Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: French men's lockersalon?

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Alan Fox

1
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Well, I'm only a very occasional poster here so apologies for contributing to a derail.  I'm happy to continue a discussion with Heinz in the appropriate thread or start one if that's the etiquette.  If there's no interest, perhaps not even from Heinz., no problem.

The last time we interacted, you did not demonstrate any ability in Physics at all and you freely admitted you cannot "do the math". So, what do you think you can contribute this time around?
Quite simply, I don't think it requires other than a basic understanding of Newtonian physics and no math to arrive at the possibility of travel downwind faster than the wind.

Even Newtonian Physics involves some math, which you were unwilling or unable to do.

If you'd allow me a little rope we could see if that works.
Sure. I will allow you enough rope to hang yourself.

First do you agree that a helicopter in an updraft requires less power to maintain itself in a hover than in still air? If you disagree, then any further input from me would indeed be a waste of time.

Any further input from you on this point would indeed be a waste of time as your question is not relevant to something going faster than the wind POWERED BY THE WIND directly downwind, which a helicopter is not.


Remember I walked into the old threads completely innocent of the idea and experiments and my first reaction was it was a hoax.  You're right that knowing Pingu was an important element in persuading me to make an effort to understand but I got there myself in the end.

Cut the crap. You were led by the nose into this by Pingu and you dared not come to any conclusion that was not in agreement with hers, regardless of what you supposedly understand about Physics.


So!

Do you agree about the helicopter? I you disagree, there's no more to be said.

Until you show how this is in any way related to the wind-powered cart, there is no point in discussing it and no loss if you get lost.

Fair enough.
2
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Well, I'm only a very occasional poster here so apologies for contributing to a derail.  I'm happy to continue a discussion with Heinz in the appropriate thread or start one if that's the etiquette.  If there's no interest, perhaps not even from Heinz., no problem.

The last time we interacted, you did not demonstrate any ability in Physics at all and you freely admitted you cannot "do the math". So, what do you think you can contribute this time around?
Quite simply, I don't think it requires other than a basic understanding of Newtonian physics and no math to arrive at the possibility of travel downwind faster than the wind.

Even Newtonian Physics involves some math, which you were unwilling or unable to do.

If you'd allow me a little rope we could see if that works.
Sure. I will allow you enough rope to hang yourself.

First do you agree that a helicopter in an updraft requires less power to maintain itself in a hover than in still air? If you disagree, then any further input from me would indeed be a waste of time.

Any further input from you on this point would indeed be a waste of time as your question is not relevant to something going faster than the wind POWERED BY THE WIND directly downwind, which a helicopter is not.


Remember I walked into the old threads completely innocent of the idea and experiments and my first reaction was it was a hoax.  You're right that knowing Pingu was an important element in persuading me to make an effort to understand but I got there myself in the end.

Cut the crap. You were led by the nose into this by Pingu and you dared not come to any conclusion that was not in agreement with hers, regardless of what you supposedly understand about Physics.


So!

Do you agree about the helicopter? I you disagree, there's no more to be said.
3
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Well, I'm only a very occasional poster here so apologies for contributing to a derail.  I'm happy to continue a discussion with Heinz in the appropriate thread or start one if that's the etiquette.  If there's no interest, perhaps not even from Heinz., no problem.

The last time we interacted, you did not demonstrate any ability in Physics at all and you freely admitted you cannot "do the math". So, what do you think you can contribute this time around?
Quite simply, I don't think it requires other than a basic understanding of Newtonian physics and no math to arrive at the possibility of travel downwind faster than the wind.

If you'd allow me a little rope we could see if that works. First do you agree that a helicopter in an updraft requires less power to maintain itself in a hover than in still air? If you disagree, then any further input from me would indeed be a waste of time.

