Gravity at the surface - proportional with M/R^2. Mass - proportional with R^3 => Keep density constant and gravity at the surface is proportional with R.
All true, but my calculation was based on its mass being 2.4 times that of the Earth, not its radius. Surface gravity will be proportional to the cube root of its mass.
If it had a density equal to that of Earth's, it'd have a surface gravity only 1/3 higher than Earth's, by my calculations
Something is wrong with you calculation.
Gravity at the surface - proportional with M/R^2. Mass - proportional with R^3 => Keep density constant and gravity at the surface is proportional with R.
It says that this planet's radius is approximately 2.4 the radius of the Earth, but it doesn't say anything about its mass or density. How much you'd weigh depends on the mass of the planet in addition to its size.
Earth size and not rocky means it's going to be largely composed of frozen gas.
Frozen gas and liquid water? The very first phrase of TFA:
NASA's Kepler mission has confirmed its first planet in the "habitable zone," the region where liquid water could exist on a planet’s surface
You can however find the remaining part on the canyoucrackit website if you are clever...
additionally, if you are smart, you'll probably choose to find yourself a better job/salary in the industry instead of picking a govt position during time of austerity.
As I don't think I have something new to learn from you, I reckon we are better for our time to live with our own understanding of the world.
Thanks for yours so far, I won't abuse it any more.
I disagree. Any time you feel like it, you can read my previous posts and learn. Unfortunately, I can't do the same for your posts, but not every exchange of knowledge is equally beneficial to the involved parties.
Well we can settle on "it's not you, its me", then. Cheers.
If I understand your position, the assumption of Global Warming being anthropologically generated and acting on this assumption is also an act of risk taking (because you say: we don't know enough). How come you don't wish to encourage this risk?
Why take risks at all? Because you hope to gain more than you risk. You might not have noticed, but humanity built a remarkable global civilization, the likes of which have never been seen before on Earth.
Hmmm... and you see no value to be gained in acting on the assumption the remarkable global civilization (which may not be as global as you think, but that's beside the point) can do something to limit the GW, do you?
Thanks for proving my point about not understanding the world. Risk prevention is an attempt to avoid risk. Risk mitigation is an attempt to reduce a risk. One of those two is possible and other impossible. You can't eliminate risk, you can only reduce it. That's why risk mitigation is in the game and risk prevention is not.
As I don't think I have something new to learn from you, I reckon we are better for our time to live with our own understanding of the world. Thanks for yours so far, I won't abuse it any more.
Have you factored in the equation the 7 billions humans more or less hungry of energy and taking increased risks to tap into whatever seems to promise to deliver it on short terms? Politicians hanging with corporations and doing whatever they can to be re-elected?
Yes. The parts which are relevant are just perturbations of the system.
Yes, a system that may well behave like a gun to a perturbation on the trigger.
As I noted earlier, we have a system that apparently shows considerable methane concentration stability despite substantial changes in climate. That says to me that clathrate release during periods of warming is limited.
The past perturbations may not have been enough of a squeeze on the gun's trigger. Maybe the gun wasn't loaded enough (methane form faster by decomposition than higher hydrocarbons). Maybe.... I admit we don't know enough to say for sure, but I feel we know enough to warrant caution.
Merely saying, "but it's different this time" is not enough. You have to explain why those differences matter. Personally, I don't find your list of reasons to be relevant or even harmful.
My position: "Why hasn't the gun go off in the last 650 kY?" is a valid question (i.e. need investigations for answering) but not a rebuttal. Argument: the conditions have changes too much in the last 650kY - 7 billions of human beings is significant for the environment, I interpret the GW as being anthropologically generated... granted, this would require further a further demonstration, but the correlation between population growth and the acceleration of the GW rate is there
Your position: these changes are small perturbations which doesn't throw the system out of balance - we are still in the safe-zone around the meta-stable equilibrium point. I think you would also have the same burden in demonstrating your statement (that indeed they are small-enough perturbations).
Of course, we should want politicians to work to get elected. That makes them accountable to the voters.
