alanschu

Surely you could find a different mirror that isn't as slow.

Err, I posted the wrong link. Which would probably confuse people because my previous quote was from a different link. Try this We do? I did not know that we could measure the empty spaces between particles, as I thought temperature was a measurement of the kinetic energy of particles. http://www.answers.com/topic/temperature I don't understand how you could measure the energy/heat/temperature of a void. Me too. And apparently I still screw up as I post the wrong links. EDIT: Going home now, so I'll be a while before next post.

That would make sense. I'm not sure why this was brought up though. The cloud part was a reference to the fact the idea that warmer temperatures would cause an increase in water vapour (and hence clouds), which would help to reflect sunlight. I suspect that if more clouds occurred, the amount of energy reflected would account for more than 30% (since most energy from the sun is in the visible spectrum, and given that clouds are white, they are reflecting in the entire visible spectrum). Though at the same time, water vapour is also a greenhouse gas so any bonus here would probably be nullified. Interesting points about the clouds being emitters as well. Any idea what spectrum they would emit at, and what the density the particles of a cloud is compared to CO2? They obviously don't emit very well in the visible spectrum (since poor absorbers are poor emitters, and clouds reflect visible light quite well). Though if the CO2 is still above the clouds, does this provide any real benefit? At the same time, energy from the cloud formation and whatnot will still be transferred via conduction to other air molecules, though IIRC conduction among gases isn't as common. Is this cause or effect though? A runaway greenhouse is supposed to result in extreme increases of CO2 into the atmosphere. If we're before and they are after, it would make sense that our atmosphere would be less dense. It isn't composed of nearly as much CO2. What would happen to our atmosphere if a runaway greenhouse did occur?

Yup yup. Well, I have the options selected, and can not see aliasing, while it still looks like HDR quality. So I'm assuming it's working.

I see your italicized name down there....hurry up

Agreed. I love HDR. Lost coast was beautiful

It seems as though, according to a quick look around through the internets and my old astronomy textbook, heat = energy. Temperature = kinetic energy, but temperature != total energy. That link I posted indicated that heat = kinetic energy + potenetial energy = total energy. Empty space wouldn't contribute to an average temperature rating, since there's nothing to hold the energy.

If the average temperature is 2.73 Kelvin though, and there's an immeasurably large number of stars that have fusion reactions in them that range in Billions of Kelvin, means that there's a whole lot of stuff out there that doesn't have much energy at all. And since they don't have enough heat/energy, the bulk of their EM radition will be with really long wavelength. An important thing to consider is that clouds would also prevent additional energy from the sun as well. White clouds are fantastic reflectors for visible light obviously. I actually did comment in post 104 that energy absorbed in the atmosphere would also be radiated into space as well. I guess the big thing is that currently some of it seems to get past (as we only have 75% effectiveness), which means of those photons, 100% of the energy is gonzo. Now, if none of it escapes, at the very least we should be able to conclude that not all of it is gone. I know has air temperature rises, the amount of water vapour that can be absorbed in the air increases. Is cloud formation a factor of absolute quantity of water vapour in the air, or is it also a factor of what percentage of the air has water vapour? How else does the planet liberate heat outside of EM radiation? I'm not so sure it really is that absurd either. It would help make sense of the runaway greenhouse on Venus, a planet which is significantly hotter than Mercury (so it's not just distance to the Sun). I agree. The discussion more evolved into discussing the plausibility of whether or not a runaway greenhouse could occur.

But if you have an ATI card, you can still do both :D I prefer HDR myself, and haven't noticed any incidents where things are so small that flickering becomes an issue (the only places where I really notice that is in a game like a flight sim).

