swansont

If you think it's hedging, you haven't understood what they are saying, and are misrepresenting it. It's a lot closer to "Please don't equate weather and climate. They aren't the same thing."

IANAL, and this is a completely naive observation (from a legal aspect) but I believe it's about whether the government has a right to tell you what you can and can't do with your body. To make such a pronouncement is an invasion of privacy.

The spin of both the electron and proton are quantized. The kinetic energy of the electron and proton are not going to be equal because momentum has to be conserved. Gravity? No, not so much. Nothing here really fits in with accepted physics, AFAICT. If there was anything to your nebulous gut instinct, you should see it in the formation of exotic hydrogen-like systems, such as muonium and positronium.

Yes. As I sated in my previous post, the mass outside of your radius makes no net contribution. The mass inside behaves as if it were all at one point; a very dense, small body will have an equal effect as a large body of the same mass, as long as you are outside of all of the mass. Any inverse-square law behaves this way, so it works for electrostatics and charge, too. It's called Gauss's law.

The length of the bench depends on what frame you are in. It does not have an intrinsic length that can be absolutely determined. The best you can do is define its proper length.

Which is wrong. I would say clearly wrong, but that's subjective. We can date things to times prior to human existence, and if the laws of physics are invariant in time, which appears to be the case, time must have existed prior to man in order to allow for the physical processes that occurred.

Those aren't personal characterizations, they are descriptions of the arguments being used. As bascule notes, the claims are factually incorrect. Conclusions drawn from them are strawmen. Accepting incorrect information as being correct is not consistent with skepticism. As you note here, bascule went through several steps of debunking incorrect information first, and only then used the term "denialist" because it's clear that the "skepticism" isn't being based on the quality and quantity of scientific evidence.

I was referring to SkepticLance's claim that "68% is simply not good science," which dismisses any use of an error bar at one standard deviation as being poor science. Rubbish. That wasn't the claim of the article, as far as I could tell. The thrust of the argument was that precision (i.e. the size of the error) isn't relevant if the error isn't including terms that make the prediction inaccurate, not that one sigma is bad and they should have used two sigma.

There are a number of journals that will not publish if you have pitched it to the media first.

Chipscale clocks are still in the development phase. Their precision isn't up to the level that they'd be useful on GPS satellites; they are more for a person in the field. Having a decent idea of your time reduces the acquisition time of GPS signals, since the receiver knows what part of the code to look at. Small in this case is important so you can carry it, and so it doesn't draw much power. The GPS clocks can be both cesium and rubidium clocks, or in the case of the Galileo system, they will be rubidium clocks and a hydrogen maser. Picture of a space-qualified cesium clock http://www.symmsda.com/products/4415.asp and another (this may be a rubidium clock) http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/satellites.htm A new non-space qualified cesium clock is about $30k - $50k. I strongly suspect smaller and/or space qualified would be significantly more expensive, since you pay extra for those features.

Did you actually read the articles? '“Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year,” Dr. Trenberth said. “It does not happen that way.”' The articles do not say "warming is man made and cooling is natural fluctuations." They say that the natural variability — essentially, noise — is not small compared to the overall warming trend. 1998 would be a prime example of a fluctuation that was warmer than the trend. It works both ways.

I'm missing the part where there has to be energy added to the magnetic or electrostatic potential. If you have added 13.6 eV they are far away from each other and at rest. The magnetic moments and charges existed before you ionized the atom. If you look at them when they are moving, in any given frame of reference, they won't have the same magnetic field, but they won't have the same electric field, either.

Such a blanket statement is bollocks. Different branches use different standards. It's bad science if you don't use them consistently and aren't clear about which confidence interval you are using. I only skimmed the article, but the author's point didn't seem to be about issues with using one standard deviation, it was about precision vs accuracy.

Play with some Magdeburg hemispheres and you'll get a feel for how much atmospheric pressure there actually is.

The "point of view" is very straightforward. It stems from the postulate that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames. Length contraction is a direct consequence.

This was distribution of locally-produced gas, so the relevance to pipelines transporting hydrogen from remote production facilities is limited.

And it's 4.18 Joule per calorie

But the bias from the oil industry would be against an anthropogenic origin, so when the conclusion is the opposite, how does bias enter into it? And who is going to do "independent" research?

There are a number of people out there who are misusing the word, to the point where saying, "I'm a skeptic" or "I'm skeptical" means very little. Because there are some "skeptics" who will not be convinced even when presented with a reasonable amount of evidence, or will attack/dismiss evidence on nonscientific grounds. The scientists who did the research that appears in the IPCC can rightly be called skeptics, as well. Being a skeptic does not mean you are unconvinced. So defining how you are using the term "skeptical" is a good thing. Now the questions become what evidence would convince you, and what's deficient about the evidence that is available from scientific sources?

You have improperly quoted this, and changed the meaning by doing so. The actual quote is "They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." There is no caveat of "to the first approximation" implied in that postulate. Try reading the rest of the paper. He does math that does not rely on a verbal description.

It's explained in the last post. Posts were off-topic and moved to a new thread. None of the moved material had much to do with the OP, which hadn't drawn a relevant response in almost two years.

By all means, go ahead and do the energy balance and show this.

And what was the pressure, and mass flow rate of the hydrogen component, of this type of system? Local? Transcontinental? Cite?

The energy is added to the system as a whole. There is no "split" of the photon.

Yes to the first, no to the second. Why, is that something you feel is important? Original papers are "works in progress." Concepts get refined and errors get corrected.