|
Waves
Feb 11, 2011 16:40:52 GMT 1
Post by carnyx on Feb 11, 2011 16:40:52 GMT 1
Back to waves.
Jonjel's Physicist friend has explored the refractive properties of water waves, which can act as lenses, and so will focus sunlight into quite small volumes of water. At these points the amount of heat will be significant and may well be lethal to small organisms. Could this be one reason why the surface layers of tropical seas are so relatively clear (of small organisms) during the day, when compared to seas in temperate zones. However, these surface waters of tropical seas do become full of life at night, but it is not so easy to check the relative transparency.
Does anybody know if this 'focus' factor has been checked out by marine biologists? And for the physicists among us, could this 'focus' effect cause cavitation even on a microscopic level? And if so, could it be detectable acoustically?
And, could these energy-levels cause chemical reactions among the various constituents of seawater, which include dissolved gases?
|
|
|
Waves
Feb 11, 2011 17:18:55 GMT 1
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 11, 2011 17:18:55 GMT 1
Actually, the paper I quoted showed that people has studied this years ago. Second, the 'lens' analogy just gives the general flavour of why waves should do something to the light -- with bumps and troughs being 'a bit like' convex and concave lenses. A bit like in the sense that rays tend to converge or diverge. But totally unlike a lens in that the focusing is lousy, and continually changing anyway because of the continuous motion of the surface. The reason tropical waters are so clear is because in terms of nutrients, they are pretty much empty. Hence no phytoplankton (no nutrients, despite the abundany sunlight), hence nothing that wants to chomp the plankton. Not because they might get sunburn from sitting underneath Carnyxs mythical sea-water lens.......... Reefs are then the oases of life in this tropical-sea desert. Whereas colder northern waters are murky precisely because there is so much phytoplankton. You can't start off a food-chain using photosynthesin without something to work with. Nevertheless, some marine biologists have noticed the fluctuating aspect of the near-surface irradiance in sunny tropical seas, and have some work on trying to understand how organisms might have adjusted to these natural variations: www.mpl.ucsd.edu/people/dstramski/15_Stram.pdfThe point being, if you really want to understand what phytoplankton there are about, you need to make allowance (possibly) for the fact that at shallow depths, you are going to get these transient flashes (like the bright bits at the bottom of a pool), whereas for deeper water, these refractive effects are not so important. But significant heating? I doubt it. Not focused enough for starters, and only brief flashes, anyway, not a continuous thing. In terms of heating, what is going to matter is the MEAN irradiance, not these brief flashes. I also note the paper above uses the word focusing -- but it isn't a sharp focus in the optical sense (hence a lousy lens). THe flash not the focus seems to be the thing
|
|
|
Waves
Feb 11, 2011 17:28:01 GMT 1
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 11, 2011 17:28:01 GMT 1
I noticed already Carnyxs strategy of totalling ignoring people who pointed out his own factual inaccuracies. And he does so yet again here..........
Odd that you seem to resort to it so often then, given that you and others have referred to me in the past as mad, autistic etc. Or doesn't it count as personal abuse when you do it? Obviously not.
I'd say 'pot, kettle, black' but that seemed to have an undesirable effect for one previous poster.................
I don't think anyone is fooled by this supposed complaint about insults, when what is actualy going on is that I have either caught people out in a glaring inaccuracy (Carnyx), or they can't actually answer the technical points I raised (NM and information theory). So instead we just have this childish -- ignore her, she's rude, maybe she'll go away. Except you forget the others watching, who are quite as capable of seeing what is really going on............
Sorry to lump Carnyx, abacus and NM together, but since they seem to be the little gang that thinks I'm mad, bad, or dangerous, they do all tend to blur into one mishappen blob after a while....................
|
|
|
Waves
Feb 11, 2011 17:58:51 GMT 1
Post by helen on Feb 11, 2011 17:58:51 GMT 1
They have a fine shaped blob speakertoanimals and don' t we love them for it? Actually, I don't and do wonder why folk are so unpleasant. Where's RSmith, at least we know where we stand with him. Wish the mods would get it together though.
|
|
|
Waves
Feb 11, 2011 18:00:20 GMT 1
Post by carnyx on Feb 11, 2011 18:00:20 GMT 1
STA, you have been called out, and you don't like it! So quit the waffle, and respond properly. But, you do realise that your actual responses on matters of physics tend inevitably to be negative, and you really must do something about it .
