010, 07:44 PM
FredSnerd (Claude)
Registered User

FredSnerd is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canberra
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaroo View Post
I agree wholeheartedly with you Bert. It's most probably useless discussing any of this because none (let me say "few" - underlined and cross-hatched) of us have a snowflakes chance of finding a source of relevant, untainted information - let alone being able to knowingly analyse or understand it for the purpose of the debate at hand.

I am one of those that can and will admit to not having said assets. Therefore I gracefully bow out and let those who reckon they know all about it carry on.
Exactly!!!! Thats why we rely on the experts and 99.9% of them are saying we have a problem and that humans are causing it. So why people continually insist on quoting their hazily remembered high school science to emphatically assert the opposite is beyond me.

And BTW alot of us believe that this is an important issue. Perhaps the most important we will all face in our lifetime. Why would you want to discourage people from discussing it as long as it takes. I can understand that you may not feel like discussing it anymore. Thats fine. Don't. But remember your always welcome to come back if and when you change your mind. But please, if you're tempted to argue again that the topic is not astronomy related, could you first do a count of the number of threads you have started that are not astronomy related. I think you'll be surprised.
  #46  
Old 25-01-2010, 08:12 PM
space oddity
Registered User

space oddity is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: bondi
Posts: 235
needling the thread

Although this thread is not astronomy as such, it is good to see a lively debate on this scientific type topic. I would assume that the majority of us astro types are interested in more than one science type field than the average person on the street. I suspect that I am not alone in the IIS community of being a bit of a science buff.
  #47  
Old 25-01-2010, 08:16 PM
CometGuy's Avatar
CometGuy
Registered User

CometGuy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 942
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk;551235
[COLOR=black
First denier to show me he understands something as simple as triple integrals and their conversion to double integrals gets a prize.
OK what are they?
  #48  
Old 25-01-2010, 08:45 PM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hobart, TAS
Posts: 7,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by FredSnerd View Post
Exactly!!!! Thats why we rely on the experts and 99.9% of them are saying we have a problem and that humans are causing it.
Groan... this is a ridiculous statement Claude. Golly, do you actually believe this "statistic"? Wow..

Last edited by Omaroo; 25-01-2010 at 11:01 PM.
  #49  
Old 25-01-2010, 08:50 PM
supernova1965's Avatar
supernova1965 (Warren)
Buddhist Astronomer

supernova1965 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Phillip Island,VIC, Australia
Posts: 4,073
Let's be friends
  #50  
Old 25-01-2010, 09:18 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by CometGuy View Post
OK what are they?

A clip under the ears for being a smart*** .

Bert
  #51  
Old 25-01-2010, 09:21 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,108
Kindergarten..
  #52  
Old 25-01-2010, 09:36 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Integrals are of many forms. A simple line integral will give you information about the function of choice.

Surface integrals are a bit more tricky and when the surface is in three dimensions even more so.

This leads to triple integrals where one can play with all of space in three dimensions.

I urge you to look up Maxwells equations for radiation.

Div Grad and Curl are just operators to quantify in three dimensions the values of various derivatives of any complex function.

It gets even trickier when asymtotes are a part of the function.

I have forgotten more than I know now!

Bert
  #53  
Old 25-01-2010, 10:55 PM
richardda1st (Richard)
Registered User

richardda1st is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Melton, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 372
I have deleted my self from this post.

Last edited by richardda1st; 26-01-2010 at 02:23 AM. Reason: clarify
  #54  
Old 25-01-2010, 11:06 PM
astronut's Avatar
astronut (John)
2'sCompany3's a StarParty

astronut is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Eagle Vale
Posts: 1,251
Please lock this thread.
  #55  
Old 26-01-2010, 05:36 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,799
We haven't had a climate change thread in a few weeks. I'm so glad we've now got the same people rehashing the same arguments that ultimately turn nasty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by space oddity View Post
Although this thread is not astronomy as such, it is good to see a lively debate on this scientific type topic. I would assume that the majority of us astro types are interested in more than one science type field than the average person on the street. I suspect that I am not alone in the IIS community of being a bit of a science buff.
No doubt. But unfortunately threads like this always turn nasty, because of facts, what people believe are facts, politics, beliefs, the weather!

No one person can convince another person to change their thoughts when it comes to this topic. But threads like this have people continuing to try.

And then it gets nasty or personal.

And then it gets locked.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 03:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement