druS

Not an expert, but I thought any root of a prime number is pretty much a definition of an irrational number.

Guys, have to say from an interested (non expert) bystander point of view - fascinating discussion. Thanks

Eren Mate, the actual physicians here can have a way of getting to the point of the physics but miss some of the history. You have discovered a conundrum that did indeed confuse scientists. The experiment used was to take a large alarm clock with bells on top and a little hammer that vibrated against the bells to make the alarm. They then put it in a glass tube, sucked out the air to make a vacuum. And set off the alarm. Wahey! You can't hear anything because the vacuum removed the air, and the sound wave has nothing to travel through. BUT you could still see the clock and the little hammer striking the bells. They "knew" that light was a wave, so what medium was it travelling through? They hypothesised a "luminescent aether" which must fill the void of space (we get light from stars) and they set out to prove the existence of the aether. Michelson and Morley are the two guys to look up on Wiki, in the late 1800's. To prove the theory they had to show that light travelled slightly faster with the aether and slightly slower against it. And they proved instead that light traveled at one constant speed no matter the direction. [The equipment they used something like 140 years ago is a fore-runner to the interferometer used at LIGO. Obviously on a much smaller scale.] This confused the world for a long time, with many scientists trying to postulate an answer - Einstein managed with the special theory of relativity in 1905. It doesnt explain the wave particle duality, but after the slit experiment have a look at black body radiation, starting with Max Plank, and then further cogitated by Einstein. Very great minds have been confused by your question!

Fabulous.

Love this bloke. Way beyond me, took him several years to be able to talk down to my level, still. Does this lecture talk through this issue? [Ignore me, if "no".]

John, I am hardly an expert, just an interested observer, but that's a touch harsh. As far as I can work out, the journal is more specific than "relativistic effects", it's about specific and unexpected behaviour. We have seen something of a cross over with larger and larger chunks of matter showing quantum effects (think it was US PhD who used silicon chip manufacturing to create an object that was visible to the eye, and demonstrated quantum effects). Then we have this cross over happening where very heavy molecules are not following the expected quantum behaviours. I would think this very news worthy. BTW, if you'd like to expand on gold and mercury relativistic effects in a thread, I would at least be one interested party.

I might add, while some might be concerned on my questions, this journal report on it's own puts to bed the silly title of this thread. No it's not opinion, it's science.

ChY I'm not embarrassed about ignoring the popular press on a science forum, TBH I'm sick and tired of the nature of science reporting in the public press (especially on sites like the Guardian), the but yes I found the link. Very interesting paper and excellent correlation on those results. It struck me just how much missing data there is and it's curious that the largest area of high temp is within the area of least data. See Table 1 figure A through to G where the bulk of heat in the diagramme is in the central and western Pacific where the least data is reported. Using the available data requires this work and they are to be commended for pulling together such an extraordinary correlation. I like the concept that the climate modeling should be tested against these results. BTW Figure 2 showing observations of elNino and volcanic activity - am I right that in the text they presumed certain adjustments to the modelling in those periods? Necessary perhaps, but a qualifier all the same. Other presumptions include a linear interpretation through the data in the south which is considered appropriate where it wouldn't be in the north - a truism but in some ways also surely a generalisation. Presumption that the heat increase below 2000m matches the upper layers. We can be happy that this interpretation works very correctly on a mathematical and statistical basis, if for no other reason that the correlation is excellent, the Journal should be peer reviewed, and they have either replicated or expanded on previous science research. Just from my perspective this excellent correlation may lock in to certainty. Or it may not. But no, this is not what I was looking for. It a very good subset on the overall picture. IPCC and the science world is frequently reported as stating predicted temperature warming based on the current CO2 trends through modelling. What I was asking is have any of those models proven themselves when tested on the historical data? Correlation along the lines of your referenced Cheng et al 2016 would be fantastic. I'm presuming that it has been done, but lost in the public media through the "noise" on this topic. Thanks in advance.

Thanks CharonY. Yes that's what I was after. Hindcasting, Like it. Mate, your link to the Guardian, it's not something that I can take as persuasive in science, so I just sort of switched off. Is there anything say in Journals confirming modelling that replicates history. Let's start with the last 100 years before we look to short term 10 year "proofs".

Hi guys. Hope you can cope with a genuine query, I am not arguing anti AGW at all, genuinely interested. Has anyone "back modeled" successfully yet. The term is wrong, but has anyone used the known data from say 1750 to today (or even 1900 to today), and produced a model result that accurately reflects what has happened? Thanks in advance.