|
|
|
Waves
Feb 11, 2011 18:08:28 GMT 1
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 11, 2011 18:08:28 GMT 1
They have a fine shaped blob speakertoanimals and don' t we love them for it? Actually, I don't and do wonder why folk are so unpleasant. Where's RSmith, at least we know where we stand with him. Wish the mods would get it together though. Well darling Helen, you evidently haven't read the link I gave earlier Here it is again Just a short sample from a few days Your friend STA is the one that invariably insults those that question her radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=hobnobbing&thread=364&post=7123
|
|
|
Waves
Feb 11, 2011 18:13:55 GMT 1
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 11, 2011 18:13:55 GMT 1
They have a fine shaped blob speakertoanimals and don' t we love them for it? Actually, I don't and do wonder why folk are so unpleasant. Where's RSmith, at least we know where we stand with him. Wish the mods would get it together though. Well darling Helen, you evidently haven't read the link I gave earlier Here it is again Just a short sample from a few days Your friend STA is the one that invariably insults those that question her radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=hobnobbing&thread=364&post=7123I wouldn't waste my time naymissus. There are none so blind as those who do not want to see! Fact is, people like STA and Helen and one or two others like the lack of moderation here because it allows them plenty of latitude for the ill manners they seem to revel in displaying.
|
|
|
Waves
Feb 11, 2011 18:31:53 GMT 1
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 11, 2011 18:31:53 GMT 1
You are right Abacus It seems as if intellectual dishonesty runs through wimmin 'scientists'. That may well be the reason that with one or two exceptions, they have totally failed in the scientific world and have becom ethings like schoolteachers instead
|
|
|
Waves
Feb 11, 2011 20:27:48 GMT 1
Post by helen on Feb 11, 2011 20:27:48 GMT 1
Intellectual dishonesty Naymissus? So who discovered Uranus? No. Not William Herschal but his sister Caroline but because she was women she couldn't be acknowledged. Who is the father of modern statistical analysis? Florence Nightingale, never referenced because she's a woman, Ada Lovelace? Look her up. Don't play the gender card here man when it comes to intellectual power. You will have half the world at your throat!
|
|
|
Waves
Feb 12, 2011 21:08:38 GMT 1
Post by carnyx on Feb 12, 2011 21:08:38 GMT 1
By the way, a remark by STA relating to helium and the physiology of breathing, jogged me into this line of thinking;
An increase in atmospheric CO2 ought to increase the rate of respiration of mammals, and could result in an increase in their metabolic rate.
If a study could subsantiate this hypothesis, then Journalists could be encouraged to produce in spinning articles that would say that CO2 has a SLIMMING effect .. and so is GOOD for us .... a new wonder-drug!
Then we could watch the distaff side resile from their AGW 'worrying' ... which is the REAL factor fuelling these crazy tergiversations of the politicians, rather than any actual scientific considerations.
|
|
|
Waves
Feb 13, 2011 9:00:28 GMT 1
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 13, 2011 9:00:28 GMT 1
Intellectual dishonesty Naymissus? So who discovered Uranus? No. Not William Herschal but his sister Caroline but because she was women she couldn't be acknowledged. Who is the father of modern statistical analysis? Florence Nightingale, never referenced because she's a woman, Ada Lovelace? Look her up. Don't play the gender card here man when it comes to intellectual power. You will have half the world at your throat! I said nothing of intellectual power. Indeed there is no evidence of which I am aware that women are any less powerful intellectually than men. (I am fully aware that we should not grasp at misleading induction by extrapolating from the contrary examples that may be readily adducible from this board) However it is really no good attempting to challenge the assertion that women have been less usccessful in science than men. Citing counter-example simply emphasises the enormous gulf What I did say was that intellectual dishonesty seems to run through women scientists. I simply put that foeward as a scientific hypothesis open to investigation by any disinterested parties. This hypothesis is based upon the observation that you, as a woman scientist, refuse to acknowledge evidence that challenges your preconceptions, and another (purported) woman scientist on this board manages to hold (and argue) contradictory positions at the same time. I must admist to the possibility that the latter case may be due more to stupidity than intellectual dishonesty, but that should come out in the wash (in a manner of speaking, I use that expression so that women readers will have a familiar concept, making them feel more included - I am nothing if not inclusive) as we investigate the phenomenon that I have hpothesised.
|
|
|
Waves
Feb 13, 2011 10:25:48 GMT 1
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 13, 2011 10:25:48 GMT 1
Intellectual dishonesty Naymissus? So who discovered Uranus? Discovered it meself thanks. Stood naked with me back to the mirror and looked over me shoulder! Herschel! Is he the foreign bu--er that offers boys Herschey bars to see Uranus?
|
|
|
Waves
Feb 13, 2011 13:08:43 GMT 1
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 13, 2011 13:08:43 GMT 1
karma for nay - again!
The board has room for a few male chauvinists! God, he makes me laugh and I need a good laugh!
Is Mrs Nay still keeping your socks drawer in order, nay? I bet she has a lot in common with Mrs STA, somehow. Long live the difference!
|
|
|
Waves
Feb 13, 2011 13:20:54 GMT 1
Post by louise on Feb 13, 2011 13:20:54 GMT 1
Fact is, people like STA and Helen and one or two others like the lack of moderation here. From my prespective, there doesn't appear to be a lack of moderation.
|
|
|
Waves
Feb 13, 2011 14:42:04 GMT 1
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 13, 2011 14:42:04 GMT 1
Fact is, people like STA and Helen and one or two others like the lack of moderation here. From my prespective, there doesn't appear to be a lack of moderation. A rather cryptic remark I think.
|
|