Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Petrochemicals on 07/09/2017 19:42:52

Title: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 07/09/2017 19:42:52
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2017 13:42:18
"If by mans activity during the hours of daylight (point of the earth facing the sun) applies force to the surface of the earth, whilst by the hours of darkness he is static, would this activity have an effect (however small)  to permanently alter the distance of the earth from the sun"

No.
The laws of momentum conservation make this impossible.
Essentially, nothing on earth can change the earth's orbit, because it would have nothing to push against.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/09/2017 13:51:06
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 09/09/2017 14:58:18
See you say that but what brought it to my attention is the diflection tequniques employed against hypothetical meteors, such as altering with gravitational attraction, thrusts into surface, and solar radiation utilisation. Im pretty sure if we exploded nukes on one side of the ear5h we could shift the earth and save mankind from global warming :) Earthquakes have had an effect on the orbit of earth. I guess we'll have to tell them no then !

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 ?
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox 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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox 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!
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 23/09/2017 20:42:36
Man made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 23/09/2017 21:05:17
Man made?
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 fuels burnt etc, were already a part of the Universes mass, only ourselves are a change to the Universe.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 23/09/2017 22:23:41
According to this http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/FossilFuelsDepletion.htm

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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 23/09/2017 22:29:04
a4df4c5aaf8f092e03a00f7109e5de74.gif
According to this http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/FossilFuelsDepletion.htm

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.
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 .

8010f5fa41ca56245d51141a26a4ed52.gif

Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 23/09/2017 22:49:01
a4df4c5aaf8f092e03a00f7109e5de74.gif
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 .

0b3d952cd1fece1dba62f7fb3c50c059.gif


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.

 what do we mean 'Gray' mr griffith ?
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 23/09/2017 22:53:54
a4df4c5aaf8f092e03a00f7109e5de74.gif
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 .

0b3d952cd1fece1dba62f7fb3c50c059.gif


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.

 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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/09/2017 23:10:14
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 23/09/2017 23:15:53
I'm not saying anything.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 23/09/2017 23:22:44
I know they say oil/coal/gas comes from plants.
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: phyti on 26/09/2017 17:01:23
but i wonder whether i have the physics wrong
Newton'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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 06/10/2017 02:31:30
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, but when the rocket decends the earth does infact move toward it, and when it ascends the specific energy ammount of the decent has to be put back into the system to repel the earth. 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. That is the theory of asteroid deflection.

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.

Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: phyti on 07/10/2017 18:45:37
Petrochemicals #18
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,
but when the rocket decends the earth does infact move toward it,
/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?
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,
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 07/10/2017 19:36:31
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LADEE/news/lunar-atmosphere.html

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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 14/10/2017 02:15:39
6x10to (11) msquare of water. Oceans are 350 million sqkm or 350x 10to (12)metres square


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"
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 24/10/2017 18:34:14
Further  thoughts on this, if the gravitational attraction effect acts uniformaly all year as  theearth orbits the sun.

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?
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/11/2017 21:26:49
I think now that this does not work as the gravitational tractior works due to the very fact mans activities happen throughout the course of the day inline with the orbit of the earth round the sun rather than perpendicular to the sun earth line, mans actions do not localise themselves at odds in relation to the sun earth line continuously but are part of it ?

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 ?
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/12/2017 05:15:47
I did not understand that jeffreyH.

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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 15/12/2017 23:57:39
Looking into the weather histories of europe and usa, i cannot fimd much on russia and china, there is a strong relationship belween economic slowdown, energy drop off and ice events. I am going to start at 1935 as prior to that the world 3nergy usage was building up.

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 !
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 19/12/2017 04:04:32
Sun spots do not seem to correlate very well, for example winters of 1946 and 1979 where during the suns maximum solar cycle approaches, yet the winters of 1962 and 2010 are near the minimums

 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

Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/01/2018 20:51:16
This is the very sharp decline in 75 and the effect it had, during summer

http://www.markvoganweather.com/2015/06/02/a-taste-of-winter-in-early-summer-but-at-least-its-not-1975/
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/02/2018 16:37:36
It is my theory that fossil fuels have aided in increacing the moisture content of the atmosphere. Greater temperatures by way of airs thermal holding capacity increace the quantity of water vapor in the air. When i say about energies and water content these are only fractions of a percentage, but built up over time  I theorise they are having an effect felt by us and could have a larger effect still

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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/02/2018 17:45:57
Could you do a bit of arithmetic for me please?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 11/02/2018 20:50:26
If you look up i have worked out the energy, and as stated in the post above we are talking very small ammounts, the energy released into the air is ony a fiew degrees worth per year, the energy released into the air is not that great by the ammount already recieved by the earth surface from the sun.

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
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/02/2018 09:07:29
In my answer evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy taken from the earths surface bu way of evapourative cooling, thus reducing the emmisive radiation into space that would normaly remove that energy out of the atmospheric system.

My evaporation is calculated bu the  moisture holding content saturation of 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
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox 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.

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
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. 
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.


Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: The Spoon on 12/02/2018 11:10:12
In my answer evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy taken from the earths surface bu way of evapourative cooling, thus reducing the emmisive radiation into space that would normaly remove that energy out of the atmospheric system.

My evaporation is calculated bu the  moisture holding content saturation of 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
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. 
In other words, a piece of coal contains an amount of energy ,  transforming this energy does not change the amount of energy . 
If anything , burning fossil fuels releases some of the  energy into space , the entropy within the earths field would be less. 
You could argue the carbon emissions absorb energy , but so does the piece of coal you started with.

