No, it just breaks the realism aspect of physics. If you hold on to it you need to violate relativity so in a sense physics had to choose what aspect of nature is the most fundamental, relativity or realism and relativity "won".
This action at a distance nonsense just has to end someday. This is no such thing implied by Bells theorem or entanglement experiments such as those by Aspect. Just let it go. Entanglement just explores the non-classical nature of quantum probability. The outcome of experiments with entangled particles is predicted by the standard Dirac notation and no mysterious action is needed.
I've written lots of reports with math formulas (in Latex) where they are needed. Most, if not all, the intended readers have a Ph.D. in experimental physics or optics but I noticed that unless the math is really trivial, they will not follow. Even the slightest math supported reasoning will throw them off. That experience tells me that math for the general audience is probably not a good idea. It is simply pointless the be correct if you are not coming across. Who hears the tree falling in the forest.
But we do not need several "control earths" to test the predictions of the GCM which form the basis of current catastrophic climate change scenarios. The GCMs make other predictions such as the altitude-latitude temerature anomaly, which seems to be a fail. Another example is that in only 2% of the model simulations show a 16-17 year hiatus such as the one we are currently observing. One could argue that the AGW-hypothesis has been falsified at the 2 sigma level. This is of course not enough but in a few years with the current climatic state we will have reached 3 sigma and not much further down the road, 5 sigma, but I'm getting ahead of my self. But considering the failed predictions on, well, just about anything the AGW crowd should at least consider that the theory might be incomplete and the conclusions wrong.
Reflection of chrome isn't all that good. Aluminium would be better but difficult. Silver is easy. Probably the way to go.
Share that sentiment. Why the slander. The funding for the climate orthodoxy is more than 10 times that. Considering how many scholars lately have come out of the closet and declared that the IPCC position is all but insupportable and climate sensitivity is nowhere near 3.5 degrees per doubling of CO2. Of course, this automatically puts into question the runaway hypothesis and with it the doom burn in hell agenda.
It's sad to see the zealotry of climate activism is perpetuated on this site which I believe used to stand of something more open minded than bashing of those who do not adhere to the agenda put forward by big business and big government.
You're fishing. Man didn't have to be around to be a proof that atmospheric physics allows 10-20 times higher CO2 without reaching an instability. Atmospheric physics will be unchanged, humans present or not.
Scroll down to the bottom. Strongest tornado frequency would seem to appear around 1970 which is also at the bottom of the cooling period that begun around 1945.
As if we hadn't heard this before. Last time, AGW was masked by car emissions and so on. Please people, do have a look how a similar panic started with Ansel Keys and the fat scare. Today we have epidemics in obesity and type-2 diabetes. Yet, it was the so called science, that brought us there. We have yet to see any adverse effects of the climate change. Extreme weather such as tornadoes are diminishing, which is actually what textbooks used to say they would the temperature difference between the poles and equator is reduced (which current climate change has resulted in).
AGW dogma is the result of hubris of western culture. Nothing else.
There is a horrible mixture of fact and fiction in the debate. Example, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is obviously true, hence it will push our climate through a tipping point, that is obviously not true. It has been 10-20 times higher before yet we are here. There is also a mixture of science and propaganda. Example, man causes change in atmospheric temperatures: true, this is bad: perhaps but it is not science. Science should deal with objectively measurable entities free from human opinion or values. Plenty of research points to that we will be able to feed more people on this planet and fewer will die if temperature increases. It is totally possible that a CO2 increase is a good thing for all living thing on this planet. Sure, there is a limit to how many humans this planet can support. However, 30 years India was not going to be able to ever get rid of starvation. Yet, today, India supports twice the amount of people it did 30 years ago and fewer of them starve.
Right now, I doubt that CO2 content in the atmosphere has any significant implications on anything. 20 years of climate research has convinced my of that. The only thing that climate research seems to be able to produce is that more climate research is necessary OR ELSE.
Though I'm not sure about the ultimate purpose Bushehr, it does seem to be designed for producing electricity and not weapons grade plutonium, the timing is really bad. I mean, first they load Bushehr and two days later they announce the "ambasador of death". It's almost like a bad fiction novel. You simply couldn't make this stuff up. My guess, it's all for internal propaganda but possibly also for Hezbollah.
I have to disagree on "nearly non-existent intellectual value". To actually imply that there may, at any instant in time, be anything resembling intellectual value is simply too far from the truth. If anything, it represents negative intellectual value since with every published word the readers are presented complete lies dressed up as dumbed down news reports. Regrettably, this strikes a resonance with a large part of the Swedish population who simply, for the sake of not rocking the boat, prefer the lies as it allows them to align their support with any constellation that seems to be the most inconvenient to be against at the moment (pretty much the WWII history repeating it self).
There are lots of comments about Hubbles deep field images, which are really impressive but Hubble is only a 2.4m telescope and the standard on the ground today is 8-10 m. The light gathering power is more than 10 times that of Hubble and what Hubble could do in one month, these telescopes can do less than a week. The James Webb telescope will be able to do lots of impressive stuff but the resolution and lots of the science has come down to earth. There are several ongoing +30m projects such as for example the ESO 42m downscaled version of the OWL. I doubt we will see a +30m space telescope anytime soon.
As has been pointed out, theres' lots of stuff only Hubble can do and lets hope it will do it for a long time to come but Hubble will never do spectroscopy on an extrasolar planet. That will be done from a ground based telescope.
That is why they build MCAO which means multi-conjugate adaptive optics, most often with laser guide stars. It allow for much greater isoplanatic field of view. This is done using (typically) three sensors and the adaptive mirrors projected to different heights in the atmosphere. I wouldn't say is a done deal but it's certainly quite far along and several telescopes are equipped with this stuff. I'm not sure how much real science has yet been done with this technology though but the improvements I've seen my self are very significant but I can't say right now if the Strehl ratio is above one half which I would consider really impressive.
Exactly. It will take some time to reopen the old mines that were put out of business by cheap Chinese labor but in the end we will come out of this. However, we should not let China destroy our economies by selectively applying tariffs until we are dead without reciprocal action. If they want our business, they should accept all of it or nothing.