Post by: Petrochemicals on 07/09/2017 19:42:52
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 (and all the earths varying orbit cycles) and thus altering the climate.
If a plane takes off from the surface of the earth when it is facing the sun, the earth is forced away from the sun. Said plane thrusts against the earth via the airduring the hours of daylight. When the plane lands the earth and plane once more move closer together, but the plane is now in darkness and once more the earth is moved further away from the sun and is left permanently more distant from the star. Similar activities powered by mass energy usage include vehicles moving across the surface.The flaw in this theory is that the earth should be getting colder, but i wonder whether i have the physics wrong and this activity is acting as a gravitational source that moves the earth closer.
Also if the result of burning hydrocarbons is water and co2 is the sea level rise down to increased liquid in the oceans ? and i do not mean via the exon valdez.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2017 13:42:18
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.
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/09/2017 13:51:06
Post by: Petrochemicals on 09/09/2017 14:58:18
Gravity tractor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_tractor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance#Deflection_efforts
And also if were burning all this fossil fuel and producing all this extra water surely we're producing lots of heat 2ith it? Is this like having a parrafin heater in a greenhouse ?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/09/2017 15:18:54
Essentially, nothing on earth can change the earth's orbit, because it would have nothing to push against.
Nothing on Earth as you say but not nothing of the Earth such as Quantum field fluctuations. Affect the field magnitude affect the radius r as you know.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/09/2017 15:21:59
I'll answer the original question since the rest is nonsense. The planet goes through cycles. We cannot avoid that. A cycle can be modified by other inputs. These include volcanic eruptions for instance. Our role is becoming more apparent as time goes on. We are turning a gradual cycle that is easy to adapt to into something a lot less manageable. I personally don't think we know what it is we are doing exactly to cause this. However it is likely to not be just output of CO2.ΔS over time is causing this Jeffrey, you know that!
Post by: paulggriffiths on 23/09/2017 20:42:36
Millions of years of trees burnt in 100 years. Cough cough...
5 gallon a car times billion cars times 52 weeks times many years. 13,000,000,000,000 gallons seems unlucky to me.
Now, 4 * PI * 6,000 wide earth * 20 miles high atmosphere is something like 1.5 million miles square.
13,000,000,000,000 / 1.5 million = 8,666,666.666666667 gallons of petrol per square mile of atmosphere.
Which is 3.85 gallons per square meter.
This can't be true, I'm going over the maths...
The maths seems correct for an extreme 50 years. So guess a gallon per square meter is an acceptable answer? Where the carbon monoxide has gone or turned into may or may not save us.
Edit: found the mistake. I divided mile by 1,500 m / 1,500 m. Sould be / 1,500 / 1,500 / 1,500.
Don't quote me yet...
0.0025679012345679 gallons or 0.0116582716049383 litres per square meter of atmosphere.
I did believe the atmosphere was 2 miles high. It's 20 - 40 depending what you consider atmosphere.
BUT 0.2% (about 1/3 mile? ) could be a layer of danger or something else could be of danger?
If you check my beautiful picture http://strong-grip.com there is layering and there getting thinner and could possibly be due for a change?
Go over this if you can. Ill be back tomorrow.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/09/2017 21:05:17
Man made?The fuels burnt etc, were already a part of the Universes mass, only ourselves are a change to the Universe.
Millions of years of trees burnt in 100 years. Cough cough...
5 gallon a car times billion cars times 52 weeks times many years. 13,000,000,000,000 gallons seems unlucky to me.
Now, 4 * PI * 6,000 wide earth * 20 miles high atmosphere is something like 1.5 million miles square.
13,000,000,000,000 / 1.5 million = 8,666,666.666666667 gallons of petrol per square mile of atmosphere.
Which is 3.85 gallons per square meter.
This can't be true, I'm going over the maths...
Post by: Petrochemicals on 23/09/2017 22:23:41
Coal extracted 326x 10to (9) or 326000000000 tonnes, 21gigajoules of energy per tonne =
Oil extracted 1110x 10 to (9) or 1110000000000 barrells 1 barrel=139 kg = 154x10(9) tonnes 42 giga joules a tonne =
Gas extracted 3285 x 10 to (12) or 3285000000000000cubic feet = 3.63kg cubic foot 11.9x 10 (12) tonnes of gas
I am not sure about the gas calculation,seems a littlehigh i think doubling the oil would be more prudent and still an overestimate. So 300 tonnes of oil and gas.
Coal is mostly carbon, so it produces no water, unlike the hydrocarbon oil and gas. But if we say 300 x10 (9) tonnes of oil and gas have been burned that produce twice as many water molecules as carbon molecules. Averaging 3300 kg co 2 per tonne of hydrocarbons , atomic weight 12+8+8 =28, h20 must be (1+1+8=10)x2 2000 kg of water per tonne of fuel ? So 300x10 (9)x 2000 means a net increace of 6000000000 cubic metres of water.
And 19x10 (21) joules of energy or 19 zetta jouless of energy released between oil coal and gas.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/09/2017 22:29:04
According to this http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/FossilFuelsDepletion.htmBut none of that matters, the coal etc was already a part of the systems mass and energy ratio. By burning a piece of coal it changes nothing in the system, nothing is ever lost it is transformed. There is only us and things that grow that add too the total entropy .
Coal extracted 326x 10to (9) or 326000000000 tonnes, 21gigajoules of energy per tonne =
Oil extracted 1110x 10 to (9) or 1110000000000 barrells 1 barrel=139 kg = 154x10(9) tonnes 42 giga joules a tonne =
Gas extracted 3285 x 10 to (12) or 3285000000000000cubic feet = 3.63kg cubic foot 11.9x 10 (12) tonnes of gas
I am not sure about the gas calculation,seems a littlehigh i think doubling the oil would be more prudent and still an overestimate. So 300 tonnes of oil and gas.
Coal is mostly carbon, so it produces no water, unlike the hydrocarbon oil and gas. But if we say 300 x10 (9) tonnes of oil and gas have been burned that produce twice as many water molecules as carbon molecules. Averaging 3300 kg co 2 per tonne of hydrocarbons , atomic weight 12+8+8 =28, h20 must be (1+1+8=10)x2 2000 kg of water per tonne of fuel ? So 300x10 (9)x 2000 means a net increace of 6000000000 cubic metres of water.
And 19x10 (21) joules of energy or 19 zetta jouless of energy released between oil coal and gas.
=ΔPost by: Petrochemicals on 23/09/2017 22:49:01
There is the problem of the energy capture from the sun, without plants light would have impacted and eithe warmed the planet or would have been reflected in a process as you allude to, light in planet moves one way, light out, planet moves the other. With fossil fuels it is no longer just heat to be lost in a even way, now the energy can de directed as kinetic energy, as in spacecraft engines, an action in one direction has an equal and opposite.
But none of that matters, the coal etc was already a part of the systems mass and energy ratio. By burning a piece of coal it changes nothing in the system, nothing is ever lost it is transformed. There is only us and things that grow that add too the total entropy .=Δ
what do we mean 'Gray' mr griffith ?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 23/09/2017 22:53:54
There is the problem of the energy capture from the sun, without plants light would have impacted and eithe warmed the planet or would have been reflected in a process as you allude to, light in planet moves one way, light out, planet moves the other. With fossil fuels it is no longer just heat to be lost in a even way, now the energy can de directed as kinetic energy, as in spacecraft engines, an action in one direction has an equal and opposite.
But none of that matters, the coal etc was already a part of the systems mass and energy ratio. By burning a piece of coal it changes nothing in the system, nothing is ever lost it is transformed. There is only us and things that grow that add too the total entropy .
what do we mean 'Gray' mr griffith ?
Oyy, don't forget the S, it means son of a king.
Gray as in dirty cloud.
Anyway ppl, add some comedy to your posts. I've seen less squares in a fence.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/09/2017 23:10:14
Post by: paulggriffiths on 23/09/2017 23:15:53
Post by: paulggriffiths on 23/09/2017 23:22:44
I proved my theory, grass to soil to rock.
A long way down, so could oil/coal/gas come from a pre-plant era? Or something between plants?
Or when a carbon atom breaks? Does it release oil?
13 billion years old? If I gave them LEGO they would speculate if red can scientifically fasten to yellow.
The furthest dinosaur bone is 2000 meteres down.
1mm a year is only 2 million years ago.
If life to the core then 45 to 450 billion years old planet if 10 to 100 times compression? Could be 1000-10000+ if no longer recognizable atoms?
Stonehenge may only be 500 years old. Judging by my last visit to the area, I believe it was some kind of prison, if out of view you were fine.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 23/09/2017 23:53:33
The only permanent contribution of any animal is to raise the temperature of the planet by burning carbon compounds previously made by plants. That's life.And when the plant where growing did they lower the lemperature, increace the mass, affect the balance gravitationally of the planet by capturing extra energy when there side of the earth faced rhe sun and storing it, and not allowing it to escape as heat and light. Over the years that must have built up.
Post by: paulggriffiths on 24/09/2017 00:04:22
The only permanent contribution of any animal is to raise the temperature of the planet by burning carbon compounds previously made by plants. That's life.And when the plant where growing did they lower the lemperature, increace the mass, affect the balance gravitationally of the planet by capturing extra energy when there side of the earth faced rhe sun and storing it, and not allowing it to escape as heat and light. Over the years that must have built up.
Exactly my point... It's impossible for it to cool down. Constant heat from the sun would never increase the temperature.
Post by: guest4091 on 26/09/2017 17:01:23
but i wonder whether i have the physics wrongNewton's 'equal and opposite reaction' is a generalization of momentum when applied to solid bodies. It isn't true for composite bodies. When a small mass, rocket, is accelerated from a large mass, Earth, due to an application of energy between them, there is a vector mV for the rocket, but no apparent vector Mv for the Earth. The exhaust impinges on the earth surface and the air, and is dispersed as heat. The reason is; energy is more quickly absorbed by objects with less inertial resistance. A common occurrence in flooding, where loose soil is washed away, leaving boulders in place, and wind erosion of loose granules from rock surfaces. Analyzing the composite body, the total momenta from each particle will total to the Mv vector, but there is no directed motion that alters the orbit. The earth currently varies in distance from the sun in its elliptical path.
If there was a sufficient release of energy to cause the earth to split into two significant pcs, the energy would act on both and alter their paths, just as 2 electrons separate due to em forces.
What's missing concerning global warming are the ice core samples from the north and south poles. Their analysis indicates a warming trend 1000 yrs ago, but at a much slower rate. This eliminates human activity as the sole cause of climate change.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 06/10/2017 02:31:30
If gravitational energy action happens repetedly over decades, always in the equal and opposite, taking off about noon, landing about midnight, no matter how many hours duration the flight was, would this alter the distance of the earth from the sun ?. I know about gravitational centres, and the theory being that the earth is moved away from the sun at noon, orbits the gravitational centre and returns to the same position at midnight as the craft lands, as you say the earth split in two around a gravittional centre, and then glued back to gether in the same place, however as with a plane one body in consuming energy staying aloft and undergoing acceleration around the gravitational centre, during a specific orentation to a third body (the sun), would the gravitational centre alter in relation to the sun if the aircraft rocket behaveid in a certain way? Cars accelerate across the surface by day far more than by night ? And rest mass is greater than inertial mass, isnt it ?
Theorise this,
A huge rocket engine is strapped to earth and pokes through into clear space. Into this all the fossil fuel energy remaining on earth gained from photosynthesis capture from the sun is fed into the huge rocket engine, what happens ? It cannot be a sealed system.
I do agree though, small ammounts of energy upon a far larger gravitational system for a short time have no effect, perhaps something to do with escape velocities or other thresholds ? The emmitter probably does not achieve break away energy levels.
Post by: guest4091 on 07/10/2017 18:45:37
Quote
But the equal and oposite reaction is the dissipation of the energy as heat. But as that mass moves away the earth does move , if you have a rocket hovering SPECIFICALLY OVER ONE PLACE WITH NO ACCELERATION it does not force opposite no matter how long it hovers and how much energy it uses, due to gravitation providing the reason for the fuel use initially as in an equal system the gravitatinal attraction is balanced by the opposite thrust and generates heat,/only in a relative sense. If you are viewing from the moon, the rocket descends to the earth. The rocket does not have enough mass to gravitationally move the earth. The mass of the moon can move the oceans relative to the earth surface. Consider, what is the rocket mass relative to the moon?
but when the rocket decends the earth does infact move toward it,
Quote
But it still stands, spacecraft in space gain there impetus through the equal and opposite without anything to thrust upon, otherwise we would never got above the atmosphere or had directional capability in space, and taking off from the moon would be very diffivult with its thin atmosphere./The combustion of exhaust gases thrust the engine which being rigidly connected thrusts the rocket. The moon has no atmosphere.
Quote
If gravitational energy action happens repetedly over decades, always in the equal and opposite, taking off about noon, landing about midnight, no matter how many hours duration the flight was, would this alter the distance of the earth from the sun ?. I know about gravitational centres, and the theory being that the earth is moved away from the sun at noon, orbits the gravitational centre and returns to the same position at midnight as the craft lands, as you say the earth split in two around a gravittional centre, and then glued back to gether in the same place, however as with a plane one body in consuming energy staying aloft and undergoing acceleration around the gravitational centre, during a specific orentation to a third body (the sun), would the gravitational centre alter in relation to the sun if the aircraft rocket behaveid in a certain way? Cars accelerate across the surface by day far more than by night ? And rest mass is greater than inertial mass, isnt it ?/Consider planes, cars, etc. as bits of earth mass. Relative to the earth all these bits in motion would be equivalent to a dust cloud close to the surface. Highly unlikely it would have any significant effect on the daily or yearly cycle,
Post by: Petrochemicals on 07/10/2017 19:36:31
I do not believe that small mass decending objects do not move the earth, if they didnt, you could pile alot of small objects on one side of the earth overtime, move them all at once and somehow move the earth. The only reason friction occours is the atmosphere and then the surface inpact, so by the logic of small objects, you would be able to either pile drive the earth one way upon repeated raising and high speed inpacts, or conversley lots of little rocket thrusters thrust the earth in the oposite direction. I think it must be a sealed system.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 14/10/2017 02:15:39
6x10 (11) ÷350x10 (12) = 1.7mm rise in sea levels
5x 10to (21) joules of energy in the air, man has released 19x10 to (21) extra in 100 years (ever increacing), so that is 4 times as much energy released that is in the atmosphere! Obviously that is not all as heat energy nor in one year, but as was bourne out by the stock market crash and the decline in fossil fuel usage, and the subsequent dip in global temperatures, the release of less energy must cool the environment.
Im not saying that the exess heat in the oceans will s7bside instantaneously dissapear, but by warming the air (-273 to 20 = 5x 10to (19) plus global thermal output(1x10to (19) ) provides a nice insulating exess) the law of cooling states (and again i know it does not include convection) that objects will cool to be in equilibrium with there surroundings. This surely must be the thermal blanket effect. And bigger masses cool far less slowly.
Edit.
For posterity, and i want it named as such,
"It must be the snuggy wuggly duvet effect"
Post by: Petrochemicals on 24/10/2017 18:34:14
1) are the planes and vehicles going fast enough to inmpart enough energy to the earth to alter it, or would the objects need escape velocity/energy ?
2)would this attraction mean that the orbit of the earth became eliptical(more elliptical), ie like an asteroid in the meteor belt being knocked, and thus the effect balance out ofer a year ?
