With NVidia unable to release something competitive and therefore creating a "new" 3xx series into being through renaming 2xx series cards, the gts360m as well, those with a clue will be buying ATI for the time being.
Sadly, the average consumer will only look at higher number and is likely to be conned.
I guess I should have said "if there's any good science".
That the article has caused controversy, made an editor resign, and had to be published in a non-mainstream journal in order not to be censored is predictable given its politically contentious implications. But that does not make it bad science.
Why do you not address its contents? What specifically about the experiments or methods is bad science? Oh, that's right, nothing: it presents clear-cut evidence of the presence of thermitic material in the WTC dust. The implications are obvious.
Why? The Fermi-Dirac statistics hold up in dramatically inertial systems and have been reproduced in microgravity as well.
One can indeed derive very general results based on the underlying symmetry of particles. This says little about the general applicability of the aspects of quantum theory not based on symmetry argumentation: it is possible to conceive competing theories that encompass the same symmetries. Quantum theory may fall prey to falsification (once that is actually allowed), group theory is not going away.
It is actually kinda surprising that GR and QM have the accuracies they do.
Not really, given that experimental results at odds with the predictions of both theories are being censored away.
You are correct that we do not have an independent test for non-local physics of ANY sort, however we also lack any independent test for non-local intelligence so in effect arguing that local physics is only valid locally directly corresponds with solipsism.
I was not trying to argue precisely that. Instead, I was trying to indicate that applying a theory in a domain that is very different from the domain where the theory has been matched to nature is highly unlikely to yield truthful predictions. The reason for that is that physical theories are approximate descriptions of nature. As the experimental domain in which a theory is verified is extended, and supposing it does not get falsified in the mean time, this approximate description is elaborated and refined.
Take quantum theory. Early on, it was a description of electronic energy levels in atoms. Then the electron-spin was discovered, experimentally. This caused the theory to be elaborated with an additional spin term for the wavefunction. The underlying particle model (the electron postulated to be a point particle) was not changed (which is rather silly because a point cannot rotate). Instead the spin was declared to be "intrinsic". In short, quantum theory is a dubious patchwork that sort of works in the domain where it has been matched to experiment because it has been modified to accord with experiment. Applying such a theory to a wholly different domain (the dynamics of the universe as a whole instead of the dynamics of a tiny speck of matter) and expecting it to produce accurate predictions is silly.
The verification of advanced physical theories is not cheap.
High-energy physics and cutting-edge astrophysical observations definitely are not cheap. However that is intrinsic to the experimental tools used in those pursuits. Many relatively cheap table-top experiments have been done to check advanced physical theories. Take, for example, experiments in the field of quantum optics.
Why are there so many high-redshift objects in the background that do not seem to be ejecting yet higher-redshifted objects?
Because there is a distance->redshift relationship as well. Why? Maybe the universe is really expanding. Maybe one of the "tired light" hypotheses matches reality.
Why are there no high-blueshift objects in the foreground being ejected on opposite vectors or with different mass-energy states?
That would be expected if whatever is causing these non-distance-related shifts is the Doppler effect. As I argued before, that is highly unlikely because the shifts are all to the red. Moreover, as the angular distance between the "parent galaxy" and the redshifted object increases, the redshift tends to decrease: it seems that the redshift decreases as the object ages.
Obviously, some new physics is required to model this aspect of nature as the current theoretical framework in no way allows for such redshifts and galaxy spawning dynamics. It also implies that the current theoretical framework is woefully incomplete to an extent that I consider tantamount to falsification.
In any case, to really understand why the collection of epicycles that is modern cosmology is being kept alive and patched up, instead of revised from the ground up, you have to look at what is important. Cosmology as such is not important on a human scale. However, cosmology is founded on physics, and physics is very important to everyday human endeavors. The BB model is the poster-child application of GR: it is in defense of GR that the BB cosmology is being kept alive. If one of the many falsifications of GR is ever going to be acknowledged instead of censored, the BB model will finally go where it belongs: in the trashcan together with GR. And then we will finally be able to have some proper physics instead of the current farce.
That is: when scientist A finds anomalous results, it is expected -- and good science -- for scientists B, C, and D to find evidence for or against the anomalous results.
