swansont

I addressed this earlier. If the air temperature is higher than the water temperature, the air temperature need not change at all for the water temperature to increase. Your objection would be valid if the system were already in equilibrium, but it's not.

Water evaporates faster as temperature goes up.

The scenario you describe is exceedingly unlikely. The floor is probably an insulator (some combination of wood, carpet and tile). I would be looking to physiology and psychology rather than physics.

This is just a guess, but if you can compress the material, I'd say yes. It's just going to be harder to do in a solid.

From culvers3's link CO2 being a natural component of the atmosphere is a strawman. Of course it's a natural component. Its atmospheric concentration, however, depends on human activity. Humans, however, did not create CO2. (This is self-contradictory to it being natural) Correlation is not causality, first of all. Secondly, the effects we are discussing are longer-term than a sunspot cycle, rendering that argument moot. The argument that we've been cooling since 1998 is false; first of all it's cherry-picking data because 1998 was an anomalously hot year, but even given that, the average temperature has been increasing. There are some graphs (i.e. representations of actual data) here http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm The "number of scientists questioning man-made global warming" is a publicity stunt, because most of these scientists have no standing to offer a professional opinion, much like the list of scientists who reject evolution (whose numbers drop dramatically when you only poll biologists) The notion that the debate is over is true. True scientific debate happens in journals, not the editorial page (or here, even) and the articles in journals strongly point toward global warming. If there is evidence otherwise, scientists aren't publishing those studies. Even money we see an appeal to conspiracy response There is no excuse or justification for insults and personal attacks, and the staff takes this subject seriously. However, the majority of such instances I have observed come about from failure to follow the protocol of a scientific discussion (e.g. doing things like not backing up your claims with credible sources, using logical fallacies, ignoring evidence presented contrary to your position) It would be a mistake to think otherwise. People get understandably frustrated when dishonest debating tactics are used, so it's not that difficult to see why such behavior occurs (without condoning it) Stick to honest debating tactics and there should be no cause for trouble.

This is science. What matters is objective scientific evidence* — you can leave your opinions at the door. *If you are unfamiliar with what constitutes objective scientific evidence, it would behoove you to learn. I refer you to my previous comment. Anecdotes aren't evidence (e.g. it was a record cold in Duluth, so global warming must be false) That link contains several logical fallacies and untruths, and doesn't actually back up any claims that it makes. Asking for rigor in your analysis qualifies as neither shunning nor ridicule. How about posting some factual info then? Not just repeating some other unsubstantiated claim — actual data. Peer-reviewed publications. Things like that.

According to the interpretation they're using to peddle their "wares," your decision to buy or not to buy creates a new universe. So save your money.

Or maybe ethnicity had nothing at all to do with it.

The discussion around the office went basically like "He'll be able to reject proposals based on first principles, e.g. 'This violates the laws of thermodynamics. No funding for you!'" Energy policy involving someone who isn't a shill for the oil companies. Imagine that.

The North Atlantic and Eastern Pacific basins start a smidgin over 27ºC in 1972, and end above the 27.5ºC line. So there are certainly regions where this is true. Global averages aren't pertinent, since they include values from areas and times where/when hurricanes don't form. If it's a degree cooler in winter but a degree warmer in summer the average doesn't change, but the water temperature a hurricane sees is different. It's only mixed because you have added data that isn't germane to the discussion. (and several? I see one hyperlink since the OP)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10121034-54.html http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6158046.html I think appointing someone with bona-fide science credentials as well as having director experience at the national-lab level bodes extremely well. It certainly reaffirms that Obama will be listening to scientists about scientific matters. (It's also neat that someone I've met at a science conference will likely end up a cabinet member)

I ran across http://www.wunderground.com/education/webster.asp which confirms the ~0.5 ºC SST increase (though I see iNow has posted the graph) and also has the claim about the 5% wind speed increase per degree of temperature increase. Can I assume at this point that we can agree that the "no more than 0.1 ºC increase" claims, and anything derived from that, is incorrect? —— Activity or intensity? We are talking about the latter, and they are different things, AFAIK. Activity is number of hurricanes. Intensity is strength of hurricanes.

Don't go there, it's not a fair comparison. Chase has 7 post, i.e. no track record. And don't think you get a free pass with pejorative terms like "dogma" or other phrases used in this thread when you complain about how others treat you. And assertions that you have not addressed. "et al" (namely me) has pointed out twice that your objection to the TIME article is misplaced. (make that three times, if you include this) Why are you ignoring that?

You need to start citing references to back up your assertions. Sooner rather than later (lest you be unmasked as a non-elf mythical creature).

If plucking the string results in an initial distortion that is not a sine wave, you will get harmonics, since they are initially present — all the Fourier components of the initial shape of the string.

Not so much. We prefer claims to be backed up rather than baldly asserted, and prefer that they be relevant (see iNow's post)

Not in situations where you have time-reversal symmetry. As is the case with individual particles on the nuclear level.

I'd just like to note that people asking for citations are not giving anyone a hard time. They are asking for the data that backs up an opinion. —— I will cover my previous point again, since it seems to have been ignored in the ensuing melee. The TIME article clearly states that it's the tropical temperature, not global temperature. As such, it is premature to declare the TIME article (and, by extension, the Nature article from which it was derived) as invalid, since you are comparing different measurements. Proceeding under the assumption that the number must be wrong, without data, is NOT "giving you a hard time." If you think the number is wrong, find studies that have measured the tropical temperature increase. Cite them. I'd also like to note that the claim that the air temperature must rise faster than the water temperature is patently false. The air temperature need not change at all to have the water temperature rise, if the air is already warmer than the water. You can do a test. Pour a glass of cold water. Let it sit in a room with the thermostat at a constant value. Does the water warm faster than the air?

You can't fool me. It's turtles all the way down.

No, actually; this is a common misconception. The speed depends on the tension and the mass per unit length. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/waves/string.html

One is a global average, while the other is a tropical measurement?

Please restrict your discussion in this thread to your thesis. Diatribes about the problems with science can be discussed elsewhere.

And here I was expecting a story of an epic battle with Mothra …

Argument by quotation is really nothing more than argument from authority.

Fear the unknown. The unknown is eeeeviiiiiil. Been there, done that (for nanotech) I'm not sure where the distrust in the unknown becomes "this is immoral," though. Translation: Nobody cares until there is a crisis. We haven't been able to blame any miserable event on nanotech. Yet. Implicit argument: the MSM is a useful tool for educating the public about science & technology issues. Bwahahaha! How useful is CNN at this, now that they've announced that they're dismantling their S&T reporting unit?