Interesting: http://physics.indiana.edu/~brabson/p510/s...vesurfaces.html It's been a while since I took my astronomy and physics courses, so I've had to check on some things to make sure I'm not remembering something wrong or making other mistakes When I mentioned 2.73 Kelvin, that is a temperature rating. But an exceptionally cold one. I can't imagine something having too much potential energy that close to absolute zero, so I suspect a lot of the particles not relating to stars and whatnot do not have much energy (heat) at all. I was going to say heat is energy in my previous post, but I wasn't sure I was correct in that statement so I said heat is a type of energy (which ironically is wrong statement). I was equating heat with temperature (a common mistake). I still contend that something that has an average temperature of 2.73 doesn't have that much heat/energy. Temperature is related to kinetic energy (double the kinetic energy and you double the measurement on the Kelvin scale). I should have known better after thinking a bit about things like the Specific Heat Capacity and whatnot :"> Considering the temperature of the fusion reactions of stars is in the billions of Kelvin, and the fact that no matter how small of a sample we look at in space with Hubble for any type of time exposure, we see clusters of galaxies (which naturally are made up of a massive amount of stars, which have fusion reactions in them otherwise they wouldn't by warm enough to emit the visible light for us to see on the HST), leads me to believe that there's a whole heck of a lot of particles out there that don't have much energy in them at all. Though it does have to do with entropy and whatnot, which wasn't covered in too much detail in my physics and astronomy courses.

Heat is a type of energy. What other energy were you referring to? Mechanical Energy? Sound energy? And heat is directly correlated with the EM radioactive properties of matter. It is a minimal player, and according to most astronomers, an insignificant player. It does not, and will not, play a role in affecting the temperature of our planet. What? And, as I've stated before, the certain wavelengths are the wavelengths that the Earth radiates energy as a block body emitter. Yes. And it's reradiated in the low infrared, which is a frequency that CO2 affects. I know, at the low infrared. Which is what the Earth radiates most of its energy at. A few degrees warmer will not result in a significant change in the wavelength emission of the planet, so energy will still be radiated at the level that CO2 affects.

It's uncommon enough though that it's not usually an issue. As an aside, one thing I like about ATI was when my motherboard didn't have a powerful enough AGP slot (though I didn't realize it at the time), and I figured my problems were related to my video card. When I got my card back from ATI, they mentioned that their tests showed nothing wrong with the card I gave them, but to be on the safe side they shipped me a new one anyways. They also suggested other things too look at (such as the AGP slot) if the problem persists. I remember my Dad telling me about a story how when he worked with Digital in the late 70s, and he was servicing a computer at one of the local Oil Refineries. He was convinced of what the problem was an ordered the replacement part. When he replaced it, the problem persisted. So he was very confused. So he started testing other things and couldn't figure out what the other part was. On a hunch, he tried a third part, and it turns out through bad luck, he had two components that were both faulty and created the same error. Apparently it was quite expensive as it meant oil wasn't being refined, and the part itself wasn't particularly cheap :D