Sure, if scientists B, C, and D are as impartial as you imply. However, in practice when sacred dogma is being challenged by anomalous observations or experiments done by scientist A, well-funded scientists B, C, and D pop up to produce "evidence" to cast doubt on the anomalous finding. And for good measure, scientist A is subjected to character assessination. See for example what happened to Rusi Taleyarkhan. http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/bubblegate/BubblegatePortal.shtml
In short: science is in part about persuasion, and the highest quality of evidence is (almost always) the most persuasive argument available.
You have too rosy a view of scientific practice. Scientific practice is also about perception, and the highest level of funding tends to determine what people can be made to believe. See for example how the anthropogenic global warming theory was pushed.
The scientific method is what grounds science in reality. The further scientific practice deviates from a pure exercise of the scientific method, the less faith one should put in the truthfulness of the models and theories produced thereby,
"Silly" is something you should justify if you expect to be taken seriously. Name-calling is the least persuasive argument available.
It is silly on multiple levels. For one, it is a complex addition to the BB model with weak theoretical and observational grounding. On the scale of the universe, quantum theory has not been tested experimentally. Applying it to the universe as a whole is therefore quite a leap of faith. Moreover, there is a lot of theoretical leeway in which you can. Also, it has not been possible to marry quantum theory to general relativity. This makes it likely that at least one of the two is wrong. So applying both at the same time is excessively risky.
You know that reading this sentence strictly, an obvious answer is "relative motion introduces a Doppler shift", right?
Looking at Arp's observations, the interpretation that high-redshift objects are being ejected from "foreground" galaxies seems inescapable. For a Doppler shift to explain that, the objects would always have to be ejected away from our line of sight at fair fraction of the speed of light. Utterly implausible. The redshift must have a different origin.
You seem to imply that when a majority of observations js in accordance with a theory, this somehow outweighs a minority of observations that are at odds with it. The scientific method is not about majority voting.
I understand that people like to have a viable alternative theory. However, I hope yo will agree that even without providing an alternative theory, it is perfectly valid to engage in falsification.
I concur that theories and models of nature, even though falsified, can still be useful approximate descriptions. However when you have to apply patches and band-aids to keep a model viable, as has happened to the BB model with silly things like "inflation", it is time to either discard the model as having been falsified, or to take a close look at the basic assumptions, postulates, and theories underlying the model.
Arp's work shows that there must exist other causes for redshift than expansion/distance. This means that all of the interpretations of observations that include the automatic redshift->distance assumption have to be revisited. Also, it means that big chunks of basic physics underlying cosmology are missing: how can you claim to have any kind of theoretical certainty if you do not know what is causing these strange red shifts?
Arp's observations should have been the killing blow for an already shaky edifice. In addition, it should have caused serious soul-searching in theoretical physics.
he appears to enjoy continuing to focus on a hypothesis which looks increasingly dead.
So? That Arp has not been able to come up with an alternate cosmology that has stood up against falsification does not mean that his observations have not falsified the Big Bang cosmology. You seem to imply that someone falsifying a theory has to have a viable alternative theory. The scientific method requires no such thing
Most of astrophysics and climate science, about half of physics, and a small part of chemistry is bunk. Biology is not so much bunk as well as very incomplete.
How do you define the threshold of "most" science?
Science is being practiced within the interpretative context of accepted theories. When such a theory has been falsified, the whole edifice of scientific endeavor built on top of it should be discarded. I am basically looking at what fraction of a particular scientific field is built on top of falsified theory and thereby judge whether it is somewhat or mostly bunk.
What exactly is in the set of ideas you're labeling "science"?
In principle, I view science as the collection of knowledge derived using the scientific method. Science in the Popperian sense, that is. However, in my post I was referring to science as the practice that has emerged: a sadly human endeavor influenced by agendas, funding, strife, and belief that even so poses as the ultimate authority on truth because of its supposed founding in the scientific method.
Since you "know of many clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsifications of sacred theories and models", please list them or provide links.
For a falsification of Big Bang cosmology, see Halton Arp's work.
For one of the many different falsifications of relativity theory, see Dayton Miller's work, a good overview of which can be found here http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
For a falsification of the fossil oil genesis theory, look no further than the many deep oil wells the Russians have taken into production. To read up on the proper theory, see here. The list goes on...
What's your "clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsification" of Big Bang cosmology?
See Halton Arp's observations of the redshifts and angular correlations of quasars. Since he started this work, it has been corroborated by a vast body of additional observations. A good overview is given in his book "Seeing Red".
