Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society
Dear Forum Members,
Over in the poker threads, they have members who blog about their poker experience. I've been wanting
As you yourself mentioned , that's not only (not even mainly) CO2 emissions.
That's the result of very recent ship fuel regulations that are causing a disaster.
that the same leftists insist on fuel regulations that massively increase ocean surface temperatures and then use that as proof we need global socialism to rein in CO2 emissions is a very well crafted evil plot.
And i mean you even admit it somehow (ofc you underestimate the contribution of the fuel regulations in order to keep being able to insist on dramatic CO2 emissions reductions).
To some extent the same is true for regulations fixing air pollutions on land btw.
/
This was more than 1 year ago
https://www.reuters.com/business/environ...
SO2, however, besides being a major pollutant, also masks global warming by forming aerosols that thicken and brighten clouds, reflecting the sun's rays back into space.
IMO fuel standards could have been responsible for 80% of the planet's total net heat uptake since 2020, with the impact particularly pronounced in busy shipping lanes, the researchers estimated in the paper, opens new tab published by the Communications Earth & Environment journal.
Climate scientists identified the reduction of SO2 as a potential contributor to record ocean temperatures last year. Some also suggest cuts in air pollution around the world could have accelerated global warming.
/
But i mean "science" only matters when it allows for the installment of global socialism, so ...
A layperson would be correct in understanding that gravitational interactions with other bodies is the primary reason for a departure from a circular orbit.
A person reading your comment might think that layperson is not one word, but two. Perhaps you should apologize for your lack of command of English, my nitpicky friend ?
I don't get the bit here.
As you yourself mentioned , that's not only (not even mainly) CO2 emissions.That's the result of very recent ship fuel regulations that are causing a disaster. that the same leftists insist on fuel regulations that massively increase ocean surface temperatures and then use that as proof we need global socialism to rein in CO2 emissions is a very well crafted evil plot.And i mea
You are partially correct Lucifer.
Aerosols from shipping fuels have masked the true warming of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, those shipping fuels were also a source of deadly air pollution which is why they were removed.
The warming we see here is caused by greenhouse gases. What we have done is to remove a cooling factor which formerly offset that.
You are partially correct Lucifer.
Aerosols from shipping fuels have masked the true warming of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, those shipping fuels were also a source of deadly air pollution which is why they were removed.
The warming we see here is caused by greenhouse gases. What we have done is to remove a cooling factor which formerly offset that.
So there are ways to decrease global warming without changing our lifestyles, and instead of pushing for that, you still want to install global communism.
At some point everyone will realize you guys just want global communism and global warming is only an excuse.
Partial list of stuff we could do a ton more of which would reduce emissions (or the damage of emissions) without changing our lifestyles:
1) massive reforestation everywhere land is cheap and unused
2) massive use of nuclear energy, including for big ships (let me remind you guys we had nuclear energy propulsion ships in the 50s...)
3) massive increase of hydro where available (it also works as a mega battery for renewables, you can reverse the water pumps and store energy)
4) massive investment in CO2 capture
5) -> using sulfur to reduce the damage of global warming
But when "activists" start mentioning the negatives of 1) to 5) and insist on global communism, vegetarianism and so on without counting the horrific decrease in quality of life as a negative, even low iq people can realize they actually don't give a **** about the climate, they just want global communism.
Because if someone really was scared even 1/10th of what you are nut nut about climate change and global warming, he would push for every 1st world country to have as much nuclear as France (which is obviously EASY, if france does it anyone can do it , obviously) at the very least, as one of the main priority, since like 20 years ago, and we would there already by now comfortably so.
But that would push the hope for global communism away, and you can't accept that.
So there are ways to decrease global warming without changing our lifestyles, and instead of pushing for that, you still want to install global communism.At some point everyone will realize you guys just want global communism and global warming is only an excuse.Partial list of stuff we could do a ton more of which would reduce emissions (or the damage of emissions) without cha
1) Where is the cheap unused land that is suitable for forest ?
2) I'm OK with nuclear in principle. The problem is who is going to manage that stuff when society collapses ?
3) Hydro is great. So are heat pumps.
4) CO2 capture. Which method is economically feasible. What is the cost per ton to remove it ?
5) Using sulfur (as in shipping fuel) is simply trading one deadly poison for another.
Fyi - I'm not a card carrying communist. I don't have any inherent reason to prefer communism over other forms of government. I just don't know any other form of government which can effectively protect the environment. Communism is not an end for me .... it's a means to an end.
