First, Einstein was right. Then he was wrong. Then he was right due to a loose wire. Now he may have been wrong due to an oscillator. Many of us would just throw up our hands and say everything is relative with Einstein, but scientists at OPERA say that a second equipment problem may have led to a too conservative reading of the 730-kilometer journey of the neutrinos reported by the European Organization for Nuclear Research or CERN.
The oscillator is used to provide time stamps to synchronize the GPS systems which measure the travel time. The scientists believe that the oscillator problem may have canceled out the cable problem . . . and that the little neutrinos did move faster than the speed of light — beyond the cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). That would contradict Einstein’s theory. So I guess we have to treat Einstein like a big dummy again . . . absent another loose cable or spilled coffee cup.
I am just waiting for a finding that neutrinos are sentient with a wicked sense of humor . . . and hovering around 299,791 kilometers per second just to mess with us.
Source: CBC
Gene, we have finally met the apocryphal one-legged guy who entered the ass kicking contest. This is not even a fair fight. Bron has not even figured out that Bdaman is smarter than he is.
How’s that rectification of your demonstrably flawed logic working out for you, Bron?
Oh, that’s right.
It isn’t.
Bdaman:
ever notice how these jokers always resort to name calling? Happens every time when they dont have anything to say.
Look at Otteray Scribe flailing away on your questions, he doesnt have a clue so he says you could do a PhD dissertation on each one. Well you can do a PhD dissertation on the Marx Brothers or on concrete.
But you can certainly answer yes or no whether or not the Marx Brothers are funny or concrete is hard [after hydration of course] without doing a PhD.
Off Topic but not.
The Energy Department isn’t working to lower gasoline prices directly, Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday after a Republican lawmaker scolded him for his now-infamous 2008 comment that gas prices in the U.S. should be as high as in Europe.
Instead, DOE is working to promote alternatives such as biofuels and electric vehicles, Chu told House appropriators during a hearing on DOE’s budget.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73408.html#ixzz1nlwKN38K
First of all, we are not playing a game of twenty questions, or for that matter, five questions. Every one of the items in your little list is worthy of at least one doctoral dissertation, standing alone. Answer with a yes or no? Kidding, right? Do you still beat your wife?
There are a huge number of things that can be done to reduce global climate change. CO2 is only one of the problems, and the simplistic goal of getting it below a certain magical number and then everything else will fall into place is the scientific equivalent of whistling past the graveyard. There are a lot more pollutants than fossil fuels, although granted they are one of the worst contributors.
At this point, the only thing that is going to save this planet is to discover an energy source that is cheap, renewable, non-polluting, and easily manageable. I still have some hope for cold fusion, although it is now the red-headed stepchild of science, thanks to the PR nightmare resulting from the claims of Fleishman and Pons.
I am just cynical enough to think that the vast amounts of money and power controlled by the fossil fuel interests will try to stifle any genuine research on the kinds of energy sources I described.
If the problem is not solved, Mother Nature will solve it for us. Entropy will take care of everything.
I tell you what lets do a simple true or false quiz starting off with some basics. From time to time I’ll post’em and lets see where it goes.
True or false
1. Recent Climate Change/Global Warming is man made that is commonly agreed that it started with the industrial revolution.
2. All Climate Change/Global Warming prior to the industrial revolution was natural variability.
3. Climate Change/Global Warming is caused by increases in atmospheric CO2 mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels.
4. The safe zone for PPM of atmospheric CO2 is 350PPM or less.
5. The current concentration of atmospheric CO2 is between 390PPM to 400PPM.
AGREE OR DISAGREE. Disagree by pointing out which is false and why.
Oh yeah, Elaine. I’m just terrified. Oh, wait, no, no . . . that’s not the word I was looking for; “terrified”. The word I was looking for was “amused”. I’m just amused.
*************
Bron. Pssst! Your inferiority complex is showing. You should really do something about that. Or not.
Seriously, thanks for the laugh.
Telling me what I fear is almost as funny as you trying to make arguments for me.
