Grok's paper on why global climate change is likely natural

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, eyeball said:

LMAO!

If you've ever driven across a bridge or flown in an airplane you've put your life in the hands of Newtonian physics.

 

Sigh. No, but i can believe you're stupid enough to think that's the case. 

Quote

I already told you his work was improved on by modern theories. Trust you to miss that.

His work was not 'imporved'. It was corrected. what you're saying is it was wrong and someone later replaced it with something more correct.  Yes . 

You're such a failure  

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh. No, but i can believe you're stupid enough to think that's the case. 

Smart enough to have predicted you  wouldn't have a clue or do anything about it.

Bridges:

Newton's First Law:

An object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an external force. This means that a bridge, unless acted upon by forces like wind or traffic, will remain stationary. 

Newton's Second Law:

Force equals mass times acceleration (F=ma). This law is crucial for understanding how forces, like those from traffic or wind, affect the bridge's movement and stability. 

Newton's Third Law:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. For example, a car on a bridge exerts a force on the bridge, and the bridge exerts an equal and opposite force back on the car. 

Structural Analysis:

Engineers use these laws to analyze forces like gravity, wind, and seismic activity to ensure the bridge's structural integrity and stability.

 

Airplanes:

Newton's Third Law (Thrust):

An airplane's engines push air backward, and in reaction, the plane moves forward. This is the principle of thrust, which is crucial for flight. 

Newton's Second Law (Lift and Drag):

The forces of lift (upward force) and drag (resistance to motion) are calculated using Newton's laws. The shape of the wings, the angle of attack, and the speed of the aircraft all influence these forces. 

Flight Dynamics:

Newtonian physics helps engineers understand and predict how an airplane will move through the air, including its acceleration, deceleration, and changes in altitude. 

Conservation of Momentum

Newton's laws of motion are statements concerning the conservation of momentum

 

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Do you or do you not agree with the measures taken in the name of climate control?

We're on to a new topic, it seems.

 

I welcome that.

 

I think that we should try to mitigate climate change, but whatever we do needs to be based on consensus around a real solution.  All the parties have climate policies I believe.  Maybe not PPC.

[Legato]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Newton's laws of motion are statements concerning the conservation of momentum

 

That's only for conservatives.

Liberalization of momentum means.... jumped up never come down, every which way sideways bottoms aren't up.

Fluid dynamics applied to shot glasses only.

[CdnFox]

41 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Smart enough to have predicted you  wouldn't have a clue or do anything about it.

Bridges:

Newton's First Law:

An object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an external force. This means that a bridge, unless acted upon by forces like wind or traffic, will remain stationary. 

Newton's Second Law:

Force equals mass times acceleration (F=ma). This law is crucial for understanding how forces, like those from traffic or wind, affect the bridge's movement and stability. 

Newton's Third Law:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. For example, a car on a bridge exerts a force on the bridge, and the bridge exerts an equal and opposite force back on the car. 

Structural Analysis:

Engineers use these laws to analyze forces like gravity, wind, and seismic activity to ensure the bridge's structural integrity and stability.

 

Airplanes:

Newton's Third Law (Thrust):

An airplane's engines push air backward, and in reaction, the plane moves forward. This is the principle of thrust, which is crucial for flight. 

Newton's Second Law (Lift and Drag):

The forces of lift (upward force) and drag (resistance to motion) are calculated using Newton's laws. The shape of the wings, the angle of attack, and the speed of the aircraft all influence these forces. 

Flight Dynamics:

Newtonian physics helps engineers understand and predict how an airplane will move through the air, including its acceleration, deceleration, and changes in altitude. 

Conservation of Momentum

Newton's laws of motion are statements concerning the conservation of momentum

 

Sorry kiddo, but you've shown you don't understand what you're talking about again.   

First off while his 'laws' generally apply they don't always apply.  they are approximations that are not universally applicable, particularly at very high speeds or in the presence of strong gravitational fields or at the quantum level, where theories like Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics become necessary.     

So nope.  They're wrong. They're close enough that they make a good rule of thumb for most circumstances but they're not true. 

secondly a jet does not use newtons laws of motion to propel itself. Newton's laws of motion can be used to describe a portion of the forces at work but by no means do they provide or even perfectly describe the phenonmenon. So no, the plane does not fly on newton's laws nor does the bridge stand up on newtons laws etc. 