Wake up, old boy, set your eye-glasses right and make distinction between what you want and the reality. You only have to look over the last 10 years - much accountability did they show.
Similarly, we want them to be friendly to the value-creators of society.
Well, we may have different set of values, that's the only explanation I can find for having you siding with the corporations and neglecting the role of people as value creators. I wonder why the politicians aren't that friendly to them lately?
Being "hungry of energy", just means that you are using that energy
Never said that I don't use it. I also take care of producing some of it. I'm almost at a zero balance on average in regards with my consumption.
And taking risks is behavior I wish to encourage.
If I understand your position, the assumption of Global Warming being anthropologically generated and acting on this assumption is also an act of risk taking (because you say: we don't know enough). How come you don't wish to encourage this risk?
And while I doubt anyone approves of short term thinking, I think environmentalists don't understand the world well enough to accuse the rest of the world of it.
Your right to opinion.
On my side: I'm seeing too much risk mitigation (and an incomplete one - much of it seems to end being an "externalized cost") and not enough action in risk prevention. Seems more of a gamble than rational risk management.
The point here is that Earth has gone through several very significant bouts of global warming in the past 650k years which more or less are similar to the situation that you are worried about. If there had been a history of methane spikes in the record, then your concerns would have merit. But scientists apparently do not see a record of that.
Unlike the financial performance of ephemeral investment brokerages, there really is a case for past performance indicating future performance.
Have you factored in the equation the 7 billions humans more or less hungry of energy and taking increased risks to tap into whatever seems to promise to deliver it on short terms? Politicians hanging with corporations and doing whatever they can to be re-elected?
You see... I willing to bet the last 650,000 years didn't see an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico either.
You might lose that bet. A LOT of oil spills into the gulf every year naturally, and it wouldn't be surprising if there were a rupture after an earthquake that released a lot of oil at the same time.......at least once in the last 650,000 years.
First, the below is not to say that I accept the lack of evidence as a rebuttal of the "clathrate gun hypothesis"
Then let's evaluate the chances of me loosing the bet.
First at all - just to know what you should google for, the terminology one uses spills vs seepage. In this regards, a quote from here:
The Deepwater Horizon site releases 3 to 12 times the oil per day compared to that released by natural seeps across the entire Gulf of Mexico. [...]
Natural seeps are not constantly active; the volume of oil released can vary considerably throughout the day and from day to day. As a result, only a small area around the source is actually exposed to "fresh" non-degraded oil, which is its most toxic state.[...]
Their research suggests that oil from natural seeps normally stays in the water for between ten hours to five days.[...]
A sudden, concentrated and massive pulse of oil from an event such as the Deepwater Horizon disaster presents a fundamentally more acute stress to marine and coastal systems
Hmmm... I might loose the bet, as there might have been major earthquakes... but somehow I'm more afraid of the "human greed" as pushing the trigger of the potential "clathrate gun". You see, the presence of old inactive rift faults, with major causes for earthquakes being the redistribution of sediments... doesn't seem as a big danger of things going astray... not as probable as the human greed.
Even were it to happen, it seems that the methane released by the Arctic permafrost would have an effect equivalent to doubling the levels of CO2. It is certainly serious, but it would not be an immediate extinction event, although there could certainly be localized loss of life through droughts and famine. Of course, I am just a layman and certainly not a climatologist, so my initial, and admittedly superficial interpretation could be way off.
If some floods isolated in Thailand causes worldwide harddisk shortages, can you extrapolate what it would be when such floods will become more pervasive? When the current generation is highly dependent on FaeceBook (by extension: communication; not that this communication helps them dealing with the problems) and self-reliant to a minimum?
The simple rebuttal is why hasn't the "clathrate gun" gone off some time in the past 650,000 years?
You know, my investment institution makes the point of "Past performance is not an indication of future performance" quite often, so I'm not quite willing to consider the question of "Why hasn't it gone off?" as a rebuttal... even though it does have a value as a question.
You see... I willing to bet the last 650,000 years didn't see an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico either. Neither did they see a so high concentration of power in the hands of pure economically (read: "greed") driven and short term focused (read: "Next bonuses round") entities.
