• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6377 Glorious Leader

1 Follower

About swansont

  • Rank
    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)
  • Birthday May 12

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Washington DC region
  • Interests
    Geocaching, cartooning
  • College Major/Degree
    PhD Atomic Physics Oregon State University
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Occupation
  1. What is the Infinitesimal sign?

  2. Future Global Warming Solution Deployable by government

    I've not gotten that impression. If you need a diet and exercise plan, and you say "here is my exercise plan" it does not mean you've decided to order everything on the menu. Since this is in politics, a fair question would be "how do we do a better job of doing that?" but that can be outside of the scope of this discussion. But the variables you would want to consider include how much bang for the buck you will be getting, and additionally, the caution of not putting all your eggs in one basket. Especially when a single solution won't get you to your goal.
  3. Future Global Warming Solution Deployable by government

    Sequestration will not make ocean acidification worse, and will indirectly make it better. The OP has not addressed introduction at all, much less said anything about adding more CO2. Doesn't seem relevant to me, given the scope of the discussion.
  4. Future Global Warming Solution Deployable by government

    That's not clear to me. Why wouldn't the same amount of carbon be in the grass? You have a more extensive root system, which is why you are taking more carbon out of the air. Cutting will have the same effect, but you will have sequestered the amount in the additional root structure. If there does happen to be less carbon in the cut grass, then this part of the system is taking less carbon out of the air. Since, as you have pointed out, this goes back into the air, it can be ignored — it has zero net effect. The only difference is in the root system. Conceptually, this is like planting a new tree. It will take up carbon as long as it is alive. But eventually it stops growing — the sequestration is proportional to the mass of the tree. Then it dies, and you need a new tree to replace the effect. You're planting grass in this case, so the sequestration is in the roots. But that will hit steady-state. Area54 is right — this is a one-off, not a continuing sequestration after you've hit steady-state, just like the tree example.
  5. Future Global Warming Solution Deployable by government

    I, too, seem to have missed why sea water has entered the conversation.
  6. Future Global Warming Solution Deployable by government

    But arguably less stupid than not sequestering it after burning it, as we do now.
  7. Future Global Warming Solution Deployable by government

    Why would it do that? The article says more carbon into the roots, not all carbon into the roots. You wouldn't have anything but roots if that happened. I like that you've attempted a quantitative analysis, since that's so often missing in these discussions, but I think you need to be more realistic in your assumptions and goals. That said, you've chosen a very conservative number for the area. Having a larger value would offset the overly aggressive carbon values to some extent. Those are bacteria, not plants. Not seeing how that works.
  8. Nuclear physics

    It's not that you need more to fuse Oxygen than Carbon (although you do), it's that you need a lot more to fuse either than hydrogen. Plus you need a certain density if you hope to sustain the reaction, which we don't have in our atmosphere. There also isn't enough gravity to counteract the thermal expansion. https://sites.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section2/fusion.html This claim doesn't pass the smell test.
  9. What is Time?

    Length and time are relative. Rest mass and charge are not. But none of them can be expressed as combinations of the others.
  10. What is Time?

    Dimensional analysis sense. Length, time, mass, charge, etc.
  11. Future Global Warming Solution Deployable by government

    My apologies. I misread the "you plan" (thinking it was the course of action that you want, rather than referring to Raider's statement) You are indeed correct in your assessment.
  12. Future Global Warming Solution Deployable by government

    Um, no. There are opportunities to push the technology forward that could be helped by the government, to get it to the point where it could be deployed. The government does this all the time; they have sorting categories for the kind of research one is doing. Basic research (6.1), often going to universities, applied research (6.2), advanced technology development (6.3), demonstration and validation (6.4) (and beyond) Investing "after the technology" is there would be 6.3/6.4 funding. Investing to get the technology to that point would be 6.1 and/or 6.2. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1194/MR1194.appb.pdf
  13. Nuclear physics

    Yes, that's a possibility. (and why details would be good, so the misconception could be tracked down)
  14. What is Time?

    "What swansont said about having to have knowledge to understand complex problems is ofcourse right. " The quote was part of what I said. They were directly related. You say we agree but also say things that are obviously incorrect. But yes, if you say we are in agreement, let it drop.
  15. What is Time?

    But you did, or at least appeared to. But it's clear now that you missed something. No, that's not the issue. The explainer has the skill, the recipient must have the background. They are both necessary, and are not independent. You've obviously missed the point here. My post quoting Feynman was about the recipient of the explanation having sufficient understanding of the basics, without which advanced topics will be inaccessible to them, regardless of the skill of the explainer.