Remember I walked into the old threads completely innocent of the idea and experiments and my first reaction was it was a hoax.  You're right that knowing Pingu was an important element in persuading me to make an effort to understand but I got there myself in the end.
4
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Well, I'm only a very occasional poster here so apologies for contributing to a derail.  I'm happy to continue a discussion with Heinz in the appropriate thread or start one if that's the etiquette.  If there's no interest, perhaps not even from Heinz., no problem.
5
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
1) You never could place a value of thrust on my diagram that is greater than the braking force, without violating COE.
I could and (IIRC) I did.  The trouble is that you don't know what COE means.
HA HA, you have to say (iirc) because you know damn well you didn't and couldn't.


Quote from: Heinz
2) You never could tell me, in what respected peer reviewed journal was anything published about ddwfttw?
Don't know, don't care.
Quote from: Heinz
3) In response to (2) you created your own crackpot version of peer review, that is, reviewed by a cargo cult on the internet!
Given your general lack of comprehension (of anything), it shouldn't be surprising to me that you'd misrepresent my point about peer review like this.

Bullshit. You know damn well that nothing on ddwfttw has ever been published in any respected peer reviewed journal. That's why you had to piss on the peer review process and create your own crackpot internet forum version of it. You really are dishonest as well as physics-challenged. :yes:

When I cornered you with math, your only escape was to proclaim "there's a lot of energy in that ground" :stopper:  HA HA HA!

Ground energy = Frame energy = MAGIC

Scenario one. Helicopter hovers in still air. Scenario two. Helicopter hovers in strong updraft. Do you agree the power required to maintain the hover is less in the strong updraft?

ETA punctuation
6
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
A basic physics thread may be a good idea, but I don't think Heinz is interested in actually learning any of it.

He was a good foil for me learning something!
7
Introductions / Re: Heinz is Back
Quote
Or could it be, that they just simply found themselves wading in a seemingly bottomless pit of boredom... and when they finally reach their lowest level, they decide to log-in at TalkRational.org
That's a perfect fit for me!

Will Heinz be resuming his spirited rebuttal of Faster-than-the-wind-downwind wind-powered vehicles?
8
A recent paper regarding glacial melting in Antarctica.
9
Quote
If the wilder excesses of the GCM's with their demonstrated poor levels of predictive skill for whatever reasons are taken away it is interesting to have a look at what can be expected if things proceed along the current real climate trajectory without the putative 'runaway warming' which is not observed.
Well, indeed. Observation and measurement should reinforce or weaken our reliance on particular climate models.

Quote
Danish Meteorological Institute claim ~ - 200 Gt/yr surface mass balance over that last decade for the Greenland ice sheet.  That is, 200 billion tonnes of ice lost every year.  As a side issue unrelated to sea level it's worth noting that over the same period Arctic Ocean sea ice cover has also been mostly declining.
Funny you mention Denmark - a country engaged in a Pascal wager with renewable energy.

Quote
NASA claim between 112 and 82 billion tons * of ice gained per year on Antarctica over roughly the same time frame.  Antarctic sea ice cover has seen record extents over this period but is a movable feast and since it is in general only around one meter thick it can see massive swings if warm air masses arrive from the north.
Yet a recent study employing satellite radar finds Antarctic glaciers melting at an increasing rate.

Quote
Say then that the current global net rate of continental ice loss to the oceans is 100 Gt/yr.  Given that the global oceanic mass is ~ 1.35e18 tonnes we have an annual increase in ocean mass of 0.0000074%/yr.  You are going to be waiting at the high tide mark a very long time indeed to get so much as your feet wet - assuming no other confounding factors.  To cross check that, the figures readily available on the internet give the volume of ice on Antarctica - representing around 90% of the volume of ice on the planet - as approximately 30 million cubic kilometres, weighing in at a hefty ~ 3e16 tonnes.  It is estimated that if this volume of ice were to melt, the resulting sea level rise would be 58 m or so.  The current annual melt of 100e9 tonnes then would result in a sea level rise of just under 0.2 mm/yr or 2 cm/century.  Not exactly cause for alarm and bailing on that beach front property deal.

*  Note that NASA are using imperial tons and I haven't done the conversions since it makes little practical difference - 1 imperial ton = 1.01605 metric tonnes.
I'll repeat my suggestion that most practical steps to reduce CO2 emissions are worth doing anyway (see Denmark). What's not to like?