3) If daytime sun side activities that do have the effect of moving the earth, would they bqlance out as they occour throughout the orbit of the earth year
4) if concerning energy from the sun, immision only occours when the sun is facing the one side of the earth but emmision occourson all sides at all times in thermal radiation, what effect would this have on the position of the earth?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/11/2017 21:26:49
The fact that all of this energy is being released into the atmosphere though does seem to hold some merit in increacing the thermal mass of the solid earth. Even though the atmosphere is tiny in thermal mass terms compared to the earth, as shown in previous calculations a small increace in heat in it is due to the fossil fuels burned, (maybe 0.1dcentigrade per year ?) This has an effect on the radiation given off and does noticably alter the temperature of the earth.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime.html#c1
Earth radius 6371000m
5.5g cm 3 density
Average surface temp 288k
Air emessivity 0.5
Terestrial surface emesivity 0.6
Average air temp 289k
Leads me to suspect that we are creating an artificial thermal runaway effect that is in a vicious cycle as the surface tries to radiate exess heat away, is blocked by the atmospheres temperature and tries to absorbthe atmospheres higher energy content.
Could we be creat8ng an artificial armageddon where increaced surface temperaure and increaced air temperature, coupled with the greenhouse effect, lead to a thermal runaway effect, where a tipping point is reached and after there is no going back. Not just a few degrees , and a bit of sea level rise, but a catastophic crash that leads to probably a long lived ice age. I believe it has happened in the past ?
Post by: jeffreyH on 14/11/2017 12:41:55
I'll answer the original question since the rest is nonsense. The planet goes through cycles. We cannot avoid that. A cycle can be modified by other inputs. These include volcanic eruptions for instance. Our role is becoming more apparent as time goes on. We are turning a gradual cycle that is easy to adapt to into something a lot less manageable. I personally don't think we know what it is we are doing exactly to cause this. However it is likely to not be just output of CO2.ΔS over time is causing this Jeffrey, you know that!
Have a read of this. Look for exothermic versus endothermic reactions and the effect of entropy on both the exterior and interior environments.
http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem2/B1/1.html
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/12/2017 05:15:47
With the snow lying round i was reminded off the ammount of energy reflected by it.
If in tue years 2008 to 2012 the energy input into the atmosphere dropped 10% from previous years due to less energy used as fossil fuels, thus causing the heavy snowfalls in europe america china etc. If we stopped burning fossil fuels altogether could we bring on a new and worsened ice ag3 that would even affect southern europe and america to something resembleing the film 2012, but worse ?
If the climate is artificially heated, this leading to greater surface 3mmesivity by way of the landand ocean surface, whilst symultaniously the earth being heated by global warming a la the green house effect. if the heating of the air in the atmosphere is suddenly turned off 100%(either by chice or we have used all the fossil fuels) and emessivity slows to the "vastly" lowered air temperature of two or 3 degrees lower, there is one way for the earth to cool and that is evaporative cooling. This evaporation, coupled with cooler air temperatures could lead to truly massive snow falls. As snow is reflective the earth would not heat, the green house effect unl8kely enough to compensate.
With the cooled earth and massive snowfall we would surely enter an ice age, and if we have no fossil fuels left, we would be unable to mimmic the heating with solar panels/black sheeting on the ice to reverse this glaciation.
I beli3ve we need to ease out of fossil fuels slowly, before there are none left.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 15/12/2017 23:57:39
In the uk we remember the 1940 winter, the post war 46 47 winter the 62 winter, the 78 79 winter and the 2009 10 winter.
In the states the 1962 winter the 1979 and the 2011 12 winter are remembered by people as the memorable bad ones. The states historical records are also hard to pin downas there winter storms are very much the thing that is listed, these are sporadic. Also the storms are listed it seems by the ammount of people who where affected. For example the post was 1946 48 period was listed as bad storms in the sparsely populaded mid west but these rarely make the lists.
In energy terms i looked at the economic slowdown which usually signifys energy use drop off.
Post war there was a significant cessation in economic and energy use due to everyone having a rest after the end of the war.
Also the economic slowdown of the late 1970s led to the decreacing energy use and levelling off during the early 1980s also remembered for cold weather.
We all remember the latest most recent crash and subsequent ice events.
The anomally is the 1962 winter remembered by many as the worst. I tried and failed to find an economic slowdown of any magnitude, there was a slight on but it was small, and energy use did not decreace. The only energy outpot drop is the 1958 moritorium on nuclear testing in the atmosphere that came into effect around that time. During the decade prior alot of tests of thermo nukes where conduc5ed by russia and the states. The energy usage of the world iss s mooth
The point being that if a small drop in the global energy output brings such huge changes in the weather, if we build up the thermal content of the earth and atmosphere to a point where dropping off 5% a year every year has far more disasterous effects than even 2010 11 from a 10 % decline, and we get to a point where we would be unable to even sustain a 5% drop year on year, we could end up in an ice age mini or not, of mans own creation.
As a yardstick tambora caused a global cooling and darkening effect that leaf to famine, i am sure it would not take much for an ice event to decreace our population by alot.
We could however use nuclear weapons to slow it down, such as the tzar bomb example with very littke fall out, but even so this will still be alot of nukes. That is if we have enough filpssile material left.
And using wave solar and wind will only cool the planet more !
Post by: Petrochemicals on 19/12/2017 04:04:32
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles
I am not saying that solar cycles play no part in the weather, but more seems to be going on. The cold spells of earth do correlate with the sun spots( mid 80s 90s), but no significant iceiation takes place
(https://www.intechopen.com/source/html/18712/media/image1.png)
El ninio la nina does not correlate either
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Niño
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/01/2018 20:51:16
http://www.markvoganweather.com/2015/06/02/a-taste-of-winter-in-early-summer-but-at-least-its-not-1975/
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/02/2018 16:37:36
Now a giv3n space will hold only so much water vapor at a given range in line with the gas laws. Due to air being heated by fossil fuels more moisture is allowed to evapourate into the air, firstly by way of a hotter surfaces evaporative qualities, and secondly by the air having a higher water capacity. The natural cooling evapourative qualities of water increace the moisture content of air. When man made air warming subsides with economic down turns, less nuclear bombs, and more particulates f4om them in the atmosphere, this then leads to there being too much water content for the atmosphere to deal with in a precipitation/evapouration cycle of the air and the surface if the earth, thus leading to the depositiong of water as ice, due t9 the fact that the air no longer has enough energy to support the water vapor it is holding, taking the dew point below freezing. When this ice deposition happens repeatedly, firstly the ic3 cools the surface when it melts, and secondly reflects the radiation from the surface, slowing its cooling. This cooling leads to the build up of ice and the lack of radiation qbsobtion, thus leading to the well known glaciation cycle.
The vapor content in air is also a contributor to warming, it absorbs thermal radiation far more readily that the air itself. Whilst being significantly colder than spac3 its temerature difference between the surface is less dramatic. The ammount of moisture in the air plays a part by absorbing radiation from the sun and from the emmesivity and reflecti9n from the surface. This leads to the water vapor in the atmosphere emmit8ng more radiati9n to the surface than is reflected to it, in a fairly standard green house effect. When the moisture content drops more energy is discharged from the surface via emissitity into space cooling the earth from its temperature equilibrium and less is absorbed to be re admitted into earth, as in the reverse greenhouse,
If over 75 years we have built up a substantial thermal load in the surface and the atmosphere, when we begin to lower energy emmisions, theough what ever means, we will need to do it slowly unless we wis for the atmos0here and surface to suddenly. This does mean that however we power ourselves in future we will need to allow for substantial energy releases.
At the moment energy efficiency and energy saving is the mantra, from passive buildings to green energy that takes energy out of the system. I believe if we dropped fossil fuels 5% a year for ten years, the land would cool through evaporative cooling, and the seas would cool through evapourative cooling, but with not enough moisture content holding capacity in the air to sustain the current equilibrium, a sugnificant cooling and icing of the planet may occour, which when coupled with the current cycle of the earths eccentricity of orbit and tilt a glaciatian event may occour. This would lead to billions dead.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/02/2018 17:45:57
Work out how much energy has been used s fossil fuel since some datum-say 1900
Then calculate how much water you could evaporate with that energy.
Then compare that with how much water is in the atmosphere already.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/02/2018 20:50:26
Evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy released, more by the water vapor capacity of the air at which is altered a fair bit over a few degrees, its an exponential curve. Due to our heationg of the air near the ground this has to increace the water vapour content potential.
The hotter the air the more water can be carried. So when i say only small percent or fractions there of, a small capacity in vapour increace, leads to alot of water being evapourated from the surface (latent heat) . The water can take energy from the surface to evapourate to vapour in the atmosphere putting a little more(by way of whats there already) energy into the atmosphere, when it condenses again it has to loose this energy, in the higher atmosph3re. This probably causes a hotter upper atmosphere and radiation into space. Hotter upper atmospheres mean water rises further i believe.
Where is a meteorologist when you need one
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2018 08:31:12
Evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy released,Yes it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/02/2018 09:07:29
My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of air
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.html
Did 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
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2018 10:16:13
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.I 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.
My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of air
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.html
Did 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
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.
Post by: The Spoon on 12/02/2018 11:10:12
What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump.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.I 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.
My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of air
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.html
Did 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
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.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/02/2018 11:30:05
Post by: puppypower on 12/02/2018 12:14:35
Earth Scientists; see below, found that the most recent El Nino coincided, with a lot of seismic activity on the ocean floor of that region. If turns out, the extra localized heat of the El Nino water is most likely caused from heat leaking out the mantle of the earth, through breeches in the crust; plate tectonics. It never made sense that "global warming first" could come to a focus and form the El Nino. The El Nino has its own heat source.
Fishermen in the region of the El Nino, from modern times to way back when, always noticed that the warm waters of the El Nino, become dead; lifeless. It is very hard to fish. This observation has to do with the heat and chemicals leaking into the water from below the crust. Also, since warm water can hold less CO2, than cooler water, the warm El Nino water causes fixed ocean CO2 to be released, and added to the local water; The extra CO2 2 will also kill fish. The CO2 then goes into the atmosphere, which then enhances the greenhouse gases. The EL Nino impacts the natural CO2 cycle, the enhancement of which is currently is erroneously attributed all man; rookie mistake. The warm pool of El Nino water, also impacts global climate, since it alters all the thermal gradients of the Pacific ocean, including setting a unique gradient with the warm equator water.
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-activity (https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/947/is-there-any-correlation-between-la-niña-el-niño-and-seismic-activity)
I found this article from the New York Times from 1988. The article suggested the El Nino heating correlation years before the man made global bandwagon was full of beer and pretzels. If you add enough beer on the bandwagon, you get beer goggles such that even a ugly theory looks good. It is time to sober up.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/29/science/theory-ties-earthquakes-in-pacific-to-el-nino.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/29/science/theory-ties-earthquakes-in-pacific-to-el-nino.html)
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2018 12:16:21
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.What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump.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.I 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.
My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of air
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.html
Did 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
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2018 12:22:28
An increase in mass is an increase in total energy of the system, it gets ''warmer''.
Post by: The Spoon on 12/02/2018 19:22:50
You really don't 'know beyond my ability' though do you little pigeon?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.What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump.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.I 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.
My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of air
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.html
Did 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
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.
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...
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2018 20:10:49
Your inability to think is not my failure.You really don't 'know beyond my ability' though do you little pigeon?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.What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump.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.I 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.
My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of air
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.html
Did 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
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.
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...
Post by: The Spoon on 12/02/2018 20:17:33
Is that the best you can do pigeon?Your inability to think is not my failure.You really don't 'know beyond my ability' though do you little pigeon?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.What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump.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.I 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.
My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of air
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.html
Did 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
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.
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...
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2018 20:32:37
Your poor attempt at baiting is a failure. Stop thread wrecking and discuss the topic.Is that the best you can do pigeon?Your inability to think is not my failure.You really don't 'know beyond my ability' though do you little pigeon?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.What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump.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.I 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.
My evaporation is calculated bu the moisture holding content saturation of air
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moisture-holding-capacity-air-d_281.html
Did 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
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.
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...
Are you familiar with Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier findings?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/02/2018 22:18:34
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-activity (https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/947/is-there-any-correlation-between-la-niña-el-niño-and-seismic-activity)
I
Do you have any figures or dates for that ? The mechanism of burning green wood means also alot of water is evaporated, its why there are not just continual fires in woodland.
The dates of economic downturn and bad winters really do seem to match. I could never remember long lasting snow in my life, my mom only rmembers the late 70s early 80s ice events.
Spikes in forest fires would be good as it seems that it is more to do with when energy is withdrawn for a fiew years that this happens, not just energy input.
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 13/02/2018 22:10:15
"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"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...
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.
Needless to say, gigantic tsunamis would kill most of humans on the process witch given the facts is not entirely a bad thing...
Post by: Kryptid on 13/02/2018 22:32:10
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...
I'm guessing you watched that video from Ridddle too, huh? It's a load of bunk. Tsar Bomba could do nothing to significantly change Earth's orbit, regardless of how you partition the energy. Keep in mind that the asteroid that left the Chicxulub crater released about two million times more energy than Tsar Bomba yet even that didn't push Earth significantly.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 09:28:13
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.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.
I 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.
I know beyond your ability, so stop being arrogant.Then why do you post nonsense, rather than your deep knowledge?
Changing 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.
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?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 09:29:51
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...No
We are on a rock flying through space. We can only alter that path if we have something to push against and , since nothing arising from such a detonation would leave the earth, it can't push us.
That's pretty basic physics, formally referred to as the conservation of momentum.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 12:07:00
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.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.I 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.I know beyond your ability, so stop being arrogant.Then why do you post nonsense, rather than your deep knowledge?Changing 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.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?
S + 1 = Δ
S - 1 = Δ
Easy as that
Tick tock tick tock
+1-1+1-1+1-1.................................................................................
Post by: puppypower on 14/02/2018 15:19:34
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.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.I 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.I know beyond your ability, so stop being arrogant.Then why do you post nonsense, rather than your deep knowledge?Changing 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.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?
The global warming marketing sales pitch, changed from global warming to climate change over the past few years. I was not addressing the old sales pitch, I was addressing just the new and improved climate change sales pitch. This sales pitch has a problem, since El Nino events can be used to explain climate change, with El Nino having been doing this for centuries. It was recorded by the Inca indians. It is also interesting that advance cultures of the past often seem to find extreme geological places to settle.
In terms of climate change, global warming will add heat to the earth, that is mixed by the atmosphere. The El Nino is different in that it is caused by a local warming pocket of the equatorial oceans. The impact of the El Nino is add a higher temperature water, to the earth's oceans, to create a local ocean affect that can impact normal weather patterns.
The El Nino appears to b caused by breeches in the earths crust. The extra warm water released below the ocean causes entrapped CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, This effect is very significant, since heat and the CO2 comes from the bottom of the ocean all the way to the surface, and not just from the surface, per manmade global warming. This is more CO2 per unit of heat.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 16:17:55
El Nino events can be used to explain climate change, with El Nino having been doing this for centuries.No
If El nino has been doing the same thing for centuries ten it can't be responsible for a change .
You seem to be muddling weather with climate.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 16:24:19
The El Nino appears to b caused by breeches in the earths crust.It appears that way to you, but not, it seems to anyone else.
For example your idea doesn't get a mention here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_Oscillation
Post by: The Spoon on 14/02/2018 18:25:25
Are 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?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 18:35:18
Nothing is ever lost or gained except when it grows.Are 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?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 18:58:12
S + 1 = ΔOK
S - 1 = Δ
S + 1 = Δ
S - 1 = Δ
If they both equal delta then they must equal eachother
so S+1 = S-1
And I can subtract S from both sides of the equation to give
+1 =-1
Which 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.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 19:01:15
Huh? That is two separate equations , have you been drinking this evening or summit?S + 1 = ΔOK
S - 1 = Δ
S + 1 = Δ
S - 1 = Δ
If they both equal delta then they must equal eachother
so S+1 = S-1
And I can subtract S from both sides of the equation to give
+1 =-1
Which 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.
