swansont

Why, specifically, is this a problem?

Classically, that's the description of happens, and what D H was referring to earlier.

Yeah, I've seen that. You'll notice the power cord is still attached. They do have batteries, though.

Actually, no. (I realize you were joking, but ...) There is a program afoot to make what are known as "chip-scale" atomic clocks, but their precision will be limited to somewhere around two orders of magnitude worse than the workhorse cesium beam clocks of today. And to get the best performance (average out the noise) you need longer measurements and multiple clocks. There are things that get worse when you miniaturize the system.

I was trying to give the most lenient, worst-case estimate to jryans point about how much of our recent CO2 increase could be attributed to CO2 coming out of solution. Based on the historical data, we see rather large changes in temperature over thousands of years, presumably causing these increases. Based on that, the 100 ppm increase in CO2 we've seen probably has less than a 10 ppm contribution from dissolved gas coming out of solution. If someone wants to do an actual solubility calculation, please go ahead and do so. One should note that predicting what happens to the CO2 is different than predicting what happens to temperature given a certain increase in CO2.

Scientific conclusion: sportline stopwatches SUCK! The predicted amount of dilation is one thing missing from the "experiment." The stopwatches should differ by about 7 picoseconds.

Gauss's law means that a spherical distribution is the same as a point source; in some sense that's really mathematical semantics. —a uniformly distributed spherical mass is one where the point-mass assumption holds. Another approach one can take for a lumpy planet (or equivalent problem) is solve for the ideal case, e.g. the uniform mass distribution, and then solve for the lumps(s). Not sure how often people do this in gravitation, but perturbation theory is common in QM.

I don't think anything here contradicts what I've said. A set amount of CO2 can only retain so much heat, but more CO2 retains more heat. As the concentration goes up, the effectiveness of the new addition is less, or put another way, you have to add more CO2 to cause the same temperature increase. It's logarithmic. I don't think this is the communication problem. The communication problem is that bascule claimed that the forcings were increasing, and you claimed they were decreasing. And you still haven't presented ANY MATERIAL to support that claim. yes, future claims are on topic for discussion about the movie. But this particular part of the discussion was based on the past. So stop changing the subject. Your question was Since you presented nothing else on the matter, I gave a back-of-the-envelope estimate. Based on the historical data, where heating caused CO2 change, we see around 80 ppm change when the temperature changes 8ºC. From that, I would say just a few ppm — likely less than 10 — of the recent CO2 increase is due to to ocean heating. Over a small range like that, linear probably isn't too bad of a guess. However, from this, stating "But even going back to the logrithmic argument, 80ppm equals 8ºC... but 100ppm equals 0.63ºC." is most certainly switching cause and effect. Nobody here is claiming that the 80 ppm increases caused all of the historical temperature increase. (It's fair to say a claim is that it contributed)

Thermal IR gets absorbed and then re-emitted, some of which gets sent back to earth. You're only addressing half of the issue. But I think that's why it's a logarithmic function — because the probability of any new molecule "seeing" any IR keeps going down. If I get a moment, I'll work it through. bascule claimed that the CO2 forcings had increased, and has posted many links and graphs to support various claims. Your counter-claim was that no, the contribution had decreased. You have not backed up that claim. Since we are dealing with history here, the probability of whatever happened to CO2 is identically 1. The increase in CO2 has been exponential in recent years. I provided a link. Again, this discussion has centered on what has happened in the past. To cite future projections is moving the goalposts. I have no idea what your point is here. Earlier you agreed that the the dependence of temperature on CO2 is logarithmic, thus an exponential increase in CO2 will cause a linear increase in temperature. If the exponential speeds up (eax and a increases) then the temperature increase will speed up as well. This is, as I said, basic math. Yes, I had a typo. 8 degrees causes 80 ppm, means 1 ppm increase is caused by a 0.1 degree increase. You were worried about the warming causing CO2 release, and the historical data show that we should expect 1 ppm per 0.1ºC increase in temperature, on average. But you've got the cause and effect reversed now. the 100 ppm increase is not from ocean release — that only accounts for something of order 10 ppm. So the other 90 ppm would be anthropogenic. If a doubling of CO2 should cause a 3º increase in T, a 5% increase should cause a 0.2º rise in temperature. Is that about what we've seen?

