Jump to content

Strange

Moderators
  • Posts

    25528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    133

Everything posted by Strange

  1. The evidence is the absence of any significant scientific evidence against anthropogenic climate change.
  2. The whole “9 out of 10 cats” thing is a distraction, anyway. There is no serious, scientific “other side” of the argument and it is up to those who claim there is to provide evidence of that. A significant number of widely cited papers, for example.
  3. You are right, of course. My usual example is a fundamental particle like a muon, where nothing happens (internally) for about 2 microseconds. And then it decays. But we need some external clock to know that. But the lifetime of the muon isn’t caused by our clock. So it does seem as if, for the muon, nothing changes but time passes.
  4. Do you have references to professional climate scientists who deny the role of anthropogenic CO2? (This is not an attempt to shift the burden of proof; but it is pretty hard to prove a negative. On the other hand, it should be straightforward for you to provide evidence of this “other side” if it exists)
  5. So, presumably you are not regularly exposed to the UK’s tabloid “newspapers”
  6. Actually, interpreting that quotation absolutely pedantically, one might infer that it is a 49:51% split (not half and half). In other words, I can’t see how you can infer the absolutist position you seem to However, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (if not 100%) accept that the cure t climate change is almost entirely driven by anthropogenic CO2. There are, of course, significant differences of opinion over fine details: the exact effects of cloud cover or particulates, how much the oceans can buffer CO2 and/or heat, and so on. But I have not seen one instance of a well established climate scientist saying that it is entirely or largely due to non-human factors.
  7. Nothing changes.
  8. Strange

    isolated atom

    It might be more accurate to say that one definition of the radius of the atom is half the interatomic spacing.
  9. Time passes even with no change. There is no such frame of reference. And the photon may have changed. So wrong on two counts. That you are confusing the processes we use to measure the passage of time with the existence of time itself. (But don't worry, you are not the first. This comes up on the forum pretty regularly.)
  10. Strange

    isolated atom

    Doh. I am annoyed with myself now for not spotting their sloppy use of the word "atom".
  11. Strange

    isolated atom

    I'm not sure why you would conclude that. I have no idea how one could make that measurement (which doesn't mean it can't be done). Also, the radius is not a well defined value in the same way that the diameter of a golf ball is. There is no hard boundary to an atom. So the radius probably depends, to some extent, on how you choose to define the radius, how you measure it and what environment the atom is in. In other words, I wouldn't expect exactly the same radius for an isolated atom and one in a crystal. In fact, I would expect slightly different values for the radius depending on what compound the atom is in. It is an interesting question, so I hope someone else can shed more light on it!
  12. Strange

    isolated atom

    I don't think it is difficult to isolate a single atom. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2161094-a-single-atom-is-visible-to-the-naked-eye-in-this-stunning-photo/ There are many experiments done on single atoms. The wave function comes from theory and is confirmed by experiment (on particles of various types, including atoms, and the interactions of particles).
  13. Strange

    isolated atom

    I assume because it is easier. The atoms in a crystal, for example, don't move much when we fire X-rays at them to perform crystallography. A single isolated atom is unlikely to have much effect on X-rays (and the radiation hitting it could knock it out of place) and so would be a hard thing to measure. (That is a bit of a guess.)
  14. Strange

