Global Warming

[sasguru]

Er, fail. Newton's laws don't work at high relative speeds*. Size isn't the issue. They describe the conservation of momentum and energy (or in more modern interpretations, symmetries), although Newton didn't know about energy, and perhaps not about momentum's conserved nature either, I forget. These conserved quantities are pretty unshakable foundations at all scales. Newton's laws need tweaking for high speeds, in gravity wells etc. Conservation of momentum works at the quantum and macroscopic scale.

TW could you explain the above. It seems completely wrong to me.

[shaunbhoy]

TW could you explain the above. It seems completely wrong to me.

Get a move on sg before your busmates completely slobber the windows!

[TimberWolf]

OK. Why don't Newton's Laws work at the sub-atomic level?

Newton's aws of motion? Motion of what? For high speed electrons or protons, relativistic effects need to be taken into account.

But you are the one claiming to be a scientist. Do you know basic physics? Do you know how fast you would need to throw a ball for it to go into orbit (Newton), or how fast a ball would have to move for relativistic affects to mean its speed is off by say 10% (Einstein)?

[TimberWolf]

No I've mentioned a simple experiment earlier that shows CO2 has a feedback mechanism (I actually helped my nephew with it for a school project) and I've looked at the easily available Met Office data which is a simple record of UK temperatures. You can manipulate this in excel and see that temps are rising.
What is not in dispute is that CO2 emissions are rising. If you guys want to say that is not the cuase of global warming, fine, lets have a scientific argument.

have you noticed a single post on here that tries to reason from first principles?

The carbon cycle is a lot more complicated than a school project.

[TimberWolf]

TW could you explain the above. It seems completely wrong to me.

What makes you think it is wrong?

[sasguru]

Newton's aws of motion? Motion of what? For high speed electrons or protons, relativistic effects need to be taken into account.

But you are the one claiming to be a scientist. Do you know basic physics? Do you know how fast you would need to throw a ball for it to go into orbit (Newton), or how fast a ball would have to move for relativistic affects to mean its speed is off by say 10% (Einstein)?

Who talked about motion?
Why not answer my question then I'll answer yours.
That's normally how it works.

[TimberWolf]

Who talked about motion?
Why not answer my question then I'll answer yours.
That's normally how it works.

I did answer. Come on stop weasling, the next questions won't be so easily googled.

[sasguru]

The carbon cycle is a lot more complicated than a school project.

Thanks for that Einstein.
But if you knew anything about anything you'll find that scientists routinely break down complex scenarios in an attempt to get at the crux of the matter or to find suggestions for hypothesis.
How do you propose to design an experiment to test the whole complex Carbon Cycle?
How are you going to separate variables of interest from confounding ones?
Are you really as moronic as you're coming across?

[Diver]

I did answer. Come on stop weasling, the next questions won't be so easily googled.

He's not Googling, He's asking me, and I'm making it up as I go along

[EternalOptimist]

iirc

a body will continue in a state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change by the action upon it of an external force

two bodies will attract each other with a force proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to their distance apart

two bodies will act and react in equal and oppostite directions