swansont

Northern latitudes. Younger Dryas was not global.

The distance has to be comparable to the wavelength of light. For visible light, more than a few microns will make it tough to see. I've done it with a laser pointer and a piece of aluminum foil that had the slits cut into it by hand. The pattern wasn't great, but it existed.

There are phenomena which go faster than the speed of light. It's not inherently a problem unless there is a causal connection between them. Take a lighthouse light, and pretend it's really bright. It revolves at 1 revolution per minute. We could imagine constructing a screen very far away from it and watch the light move across it. At some distance, the speed of the lit part will exceed c (left as an exercise to determine this distance). No violation of relativity has occurred. There is no causal connection between when each photon hit the screen.

I was absolutely not talking about reaction forces, since they are not examples of feedback, and have no desire to delve into that morass again. You may overestimate the level of convincing that has taken place. I think Gaia is rejected scientifically because the single organism part of it is nonsense, not because of the notion of feedback. I would be hard pressed to name a scientist I've met whom I thought didn't understand feedback. Mostly because experimental atomic physicists tend to servo-lock their lasers somehow, which is a feedback system. We all understand basic electronics, and have built feedback circuits. I can't imagine electrical engineers not knowing it. Lay people may not know it by name, but I'll bet a lot of them know in general terms how a thermostat tied into the heat or AC works, or how to drive at roughly constant speed in a car. Feedback is widespread.

I don't find the excuse of "it might not have been climate change" to be very compelling. Fracking a species to death (as an example) is not any kind of improvement. And to use "so far" as a benchmark, I'll just ask — is there anyone out there making the case that it's going to get better? And of course you can point to previous instances of climate change as abrupt as this. No? Then that's a moot point. Why are they already endangered, though? This sounds like "we've already screwed them most of the way. Why not finish the job?" People are already concerned with habitat loss. That's an issue of political will. But there's probably a pretty good overlap of people who don't care about habitat preservation and those who sit on their hands when global warming is the action item.

Well, no. What I'm asking is similar to what Sensei is talking about. The resolution in the time domain. There's a point were you can't distinguish between frequencies. IOW, your measurement is integrating all of the signal in some frequency range. But I just realized there is a more pressing issue. You're integrating your signal. How will you distinguish between e.g. a half a photon's worth of energy detected every measurement cycle and one photon being detected every other cycle?

Let me put it this way: how does your system differentiate between signals that are a little larger or smaller than your chosen tone? What is the resolution, and how are you determining that? How pure of a tone is your signal? What if your noise isn't white, so it doesn't average down?

Or, put another way, how do we adapt to the loss of the species that we lose? I suspect predicting the details of that is a much, much harder problem than predicting the temperature change.

Factors of two (or similar) are inconsequential here

You imply here that your antenna will reject a signal that's at 49.000000001 MHz. I don't believe that. You also haven't said what the pulse repetition rate is, so that's another reason I don't believe this. If you have one pulse per hour, what happens? Yes, I understand it's exponentially decaying. I will ask again: What's the duration of the pulse before it gets to the 1/e value? How long are you waiting between pulses?

I would venture to guess that virtually real systems have feedback of some sort. It's only when we idealize some models (e.g. "assume no friction") that we ignore it. I would also venture to guess that virtually all scientists are aware of this. Especially those doing climate research. This sentence seems to be incomplete. that are not in an immediate " Cause and effect linear connection" ... what?

.83 V/m is 1.8 mW/m^2, and that's per amp. You say you have 1.8 nA, so we have 3.24 x 10^-12 W/m^2 at the receiving antenna. (or 10^-16 W/cm^2)

! Moderator Note Seeing as your first line of defense was I have to conclude that you have no actual science to discuss.

The heterogeneity is quite clearly referring to the chemical and kinematic properties. There is no reference as to their spatial distribution. So your conclusion that they are "unhomogeneous (sic) by definition" is erroneous. You can't just latch onto a key word in an explanation. You have to parse the whole thing, too.

What is this "unbelievable" value? . I don't understand your math here. How does 1.8nA and 35nV give you 10^-26 joules? What is the 1/e duration of the pulse? What's the time separation between the pulses?

Because clusters aren't subject to the expansion.

They would because they have momentum and energy, and that makes gravity. What is a gravito-magnetic monopole? And how does weak hypercharge tie into this at all?

What's your evidence that this is true? How much negative charge is on the moon? Calculate the resulting force between the earth and the moon if they are charged as you claim.

I'm afraid you don't get to decide that. Whether or not you have a misconception is judged by others. Moot, since the CMB has been measured to be uniform to a very high degree.

! Moderator Note This reminds me of the Sidney Harris cartoon that has "then a miracle occurs" in the middle of some math on the chalkboard, and the tagline is "You need to be more explicit in step 2" You are missing a whole lot of necessary science with a statement like what I have quoted. You don't get to just skip over that and move on to some further conjecture. You get one more shot at bringing in some actual scientific analysis before I shut this down. I would advise you not waste that on responding to this modnote

The main idea, sure, you gave a numerical example which is grossly wrong, which calls into question your grasp of that idea. Yes to the first two. But this does not seem to address your misconception about clusters at all.

No. You are talking about two separate things when you speak of motion of clusters and the expansion of the universe. No, I don't think so. Linear expansion does not give a proportional expansion in volume. If you double the linear distance, you increase the volume by 8x. And expansion isn't linear anyway.

So how does that call into question the consensus on warming? We know we're in a middle-of-the-road scenario, and we see warming — none of that is challenged by what was said. The question is about how severe it will be, and how accurately we need to predict that. But you won't/can't constructively engage on that.

I don't think that's so. What he's implying is if the worst case scenarios had held, we wouldn't have had this so-called hiatus for the length of time we saw.

Yes, as mentioned in the Watts blog post you linked to. (he says 259-260) But that's not what Brown meant, which is clear by the article (or I assume so; I can't get to the sciencedaily page but they just repost stuff anyway) I looked at this: http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/middleoftheroad-warming-scenar/46028133 This clearly shows they are comparing to the A and B family of scenarios. Not models. But your point has nothing to do with my point, or Brown's quote. So you have no target in mind, which is convenient. NO model is 100% accurate. So even though you agree this is important, having no value in mind gives you leave to take potshots at the efforts and call them inaccurate, but leaves you with no accountability in the discussion at all, because there is no way to be 100% accurate. So even if they end up nailing something to 0.01ºC, you (and others) can still call them inaccurate, even though that level of accuracy is not needed to inform us of what's going to happen. And this has implications about consensus and whether they are broadly agreeing or disagreeing.