That would at least yield
the correct order of magnitude.)
You could use these numbers to calculate a 100 year constant - emissions - scenario global temperature rise (which does look perhaps a tad low at 1.95 deg C) but it is of
the correct order of magnitude & give the numbers I'm offering here as inputs, that is certainly all you can ask.
«We demonstrate that the simplest small mixing, related to the ratios of the scale at which electroweak physics operates, and a possible Grand Unified Scale, produces a possible contribution to the vacuum energy today of precisely
the correct order of magnitude to account for the observed dark energy,» Krauss explained.
I just don't know the answer at all, even to
correct order of magnitude.
Not exact matches
Until I did that, I had the
order of magnitude correct but I had the significant digits mixed up with those
of the Coulomb.
In their paper, «Higgs Seesaw Mechanism as a Source for Dark Energy,» Krauss and Dent explore how a possible small coupling between the Higgs particle, and possible new particles likely to be associated with what is conventionally called the Grand Unified Scale — a scale perhaps 16
orders of magnitude smaller than the size
of a proton, at which the three known non-gravitational forces in nature might converge into a single theory — could result in the existence
of another background field in nature in addition to the Higgs field, which would contribute an energy density to empty space
of precisely the
correct scale to correspond to the observed energy density.
Applying the Matthews equation to those emissions, the total warming calculated is on target, and certainly
correct in its
order of magnitude.
Update [2006-1-25 16:59:21 by Stuart Staniford]: Stig Oye pointed out that I had an arithmetic slip
of several
orders of magnitude in the «amusing aside», which I've belatedly
corrected.
If
correct, it is the same
order of magnitude as the hypothetical equilibrium response to a doubling
of CO2 concentration.