The essence of it is this: according to the Big Bang model, red shift is cosmogenic, and quasars should be, on account of the vast distance implied by their red shift, distributed isotropically. Turns out that quasars are, in terms of angular separation, correlated with "foreground" galaxies to an extent that is so far away from any possible chance statistical fluctuation resulting from an intrinsically isotropic distribution that the quasars have to be causally correlated, and hence their redshift is not of cosmogenic origin.
A might be expected, he has been treated as a heretic, was denied further observation time, and now lives in effective exile.
A measure of doubt in science is justified because much of science has devolved into religion (theories elevated to dogma). As these things come out in the open, people will be utterly amazed at just how much science is bunk. I can say this with confidence because I know of many clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsifications of sacred theories and models. The Big Bang cosmology, for example.
The article speaks about a 100,000 km high (62,000 mile high) tsunami. Assuming that they are referring to the initial height of the surface wave, that is no doubt a typo since the sun's diameter is only 14 times that. Likely, they meant something rather less such as 100,000 m or 100 km. That's still a big wave though.
If you consider the sun in conventional terms, that is, energized by fusion in the core with a 6000K surface temperature then yeah, it is hard to believe. But observations indicate that the sun is rather different.
Take for example the factor-of-three variation in the 260-330 Angstrom window during the solar cycle (see the graph I linked earlier in this thread). The conventional model says nothing about that.
And why the 1-2M degree hot solar corona? It cannot be thermal heating from the surface as heat flows from warm to cold. There are some hand-waving hypotheses about ions surfing magnetic waves, but these models cannot provide for the high energy flux needed to deliver compensation for the massive coronal emissions.
Then there are the relatively dark sunspot umbra. They are 1000-2000K cooler than the rest of the surface. How can that be if all the energy is supposed to come from the inside?
If you consider the x-ray image I linked earlier, you'll notice that it looks as if energy is being produced in the corona. And anomalous energy production is exactly what is being found in laboratory experiments of hydrogen/helium plasmas. The catalytic mechanism referred to in the referenced paper lacks a good theoretical description, but it definitely explains the hot corona, the variability of the coronal emissions, and some other oddities such as the strong dependence of the solar wind on Helium
But what difference does it make that they don't include x-ray and EUV output in TSI if they are cycling in conjunction with the 2000 nm to 200 nm window anyway?
The big difference is that it allows people to reject the sun as causative. The relatively minor variations in the TSI measurements that do not include EUV+X-rays (1365 W/m^2 plus or minus 0.5W/m^2) suggest a global temperature effect of only +/- 0.03K or so. This is markedly less than the 0.1K-0.2K (depending on whom to believe) per decade global temperature rise measured during the 1970-2000 period. That, plus the fact that most of the variation is short-term (goes with the solar cycle) has led people to ignore the sun.
In order for them to be a factor in climate change they would have to be monolithically increasing over time. Do you have evidence that is happening?
Yes, see this paper. Quoting from the conclusion of that paper:
"This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming."
an 0.1% increase will only increase temperatures by 0.07K. That is negligible compared to the 6K/100 yrs being talked about by climatologists. It seems your alternative theory just doesn't account for the facts
You are calling that 6K/100 years fact? Don't be silly. It is just a figment of a highly politicized set of models. The IPPC is claiming a trend of 0.2K per decade. However the actual temperature measurements only support something like 0.11K per decade for the rise between the 70s and 90s. The solar flux changes we have been discussing happen on a timescale of roughly half a decade...
The more relevant aspects of the debate are actually what biological and ecological consequences can be expected from global mean temperature rise and its rate of acceleration.
Not relevant at all because in the last few years the global temperature has been dropping markedly. The reason that that does not show up in the official data sets being foisted on us is because they have been busy hiding the decline.
Next time you go to the kitchen, do a little experiment with the sugar: does it dissolve more easily in hot water, or in cold water? I think you'll find it's the same with CO2. Better find another explanation.
No it is not the same for dissolved CO2: the solubility of gases in water decreases with increasing temperature. My explanation stands.
This is simply not something that can be kept secret or which isn't studied.
It is surprisingly tricky to study these short wavelengths. You must be in space, and you cannot use normal mirrors or lenses to focus this radiation onto a detector since those will absorb it. But in recent years a smattering of satellites have been sent up that contain the special optics (grazing angle reflectors etc.) needed.