Newtons laws are at best an approximation where the errors aren't big enough to matter in some cases. 

It's like the conversion rule for Celsius to F,  double it and add 30. THat will give you the wrong answer in 99.99999 percent of cases but its close enough people use it   

 

Sigh. You tried to educate yourself with a 3 second google search and you failed. Again. 

[Nationalist]

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

We're on to a new topic, it seems.

 

I welcome that.

 

I think that we should try to mitigate climate change, but whatever we do needs to be based on consensus around a real solution.  All the parties have climate policies I believe.  Maybe not PPC.

Of course...you struck out on science so...mitigation.

So...funding research into alternative energy is a good idea. We should do more of it. But what we should not do, is make up tripe just to instill fear in order to get them to actually agree to higher costs across the board.

Tomorrow...the infamous gas tax goes away. Carney and the Libbies stealing Poilievre's platform. I have every confidence that this Libbie clown will open his mouth and come off like the prototypical globalist stooge. Arrogant and very snooty.

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry kiddo, but you've shown you don't understand what you're talking about again.   

As predicted...

...a display we'll probably be treated to as you spend the next several posts filled with insults, emojis and sure kids trying to show your dismissal of Newton is absolutely conclusive.

[Michael Hardner]

54 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. Of course...you struck out on science so...mitigation.

2. So...funding research into alternative energy is a good idea. We should do more of it. But what we should not do, is make up tripe just to instill fear in order to get them to actually agree to higher costs across the board.

3. Tomorrow...the infamous gas tax goes away. Carney and the Libbies stealing Poilievre's platform. I have every confidence that this Libbie clown will open his mouth and come off like the prototypical globalist stooge. Arrogant and very snooty.

1. Not very gracious, especially since you're the one changing a subject, but okay.

2. I'm 100% against tripe.

3. Ok.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

As predicted...

...a display we'll probably be treated to as you spend the next several posts filled with insults, emojis and sure kids trying to show your dismissal of Newton is absolutely conclusive.

Yep - it's pretty easy to predict i'll reply with the truth   I always do   That's how it works, you say something wrong or stupid, i correct you, you double down on being stupid for a bit and i finish off with laughing at you and proving you wrong and you being bitter about it, pretty easy to call LOLOL

I did love your little smiley face of surrender tho  

 

You could always try and really throw me off my game, like being right for a change or something  

Anyway love to see those salty tears - keep em coming!

[eyeball]

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Not very gracious, especially since you're the one changing a subject, but okay.

2. I'm 100% against tripe.

3. Ok.

 

Gee you give up easy.

What would you want to see with regards to energy production?

[Michael Hardner]

12 hours ago, Nationalist said:

1. Gee you give up easy.

2. What would you want to see with regards to energy production?

1. You told me that I stuck out on science, so why would I continue to pester you?

2. Well at some point fossil fuels will be gone.  I'd like to see more nuclear power for one.  And as I mentioned before, the quality of dialog needs a major shift.

 

 

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You told me that I stuck out on science, so why would I continue to pester you?

2. Well at some point fossil fuels will be gone.  I'd like to see more nuclear power for one.  And as I mentioned before, the quality of dialog needs a major shift.

 

 

 

1. OK...so resolved that the "science" surrounding climate change does not conclusively determine man as the source.

2. The quality of dialog? Let me ask you, were I to come to your house and tell you that your costs are all going up because you breath too much air, and you challenge the decision asking for proof that you breath too much air, only to be given a bunch on inconclusive mumbo-jumbo and assumptions, would you not begin to get annoyed by my imposition?

[Legato]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

would you not begin to get annoyed by my imposition?

Like anyone who challenges his position you would be relegated to ignore status.

Its's a rather large club.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. You told me that I stuck out on science, so why would I continue to pester you?

2. Well at some point fossil fuels will be gone.  I'd like to see more nuclear power for one.  And as I mentioned before, the quality of dialog needs a major shift.

