(06-10-2013 09:04 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It was a NASA sponsored class on remote sensing.

That's funny.

Quote: I have 20 under graduate hours in physics but that was 25 years ago.

You took modern and E-M?

And passed?

Shudder... EM was a bear for me Got through it with a B but the home works took hours and hours to do...

(06-10-2013 09:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:04 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It was a NASA sponsored class on remote sensing.

That's funny.

Quote: I have 20 under graduate hours in physics but that was 25 years ago.

You took modern and E-M?

And passed?

Shudder... EM was a bear for me Got through it with a B but the home works took hours and hours to do...

I had the choice of physics or chemistry in high school and didn't hesitate to choose physics. I continued taking physics in college as science electives until the homework became too burdensome and was competing with my major. I think I finished about 12 hours in class and another 3 or 4 lab hours. I find it absolutely fascinating and a part of me wishes I had switched majors and really tested my ability in physics.

(06-10-2013 09:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:04 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It was a NASA sponsored class on remote sensing.

That's funny.

Quote: I have 20 under graduate hours in physics but that was 25 years ago.

You took modern and E-M?

And passed?

Shudder... EM was a bear for me Got through it with a B but the home works took hours and hours to do...

I had the choice of physics or chemistry in high school and didn't hesitate to choose physics. I continued taking physics in college as science electives until the homework became too burdensome and was competing with my major. I think I finished about 12 hours in class and another 3 or 4 lab hours. I find it absolutely fascinating and a part of me wishes I had switched majors and really tested my ability in physics.

So what did you major in?

Anyway, a BS in physics is very limited in what you can do. Most good (science) opportunities expect an advanced degree. That's not the case w/ engineering, which I see as a much better route unless you're committed to doing physics research.

E-M is a bear for everybody. I keep thinking there has to be a better way to teach it.

(06-10-2013 09:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:04 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It was a NASA sponsored class on remote sensing.

That's funny.

Quote: I have 20 under graduate hours in physics but that was 25 years ago.

You took modern and E-M?

And passed?

Shudder... EM was a bear for me Got through it with a B but the home works took hours and hours to do...

I had the choice of physics or chemistry in high school and didn't hesitate to choose physics. I continued taking physics in college as science electives until the homework became too burdensome and was competing with my major. I think I finished about 12 hours in class and another 3 or 4 lab hours. I find it absolutely fascinating and a part of me wishes I had switched majors and really tested my ability in physics.

EE so it's hard to tell where the "physics classes" ended and the "EE Classes began". I started as Chem E and loved the Chemistry but the process classes for Engineering bored me to death.

Lets see I took the two 100 level classes and labs, two 200 level classes and labs, one physics 300 level class and lab, and then there were the signal process, em theory, and junction classes which were probably physics more than EE.

Altogether 30, maybe 40 hours when you include labs. But even my non physics wor was all math. If I do ever go back to get my masters it will be for math.

(06-10-2013 09:49 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:04 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It was a NASA sponsored class on remote sensing.

That's funny.

Quote: I have 20 under graduate hours in physics but that was 25 years ago.

You took modern and E-M?

And passed?

Shudder... EM was a bear for me Got through it with a B but the home works took hours and hours to do...

I had the choice of physics or chemistry in high school and didn't hesitate to choose physics. I continued taking physics in college as science electives until the homework became too burdensome and was competing with my major. I think I finished about 12 hours in class and another 3 or 4 lab hours. I find it absolutely fascinating and a part of me wishes I had switched majors and really tested my ability in physics.

EE so it's hard to tell where the "physics classes" ended and the "EE Classes began". I started as Chem E and loved the Chemistry but the process classes for Engineering bored me to death.

Lets see I took the two 100 level classes and labs, two 200 level classes and labs, one physics 300 level class and lab, and then there were the signal process, em theory, and junction classes which were probably physics more than EE.

Altogether 30, maybe 40 hours when you include labs. But even my non physics wor was all math. If I do ever go back to get my masters it will be for math.

I stopped before E&M. I just didn't have the time. I was a design and drafting major and the majority of my time was spent on machine and tool design drawings that took several days to complete. I was also running into pre-requisite issues with Calculus classes and just had to make the choice. I'd say I have a basic, but limited understanding of most physics topics presented in the news and such. I really would like to explore it more, but there just isn't time.

I waited until my last semester of undergrad to take my first chemistry class since it was required for graduation. Skated by with a C!

(06-06-2013 04:08 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 04:05 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 03:20 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 03:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 03:15 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Scientists make incorrect predictions all the time.

What? It's the truth.

"What?"

It's your weak efforts at trying to reframe the discussion. It's like watching Wally Richardson try to play QB.

I'm not re-framing anything. Scientists aren't clairvoyant, and climate scientists will get things wrong. This seems like a cheap attempt to bait me into saying that climate science is infallible, so that you can show me something incorrect about it.

I'm embarrassed for you. You've spent so much time telling us that there is a consensus out there that this is a 100% fact and now it comes out that is not the case your story changes completely.

It was funny, and we all enjoyed a pretty good laugh at your expense all along, but now it's just getting sad man.

(06-10-2013 09:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:04 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It was a NASA sponsored class on remote sensing.

That's funny.

Quote: I have 20 under graduate hours in physics but that was 25 years ago.

You took modern and E-M?

And passed?

Shudder... EM was a bear for me Got through it with a B but the home works took hours and hours to do...

I had the choice of physics or chemistry in high school and didn't hesitate to choose physics. I continued taking physics in college as science electives until the homework became too burdensome and was competing with my major. I think I finished about 12 hours in class and another 3 or 4 lab hours. I find it absolutely fascinating and a part of me wishes I had switched majors and really tested my ability in physics.

