Another question for Global Warming Regulars?

Yes. I started with a BSc in nursing. During that I had to take physics for my freshman year and biochemistry for a few years which basically involved Newtonian mechanics, ray optics, kinetic theory of gases, and electromagnetism (reaching the point of Maxwell's equations but not the solution to them to give a wave equation) in terms of 'relevant' subjects related to your question.

Later, I did an MSc in medical imaging including ultrasound, xray, NMR, PET, etc. For that I had to do statistical mechanics and Fourier analysis, and also Maxwell's equations and some quantum physics.

I then did a PhD which was a research project involving computing, physics and medical teams looking at data from neonatal monitoring equipment and applying learning algorithms. My PhD was based on evaluation of the results in terms of nursing practices. It involved a lot of stats and risk assessment methodologies.

Which confuses people. I'm a clinical nurse specialist but a doctor. Not an MD though!

What a strange question. The real question is finding people that can explain it all without googling it.

I have successfully worked in all those environments.

EXAMPLES:

Mechanics: NCR back in the days of mechanical cash registers and accounting machines.

Electromagnetism: Everything from a relay to a motor to a CRT to a computer has to do with electromagnetism. Which are do you prefer? Even radio waves are referred to as Electro Magnetic Radiation. I have had several FCC licenses, commercial and amateur.

Optics: Laser Machining. Lenticular movie screens.

So? What is your point?

UPDATE:

Diarrhea: I would like to hear your definition of 'mechanics'. Probably yours is the guy who works on your car. Ha! Ha!

Pirate: You gathered wrong.

You can be a physics prodigy and still have zero common sense.

Environmental Biology Bachelors followed by Masters in Hydrogeology. Professionally in the technical sense this manifests as ecohydrology. Notice the more *HOLISTIC" nature of these fields where consideration of the *WHOLE* ecosystem is paramount. Works with pools and fluxes in the same conceptual design as the carbon inputs/outputs associated with ecosystems. Water systems are slower than atmospheric based systems but approach is generally similar in how they are conceptualised, quantified and understood. Ecosystems always interact and must be considered in the holistic, not reductionist sense. There is something called *BALANCE* which totally escapes the hard core mindset of reductionist based sciences. These *reductionist/mechanistic/Cartesian* based scientific approaches are full on imposed on the more traditional sciences of quantum physics, chemistry, medicine, and most others.

What I have also noticed is the *DEMANDS* now placed by convention onto the more historically holistic environmental sciences to now being forced to also become reliant only upon the same reductionist dogma. Such is the matter with anthropogenic CO2 supposedly creating everything to do with the planet warming. The reductionist approach is mere dogma as far as I am concerned. Completely amazes me how the conventional scientific community can sell itself out so cheaply in order to maintain project funding - keep their jobs - via obedience rather than truthful methods that consider and attempt to incorporate and evaluate the *WHOLE*.

Basic physics was a component of earlier courses like electromagnetism, conservation of energy, thermodynamics, atomic theories and the like. Expanded upon in more plant/water based research related to carbon budgets, photosynthetic and respiration processes with their inputs and outputs, gross primary production and net primary production. The list goes on.

Have done the online course in the *HOLISTIC* based Unified Physics created by the Resonance Foundation. Also studied physics at undergraduate level in Astronomy when very young but did not continue with it. What became aware to me back then is how constants were applied to information that was unknown but assumed. Things like a constant for *the strong force* to account for the unknown force that supposedly was meant to hold protons and neutrons within atoms. What they don't know they give as a constant and ascribe to it a label. That label with its value and assumed function then gets applied for decades across major research programs. Other studies being deemed incorrect if these assumptions were not factored into them. One must obey the *APPROVED* and *PEER REVIEWED* scientific paradigms of reductionist science. Or no approval and thereby no funding. What became very apparent during these early studies is how the *peer review* system prevented new knowledge/paradigms coming into effect due to the conventional reliance upon things like these approved constants that are mere assumptions.

Hard core conventional quantum physics is rife with the dogma of reductionist science as far as I am concerned. Reductionist science simply does not even bother to consider the *WHOLE*. Learned that later rather than first up. That is a principle reason why the balanced more intuitive approach that I try to incorporate into everything never made the more hard core physics make any meaningful sense.

A better question IMO would be if you have taken anything that might help you understand the real world. When you see a bird fly by, do you know what it is? When you kick a rock, do you know what you are kicking? When you see a plant, do you know what it is, what it is useful for, etc. When you see a tree, is it just some kind of a tree or do you know what it is? When you see a cliff, do you see only the rock exposed or can you visualize the rock formations beneath the ground.

Those that like to exaggerate the effectiveness of their modelling haven't done a very good job of reflecting the real world. They seem to live in a bubble where they discuss physics, mechanics, and optics as if that would help them in determining the threat from our CO2. It isn't really that complicated. We have a bunch of political hacks trying to push their pathetic agenda by exaggerating their knowledge. Generally they are among the dullest among us and should be judged on their shoddy record of predictions, not their schooling in a relatively esoteric and abstract branches of science.

Yes, including graduate level electromagnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and after, about eight years of theoretical research into the fundamental nature of matter. Merry Christmas.

Edit:

This is in response to my friend Koshka's comment; this may shed more darkness than light :)

That's why the smile is there at the end of my comment; I'm sure we are both having fun :) All those guys (gender neutral) are still great helpers; their answers still exist I believe, and let's not forget

about Fred, Kirchway, and many others; I'm sure I received more than I gave. Zo Marr once solved a very interesting physics problem using conservation of energy - I don't think he ever knew I gave him

his first thumbs after I checked his work using Newton's Laws, and yes I remember the coin problem; I needed to apply statistical thermodynamics-mechanics in an attempt to understand it. FGR had a great answer as usual.

For the record, my research period occurred from 1985 to about 1993, and that would not have been possible FOR ME without a heavy dose of mathematics and many other physics courses, and It gets worse than that, talk about nerds:

Feynman once described a mathematical physicist, while wiggling his hand, as someone who applies guessing via results of nature with select mathematical rigor to come up with natural models. In addition to this, imagine someone with controlled visual obsession although I can write algorithms when it comes to physics; that's me. In fact, unless I can find some practical application for any information, scientific or otherwise, out of mind it usually goes. Guess what happens when I attempt to read a story book to myself instead of child? In one of my past answers or comments I'm sure I pointed this out.

Conversely, I had no problem reading a textbook on Geophysics the other day due to the fact that someone here is interested in Geology, I think, and I just might ask a question regarding this :)

Now please understand that I'm not comparing myself with Feynman. I never met him, but I came to realize, much later, that we were both interested in the same paradoxical physics problem. Gauss's law and the divergence theorem are pretty dang interesting, but it ends up being, for me, a little more complicated than that, and much more complicated than multi-sided dice problems due to the fact geometry must conform to physical law.

If my dice, could be an irregular box, is rotating in three dimensional space, it is true that “opposites

sides” always add to 7,7,7; the laws of physics remain valid under my coordinate transformations ;)

Yes, thanks for asking.

You won't require anyone to do sh*t.

Merry Christmas

I did a minor in "Environmental Education" a long time ago (it included many classes from various sciences but not specifically "Mechanics, electromagnetism and optics"). May I ask what the point of asking this question was? One doesn't need a lot of education where I live to see that global warming is a real thing - one just has to go outside and look around (there's way less snow than usual and there has been a steady pattern of less and less snow every year for the last 10 years).

Global warming in my considered opinion is not even a technical problem, it's a problem of ethics, psychology, and sociology.

Peace (I can get on board with that).