|
|
Post by quantum on Jan 10, 2018 9:23:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by 2foolish on Jan 10, 2018 9:41:30 GMT -5
The US is already reducing its greenhouse gases...but the skirt chaser wants to remain relevant ... no one takes these alarmist seriously BTW...
|
|
|
|
Post by Frank Reynolds on Jan 10, 2018 10:29:41 GMT -5
Hawking is one of the smartest people on this planet. He's one of the few people that when he talks (or types with his eyes), you shut the fuck up and listen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Touchable on Jan 10, 2018 10:53:52 GMT -5
Hawking is one of the smartest people on this planet. He's one of the few people that when he talks (or types with his eyes), you shut the fuck up and listen. If he’s so smart then why can’t he walk? |
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jan 10, 2018 11:35:40 GMT -5
Hawking is one of the smartest people on this planet. He's one of the few people that when he talks (or types with his eyes), you shut the fuck up and listen. If he wasn't disabled he would be a nobody. Ever read his books? He is a pop scientist. Sure he is smart but most average physicists are "smart". Doesn't mean he knows shit outside his field. And yes I was a Physics major. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Reynolds on Jan 10, 2018 12:08:15 GMT -5
Hawking is one of the smartest people on this planet. He's one of the few people that when he talks (or types with his eyes), you shut the fuck up and listen. If he wasn't disabled he would be a nobody. Ever read his books? He is a pop scientist. Sure he is smart but most average physicists are "smart". Doesn't mean he knows shit outside his field. And yes I was a Physics major. Only a brief history of time. I was impressed, but i have zero background in physics so i'm not one to critique. He's a scientist first and foremost. If someone as smart as he is and with his educational background speaks on a subject, i'd tend to believe there's some science behind it. I don't think he's just pulling stuff out of his ass for the shock value of it. If that article were about Hawking debunking climate change, this thread would have a completely different tone. |
|
|
|
Post by JStokes on Jan 10, 2018 12:42:44 GMT -5
If he wasn't disabled he would be a nobody. Ever read his books? He is a pop scientist. Sure he is smart but most average physicists are "smart". Doesn't mean he knows shit outside his field. And yes I was a Physics major. Only a brief history of time. I was impressed, but i have zero background in physics so i'm not one to critique. He's a scientist first and foremost. If someone as smart as he is and with his educational background speaks on a subject, i'd tend to believe there's some science behind it. I don't think he's just pulling stuff out of his ass for the shock value of it. If that article were about Hawking debunking climate change, this thread would have a completely different tone. How about he provides some context. How many billions of years did it take for Venus to become Venus? How did the climate change to that degree? Certainly there weren’t any cars or cows or hairspray on Venus. Were the atmospheres identical? Were the conditions identical? Or is he just making the leap that pulling out of the Climate Accord will change the atmosphere and produce 250 degree heat and high winds? Sounds legit. _ |
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jan 10, 2018 12:46:22 GMT -5
If he wasn't disabled he would be a nobody. Ever read his books? He is a pop scientist. Sure he is smart but most average physicists are "smart". Doesn't mean he knows shit outside his field. And yes I was a Physics major. Only a brief history of time. I was impressed, but i have zero background in physics so i'm not one to critique. He's a scientist first and foremost. If someone as smart as he is and with his educational background speaks on a subject, i'd tend to believe there's some science behind it. I don't think he's just pulling stuff out of his ass for the shock value of it. If that article were about Hawking debunking climate change, this thread would have a completely different tone. I think that would depend on his premise and how he "debunked it". My point is, no shit Venus is hot and covered in clouds. His statement is nonscientific and just for the sake of the agenda. The clouds on Venus are sulfuric acid, not water vapor, it is not in the "Goldilocks" zone for habitable planets, there has never been an SUV or cow fart on Venus as far as we know. The reason Venus is so hot is because it is closer to the sun and has an extremely thick atmosphere which does create a greenhouse effect. Mercury, while closer to the Sun, is colder because it has a very thin atmosphere. The problems with his statement are (among others): A. It only points out that natural causes can cause warming B. Venus' atmosphere is 90 TIMES more dense than Earth's so considering that carbon dioxide is a minuscule part of the atmosphere it makes a negligible contribution to the density of the atmosphere. It was a throw away comment by Hawking to stay relevant, intended to be take as a confirmation bias of human caused global warming for anyone that would not look at it or understand it and just says, "that guy is supposed to be smart so it must be true." |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Reynolds on Jan 10, 2018 12:46:46 GMT -5