    isolated atom

    Searching for the phrase "isolate an atom to measure its radius" from the OP brings up results (including several text books) saying things like "Since we can not isolate an individual atom and measure its diameter the way we can measure the diameter of a golf ball." For example: https://books.google.it/books?id=HfVKD4o8UToC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=isolate+an+atom+to+measure+its+radius&source=bl&ots=pbWiNjYnKW&sig=ACfU3U3SSEU_NFxeSnYwlY3nGWOGdVOSKQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibkOuE54LnAhWGLMAKHR40AhEQ6AEwEnoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=isolate an atom to measure its radius&f=false It is certainly possible to isolate a single atom so I guess the problem is with measuring the diameter of an isolated atom. I have no idea how one could attempt to do that. That is not very helpful: It is not clear which of the approximately 20 million results you think might be most relevant (especially as they may be ordered differently for each user) The rules say you should not post links without comment/explanation. I can't see how a field ion microscope is relevant to the question of "isolating a single atom" Could you expand on this for us? I don't know. I (as someone who has studied a little physics and chemistry) am only familiar with this as a way of measuring atomic radius. What other methods are used? You have a habit of answering questions from people who want to learn with your own (often cryptic) questions. As you have a lot of knowledge and experience, why not provide a more helpful answer? Are there any ways of measuring the size of a single, trapped atom? Are they more difficult and/or less reliable than measuring atomic spacing? What other methods are there? How do they compare (both in ease of use and the results they give)?
  15. I suspect that there are multiple causes in play. Inadequate management of forests (due to both policy and funding issues) plus higher temperatures and drier weather resulting from climate change. Many reporters are careful to point out that a particular hurricane/fire/drought/whatever cannot be attributed to climate change but that climate change means that these events are more likely and more extreme. Unfortunately, many are not so careful. On the other hand, the audience is not entirely made up of people who want thoughtful analysis. It may be better to try and shock people into action, even at the risk of alienating some. (Or maybe not. I really don't know.)
  16. Strange

    isolated atom

    ! Moderator Note Moved to Physics
  17. ! Moderator Note The rules of the Speculations forum require you to provide support for your claims. Saying things like “I think” is not enough Unless you can produce a mathematical model of 4D spacetime or some definite evidence (which would appear to require a mathematical model) then this thread will be closed.
  18. There are only “two sides” in the political discussion. There is only one side as far as the science is concerned. But the mechanism of causation is known. And has been known since before the correlation was identified.
  19. ! Moderator Note An off-topic discussion of impeachment has been split off to here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/121003-impeachment-split-from-is-this-war-with-iran/
  20. I have never read the original work by Arrhenius (or Tyndall). But that may well be a relevant paper. I'm not sure there are two sides. Unless you mean climate scientists vs non-scientists with a political agenda. Most of the longer term temperature measurements use proxies such as rates of plant growth, etc. Not ideal, but the best we can do for the very long term trends.
  21. You can find answers to most creationist claims on Talk Origins: http://www.talkorigins.org/
  22. The first experiments demonstrating the greenhouse effect were performed well over 100 years ago (Tyndall and Arrhenius). The physics is well understood and consists of more than looking at correlations. There have been no changes of this scale or speed in the past. We also, generally, have a very good idea what caused previous examples of climate chnage, and those are not significant factors now. What are your doubts based on? Just a lack of understanding of the processes used? Or do you have data that shows them to be incorrect? Surely, if anything, the fact that the temperature measurements were not made for the purposes of measuring climate change makes them better as a source of data: there is less chance that they have been affected by assumptions about climate change. It sounds as if your objections are based almost entirely on a lack of understanding of the relevant science. It is right to be sceptical about science. But not based on just ignoring what the science says and thinking "well that doesn't sound right".
  23. ! Moderator Note The rules require you to do more than post links. Can you summarise exactly what claims you are talking about.
  24. But, with the exception of burning plant matter, none of your processes match that description. There is, I think, far more potassium than sodium in wood ash (and even more calcium). So you would end up with a mixture of calcium carbonate, potassium carbonate and sodium carbonate (and smaller amounts of other salts, including the chlorides of all those elements). Calcium carbonate is relatively insoluble, so if you wash the ashes, you will end up with a solution of mainly potassium carbonate. Whether that mixture is suitable for your purposes or not, I cant say. I have no idea how you would separate the potassium and sodium carbonate. I guess they have pretty similar properties. For your other ideas, you would need to buy salt (or whatever other source materials you use). So you might as well just buy sodium carbonate. Is there any reason you want to do all this hard work to make something that can be purchased over the counter for a few pence?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.