Well, let's add a bit of info, see how different our situation is from the trilobites:
One exception, however, may be in clathrates associated with the Arctic ocean, where clathrates can exist in shallower water stabilized by lower temperatures rather than higher pressures; these may potentially be marginally stable much closer to the surface of the sea-bed, stabilized by a frozen 'lid' of permafrost preventing methane escape. [...]They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve,[16][17] equivalent in greenhouse effect to a doubling in the current level of CO2.
"If I'm more than three meters below the surface of the water because of my Rolex replica, guess what I'm doing. I'm attempting for the Darwin award !"
A Rolex replica doesn't perform like a Rolex under real conditions. For example Rolex has fantastic quality water seals and is safe to use under high pressure diving, or in the shower (which is rare for a watch). The fakes will not hold up to that kind of use.
And this is dangerous exactly how?
It's cheap (thus won't bankrupt you and let your kids starving) and, in the greatest majority of cases, the owner knows it is replica anyway - so it may be less tempted to take a deep dive with it (how many of the replica buyers are deep divers anyway?)
Slashdot Mirror
Sodium is cheap.
Cheaper than a saline solution?
Why do they need sodium? Why any other conductive liquid is not good enough?
I feel a bit foolish and I'm currently waiting for some water to boil to cook some noodles to flagellate myself with.
FSM doesn't suggest you'd do it, on the contrary (see the first and second I'd rather that you didn'ts)
Gravity at the surface - proportional with M/R^2. Mass - proportional with R^3 => Keep density constant and gravity at the surface is proportional with R.
All true, but my calculation was based on its mass being 2.4 times that of the Earth, not its radius. Surface gravity will be proportional to the cube root of its mass.
TFS
Kepler-22b is 2.4 times the radius of Earth ...
Did apple patent gestures? Because i'm giving apple one right now.
Check it against Apple's 2011 collection of gestures.
If it had a density equal to that of Earth's, it'd have a surface gravity only 1/3 higher than Earth's, by my calculations
Something is wrong with you calculation.
Gravity at the surface - proportional with M/R^2. Mass - proportional with R^3 => Keep density constant and gravity at the surface is proportional with R.
It says that this planet's radius is approximately 2.4 the radius of the Earth, but it doesn't say anything about its mass or density. How much you'd weigh depends on the mass of the planet in addition to its size.
Earth size and not rocky means it's going to be largely composed of frozen gas.
Frozen gas and liquid water? The very first phrase of TFA:
NASA's Kepler mission has confirmed its first planet in the "habitable zone," the region where liquid water could exist on a planet’s surface
Have you SEEN what's on TV?
Yeap, some content that, from time to time, interrupts the ads/commercials stream.
Welcome to the lucky country, hope you like Vegemite but... beware of dropbears ;)
There's a reason they're recruiting them. And it's perfectly innocent. Honestly. http://earth101.net/?wc
Actually, no, we don't kill them... we offer them a govt salary (25k)... they'll commit suicide.
You can however find the remaining part on the canyoucrackit website if you are clever...
additionally, if you are smart, you'll probably choose to find yourself a better job/salary in the industry instead of picking a govt position during time of austerity.
As I don't think I have something new to learn from you, I reckon we are better for our time to live with our own understanding of the world. Thanks for yours so far, I won't abuse it any more.
I disagree. Any time you feel like it, you can read my previous posts and learn. Unfortunately, I can't do the same for your posts, but not every exchange of knowledge is equally beneficial to the involved parties.
Well we can settle on "it's not you, its me", then. Cheers.
If I understand your position, the assumption of Global Warming being anthropologically generated and acting on this assumption is also an act of risk taking (because you say: we don't know enough). How come you don't wish to encourage this risk?
Why take risks at all? Because you hope to gain more than you risk. You might not have noticed, but humanity built a remarkable global civilization, the likes of which have never been seen before on Earth.
Hmmm... and you see no value to be gained in acting on the assumption the remarkable global civilization (which may not be as global as you think, but that's beside the point) can do something to limit the GW, do you?