Only a brief history of time. I was impressed, but i have zero background in physics so i'm not one to critique. He's a scientist first and foremost. If someone as smart as he is and with his educational background speaks on a subject, i'd tend to believe there's some science behind it. I don't think he's just pulling stuff out of his ass for the shock value of it. If that article were about Hawking debunking climate change, this thread would have a completely different tone. How about he provides some context. How many billions of years did it take for Venus to become Venus? How did the climate change to that degree? Certainly there weren’t any cars or cows or hairspray on Venus. Were the atmospheres identical? Were the conditions identical? Or is he just making the leap that pulling out of the Climate Accord will change the atmosphere and produce 250 degree heat and high winds? Sounds legit. _ All legitimate questions. I'd like to see how he came to this conclusion too. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Reynolds on Jan 10, 2018 12:56:23 GMT -5
Only a brief history of time. I was impressed, but i have zero background in physics so i'm not one to critique. He's a scientist first and foremost. If someone as smart as he is and with his educational background speaks on a subject, i'd tend to believe there's some science behind it. I don't think he's just pulling stuff out of his ass for the shock value of it. If that article were about Hawking debunking climate change, this thread would have a completely different tone. I think that would depend on his premise and how he "debunked it". My point is, no shit Venus is hot and covered in clouds. His statement is nonscientific and just for the sake of the agenda. The clouds on Venus are sulfuric acid, not water vapor, it is not in the "Goldilocks" zone for habitable planets, there has never been an SUV or cow fart on Venus as far as we know. The reason Venus is so hot is because it is closer to the sun and has an extremely thick atmosphere which does create a greenhouse effect. Mercury, while closer to the Sun, is colder because it has a very thin atmosphere. The problems with his statement are (among others): A. It only points out that natural causes can cause warming B. Venus' atmosphere is 90 TIMES more dense than Earth's so considering that carbon dioxide is a minuscule part of the atmosphere it makes a negligible contribution to the density of the atmosphere. It was a throw away comment by Hawking to stay relevant, intended to be take as a confirmation bias of human caused global warming for anyone that would not look at it or understand it and just says, "that guy is supposed to be smart so it must be true." I think it was a little more than just a throwaway comment. The article is based on some emmy award winning series he's done - "favourite places" - based on the article. I'm trying to find it. It's probably a little more detailed than that short article. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Reynolds on Jan 10, 2018 13:09:53 GMT -5
Only a brief history of time. I was impressed, but i have zero background in physics so i'm not one to critique. He's a scientist first and foremost. If someone as smart as he is and with his educational background speaks on a subject, i'd tend to believe there's some science behind it. I don't think he's just pulling stuff out of his ass for the shock value of it. If that article were about Hawking debunking climate change, this thread would have a completely different tone. I think that would depend on his premise and how he "debunked it". My point is, no shit Venus is hot and covered in clouds. His statement is nonscientific and just for the sake of the agenda. The clouds on Venus are sulfuric acid, not water vapor, it is not in the "Goldilocks" zone for habitable planets, there has never been an SUV or cow fart on Venus as far as we know. The reason Venus is so hot is because it is closer to the sun and has an extremely thick atmosphere which does create a greenhouse effect. Mercury, while closer to the Sun, is colder because it has a very thin atmosphere. The problems with his statement are (among others): A. It only points out that natural causes can cause warming B. Venus' atmosphere is 90 TIMES more dense than Earth's so considering that carbon dioxide is a minuscule part of the atmosphere it makes a negligible contribution to the density of the atmosphere. It was a throw away comment by Hawking to stay relevant, intended to be take as a confirmation bias of human caused global warming for anyone that would not look at it or understand it and just says, "that guy is supposed to be smart so it must be true." Looks like you have to pay for some subscription to watch it and it's not on youtube, so forget that for now. It sounds to me like Hawking is trying to explain how the slightest change in atmospheric greenhouse gases can affect a planet. The more greenhouse gases, the more uninhabitable it is. That's the comparison to Venus. I think the actual cause of the greenhouse gases is irrelevant, just that they're there and how it effects a planet. That's my take, but I really don't know based on that article. I'd like to actually see the documentary or read his research. |
|
|
|