Delta = change , change can be a variate you know like, its not the same change like, pfffff
Post by: The Spoon on 14/02/2018 19:02:57
Very profound, but what does that have do with it?Nothing is ever lost or gained except when it grows.Are 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?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 19:03:23
Nothing is ever lost or gained except when it grows.You have got the quote wrong, in both wording, and meaning.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 19:06:09
Huh? That is two separate equations , have you been drinking this evening or summit?I assumed they were two different equations .
On that basis I manipulated them using pretty standard algebra.
The outcome is that only one of the equations can possibly be true.
So, at least one of the equations you posted is wrong.
Like I said, "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."
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure you don't know what "variate" means.
I think you meant varaible, but it's hard to tell among all the word salad.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 19:06:51
Not a quote , in my own words. The total mass of an object can be collected in test tubes and guess what? the total amount of collection adds up to the same total mass.Nothing is ever lost or gained except when it grows.You have got the quote wrong, in both wording, and meaning.
Now if the test tubes are empty, and something grows in them, well the mass is changed ,
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 19:09:53
Now if the test tubes are empty, and something grows in them, well the mass is changedStop doing magic.
If the tubes are empty, nothing will grow in them.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 19:10:45
Are you mad or summit? They are two separate equations that do not equal the same.Huh? That is two separate equations , have you been drinking this evening or summit?I assumed they were two different equations .
On that basis I manipulated them using pretty standard algebra.
The outcome is that only one of the equations can possibly be true.
So, at least one of the equations you posted is wrong.
Like I said, "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."
S + 1 = Δ
S + 1 = S+1=ΔS
S - 1 = Δ
S-1 = S-1 = ΔS
S+1 ≠ S - 1
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 19:11:37
"He also discovered the law of conservation of mass that is nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed. It says that the mass of the final products of a chemical reaction is the same as the reactants’ ones. Today, this principle is the basis of modern chemistry."
From
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier
And the point remains that his rule doesn't have an "except" in it- because reality doesn't need one.
Post by: The Spoon on 14/02/2018 19:13:51
Yet you claim that an increase in wildlife is increasing the mass of the earth thus causing heating. Despite the fact that there has been a decrease in most species and the earth is for all intents and purposes a closed system. In the example of a test tube, if it is closed and something grows, there is no change in mass, which is applying Lavoisier's quote directly.Not a quote , in my own words. The total mass of an object can be collected in test tubes and guess what? the total amount of collection adds up to the same total mass.Nothing is ever lost or gained except when it grows.You have got the quote wrong, in both wording, and meaning.
Now if the test tubes are empty, and something grows in them, well the mass is changed ,
Anyway, I thought you were giving up again?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 19:15:13
They are two separate equations that do not equal the same.You said they did, so it looks like you are the one who is mad, since you are now disagreeing with yourself.
You said that S+1 = Delta and
S-1 = Delta
Well, obviously, Delta = Delta.
So S+1 =S-1
Or were you just posting word salad again?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 19:16:38
It looks like you misquoted Lavoisier.But there is an except though, when mass is created by growing, the mass of the body the mass is growing on is increased by the mass of the growth. Things that are growing do not borrow ''clay'' from the ground to grow.
"He also discovered the law of conservation of mass that is nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed. It says that the mass of the final products of a chemical reaction is the same as the reactants’ ones. Today, this principle is the basis of modern chemistry."
From
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier
And the point remains that his rule doesn't have an "except" in it- because reality doesn't need one.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 19:18:09
Delta is not a constant, Delta is a variate, so no, delta does not equal to delta.They are two separate equations that do not equal the same.You said they did, so it looks like you are the one who is mad, since you are now disagreeing with yourself.
You said that S+1 = Delta and
S-1 = Delta
Well, obviously, Delta = Delta.
So S+1 =S-1
Or were you just posting word salad again?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 19:21:22
when mass is created by growing,But, in the real world, mass is not created by growing.
That only happens in your "magic" world where science and evidence don't apply.
delta does not equal to delta.Thanks for clarifying the fact that your posts make no sense.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 19:24:42
I wish this forum had an ignore option, you aren't half stupid at times with what you say.when mass is created by growing,But, in the real world, mass is not created by growing.
That only happens in your "magic" world where science and evidence don't apply.delta does not equal to delta.Thanks for clarifying the fact that your posts make no sense.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 19:26:47
(S+1)+(S-1)=0
(S-1)+(S+1)=0
(S-1)+(S-1)=S-2
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 19:28:26
But there is an except though, when mass is created by growing, the mass of the body the mass is growing on is increased by the mass of the growth. Things that are growing do not borrow ''clay'' from the ground to grow.To a small extent, they do.
That's broadly why, when you burn wood you get ash. It's also why you have to add fertiliser to the soil to keep things growing
What they mainly do is gather carbon dioxide from the air and water from the ground, and shuffle the molecules to make things like cellulose, and lignin.
Did you really not know that?
Post by: The Spoon on 14/02/2018 19:28:56
Thing is, bored chemist is correct. Which you would knowif you actually bothered to learn something, such as about the works of Lavoisier which you mentioned...I wish this forum had an ignore option, you aren't half stupid at times with what you say.when mass is created by growing,But, in the real world, mass is not created by growing.
That only happens in your "magic" world where science and evidence don't apply.delta does not equal to delta.Thanks for clarifying the fact that your posts make no sense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 19:29:33
(S+1)+(S-1)=0I guess two out of three isn't too bad.
(S-1)+(S+1)=0
(S-1)+(S-1)=S-2
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 19:32:59
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Baptist_van_Helmont#Career_as_chemistry_pioneer
At the time there was no recognition that a gas might weigh something.
It seems that Thebox's understanding of science is stuck in the 17th century
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 19:35:42
That's 3/3 and you know it and I know it.(S+1)+(S-1)=0I guess two out of three isn't too bad.
(S-1)+(S+1)=0
(S-1)+(S-1)=S-2
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 19:37:24
The original experiment was done rather before Lavoisier's timeI know gases have mass my friend, my N-field holds them together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Baptist_van_Helmont#Career_as_chemistry_pioneer
At the time there was no recognition that a gas might weigh something.
It seems that Thebox's understanding of science is stuck in the 17th century
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 19:42:22
I am aware of the experiment and know not to have a milk diet, anything else I really need to know?Thing is, bored chemist is correct. Which you would knowif you actually bothered to learn something, such as about the works of Lavoisier which you mentioned...I wish this forum had an ignore option, you aren't half stupid at times with what you say.when mass is created by growing,But, in the real world, mass is not created by growing.
That only happens in your "magic" world where science and evidence don't apply.delta does not equal to delta.Thanks for clarifying the fact that your posts make no sense.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 19:51:16
I think I know that mass can transform because E=mc²But there is an except though, when mass is created by growing, the mass of the body the mass is growing on is increased by the mass of the growth. Things that are growing do not borrow ''clay'' from the ground to grow.To a small extent, they do.
That's broadly why, when you burn wood you get ash. It's also why you have to add fertiliser to the soil to keep things growing
What they mainly do is gather carbon dioxide from the air and water from the ground, and shuffle the molecules to make things like cellulose, and lignin.
Did you really not know that?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 19:56:35
Δt=ΔS
ΔS=Δt
This one is equal , the variate/change of time = variate/change of entropy
variate/change of entropy = variate/change of time
I have no values if you notice so there is no numeric result .. not like -1 which is a given value R³ real number relative to 0.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 20:42:17
Δt=ΔSThat implies S =t + an arbitrary constant.
ΔS=Δt
Is that what you meant, or is this another case of you saying one thing but meaning something else?
You still don't know what variate means.
I have no values
p.s My predictive insight allows me to answer a question you have not asked , but yesWhat did you think that meant?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 20:43:17
I think I know that mass can transform because E=mc²Plants don't usually grow by exploiting local nuclear power.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 20:56:12
Δt=ΔSThat implies S =t + an arbitrary constant.
ΔS=Δt
Is that what you meant, or is this another case of you saying one thing but meaning something else?
It does not imply that, that would imply Entropy equals plus time where I state entropy is time.
ΔS = Δt
Δt = ΔS
entropy is equal to time, a change in entropy is a change in the frequency of time as seen in the Keating experiment.
Δf in a body is a change in time
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 21:04:09
They get sunlight , i.e nuclear power.I think I know that mass can transform because E=mc²Plants don't usually grow by exploiting local nuclear power.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 21:09:21
where I state entropy is time.It isn't.
For a start it has the wrong units.
They get sunlight , i.e nuclear power.I know.
That's why I pointed out that the source isn't local.
Which is why it's not relevant to the discussion (and it wasn't 400 years ago either).
I still wonder what you meant by this
"
p.s My predictive insight allows me to answer a question you have not asked , but yes
What question did you think I was going to ask?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 21:15:14
Δ t (m1) ≠ Δ t' (m2) = simultaneity relative to absolute time (k)
What question did you think I was going to ask?
I thought I you were ''sniffing'' at a particular piece of math,
(1 ≠ 1) = 0
1 is not equal to 1 but both are equal to absolute.
=(1≠1)Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 21:22:16
That's not the sort of question I would ask.Δ t (m1) ≠ Δ t' (m2) = simultaneity relative to absolute time (k)
What question did you think I was going to ask?
I thought I you were ''sniffing'' at a particular piece of math,
(1 ≠ 1) = 0
1 is not equal to 1 but both are equal to absolute.
My questions usually make some sort of sense, whereas "1 is not equal to 1 but both are equal to absolute.
" is another example of the gibberish you usually produce.
Mind you, I wonder if you plan to answer a question I did actually ask.
To a small extent, they do.
That's broadly why, when you burn wood you get ash. It's also why you have to add fertiliser to the soil to keep things growing
What they mainly do is gather carbon dioxide from the air and water from the ground, and shuffle the molecules to make things like cellulose, and lignin.
Did you really not know that?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 21:25:28
I answered that ..That's not the sort of question I would ask.Δ t (m1) ≠ Δ t' (m2) = simultaneity relative to absolute time (k)
What question did you think I was going to ask?
I thought I you were ''sniffing'' at a particular piece of math,
(1 ≠ 1) = 0
1 is not equal to 1 but both are equal to absolute.
My questions usually make some sort of sense, whereas "1 is not equal to 1 but both are equal to absolute.
" is another example of the gibberish you usually produce.
Mind you, I wonder if you plan to answer a question I did actually ask.To a small extent, they do.
That's broadly why, when you burn wood you get ash. It's also why you have to add fertiliser to the soil to keep things growing
What they mainly do is gather carbon dioxide from the air and water from the ground, and shuffle the molecules to make things like cellulose, and lignin.
Did you really not know that?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 21:26:41
=(1≠1)
=(1≠1)
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 21:33:39
c/y=1.s
c/z=1.s
1.s = ( t ≠ t')
Δc=0
Δt=0
Δt'=Δ
(Δc=0) = (Δt ≠ Δt')
Relativistic integers in an absolute space-time.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 14/02/2018 22:44:40
"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"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...
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.
Needless to say, gigantic tsunamis would kill most of humans on the process witch given the facts is not entirely a bad thing...
I would say yes and then it would return to normal, as everything settled back to its position.
If you roled earth up into a cone it would still orbit around the path it is now.
I believe the earthquakes shortened the length of days by a few fractions of q second, maybe a Tzar bomb would do that?
That is if none of the mass escaped into space
Post by: Petrochemicals on 14/02/2018 22:52:11
Evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy released,Yes it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
Nope that would be latent heat, the clue is in the title, read it carefuly.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 14/02/2018 22:58:38
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...No
We are on a rock flying through space. We can only alter that path if we have something to push against and , since nothing arising from such a detonation would leave the earth, it can't push us.
That's pretty basic physics, formally referred to as the conservation of momentum.
We are not flying through space, there is no air, we do not have wings. The earth could be stationary, and as there is no up down left or right i cannot see how we have motion and cannot see any reason to necessitate flight, or any means to instigate it, as we have nothing to push against.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 14/02/2018 23:01:32
Seems wierd that to me, perhaps a contender for dark 3nergy or dark matter.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...
I'm guessing you watched that video from Ridddle too, huh? It's a load of bunk. Tsar Bomba could do nothing to significantly change Earth's orbit, regardless of how you partition the energy. Keep in mind that the asteroid that left the Chicxulub crater released about two million times more energy than Tsar Bomba yet even that didn't push Earth significantly.
Apparently the collision of the primeval earth at an angle with another planetoid did not alter its orbital plane either.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 15/02/2018 10:42:16
The global warming marketing sales pitch, changed from global warming to climate change over the past few years. I was not addressing the old sales pitch, I was addressing just the new and improved climate change sales pitch. This sales pitch has a problem, since El Nino events can be used to explain climate change, with El Nino having been doing this for centuries. It was recorded by the Inca indians. It is also interesting that advance cultures of the past often seem to find extreme geological places to settle.
In terms of climate change, global warming will add heat to the earth, that is mixed by the atmosphere. The El Nino is different in that it is caused by a local warming pocket of the equatorial oceans. The impact of the El Nino is add a higher temperature water, to the earth's oceans, to create a local ocean affect that can impact normal weather patterns.
The El Nino appears to b caused by breeches in the earths crust. The extra warm water released below the ocean causes entrapped CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, This effect is very significant, since heat and the CO2 comes from the bottom of the ocean all the way to the surface, and not just from the surface, per manmade global warming. This is more CO2 per unit of heat.
Would you agree that there is a correlation between drops in fossil fuel use, and icification events ? Fossil fuels also create aerosols that would block radiation to the surface from space ala tambora. Bombs, nucleqr or not and fires would also create the dust that i would associate with radiation blocking
It may be an equilibrium caused by co2 and greenhouse gasses due to increacing co2 emmision ammount causing an in balance in the equilibrium. When co2 emmissions year on year and dust is equalised, the planet does what it does naturally and reaches an equilibrium. It could be just the increacing co2 stalling causing the ice events.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2018 19:24:17
The word "fly" does not mean what you think it does.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...No
We are on a rock flying through space. We can only alter that path if we have something to push against and , since nothing arising from such a detonation would leave the earth, it can't push us.
That's pretty basic physics, formally referred to as the conservation of momentum.
We are not flying through space, there is no air, we do not have wings. The earth could be stationary, and as there is no up down left or right i cannot see how we have motion and cannot see any reason to necessitate flight, or any means to instigate it, as we have nothing to push against.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daring_Young_Man_on_the_Flying_Trapeze
You are right, from our point of view, we are stationary, (any point of view is equally valid) and as you say, there's nothing to push against. That's why setting off a bomb wouldn't move us.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2018 19:27:10
Unlike you, scientists hundreds of years ago worked out that the heat energy released from coal in a steam boiler went into producing steam by providing the latent heat of evaporation of the water..Evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy released,Yes it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
Nope that would be latent heat, the clue is in the title, read it carefuly.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2018 19:29:57
I believe the earthquakes shortened the length of days by a few fractions of q second, maybe a Tzar bomb would do that?You might want to do the maths.
In principle, me climbing to the top of the stairs changes the length of the day- but not noticeably.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 16/02/2018 19:04:30
Unfortunatley, im only comparitavley young.Unlike you, scientists hundreds of years ago worked out that the heat energy released from coal in a steam boiler went into producing steam by providing the latent heat of evaporation of the water..Evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy released,Yes it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
Nope that would be latent heat, the clue is in the title, read it carefuly.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 16/02/2018 19:06:42
It doesThe word "fly" does not mean what you think it does.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...No
We are on a rock flying through space. We can only alter that path if we have something to push against and , since nothing arising from such a detonation would leave the earth, it can't push us.
That's pretty basic physics, formally referred to as the conservation of momentum.
