0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: The Spoon on 12/02/2018 11:10:12Quote from: Thebox on 12/02/2018 10:16:13Quote from: Petrochemicals on 12/02/2018 09:07:29In my answer evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy taken from the earths surface bu way of evapourative cooling, thus reducing the emmisive radiation into space that would normaly remove that energy out of the atmospheric system.My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of airhttps://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.htmlDid you know that ev3n though himidity changes, this over a short period of hours is likely to be "dew" to the changee in temperature and not a change in content volume, wet land and rain not with standing.Also did you know wind and humidity content govern in evapouration far more than temperature ?A wach pot never boils because you are constantly allowing evapourat8v3 coolingI would not be too sure that burning fossil fuels would have anything to do with global warming. By burning fossil fuels we are only transforming the energy from one form to another, so the entropy of the system does not change. In other words, a piece of coal contains an amount of energy , transforming this energy does not change the amount of energy . If anything , burning fossil fuels releases some of the energy into space , the entropy within the earths field would be less. You could argue the carbon emissions absorb energy , but so does the piece of coal you started with. What is actually happening is a Universal warming, therefore all things within the observable Universe are warming. All things want to reach room temperature relative to the field density. What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump. I know beyond your ability, so stop being arrogant. Changing the form of the piece of coal does not change the mass of the total of the new formation of the coal. Splitting one big battery into several different batteries doesn't change the fact that the several small batteries are the one battery.
Quote from: Thebox on 12/02/2018 10:16:13Quote from: Petrochemicals on 12/02/2018 09:07:29In my answer evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy taken from the earths surface bu way of evapourative cooling, thus reducing the emmisive radiation into space that would normaly remove that energy out of the atmospheric system.My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of airhttps://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.htmlDid you know that ev3n though himidity changes, this over a short period of hours is likely to be "dew" to the changee in temperature and not a change in content volume, wet land and rain not with standing.Also did you know wind and humidity content govern in evapouration far more than temperature ?A wach pot never boils because you are constantly allowing evapourat8v3 coolingI would not be too sure that burning fossil fuels would have anything to do with global warming. By burning fossil fuels we are only transforming the energy from one form to another, so the entropy of the system does not change. In other words, a piece of coal contains an amount of energy , transforming this energy does not change the amount of energy . If anything , burning fossil fuels releases some of the energy into space , the entropy within the earths field would be less. You could argue the carbon emissions absorb energy , but so does the piece of coal you started with. What is actually happening is a Universal warming, therefore all things within the observable Universe are warming. All things want to reach room temperature relative to the field density. What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump.
Quote from: Petrochemicals on 12/02/2018 09:07:29In my answer evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy taken from the earths surface bu way of evapourative cooling, thus reducing the emmisive radiation into space that would normaly remove that energy out of the atmospheric system.My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of airhttps://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.htmlDid you know that ev3n though himidity changes, this over a short period of hours is likely to be "dew" to the changee in temperature and not a change in content volume, wet land and rain not with standing.Also did you know wind and humidity content govern in evapouration far more than temperature ?A wach pot never boils because you are constantly allowing evapourat8v3 coolingI would not be too sure that burning fossil fuels would have anything to do with global warming. By burning fossil fuels we are only transforming the energy from one form to another, so the entropy of the system does not change. In other words, a piece of coal contains an amount of energy , transforming this energy does not change the amount of energy . If anything , burning fossil fuels releases some of the energy into space , the entropy within the earths field would be less. You could argue the carbon emissions absorb energy , but so does the piece of coal you started with. What is actually happening is a Universal warming, therefore all things within the observable Universe are warming. All things want to reach room temperature relative to the field density.
