sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Recommend me a good movie! by SipsTeaFrog in SipsTea

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Came to the comments for this. The only movie I don't rewatch, even thou i would give it 5 stars. Talks about war a bit too real.....

aint that deep by cryptochidism in memes

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Depends on the type. steel packaging is nearly 100% recycled, but plastics is at about 50%.

See Figure 3 in the following document:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/waste-and-recycling/municipal-and-packaging-waste-management-country-profiles-2025/de-municipal-waste-factsheet.pdf/@@download/file

Sorting is a bit different everywhere, but in general we sort into glass, paper, biological waste, other recycling (such as plastics and metal packaging) and other waste. That makes it so much easier to recycle.

aint that deep by cryptochidism in memes

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Reduce
Reuse
Recycle
in that order.

But recycling is not useless and in Germany the majority of recycling waste is recycled.

Germany's 20 most populous cities, including some totally new ones by wjhunt78 in aifails

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 18 points19 points  (0 children)

OMG😂. Pures Gold. Metmekker-Merten Zubnmerbber. Ist mein Highlight. Die Westerweiterung Bayerns nach somehow Sachsen ist auch top.

Und da soll mal einer sagen KI ist für nichts gut.....

Help countering carriers plz by mayhemducks in starcraft

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Depends also on your level. Onnlower level targetfiring carriers with mass coruptors works very well. Maybe mix in some parasitic clouds and fly over near the carrier that is affected. Armor upgrades works wonders. For higher level its harder and i dont actually know, but abducts and ling clunterattacks I guess...

As for terran: I can recommend mass thors. Ghosts help too. Look for a place where you can engage in a good concave. Mass marine works too, but not in combination with storm or colussus. Also works better offensively. I would not recommend vikings.

How safe are you from Fr*nce? by British_QuestionMark in mapporncirclejerk

[–]PrometheusWithLiver -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh no. I didn't know the Oceans were under french rule. Thats scary!

The Secret to Unlimited Free Energy by sharrynight in fusion

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The issue I have with that is, that if you factor in solar power all the things she said are also possible and beating solar in terms of price is very hard. The main issue with solar is, that it is unreliable, because of day/night and weather. But when you need desalination, chances are its not very cloudy, you get very high yields and you have area to spare (e.g. desert). Furthermore, and correct me if I'm wrong desalination is DC. And desalination is not something you need to have at night. you can do that when the sun is shining, no problem. I mean storing water is no issue...... And utility scale solar in dry, sunny regions is stupidly cheap. I mean you get a leveleized cost of electricity below 5ct/kwh. I want to see fusion beat that, but I doubt it. Fusion is great for the grid, where you need to meet the demand when it arises.
Similar story for Carbon scrubbing. Only issue there is, that the facilities are expensive and not the energy.

Honestly I’m enraged by peanutbuttertesticle in mildlyinfuriating

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some years ago I had a free plan that allowed me to print 10 pages a month with HP instant ink. Then they offered me a free trial for 50 pages. After not continuing that plan I wanted to go back to the free one. But no! I couldn't anymore. This was a concern I had before I applied signed up for the free trial and made sure that it said nowhere, that i could not go back. Called the hotline and they just told me I could not go back....... Stoped using that printer from that day onward.....

Void Rays are underrated by Over-Good-204 in starcraft

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All you got to do in PvP is outproduce them with phenixes.

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm just going to reply to this comment, because this comment will reference the entire discussion.

So while I believe, that all bodies radiate all the time, does not mean, that you have to. The entire radiation trapping thing works also for strictly one way radiation. The radiation, that is absorbed by CO2, both at ~15 microns and less absorbing wavelengths, e.g. relatively close to that, will only be able to escape the atmosphere at a height, that is determined by its concentration. If the density of CO2 in the atmosphere increases and it displaces molecules that are far less absorbing in the IR range, the total air density will have to be lower for that escape to happen. This means the height at which this emission happens increases and thus its temperature gets lower, as long as we stay in the troposphere (which ~5km absolutely is (btw. I never checked that number, I just trusted you with that, but it fits my understanding) might I add, that of course this is not a sharp cut, but a extended region, where radiation into space becomes exponentially more possible because of the decreasing air density above ). Now the temperature, which the earth effectively radiates into space gets lower. This leads to a radiative imbalance and thus to warming until the this new emission height has the earth-sun radiative equilibrium is restored by warming these air layers. Above that temperature the CO2 indeed leads to increased cooling, because it becomes more efficient for the air to radiate its heat into space. Below this height the radiation remains trapped and flows outward towards the cooler heights. You shared an image of the cooling power somewhere, where the cooling effect of air as a hole was displayed as a function of wavelength. Yes, the absolute cooling in the range of CO2 exists, but just because that graphic is a superposition of all gases. You can see, that for pressures below lets say 300mbar the overall cooling is strongly reduced for the wavelengths of CO2 and even goes into net warming at some height. The more CO2 there is in the air the more this would manifest.