But there is a very good reason for the fact that the results have not been given much exposure. It has to with the mechanism that keeps the solar corona so hot. The corona is mostly a hydrogen/helium plasma. If you study those under laboratory conditions, strange things happen.
The images don't say anything about the Sun's energy output at various wavelengths.
Actually, the 171A image allows you to make a guesstimate. You can calculate the black body flux at that wavelength from Planck's law and the surface temperature. That should give you a number for the output of the surface at that wavelength. It should be uniform across the surface. From the image you can estimate how many times larger the non-uniform corona-based intensity is. The energy output at that wavelength will then roughly be that many times the 6000K black body body output at 171A.
Are you saying that a significant fraction of the Sun's energy output is at EUV or X-ray wavelengths?
Yes I am.
a black body radiator at just 6000K isn't going to have X-rays as its primary radiation.
True, but the Sun is not just a black body radiator at 6000K. The solar corona has a temperature of 1-2 million degrees Kelvin. Though the corona is not really a black body radiator either, it definitely has massive short-wavelength emissions as evidenced by the X-ray image I linked before. Just look at the solar surface in that image: it is relatively "dark".
The coronal emissions vastly outweigh the surface emissions already at 171 Angstrom as can be seen here.
Explaining, of course, why we continue to see verification of those models.
No, why we continue to see "verification" of these models was explained in 1993 when members of the Club of Rome published the book "the First Global Revolution". In it, they give the reasons for why the environmental agenda has to be pushed at all cost. Quoting:
"It would seem that humans need a common motivation...either a real one or else one invented for the purpose....In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
There are too many factors to say for sure that increased CO2 is a good thing.
There are many factors indeed. However more CO2 is of benefit to agriculture. This is not theory: many greenhouse proprietors inject CO2 in order to speed the growth of their crops markedly.
It has been determined that down around 150 PPM CO2, plants can no longer cope. The low CO2 concentration in the (geologically speaking) modern era is the result of plants and algae having depleted atmospheric CO2 (the concentration used to be much higher millions of years back) down to a level where photosynthetic biomass started to reduce, thus establishing the modern low equilibrium.
A factor of 2 variation in 0.1% of the Sun's total power is irrelevant.
Is it? Earth's average surface temperature is 285K or so. Vary the solar output by 0.1% and you can expect an effect of roughly 0.07K (taking into account the T^4 dependence of the earth's black-body flux). That is already significant.
Now consider that we are talking about only a small 260-330A slice of the combined EUV and X-ray bands. The solar emissions in those bands are not determined by the thermal spectrum of the solar surface. Most of the EUV and X-ray emissions are from the corona which is much warmer (1-2 million Kelvin) and as a consequence the peak of those emissions is to markedly shorter wavelengths than the linked graph shows.
I take it you've never tried to grow your own food? A few degrees can mean the difference between getting a juicy tomato or just a leafy vine.
Don't worry, the models are bunk, CO2 is not the driving force behind temperature change. But what the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will definitely do is be a great benefit to plant growth. Plants are starved for lack of CO2.
Slashdot Mirror
You touch on the core of the matter: as explained in this presentation, their support of vaccination programs is indeed aimed at population reduction.
With NVidia unable to release something competitive and therefore creating a "new" 3xx series into being through renaming 2xx series cards, the gts360m as well, those with a clue will be buying ATI for the time being.
Sadly, the average consumer will only look at higher number and is likely to be conned.
Ah yes, another attempt to sell the big lie that CO2-induced global warming is causing sea levels to rise.
That the article has caused controversy, made an editor resign, and had to be published in a non-mainstream journal in order not to be censored is predictable given its politically contentious implications. But that does not make it bad science.
Why do you not address its contents? What specifically about the experiments or methods is bad science? Oh, that's right, nothing: it presents clear-cut evidence of the presence of thermitic material in the WTC dust. The implications are obvious.
There is. Plenty of it. For example linked in the very post you were responding to. Here is that link again http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM.
Sad, though, that the magazine has been abused for political gain by engaging in a straw man attack, instead of addressing the science properly.
One can indeed derive very general results based on the underlying symmetry of particles. This says little about the general applicability of the aspects of quantum theory not based on symmetry argumentation: it is possible to conceive competing theories that encompass the same symmetries. Quantum theory may fall prey to falsification (once that is actually allowed), group theory is not going away.