1) Where is the cheap unused land that is suitable for forest ?2) I'm OK with nuclear in principle. The problem is who is going to manage that stuff when society collapses ?3) Hydro is great. So are heat pumps. 4) CO2 capture. Which method is economically feasible. What is the cost per ton to remove it ?5) Using sulfur (as in shipping fuel) is simply trading one deadly poison f
1) A ton of rural areas that are being abandoned in the EU, + a zillion sq km of american land. Might not all be "forest" but as long as you plant stuff there that's carbon capture.
2) lol? what answer is this. If we all had insane amounts of nuclear the collapse would stop right?
3) ok why did i have to mention it to you and do you realize it's your leftist friends blocking it in every first world country because of the poor "ecosystems"?
4) If we invested in it what we invested in solar when it was not economically available, there is a very high chance we find economically feasible solutions to that. Why didn't that apply to the trillions invested in renewables before they were economically available? the point is investing in R&D to find very cheap carbon capture technologies.
5) no it isn't, it doesn't warm the planet, and worldwide life expectancy was doing great even when we used the "terrible" sulfur fuels in ships so it wasn't that big of a deal to begin with.
A layperson would be correct in understanding that gravitational interactions with other bodies is the primary reason for a departure from a circular orbit.
That's completely false. Elliptical orbits are the result of gravity going as the inverse square of distance. There is no presumption of circular orbits that is deviated from. This is pretty fundamental and like 400 years old. Not really much excuse for botching it when you're the one bringing it up unsolicited.
That's completely false. Elliptical orbits are the result of gravity going as the inverse square of distance. There is no presumption of circular orbits that is deviated from. This is pretty fundamental and like 400 years old. Not really much excuse for botching it when you're the one bringing it up unsolicited.
You're speaking gibberish. What you are saying makes no logical sense.
In a world with only two spherical objects, one smaller which orbits around the other .... what causes the elliptical shape ?
The gravitational force is equal at all points in the orbit, regardless of the fact that the gravitational force is a function of distance.
The primary factor which causes elliptical shape is the gravitational force of other objects.
Go find a scientist to explain it to you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovit...
The Earth's rotation around its axis, and revolution around the Sun, evolve over time due to gravitational interactions with other bodies in the Solar System. The variations are complex, but a few cycles are dominant
The Earth's orbit approximates an ellipse. Eccentricity measures the departure of this ellipse from circularity.
Eccentricity varies primarily due to the gravitational pull of Jupiter and Saturn
Y'all messing with the wrong dude here.
Eccentricity varies primarily due to the gravitational pull of Jupiter and Saturn
This doesn't mean there is no eccentricity without these.
As soon as eccentricity is positive , you don't have circular orbit. (I think)
This doesn't mean there is no eccentricity without these.
As soon as eccentricity is positive , you don't have circular orbit. (I think)
No .... it doesn't mean that there is ZERO eccentricity without these. There is almost no such thing as exact zero eccentricity because the mass of a body in orbit such as the Earth or the sun is subject to tiny relative changes
It just means that virtually all of the departure from a circular orbit is due to the gravitational force of other planets.
That's perfectly in synch with the explanation I gave in the original post on the topic which someone so rudely and incorrectly challenged as being misleading.
I won't wait for an apology because people on social media are too proud for that sort of thing.
Why is the Earth's orbital relationship with the Sun not constant ?1) Gravitational forces of other planets. 2) The plane of the Earth's own axial spin is not the same as the plane of its orbit around the Sun. 3) The Earth is not a perfect sphere. It's slightly irregular in shape with some peaks and valleys. The sum of these three factors means that the amount of sunlight reach
These are the essential points of my OP.
The other poster interjected saying "that's not how orbital dynamics works".
They were wrong .... I was right.
Case closed mf's !!
Knowing in advance that you mf's are going to criticize every damn thing I write ..... I tend to do my homework before I post.
The lack of critical thinking here is disappointing.
Some idiot posts something and cites some mumbo jumbo about Kepler and a relationship between gravity and distance and you assume it's related to the shape of an orbit.
I don't know how to teach people how to think. I wish I did.