10
Right.  The oceans are obviously not rising in average temperature in step with the air, there should be a large lag due to the huge heat capacity of that much water.

Has anyone checked the math for the suggested volume increase of the total ocean water content caused by that temperature increase, then related that to the ocean surface area x the rise in ocean level?

Quote
Sea level rise is very slow
Citation, please!

Quote
New York is expected to see the sea level rise by about three feet by the end of the century. That is if global temps rise by five degree.
Citation, please!

See here!


Simply demanding citations leaves me no clue to what your beef is. But whatever...

http://e360.yale.edu/features/rising_waters_how_fast_and_how_far_will_sea_levels_rise

" Things today are more certain. In its latest report, released on September 27, the IPCC finally could and did put a number on ice flow from the poles. The result was an estimate of sea level rise of 28 to 98 centimeters (a maximum of more than three feet) by 2100 -- more than 50 percent higher than the 2007 projections. "We have our arms around the problem well enough to say there's a limit to how crazy things are going to get," says Ted Scambos, head scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. "

Again I have no idea what your beef is but this number is all over the internet for anyone to find. There was even a sciam article recently.

I call this a very slow rise and it is in the context of the current discussion. But by historical standards it is very fast.

You (ppnl) made two claims:
  • Sea level rise is very slow
  • New York is expected to see the sea level rise by about three feet by the end of the century. That is if global temps rise by five degree..

I just wondered what figures you were working with. There is the most recent NOAA (PDF) report which suggests a range of projected sea level rise between at the very least 30 cm and an upper "extreme" of 2.5 metres by 2100. There is a trend that measurement has outstripped prediction with previous estimates consistently being revised upwards. And it won't stop rising at the end of the century, either. I'm OK. I live around 300 metres above current sea level. Those living at or near the coast in the US might not be so lucky.



12
Because socialism is bad.

So all the Western nations that have it are socialist systems.
Thanks for showing your intelligence.

Regards
DL

I can't think of a counter-example, offhand; Can you?


Many.

Regards
DL
List them then!
13
Right.  The oceans are obviously not rising in average temperature in step with the air, there should be a large lag due to the huge heat capacity of that much water.

Has anyone checked the math for the suggested volume increase of the total ocean water content caused by that temperature increase, then related that to the ocean surface area x the rise in ocean level?

Quote
Sea level rise is very slow
Citation, please!

Quote
New York is expected to see the sea level rise by about three feet by the end of the century. That is if global temps rise by five degree..
Citation, please!

See here!
14
Because socialism is bad.

So all the Western nations that have it are socialist systems.
Thanks for showing your intelligence.

Regards
DL

I can't think of a counter-example, offhand; Can you?
15
Two quite different matters there.
And what is wrong with adopting a strategy to reduce greenhouse emissions whether or not there is a proven link. Most strategies such as developing renewable energy are worth doing anyway.
I tend to agree, mankind should be working towards using solar energy, and clean energy, energy efficiency, even if extra CO2 turns out to be a benefit, not a disaster.  Especially stopping coal, which I really dislike.  Oil is also pretty nasty and really destructive when an undersea rig fails, or a tanker goes tits up in Alaska.

That's a completely different issue that knowing if the theory is valid or not.

Obviously! But you say (regarding measures to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels) that you agree that such measures are worth taking whether human contribution to rising CO2 is significant or not. Saves arguing about something we agree on.

Regarding whether the greenhouse effect is real and leading to a net rise in the amount of solar energy arriving on Earth, sure it's a separate issue. I'm still not clear whether you dismiss climate change altogether, dispute rising CO2 as a major factor, or just think humans aren't a major contributor to rising CO2
16
It's almost always the stumbling block for a theory, or an entire field of science.  Once the authorities embrace the assumption (which is going to turn out to be wrong later) and now work to repress or destroy anyone who doesn't toe the line, it may take decades, or a century for the problem to be solved.  The worst case is when it actually leads to the situation where it's impossible for somebody with no resources or support to even work on the error, which after the fact seems obvious.
How does this relate in particular to climate change? What are the erroneous assumptions?

