Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Davidfak]

• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 07, 2024, 08:59:28 PM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 07, 2024, 07:52:26 PM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 07, 2024, 01:37:16 PM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 07, 2024, 12:26:58 AM]
• cp loli by BobbyNof
  [May 06, 2024, 02:51:48 AM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 06, 2024, 02:47:41 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 4951
• Latest: Antonioauh

Stats

• Total Posts: 129618
• Total Topics: 7184
• Online Today: 140
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[Crystalmonkey]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

Then end is near!

[TeraHammer]

Better be prepared!

[reimero]

[TerrorDronze]

Better be prepared!

isn't that from a british import on g4 called brainiac?  I actually just saw that episode 2 days ago.....


on topic, has it really been proven yet that humans can have a truly dynamic impact on the global climate?

[BizB]

No, not humans.

Just Americans.

[ivan]

I thought it was just Republicans.

[ivan]

on topic, has it really been proven yet that humans can have a truly dynamic impact on the global climate?

How can something like that be proven? There is no control case. If we could look at an alternate reality Earth with no human activity, then maybe we could draw some conclusions.

The best we can do is say that human activity MIGHT be affecting global climate, and that clilmate changes MIGHT be catastrophic. So you have a choice: assume nothing bad will happen and carry on merrily, or take measures to tread more lightly on Mother Earth. For many people, liberals and conservatives alike, the latter approach has merit even if humans AREN'T causing climate change.

The argument, for me, is not whether we should clean up our act and reduce polution, but how and how fast. No reasonable person would disagree that environmentalist goals are worthy, but reasonable people can disagree radically over who should foot the bill. Personally, I am peeved by self-hating American activists who would impose restrictions on their fellow citizens instead of focussing on major poluters in this and other countries. And I am also peeved at American-bashing self-righteous Europeans because... well, just because.

[BizB]

I'm tired of feel-good legislation and environmental suggestions that potentially harm the environment more than help it.  For example, I've heard that the detergents and energy used to recycle plastic is more harmful than the plastic ending up in the landfill?

I've also heard that the above is bunk.


Which is it?

[Demosthenes]

on topic, has it really been proven yet that humans can have a truly dynamic impact on the global climate?

How can something like that be proven? There is no control case. If we could look at an alternate reality Earth with no human activity, then maybe we could draw some conclusions.

The best we can do is say that human activity MIGHT be affecting global climate, and that clilmate changes MIGHT be catastrophic. So you have a choice: assume nothing bad will happen and carry on merrily, or take measures to tread more lightly on Mother Earth. For many people, liberals and conservatives alike, the latter approach has merit even if humans AREN'T causing climate change.

The argument, for me, is not whether we should clean up our act and reduce polution, but how and how fast. No reasonable person would disagree that environmentalist goals are worthy, but reasonable people can disagree radically over who should foot the bill. Personally, I am peeved by self-hating American activists who would impose restrictions on their fellow citizens instead of focussing on major poluters in this and other countries. And I am also peeved at American-bashing self-righteous Europeans because... well, just because.

Well that's my biggest beef.  Kyoto as a concept is nice, but in execution, it's pointless.

It excludes some of the biggest polluters (China, India and Brazil, for starters).

The only thing Kyoto would accomplish if the US were a part of it would be to make the rest of the developing countries in the world better placed on global markets economically, because it would cause a crushing, economy-destroying depression in the US, and pretty much immediately.

The Kyoto treaty has absolutely nothing to do with global warming, and EVERYTHING to do with global economic policy.

But it's easy to point at countries (like the US) who refused to participate and say "you don't care about the environment".

That's how politics works.

Now, I'm definitely NO fan of the Bush administration, but there's no friggin' way anyone actually LOOKING at the terms of Kyoto that would see this as anything other than punitive economic sanctions against the US and no real progress toward stopping CO2 emissions globally.

[Scuzzy]

Global warming doesn't exist you tree-hugging-commie-pinco-pot-smoking-hippies

This is all planned out by jesus!


[/sarcasm]

[TheJudge]

So what if our industrial practices may or may not be responsible for this problem? It doesn't mean that the only possible solution to our problem has to relate to the initial cause. For example, instead of trying to get everyone to agree on a behavioral solution, let's all pool our ressources together and build a gargantuan propulsion system that would be used to alter Earth's trajectory in order distance ourselves from the sun where it's a little colder. Then we can simply maintain our potentially destructive behaviors and continue on with our parasite-like existence until we run out of ressources and face the problem of relocation. Far fetched? Sure. Impossible? Prove it!