Not really, given that experimental results at odds with the predictions of both theories are being censored away.
I was not trying to argue precisely that. Instead, I was trying to indicate that applying a theory in a domain that is very different from the domain where the theory has been matched to nature is highly unlikely to yield truthful predictions. The reason for that is that physical theories are approximate descriptions of nature. As the experimental domain in which a theory is verified is extended, and supposing it does not get falsified in the mean time, this approximate description is elaborated and refined.
Take quantum theory. Early on, it was a description of electronic energy levels in atoms. Then the electron-spin was discovered, experimentally. This caused the theory to be elaborated with an additional spin term for the wavefunction. The underlying particle model (the electron postulated to be a point particle) was not changed (which is rather silly because a point cannot rotate). Instead the spin was declared to be "intrinsic". In short, quantum theory is a dubious patchwork that sort of works in the domain where it has been matched to experiment because it has been modified to accord with experiment. Applying such a theory to a wholly different domain (the dynamics of the universe as a whole instead of the dynamics of a tiny speck of matter) and expecting it to produce accurate predictions is silly.
High-energy physics and cutting-edge astrophysical observations definitely are not cheap. However that is intrinsic to the experimental tools used in those pursuits. Many relatively cheap table-top experiments have been done to check advanced physical theories. Take, for example, experiments in the field of quantum optics.
Because there is a distance->redshift relationship as well. Why? Maybe the universe is really expanding. Maybe one of the "tired light" hypotheses matches reality.
That would be expected if whatever is causing these non-distance-related shifts is the Doppler effect. As I argued before, that is highly unlikely because the shifts are all to the red. Moreover, as the angular distance between the "parent galaxy" and the redshifted object increases, the redshift tends to decrease: it seems that the redshift decreases as the object ages.
Obviously, some new physics is required to model this aspect of nature as the current theoretical framework in no way allows for such redshifts and galaxy spawning dynamics. It also implies that the current theoretical framework is woefully incomplete to an extent that I consider tantamount to falsification.
In any case, to really understand why the collection of epicycles that is modern cosmology is being kept alive and patched up, instead of revised from the ground up, you have to look at what is important. Cosmology as such is not important on a human scale. However, cosmology is founded on physics, and physics is very important to everyday human endeavors. The BB model is the poster-child application of GR: it is in defense of GR that the BB cosmology is being kept alive. If one of the many falsifications of GR is ever going to be acknowledged instead of censored, the BB model will finally go where it belongs: in the trashcan together with GR. And then we will finally be able to have some proper physics instead of the current farce.
Sure, if scientists B, C, and D are as impartial as you imply. However, in practice when sacred dogma is being challenged by anomalous observations or experiments done by scientist A, well-funded scientists B, C, and D pop up to produce "evidence" to cast doubt on the anomalous finding. And for good measure, scientist A is subjected to character assessination. See for example what happened to Rusi Taleyarkhan. http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/bubblegate/BubblegatePortal.shtml
You have too rosy a view of scientific practice. Scientific practice is also about perception, and the highest level of funding tends to determine what people can be made to believe. See for example how the anthropogenic global warming theory was pushed.
The scientific method is what grounds science in reality. The further scientific practice deviates from a pure exercise of the scientific method, the less faith one should put in the truthfulness of the models and theories produced thereby,
"Silly" is something you should justify if you expect to be taken seriously. Name-calling is the least persuasive argument available.
It is silly on multiple levels. For one, it is a complex addition to the BB model with weak theoretical and observational grounding. On the scale of the universe, quantum theory has not been tested experimentally. Applying it to the universe as a whole is therefore quite a leap of faith. Moreover, there is a lot of theoretical leeway in which you can. Also, it has not been possible to marry quantum theory to general relativity. This makes it likely that at least one of the two is wrong. So applying both at the same time is excessively risky.
You know that reading this sentence strictly, an obvious answer is "relative motion introduces a Doppler shift", right?
Looking at Arp's observations, the interpretation that high-redshift objects are being ejected from "foreground" galaxies seems inescapable. For a Doppler shift to explain that, the objects would always have to be ejected away from our line of sight at fair fraction of the speed of light. Utterly implausible. The redshift must have a different origin.