Thanks for proving my point about not understanding the world. Risk prevention is an attempt to avoid risk. Risk mitigation is an attempt to reduce a risk. One of those two is possible and other impossible. You can't eliminate risk, you can only reduce it. That's why risk mitigation is in the game and risk prevention is not.
As I don't think I have something new to learn from you, I reckon we are better for our time to live with our own understanding of the world.
Thanks for yours so far, I won't abuse it any more.
Have you factored in the equation the 7 billions humans more or less hungry of energy and taking increased risks to tap into whatever seems to promise to deliver it on short terms? Politicians hanging with corporations and doing whatever they can to be re-elected?
Yes. The parts which are relevant are just perturbations of the system.
Yes, a system that may well behave like a gun to a perturbation on the trigger.
As I noted earlier, we have a system that apparently shows considerable methane concentration stability despite substantial changes in climate. That says to me that clathrate release during periods of warming is limited.
The past perturbations may not have been enough of a squeeze on the gun's trigger. Maybe the gun wasn't loaded enough (methane form faster by decomposition than higher hydrocarbons). Maybe.... I admit we don't know enough to say for sure, but I feel we know enough to warrant caution.
Merely saying, "but it's different this time" is not enough. You have to explain why those differences matter. Personally, I don't find your list of reasons to be relevant or even harmful.
My position: "Why hasn't the gun go off in the last 650 kY?" is a valid question (i.e. need investigations for answering) but not a rebuttal. Argument: the conditions have changes too much in the last 650kY - 7 billions of human beings is significant for the environment, I interpret the GW as being anthropologically generated... granted, this would require further a further demonstration, but the correlation between population growth and the acceleration of the GW rate is there
Your position: these changes are small perturbations which doesn't throw the system out of balance - we are still in the safe-zone around the meta-stable equilibrium point. I think you would also have the same burden in demonstrating your statement (that indeed they are small-enough perturbations).
Of course, we should want politicians to work to get elected. That makes them accountable to the voters.
Wake up, old boy, set your eye-glasses right and make distinction between what you want and the reality. You only have to look over the last 10 years - much accountability did they show.
Similarly, we want them to be friendly to the value-creators of society.
Well, we may have different set of values, that's the only explanation I can find for having you siding with the corporations and neglecting the role of people as value creators. I wonder why the politicians aren't that friendly to them lately?
Being "hungry of energy", just means that you are using that energy
Never said that I don't use it. I also take care of producing some of it. I'm almost at a zero balance on average in regards with my consumption.
And taking risks is behavior I wish to encourage.
If I understand your position, the assumption of Global Warming being anthropologically generated and acting on this assumption is also an act of risk taking (because you say: we don't know enough). How come you don't wish to encourage this risk?
And while I doubt anyone approves of short term thinking, I think environmentalists don't understand the world well enough to accuse the rest of the world of it.
Your right to opinion.
On my side: I'm seeing too much risk mitigation (and an incomplete one - much of it seems to end being an "externalized cost") and not enough action in risk prevention. Seems more of a gamble than rational risk management.
The point here is that Earth has gone through several very significant bouts of global warming in the past 650k years which more or less are similar to the situation that you are worried about. If there had been a history of methane spikes in the record, then your concerns would have merit. But scientists apparently do not see a record of that.
Unlike the financial performance of ephemeral investment brokerages, there really is a case for past performance indicating future performance.
Have you factored in the equation the 7 billions humans more or less hungry of energy and taking increased risks to tap into whatever seems to promise to deliver it on short terms? Politicians hanging with corporations and doing whatever they can to be re-elected?
First, the below is not to say that I accept the lack of evidence as a rebuttal of the "clathrate gun hypothesis"
However, we shouldn't make policy decisions based on something that has basically no evidence supporting it.
God, no! Be a sport and don't spoil the joy of level 44 in Herman Kahn's escalation ladder - after all, his hierarchy is equally untested by reality.
You see... I willing to bet the last 650,000 years didn't see an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico either.
