This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The aliteration fans usualy go for Tornado. Now if Vidal Sasoon played snooker rather than doing hair......Surely the answer is that we've had a hurricane - but not a typhoon - in snooker...?If his surname had been Timmings you could have had Typhoon Timmings.
The bun might have lots of ends or points. Something to reference to.Tunneling is one explination, but given that it hits his foot im thinking that the water puddle is providing an exellent connection.
Thats a good insight. If the air is cool the sun does not feel as warm as when if the air has been warm for a number of days, yet same sun at the same elevation. Even at noon the suns heat does not seem the most intense, usually about 2 or 3 in the afternoon, the evening sun is also far more powerful than the morning. Morning sun is usually quite pleasant evening sun can be unbearable. Thats my opinion.
Interesting question - if the air around you is cold do you feel the sun’s rays as warmer than if the air is warm?
Barbara is wondering...As an interesting addition, rain forms from particles colliding into large droplets and falls, yet a good ammount of rain never reaches the ground as it is vapourised on the decent by heat and wind (energy) even though it is falling into areas of higher pressure (pressure lowers the dewpoint thus making air less capable of carrying water vapour )
Why do clouds stay high above the earth with flat bottoms as though they are sitting on something when their substance is heavier than all other gasses in our atmosphere?
Can you help?
I'm sorry that I confused you. I shall retire and maybe someone can help you. Good luck on your studies.Touché
You are confusing two different effects with two different conditions. The length of atmosphere is detrimental for both IR and UV. IR is heat. UV is sunburn. There is another component of the atmospheric length, and that is density. If we add altitude to the condition......then density must be accounted for.But thats not an explanation of why at greater depth the suns rays feel more warm ? It is contrary.
The density is more detrimental to UV. A high mountain anywhere should burn you. If you can expose yourself.
The intensity of light should be limited by two basic lengths. The length of source and the length of atmosphere. Both lengths increase in the northern hemisphere at winter time.That sounds plausable but I often find the sun hottest in the mid afternoon not noon. Also in the mountains it is easy to get alot more solar radiation and get burned by the ultraviolet, yet it does not feel as intense ? Einsteins old photoelectric effect at a guess. But why does the sun feel more fierce at lower altitudes ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarboniferousThen came the carboniferous age, where trees locked away carbon and no microbes existed that where capable of decomposing wood, this carbon in the wood lay trapped in a land congested with tree trunks.Wait, how do we know that no microbes existed at the time? Weren't they simply didn't leave fossils?
Forest fires are negligable in imact and are generally constant, so a small increace will only slightly increace levels. A study in the amazon said that the ammount of carbon stored in the wood in the amazon forest is worth 100 years of UsA emmisions,
These statements seem contradictory to me. 100 years of USA emissions (at current rates) is quite significant, so even burning 0.5% would be a significant event. And while I would agree that there isn't typically that much variability in forest fires from year to year, there are also instances of major fires that can both release a significant amount of CO2 as a direct product of combustion, and reduce the rate at which CO2 can be absorbed in the near term.
1)yet done slowly over 3000 years far more carbon has dissapearedwhen you realise the ammount of forest cleared across the earth by man in the last 3000 years there is alot more carbon released by that than fossil fuel, a few square miles of forest will not massively impact the current standing. The forests cleared show that the balance is not in equilibrium.
A few points:
(1) yes there is not currently an equilibrium--*we* are significantly disrupting that equilibrium, and pushing the system to a new equilibrium with significantly higher CO2 concentrations than have been in the atmosphere at any point in the last million years or so.
(2) Comparing the deforestation we have caused over the last few millennia with the burning of fossil fuels over the last 200 years is not really a reasonable comparison.
(3) When I mentioned forest fires, I was not talking about a few square miles. I'm talking about epic rashes of forest fires like those that are likely to have occurred after major meteorite strikes or geologic activity. In just thee last few decades there have been examples of individual fires burning thousands of square kilometers of forest, and those are likely to be very small compared to what has happened (and will happen) on a scale of millions of years.
Also whilst a big enough increace in temperature will vent gas from the water, i believe the ammount of temperature increace is not enough to offset the increace ?This was one of the examples of a positive feedback loop, so "offest" doesn't apply. (the hotter it gets, the more carbon dioxide comes out of the water, making it hotter, which drives more out of the water...)
In the next two or three billion years or so, it is unlikely.Forest fires are negligable in imact and are generally constant, so a small increace will only slightly increace levels. A study in the amazon said that the ammount of carbon stored in the wood in the amazon forest is worth 100 years of UsA emmisions, when you realise the ammount of forest cleared across the earth by man in the last 3000 years there is alot more carbon released by that than fossil fuel, a few square miles of forest will not massively impact the current standing. The forests cleared show that the balance is not in equilibrium.
Natural processes will establish some sort of steady state equilibrium that has a non-zero amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The equilibrium will shift around somewhat on both an annual cycle due to seasonal changes in deciduous forests, and a several thousand year cycle due to changes in temperature driven by external factors (like our orbit etc.), and there will be times when CO2 levels spike due to volcanism or forest fires, or fall more quickly due to good growing years... but it will stay largely constant on a century-by-century basis.
While it is true that carbonate minerals are produced at the expense of atmospheric CO2, these are calcined in the bowels of the earth as tectonic movements cause the deposits to be subducted. This CO2 is released through volcanic eruptions as well as slower off-gassing processes.
Essentially, there are naturally occurring processes that can add to and subtract from the atmospheric CO2 levels. Many of these are negative feedback loops (on long timescales, ie 103 to 107 years) so that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the faster it gets absorbed, and the more carbonate rock has been formed, the more quickly it gets consumed. Some of the components, however, are positive feedback loops (especially on short timescales, ie 1 to 104 years), like more CO2 in the atmosphere can increase the global temperatures, leading to less dissolved CO2, and more forest fires, both of which lead to more atmospheric CO2 (or the reverse). This leads to relatively rapid changes between a few distinct equilibrium points, which, once established, are fairly stable until a large forcing factor comes along, causing another rapid change to a new equilibrium point.
Once the sun turns into a red giant, our atmosphere will be stripped off, and then there isn't much point considering how much of the remainder is CO2...
check out the "carbon cycle" for more info