Yes, but it’s been awhile now. I hope the internets didn’t eat it!
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips by John Carpenter
↧
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips by k scott denison
Hey Bob, since when are huricanes climate? Get real
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips by k scott denison
Steve, +1 for your policy.
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips by Curious George
Thank you very much for a swift reply. The very speed of your reply did not give you much time to read my reference. So I’ll recap here, the CAM5 model has a 2.5% error in the specific heat of water vaporization. Impacts of this approximation are not known. For a perspective, for an average surface temperature of the Earth 290 degrees K, a 2.5% error is 7.25K, or 13 degrees F. Label this left or right as you prefer.
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips by k scott denison
Gates, please tie any one of the events you listed to “global warming”. Show you work. I’ll wait
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
P-N, as I have said a number of times with a small effect you need a large volume. With a small volume you are going to have extremely small variations, there will be variations, because there is constant energy transfer and motion with no change in net. If you had a thermometer with the precision to measure the small difference due to gravity, the noise would most likely be larger than the signal.
That said, average KE would be equal and the 2PV tank would have twice the internal energy. Now just for fun, how many grad students would have to measure the temperature and pressure of each tank before the average measurements equaled the ideal values?
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips by aaron
I ran across a post which pointed to a few interesting papers on radiation and health.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477702/
And reminded me of this one Lubos Motl and Willie Soon pointed out a couple of years ago.
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
I should add that if you tell the grad students what the ideal measurements should be before hand would that reduce the number of measurements required :)
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips by ordvic
John Carter,
Thanks for the link. I have read similar material but I had not seen this actual data before. I thought it was mostly hypothesis. It is also interesting as the article says that there is not much attention being paid to this happening. I would have thought the NYTs would be talking about it a lot.
↧
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips by Tom Forrester-Paton
Latimer, it’s my understanding that Drake’s insistence on finishing his game of bowls was attributable, not to the coolness of his blood, but to the time of day when the Spanish were spotted. However hot his blood, and despite having more weatherly ships than his adversaries, he knew he would have to wait for tidal assistance before he could get at them. Might as well finish his game….
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips by steven
Floods, droughts, tornadoes, local heat waves. If only we had listened to the scientists in the 1970s and diverted rivers and spread soot over the Arctic we could have avoided all this.
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Rob Ellison
Again – the scenario change is the problem.
There was first of all a density difference in the box – with more molecules at the bottom striking the surface with some average KE. It implies that the heat content of the bottom surface is greater than the top.
An impossibly silly scenario continued well past the point of rationality.
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand
captdallas: “P-N, as I have said a number of times with a small effect you need a large volume.”
What small effect are you talking about? Gravity is acting on the two cylinders equally. Rob’s problem with the two cylinders has nothing to do with gravity. He is claiming that the internal energy is the same in both cylinders. I am claiming that it is twice as large in the second (2atm). He is claiming that the average kinetic energy is twice as much in the first cylinder (1atm). I am arguing that it is exactly the same. He is arguing that twice the rate of collisions with the same average kinetic energy per molecules would lead to the cylinder walls warming up to a higher temperature. I am arguing that only the speed distribution (and KEavg) determines the temperature.
“That said, average KE would be equal and the 2PV tank would have twice the internal energy.”
Yes, I am glad to see you agreeing with this. This will simplify the discussion about the vertical speed distribution in a gravity field in the next open thread, if you decide to get involved.
↧
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips by bob droege
Well the effect of the sun depends on the climate sensitivity, if climate sensitivity is low, then the sun has little effect. If sensitivity is high then the sun could have a larger effect.
From the cites I posted, it seems CO2 forcing is larger than the total of all forcings, so If you remove the CO2 forcing, then the net forcing would be negative, thus cooling.
Its all pretty straight forward.
↧
Comment on Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips by bob droege
K scitt denison,
Hurricanes are part of the climate, as there are regions that experience hurricanes as part of the weather and regions that don’t have hurricanes.
Are you really that thick? Get real yourself.
Though I would have figured you would have claimed that it wasn’t a hurricane.
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Rob Ellison
What small effect are you talking about? Gravity is acting on the two cylinders equally. Rob’s problem with the two cylinders has nothing to do with gravity. He is claiming that the internal energy is the same in both cylinders. I am claiming that it is twice as large in the second (2atm). He is claiming that the average kinetic energy is twice as much in the first cylinder (1atm). I am arguing that it is exactly the same. He is arguing that twice the rate of collisions with the same average kinetic energy per molecules would lead to the cylinder walls warming up to a higher temperature. I am arguing that only the speed distribution (and KEavg) determines the temperature.
No problem with 2 cylinders – that was not the scenario – the problem is the box with a gravity density. A surface being struck with more molecules at the same energy is warmer.
All the rest is utter nonsense – all of which are not absolute but depend on boundary conditions.
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Rob Ellison
blah, blah, blah balh…
No problem with 2 cylinders – that was not the scenario – the problem is the box with a gravity density. A surface being struck with more molecules at the same energy is warmer.
All the rest is utter nonsense – all of which are not absolute but depend on boundary conditions.
↧
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand
“Again – the scenario change is the problem.
There was first of all a density difference in the box – with more molecules at the bottom striking the surface with some average KE. It implies that the heat content of the bottom surface is greater than the top.”
No. The case that I was considering was isothermal, and since I hold that KEavg = (3/2)kT, and hence only is a function of temperature, the individual collisions with both the top and bottom of the box have the same average kinetic energy, and the exact same Maxwell speed distribution for that matter. Read again all the references I provided (Pekka; Am. J. of Physics; Statistical Mechanics, CUP). They all concern a vertical density distribution (derived from the Boltzmann distribution applied to the potential energy of the molecules.) and a constant Maxwell speed distribution that only is a function of temperature. They all cover the isothermal case (though Pekka generalizes to other static temperature profiles as well, if I remember)
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Rob Ellison
Molecules move randomly to fill the container. A density difference in the atmosphere is irrelevant. Energy flow as a result of molecular collisions. I have given a few dozens references – and you have misinterpreted Pekka previously I seem to remember.
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand
Rob Ellison: “…with some average KE.”
I may have misread you.
In any case, your claim about the need for a reduced average KE at higher pressure in order to maintain the same temperature at the gas/solid boundary despite the higher collision rate is independent of any claim about a gravito-thermal effect or the lack thereof. Many physicists would either deny the gravito-thermal effect, or be agnostic about it, but I think few would agree that EKavg can be any different from (3/2)kT just because the pressure is higher, of agree that the the second cylinder could have twice the molar amount and nevertheless the same U, (same V and same T).
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