You might lose that bet. A LOT of oil spills into the gulf every year naturally, and it wouldn't be surprising if there were a rupture after an earthquake that released a lot of oil at the same time.......at least once in the last 650,000 years.
First, the below is not to say that I accept the lack of evidence as a rebuttal of the "clathrate gun hypothesis"
Then let's evaluate the chances of me loosing the bet.
First at all - just to know what you should google for, the terminology one uses spills vs seepage. In this regards, a quote from here:
The Deepwater Horizon site releases 3 to 12 times the oil per day compared to that released by natural seeps across the entire Gulf of Mexico. [...]
Natural seeps are not constantly active; the volume of oil released can vary considerably throughout the day and from day to day. As a result, only a small area around the source is actually exposed to "fresh" non-degraded oil, which is its most toxic state.[...] Their research suggests that oil from natural seeps normally stays in the water for between ten hours to five days.[...]
A sudden, concentrated and massive pulse of oil from an event such as the Deepwater Horizon disaster presents a fundamentally more acute stress to marine and coastal systems
Seismicity in the Gulf of Mexico - just as an estimate for chances of major spills from earth-quakes.
Hmmm... I might loose the bet, as there might have been major earthquakes... but somehow I'm more afraid of the "human greed" as pushing the trigger of the potential "clathrate gun". You see, the presence of old inactive rift faults, with major causes for earthquakes being the redistribution of sediments... doesn't seem as a big danger of things going astray... not as probable as the human greed.
Even were it to happen, it seems that the methane released by the Arctic permafrost would have an effect equivalent to doubling the levels of CO2. It is certainly serious, but it would not be an immediate extinction event, although there could certainly be localized loss of life through droughts and famine. Of course, I am just a layman and certainly not a climatologist, so my initial, and admittedly superficial interpretation could be way off.
If some floods isolated in Thailand causes worldwide harddisk shortages, can you extrapolate what it would be when such floods will become more pervasive? When the current generation is highly dependent on FaeceBook (by extension: communication; not that this communication helps them dealing with the problems) and self-reliant to a minimum?
The simple rebuttal is why hasn't the "clathrate gun" gone off some time in the past 650,000 years?
You know, my investment institution makes the point of "Past performance is not an indication of future performance" quite often, so I'm not quite willing to consider the question of "Why hasn't it gone off?" as a rebuttal... even though it does have a value as a question.
You see... I willing to bet the last 650,000 years didn't see an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico either. Neither did they see a so high concentration of power in the hands of pure economically (read: "greed") driven and short term focused (read: "Next bonuses round") entities.
One exception, however, may be in clathrates associated with the Arctic ocean, where clathrates can exist in shallower water stabilized by lower temperatures rather than higher pressures; these may potentially be marginally stable much closer to the surface of the sea-bed, stabilized by a frozen 'lid' of permafrost preventing methane escape. [...]They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve,[16][17] equivalent in greenhouse effect to a doubling in the current level of CO2.
"If I'm more than three meters below the surface of the water because of my Rolex replica, guess what I'm doing. I'm attempting for the Darwin award !"
FTFY
If clathrate gun hypothesis is correct, the things may become interesting during our lifetime (which may be a shorter one).
The main advantage Rolex has over the other watches with a high quality movement is the quality of the sealings. [snip... and so on...]
While nice and good explanations were offered, I'll reiterate my question: and exactly how this is dangerous???
You mean you consider "danger" the risk of loosing $150 by taking your replica into your shower?
You like them, you say?
By chance: you don't try to imply 7 billions of humans and some horses is too much for the nature, do you?
A Rolex replica doesn't perform like a Rolex under real conditions. For example Rolex has fantastic quality water seals and is safe to use under high pressure diving, or in the shower (which is rare for a watch). The fakes will not hold up to that kind of use.
And this is dangerous exactly how?
It's cheap (thus won't bankrupt you and let your kids starving) and, in the greatest majority of cases, the owner knows it is replica anyway - so it may be less tempted to take a deep dive with it (how many of the replica buyers are deep divers anyway?)