In my answer evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy taken from the earths surface bu way of evapourative cooling, thus reducing the emmisive radiation into space that would normaly remove that energy out of the atmospheric system.My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of airhttps://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.htmlDid you know that ev3n though himidity changes, this over a short period of hours is likely to be "dew" to the changee in temperature and not a change in content volume, wet land and rain not with standing.Also did you know wind and humidity content govern in evapouration far more than temperature ?A wach pot never boils because you are constantly allowing evapourat8v3 cooling
Quote from: Thebox on 12/02/2018 12:16:21Quote from: The Spoon on 12/02/2018 11:10:12Quote from: Thebox on 12/02/2018 10:16:13Quote from: Petrochemicals on 12/02/2018 09:07:29In my answer evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy taken from the earths surface bu way of evapourative cooling, thus reducing the emmisive radiation into space that would normaly remove that energy out of the atmospheric system.My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of airhttps://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.htmlDid you know that ev3n though himidity changes, this over a short period of hours is likely to be "dew" to the changee in temperature and not a change in content volume, wet land and rain not with standing.Also did you know wind and humidity content govern in evapouration far more than temperature ?A wach pot never boils because you are constantly allowing evapourat8v3 coolingI would not be too sure that burning fossil fuels would have anything to do with global warming. By burning fossil fuels we are only transforming the energy from one form to another, so the entropy of the system does not change. In other words, a piece of coal contains an amount of energy , transforming this energy does not change the amount of energy . If anything , burning fossil fuels releases some of the energy into space , the entropy within the earths field would be less. You could argue the carbon emissions absorb energy , but so does the piece of coal you started with. What is actually happening is a Universal warming, therefore all things within the observable Universe are warming. All things want to reach room temperature relative to the field density. What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump. I know beyond your ability, so stop being arrogant. Changing the form of the piece of coal does not change the mass of the total of the new formation of the coal. Splitting one big battery into several different batteries doesn't change the fact that the several small batteries are the one battery. You really don't 'know beyond my ability' though do you little pigeon?You have revealed that weather and climate are another thing you know absolutely sod all about. Especially your last post about the mass of the earth increasing due to wildlife and this causing warming of the climate. It is as if you post anything, any nonsense you can think of so your posts are at the top of the pile...
Quote from: The Spoon on 12/02/2018 19:22:50Quote from: Thebox on 12/02/2018 12:16:21Quote from: The Spoon on 12/02/2018 11:10:12Quote from: Thebox on 12/02/2018 10:16:13Quote from: Petrochemicals on 12/02/2018 09:07:29In my answer evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy taken from the earths surface bu way of evapourative cooling, thus reducing the emmisive radiation into space that would normaly remove that energy out of the atmospheric system.My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of airhttps://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.htmlDid you know that ev3n though himidity changes, this over a short period of hours is likely to be "dew" to the changee in temperature and not a change in content volume, wet land and rain not with standing.Also did you know wind and humidity content govern in evapouration far more than temperature ?A wach pot never boils because you are constantly allowing evapourat8v3 coolingI would not be too sure that burning fossil fuels would have anything to do with global warming. By burning fossil fuels we are only transforming the energy from one form to another, so the entropy of the system does not change. In other words, a piece of coal contains an amount of energy , transforming this energy does not change the amount of energy . If anything , burning fossil fuels releases some of the energy into space , the entropy within the earths field would be less. You could argue the carbon emissions absorb energy , but so does the piece of coal you started with. What is actually happening is a Universal warming, therefore all things within the observable Universe are warming. All things want to reach room temperature relative to the field density. What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump. I know beyond your ability, so stop being arrogant. Changing the form of the piece of coal does not change the mass of the total of the new formation of the coal. Splitting one big battery into several different batteries doesn't change the fact that the several small batteries are the one battery. You really don't 'know beyond my ability' though do you little pigeon?You have revealed that weather and climate are another thing you know absolutely sod all about. Especially your last post about the mass of the earth increasing due to wildlife and this causing warming of the climate. It is as if you post anything, any nonsense you can think of so your posts are at the top of the pile... Your inability to think is not my failure.
Quote from: Thebox on 12/02/2018 20:10:49Quote from: The Spoon on 12/02/2018 19:22:50Quote from: Thebox on 12/02/2018 12:16:21Quote from: The Spoon on 12/02/2018 11:10:12Quote from: Thebox on 12/02/2018 10:16:13Quote from: Petrochemicals on 12/02/2018 09:07:29In my answer evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy taken from the earths surface bu way of evapourative cooling, thus reducing the emmisive radiation into space that would normaly remove that energy out of the atmospheric system.My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of airhttps://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.htmlDid you know that ev3n though himidity changes, this over a short period of hours is likely to be "dew" to the changee in temperature and not a change in content volume, wet land and rain not with standing.Also did you know wind and humidity content govern in evapouration far more than temperature ?A wach pot never boils because you are constantly allowing evapourat8v3 coolingI would not be too sure that burning fossil fuels would have anything to do with global warming. By burning fossil fuels we are only transforming the energy from one form to another, so the entropy of the system does not change. In other words, a piece of coal contains an amount of energy , transforming this energy does not change the amount of energy . If anything , burning fossil fuels releases some of the energy into space , the entropy within the earths field would be less. You could argue the carbon emissions absorb energy , but so does the piece of coal you started with. What is actually happening is a Universal warming, therefore all things within the observable Universe are warming. All things want to reach room temperature relative to the field density. What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump. I know beyond your ability, so stop being arrogant. Changing the form of the piece of coal does not change the mass of the total of the new formation of the coal. Splitting one big battery into several different batteries doesn't change the fact that the several small batteries are the one battery. You really don't 'know beyond my ability' though do you little pigeon?You have revealed that weather and climate are another thing you know absolutely sod all about. Especially your last post about the mass of the earth increasing due to wildlife and this causing warming of the climate. It is as if you post anything, any nonsense you can think of so your posts are at the top of the pile... Your inability to think is not my failure. Is that the best you can do pigeon?
