[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Thanks, that's a fantastic explanation of a really interesting phenomenon!

I wanted to see a graph of it and found this plot of wind speed by hour of the day at different heights above the ground, and it very clearly shows exactly what you're describing, with the neutral point between the two trends at about 150 m. Not all wind turbines are tall enough to be above that, but I'm not sure how representative that particular data is, and the height of a wind turbine tower is often augmented by putting it on a hill.

I am of course incredibly biased as a professional geologist who teaches geology for a living, but I would highly recommend an intro geology class for anyone. Developing a basic understanding of the history and workings of the planet on which we all live has intrinsic value and you'll be surprised how relevant much of the insight gained from an intro class will be for random things in your life (e.g., thinking about where to buy a home, etc.).

>By the laws of physics nothing can approach 0 Kelvin

Yeah , you are using the wrong words .. You can never REACH 0k , but you can sure approach it.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

It might be noted that "species" is a pretty complicated construct with no clear answer as to where to draw the line between very similar species. In a certain sense, every species is always evolving. Yet the observable effects are hard to separate into discrete chunks without looking at these huge time scales.

[removed]

Fruit trees from colder climates -basically anything deciduous like apples or peaches- need a certain amount of cold to come out of dormancy and start flowering.

For many, the colder the winter, the more fruit the following year.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

You could maybe do it with gemstones that are based on the same mineral with different dopants.

Sounds expensive but possible? Lab grown gems, with resin suspension of the two gems, ground up, in a gradient from one to the other?

[removed]

[removed]

It is already a part of the calculation. Different types of stars have different goldilocks zones so if a star transitions between types the zone placement will be different afterwards.

If you're asking would life on a specific planet survive the transition, the answer is no, almost certainly not. Take our star and Earth as an example. It's the only one we have. In 5 billion years when our sun transitions to a red giant its diameter will massively increase but its mass will remain the same. So the planetary orbits relative to the center of the sun will remain the same. There's a good chance that the Earth will be consumed entirely. Wherever the new goldilocks zone is, you can be pretty certain that it's not inside the star.

This type of problem will be similar with most of these transitions. If the stars diameter and energy output change but the orbits of the planets surrounding it do not, it's highly unlikely that a planet would be inside it both before and after the transition. Probably impossible but I don't have the time or data to prove that.

I just spent 30 minutes going through the Wikipedia pages of gems and crystal structures. Incredibly fascinating stuff. This makes me want to take a class in geology next year, so thank you

[removed]

Yeah, because defining temperature is, in fact, not as straightforward as you might imagine.