Post by JStokes on Jan 10, 2018 13:42:47 GMT -5
I think that would depend on his premise and how he "debunked it". My point is, no shit Venus is hot and covered in clouds. His statement is nonscientific and just for the sake of the agenda. The clouds on Venus are sulfuric acid, not water vapor, it is not in the "Goldilocks" zone for habitable planets, there has never been an SUV or cow fart on Venus as far as we know. The reason Venus is so hot is because it is closer to the sun and has an extremely thick atmosphere which does create a greenhouse effect. Mercury, while closer to the Sun, is colder because it has a very thin atmosphere. The problems with his statement are (among others): A. It only points out that natural causes can cause warming B. Venus' atmosphere is 90 TIMES more dense than Earth's so considering that carbon dioxide is a minuscule part of the atmosphere it makes a negligible contribution to the density of the atmosphere. It was a throw away comment by Hawking to stay relevant, intended to be take as a confirmation bias of human caused global warming for anyone that would not look at it or understand it and just says, "that guy is supposed to be smart so it must be true." I think it was a little more than just a throwaway comment. The article is based on some emmy award winning series he's done - "favourite places" - based on the article. I'm trying to find it. It's probably a little more detailed than that short article. Oh wait, he won an Emmy Award for that? Why didn’t you say that before? Now THAT certainly carries more weight in my mind. _ |
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jan 10, 2018 13:46:43 GMT -5
I think that would depend on his premise and how he "debunked it". My point is, no shit Venus is hot and covered in clouds. His statement is nonscientific and just for the sake of the agenda. The clouds on Venus are sulfuric acid, not water vapor, it is not in the "Goldilocks" zone for habitable planets, there has never been an SUV or cow fart on Venus as far as we know. The reason Venus is so hot is because it is closer to the sun and has an extremely thick atmosphere which does create a greenhouse effect. Mercury, while closer to the Sun, is colder because it has a very thin atmosphere. The problems with his statement are (among others): A. It only points out that natural causes can cause warming B. Venus' atmosphere is 90 TIMES more dense than Earth's so considering that carbon dioxide is a minuscule part of the atmosphere it makes a negligible contribution to the density of the atmosphere. It was a throw away comment by Hawking to stay relevant, intended to be take as a confirmation bias of human caused global warming for anyone that would not look at it or understand it and just says, "that guy is supposed to be smart so it must be true." Looks like you have to pay for some subscription to watch it and it's not on youtube, so forget that for now. It sounds to me like Hawking is trying to explain how the slightest change in atmospheric greenhouse gases can affect a planet. The more greenhouse gases, the more uninhabitable it is. That's the comparison to Venus. I think the actual cause of the greenhouse gases is irrelevant, just that they're there and how it effects a planet. That's my take, but I really don't know based on that article. I'd like to actually see the documentary or read his research. It has been calculated that in the past Earth has had varying levels of CO2 between 180 and 7000 ppm. It is about 400 ppm now. Eek, oh nos! Da Sky IS Falling!!!! Also note that it hit the high of 7000PPM during the Cambrian period which was host to what is known as the Cambrian Explosion. Make of that what you will. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Reynolds on Jan 10, 2018 13:48:28 GMT -5
I think it was a little more than just a throwaway comment. The article is based on some emmy award winning series he's done - "favourite places" - based on the article. I'm trying to find it. It's probably a little more detailed than that short article. Oh wait, he won an Emmy Award for that? Why didn’t you say that before? Now THAT certainly carries more weight in my mind. _ I know i know. Mainstream media is fake news. Should have remembered that. |
|
|
|
Post by Frank Reynolds on Jan 10, 2018 13:57:58 GMT -5
Looks like you have to pay for some subscription to watch it and it's not on youtube, so forget that for now. It sounds to me like Hawking is trying to explain how the slightest change in atmospheric greenhouse gases can affect a planet. The more greenhouse gases, the more uninhabitable it is. That's the comparison to Venus. I think the actual cause of the greenhouse gases is irrelevant, just that they're there and how it effects a planet. That's my take, but I really don't know based on that article. I'd like to actually see the documentary or read his research. It has been calculated that in the past Earth has had varying levels of CO2 between 180 and 7000 ppm. It is about 400 ppm now. Eek, oh nos! Da Sky IS Falling!!!! Also note that it hit the high of 7000PPM during the Cambrian period which was host to what is known as the Cambrian Explosion. Make of that what you will. A number that's been on a significant rise in the last century.  19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-change-science/causes-climate-change_.html |
|