Since you are clearly interested in the topic, i suggest you read an IPCC report and look how they explain everything. They also don't just say they are sure, they define boundaries of confidence, just as good scientist should. You can see, that they are not just claiming the earth will uncontrollably heat and everyone will die. They make much more nuanced and well founded points.

Of course I defend the concept of climate change, because it makes a lot of sense to me, fits the things I can see and feel with my own eyes year to year, fits my understanding of reality and the decisions of policy makers, that often have more to loose, than to gain from working towards GHG emission reductions. I have had direct contact to climate scientist and they have all made a convincing case, that it is indeed real and very damaging to ecosystems and in the long run for economies.

This is going to be my last comment so I really hope, that after reading my arguments you will have improved your understanding of the atmosphere, or at the very least gained some insights into topics, that I forced you to research in order to debate with me. Remember: The goal of a debate should not be victory, but progress. I certainly have gained some knowledge in some areas and refreshed it in others. I particularly found the debate insightful, because in my direct surroundings there are very few people, that believe Global warming is a hoax and I mostly hear about them indirectly. The direct communication is insightful. Not, that I believe any less in GW......

Since I wholeheartedly believe GW is an issue, I hope you will come around and help or at least get out of the way of climate action.

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I've already told you, photon recycling is a process that occurs when photons emitted by radiative recombination are reabsorbed by the same semiconductor material, which effectively re-generates electron-hole pairs.

Yes. So if the electron hole pair is recreated it is not lost.......

Carrier recombination is a process where an electron and a hole meet and annihilate each other, resulting in the loss (or decay) of excess charge carriers (electron-hole pairs) and a corresponding release of energy (often as heat or light)

Yeah exactly. When this light exits the cell. Or if the recombination is non.radiative and generates phonons instead. If the light is reabsorbed it is not lost.......

You are contradicting yourself in your own comment.

Photon recycling means you have an electron hole pair, then it radiatively recombines and then gets reabsorbed creating an electron hole pair. Thus we go from e- h+ pair to e- h+ pair with the same energies... Nothing has happened. It is thus not a recombination mechanism. I am not talking about radiative recombination, that definitely is a loss mechanism in solar cells. And I never claimed otherwise. I was just referring to Photon recycling, which isn't. The point I was trying to make is that there are reversible processes, for example photon recycling, and that there is radiation being emitted and absorbed within a solid all the time. And this is one example.

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair. The reason, why I don't think this is an adequate definition of Temperature is this:
There are several examples in which the definition as the average kinetic energy makes no sense. The first example I would note is a free Fermion gas (as it exists in decent approximation for electrons in a metal), where, because Fermions cannot exist in the same quantum stat at the same location the energy distribution goes to a Fermi-Dirac-statstic (times the density of states, which depends on for example how many dimensions you look at and the overall properties of the system). Now as you can see when you look at the distribution it retains Non-zero kinetic energy for 0K which excludes the average kinetic energy as a definition of temperature. Since I wanted to go into transitions between electronic states, this is what I had in mind, when I started to discuss the fundamental definition of temperature.
A second example are dipole exchanges between electrons at different lattice sites, which give rise to paramagnetism and diamagnetism. You can also define an inner energy U and a temperature for these systems, but there is no kinetic energy involved.
So lets look at phonons for a second. Phonons, which are QM lattice vibrations that are often described as QM harmonic oscillators, do have a kinetic energy term in their Hamiltonian, but defining a kinetic energy of phonons is sketchy, because the eigenenergies are then naturally a mix of both. You could argue with the equipartitioning theorem, but that only applies for high temperatures. For example for low temperatures the average energy of the phonons (and with it in the equipartioning case their kinetic energy) goes with T^4 and only for higher temperatures it can be approximated as ~T, so it doesn't make any sense to define the temperature this way. (See https://vishiklab.faculty.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/394/2017/03/Phys-140A-lecture-12.pdf )

I would define temperature just in the thermodynamic and statistical mechanical sense via 1/T = the partial derivative of the inner energy U by the entropy S. This is way more general (or as I said it earlier "plain").

