swansont

Why? If you're looking solely at warming, the mass hasn't changed, just the density. And the expansion increases r, so the weight actually decreases ever-so slightly. And if you are looking at added mass, why would the effect of the crust drop exceed that of the water addition?

That will give you a reasonable upper bound as long as the temperature doesn't change much. It ignores drag, so the actual numbers you achieve will be smaller. If you solve for v you should end up with a speed — if you don't you have made a mistake. Then you assume a launch angle of 45º and apply kinematics.

The Cap'n pointed you to it a week ago: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=395004&postcount=65 "Time is largely defined by its measurement in physics" What you seem to be asking for is a metaphysical explanation about what time is, and science doesn't provide that.

But a condition of the OP is being near 0 ºC.

You can't reach absolute zero, so that doesn't strictly follow. However, the third law of thermodynamics is classical, not QM, so this is a bit of apples-and-oranges.

Time is what is measured by a clock. I believe I gave this version before, as well as other versions (i.e. mathematical ones)

Does mass appear in the equation?

Thanks!

Sound waves are pressure waves.

Any way to find the number of page hits for the blogs?

Do you have a cite? I can't make this jibe with the Mauna Loa CO2 concentrations, which look to be growing at less than a half of a percent p.a. I've seen claims of emissions growing at that rate, but not the concentrations.

Again, you can't ask what "really" happens, because this assumes there is an absolute reference frame. Events happen, e.g. whether or not there was a collision has to be true in all frames. But a measurement of dimension or time is relative, as is any quantity that is not invariant. Time and length are not invariant quantities.

http://www.baylee-online.net/Projects/Raytracing/Algorithms/LawsOfOptic

No, nothing about the observer is contracted in his own frame. It's not a matter of "noticing" a difference. Contraction only happens when observing something in a different reference frame. I agree with the first sentence — it's not an illusion. What you measure is what you measure. It is because measurements like this that are relative, that it's useful to find invariant quantities, like rest mass or 4-vector quantities like spactime interval (which is invariant because time dilation and length contraction effects balance)

And I don't see how you can look at the graph and make that claim. How big is "drastic?" I see temperature data points both below and above the B predictions, and the effects of Pinatubo aside, I don't see deviations of much more than 0.1 ºC. That's "drastic?"

I think I got one 500 error on Saturday, but the edit posted properly anyway. The original page saved and posted without any issues.

The validity of the big bang/general relativity rests on whether or not it fits with empirical data and makes valid predictions. Those are the boundary conditions for this discussion.

"ceases" and "ceases to increase" don't mean the same thing What you quoted was "Scenario C drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000" and "after 2000, CO2 ceases to increase...after 2000, CH4 ceases to increase....no increases occur for the other CFCs, O3, stratospheric H2o, or any other greenhouse gas" and previously you said "The world halts GHG emissions by the year 2000" One says "reduce growth" and "ceases to increase" while the other says "halts emissions" They aren't the same thing. "Scenario B has continued moderate increase in the rate of GHG emissions" increase, not decline

You're missing the point. You can make the math work, because the same factor (gamma) is appearing in the equations. However, that doesn't make it correct. Let's take the example of someone standing on a scale on some planet, and there is a pointer on a dial that indicates the weight. We then transform into a reference frame where the planet is moving at some relative speed. Does the indicator move to a new number as we increase v? The answer, of course, is "No, it can't!" because we have to observe the same event — the dial can't point to 500 N in one frame but 1000 N in another. Even thought he contention is that both the mass of the person and the planet should have increased, making the gravitational attraction increase (as the square of gamma, since you have multiplied the mass terms) You won't observe the distance of a binary star orbit (not in the direction of length contraction) change, either, when the speed increases, for the same reason. Relativistic mass is a sloppy shortcut that breaks relativity if it's actually applied broadly. That it gives the right answer in a subset of problems doesn't make it right.

You can start writing the ideas down now and copy/paste them later.

I copied this over because I think it points out some of the peculiarities of scientific terminology. It is NOT intended to get into a debate about the particulars of global warming or any other finding of science; the emphasis here is what is meant by words like "fact" and "proven" in the scientific lexicon. The IPCC did come to that conclusion in their latest report; the weight of the evidence is that GW is real and caused by humans. Nothing I said was meant to imply that such a finding is not challengeable, nor that it would be impossible to refute. Scientific debate is never over — it always needs to be tested. What I was saying is that the arguments that had been presented here were seriously deficient. When scientists write reports or papers and present their results, they try and quantify their certainty. Science isn't deductive and 100% certainty, or having things be "proven," is not possible, and the vocabulary that is generally used reflects that. There are many examples of scientific terminology having very narrow definitions as compared to the everyday use of a word — one need go no further than the use of "theory" to see how that gets misused and abused. Similarly, here. The IPCC report says (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report) "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." They define terms for quantifying certainty and uncertainty in the introduction: Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%. Notice how there is no "100%." There never will be, because of the nature of science. The term "proven" won't show up, because the implication of that term is from deductive reasoning. (Of course, detractors of different scientific findings use this to exploit the terminology outside of the science arena) So even though "proven" and "fact" aren't presented, it would be incorrect to conclude the opposite — that this was somehow not demonstrated, or the scientists are completely unsure of the causes. The scientists have determined the finding to over 90% certainty. So these scientists have made a determination. If you want to challenge this, or any other scientific finding, go ahead and do so (in the appropriate area of the forums), but logical fallacies (like equivocation and strawmen) do not count as scientific challenges.

Yes, I misread that. My apologies. Still, scenario B is the one that is claimed to most closely match the actual history, not scenario A. And yet that's not what you quoted earlier — you said the "world halts GHG emissions by the year 2000" for scenario C. Yes: by "drastically overpredict," do you mean "closely match?" I don't see how anyone can look at scenario B and call that a "drastic overprediction."

No, I disagree. Whether global warming is caused by humans is something that can be analyzed and discussed using science, and while you claim it to be a perfectly defendable position, there is a decided lack of actual scientific defense of the position, in the threads I've seen. The calls for evidence to back that position up are scientific ones, not politically correct ones. The arguments against AGW are generally bad scientific arguments — logical fallacies and inexcusably poor scientific practices, and in some cases, out-and-out misrepresentation. It seems to me your phrasing implied that you thought bascule had done something to attack you, rather than just make a point that he disagreed with you. I pointed it out because it was in the thread. (There are worse examples elsewhere). I don't think there was anything covert about it, nor would it resonate with anyone who didn't already agree, it simply underscores the point that you seem to be using a different definition than others are.

No, this is incorrect. Scenario B did not assume freezing GHG emissions — why would a freeze in emissions result in an increase in the forcings? From Hansen's 2006 paper that evaluated the 1988 predictions: Intermediate scenario B was described as ‘‘the most plausible.’’ Scenario B has continued moderate increase in the rate of GHG emissions and includes three large volcanic eruptions sprinkled through the 50-year period after 1988, one of them in the 1990s. Real-world GHG climate forcing (17) so far has followed a course closest to scenario B. (emphasis added) Further, scenario C is not halting emissions, it is "GHGs were assumed to stop increasing after 2000." (emphasis added) and I can't find anything that corroborates the A scenario being as you describe — the paper calls it "‘‘on the high side of reality,’’ because it assumed rapid exponential growth of GHGs"

Which means it takes just under an hour to go 15º. I was assuming the small difference was not coming into play.