You would have to cool the air to the same temp, or better to a lower temp to remove the moisture. Close to freezing will be a problem as coils will frost up. If it was industrial scale I would look to commercial refrigeration systems. If your electronics are in a room maintained below freezing the air will have frosted out, simply maintain it. If it is for home electronics your only real hope is put the electronics inside a hermetically sealed container after the air inside has been treated. Dropped below freezing probably. Your problem will getting the electronics inside the container without introducing new humid air. If you had a freezer room available you might manage it there but cooling down the equipment could simply create the problem earlier. It doesn't sound optimistic. If it is for home/project: Choose a higher temp - say 16 degrees. You have a chance then. Then keep the equipment in a room that has A/C that is capable of controlling humidity. This stuff is available if you look for it. I presume the electronics is liquid cooled. If so make up the difference with a higher flow rate.

This. I wouldn't personally bother with humidifiers in the domestic scene, but in low humidity ambient conditions, and sensitive electronic or IT kit. You need it then. Also helps reduce static electricity strangely enough.

Due to the rotation of the earth we have predictable "wind" at high level - atmospheric conditions. Where there is little to obstruct these conditions they prevail down to the ground/sea level. These conditions can then stabilise over the ocean and more or less stay that way travelling from the west until they hit land. This means that wind conditions on the west coast of continents (and islands) tend to follow those conditions. The local weather patterns have less of a chance to build. Here in Australia, in the west (let's say Perth), there is a consistent wind we call "the Fremantle Doctor". It "blows through" local weather patterns a lot of the time. The air has more or less stabilised over the ocean at moderate humidity, hits the warmer land reducing the humidity, and rain is rare. Or more accurately rain happens in winter when the lower temperatures have the opposite effect and the air drops below dew point creating rain, if there was enough water vapour in the air and if the temperature is low enough. Over in Sydney, east coast, the wind has been disrupted across the land. That consistent wind is still happening but much higher up in the atmosphere where it has much less impact on weather on the ground. In summer those local weather patterns provide little/no wind in the morning, and a building sea breeze in the afternoon, from the SE. As the air over coastal sea has been warmed up it holds more moisture. This travels past Sydney to the mountains which pushes the air up higher - it gets colder, below dew point - storms form and bounce back over Sydney and the coast. East coast Australia has much more rain than west coast, and the rain falls in different seasons. I'll bet you will find that California is drier than Florida, and that the same sort of thing is happening in Africa. The oceanic islands don't have enough land mass to build dominant distinctive weather patterns from their own conditions, so they follow much the same as general ocean areas. Seasonal differences have an impact as well as the atmosphere tends to be higher pressure over the equator and lower pressure over the poles. Think about a spinning top and centrifugal force - strong in the middle, weak at the top and the bottom. In winter atmospheric lows form from the poles and can move away with predictable weather conditions (storm fronts, troughs etc). In Summer high pressure regions at the equator create lows in between the equatorial high pressure regions that are powered by the hot ocean and create monsoons/hurricanes (northern hemisphere tropics) or cylcones (southern hemisphere tropics) in Summer. Those weather patterns also change humidity and rain.

gene098 thanks for giving me a chance at my first post! Some quick background on humidity. Warmer air can carry more moisture - more accurately (from recollection) the water vapour content can be higher, in absolute terms, when air is warmer. Generally though we refer to "relative humidity" which is a comparison of how much water is in the air compared to how much water the air can carry. It relates to the partial pressure of the water vapour in the air. To give an idea; a very rough reading from a psychrometric chart gives us warm, humid air (say, in Florida) - I am using 80% RH at 30 C - which provides 14 g of water per 1 kg of air. Note that this air only needs another 3g of water to reach 100% RH and be either raining or hitting dew point (moisture coalescing on the ground). Let this same air blow over to Arizona, with no other changes, where it is, say 40 C. The same 14g of water per kg of air is now only 40% RH (give or take) because it's hotter and it needs much more water vapour to reach it's full carrying capacity. This is the same amount of absolute water in the air - but it now needs nearly three times as much water, another 9 g, to reach 100% RH. The chance of rain is minute (non existent) compared to the same air when it was in Florida. So instead of hindering evaporation, as it was in Florida, the air is now dry and sucking water out of the environment. Same air. Same amount of absolute water in the air. Relative humidity completely different. Back to your definition of "dry region", I suspect you may have inadvertently made a circular reference. Your source was trying to define dry regions, in effect, as those areas which evaporate more than they gain in rainfall. By definition they will be less humid - as we have seen even if they have the same amount of absolute water in the air. Google up a phychrometric chart and have a play with it.