Well, current astronomy theory has the collective universe having an average temperature of 2.73 Kelvin. So it's not exactly toasty warm. Convection and Conduction are pretty much moot as a result. And what do you mean by radiation? We can already detect radiation coming in every direction (considering radiation is emitted along the Electromagnetic Spectrum). Outside of our sun, the closest blackbody emitter is Proxima Centauri, at the cool distance of about 4.2 light years away. Given the intensity of light is measure is signficantly influenced by the distance (I = X * 1/r^2), this means it's not affecting us too much. We receive more EM radiation from the Sun's energy reflecting off of Jupiter than we do from the nearest star. The energy emitted in the form of radiation is, according to the Stefan-Boltzman law, is emitted in the low infrared. Which happens to also be the range of EM radiation that is blocked and absorbed by CO2. I'm well aware of shifts in wavelength for light, since the energy that comes in is not part of the low infrared. And yes, energy is reflected back into space, but the peak of the EM spectrum that the Sun emits energy at is in the visible spectrum. Which is not reflected by our atmosphere (otherwise we wouldn't see it). Ultraviolet light is also not reflected by our atmosphere). This energy heats the Earth, which as a black body emitter, radiates its own energy at a certain length (it's also the only way energy can leave Earth, since convection and conduction require matter, and there's not much in space) As much as you were suggesting that 75% was close enough to the maximum that there won't be a significant increase. And I'm not saying that this is a concern now, and I never said that there was a wall now. But you were saying that even at 100% it was insignificant. At 100%, very little of the energy radiated from the planet can get past the atmosphere. It will either get absorbed, or reflected back. The problem with the absorbed stuff is not only does it reemit EM radiation (which might not be bad thing, as it radiates out into space...though it also radiates back down to Earth). However, the energy absorbed by CO2 can also warm things up through convection and conduction, transfer its energy in that way. The stuff that the planet emits and gets reflected back will get absorbed by something else, which will raise its energy level. This will increase conduction/convection temperature changes, as well as Black Body Emitter EM radiation changes. Since this raditation will, on the whole, be reabsorbed by the planet itself (some will be reflected as well, but since it can't escape the atmosphere and it's not going to bounce around forever, it will be absorbed by something), it will warm the planet, which will result in evaporating water, reducing CO2 sinks and increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. The concern is that if CO2 concentrations increase (since they're not at 100%), less and less energy will be able to escape. In order to balance itself, the planet will have to warm up (since the energy isn't escaping and will be reabsorbed...unless you think that trapping energy will somehow cool the planet) to a temperature where enough of its energy will be emitted above the low infrared (since hotter black body emitters have shorter wavelength radiation) in order to reach an equilibrium between the Sun's radiation and our planet's ability to regulate its temperature.

2 leet 4 me, Eldar is worried that his video card is causing him problems and forcing him to reboot his computer. That's why he's thinking it sucks.

Sounds like it's not an issue for you then.

Link You initially brought up the subject here. But hey, lets get on the case since I used the word "days." Rather than actually discussing the point. @Astro: Quoted for truth?

Nope :\ Sucks that you are having problems. You might be able to get an RMA exchange on it. Maybe your card is defective.

Sorry, I'll try to be more infalliable in the future. I love how rather ironic it was that suddenly the roles were immediately reversed mere days after you insisted on arguing about my use of the English language (perhaps your language barrier screwed with you there too) rather than the actual point. Of course, when you don't have one, not much else to do, right Hades Jr?

It depends. Some can run better under higher temperatures than others.

**** you FTW... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You had no problems reiterating over and over how my statement wasn't clear enough, and how you figured I was talking about something different than I actually was. Even after I acknowledged I could have been clearer, rather than discussing the topic, you continued to focus the argument on the words I used, rather than the argument itself. If you can't handle the criticism, you sure a **** shouldn't make it.

I made a list of people that would be out to get me. Unless Hades or Battlewookiee know where I live, I can't imagine who it would be, outside of the people below us. Most people don't know where I live. And certainly not anyone that I know I would have pissed off.

Agreed. I think the "threat" of piracy is just an urban legend made to scare greedy people <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pretty much is. As stated there are far more people buying things legit than illegal. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It doesn't mean that there aren't significant financial losses for those that are illegally acquiring the software. There's also far more people that use games that have copy protection that never have an issue with it than people that have a problem, yet people against copy protection have no problems bringing up those issues.

Having seen both Armageddon and Deep Impact I have to say that I believe Armageddon took way, way longer to produce. The secenery was more advanced, the special effects much more so etc. Deep Impact may have ben more scientific, but it was kinda crappy and dull. At least Armageddon was entertaining (if you left your brain at the door). And iirc Deep Impact premiered before Armageddon, at least here. So if I was to make a guess, Deep Impact was the rush job not the other way around. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wonder if that would have more to do with the limitless pocketbook of Jerry Bruckheimer. The guy once signed a check for an insane amount of money to get an aircraft carrier to turn around so he could get a better shot of it in the sunset for Top Gun.

It's a social construct, often consisting of differences in physical traits. Some expanded it to also include philosophical and social differences, including things such as religion and whatnot.

Probably. IIRC it's a free Download anyways.