The El Nino has historically been attributed to the periods of torrential rains and droughts in California and other places. This cycle of torrential rain follow by drought, causes plants to bloom in the spring, dry out in the summer, where we ned up with extra fuel for forest fires. This adds a bumper crop of CO2 to the atmosphere. The forest fires of the earth produce more CO2 than all the fossil fuels burnt each year. In 2017, forest fires in the US, alone, burnt an area the size of the state of Maryland. That is millions of trees and mega tons of brush becoming airborne. https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/947/is-there-any-correlation-between-la-niña-el-niño-and-seismic-activityI
"If by mans activity during the hours of daylight (point of the earth facing the sun) applies force to the surface of the earth, whilst by the hours of darkness he is static, would this activity have an effect (however small) to permanently alter the distance of the earth from the sun"No.The laws of momentum conservation make this impossible.Essentially, nothing on earth can change the earth's orbit, because it would have nothing to push against.
The detonation of a Tsar Bomb at the Mariana's trench, at the bottom of the pacific ocean would surely move the planet out of its current position...
The main cause of the observed global climate change is the El Nino. ... The El Nino has been causing climate change way before modern records and media hype.
I found this article from the New York Times from 1988.
I know beyond your ability, so stop being arrogant.
Changing the form of the piece of coal does not change the mass of the total of the new formation of the coal.
Splitting one big battery into several different batteries doesn't change the fact that the several small batteries are the one battery.
Quote from: puppypower on 12/02/2018 12:14:35The main cause of the observed global climate change is the El Nino. ... The El Nino has been causing climate change way before modern records and media hype. Make up your mind.If El Nino has been here for millennia (and, I agree, it has) then it can't be responsible for a thing that has changed suddenly since the industrial revolution.Quote from: puppypower on 12/02/2018 12:14:35I found this article from the New York Times from 1988.Which is roughly the time that the evidence started to show that the world was warming, rather than cooling- as had previously been suggested.They were grasping at anything as an explanation. It's interesting that the article doesn't actually include any data, so it's impossible to comment on it beyond stating the obvious- correlation is not causation.Quote from: Thebox on 12/02/2018 12:16:21I know beyond your ability, so stop being arrogant. Then why do you post nonsense, rather than your deep knowledge?Quote from: Thebox on 12/02/2018 12:16:21Changing the form of the piece of coal does not change the mass of the total of the new formation of the coal. Nobody said it did.If you really knew better than I do, you wouldn't have posted that.Quote from: Thebox on 12/02/2018 12:16:21 Splitting one big battery into several different batteries doesn't change the fact that the several small batteries are the one battery.Ditto.Why throw out these straw men?
El Nino events can be used to explain climate change, with El Nino having been doing this for centuries.
The El Nino appears to b caused by breeches in the earths crust.
Are you familiar with Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier findings?
Quote from: Thebox on 12/02/2018 20:32:37Are you familiar with Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier findings? I am aware of the work he did yes - we learn about it in chemistry pre-degree. What aspect of his work do you think supports your idea that an increase in wildlife is increasing the mass of the earth and there causing warming? Judging by your gas problem thread you dont really seem to understand his work....Interesting you provide his full name. Is this to impress me or distinguish him from you mate Wayne Lavoisier?
S + 1 = Δ S - 1 = Δ
Quote from: Thebox on 14/02/2018 12:07:00S + 1 = Δ S - 1 = Δ OKS + 1 = Δ S - 1 = Δ If they both equal delta then they must equal eachother so S+1 = S-1And I can subtract S from both sides of the equation to give+1 =-1Which is clearly wrong so your idea was wrong by reductio ad absurdum.Since you seem to think it's "easy as that", but don't realise that what you post is obviously wrong, it's clear that you don't belong in the world of science.
Quote from: The Spoon on 14/02/2018 18:25:25Quote from: Thebox on 12/02/2018 20:32:37Are you familiar with Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier findings? I am aware of the work he did yes - we learn about it in chemistry pre-degree. What aspect of his work do you think supports your idea that an increase in wildlife is increasing the mass of the earth and there causing warming? Judging by your gas problem thread you dont really seem to understand his work....Interesting you provide his full name. Is this to impress me or distinguish him from you mate Wayne Lavoisier?Nothing is ever lost or gained except when it grows.
Nothing is ever lost or gained except when it grows.
Huh? That is two separate equations , have you been drinking this evening or summit?