swansont

Yes. That’s what I stated. That was my point. They would all have error bars, and could be further misrepresenting the information. I did an image search on “the shrinking co2 climate sensitivity” and quickly found places it was posted with its attribution: “Scafetta 2017”

I think you’re misusing “skeptic” here. A skeptic is one who is unconvinced without an examination of the evidence. Which is fine for someone entering a field, when they lack exposure to the evidence and haven’t learned the science. If you instead meant a denialist, then sure - you aren’t likely to enter a field that requires such time and effort if you’ve already decided it was bunk. But people who are saying that something is wrong while not understanding the topic or not being aware of the evidence - they aren’t skeptics. You’re also misrepresenting or misunderstanding scientists when you say all of them entering this field are activists. Some of them might be, but I’d guess that most just want to go and do the science. This is the same BS leveled at other areas of science, e.g. people who think scientists support relativity only because they worship Einstein, when scientists would be ecstatic to discover new science. To make any comparison to self-selection based on belief misses the mark. That’s the price of admission for religion. All that science requires is the ability to make objective assessments of evidence in comparison to models we have of nature.

The value of 6 used in the graph? It comes from this paper https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/15/22/1520-0442_2002_015_3117_aobeot_2.0.co_2.xml “From the probability distribution of ΔT2× we obtain a 90% confidence interval, whose lower bound (the 5th percentile) is 1.6 K. The median is 6.1 K, above the canonical range of 1.5–4.5 K; the mode is 2.1 K.” See fig. 2. It’s not a normal distribution (closer to a Poisson), so the median is skewed high. Quite high. It makes more sense to use the mode, i.e. the most likely value, of 2.1K. As the graph shows, it’s much more likely the value is around 2 than around 6. Kinda changes the whole argument, but I suspect that was the point.

EM radiation is massless. One must conclude the associated fields are massless. But the radiation has momentum.

You’r overlooking the physics involved. Specifically, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law Nobody claimed the science is flawless. One of the flaws of the graph you provided is that does not include the error bars on the results. If you want to know how they came up with that result you need to read their paper, not some shoddy critique, and also not focus on one individual result. It’s cherry-picking.

The information about absorption in gases is quite extensive, certainly the basics are covered. Not finding the data means you haven't looked in the right place. NIST, for example, has an extensive database about atomic and molecular absorption. What "basics" need re-working? Did you ever consider the state of experimental science 160 years ago? Or theoretical, for that matter? Tyndal's work preceded Mendeleev's introduction of the periodic table! Which doesn't matter a whole lot, since the state physics going backward in time, before Tyndall doesn't incorporate a whole lot. The point was to show that better measurements being made over time is a standard part of science, and your dissatisfaction over a convergence of a factor of 2 or 3 is really just indicative of an ignorance of how experimental science progresses. And arguments from a position of ignorance don't carry much weight with most people. How are you arriving at your numbers?

There is no job application here. That’s not a technicality; this is an appointed position. edit: xpost

There are people in the GOP who have spoken out, with fake concern. Evidence to the contrary aside. Perhaps, but who is saying that? But who is claiming that goalposts were moved for this candidate? The only ones I see are the ones who have already suggested that a black woman can’t be qualified, without even knowing who that candidate is, or what her qualifications are. i.e. that being black and a woman automatically equates to being unqualified. edit: the goalposts are where they’ve been for quite a while “Joe Biden isn’t first to prioritize race, gender in picking SCOTUS nominee” https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/28/sean-hannity/joe-biden-isnt-first-prioritize-race-gender-pickin/

The perspective of being a black woman is not a quality possessed by any of the current or past justices. If that’s a quality you want on the court, so that it would be more representative of the population, then black women would be the only qualified group. White men, for example, would not be qualified. The GOP “concern” is manufactured. There should be no trouble finding a black woman with better judicial bona-fides than Amy Coney Barrett, who they deemed qualified to sit on the bench.

How do you feel about the speed of light? It was once thought to be infinite, so it underwent a more dramatic improvement in precision, albeit over a longer time range. https://interestingengineering.com/a-brief-history-of-the-speed-of-light That was for the CO2 absorption spectrum, not climate sensitivity

Did you notice that this refers to food that was being refrigerated?

A plant is making a conscious response?

Googling “carbon dioxide absorption spectrum” only yields about 19 million results The graph shows no such thing. The scale on the graph only covers a factor of 6, and the data doesn’t even span that scale.

Where are you hearing this?

How so? You keep making these vague complaints that make no sense. What would you compare a deviation to, if not the average? Apparently not as well as you thought… Life is part of biology and chemistry, not physics/cosmology. Unless you are arguing that life arose because our location in the cosmos, rather than the conditions on earth.

Have you tried using a search engine?

What’s being manipulated? It’s a small deviation. A bump or divot on the billiard ball, so to speak. From your link: The "Cold Spot" is approximately 70 µK (0.00007 K) colder than the average CMB temperature

As you point out, it’s not sealed, so why would they take that into account? But it’s the concept of why the components don’t fall into the sun; you’ve just added a new element. No doubt it would be more complicated, but the point is that the pressure is not going to keep it centered, since there is a similar pressure at all points. You need a different pressure on opposite sides to give a restoring force in a given direction. No, I don’t agree. The mass loss due to the solar wind is negligible. The sun would have “evaporated” long ago if that were the case. The pressure of the solar wind comes from the momentum of the particles. Their velocity is significant (many keV of KE) and some of this will be lost upon impact with the structure. So there aren’t a lot of atoms. It’s about 1.5 million tons (3 x 10^9kg) per second, as compared to the mass of 2 x 10^30 kg. https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/solar-wind-versus-fusion-how-does-the-sun-lose-mass.html

! Moderator Note You've been told before that this is insufficient for discussion. Get an instagram or tumblr account.

Is a tree homogeneous and isotropic? A human? The universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale. i.e. the scale used in astronomy and cosmology. Sometimes this is not explicitly declared, but often it is. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec05.html (emphasis added) "if the Universe is isotropic then this means you will see no difference in the structure of the Universe as you look in different directions. When viewed on the largest scales, the Universe looks the same to all observers and the Universe looks the same in all directions as viewed by a particular observer. Homogeneity, when viewed on the largest scales, means that the average density of matter is about the same in all places in the Universe and the Universe is fairly smooth on large scales."

! Moderator Note If you want to blog go start a blog somewhere. This fails as science - there is no rigor. It's just hand-waving. You claim 2 decimal point accuracy but describe no experimental results.

It's part of how my atomic clocks work. You measure the |g> and |e> state populations of the hyperfine transition, but that's not what collapses the superposition.

It's all cumulative, but I don't think mirror quality, per se, gets you all that much. Or other optics advancement. How much advancement in mirror surface quality has been made in the span we're discussing? It's not like you're going to get a factor of even two in how reflective mirrors are as compared to a few decades earlier. So these factors could be in play, but I don't think they're the prime movers.

An interaction counts, I think. I shine a pi/2 pulse on atoms and it puts them in a superposition of states (|g> and |e>), and I shine another pi/2 pulse on them and they end up in one of those two states. I then measure the populations of the two. It's the second pi/2 pulse that ends the superposition, not the measurement of the populations.

The static contribution is less than the value of the pressure, to be sure. It can at least be approximated by looking at the gravitational potential energy. The pressure should vary as pgh, where p is the density, g is the gravitational acceleration (which varies with r) It wasn't clear that this was the case. But to "break off" implies that there is some amount of rigidity involved. And this has nothing to do with correcting its position, i.e. the metastable equilibrium issue. What you are describing here is closer to a Dyson bubble. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Dyson_bubble