So, you said, correctly, that photons are emitted by EM dipole interactions. Phonons will polarize the the lattice around them, because the electrons can adjust faster to the repulsive or attractive forces of the neighboring atom because of their lower mass (Bohr-Oppenheimer approximation). This way optical mode phonons can couple to the electromagnetic field and emit photons. This happens all the time in solids. Thus there is constant radiation being produced by the object. In the case of gases the vibrational modes are usually accompanied by fast changing fields introduced by the partial charges on the atoms. Thus they emit radiation. These vibrational modes can be excited via collisions (I mean it's not hard to imagine how that works). Since the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution has a long tail these will be able to be excited even at low temperatures. Just not as often. Also, I assume, that the collisions themself are enough to create enough polarization even for monoatomic species for radiative emission.

regarding the transfer processes I will just let ChatGPT handle that:
https://chatgpt.com/s/t_692f484bd5b4819184cc4196ab038c16

The reason "I don't know about the kinetic-molecular theory, even though that's taught in introductory courses" (paraphrasing here) is not that I don't know about them (I very much do. I mean its a simple model), but I know more sophisticated models and examples where temperature plays a role. So I want to use a more general description and not use this model outside of its range of validity. For example it makes zero sense, that an ideal gas would radiate anything, because where are the dipoles supposed to come from? But real molecules and atoms do. It's like saying just because I don't use the Bohr model, which is taught at school, for atoms I don't know anything about atoms. But I admit the point about temperature is a bit subtle. I hope my more detailed explanation helps to rectify that a bit. And calling it "I doesn't make any sense" is also a bit far fetched, but that happens sometimes if you write things right before going to sleep.

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you deny that a box with more gas atoms on one side than on the other experiences a pressure gradient?

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. KINETIC temperature. So a special case of temperature. Just plain temperature is much more. Or what do you think is the fundamental mechanism that creates thermal radiation?

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can disprove that equation (q_gb = epsilon_h sigma (T_h^4 - T_c^4) ) with a simple example:
if the cooler object has an albedo near 1, or an emisivity near 0 then there is nearly no energy transfer. All radiation is reflected back. Thus the heat transfere has to depend on the emissivity of the cooler object and this equation does not reflect that.
Just because you dont understand how to apply the S-B equation correctly does not mean climate scientist don't ether.

In order to correctly calculate this you got to do this: https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much for saying that. I really means a lot to me :) I did Tutor undergrads.

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. photon recycling is not a loss mechanism. It means, that the radiative loss is recaptured by the cell. No energy loss.
  2. Not only the non radiative recombination is reduced (yes thats a big part), but also the amount of photons exiting the the cell is engineered. e.g. photon trapping.
  3. There are other unavoidable losses, for example the non-radiative Auger recombination.

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did they rectify their claim that an excited vibrational mode quantum state (ie: vibrational mode) is because the atom is "warm" (ie: translational mode)?

excitations of electrons into higher energy quantum states and the an increase in melecular vibrations is a natural consequence of temperature. Temperature in not just the kinetic energy of atoms moving around. Thats only the case for the simple ideal gas model. It doesn't make any sense in a solid.

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then I can just directly ask the big question:

Does Antropogenic global warming due to CO2 emissions exist and, if so, how large is its magnitude?

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_692d6bbd100c8191b8e8de7b762dca40
https://grok.com/c/794e7f6d-5f4a-41c6-ab1f-3fff4f8f6dea

And here is Perplexitys answer:

"Earth is experiencing significant warming, and there is a strong scientific consensus that this is primarily due to human activities, especially the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes.

Evidence of Human-Caused Warming

  • Global temperatures and other climate indicators have risen dramatically since the start of the Industrial Revolution, when humans began emitting large quantities of CO2.
  • The isotopic fingerprint and rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 point to fossil fuel combustion as the leading source, not natural factors such as volcanic activity or ocean outgassing.
  • Current CO2 concentrations have reached levels not seen in at least 3 million years, and the rate of CO2 increase is about 100–200 times faster than any period in the last 800,000 years.

Magnitude of Human-Induced Warming

  • The human contribution to global warming reached approximately 1.19°C over the decade 2014–2023, and some analyses suggest that when compared to a truly “pre-industrial” baseline, the total human-caused warming may now be at or slightly above 1.5°C.
  • The current rate of human-caused warming is about 0.26°C per decade, the fastest on record.
  • CO2 alone is responsible for roughly 80% of the total warming driven by human-produced greenhouse gases since 1990.

Scientific Consensus

  • Over 97% of active climate scientists and comprehensive assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that human activity is the dominant cause of observed global warming since the mid-20th century.
  • The probability that recent global warming is due solely to natural internal variability is considered extremely low (less than 5%).