We are not flying through space, there is no air, we do not have wings. The earth could be stationary, and as there is no up down left or right i cannot see how we have motion and cannot see any reason to necessitate flight, or any means to instigate it, as we have nothing to push against.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daring_Young_Man_on_the_Flying_Trapeze
You are right, from our point of view, we are stationary, (any point of view is equally valid) and as you say, there's nothing to push against. That's why setting off a bomb wouldn't move us.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight
Again comparitavley young.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 00:51:55
fly-by
noun
noun: flyby
a flight past a point, especially the close approach of a spacecraft to a planet or moon for observation.
another term for fly-past.
for example
https://www.nasa.gov/images/nh-jupiter-flyby
Post by: Petrochemicals on 17/02/2018 11:14:32
link (http://viz.co.uk/category/rogers-profanisaurus/)
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 11:20:10
However, it's absurd to pretend that it has changed since, for example, NASA posted that page.
The Earth really is flying through space.
And a bomb on Earth that dens't throw debris into space won't change the Earth's path.
So,, now we have got the pointless distraction, due to your error, out of the way, perhaps people can get back to the actual topic of the thread.
Post by: opportunity on 17/02/2018 11:22:41
Man is from the planet right? It's planet made. The question is whether we have an "outer-planet" alternative.
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 27/02/2018 23:22:37
I mean the earth orbit the sun where it is because it's center, if you disrupt the outside layers and flow of magma, wouldn't the center be re-centered somewhere else for some time?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 01/03/2018 02:37:51
The main cause of the observed global climate change is the El Nino. The El Nino is an area of very warm water in the Pacific Ocean, west of Peru, that periodically appears. This pool of warm water cannot be caused by the modern trend that we call "man made global warming". The main reason is, the Inca Indians of Peru, recorded the El Nino hundreds of years before Europeans settled the Americas. The El Nino has been causing climate change way before modern records and media hype.
Earth Scientists; see below, found that the most recent El Nino coincided, with a lot of seismic activity on the ocean floor of that region. If turns out, the extra localized heat of the El Nino water is most likely caused from heat leaking out the mantle of the earth, through breeches in the crust; plate tectonics. It never made sense that "global warming first" could come to a focus and form the El Nino. The El Nino has its own heat source.
Fishermen in the region of the El Nino, from modern times to way back when, always noticed that the warm waters of the El Nino, become dead; lifeless. It is very hard to fish. This observation has to do with the heat and chemicals leaking into the water from below the crust. Also, since warm water can hold less CO2, than cooler water, the warm El Nino water causes fixed ocean CO2 to be released, and added to the local water; The extra CO2 2 will also kill fish. The CO2 then goes into the atmosphere, which then enhances the greenhouse gases. The EL Nino impacts the natural CO2 cycle, the enhancement of which is currently is erroneously attributed all man; rookie mistake. The warm pool of El Nino water, also impacts global climate, since it alters all the thermal gradients of the Pacific ocean, including setting a unique gradient with the warm equator water.
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-activity (https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/947/is-there-any-correlation-between-la-niña-el-niño-and-seismic-activity)
I found this article from the New York Times from 1988. The article suggested the El Nino heating correlation years before the man made global bandwagon was full of beer and pretzels. If you add enough beer on the bandwagon, you get beer goggles such that even a ugly theory looks good. It is time to sober up.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/29/science/theory-ties-earthquakes-in-pacific-to-el-nino.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/29/science/theory-ties-earthquakes-in-pacific-to-el-nino.html)
The forest fires are continuous cycle, the energy that they take out of the sun, is used to fix the co2 water to carbon hydrogen etc, the wood butns releasing the energy and the co2 back into the atmosphere which then is radiated, whilst at the same time more energy and co2 is fixed else where. Plus the energy released is not that great. Also due to emmisivity hot fires radiate at a faster rate considerably than something that is 1degree centigrade above average
https://www.rbth.com/news/2016/10/11/taiga-wildfires-release-heat-energy-on-par-with-thermal-power-plants_637723
The el ninio does not coincide with the dates of icificqtiin events, and does not explain them . If when we turn off the heating the equilibrium is broken, and the air no longer sustains the water vapour in the atmosphere, this decends to the surface cooling it and freezes. Mean while as there is less water vapou in the atmosphere, less radiation is trapped via the standard greenhouse theory (water vapour is 3 times as potent as co2 apparently at greenhouse emmisions, if we get it right we may end up in thermal runaway sauna conditions) and the earth absorbs less radiation due to reflection. Lying snow comes around because the earth surface thermal reserve depletes to such a level that snow will not melt and reflects heat away (90 percent reflective). thus you get an icification event. Water in the higher atmosphere has a tripple point far beneath 0 degrees, its why you get freezing rain. The only question, is how long would this icification last if all energy was wi5hdrawn.
Think about it, economic activity slows in sept3mber 2008, in feburary 2009 the uk as a whole had its first lying snow event in 30 years, since the last majour slowing of energy use. Heating back on no more snow ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2018 11:23:22
OK, back onto the Tsar Bomb. Earth is already not a perfect sphere, the kinetic energy released by the disruption of the tectonic plates would not take the planet out of it's original?No
I mean the earth orbit the sun where it is because it's center, if you disrupt the outside layers and flow of magma, wouldn't the center be re-centered somewhere else for some time?
Since there is still nothing to push against (no matter how many times you ask the question) the path of the Earth round the Sun will carry on.
Even if we assembled a massive bomb and blew the planet to bits, the centre of gravity of all the bits would continue to orbit the sun once every 365 days or so at a distance of about 93 million miles.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2018 11:25:55
The forest fires are continuous cycle, the energy that they take out of the sun, is used to fix the co2 water to carbon hydrogen etc, the wood butns releasing the energy and the co2 back into the atmosphere which then is radiated, whilst at the same time more energy and co2 is fixed else where.because exactly the same is true of el Nino. It only "borrows" the Sun's heat.
That's why it can't be responsible for global warming.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/03/2018 03:05:19
OK, back onto the Tsar Bomb. Earth is already not a perfect sphere, the kinetic energy released by the disruption of the tectonic plates would not take the planet out of it's original?
I mean the earth orbit the sun where it is because it's center, if you disrupt the outside layers and flow of magma, wouldn't the center be re-centered somewhere else for some time?
Not really alter the orbit because as one load of mass is forced one way an equal and opposit3 mappent the other way, but if you re arrange the mass you alter the gravitational centre. It will alter the length of the day though i think by countering the rotation of the earth some how
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 11:20:05
You just don't change it much.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2018 11:34:32
because exactly the same is true of el Nino. It only "borrows" the Sun's heat.That's why it can't be responsible for global warming.
Interesting point. Climate change and all its euphemisms is monitored at the earth's surface. We have almost no data in the public domain about temperature distribution with depth of the oceans (the navies have some, but keep it to themselves) or underground. All we have is the result of umpteen unknowns expressed in terms of mean surface weather, with no indication of the state of the globe beneath.
A known problem in experimental science: if you only look at the superficial effect, the underlying cause may bite your bum. Think crocodiles in millponds!
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2018 13:24:59
There are two credible sources for this. Radioactive decay and the leftover heat from the creation of the Earth.
Would you like to explain how those can change much without us noticing the massive earthquakes that would be involved?
Think unicorns in millponds!
Post by: alancalverd on 03/03/2018 13:42:02
Don't know about you, but lots of people notice the occasional massive earthquake. Iceland generates electricity by magic, and there's an awful lot of stuff emanating from faults in the sea floor. Something happened to Pompeii once upon a time. Bits of California and Japan fall off from time to time. Etcetera.
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 04/03/2018 23:25:46
Post by: Petrochemicals on 17/03/2018 11:10:51
Increaced energy at the low atmospheric level due to energy usage means that air has a higher water vapor carrying capacity. The moisture on the ground, when absorbing solar radiation is allowed to evapourate and become gas rather thanbeing forced to re emit the energy via emessivity. The hot moisture rises and the whole atmosphere gains more energy,and expands upward. Water vapor reaches further into the higher atmosphere, which is at a lower pressure and lower freezing point.
When energy use drops, the water vapor cycle slows, the whole atmosphere contracts and the water vapor in the upper atmosphere cools and is not replaced. The super cooled water falls to earthas snow. Also the air is less wanting to evapourate the snow and the surface cools. Snow reflects solar radiation, and the earth enters a glaciation.
Energy use dropped 7.5% after the stock crash2008 and snow fell for 5 years until energy use increaced, so if we dropped more than 2% per year a significant icification may occour. Windand solar would only make the situation worse.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/03/2018 11:16:50
Far be it from me to quote a consensus, but most Warmists say that previous peaks in CO2 levels were caused by volcanic eruptions.Are you somehow unable to grasp the concept of "change"?
Don't know about you, but lots of people notice the occasional massive earthquake. Iceland generates electricity by magic, and there's an awful lot of stuff emanating from faults in the sea floor. Something happened to Pompeii once upon a time. Bits of California and Japan fall off from time to time. Etcetera.
Yes, there are earthquakes- there always were and there presumably always will be.
So the earthquakes that have stayed the same are not responsible for the current temperature which is rising rapidly.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/03/2018 11:27:02
Post by: PmbPhy on 17/03/2018 14:24:07
Ahaa, you clicked on this ready to make statements about carbon dioxide.That's because its known to be the cause of global warming. Why expect anything else? Its not as if geophysicists are idiots and are unable to determine that other activities contributed.
Quote from: Petrochemicals
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 (and all the earths varying orbit cycles) and thus altering the climate.Absolutely not.
Quote from: Petrochemicals
If a plane takes off from the surface of the earth when it is facing the sun, the earth is forced away from the sun. etcThat's not possible. What you're neglecting is the fact that wherever there is a force there is always an equal and opposite force (Newton's Third Law) so that the center of mass of the Earth remains fixed in its own locally inertial frame of reference and that means that it can't affect the orbit of the Earth. While the Earth does have an external force acting on it by the light from the Sun, that force is so small as to not be very noticeable. The orbit of the Earth has not changed so any claims that an alteration in the Earth's orbit giving rise to global warming is unjustified. Keep in mind that humans as a whole are far from being static at night. Even in the wee hours of the morning there are people working and cars on the street. At night there are a lot of lights on which means that the earth is getting an itty bitty push towards the sun from it - too small to be noticeable and orders of magnitude less than the contribution from the Sun.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/03/2018 13:37:33
Ahaa, you clicked on this ready to make statements about carbon dioxide.But not the statement you expected.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 19/03/2018 23:36:09
Ahaa, you clicked on this ready to make statements about carbon dioxide.But not the statement you expected.
Que ?
(https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_small/public/thumbnails/image/2016/12/02/09/andrew-sachs.jpg)
Ifa yau meena the thhreeada didnt maaach wiiith miiy inital theyri theen yau would biy riite
Post by: Petrochemicals on 17/09/2018 00:18:37
The theory of why we have experienced glaciation events after global economic slowdown is this,
Increaced energy in the atmosphere due to almost all the energy from fossil fuels used relates to increaced volume in the atmosphere in the long run, rather than pressure or temperature that is seen in initial injection of energy into the atmosphere. In one gas law or the other though, increased energy in the atmosphere has led to increaced water evapouration.
This higher energy and water content in the atmosphere and its increaced volume , due to a lack of energy to sustain an increaced atmospheric volume ,when the cycle is cut leads to the precipitation of supercooled out of the atmosphere as ice. This is at a drop in extra energy of 5% of the total energy usage that was enough to trigger an icification event.
As the drop in energy use of 5% of 15000 million barrels of oil equivelant (hereafter mboe) in the year 2009 after the 2008 crash, was sustained for only that one year and in the following years of 20010 onwards energy usage went up, the glaciation of the surface was initially in the years 2009 and 20010 caused by an energy use drop, but in the years 20011 20012 etc i believe that the glaciation was caused by there being less energy absorbed from the sun by the ground because of the prior years glaciation, leading to there being less energy in the atmosphere directly because of the reflective properties of ice.
That even though we put over 5% more energy into the atmosphere than was used in 2009 in the years following 2009, this was not enought to stop glaciation of a similar level in 20010 that was seen in 2009. It is hypothesised that the effect of the glaciation is equivilent to a 10% drop in energy usage.
That if energy usage dropped 5% year on year with a glaciation event, this could mean a snowball effect of 15% less energy in the atmosphere per year leading to severe runaway glaciation, and possibly an ice age.
The world has only 900,000mboe in reserve in fossil fuels and is currently using 15000mboe per year meaning at a rate of 15000mboe a year the fossil fuels will run out in 60 years, and the world energy use is increacing per year so fossil fuels will run out in less than 60 years.
That if we dropped energy use today by 2% of usage ammount, it would take 50 years to eradicate fossil fuel usage, this may be too quick to allow the climate to readjust without a runaway snowball effect of glaciation. Nuclear power may be needed to allow the climate time to cool.
Renewables offer only a neutral energy option. They take as much energy from the atmosphere as they return.
That the turbulent stormy wet weather experienced in winters 2015 and around the time, was due to the climate equalising and the atmosphere expanding once more. As the energy use increaced the water content of the atmosphere was trapped in an evaporation precipitation cycle transporting energy to the higher atmosphere, leading to more turbulance. This has since evened out.
Edit. More evidence from filadelfia, although i do not know if the snow was lying on the ground. Half of there most snowy winters line up with the energy theory, some are the tail end of the 1800, of a , some are. 76 79 2008 etc, and the anomolous 1960 winter . No end of ww2 fall though. From about 1930 onwards there is a 5 to 3 ratio lining up with the dateline, which is pretty unlikely.
http://www.stevenmoskowitz24.com/snow_in_philadelphia/seasonalSnow.html
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/02/2020 08:16:17
Still this is not definitive but its one to watch over the next few months. The oceans could have cooled their maximum so theres not much energy around so a bit of bad weather impacts more. Plus the fact sustained rainfall has cooled the land so late winters could be a factor of global warming.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 27/08/2020 14:26:05
Usa
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-grains-braun/column-crop-watch-yield-potential-hangs-on-despite-widespread-rain-needs-idUKKCN2570RO
Europe north
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53921121
Europe central had a better time of it.
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/reduced-yield-outlook-summer-crops-due-dry-conditions
But all in all not a good year (just like Donald Trump {topical reference to his spat with the tyre company august 2020}.)
Post by: Petrochemicals on 27/08/2020 14:43:56
(https://lasttechagedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/global-weirding-start.jpg)
The super hero that saves fanatical leftwing liberal fascists from the facts so they can continue pseudo science persecution at their leisure and supress the reality that is blowing (probably with snow come winter) directly infront of their face. # world famine
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/08/2020 15:24:42
Is it just me or is it becoming colder as of february 2020.It's just you.
In reality, February was warm.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/winter-and-february-2020-end-second-warmest-record-globe
The super hero that saves fanatical leftwing liberal fascists from the facts so they can continue pseudo science persecution at their leisure and supress the reality that is blowing (probably with snow come winter) directly infront of their face. # world famine
You seem to be muddling the two sides in this debate.
Practically all the actual scientists are saying anthropogenic global warming is real.
On the other hand, you think warm is cold .
Post by: Kryptid on 27/08/2020 20:56:13
Sea ice is also bucking the trend despite the raging summers of the arctic siberia europe and the Usa
If you have data showing that the average rate of global ice loss has not changed significantly in the past few decades, I'd be interested in seeing it.
fanatical leftwing liberal fascists
Do you really think those are the only people who accept the reality of global warming? I, for one, have never understood the supposed political dichotomy on global warming. Why should one's political or economic leanings have any impact on whether they accept that the planet is warming or not?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/08/2020 00:29:44
Yes bc, I understand what your saying, but you have said such before and it really has no more bearing this time since the last.
Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #124 on: Yesterday at 15:24:42 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/08/2020 00:35:56
Sorry kryptid forgot the link, https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-coverSea ice is also bucking the trend despite the raging summers of the arctic siberia europe and the Usa
If you have data showing that the average rate of global ice loss has not changed significantly in the past few decades, I'd be interested in seeing it.
[/quote]fanatical leftwing liberal fascists
Do you really think those are the only people who accept the reality of global warming? I, for one, have never understood the supposed political dichotomy on global warming. Why should one's political or economic leanings have any impact on whether they accept that the planet is warming or not?
No, I think that they think that they understand global warming and have a hairspring trigger to anyone who displays an inconvenient truth or a snowflake in june.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/08/2020 00:43:49
Sorry kryptid forgot the link, https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover
Looking at the first images about Arctic ice coverage, it most certainly shows a trend towards less sea ice as the years roll from 1979 to 2020. The Antarctic ice coverage data is more ambiguous, but the fact that Antarctica is literally a continent, I wouldn't expect it to react as quickly to warming weather as the Arctic.
Post by: puppypower on 28/08/2020 12:13:07
Ahaa, you clicked on this ready to make statements about carbon dioxide.
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 (and all the earths varying orbit cycles) and thus altering the climate.
If a plane takes off from the surface of the earth when it is facing the sun, the earth is forced away from the sun. Said plane thrusts against the earth via the airduring the hours of daylight. When the plane lands the earth and plane once more move closer together, but the plane is now in darkness and once more the earth is moved further away from the sun and is left permanently more distant from the star. Similar activities powered by mass energy usage include vehicles moving across the surface.The flaw in this theory is that the earth should be getting colder, but i wonder whether i have the physics wrong and this activity is acting as a gravitational source that moves the earth closer.
Also if the result of burning hydrocarbons is water and co2 is the sea level rise down to increased liquid in the oceans ? and i do not mean via the exon valdez.
The science data can show that the earth has gone through many cycles of climate change over its long history. This data is undeniable and accepted by science. The premise of man made climate change for the earth, is new. Because it is new to the earth, is has no precedent in terms o of the long term earth data. If we assume this premise was true, it would be the first time in the history of the earth. Therefore, the manmade premise has only one possible data point; one single connected event in earth history.
The problem is, to draw a straight line you need two data points. If the Romans did this before we would have a second point. This is not the case. If we had three or more data points we can draw a curve. We can draw a curve with the natural earth data since we have dozens of good data points. However, If you try to draw a curve with one data point; one unique event in earth history, you have to guess at the slope of the line. This is where science starts to break down and politics and opinion have a voice in science.
We appear to have not yet defined the correct slope. Shouldn't we be under water by now based on previous slope assumptions? Why do the models predict too high of a temperature rise, if the slope was correct? One data point is a crap shoot for drawing curves.
As I have discussed elsewhere, science is not self sufficient when it comes to resources. It is beholden to government, industry and private donations. These money givers have an impact on how the money will be spent, via their expectations in terms of results. With a one data point phenomena, we need to be careful about politics and opinion setting the expectations for resource allocation and usage. This is why even though earth data has enough data points to draw a nice curve, this solid curve needs to be ignored in favor of the one data point. What is being cancelled is a science curve in favor of one data point with a slope on demand.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2020 12:54:03
So, you think that me pointing out that you are - based on actual facts- unable to understand the issue, has no bearing on it.Yes bc, I understand what your saying, but you have said such becore and it really has no more bearing this time since the last.
Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #124 on: Yesterday at 15:24:42 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
Well, that's one viewpoint.
But since you say you are happy to carry on being wrong, I don't think there's much that anyone else can do.
Restating the fact that you are deliberately ignoring people who tell you the truth doesn't make you look big or clever.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/08/2020 13:25:15
Again chemist, another good post by you, alot better than your earlier posts which seemed to wish to get round an inconvenient truth, but again, it seems to be a repetition of posts as is your habit. At least its not back sniping or a "Trump", being so wildy off subjet in the face of the evidence to just flummox the poor people.
Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #130 on: Today at 12:54:03 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/08/2020 13:37:43
The roman times climate was indeed warmer, one thing that was hypothesised was that climate change over a long period was responsible for Romes fall.
The science data can show that the earth has gone through many cycles of climate change over its long history. This data is undeniable and accepted by science. The premise of man made climate change for the earth, is new. Because it is new to the earth, is has no precedent in terms o of the long term earth data. If we assume this premise was true, it would be the first time in the history of the earth. Therefore, the manmade premise has only one possible data point; one single connected event in earth history.
The problem is, to draw a straight line you need two data points. If the Romans did this before we would have a second point. This is not the case. If we had three or more data points we can draw a curve. We can draw a curve with the natural earth data since we have dozens of good data points. However, If you try to draw a curve with one data point; one unique event in earth history, you have to guess at the slope of the line. This is where science starts to break down and politics and opinion have a voice in science.
But in the case of vesuvius, climate change was sudden, this brought about the summer without a summer, if 2 large eruptions happened in consecutive years, how well do you think the crops should grow how much ice would build up how much heat would be returned to space ?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/08/2020 13:51:28
To be honest Kryptid, from what ive read more sea ice is a bad thing in Antarctica, faster flowing glaciers as a result of heating lead to more sea ice and thinner glaciers. But like you state about the south pole, the cycles in the artic regions do take longer to build up than 4 seasons.Sorry kryptid forgot the link, https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover
Looking at the first images about Arctic ice coverage, it most certainly shows a trend towards less sea ice as the years roll from 1979 to 2020. The Antarctic ice coverage data is more ambiguous, but the fact that Antarctica is literally a continent, I wouldn't expect it to react as quickly to warming weather as the Arctic.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2020 16:20:44
Again chemist, another good post by you, alot better than your earlier posts which seemed to wish to get round an inconvenient truth,There's no actual evidence to support that view of yours, is there?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 29/08/2020 00:26:45
Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #134 on: Yesterday at 16:20:44 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
it lookslike you are slipping into your old habbits of repeatedly posting the same thing, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Mind you it is a remarked improvement on the spammytroll like garbage you used to come out with. I suppose i should be thankful.
Post by: evan_au on 29/08/2020 02:11:13
- The government in my state (NSW) stated that they would implement all of the recommendations
- One of the findings was that human-induced climate change was a significant factor in the severity of these bushfires, and the future frequency and severity of bushfires in Australia.
- I wonder if this finding will translate into government policy changes?
Post by: evan_au on 29/08/2020 02:16:15
- The cause was water in the Gulf of Mexico which was just 1 or 2 degrees warmer than average (that is degrees Fahrenheit).
For those who say that 1 or 2 degrees change (degrees Celsius) will have no impact on them - well, their air-conditioning no longer works since the storm blew the roof off their house and knocked down the power lines...
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2020 11:40:48
it lookslike you are slipping into your old habbits of repeatedly posting the same thing, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 16:20:44
Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #134 on: Yesterday at 16:20:44 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:54:03
Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #130 on: Today at 12:54:03 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/08/2020 15:24:42It's not funny, you know.
Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #124 on: Yesterday at 15:24:42 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2020 11:44:23
I presume you didn't address that because you accept that it is true.Again chemist, another good post by you, alot better than your earlier posts which seemed to wish to get round an inconvenient truth,There's no actual evidence to support that view of yours, is there?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 29/08/2020 12:53:30
The recent severe hurricane Laura which struck Louisiana and Texas was reported to be the second most-rapidly strengthening storm in recorded history, moving from Category 1 to Category 5 in just 1 day.Funnily enough laura was the strongest storm to hit louisianna, the other being in the 1800s during the mini ice age. Cooling is a major part of hurricaine formation.
- The cause was water in the Gulf of Mexico which was just 1 or 2 degrees warmer than average (that is degrees Fahrenheit).
For those who say that 1 or 2 degrees change (degrees Celsius) will have no impact on them - well, their air-conditioning no longer works since the storm blew the roof off their house and knocked down the power lines...
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2020 17:46:31
Funnily enough laura was the strongest storm to hil louisianna, the other being in the 1800s during the mini ice age. Cooling is a major part of hurricaine formation.Really?
There was me thinking it was this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_Cheniere_Caminada_hurricane
Which happened in 1893 and that put it about 30 years (or more(definitions vary) after the little ice age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
But those are only facts, and you have announced that you are not interested in them.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 30/08/2020 21:59:47
Ok so it warmed up after february, but the summer was poor, all following the patterns of sudden atmospheric volatility and instability brought about by contracting gasses. SNOWY WINTER TO FOLLOWYes its getting colder, now anywhoo
Usa
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-grains-braun/column-crop-watch-yield-potential-hangs-on-despite-widespread-rain-needs-idUKKCN2570RO
Europe north
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53921121
Europe central had a better time of it.
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/reduced-yield-outlook-summer-crops-due-dry-conditions
But all in all not a good year (just like Donald Trump {topical reference to his spat with the tyre company august 2020}.)
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-beaches-empty-brits-22600270
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2020 22:07:20
Congratulations! you have discovered weather.Ok so it warmed up after february, but the summer was poor, all following the patterns of sudden atmospheric volatility and instability brought about by contracting gasses. SNOWY WINTER TO FOLLOWYes its getting colder, now anywhoo
Usa
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-grains-braun/column-crop-watch-yield-potential-hangs-on-despite-widespread-rain-needs-idUKKCN2570RO
Europe north
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53921121
Europe central had a better time of it.
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/reduced-yield-outlook-summer-crops-due-dry-conditions
But all in all not a good year (just like Donald Trump {topical reference to his spat with the tyre company august 2020}.)
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-beaches-empty-brits-22600270
Post by: Janus on 30/08/2020 23:19:53
Nope. In order to have an effect on the Earth's orbit, you have to eject something from the Earth at greater than escape velocity. (~11 km/s) A Tsar bomb at the bottom of the ocean would have its energy dissipated by the Ocean with none of it reaching escape velocity."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"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...
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.
Needless to say, gigantic tsunamis would kill most of humans on the process witch given the facts is not entirely a bad thing...
And even if all of the energy was somehow converted to orbital energy, the change would be insignificant. 50 megatons is roughly 200 petajoules, but the Earth's total orbital energy is roughly 2.67 x 10^17 petajoules.
The energy of one Tsar bomb is about enough to increase the Earth's orbit by about 12 micrometers. Again, that's assuming 100% conversion of Bomb energy to orbital energy.
Post by: Kryptid on 31/08/2020 01:17:32
Yes its getting colder, now anywhoo
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-beaches-empty-brits-22600270
Should I assume you have something better than local weather data to back up that assertion? Such as global temperature averages over the decades?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 31/08/2020 12:52:41
Me standing outside, saying to my neighbour "bloody 'ell Sid, it aint 'arf nippy!" to which he replied "too right, propper brass monkeys tonight pete "Yes its getting colder, now anywhoo
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-beaches-empty-brits-22600270
Should I assume you have something better than local weather data to back up that assertion? Such as global temperature averages over the decades?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2020 12:55:25
So, that'sa "No" then.Me standing outside, saying to my neighbour "bloody 'ell Sid, it aint 'arf nippy!" to which he replied "too right, propper brass monkeys tonight pete "Yes its getting colder, now anywhoo
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-beaches-empty-brits-22600270
Should I assume you have something better than local weather data to back up that assertion? Such as global temperature averages over the decades?
Post by: Kryptid on 31/08/2020 20:46:42
Me standing outside, saying to my neighbour "bloody 'ell Sid, it aint 'arf nippy!" to which he replied "too right, propper brass monkeys tonight pete "
That didn't answer my question.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2020 21:06:19
He doesn't answer questions. He ignores any sensible people and brags about putting them on his ignore list.Me standing outside, saying to my neighbour "bloody 'ell Sid, it aint 'arf nippy!" to which he replied "too right, propper brass monkeys tonight pete "
That didn't answer my question.
I wonder what he will do when he grows up.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 31/08/2020 23:59:46
Your question is incompatable with the theory of change within a decade! It is an inconvenient truth.Me standing outside, saying to my neighbour "bloody 'ell Sid, it aint 'arf nippy!" to which he replied "too right, propper brass monkeys tonight pete "
That didn't answer my question.
Would you rather
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/thermometers-climate-change/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/06/03/trump-protests-fascism/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/10/liberals-are-terrible-at-arguing-with-conservatives-heres-how-they-can-get-better/
I dont know why the washington post crops up so much, it must be because i clicked on it prior ?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/09/2020 03:47:46
Your question is incompatable with the theory of change within a decade! It is an inconvenient truth.
You're aware that climate change data goes back well over a decade, aren't you? If the global temperature averages are higher now than they were 100 years ago, then there obviously had to be at least one decade in which temperature changed. We have more than enough evidence to demonstrate the reality that the planet heated up significantly during the 20th century.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/thermometers-climate-change/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/06/03/trump-protests-fascism/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/10/liberals-are-terrible-at-arguing-with-conservatives-heres-how-they-can-get-better/
Of those three links, only the first one appears relevant (and it supports the idea of global warming). I can't even look at the third one (it says I have to subscribe to do that), but the title looks like it's about politics, not science.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 01/09/2020 04:40:30
Would you rather
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/thermometers-climate-change/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/06/03/trump-protests-fascism/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/10/liberals-are-terrible-at-arguing-with-conservatives-heres-how-they-can-get-better/
Yes, you would rather.
Of those three links, only the first one appears relevant (and it supports the idea of global warming). I can't even look at the third one (it says I have to subscribe to do that), but the title looks like it's about politics, not science.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/09/2020 06:07:46
Yes, you would rather.
Can you please complete that sentence fragment so that I know what you are talking about?
Post by: puppypower on 02/09/2020 14:29:59
Guessing the slope of a line, though a single one data point, can be driven by things other than science; opinions or politics. If you could get a big paying job, doing the science you love, with the best tools in the industry, would you be willing to play company politics, so you can keep the gravy train moving and have time to move up the ladder? Or would you walk out to flip burgers so you can maintain your integrity? That is the choice, with the slope not having to be too far off, to have the desired political affects.
As another example of this, does anyone remember cold fusion? One research team appeared to have induced fusion using chemical means. This was a single data point; unique event. Others tried to repeat the experiments, to get second and third data event points, but there was no successful duplication. Science did not just makeup a slope with the one data point. This was because nobody was willing to invest all the money and direction needed to justify that slope. Politics did not benefit by just an ever changing illusion of cold fusion; virtual second data point implied by the slope de jour.
Another problem is besides man made global warming being a single data event, the solutions being offered to appease this potential problem, will cause more harm than the slow boat problem itself. If we got rid of fossil fuels to appease the virtual second data point; slope, the ripple affect will create a world depression with mass starvation. More people will be injured than the global warming will do in that short period of time.
The Corona pandemic was just a test balloon in terms of social consequences of disrupting the supply chain. Lack of electricity and gasoline, without alternative in place, would cripple the supply chain. These planning is not being done by scientists, but by liberal artists and lawyers to create a virtue single data point solution. They will try to get science on board to create a nice slope around the magic virtual point.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/09/2020 15:50:43
This means we only have a single data point; singular event, and therefore we cannot know if we are drawing the correct line through this single data point. We are observing heating, but beyond that things, are up in the air
Global warming is not a singular event. It is an ongoing process with many data points collected over decades of research by many different groups of people.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/09/2020 16:57:56
One research team appeared to have induced fusion using chemical means.If only one research team had found a rise in global temperatures, or if the temperature had only been measured at one specific time. you would have a valid argument.
But there's a large amount of data and it broadly agrees. (You wouldn't expect perfect agreement because there are other factors involved).
The Corona pandemic was just a test balloon in terms of social consequences of disrupting the supply chain.No, it was (and is) a viral pandemic.