Why don’t you get back to me when you can come close to patching the massive holes exposed in your above “logic” (such as it is).
Otteray Scribe:
Koch power?
Otteray Scribe:
good for you, Sorosboy.
Bdaman:
“You’re the one who suggested the sun as a driver of climate change. I minimized its effects. Seems to me that what is lacking is your understanding that the statement you quoted supports my position. Just like you lack understanding that changing atmospheric chemistry is far more critical to the process than solar variation. If you understood both the P-Tr extinction event (driven by massive vulcanism) and KT extinction event (a combination of events exacerbated past the tipping point by an asteroid or comet collision sending massive amounts of material into the air) you’d know this fact.”
how come you dont know about that? Gene doesnt know about it either, just what he found in the last 30 minutes on the Internet.
He would have mentioned the Fuchs effect if he had any real understanding of atmospheric chemistry in regard to solar variation. Ernst Fuchs was the first one to discover the correlation between microscopic atmospheric dust and ozone production from neutrino collisions with dust in the upper atmosphere.
Bron,
Your Koch-powered rants are not worth my time or energy. At least Bdaman is occasionally insightful, despite his sticking to the part line like a tick. I am busy and do not have the time to mess with you. Project all you want. I have a life outside the blogosphere.
Bdaman:
I wonder what he has to say about the propaganda of George Soros and his tentacles of deception and dissembling.
Otteray Scribe:
Do you ever have an original thought? I am just curious. You quote Eric Hoffer and you just paraphrased me.
And your ideas on global warming are pretty typical of the “consensus” [read herd mentality] of climate scientists.
I’ll put my money on the sun as the cause of climate change. Or on the sun affecting some system here on earth which oscillates based on sun strength/intensity. CO2 is just a gas like oxygen or nitrogen.
I read somewhere that if it wasnt for nitrifying bacteria sequestering nitrogen in soils, the earth would have too much atmospheric nitrogen and that would lead to global cooling. I also read that man farming activity is killing those nitrifying bacteria at an alarming rate. the pesticides and fertilizers we use in food production are devastating these bacteria. Microbiologists speculate if these products arent eliminated, the earth could go into another ice age.
Gene,
I can hear your knees knocking way up here in Massachusetts.
😉
Bdaman:
you are arguing with a person who never loses, ever, in any debate on this blog.
Why dont you just give up? You will lose to Gene’s superior “logic” and “keen” mind.
Quit poking the bear, you will only lose a hand.
It doesnt matter that the sun is the driver for climate on earth, that is an inconsequential. It is CO2, screw the sun. We should figure out how CO2 could be in a solid phase. I bet there wouldnt be global warming when the CO2 is in a solid phase instead of a gas.
Gene if all the CO2 on earth is in a solid phase would that help stop global warming?
Lets solidify the CO2 and stop global warming in its tracks.
Solidify CO2 now.
Hey, Hey
Ho, Ho
Solidify CO2
Bron, your projection is palpable.
In a way I feel sorry for you. It must be terrible to never have an original thought.
Gene H:
your fear is palpable.
And very unbecoming.
As a side note, Bdaman, now that you’ve dropped the pretenses and simply opted for spreading Koch propaganda openly and directly, it makes it so much easier not to take a damn thing you say about climate change seriously.
Bdaman,
You’re the one who suggested the sun as a driver of climate change. I minimized its effects. Seems to me that what is lacking is your understanding that the statement you quoted supports my position. Just like you lack understanding that changing atmospheric chemistry is far more critical to the process than solar variation. If you understood both the P-Tr extinction event (driven by massive vulcanism) and KT extinction event (a combination of events exacerbated past the tipping point by an asteroid or comet collision sending massive amounts of material into the air) you’d know this fact.
You’re never going to win by pointing out that I’m right.
Gene there’s something in there for you as well
“One suggested driver is solar variability, but supporting paleoclimate evidence is lacking.”
Seems to me something else is lacking. Your understanding of the sun.