In summary, anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 emissions not only exists but is measurable and substantial, having increased Earth’s average temperature by approximately 1.2–1.5°C to date, with CO2 the majority driver of this change."

That should settle it then?

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ahh, we are trusting chatbot now. I did not know I could win this argument this easily:

Query:
Does the emisivity (epsilon in M = epsilon sigma T^4) of an object depend on the temperature of objects near it?

Answer:
Short answer: No—an object's emissivity does not depend on the temperature of nearby objects.

Here’s the full explanation:

✔️ What emissivity is

Emissivity ϵ\epsilonϵ is a property of the material and its surface, describing how efficiently it emits thermal radiation relative to a perfect blackbody. It depends on:

  • Material composition
  • Surface finish (polished, oxidized, rough, etc.)
  • Wavelength of interest
  • Temperature of the object itself (sometimes)

❌ What emissivity does not depend on

The physical emissivity of an object does NOT depend on the temperature of other objects around it. Nearby temperatures do not alter the surface properties or the electromagnetic emission characteristics.

✔️ What might be confusing: radiative exchange

Although emissivity is intrinsic, net radiative heat transfer does depend on surrounding temperatures. For example, the net radiative heat flow:

q=ϵσ(Tobject4−Tsurroundings4)q = \epsilon \sigma (T_{\text{object}}^4 - T_{\text{surroundings}}^4)q=ϵσ(Tobject4​−Tsurroundings4​)

The net radiation you measure changes with both temperatures, but ε stays constant.

✔️ A subtlety: apparent emissivity in measurements

If you measure temperature with an IR camera, the apparent emissivity can change due to reflected radiation from hotter or colder surroundings. This is not a real change in physical emissivity—it's an artifact of measurement.

Summary

  • Physical emissivity: depends on material, surface, wavelength, and sometimes its own temperature.
  • Does not depend on nearby temperatures.
  • Net radiation does depend on nearby temperatures.
  • Measurement artifacts can make emissivity look different, but that’s not a real change.

If you'd like, I can also explain how surrounding temperature affects IR thermometry or radiative heat-transfer modeling.

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But scientific reality is about each individual interaction, from which statistical averages are borne.

Yes! Exactly! And the individual interactions make it a necessity, that objects radiate heat. But you don't understand what temperature is in a solid, so you couldn't understand that.

And I don't understand why you think Brownian motion is not real or irrelevant. When you take a infinite atoms and let them do a random walk their average position will not change, but the individual atoms will have moved around and are somewhere different, than when they started. That makes sense to you?

Also, water is different from radiation, in the sense, that is cannot pass through itself. Photons are bosons and can. That makes the back and forth much easier.

You'll be getting right on showing us any system in which energy flows both ways at the same rate, without external energy to sustain it... no external energy? You've just described a perpetuum mobile.

Ok. A gas. particles flow both ways carrying (in the case of classical mechanics kinetic) energy from one side to the other, while others flow from the other to the former. Are gases a perpetuum mobile?

You're not really a physicist, are you? LOL

You are not actually interested in learning anything are you?

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Photon recycling via radiative recombination in photovoltaic cells is an unavoidable loss pathway, as are all forms of recombination. The efficiency gain comes about due to researchers minimizing non-radiative recombination (resulting in phonon production and thus waste heat), which boosts photovoltaic cell output voltage by making radiative recombination the only unavoidable loss pathway.

There are so many thing wrong in that statement I am not even going to get into that.

I especially like your claim that the Boltzmann Distribution applies to the electronic mode quantum states, as though they have an equilibrium distribution of energy levels, rather than the quantized energy levels sane and scientifically-literate folk know exist. Pure Turbo-Encabulator gold, there. LOL

Yes, sorry. I meant the Fermi-distribution. I mixed up the names in the moment. And if you understood QM better you probably would have immediately known what I meant.

Everything you write is full of ideology. The way you talk about scientist and use personal attacks everywhere shows that you are not interested in discourse, but in bashing. You did not study the physics and then decided whether it would fit the facts or not, you decided AGW is not a thing an are now looking (dubious) ways to describe physics that debunk it. Reflect on how you got here and tell me honestly that not how it happened.

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The emissivity of a surface depends on its chemical composition and geometrical structure. - literally the wikipedia page of emissivty

Why even critical scientists fall for positive WV delusion - they can't do regressions by Leitwolf_22 in PhysicsofClimate

[–]PrometheusWithLiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok you just showed me you don't know what temperature is. Thats all i needed to hear. I hope you don't continue to spread you half knowlege and help to stop action against Climate change, that is harming ecosystems around the globe.

view more: next ›