Tachyons don't defy relativity. They are hypothesized particles that would conform to relativity, but that requires imaginary energy or imaginary mass (and perhaps negative as well), and we don't know what that means, physically. Negative temperatures are another area that is interesting, because you can do it in non-equilibrium conditions — the population inversion of a laser, for example, gives a negative temperature. However, for any kind of equilibrium condition, no, that breaks physics. You can't have any less center-of-mass motion than "none at all."

It depends on what opaque means. Is it where an IR photon can't on average, make it out of the atmosphere without scattering? (That's called "optically thick" in atomic physics jargon) Because you will still get an effect if that scattered photon gets absorbed further out in the atmosphere. I suspect, but don't know for sure, that this is the source of the logarithmic behavior. It seems to me that if you had a really small concentration, so that a photon had, say, a 0.1% chance of being absorbed, and then you doubled the concentration, you'd have a 0.2% chance of being absorbed. At some point, though, a second absorption becomes likely, and that's where the linear behavior ends (this is related to saturation of absorption in atomic spectroscopy, though I'm used to thinking of this in terms of changes in light intensity). So there would seem to be a difference in response between an opaque and a transparent atmosphere at he wavelengths in question. At the far extreme, I can see that if a photon would take a million scatters to leave that adding more CO2 to make that a million and one has a small overall effect, but I don't see how that's inconsistent with it being a logarithmic dependence. I think you have no clue what pissed me off, even though I mentioned it in the previous exchange: You rarely cite data to support your claims. In this case, the claim was "So the actually contribution of heating by CO2 is lessening over time regardless of it's source." Which is only true of a certain behavior of CO2 increase. An behavior that is NOT being observed, since we are seeing an exponential (or faster) increase. If you have a source that shows CO2 increases are slower than an exponential, CITE THEM. Proof that CO2 will grow geometrically is a strawman. I never claimed that, and it is irrelevant to the point bascule made and to which I added, which refers to recent CO2 changes. Future growth is a separate issue. You should apologize, but it should be for failing to cite data and making strawman arguments. I'm just trying to fill in some quantification to your argument, since you refuse to do so. If the release of CO2 from ocean warming is your concern, and it's 0.1 ppm per tenth of a degree (as the historical data might imply), how does this account for 80 ppm of CO2? Has the temperature risen 8 ºC? That's news to me.

The point this turns into a CLF discussion is where it gets moved to speculations. You want to try again?

Along the lines (as it were) of the triangles, look at corrugated cardboard and ask yourself why it's so strong.

Now you understand my investment strategy.

A Tachtard would be someone who doesn't know how to operate the hyperspace controls.

You shouldn't be able to tell the difference, other than certain things being reversed, i.e. parity. Like the joke about meeting your twin: if he offers his left hand to shake, don't do it (assuming you're right-handed)because he's made of antimatter.

Fractional Quantum Hall Effect discussion moved. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=33509

A BEC is a dilute gas with about 10^14 atoms/cm^3. An ideal gas at STP will have a density a million times greater. Slow light is a trick of specially-prepared atomic states.

Anyone following along should note that this basically divides things into baryonic dark matter (difficult to detect electromagnetically) and nonbaryonic dark matter (doesn't interact at all electromagnetically). A cold planet or brown dwarf, etc. far away from any illumination might be an example of the former.

A minus sign.

It has some nasty repercussions that are more easily seen if a third person/frame is involved, like sending a message, having a second party see the result of that message and being able to tell you not to send the message before you sent it. If you want causality, you can't have superluminal information transfer.

Gravity also adds, vectorally, and has an inverse-square strength. So you are attracted to a hydrogen atom 10 billion light years away, though that can be swamped be more mass closer by, and effectively canceled by a hydrogen atom at the same distance in the opposite direction.

Moved from another thread, since it discusses a different hypothesis. ——— An increase in mass should increase gravitational attraction, as well as violate conservation of energy. (edit: Which I see Moo addressed while I was moving the post)

There was, but unfortunately the offer is voided if you ask for it.

A liquid would seem to be a deterrent if one wanted to tip the collector to maximize collection area.