 

 

 

you see @Nationalist ?  The fact he has no answers and is being dishonest in his discussions was YOUR fault all along  

Sigh. Ohhhh the left. Well at least they're consistent. 

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

1. OK...so resolved that the "science" surrounding climate change does not conclusively determine man as the source.

2. The quality of dialog? Let me ask you, were I to come to your house and tell you that your costs are all going up because you breath too much air, and you challenge the decision asking for proof that you breath too much air, only to be given a bunch on inconclusive mumbo-jumbo and assumptions, would you not begin to get annoyed by my imposition?

1. No, it's not resolved.  If you don't want to continue, that's fine but it's not resolved.

2. I suppose.  But the analogy doesn't work for me.

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, it's not resolved.  If you don't want to continue, that's fine but it's not resolved.

 

If you can't post a single scrap of science.... it's resolved. 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No, it's not resolved.  If you don't want to continue, that's fine but it's not resolved.

2. I suppose.  But the analogy doesn't work for me.

Then produce real proof that "the sky is falling". Real proof. Not "could be"..."appears to". And of course...you can't...because they don't know conclusively. 

Bullsh1t.

Edited Tuesday at 09:39 PM by Nationalist

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

If you can't post a single scrap of science.... it's resolved. 

And thus is the quandary. 

They got the public to actually accept...for a while...a tax that could not be defended. The evidence does not exist, that warrants the gas tax. The carney is trying to steal the election, with Pierre's platform. It's gross.

And Mike here, is so sold on greenie sh1t, he can't compromise. It's...it's...why it's down right childish. Man can walk and chew gum at the same time.

So our gas tax dies...lol...at the hands of a thief. 

Edited Tuesday at 09:54 PM by Nationalist

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

And thus is the quandary. 

They got the public to actually accept...for a while...a tax that could not be defended. The evidence does not exist, that warrants the gas tax. The carney is trying to steal the election, with Pierre's platform. It's gross.

And Mike here, is so sold on greenie sh1t, he can't compromise. It's...it's...why it's down right childish. Man can walk and chew gum at the same time.

So our gas tax dies...lol...at the hands of a thief. 

Almost dies. It'll still apply to Canadian business expecially manufacturing and steel ... which means the province who's premier has been all but welcoming to the libs and hostile to PP is going to watch his people get hit the worst 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

And thus is the quandary. 

The quandary is a fabrication. The definition of crisis is dependent on the context it's being used, health crisis, financial crisis, personal crisis, environmental crisis and on and on it goes. It's simply a qualifier that follows instead of preceding the thing in...crisis. As such a good stand alone definition might be,

A crisis is any event or period that will lead to an unstable and dangerous situation affecting an individual, group, or all of society. Crises are negative changes especially when they occur abruptly, with little or no warning.

You can't pin down what specific event or moment in time a crisis occurs but you'll very likely recognize one when it does. Unless you're determined to deny it but then that could be the crisis so...

[CdnFox]

52 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The quandary is a fabrication. The definition of crisis is dependent on the context it's being used, health crisis, financial crisis, personal crisis, environmental crisis and on and on it goes. It's simply a qualifier that follows instead of preceding the thing in...crisis.

I can describe why precisely and with facts and figures why each of those is reasonably a crisis (for the last time they were anyway). Except personal crisis, you just seem to have one big long crisis there with no explanation   Yet you can't offer ANY facts  figures in the form of scientific research to suggest why climate can reasonably be called a crisis. 

Would "crisis" be defined as a word liberals and the left use to excuse taking action without thought or regard to the consequences?  As in "i blew my paycheque on horse racing because of the horse crisis". 

[eyeball]

42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Would "crisis" be defined as a word liberals and the left use to excuse taking action without thought or regard to the consequences?  As in "i blew my paycheque on horse racing because of the horse crisis". 

Nope. As I've already said IMO the real crisis is indifference and denial.

[CdnFox]

48 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Nope. As I've already said IMO the real crisis is indifference and denial.

And as i pointed out before if there is no actual climate crisis then it can't be a crisis to deny or be indifferent to it. Not being worried about something that doesn't exist is actually the SANE thing to do, 

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not being worried about something that doesn't exist is actually the SANE thing to do, 

Except AGW does exist.