(I was bored   )

The point is that we tend to look at the cause of a problem when we want to adress it. Then, we try to change something relating to the cause itself, hoping it will resolve the problem. While this methodology is sound, logical, measurable,  and has been used and proven as "effective" countless times, it's not always the most efficient. It's 2 dimensional thinking in my opinion.

I can think of a few examples where we simply ignored the causes of a problem and corrected it by introducing something totally new and totally unrelated the the causes. This new solution didn't require a change of behaviors. Liposuction is a great example. Let's pretend that my problem, as perceived by me, the individual person, is that I'm fat and I don't look good. The problem in this case is not related to my health. I don't care that I have an unhealthy lifestyle. In fact, I quite enjoy it and do not wish to change it. The cause of being fat? Bad eating habbits, lack of exercise. The obvious solution - exercice and eat better. How long will that take? And more importantly, will I be successful? (in this case, probably not because I have expressed a desire to maintain my current lifestyle).

The pratical solution is then to vaccum the fat out of my body. I'll keep eating like a pig in my lazzyboy and when I get fat again, we'll just go trough the process again.

It was a simple example with a fairly simple solution but when it comes to enviromental issues, why is it that we can't seem to make that jump into 3 dimensional thinking? Why is it that we can't move beyond causes, or what we think the causes are because really, we're not even sure! But we are so focused on what those causes may be because we are so desperate to influence them with the objective of resolving our problem. But... does it really matter if the causes of the current problem are known? Is it not possible to find an alternate solution regardless? That is where their is a lack in the discussions.

[hackess]

Lines of deadly heat!

[TeraHammer]

Far fetched? Sure. Impossible? Prove it!

Sounds like a challenge

Say we want to cool down from T0 to T0-T (where T0 is the earth's current tempertarure, 298 K)
I'll assume the temperature on earth is proportianal to the intensity of the sun rays. This gives that the intensity must decrease with I = I0 * (T0-T)/T0, where I0 is the current intensity we get.

I0 = C/R^2. I= C/(R+d)^2 with d the displacement we need to give our lovely planet and R the current distance between the sun and earth.

I0/I = ((R+d)/(R))^2 = T0/(T0-T).

Solving above for d -> d= R*sqrt(T0/(T0-T))-R.


Filling in
R = 1,496*10^12 m
T0 = 298 K
T0-T = 288 K (I decrease the temperature with 10 Kelvin)

gives d = 2,5*10^10 metre.

Compare this with earth's diametre: RE = 12.8*10^6 m.
We would have to move the earth about 2000 times the distance of the diameter.


Considering energy needed to do this
The potential energy U0 of the earth to the sun is U0 = -G*(Me*Ms)/R with Me and Ms the mass of earth and mass of sun, and G Newton's gravitation constant.
U, the new potential energie, is: U = -G*(Me*Ms)/(r+d). And the energie needed for the propultion machine is U-U0 = - G*(Me*Ms) ( 1/(R+d)-1/R)

Filling in:
Ms = 2 x 10^30 kg
G = 6.67300 × 10-11
Me = 5.9742 × 10^24 kg
R = 1,496*10^12 m
d = d = 2,5*10^10

Gives:
Energy needed: 8,8*10^30 Joule

I havent the time to search for the energy produced by oil on earth in a year. Anyone?
Anyway, 10^30 Joule is quite a lot for just 10 celcius lowering. Talking about economy eh

[TerrorDronze]

nice math.....  if you can get hampsters to offput that kind of energy, i'll fund it.

[sociald1077]

nice math.....  if you can get hampsters to offput that kind of energy, i'll fund it.

Mmmm, hampster.

[Demosthenes]

Far fetched? Sure. Impossible? Prove it!

Sounds like a challenge

Say we want to cool down from T0 to T0-T (where T0 is the earth's current tempertarure, 298 K)
I'll assume the temperature on earth is proportianal to the intensity of the sun rays. This gives that the intensity must decrease with I = I0 * (T0-T)/T0, where I0 is the current intensity we get.

I0 = C/R^2. I= C/(R+d)^2 with d the displacement we need to give our lovely planet and R the current distance between the sun and earth.

I0/I = ((R+d)/(R))^2 = T0/(T0-T).

Solving above for d -> d= R*sqrt(T0/(T0-T))-R.


Filling in
R = 1,496*10^12 m
T0 = 298 K
T0-T = 288 K (I decrease the temperature with 10 Kelvin)

gives d = 2,5*10^10 metre.

Compare this with earth's diametre: RE = 12.8*10^6 m.
We would have to move the earth about 2000 times the distance of the diameter.