These planning is not being done by scientists, but by liberal artists and lawyers to create a virtue single data point solution.It's hardly relevant to the topic, but illustrative of your grasp of facts that your statement there is more or less the opposite of what happened.
The scientists (post 2009) came up with a pandemic preparedness plan.
The artists like Boris decided to defund it because "pandemics don't happen".
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/09/2020 20:16:31
Quote
Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
« Reply #156 on: 02/09/2020 16:57:56 »
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.
Once again Chemist, your usual factual abrupt self, an improvement on times gone by, I like it, keep up the good work.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/09/2020 21:32:47
Once again Chemist, your usual factual abrupt self,I don't have a monopoly you know; you are also allowed to use facts.
You should try it.
an improvement on times gone by,Not really a change from times gone by.
I was always pretty good at using facts.
Give it a go.
Try answering this using facts.
Again chemist, another good post by you, alot better than your earlier posts which seemed to wish to get round an inconvenient truth,There's no actual evidence to support that view of yours, is there?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 03/09/2020 00:08:21
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.Very much so, exactly what i wanted to hear.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 10/02/2021 02:31:35
Ok so it warmed up after february, but the summer was poor, all following the patterns of sudden atmospheric volatility and instability brought about by contracting gasses. SNOWY WINTER TO FOLLOWSustained cold and snow through much of the northern hemisphere, most unlike last year and not in keeping with global warming.
Edit:
It's a bit early I know, but it seems pretty clear that this is again another notable cold and snowy winter.
Post by: puppypower on 11/02/2021 14:35:32
One research team appeared to have induced fusion using chemical means.If only one research team had found a rise in global temperatures, or if the temperature had only been measured at one specific time. you would have a valid argument.
But there's a large amount of data and it broadly agrees. (You wouldn't expect perfect agreement because there are other factors involved).The Corona pandemic was just a test balloon in terms of social consequences of disrupting the supply chain.No, it was (and is) a viral pandemic.These planning is not being done by scientists, but by liberal artists and lawyers to create a virtue single data point solution.It's hardly relevant to the topic, but illustrative of your grasp of facts that your statement there is more or less the opposite of what happened.
The scientists (post 2009) came up with a pandemic preparedness plan.
The artists like Boris decided to defund it because "pandemics don't happen".
In terms of global warring and climate change, there are many layers of affects going on at the same time. However, not all the layers are as clear cut and as well supported by the data. Science does indeed measure a change in global temperature that has increased over the past 100 years of record keeping. This heating is true and has been verified. I can accept that. It is hard to screw up reading a thermometer.
The extrapolation of this observed global heating, into large scale changes within climate, is a reasonable premise. However, the exact connection is not as conclusive as the hype. Computer models rarely get anything right at 100%. They have the temperature curve to extrapolate but after that, it starts to get shakey. Most models had the north pole melted by now. Obviously the rise in temperature did not have as much impact as the overly scary premises of the models. This comes from the so-called experts who hav never faced this before.
The problem is climate change occurs at any temperature. We see blizzards in the winter and thunderstorms in the summer, at any average temperature, higher or lower than the long term average. At the same time, longer term geologic data, tells us the earth has been warmer and colder before,.This has occurred many times without man. As such, the impact of man may be over stated. This climate change extrapolation is not as done a deal, as looking at a thermometer.
Again, the assumed premises; man made heating and apocalyptic climate change, if true would be new to the earth. It would be one species altering the climate. Since this is new and we do not have large scale pilot test data, we do not know the percent accuracy of our assumptions, since we only have one on going active scenario, for all of human history. This is not like the geological data that has a billion years of data of the earth doing this all by itself.
The melting of the glaciers, that formed during the last ice age, occurred without humans being very important to the cause and affect. This event is still on going and shows nature can do it all by itself. Does anyone in the consensus disagree with this assessment that nature has done climate change before, without man? This time frame also has plenty of hard geological data, based on a well documented retreat of glaciers, before man kept science records. How does science explain this and why is this not weighed into the political hype? Omitting data to change the weight of the desired data, is called data fraud.
The third, and most nebulous layer of the problem, is remediation. This layer is where humans have zero experience. Human have never had to save the planet from the impact of global warming. Any attempts to impose any man made changes, are very speculative pilot tests at best. There are zero planet saving experts on the earth, with any proven planet climate mediation experience. The odds are the political boneheads and their suck-ups, will screw things up, as they work their way up the learning curve and lie about the problems they create. If the boneheads kill people, do they go to jail for pretending to be experts in a planet saving field where there is no expertise? The risk for everyone is so high that there has to be consequences for a screw up.
One last consideration is entropy. The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This means we cannot just reverse the steps, leading to the measured global warming and climate change, The second law states that entropy of the universe has to increase and cannot just decrease by going backwards. We cannot reverse course and obey the second law at the same time. That would reverse the second law, and set up an entropic potential.
Lowering the chaos and entropy of climate change will need a path that works with the direction of entropy. If and when the boneheads screw things up and cause mass human suffering, will they get to go to jail or do they get a pass? I do not have much faith in the lying hypocrites. What do lawyers know about entropy?
We need to make it clear to those in power, if they makes changes that violate the second law and cause chaos in the world, they need to pay the price. If they decide to hide behind the Swamp to avoid paying the price, then it should become legal for others to enforce the law. Once there are consequences for the boneheads, they will think a little deeper before screwing this up. It may be better to ride the course and accept the better world that will result.
If the consensus of science is on board with the politics of remediation they may also be held accountable. Maybe we can see that happens to the consensus when there is not just a reward system for carrying the water for the boneheads. I predict the consensus will break if there are also consequences for their support and advice.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 17/02/2021 20:12:18
Post by: puppypower on 20/02/2021 13:03:40
https://www.weatherboy.com/from-paris-to-athens-from-hawaii-to-texas-heavy-snow-blankets-the-globe/
This large percent global snow cover was an interesting week long regional global cooling event, during this period of global warming and climate change. This event is still called climate change, whether it is up or down. This flexibility in nomenclature makes for easy semantic gaming.
The term climate change reminds me of a skit on TV, from the 1960's, that featured the black comedian Flip Wilson. One of his characters had the line, " the devil made me do it". No matter what it did, that was questionable, it was excused after the said the "devil make me do it". He never thad to defend his actions, such as grabbing a cute girl, since the buzz words said all that needed to be said. "Climate change" is the "devil made me do it", for the modern era.
Moscow set a 400 year snow record. Their official snow record predates the official modern science weather records from 1880, by nearly 300 years. When someone says this event was the worse on record, that does not mean, "for all time". Instead, a record setting event is based on how long the records were kept. This can confuse people who think record setting means all time. This area of semantics was another Flip Wilson show.
As an analogy when the infatuated male tells his gal that he will love her for all time, this sounds good but does not include all the time before he met her, which also is part of all time. However, she will ignore his logical and unscientific inconsistency for time, and try to rationalize it to herself to her own satisfaction. All that needs to happen is to induce an emotional buzz, so one can do leave reason and engage in emotional thinking; limbic instead of cerebral centric.
Moscow has broken the science based record of 1880, for snow, more often than its own record for snow from 1700. These record keeping semantics are also ripe for gaming the system. The record for the earth, in terms of global heating and climate change, goes back nearly 5 billion years to its creation. This is the official genuine earth record for all time.
I pointed out three records, side-by side, so one can choose which is best for their arguments, when you need to call something record setting for a motivating special affect. I tend to use geology and a 1 billion year earth record, which is much different from the 100 year record. This can explain why we may not agree. Try, as an exercise, using the 1 billion year record of geology, and see how this changes the conclusions. This geology baseline is always avoided because of the impact on the final curve.
Based on some of the early climate change predictions, the north polar cap should be melted by now. Gore had polar bears trying to escape on icebergs, even though they are expect swimmers who float well. Say this worse case scenario had occurred, as predicted 20 years ago and the thermal capacitance of the Arctic ice was now gone. This recent global change in climate, toward a larger snow cover, should not have occurred, without the cold thermal capacitance of the ice caps. Air moving over an unfrozen and open Arctic sea; 0C water, would have inhibited this.
Imagine if we had acted 20 years ago, based on the advice from all the non proven experts at global remediation, who use the 120 year record, and we decided to regulated those evil fossil fuels that the experts say are the cause. The death toll would been huge due to the freezing cold in places, that were not prepared for cold, due to the international global warming hype and drum beat, during a time when fossil fuel was very scarce and doubled in price.
Luckily, those who resisted running blind into remediation, saved the day. I do not need to be thanked since I was doing my job targeting the truth.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2021 13:28:46
The record for the earth, in terms of global heating and climate change, goes back nearly 5 billion years to its creationNo.
Unless someone, or something records it, there is no record.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 20/02/2021 21:39:20
Really it's not a week,https://www.weatherboy.com/from-paris-to-athens-from-hawaii-to-texas-heavy-snow-blankets-the-globe/
This large percent global snow cover was an interesting week long regional global cooling event, during this period of global warming and climate change. This event is still called climate change, whether it is up or down. This flexibility in nomenclature makes for easy semantic gaming.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/new-york-snow-storm-accumulation-total-2020-12-17/
All in the North hemisphere have felt sustained cold and snow for a sustained period.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 09/04/2021 02:08:14
https://amp.dw.com/en/cold-winter-global-warming-polar-vortex/a-56534450
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/feb/19/john-kerry-endorses-climate-weirding-term-warns-of/
https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2021 08:55:53
Global weirding is backIt never went away.
Post by: puppypower on 13/04/2021 14:53:05
The record for the earth, in terms of global heating and climate change, goes back nearly 5 billion years to its creationNo.
Unless someone, or something records it, there is no record.
This is a long term record of climate, based on geological evidence. This is not real time evidence, anymore than 100 years old weather data is real time. If we use the 1 billion or so year geological timeline of evidence, what we see today is not unusual, unique, or even record setting. Change is normal. There were even long spells where CO2 rose and temperature fell. A window was left open and the greenhouse affect was not dominate.
Governments and politicians control the purse strings behind climate science. Scientists who are with the program will get better funding, from the government bureaucrats and lawyers, since the needs of politics are part of the equation. This is why they all will ignore the longer term records, like geological data, and sell this based on shorter term records. The latter is better in terms of the desired results and a continuing gravy train. Scientists are not dumb when it comes to acquiring an sustaining funding.
Real Science is about looking at all angles, since something can be learned no matter how you look at things. Even mistakes can create learning. The observed beat down of anyone willing to looking in certain directions, is not based on the philosophy of science. This is how politics works to help sell their version of the half truth.
Some of the results we see is also an illusion. We can now measure temperature from satellites in space and get readings from remote locations on the earth, that were never measured in 1890. These reading s has been added to the modern average. This is a way to game the system. You scan the earth for high points and plant there.
Has anyone tried to normalize the data, by using weather data from only from monitoring locations from 1890, while using only mercury thermometers? Even 1/10 of a degree is a big deal, right? This would be a way to compare apples to apples in terms of the 120 year record. Or are we using data collection points and data collection methods that make composing the records based on apples and oranges? Maybe these new record needs an asterisk; tech steroids
The next question is who has experience in global climate remediation? Where did they get their experience; which planet? We know this skill have never been applied on earth. How do we know the solutions offered are correct and are not being proposed by political boneheads and yes men mercenary scientists; Fauci?
If these solutions do not work, but cause human suffering, will those in charge be tried for crimes against humanity? We need some assurance and accountability for remediation screw ups, Right now it is win-win for the mercenary scientists who use the 120 old record with apples and oranges.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2021 22:34:14
Has anyone tried to normalize the data, by using weather data from only from monitoring locations from 1890, while using only mercury thermometers?What do you think "normalise" means?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2021 22:35:26
Fauci?And that's the bit that makes it really clear you are off on a conspiracy rant again.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2021 22:38:52
If these solutions do not work, but cause human suffering, will those in charge be tried for crimes against humanity?What if the scientists and politicians who are paid by the oil companies (which, let's face it, actually have a lot of money- unlike the environmentalist lobby) are ignoring the science and maintaining a "carry on regardless" policy because they knew that the problems won't really hit home until after they have made their millions?
Who will hold them to account for those who die in the floods and hurricanes?
How will we go about holding you to account for supporting them?
Post by: puppypower on 14/04/2021 14:27:21
Let me give an analogous example of short versus long term data and trends. Say you just met a person named Sue. You just met, and you are trying to figure out what makes her tick. She seems somewhat unique. Would knowing about her past make that easier? Would knowing nothing about her past, before she appeared, make it easier to come up with alternative explanations? Low ball has fewer checks and balances, so even an erroneous conclusion may sound possible with only short term data. This data may be noise on longer term trends.
Say we found out that Sue was from an abusive past that goes back to her childhood and then into her first marriage. This long ball data, strongly suggests a present day scenario of Sue, that may be due to at least some lingering affects, from her difficult past. This large ship of behavior does not turn on a dime. A lingering trajectory may better explains what we see.
Her two days of sheepish accommodation is not because she was sheltered and is shy with people. The opposite is true, since she is out going but is trying to avoid the wrath of father and mother figures. If we can ignore the long ball of data, and you are a convincing used car salesman, you may get others to think she was pampered in isolation. Al Gore was a professional career politician from a family of professional Politicians. He was better at short ball.
The warming up, from last ice age, did not officially end in terms of the long ball data. Glaciers receded all the way from south of NYC, several thousand miles northward, since that long ball cycle of global warming began.
The recession of the glaciers made it all the way to the Arctic circle, before we seemed to notice the short ball opportunity. The denier beatdown scam was politically motivated, and not science based. It was designed to make one not look at the long ball data, through public shaming. If you did that, you would be called yucky. Nobody wants to be yucky, so we accommodate, based on long term patterns of conditioned behavior.
The short ball approach begins the story of the glaciers retreating, the day before yesterday, which is ripe for manipulative fantasy. We are told to ignore the last ice age, and then the retreat of the glaciers, over several thousands miles of melting, and focus on just the last 100 years, which is not in any way, shape, or form connected to the last ice. This is unique and is all backed by a consensus of passengers riding a gravity train.
Don't get me wrong science jobs are good no matter where they come from. But the credibility of science is also important. Mercenary science may not solve both objectives.
Part of the way this low ball scam is being played, is based on how we have been conditioned to reward fear mongering. If someone in the news claims that a large tornado or hurricane is going to devastate a city, and it does not happen; weather station, we all thank God, everyone is safe. We do not get mad for being manipulated by fear mongering. We do not demand they resign, but we are conditioned to say, "we are better safe than sorry". Pandering to fear can override even common sense if the herd begins to stampede with a type of fear that is never wrong, but is better safe than sorry.
The doom and gloom predictions of the computer models do not pan out each year, over the past 20 years, but like any form of fear mongering, this gets a pass, since it is better safe than sorry. This is not how good science theory works. A rational theory needs to be able to make accurate and reproducible predictions. It does not need to depend on fear mongering, to erase lack of compliance to the scientific method. We do not care, if the climate change theory is accurate, it makes us feel safer if we try. Even if we fail, it is better to be safe than sorry. The better approach is the long ball approach and not to sweat the noise from the data or from politicians.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 14/04/2021 15:43:10
.Yep, glaciers have been receding for longer than the CO2 levels have been inreacing. They also grew in the years of the little ice age. That is global warming
The recession of the glaciers made it all the way to the Arctic circle, before we seemed to notice the short ball opportunity. The denier beatdown scam was politically motivated, and not science based. It was designed to make one not look at the long ball data, through public shaming. If you did that, you would be called yucky. Nobody wants to be yucky, so we accommodate, based on long term patterns of conditioned behavior.
The short ball approach begins the story of the glaciers retreating, the day before yesterday, which is ripe for manipulative fantasy. We are told to ignore the last ice age, and then the retreat of the glaciers, over several thousands miles of melting, and focus on just the last 100 years, which is not in any way, shape, or form connected to the last ice. This is unique and is all backed by a consensus of passengers riding a gravity train.