You're speaking gibberish. What you are saying makes no logical sense. In a world with only two spherical objects, one smaller which orbits around the other .... what causes the elliptical shape ? The gravitational force is equal at all points in the orbit, regardless of the fact that the gravitational force is a function of distance. The primary factor which causes elliptical
The narrow point that you are arguing about with eda doesn't seem especially important to your overall climate argument. That said, I find it highly improbable that you understand orbital dynamics better than eda does unless he has been lying for years about his background.
No .... it doesn't mean that there is ZERO eccentricity without these. There is almost no such thing as exact zero eccentricity because the mass of a body in orbit such as the Earth or the sun is subject to tiny relative changesIt just means that virtually all of the departure from a circular orbit is due to the gravitational force of other planets. That's perfectly in synch wi
Apology denied!
In a world with only two spherical objects, one smaller which orbits around the other .... what causes the elliptical shape ?
kepler's (first) law?
Idk man you are the scientist
Intuitively seems like the planets would affect a circle orbit. I'm just not sure that's the correct starting point since starting with a perfectly circular orbit even with only two bodies in existence would be about as likely as finding a perfectly round planet.
In a world with only two spherical objects, one smaller which orbits around the other .... what causes the elliptical shape ?
The gravitational force is equal at all points in the orbit, regardless of the fact that the gravitational force is a function of distance.
The primary factor which causes elliptical shape is the gravitational force of other objects.
Their starting position and momentum is what causes the non perfect circular orbit.
that's the primary reason the orbit won't be perfectly circular not the intervention of other minuscule gravitational pulls (that still matter)
You're speaking gibberish. What you are saying makes no logical sense.
In a world with only two spherical objects, one smaller which orbits around the other .... what causes the elliptical shape ?
Newton's Laws plus initial conditions.... as was already explained to you. Generic orbits will be elliptical not circular.
The gravitational force is equal at all points in the orbit, regardless of the fact that the gravitational force is a function of distance.
Nope. It requires fine tuning even in the 2 body gravitation problem to get circular orbits.
The primary factor which causes elliptical shape is the gravitational force of other objects.
Go find a scientist to explain it to you.
Classical gravity is a central force. Solving that central-force problem shows that a bound particle follows an elliptical orbit in which equal areas are swept out in equal times, as described by Kepler's second law.
400 years ago it would have taken a scientist. A decent high school student could explain it to you now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovit...The Earth's rotation around its axis, and revolution around the Sun, evolve over time due to gravitational interactions with other bodies in the Solar System. The variations are complex, but a few cycles are dominantThe Earth's orbit approximates an ellipse. Eccentricity measures the departure of this ellipse from circularity.
No .... it doesn't mean that there is ZERO eccentricity without these. There is almost no such thing as exact zero eccentricity because the mass of a body in orbit such as the Earth or the sun is subject to tiny relative changesIt just means that virtually all of the departure from a circular orbit is due to the gravitational force of other planets. That's perfectly in synch wi
Yeah, again totally wrong. The article is correctly stating that CHANGES in the Earth's orbital eccentricity (which are small) are caused by perturbations from other bodies. But the Earth's orbit is elliptical to begin with because that's the most common way for a planet to orbit a star given Newton's Laws.
Yeah, again totally wrong. The article is correctly stating that CHANGES in the Earth's orbital eccentricity (which are small) are caused by perturbations from other bodies. But the Earth's orbit is elliptical to begin with because that's the most common way for a planet to orbit a star given Newton's Laws.
You're an idiot.
You think because you know the name of a historical scientist named Isaac Newton that your logic makes any sense ?
I've provided the information and links to support it.
That's not trumped by the name of a scientist.
Orbital eccentrity is measured on a scale of 0 to 1
A measure of 0 is a perfectly circular orbit.
A measure of 1 or greater means the planet departs orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ec...
"Over hundreds of thousands of years, the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit varies from nearly 0.0034 to almost 0.058 as a result of gravitational attractions among the planets."
The Earth's orbit is very close to a circle because a circle is the natural orbit of two perfect and static spheres in a system with no other forces being exerted on them.
If you morons want to keep trolling, be my guest. Throw out all the names of scientists you want ... Einstein, Oppenheimer, Newton, Dr. Phil if it pleases you.
If you want to debate further ..... bring mathematical equations, you knuckleheads, not the names of scientists.
Fyi - Lucifer .... the solar system formed as one whole piece with the vast majority of the matter being concentrated in the Sun. The earth did not come whizzing into the Sun's orbit at an angle. It emanated from the same formative cosmic nebula. They were created together.