You seem to imply that when a majority of observations js in accordance with a theory, this somehow outweighs a minority of observations that are at odds with it. The scientific method is not about majority voting.
I understand that people like to have a viable alternative theory. However, I hope yo will agree that even without providing an alternative theory, it is perfectly valid to engage in falsification.
I concur that theories and models of nature, even though falsified, can still be useful approximate descriptions. However when you have to apply patches and band-aids to keep a model viable, as has happened to the BB model with silly things like "inflation", it is time to either discard the model as having been falsified, or to take a close look at the basic assumptions, postulates, and theories underlying the model.
Arp's work shows that there must exist other causes for redshift than expansion/distance. This means that all of the interpretations of observations that include the automatic redshift->distance assumption have to be revisited. Also, it means that big chunks of basic physics underlying cosmology are missing: how can you claim to have any kind of theoretical certainty if you do not know what is causing these strange red shifts?
Arp's observations should have been the killing blow for an already shaky edifice. In addition, it should have caused serious soul-searching in theoretical physics.
So? That Arp has not been able to come up with an alternate cosmology that has stood up against falsification does not mean that his observations have not falsified the Big Bang cosmology. You seem to imply that someone falsifying a theory has to have a viable alternative theory. The scientific method requires no such thing
As you ask so kindly, I will.
Most of astrophysics and climate science, about half of physics, and a small part of chemistry is bunk. Biology is not so much bunk as well as very incomplete.
How do you define the threshold of "most" science?
Science is being practiced within the interpretative context of accepted theories. When such a theory has been falsified, the whole edifice of scientific endeavor built on top of it should be discarded. I am basically looking at what fraction of a particular scientific field is built on top of falsified theory and thereby judge whether it is somewhat or mostly bunk.
In principle, I view science as the collection of knowledge derived using the scientific method. Science in the Popperian sense, that is. However, in my post I was referring to science as the practice that has emerged: a sadly human endeavor influenced by agendas, funding, strife, and belief that even so poses as the ultimate authority on truth because of its supposed founding in the scientific method.
For a falsification of Big Bang cosmology, see Halton Arp's work. For one of the many different falsifications of relativity theory, see Dayton Miller's work, a good overview of which can be found here http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm For a falsification of the fossil oil genesis theory, look no further than the many deep oil wells the Russians have taken into production. To read up on the proper theory, see here. The list goes on...
See Halton Arp's observations of the redshifts and angular correlations of quasars. Since he started this work, it has been corroborated by a vast body of additional observations. A good overview is given in his book "Seeing Red".
The essence of it is this: according to the Big Bang model, red shift is cosmogenic, and quasars should be, on account of the vast distance implied by their red shift, distributed isotropically. Turns out that quasars are, in terms of angular separation, correlated with "foreground" galaxies to an extent that is so far away from any possible chance statistical fluctuation resulting from an intrinsically isotropic distribution that the quasars have to be causally correlated, and hence their redshift is not of cosmogenic origin.
A might be expected, he has been treated as a heretic, was denied further observation time, and now lives in effective exile.
A measure of doubt in science is justified because much of science has devolved into religion (theories elevated to dogma). As these things come out in the open, people will be utterly amazed at just how much science is bunk. I can say this with confidence because I know of many clear and unambiguous experimental and observational falsifications of sacred theories and models. The Big Bang cosmology, for example.
Nano-scale aluminum can have quite useful and interesting applications. See for example here.
The article speaks about a 100,000 km high (62,000 mile high) tsunami. Assuming that they are referring to the initial height of the surface wave, that is no doubt a typo since the sun's diameter is only 14 times that. Likely, they meant something rather less such as 100,000 m or 100 km. That's still a big wave though.
If you consider the sun in conventional terms, that is, energized by fusion in the core with a 6000K surface temperature then yeah, it is hard to believe. But observations indicate that the sun is rather different.
Take for example the factor-of-three variation in the 260-330 Angstrom window during the solar cycle (see the graph I linked earlier in this thread). The conventional model says nothing about that.
And why the 1-2M degree hot solar corona? It cannot be thermal heating from the surface as heat flows from warm to cold. There are some hand-waving hypotheses about ions surfing magnetic waves, but these models cannot provide for the high energy flux needed to deliver compensation for the massive coronal emissions.
Then there are the relatively dark sunspot umbra. They are 1000-2000K cooler than the rest of the surface. How can that be if all the energy is supposed to come from the inside?