If you accept that the air has a higher evaporative quality and the thermal levels are gaining greater altitude it is no wonder that the glaciers retreat and that the retreat speed increaces with accelerated temperatures.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 06/05/2021 21:18:27
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/05/2021 21:49:07
The doom and gloom predictions of the computer models do not pan out each year, over the past 20 years,Except that the data shows that we are getting a greater number of "extreme" weather events.
We just had the coldest April in over half a century, and there was snow around the UK.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/05/2021 04:19:59
Post by: Petrochemicals on 08/05/2021 09:13:44
You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.
Post by: The Spoon on 08/05/2021 10:55:18
So who do you think discovered that a hole was present in the ozone layer with the causative agent being CFCs? An artists collective?You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 08/05/2021 12:01:25
Who do you think is correct? You or a rabid badger?So who do you think discovered that a hole was present in the ozone layer with the causative agent being CFCs? An artists collective?You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.
Post by: The Spoon on 08/05/2021 13:01:20
Nicely antagonistic answer. Does not answer my question though.Who do you think is correct? You or a rabid badger?So who do you think discovered that a hole was present in the ozone layer with the causative agent being CFCs? An artists collective?You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.
Post by: Origin on 08/05/2021 13:26:08
Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.He knows it is a liberal conspiracy!
These reading s has been added to the modern average. This is a way to game the system. You scan the earth for high points and plant there.Yep, all the climate scientists are all democrats. Apparently universities will only allow liberals, commies and democrats into advanced climate studies.
I guess climate scientist hate the thought of free enterprise and prosperity and want to suppress the world economies for their own nefarious reasons.
That or puppypower is spouting more of his typical nonsense.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 08/05/2021 15:26:15
Mahhhhh, I am rubber though.Nicely antagonistic answer. Does not answer my question though.Who do you think is correct? You or a rabid badger?So who do you think discovered that a hole was present in the ozone layer with the causative agent being CFCs? An artists collective?You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/05/2021 16:47:56
Either that or they are in denial once again,
Yes, the majority of those educated in science who acquire and analyze the evidence firsthand, worldwide, are in denial. Right...
Post by: The Spoon on 08/05/2021 23:05:45
Yes, looking at what you post, I rather suspect that you are.Mahhhhh, I am rubber though.Nicely antagonistic answer. Does not answer my question though.Who do you think is correct? You or a rabid badger?So who do you think discovered that a hole was present in the ozone layer with the causative agent being CFCs? An artists collective?You hear that? Puppypower knows more about climate science than the actual climate scientists do. Either that, or actual climate scientists are in on a conspiracy.Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 09/05/2021 05:25:56
Gad zooks, you are a bounder Sirand no mistake, but I shall have satisfaction I say.
Yes, looking at what you post, I rather suspect that you are.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 09/05/2021 05:39:24
Is the answer any person who has come to a bad scienceconclusion, has done bad science or has had a scientific boo boo is not a scientist ? If so I see your point, as scientific linkage is unasailable and is therefore impervious to incorrectness by definition. If on the other hand we bring in, let's say thalidomide, you will find it leaves a bad taste in the mouth sometimes. But I suspect your answer will be that because that was an incorrect treatment, it is therefore not representative of science. In that case you are telling me the obvious. Right is right and wrong is wrong, but I already know that. Your linking of yourself to logic and fact without a defined position yourself is nothing more than antagonism and egotism.Either that or they are in denial once again,
Yes, the majority of those educated in science who acquire and analyze the evidence firsthand, worldwide, are in denial. Right...
Post by: Kryptid on 09/05/2021 05:45:54
But I suspect your answer will be that because that was an incorrect treatment, it is therefore not representative of science.
You won't be hearing me say that, fortunately. It's actually an excellent example of science: the ability to change position once better evidence is brought in. If there is significant evidence that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening, that roughly 97% consensus of climate scientists apparently haven't found it yet. It's not like one can blame it on some kind of political agenda either, as climate scientists worldwide are in consensus on it. If it was politically-motivated, you'd expect climate scientists in different countries to be in broad disagreement with each other because politics is varied across the planet.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 09/05/2021 07:35:13
What does that have anything to with being in denial ? Confirmation bias is a well known term applied in some senarios to people such as scientists who refuse to entertain the idea they are incorrect.But I suspect your answer will be that because that was an incorrect treatment, it is therefore not representative of science.
You won't be hearing me say that, fortunately. It's actually an excellent example of science: the ability to change position once better evidence is brought in. If there is significant evidence that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening, that roughly 97% consensus of climate scientists apparently haven't found it yet. It's not like one can blame it on some kind of political agenda either, as climate scientists worldwide are in consensus on it. If it was politically-motivated, you'd expect climate scientists in different countries to be in broad disagreement with each other because politics is varied across the planet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
But then again I suppose that's wrong too.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/05/2021 14:47:29
Post by: Petrochemicals on 09/05/2021 15:27:56
97% of the world's climate scientists are in denial? Really? To suggest that some subgroup of scientists are in denial would be one thing, but to say that climate scientists, internationally, with different cultural backgrounds overwhelmingly came to the same conclusion about climate change because of confirmation bias or denial stretches credibility. The data is there. The Earth has steadily been getting warmer since the beginning of the industrial revolution.Rather ambiguous and egotistical.
Post by: Origin on 09/05/2021 17:55:08
Rather ambiguous and egotisticalWhat Kryptid said was neither ambiguous nor egotistical.
As they say, "I don't think you know what that word means".
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/05/2021 20:13:00
What Kryptid said was neither ambiguous nor egotistical.It might be ambiguous if you don't understand irony.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 09/05/2021 22:22:56
Egotistical, vain and biasedRather ambiguous and egotisticalWhat Kryptid said was neither ambiguous nor egotistical.
As they say, "I don't think you know what that word means".
Post by: Kryptid on 09/05/2021 23:15:25
Egotistical, vain and biasedRather ambiguous and egotisticalWhat Kryptid said was neither ambiguous nor egotistical.
As they say, "I don't think you know what that word means".
Feel free to explain your reasoning.
Post by: Origin on 09/05/2021 23:26:53
Egotistical, vain and biasedYou claim that those words apply to someone for stating that climate scientist think man made global warming is real? You really don't know what those words mean.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 10/05/2021 13:12:38
You claim that those words apply to someone for stating that climate scientist think man made global warming is real? You really don't know what those words mean.
Egotistical, vain and biased
Post by: Kryptid on 10/05/2021 20:05:36
I can tell you what actually is egotistical: armchair researchers thinking they know more about the climate than actual climate scientists.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/05/2021 07:42:06
Is it egotistical to say that the majority of biologists are probably not in denial if they are in agreement that evolution happens? Is it egotistical to say that the majority of astronomers are probably not in denial if they are in agreement that the closest star to the Sun is Proxima Centauri? Is it egotistical to say that the majority of geologists are probably not in denial if they are in agreement that the Earth is billions of years old? If not, why is it suddenly egotistical when it comes to climate scientists having a consensus about climate change?Nope that is very ambiguous and diversive.
I can tell you what actually is egotistical: armchair researchers thinking they know more about the climate than actual climate scientists.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/05/2021 15:25:17
Nope that is very ambiguous
If you think that's ambiguous, then I don't know what else to tell you.
and diversive.
How? https://www.badasstoysforbadassboys.com/diversive.html
Post by: alancalverd on 11/05/2021 16:18:44
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/05/2021 18:39:35
which would be uncomfortable for anyone who preaches that glacier retreat is a recent phenomenon.Only if they were dumb enough to think it's a monotonic process.
Anyone with the brains to realise that the weather varies a bit would see that there isn't a problem with one observation, in one place, being different.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/05/2021 20:37:13
Divisive . What exactly, from your moral and scientific impervious Ness is your point about?Nope that is very ambiguous
If you think that's ambiguous, then I don't know what else to tell you.and diversive.
How? https://www.badasstoysforbadassboys.com/diversive.html
Post by: Kryptid on 11/05/2021 21:22:03
What exactly, from your moral
I don't see what morality has to do with it.
and scientific impervious Ness is your point about?
I also don't know what imperviousness has to do with it. Nothing about science is "impervious". Science is always amenable to change when new evidence is uncovered.
My point is that it is unlikely that 97% of experts in a given field would be in denial about evidence that they are aware of. That might be plausible if you were saying that only a handful were in denial, but almost all? Highly improbable.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/05/2021 21:48:18
You seem to be attacking the question rather than answering it again. Very devicive.What exactly, from your moral
I don't see what morality has to do with it.and scientific impervious Ness is your point about?
I also don't know what imperviousness has to do with it. Nothing about science is "impervious". Science is always amenable to change when new evidence is uncovered.
My point is that it is unlikely that 97% of experts in a given field would be in denial about evidence that they are aware of. That might be plausible if you were saying that only a handful were in denial, but almost all? Highly improbable.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/05/2021 21:58:10
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/05/2021 22:04:55
You seem to be attacking the question rather than answering it again. Very devicive.The question was utterly stupid.
Who do you think is correct? You or a rabid badger?
And you wend downhill from there.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/05/2021 23:34:33
You're aware that climate change data goes back well over a decade, aren't you?I've gone back a page, not to pillory friend Kryptid, but to make a much bigger point. Reliable climate data goes back at least 400,000 years in the Vostok ice cores, and what has been observed over the last 100 years is, on the basis of previous temperature cycles, completely unremarkable and even exactly to be expected as yet another ~100,000 year cycle reaches its peak.
Much as I have enjoyed disagreeing with puppypower over the years, we concur on this: it is very dangerous to draw a line through one point, and where the data is inherently noisy, even drawing a line through a hundred points may do little more than demonstrate just how noisy it is.
97% consensus is pretty normal among experts, who in the course of scientific history would have agreed that there are four elements, heavy objects fall faster than light ones, the sun goes round the earth, caloric, phlogiston, aether, Bohr orbits, and the undeniable fact that "there is no conceivable military use for the airplane". Fortunately human knowledge does not advance by consensus but by the curiosity of mavericks, and the fact that the planet has been here several times before, and the arctic was considerably warmer within recorded history, should not be forgotten when making climate predictions or attempting to determine a mechanism from recent data.
It is comforting to think that human activity can have a significant impact on climate. But nature is indifferent to our comfort and will not necessarily respond to our efforts.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/05/2021 05:55:21
Either that or they are in denial once again, as was seen in the cfc and ozone hole argument.Go on have, another go Kryptid.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/05/2021 07:47:10
Go on have, another go Kryptid.
If you couldn't parse the content of my sentences before, I don't know why I should try.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/05/2021 08:31:31
Much as I have enjoyed disagreeing with puppypower over the years, we concur on this: it is very dangerous to draw a line through one point,It would be.
Thankfully, nobody did it.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/05/2021 12:01:26
Well there we are then.Go on have, another go Kryptid.
If you couldn't parse the content of my sentences before, I don't know why I should try.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 01/10/2021 23:24:53
www.euronews.com/amp/2021/09/29/iceland-hit-by-earlier-than-normal-snowstorm
Damn global warming.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/11/2021 06:55:51
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-59243836
Damn you global warming.
Post by: Zer0 on 11/11/2021 14:26:08
Y'all are simply having a cordial discussion on here, & other places(OPs) about the " Various " Reasons that could be feeding or acting as a catalyst towards climate change & global warming, Right?
You folks Obviously are Not suggesting that perhaps, there ain't No Global Warming happening?
(Natural or human caused)
Obviously, global climatic trends are changing, Correct?
Ps - Sorry for such a stoopid query, just felt i should ask, that's all.
✌️
Post by: Origin on 11/11/2021 15:02:25
Something you will not find great thunder harping on about. Nor the widespread media.
www.euronews.com/amp/2021/09/29/iceland-hit-by-earlier-than-normal-snowstorm
Damn global warming.
It must be confusing living in your simplistic world.
If there is an unusual cold spell somewhere in the world then you think global warming must wrong. So of course if there is a hot spell somewhere in the world global warming must be right. If there is an unusual hot spell and an unusual cold spell in the world at the same time then you are probably just completely befuddled.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/11/2021 15:09:25
Where as you know the above is global warming, and can produce a reason in lightning speed that supports it as such given your genius as you testify too yourself!Something you will not find great thunder harping on about. Nor the widespread media.
www.euronews.com/amp/2021/09/29/iceland-hit-by-earlier-than-normal-snowstorm
Damn global warming.
It must be confusing living in your simplistic world.
If there is an unusual hot spell and an unusual cold spell in the world at the same time then you are probably just completely befuddled.
Post by: Origin on 11/11/2021 15:18:34
Where as you know the above is global warming, and can produce a reason in lightning speed that supports it as such given your genius as you testify too yourself!The reason is temperatures vary. Really difficult!
Edit to add an example:
Winter is coming. That doesn't mean that every day will be colder than the previous day until mid January. The day to day temperatures vary. I hope this isn't to nuanced for you understand.
Post by: puppypower on 11/11/2021 15:50:37
Years back, I was a development engineer geared toward developing new environmental remediation technologies. While doing research for a different project, I read an article about a team that developed a technique to get rid of cancer causing organic chemicals. They used supercritical water; hot and high pressure water. Water at these conditions is not only a good organic solvent, but in their technology, it broke down these nasty organic chemicals all the way to CO2.
This made me think, was it possible that the earth is breaking down fossils fuel resources, all the way to CO2 using supercritical; hydrothermal water, deep in the earth. This type of organic decomposition reaction could be contributing to the CO2 rise we see, and it is not in the current equations.
Another problem I have with the climate change models is they are based on obsolete earth science, that does not include some very provocative new earth discoveries. The main discovery is the iron core of the earth is rotating faster than the surface. This discovery suggests the core is dragging the mantle and crust along via visco-plastic friction. This means heat generation that is not in any of the models.
Another discovery was the earth magnetic field periodically wanders over the earth and reverses polarity. This was easier to explain when the earth was a uniform ball. But the rotating core discovery; always one direction, makes it harder.
It was also discovered that there is an ocean of water, the size of the Arctic Ocean, in the mantle just below the crust, in SE Asia. There was another parallel discovery of a scar on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean where the mantle was exposed. Combined these two discoveries suggests mantle water can periodically breach the crust and add water and heat to the oceans. These discoveries are not part of the climate change models. The current earth science used did not anticipate any of these things.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/11/2021 16:23:46
There's the reason.Where as you know the above is global warming, and can produce a reason in lightning speed that supports it as such given your genius as you testify too yourself!The reason is temperatures vary. Really difficult!
Edit to add an example:
Winter is coming. That doesn't mean that every day will be colder than the previous day until mid January. The day to day temperatures vary. I hope this isn't to nuanced for you understand.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/11/2021 16:31:05
in my mind balls with an inner ball rotating at different speed to the outer are more likely to wander. I can't think of what children's toy I have seen but that is how I remember it.
Another discovery was the earth magnetic field periodically wanders over the earth and reverses polarity. This was easier to explain when the earth was a uniform ball. But the rotating core discovery; always one direction, makes it harder.
It was also discovered that there is an ocean of water, the size of the Arctic Ocean, in the mantle just below the crust, in SE Asia. There was another parallel discovery of a scar on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean where the mantle was exposed. Combined these two discoveries suggests mantle water can periodically breach the crust and add water and heat to the oceans. These discoveries are not part of the climate change models. The current earth science used did not anticipate any of these things.There are these things.