I took chemistry of course. I had to find the best combo of chemicals for my vest.

To the government agencies reading this post, it is a joke based on previous comments about me on this board. No need to take this seriously. Thanks.

(06-10-2013 09:42 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 09:04 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-10-2013 08:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It was a NASA sponsored class on remote sensing.

That's funny.

Quote: I have 20 under graduate hours in physics but that was 25 years ago.

You took modern and E-M?

And passed?

Shudder... EM was a bear for me Got through it with a B but the home works took hours and hours to do...

I had the choice of physics or chemistry in high school and didn't hesitate to choose physics. I continued taking physics in college as science electives until the homework became too burdensome and was competing with my major. I think I finished about 12 hours in class and another 3 or 4 lab hours. I find it absolutely fascinating and a part of me wishes I had switched majors and really tested my ability in physics.

So what did you major in?

Anyway, a BS in physics is very limited in what you can do. Most good (science) opportunities expect an advanced degree. That's not the case w/ engineering, which I see as a much better route unless you're committed to doing physics research.

E-M is a bear for everybody. I keep thinking there has to be a better way to teach it.

Torchy got a degree in BS.

My high school friend and college roommate was a physics major. Got his doctorate in it. Needless to say, really sharp guy.
They are a different breed. Reminds me so much of Sheldon of The Big Bang Theory.

1st of all Torch it isn't my comment for the 50th freakin time. You are assuming you are right. His comment wasn't a light bulb for every 100 square meters. The Physics of climatology is not my area. I can assure you and everybody else on here it's not your area either. We found, actually I found one NASA article that said .6 Watts of energy per sq. meter. That may not even be the study the speaker was referencing during his lecture. Even though the .6 and 60 seem too close just to shrug it off as coincidence. The trouble I am having is figuring out what he might have said. Maybe he said a 60 watt light bulb for one hour a day for a set number of days a month. Since I can't find his reference I'll just leave it at that. I can't substantiate at this time the claim I made about an extra 63 watts of energy per sq. meter. The next time I am in the presence of a qualified climatologist I will ask him for a clarification. There is no crime and certainly no "shame" in being wrong Torch. It certainly happens from time to time. The crime and shame involves perpetuating a lie or a mistruth. If you can find anything in a credible scientific journal that substantiates your viewpoint you gain credibility in your argument. "Watts up with the weather" and "Science 2.0" don't exactly scream credibility. The only horse I have in this race is the truth.

Arrivederci.

(06-11-2013 09:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  1st of all Torch it isn't my comment for the 50th freakin time. You are assuming you are right. His comment wasn't a light bulb for every 100 square meters. The Physics of climatology is not my area. I can assure you and everybody else on here it's not your area either. We found, actually I found one NASA article that said .6 Watts of energy per sq. meter. That may not even be the study the speaker was referencing during his lecture. Even though the .6 and 60 seem too close just to shrug it off as coincidence. The trouble I am having is figuring out what he might have said. Maybe he said a 60 watt light bulb for one hour a day for a set number of days a month. Since I can't find his reference I'll just leave it at that. I can't substantiate at this time the claim I made about an extra 63 watts of energy per sq. meter. The next time I am in the presence of a qualified climatologist I will ask him for a clarification. There is no crime and certainly no "shame" in being wrong Torch. It certainly happens from time to time. The crime and shame involves perpetuating a lie or a mistruth. If you can find anything in a credible scientific journal that substantiates your viewpoint you gain credibility in your argument. "Watts up with the weather" and "Science 2.0" don't exactly scream credibility. The only horse I have in this race is the truth.

Arrivederci.

I don't think any of this is from an approved source. And we all know facts aren't feelings.....or.... Reverse that or whatever it is you type to troll.

Positive Rep me or I'll never let Prince Albert out of the can.

(06-11-2013 09:07 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  1st of all Torch it isn't my comment for the 50th freakin time. You are assuming you are right. His comment wasn't a light bulb for every 100 square meters. The Physics of climatology is not my area. I can assure you and everybody else on here it's not your area either.

What makes you so sure? I have been sloppy in my rush to post details here, but I'm pretty expert on radiative transfer, photochemistry, free radical chemistry, and with some experience in aerosols.

Oh and there was that 6.5 years working for NASA's Earth Sciences Office.

Quote: We found, actually I found one NASA article that said .6 Watts of energy per sq. meter. That may not even be the study the speaker was referencing during his lecture. Even though the .6 and 60 seem too close just to shrug it off as coincidence. The trouble I am having is figuring out what he might have said. Maybe he said a 60 watt light bulb for one hour a day for a set number of days a month. Since I can't find his reference I'll just leave it at that. I can't substantiate at this time the claim I made about an extra 63 watts of energy per sq. meter. The next time I am in the presence of a qualified climatologist I will ask him for a clarification. There is no crime and certainly no "shame" in being wrong Torch. It certainly happens from time to time. The crime and shame involves perpetuating a lie or a mistruth.

How many times do I need to demonstrate that's exactly what you're doing.

Quote: If you can find anything in a credible scientific journal that substantiates your viewpoint you gain credibility in your argument.

You explicitly said you wouldn't go to a list of those references. Don't pretend to take the high road when you deliberately do the opposite.

Quote: "Watts up with the weather" and "Science 2.0" don't exactly scream credibility.

Which isn't true either. They are far more precise than the textbooks you use daily, and defend rigorously.

The only thing that isn't credible to you is that they use advanced statistics and physics, which you don't understand. You prefer cartoons and simplifications...regardless of their accuracy or precision.

Quote: The only horse I have in this race is the truth.

Ah, concluding with irony.