If you consider the x-ray image I linked earlier, you'll notice that it looks as if energy is being produced in the corona. And anomalous energy production is exactly what is being found in laboratory experiments of hydrogen/helium plasmas. The catalytic mechanism referred to in the referenced paper lacks a good theoretical description, but it definitely explains the hot corona, the variability of the coronal emissions, and some other oddities such as the strong dependence of the solar wind on Helium
.
The big difference is that it allows people to reject the sun as causative. The relatively minor variations in the TSI measurements that do not include EUV+X-rays (1365 W/m^2 plus or minus 0.5W/m^2) suggest a global temperature effect of only +/- 0.03K or so. This is markedly less than the 0.1K-0.2K (depending on whom to believe) per decade global temperature rise measured during the 1970-2000 period. That, plus the fact that most of the variation is short-term (goes with the solar cycle) has led people to ignore the sun.
Yes, see this paper. Quoting from the conclusion of that paper:
"This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming."
You are calling that 6K/100 years fact? Don't be silly. It is just a figment of a highly politicized set of models. The IPPC is claiming a trend of 0.2K per decade. However the actual temperature measurements only support something like 0.11K per decade for the rise between the 70s and 90s. The solar flux changes we have been discussing happen on a timescale of roughly half a decade...
Not relevant at all because in the last few years the global temperature has been dropping markedly. The reason that that does not show up in the official data sets being foisted on us is because they have been busy hiding the decline.
No it is not the same for dissolved CO2: the solubility of gases in water decreases with increasing temperature. My explanation stands.
It is surprisingly tricky to study these short wavelengths. You must be in space, and you cannot use normal mirrors or lenses to focus this radiation onto a detector since those will absorb it. But in recent years a smattering of satellites have been sent up that contain the special optics (grazing angle reflectors etc.) needed.
But there is a very good reason for the fact that the results have not been given much exposure. It has to with the mechanism that keeps the solar corona so hot. The corona is mostly a hydrogen/helium plasma. If you study those under laboratory conditions, strange things happen.
Actually, the 171A image allows you to make a guesstimate. You can calculate the black body flux at that wavelength from Planck's law and the surface temperature. That should give you a number for the output of the surface at that wavelength. It should be uniform across the surface. From the image you can estimate how many times larger the non-uniform corona-based intensity is. The energy output at that wavelength will then roughly be that many times the 6000K black body body output at 171A.
Yes I am.
True, but the Sun is not just a black body radiator at 6000K. The solar corona has a temperature of 1-2 million degrees Kelvin. Though the corona is not really a black body radiator either, it definitely has massive short-wavelength emissions as evidenced by the X-ray image I linked before. Just look at the solar surface in that image: it is relatively "dark".
The coronal emissions vastly outweigh the surface emissions already at 171 Angstrom as can be seen here.
No, why we continue to see "verification" of these models was explained in 1993 when members of the Club of Rome published the book "the First Global Revolution". In it, they give the reasons for why the environmental agenda has to be pushed at all cost. Quoting:
"It would seem that humans need a common motivation...either a real one or else one invented for the purpose....In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
There are many factors indeed. However more CO2 is of benefit to agriculture. This is not theory: many greenhouse proprietors inject CO2 in order to speed the growth of their crops markedly.
It has been determined that down around 150 PPM CO2, plants can no longer cope. The low CO2 concentration in the (geologically speaking) modern era is the result of plants and algae having depleted atmospheric CO2 (the concentration used to be much higher millions of years back) down to a level where photosynthetic biomass started to reduce, thus establishing the modern low equilibrium.
Is it? Earth's average surface temperature is 285K or so. Vary the solar output by 0.1% and you can expect an effect of roughly 0.07K (taking into account the T^4 dependence of the earth's black-body flux). That is already significant.
Now consider that we are talking about only a small 260-330A slice of the combined EUV and X-ray bands. The solar emissions in those bands are not determined by the thermal spectrum of the solar surface. Most of the EUV and X-ray emissions are from the corona which is much warmer (1-2 million Kelvin) and as a consequence the peak of those emissions is to markedly shorter wavelengths than the linked graph shows.
Don't worry, the models are bunk, CO2 is not the driving force behind temperature change. But what the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will definitely do is be a great benefit to plant growth. Plants are starved for lack of CO2.