And what is wrong with adopting a strategy to reduce greenhouse emissions whether or not there is a proven link. Most strategies such as developing renewable energy are worth doing anyway.
17
Have you abandoned the previous thread, BTW? I'm still curious about your stance:
And I still am curious.
Does look as if this has been covered. I don't see anything new from FX.
And I don't see anything new in the threads I glanced through. Maybe I missed something. Maybe you haven't got round to mentioning it yet. Unless you feel like making your position clearer, I guess I'll never know.
18
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

There's nothing more recent than 1896?

Have you abandoned the previous thread, BTW? I'm still curious about your stance:

Quote
I'm not sure what your position is - as I said it seems somewhat vague. I'm not sure if you are questioning any link between CO2 levels and average atmospheric temperatures or denying any significant rise in CO2 or merely saying that humans can't do anything to affect the trend. Maybe you'd like to flesh out your position a bit. It may be there's either too much or too little difference to justify further discussion.
19
Just kidding around, although obviously "fuckhead" and "priceless" are two of FX's favorite words. Honestly if you want some background on discussions with him on the subject, pretty much any thread started by him here is what you're looking for:
http://talkrational.org/archive/forumdisplay.php?f=5
Thanks again. Does look as if this has been covered. I don't see anything new from FX.
21
Quote
Cohen has noted extensively that the winter trends (in fact the entire NH cold season) do not match models based on CO2 forcing, even going so far as to postulate warming may be causing the cooling trends.

Here is a PDF of  Cohen's latest report on Arctic climate change. Is there something here that should reassure anyone?
22
Quote
We have not observed any global change that exceeds past warmings.  In fact, many places are colder now than in most of the recent past.

 You make two specific claims here, both rather vague.
From past experience showing you vast amounts of data won't matter a bit, if you have already made up your mind. 
. Well, you have no past experience  with me nor I with you, apart from the impression I've gained that you paint with a very broad brush.

To save you time, my current thinking on climate change is that is happening and the connection with rising CO2 levels is hard to deny. Further, the contribution to this rise by human activity is also pretty much undeniable. I also think measures we could take to reduce CO2 emissions are worth doing anyway, even if it were to turn out that reducing emissions does not have an effect on climate change.  There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for climate change, the most convincing to me being the disappearance of glaciers Worldwide. It may be you can, with evidence, demonstrate that some of what I currently think is mistaken.

I'm not sure what your position is - as I said it seems somewhat vague. I'm not sure if you are questioning any link between CO2 levels and average atmospheric temperatures or denying any significant rise in CO2 or merely saying that humans can't do anything to affect the trend. Maybe you'd like to flesh out your position a bit. It may be there's either too much or too little difference to justify further discussion.


 
Quote
The Altithermal (Holocene climatic optimum) was much warmer globally than present, which is supported by tons of evidence, hundreds of years of researchers and many many different proxies.  The arctic regions were much warmer, and sea level was 3 meters higher globally. Not only glaciers but an entire ice cap were just not there. The deep sea cores, ice cores, pollen and varves and river deltas and ancient forests , the tree lines, the rainfall in Africa, all of it shows that the planet experienced a very warm period 7000 to 5000 years ago.

It cooled since then, up until recently. where we have observed a warming since the LIA.  It is of course entirely possible mankind is altering the global heat balance, in many ways. But in science a theory is never proved, it just is the best we can do.  The warming since the last cooling trend certainly seemed unnatural. Hanse et al 2000 noted that the observed warming, which has not continued, may have been from CfCs, and that fossil fuels may actually have an offsetting that currently negates any warming from them.

The climate change observed fits much better with CfCs and solar forcing, rather than a CO2 greenhouse enhancement.

I'd also be grateful for anyone else reading to point out any old ground here. A link to previous exchanges would be most welcome.
23
I just don't have time to give you a proper response at the moment.

I doubt that's possible at any moment. :) Meanwhile, the climate changes.
25
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
it's not about having a good case. it's about convincing enough republican congressmen that they can vote against impeachment and justify it to their electorate.

What about the mid-terms?