Maybe, it also has symbolic value, and might demoralise the civilian populace, whose support is crucial to the continued state support.
It still seems a weak move as infrastructure should be a more effective target, but who knows how many layers of distractions and attacks of opportunity really happen in the field?
Heat is electromagnetic radiation - photons, sound is mechanical displacement - phonons.
They mostly propagate the same due to being waves, in most other respects they are very different.
Heat convection is an entirely separate process where heat radiation is aided by the movement of the surrounding medium. Where it would otherwise heat up it's environment, convection keeps the environment from heating up. Compare coffee in a thermos (very little convection) to a cup you're blowing on (significant convection); more air movement - more cooling.
Also, destructive interference does not at all work like that.
Maybe a more useful analogy could be that waves have like walking animations, where in part of the animation they go up, and in another part they go down. Destructive interference happens when a wave in its' "up" phase crosses a wave in it's "down", meaning the resulting movement looks like nothing. The waves don't however interact in any way, and will continue on their way and on their own animation cycles.
The shifting and heating parts are technically true but require very specific circumstances, enough so that I'm more prone to believe it's another misunderstanding of the physics behind this. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope.
Showing the supporting evidence for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.
You're right to be sceptical until more data is presented, but saying no claim of progress is ever true is quite obviously a gross misrepresentation of our current reality. You are doing this on digital devices interconnected with millions of users ar staggering speed and latency. Every part of which are scientific claims.
IIRC, a tree absorbs up to 3 tons/year, and takes a bunch of years to get to that stage.
The trees also don't sequester underground, and will need surface area staying as forest for the rest of time.
As many have echoed: an ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure. Most bang for our buck would be to change our lifestyle and regulations. But as that's not feasible we're at the geo engineering and artificial sequestration stage.
But lol, that is such an obviously biased report with vague eyebrow waving suggestions that immigrants are to blame for everything.
None of the charts or trends they present are consistent in their effect, haven't controlled for anything (the major point is lowered GDP per capita while immigration spiked five years ago, but the Brexit drop started well before then, and the exodus of specialist EU-migrants isn't even mentioned), and don't actually say anything except look at this red line next to a thing getting worse.
CPS is why you should view every "Think tank" as a lobbyist organisation, and their materials as sales flyers...
No link to the report, unclear if the report takes into account years since migration (it takes time to learn language, develop networks, and climb ladders), some indication that the trouble is that migrants end up in low paying jobs (which of course would decrease GDP), and no comment on the fairly obvious question on what the integration policy says about time frames.
Also, it puts all of the post-Brexit decline at the door of the immigrants, which seems ridiculous.
This reads like a hit piece from conservatives in preparation for election season.
UwUpeans, so great, and so horrid at the same time.
You sir/madam/gentlebeing, are a most delightfully twisted individual.