Post by: Origin on 11/11/2021 16:52:15
This made me think, was it possible that the earth is breaking down fossils fuel resources, all the way to CO2 using supercritical; hydrothermal water, deep in the earth. This type of organic decomposition reaction could be contributing to the CO2 rise we see, and it is not in the current equations.I think it is not included since that would be a stupid thing to do.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2021 19:18:30
They used supercritical water; hot and high pressure water. Water at these conditions is not only a good organic solvent, but in their technology, it broke down these nasty organic chemicals all the way to CO2.You forgot the bit where they add air or oxygen, without it, that process doesn't really work.
This made me think, was it possible that the earth is breaking down fossils fuel resources, all the way to CO2 using supercritical; hydrothermal water, deep in the earth. This type of organic decomposition reaction could be contributing to the CO2 rise we see, and it is not in the current equations.No, it couldn't.
Essentially, you can only burn carbon to CO2 if there's air (or some other strong oxidant) and there's none deep underground.
Another problem I have with the climate change models is they are based on obsolete earth science, that does not include some very provocative new earth discoveries. The main discovery is the iron core of the earth is rotating faster than the surface. This discovery suggests the core is dragging the mantle and crust along via visco-plastic friction. This means heat generation that is not in any of the models.You are muddling cause and effect.
Because heat is generated in the earth by radioactive decay, there are convection currents which produce movement.
It is not that the movement creates the heat.
So, once again, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/11/2021 08:39:03
https://www.alaskapublic.org/2021/09/24/was-today-a-snow-day-in-anchorage-not-according-to-the-national-weather-service/
Winter comes early too to Scandinavia.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2021/10/winter-comes-early-scandinavia
www.thelocal.no/20211019/drivers-in-norway-urged-to-switch-to-winter-tyres-after-snowfall/%3famp
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2021 08:42:31
Record early snowfall in alaskaWhy are you posting stories about the weather?
https://www.alaskapublic.org/2021/09/24/was-today-a-snow-day-in-anchorage-not-according-to-the-national-weather-service/
Winter comes early too to Scandinavia.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2021/10/winter-comes-early-scandinavia
www.thelocal.no/20211019/drivers-in-norway-urged-to-switch-to-winter-tyres-after-snowfall/%3famp
Are you just trying to be very British?
Post by: Zer0 on 13/11/2021 08:41:01
Record early snowfall in alaskaWhy are you posting stories about the weather?
https://www.alaskapublic.org/2021/09/24/was-today-a-snow-day-in-anchorage-not-according-to-the-national-weather-service/
Winter comes early too to Scandinavia.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2021/10/winter-comes-early-scandinavia
www.thelocal.no/20211019/drivers-in-norway-urged-to-switch-to-winter-tyres-after-snowfall/%3famp
Are you just trying to be very British?
Perhaps you should pay more Attention & concentrate harder.
The OP is merely raising Valid Points which can All contribute towards the phenomenon of Global Warming.
If you did not know it already, which Grim ThunderBurger clearly does Not understand...
Global Warming can cause Droughts, Floods, Storms alike.
(There's a really good reason parents send their children to school for, To Learn Stuff)
Ps - I did not quite understand the reference towards tryin to be
" BRITISH " .
I Strongly Object Racism.
(Are you trying to be a Racist?)
Post by: Colin2B on 13/11/2021 08:58:42
Ps - I did not quite understand the reference towards tryin to beIs it racist to mention a general characteristic of a nation or group? Not sure whether we do talk about the weather more than other nations, but we have a lot to talk about in the local weather:
" BRITISH " .
I Strongly Object Racism.
(Are you trying to be a Racist?)
https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/why-do-the-british-talk-about-the-weather-so-much/
https://www.rabbies.com/en/blog/why-british-always-talk-about-weather
Post by: Petrochemicals on 13/11/2021 11:24:23
They are all cooling events, along with extraordinary snow in Brazil and Australia this year, you have to take note.Record early snowfall in alaskaWhy are you posting stories about the weather?
https://www.alaskapublic.org/2021/09/24/was-today-a-snow-day-in-anchorage-not-according-to-the-national-weather-service/
Winter comes early too to Scandinavia.
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2021/10/winter-comes-early-scandinavia
www.thelocal.no/20211019/drivers-in-norway-urged-to-switch-to-winter-tyres-after-snowfall/%3famp
Are you just trying to be very British?
Perhaps you should pay more Attention & concentrate harder.
The OP is merely raising Valid Points which can All contribute towards the phenomenon of Global Warming.
If you did not know it already, which Grim ThunderBurger clearly does Not understand...
Global Warming can cause Droughts, Floods, Storms alike.
(There's a really good reason parents send their children to school for, To Learn Stuff)
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/11/2021 11:55:26
I Strongly Object Racism.Me too.
So how did you come to the conclusion that "British" is a race?
Don't you understand that this is a multiracial, multicultural nation?
I did not quite understand the referenceYou didn't even slightly understand it, did you?
The point is that the events that PC was talking about were weather, not climate.
"Talking about the weather" is a cliché British attribute.
However, I accept that my critique must have been too subtle, because he's still posting irrelevant tosh like this.
They are all cooling events, along with extraordinary snow in Brazil and Australia this year, you have to take note.
Post by: Zer0 on 14/11/2021 05:16:57
(It's an Idealogy)
I still Do Not Understand what Being British or Non British has anything to do with the Subject or Topic of this Specific OP.
(MODS have made it clear TNS isn't only UK, it welcomes International Users, Only Trolls & Spammers Disallowed)
Ps - Asking a mere question, be it
" Very British " or " Racist " does Not imply Accusation.
(Simple English & Common Sense)
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/11/2021 10:27:10
This thread is about climate.
So it shouldn't be used to talk about weather.
But PC was talking about weather events.
There are three (or more) possible reasons for that:
(1) He doesn't know the difference- which implies he's a bit gormless.
(2) He knows, but is trolling.
(3) He knows, but he wants (for whatever reason) to indulge in the terribly British cliché habit of "talking about the weather- regardless of how inappropriate it is.
His profile says he is based in Britain, so I'm pretty sure he will have understood the message.
The OP is merely raising Valid PointsNo.
Petrochemicals is raising red herrings about weather. A cold spell somewhere doesn't mean that global warming is not real, so it is not a valid point.
Post by: puppypower on 14/11/2021 15:50:02
They used supercritical water; hot and high pressure water. Water at these conditions is not only a good organic solvent, but in their technology, it broke down these nasty organic chemicals all the way to CO2.You forgot the bit where they add air or oxygen, without it, that process doesn't really work.This made me think, was it possible that the earth is breaking down fossils fuel resources, all the way to CO2 using supercritical; hydrothermal water, deep in the earth. This type of organic decomposition reaction could be contributing to the CO2 rise we see, and it is not in the current equations.No, it couldn't.
Essentially, you can only burn carbon to CO2 if there's air (or some other strong oxidant) and there's none deep underground.Another problem I have with the climate change models is they are based on obsolete earth science, that does not include some very provocative new earth discoveries. The main discovery is the iron core of the earth is rotating faster than the surface. This discovery suggests the core is dragging the mantle and crust along via visco-plastic friction. This means heat generation that is not in any of the models.You are muddling cause and effect.
Because heat is generated in the earth by radioactive decay, there are convection currents which produce movement.
It is not that the movement creates the heat.
So, once again, you are barking up the wrong tree.
You are working under obsolete assumptions.
The layering of the inner earth; from crust to core, is consistent with the phase diagram of water at extreme temperatures and pressures. For example, at the assumed conditions of the earth's core, water becomes a metallic solid. It had been assumed for many years that metallic water would require far more extreme conditions, similar to the core of Jupiter. However, a team at Lawrence Livermore successfully made metallic water at milder conditions closer to the earth's core. The bias of traditions can be misleadingly authoritative, until experimental techniques advance.
As we lower the temperature and pressure from the core, metallic water will change phase into a fluid phase called ionic water; outer core and lower mantle. In this case we have a matrix of oxygen atoms and ions with hydrogen protons. This phase of water can rust the solid iron core, making iron oxides, while releasing electrons and heat; phase fluid.
This drive for iron core oxidation is driven by the sun through the evaporation of water; positive charge in the atmosphere. It is also connected to photosynthesis and the resultant oxygen atmosphere; oxidation potential. The alkaline pH of the oceans reflects this electron flow; phase equilibrium, from core to surface.
Confined water will move from the surface to the core, driven by an entropy increase, that increases by increasing temperature and pressure. For example, in hydrothermal experiments, as we increase the temperature and pressure of water to its critical point, water becomes a dense fluid; between liquid and gas, that is an aggressive solvent for minerals and organics. This solvent power increases further with increasing temperature and pressure; super critical water. The thermal and pressure gradient of the earth from surface to core allows water to express the second law by following the gradient to the core. This creates a continuity of water phases and earth layers from metallic at the core, to vapor in the atmosphere.
Another interesting recent observation was the earth is denser from pole to pole compared to radially at the equator. We know the earth is wider at the equator, but it is also less dense in terms of its average composition. This was determined by measuring the speed of seismic waves from earthquakes in different directions. When normalized for distance, seismic waves moved fastest in the pole to pole direction; denser materials.
This is expected from a water model of the inner earth.The equator defines the solar energy maximum and is therefore the zone of maximum water evaporation. The equator therefore should maximize the potential with the core, and become the main zone of corrosion and highest electron flow. This electron flow maxima will also increase the entropy potential of the water; flow rate to the core, which alters the density in the equatorial direction.
Climate change is normal for the earth since it consistent with the second law. Water plays a key role in the entropy economy of the earth from core to climate. Water is the primary greenhouse gas of the earth. The consensus of experts do not like to admit this. If we took away the surface water and left just the scary CO2 and methane the earth would be frozen. The water is what has the thermal capacitance that keeps the earth mild. It also provides inner earth heat and electrons to promote entropic change. I like the idea of learning to adapt to the change rather than trying turn back time by foolishly thinking one can lowering the surface entropy back to 1889. The equilibrium is more than just the surface.
Post by: Zer0 on 14/11/2021 15:58:58
I do not think the OP would have been Allowed to keep going on & on without a MOD stepping in, or correcting, or simply locking up the thread.
(If you Noticed, there are 2 Mods involved within the discussions)
I suspect i have misassumed the OP raising Cold Weather phenomenon patterns in Support of Global Warming being a Real Deal.
Perhaps that is what the OP wished for Grim ToonBooger to raise those Cold pattern points in support of explaining the Reality of Global Warming.
Ps - hmm, i feel I've made a mistake in Understanding the point of view of the OP.
🙏
(Yes, i do get it that Global Warming does not just only mean temperatures keep rising, it does clearly contribute in disturbing generalized weather patterns, and promotes disruptive and harsh n extreme climate)
Post by: Petrochemicals on 22/02/2022 16:23:44
I am clearly barking up the wrong tree, I can see that now.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2022 17:47:49
I am clearly barking up the wrong tree, I can see that now.
Good. I'm glad you finally recognize that.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 23/02/2022 14:48:59
How can you debase yourself so?I am clearly barking up the wrong tree, I can see that now.
Good. I'm glad you finally recognize that.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/02/2022 15:27:06
How can you debase yourself so?I am clearly barking up the wrong tree, I can see that now.
Good. I'm glad you finally recognize that.
You're going to have to elaborate, because I don't know what you're talking about.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 23/02/2022 19:28:53
Once more.How can you debase yourself so?I am clearly barking up the wrong tree, I can see that now.
Good. I'm glad you finally recognize that.
You're going to have to elaborate, because I don't know what you're talking about.
Are you a member of "Insulate Britain" Kryptid? Perhaps "Extinction Rebellion"? You seem to utterly denounce anything that dilutes the mantra of CO2 driven warming to the point of discredit to yourself.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/02/2022 19:50:28
What have I done to discredit myself?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 23/02/2022 20:08:05
I don't know what either "Insulate Britain" or "Extinction Rebellion" is, so no.
What have I done to discredit myself?
You seem to be attacking the question rather than answering it again. Very devicive.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60423329.amp
Post by: Kryptid on 23/02/2022 20:14:26
Post by: Petrochemicals on 23/02/2022 22:12:58
I don't even know what it means to "attack a question" nor do I know what you think your link is evidence for in relation to the present thread.And repeat.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60423329.amp
Post by: Kryptid on 24/02/2022 00:00:13
Post by: Petrochemicals on 08/06/2022 09:24:59
https://mkweather.com/a-peak-of-winter-2021-2022-in-the-usa-and-canada-toronto-heaviest-blizzard-since-1965-nashville-snowiest-winter-since-1985-mississauga-the-most-snow-since-1944-yakutat-18-m-of-snow-hail-in-texas/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/02/25/japan-snow-record-depth-tsunan-hokkaido/
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-59243836.amp
https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover
Now some of this could possibly be put down to a wetter climate, but it is bucking the global warming trend.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/06/2022 13:13:04
but it is bucking the global warming trend.No.
It is bucking your "idea" of what global warming means.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/06/2022 23:22:18
but it is bucking the global warming trend.No.
It is bucking your "idea" of what global warming means.
And that's why it's important to look at data as a whole instead of cherry-picking certain parts of it.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/06/2022 23:27:15
Post by: Kryptid on 10/06/2022 23:31:58
....like the last 100 or 10,000 years....
I never said otherwise.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/06/2022 13:29:47
....like the last 100 or 10,000 years....
Or 5 billion. The earth is currently undergoing massive cooling.
What is important is to pick the evidence that supports the position you have taken and ignore any that is contrary to it. Why anyone would wish to post information on seasonal weather on a thread to do with global warming is rediculous. Why do nasa even bother monitoring the ice caps.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/06/2022 20:40:57
Or 5 billion. The earth is currently undergoing massive cooling.
Maybe internally.
What is important is to pick the evidence that supports the position you have taken and ignore any that is contrary to it.
You mean like how Shaquille O'Neal being 7'1" is evidence that the average height for an American man being 5'9" is wrong?
Post by: Origin on 11/06/2022 22:43:30
The earth is currently undergoing massive cooling.The evidence says the opposite is happening.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/06/2022 22:45:28
Yes exactly like that. Rather than taking the average height of people who are 28 this year. Maybe your not completely senseless. Shaq is not that remarkable, where as yao ming on the other hand is truly amazing for his ethnic group.What is important is to pick the evidence that supports the position you have taken and ignore any that is contrary to it.
You mean like how Shaquille O'Neal being 7'1" is evidence that the average height for an American man being 5'9" is wrong?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/06/2022 22:51:42
The earth is currently undergoing massive cooling.The evidence says the opposite is happening.
Or 5 billion. The earth is currently undergoing massive cooling.Yeh sorry Colin I see why you dont like me to post comments about nonsensical Garbage.
Post by: Origin on 12/06/2022 00:13:10
Yeh sorry Colin I see why you dont like me to post comments about nonsensical Garbage.I don't think anybody likes it.
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 26/06/2022 19:45:04
Maybe 5% tops
Still any police which preserves life and environment, even if a lie it's proactive.
But the money must be well supervised.
As any lying mídia as TikTok or YouTube which has not a single point only misticismo it's dangerous and fake and must be utterly eradicated to not to spread panic.
Panic it's the real goal behind these types of corporations, actually the "control" executed over the panic they deliberately cause.
I'm from Brazil and the lies about Amazonia for example are completely fake.
So in a short answer, no.
Post by: Deecart on 26/06/2022 20:50:39
The specialist (yes it was a specialist of the question at this time) just said that there is no evidence of global warming due to human activities.
What was his evidence ? The global warming occured IN THE WHOLE STELLAR AREA.
Because i know that no human is doing anything on Mars or Neptune or Uranus or Mercury, i was pretty confident that all the global warming we could observ is due to the SUN. The datas coming from the NASA i believed him.
Now, nobody talk about the sun...
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 26/06/2022 22:55:45
Polar shift it's the culprit, till the new poles are set the old ice will ever melt before the earth cools down again.