:think:
No, I hate snails.
The origin of asteroids. They were almost certainly sourced by a one-off event. Every time one crashes into something that is not us, the chances that we might get hit drop.
Dangerously Cold Record Low Temps
- Thread starter drbrumley
- Start date
No, I hate snails.
The origin of asteroids. They were almost certainly sourced by a one-off event. Every time one crashes into something that is not us, the chances that we might get hit drop.
That's one reason, I suppose, that Peterson is so muddled. He's like capitalist who derives his ideas from Marxism. As you know, Darwinists denounced eugenics as "overwhelming evil" (Darwin) and scientifically unsuportable (Punnet, Morgan, and many others). Been a long time since I showed you that. Would you like to see it, again?
To be fair, Peterson isn't a biologist and he may be completely unaware that his acceptance of evolution and of Jungian trait theory is intellectually untenable.
Peterson has actually done some good work, but his ideological fixations about Jung and eugenics have led him to some foolish conclusions.
genuineoriginal
New member
Facts are facts.
Alternative facts are called "lies".
Anthropogenic climate change is a hoax based on "alternative facts" (lies) where the actual data is adjusted so the graphs show what the liars want others to see instead of the truth.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Ah, OK. It makes sense that pretty much whatever's already out there is all that'll ever be out there, so I take your point, that each one that lands somewhere else is no longer a threat, so that in time, presuming that they do land somewhere else as time goes on, our risk drops, all other things being equal.:think:
No, I hate snails.
The origin of asteroids. They were almost certainly sourced by a one-off event. Every time one crashes into something that is not us, the chances that we might get hit drop.
But consider: The ones that do land somewhere else were never threats to us anyway, and so it must also be true that those objects that are going to land somewhere else, are also not currently threats to us, whether or not we've detected, characterized, and ruled them out yet. So in a way, our risk remains the same as time goes on, since there is either a 'big one' out there already, heading our way as we all live and breathe, or there is not. If there is not, then our risk is right here right now zero, regardless of whether we know that or not, and if there is, then we aren't 'at risk' at all, since by definition it's a 100% certainty that we will be struck.
Given that preparing for an impact event will teach us certain things that we would not otherwise learn, as for example the Apollo program taught us things we would not have otherwise learned, I cannot believe that this preparation would literally be a complete waste, even if we are really at zero risk of ever being struck. And obviously if we ever are struck, then preparing for it is completely justified.
genuineoriginal
New member
| Five Years Since The New York Times Announced The End Of Snow It has been exactly five years since the New York Times announced the end of snow. It has been more than twelve years since they announced the endless summer. And it has been almost nineteen years since The Independent and CRU announced that snow is a thing of the past. Since James Hansen’s 1988 testimony to Congress predicting global warming doom caused by a tiny increase in an essential trace gas, Northern Hemisphere snow cover has increased about ten percent. January snow cover has been above normal for eleven out of the last twelve years. Undaunted by reality, government climate scientists continue to spread fact-free junk science about the climate. There was a decline in snow cover prior to 1988, when CO2 was below 350 PPM. But since CO2 rose above Hansen’s “safe” threshold, snow cover has been increasing. And North American snow cover is higher now than it was during the early 1970s. |
It looks like something reversed Global Warming.
Global Warming was not reversed by lowering the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Can anyone tell me what changes man made to cause the reversal of Global Warming?
It's pretty well understood by now. Because Jupiter's gravitational interference, objects in the asteroid belt cannot come together to form a planet. If not for that interference, there would be a small planet between Mars and Jupiter.
Interestingly enough, Bode's Law predicts that a planet will be there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius–Bode_law
The bad news is that there are so many of them, that one strike hardly makes a dent in the likelihood of another strike.
There are a few of these in disturbed orbits, probably due to a close passage of a comet. Some come rather close to the Earth at times. Astronmers are keeping a close watch on those. In theory, we could change the orbit of these, if we had enough time.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
when a pretend scientist tells you:
your BS meter should spike :chuckle:
your BS meter should spike :chuckle:
That's fair.
genuineoriginal
New member
He needs to include a winking smiley with every post.
| Poe's Law The core idea of Poe's Law is that a parody of something extreme can be mistaken for the real thing, and if a real thing sounds extreme enough, it can be mistaken for a parody (all because parodies are intrinsically extreme, in case you haven't noticed it). This can also happen to someone whose picture of the opposing position is such a grotesque caricature that it renders them unable to tell parody from reality. While Poe's Law referred originally to religious fundamentalists, it can also equally apply to rigid atheism, dogmatic socialism or communism, excessive capitalism, extreme environmentalism, crazy feminism, hypersensitive correctness, or indeed, absolutely any other debate where controversy runs high and at least one position is particularly extreme |
Notice the pronoun games? "It" is well understood. :idunno:
Was that tacit admission that my assessment is correct?
Well, let's take a look...
What is known about the Asteroid Belt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt
Read and learn. There's been a lot work among planetary scientists regarding the Asteroid Belt. But your point is well-taken; there once was someone here, pretending to be chemist, who actually thought saltpeter would tamp down a male's sexual urges. :shocked:
According to Britannica: "It is currently estimated that there are about 1,000 Earth-crossing asteroids larger than 1 km (0.6 mile)." Those are just the ones we know about--undoubtedly there are more. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is estimated to contain between 1.1 and 1.9 million asteroids larger than 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) in diameter, any one of which could get tossed in Earth's path at any time. Impact of a 1-km-size asteroid would deliver the explosive force of several hydrogen bombs. Larger asteroid impacts would be that much worse.
:yawn:
Don't hold back! You obviously think you know better than they do. Feel free to provide us with the correct data.
"I don't like this tiger. He reads minds."
The point was: We were discussing the origin of space debris. For some reason, you think we all need link to a Google search result of yours.
If you've got something to contribute, share your thoughts. If you're out of your depth, ask, or better yet, just sit quietly and listen.
Constantly playing Siri is just plain boring.
Post a thought instead of a stupid emoticon and no one would have to try to read your mind.
Oh pardon me. I thought we were discussing climate change. Asteroid impacts could effect climate change.
I did.
If you're not "down" with something I post, you could just ignore it and move on.
"Space debris" isn't used for natural objects in space now. Hasn't since about 1980, I think.
Space debris is defined as all non-functional, human-made objects, including fragments and elements thereof, in Earth orbit or re-entering into Earth's atmosphere.
Space debris is defined as all non-functional, human-made objects, including fragments and elements thereof, in Earth orbit or re-entering into Earth's atmosphere.