Gen1GT

Swansont, if an electron can have zero velocity, does that mean we can put it on a box like a soccarball in a bathroom?

Okay, sorry, I guess I should have used a massless particle as my example. However, I think elfmotat answered my question, and let me see if I got this correct: A photon, although it has no mass, has momentum because of the energy contained based in its frequency and amplitude? If a photon hits a Charge Coupled Device, and assuming there is a vacuum, can we not then observe its location (it was on the surface of the CCD), it's amplitude (intensity of light on the CCD) and its frequency (colour on the CCD)? Once again, I'm sure this is a rookie question, so thanks for your patience. On a side note...how slow can an electron move, it not the speed of light? But it does move when in an electrical circuit, correct?

As far as I can understand, a particle can be absolutely measured for momentum or location inversely proportional to each other. So if we're measuring an electron's momentum absolutely, then its position is entirely unknowable. However, do electrons not travel at the speed of light? If we nab an electron to measure its position, why can we not assume it was travelling at the speed of light just before we measured it, therefore measuring absolute momentum and position? I'm a quantum rookie, so be kind to me and my ignorant question!

This is the problem I have with the climate cause and effect models and predictions. Every other branch of science has clear, accurate formulae and equations or laboratory repeatable experiments allowing anyone with the ability and desire to repeat the process to confirm the result. Who in the climate science industry can prove through experiments, or through accurate models entailing every single possible variable and interaction between those variables, an empirical result with little or no chance inaccuracy? Scientist A can measure red shift at Galaxy X to determine Distance Y. Scientist B can measure red shift at Galaxy X to confirm Distance Y using the same repeatable and agreed upon mathematical formula. Does this type of positive feedback not exist in climate science?

Hmm, after following that link and then another link within that link, they do not reference their source of waste heat only contributing only 0.028 W/m2. However, I did do the calculations, and passenger car heat emissions would be far less than 0.028 W/m2. Forgive my ignorance, and hopefully the search nazis don't slap my wrist, but is there a link to the formula for calculating the atmospheric temperature rise in relation to CO2 concentration (including explanation of the variables and their units)? ...and thanks for the welcome! I plan to spend more time in the physics section than in climate science section, but this particular question has always been in my mind.

I am not a professional in any field of science, let alone any related to climate science, but it seems to me we could be overlooking a huge piece of the puzzle in the blame for global warming. I do work in an engineering field, so the use of math and logic are not foreign to me. It seems as though Occam’s Razor has – as far as I can tell – yet to be observed in climate science related to global warming. Please consider the following: The average car in the world achieves 8L/100km of fuel consumption, according to the IEA (in 2005). The average passenger car travels 14,435 km in one year. (International Road Federation). The average thermodynamic efficiency of an internal combustion engine is 37%, leaving 63% of the burned fuel wasted as heat (courses.washington.edu) The average energy content of gasoline is 36 Megajoules per litre. According to my calculations (and you can feel free to check my math), the average car emits 26,190 MJ of heat energy into the atmosphere every year. To put that into relatable terms, this equals 24.8 million BTU’s of heat PER CAR, of which there are over a billion, per year! What is the possibility that CO2 plays a small role in global warming, but rather, we are actually simply heating up the planet by burning everything in sight? 24.8 million billion BTUs is a lot of heat in one year, but I can’t plug that number into the grand equation of global warming. In the current global warming model, does heat waste even factor into the formula?