Considering energy needed to do this
The potential energy U0 of the earth to the sun is U0 = -G*(Me*Ms)/R with Me and Ms the mass of earth and mass of sun, and G Newton's gravitation constant.
U, the new potential energie, is: U = -G*(Me*Ms)/(r+d). And the energie needed for the propultion machine is U-U0 = - G*(Me*Ms) ( 1/(R+d)-1/R)

Filling in:
Ms = 2 x 10^30 kg
G = 6.67300 × 10-11
Me = 5.9742 × 10^24 kg
R = 1,496*10^12 m
d = d = 2,5*10^10

Gives:
Energy needed: 8,8*10^30 Joule

I havent the time to search for the energy produced by oil on earth in a year. Anyone?
Anyway, 10^30 Joule is quite a lot for just 10 celcius lowering. Talking about economy eh

omg your dum lol

[pbsaurus]

Detta be sure to upload that wonderful piece to miniwaankerbot!

And come on people, we're not just three-dimensional now, the universal theory people are well beyond three dimensions now and current IT standards use multi-threading rather than just relational architectures.  The only true solution would require infinite dimensions considering infinite perspectives over infinite attributes and records.  And being as this logical conclusion is absurd, the optimal choice is to just say, "Fuck it dude, let's go bowling."

[ivan]

Do your part.

[TheJudge]

Do your part.

HAHA! That is awsome!

Terra Hammer, I applaude your mathematical abilities (I bet you Detta got all hot and stuff when she saw it). I'm not sure why you are using the newton constant and I will explain why (well, I'll try. I suck at physics).

First, in Newton's classic text, The Principia, every mass as a force and objects are attracted to each other. Say I have two toy cars on my table positioned face to face. In principle, they represent two masses that should attract them to one another. However, because the gravitational forces of earth far exceed the forces of attraction between my two toy car masses, those forces are countered. The cars do not magically move towards each other when I set them on the table.

Now, if the cars are facing 13 inches appart from each other, and I wanted to calculate the force required to push one car so that it travels on the table at the just the correct speed so that when it stops, it simultaniously ends up tounching the other car, I would need to consider a few things. I would have to consider the G, and other variables that are relevent (like friction, and wind resistance). I would not however consider the gravitational pull of the car itself.

In that spririt, if the earth is the mass you are moving, why are you considering it's own gravitational pull because it doesn't really have an effect on itself. Should you not consider the sun's gravitational forces instead?

[Demosthenes]

The gravitational constant is used because it is a measure of the attractive force of any body with mass with respect to any other body that has mass.  In this particular case, it's being applied to determine the amount of force is required to move the earth against the gravitational force applied to it by the sun.  The earth and the sun attract each other mutually, and the gravitational constant is needed to calculate that net force.

[TheJudge]

Oh I thought the gravitational constant was based on earth's mass. See I thought each mass had its own unique constant, and the greater the mass, the greater the force. So I'm wrong I take it? (I did fail physics twice in school...)

*bows head in shame*

[Demosthenes]

Close.... though I think you're thinking of the acceleration from earth's gravitational field.  32 feet per second squared or 9.7536 meters per second squared if you're all metric and shit.

The gravitational constant is the attractive force between two bodies, which is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

[TeraHammer]

Newton's law of gravity applies to any two objects. So in this calculation this it is the gravitational effect from the sun to the earth. Or, if you want, the gravitational effect from the earth to the sun. They are both the same.
The toy cars, in your example, allways exert the same gravity forces towards eachother, even if they have different masses.
This is because the gravity force Fg is:

Fg = G*mA*mB/r^2
where mA and mB are the each toy car's masses. If you change mA into mB and mB into mA, its the same.

So to answer your final question, I am considering the forces between the sun and the earth, not just the gravitational pull of one object, but the interaction between these two.

[TheJudge]

Close.... though I think you're thinking of the acceleration from earth's gravitational field.  32 feet per second squared or 9.7536 meters per second squared if you're all metric and shit.

The gravitational constant is the attractive force between two bodies, which is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Oh I see! Yes, you were correct in your assumption. I was thinking 9.8. Thanks professor!

So to answer your final question, I am considering the forces between the sun and the earth, not just the gravitational pull of one object, but the interaction between these two.

Gotcha!

[BizB]

Newton's law of gravity applies to any two objects. So in this calculation this it is the gravitational effect from the sun to the earth. Or, if you want, the gravitational effect from the earth to the sun. They are both the same.
The toy cars, in your example, allways exert the same gravity forces towards eachother, even if they have different masses.
This is because the gravity force Fg is:

Fg = G*mA*mB/r^2
where mA and mB are the each toy car's masses. If you change mA into mB and mB into mA, its the same.

So to answer your final question, I am considering the forces between the sun and the earth, not just the gravitational pull of one object, but the interaction between these two.

You're still teh dubm.