What is actually happening is a Universal warming, therefore all things within the observable Universe are warming. All things want to reach room temperature relative to the field density.



What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 12/02/2018 11:30:05
I remember you now chemist, you never did tell me where that "ignore" button was.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: puppypower on 12/02/2018 12:14:35
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)
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 12/02/2018 12:16:21
In my answer evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy taken from the earths surface bu way of evapourative cooling, thus reducing the emmisive radiation into space that would normaly remove that energy out of the atmospheric system.

My evaporation is calculated bu the  moisture holding content saturation of 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
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. 
In other words, a piece of coal contains an amount of energy ,  transforming this energy does not change the amount of energy . 
If anything , burning fossil fuels releases some of the  energy into space , the entropy within the earths field would be less. 
You could argue the carbon emissions absorb energy , but so does the piece of coal you started with.

What is actually happening is a Universal warming, therefore all things within the observable Universe are warming. All things want to reach room temperature relative to the field density.



What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump.
I know beyond your ability, so stop being  arrogant.    Changing the form of the piece of coal does not change the mass of the total of the new formation of the coal.   Splitting one big battery into several different batteries doesn't change the fact that the several small batteries are the one battery.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 12/02/2018 12:22:28
Population increase (including wild life)  and space dust increase the Earths mass, the earth does not lose mass by burning things. 
An increase in mass is an increase in total energy of the system, it gets ''warmer''.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: The Spoon on 12/02/2018 19:22:50
In my answer evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy taken from the earths surface bu way of evapourative cooling, thus reducing the emmisive radiation into space that would normaly remove that energy out of the atmospheric system.

My evaporation is calculated bu the  moisture holding content saturation of 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
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. 
In other words, a piece of coal contains an amount of energy ,  transforming this energy does not change the amount of energy . 
If anything , burning fossil fuels releases some of the  energy into space , the entropy within the earths field would be less. 
You could argue the carbon emissions absorb energy , but so does the piece of coal you started with.

What is actually happening is a Universal warming, therefore all things within the observable Universe are warming. All things want to reach room temperature relative to the field density.



What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump.
I know beyond your ability, so stop being  arrogant.    Changing the form of the piece of coal does not change the mass of the total of the new formation of the coal.   Splitting one big battery into several different batteries doesn't change the fact that the several small batteries are the one battery.
You really don't 'know beyond my ability' though do you little pigeon?
You have revealed that weather and climate are another thing you know absolutely sod all about. Especially your last post about the mass of the earth increasing due to wildlife and this causing warming of the climate.

It is as if you post anything, any nonsense you can think of so your posts are at the top of the pile...
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 12/02/2018 20:10:49
In my answer evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy taken from the earths surface bu way of evapourative cooling, thus reducing the emmisive radiation into space that would normaly remove that energy out of the atmospheric system.

My evaporation is calculated bu the  moisture holding content saturation of 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
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. 
In other words, a piece of coal contains an amount of energy ,  transforming this energy does not change the amount of energy . 
If anything , burning fossil fuels releases some of the  energy into space , the entropy within the earths field would be less. 
You could argue the carbon emissions absorb energy , but so does the piece of coal you started with.

What is actually happening is a Universal warming, therefore all things within the observable Universe are warming. All things want to reach room temperature relative to the field density.



What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump.
I know beyond your ability, so stop being  arrogant.    Changing the form of the piece of coal does not change the mass of the total of the new formation of the coal.   Splitting one big battery into several different batteries doesn't change the fact that the several small batteries are the one battery.
You really don't 'know beyond my ability' though do you little pigeon?
You have revealed that weather and climate are another thing you know absolutely sod all about. Especially your last post about the mass of the earth increasing due to wildlife and this causing warming of the climate.

It is as if you post anything, any nonsense you can think of so your posts are at the top of the pile...
Your inability to think is not my failure.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: The Spoon on 12/02/2018 20:17:33
In my answer evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy taken from the earths surface bu way of evapourative cooling, thus reducing the emmisive radiation into space that would normaly remove that energy out of the atmospheric system.

My evaporation is calculated bu the  moisture holding content saturation of 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
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. 
In other words, a piece of coal contains an amount of energy ,  transforming this energy does not change the amount of energy . 
If anything , burning fossil fuels releases some of the  energy into space , the entropy within the earths field would be less. 
You could argue the carbon emissions absorb energy , but so does the piece of coal you started with.

What is actually happening is a Universal warming, therefore all things within the observable Universe are warming. All things want to reach room temperature relative to the field density.



What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump.
I know beyond your ability, so stop being  arrogant.    Changing the form of the piece of coal does not change the mass of the total of the new formation of the coal.   Splitting one big battery into several different batteries doesn't change the fact that the several small batteries are the one battery.
You really don't 'know beyond my ability' though do you little pigeon?
You have revealed that weather and climate are another thing you know absolutely sod all about. Especially your last post about the mass of the earth increasing due to wildlife and this causing warming of the climate.

It is as if you post anything, any nonsense you can think of so your posts are at the top of the pile...
Your inability to think is not my failure.
Is that the best you can do pigeon?
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 12/02/2018 20:32:37
In my answer evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy taken from the earths surface bu way of evapourative cooling, thus reducing the emmisive radiation into space that would normaly remove that energy out of the atmospheric system.

My evaporation is calculated bu the  moisture holding content saturation of 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
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. 
In other words, a piece of coal contains an amount of energy ,  transforming this energy does not change the amount of energy . 
If anything , burning fossil fuels releases some of the  energy into space , the entropy within the earths field would be less. 
You could argue the carbon emissions absorb energy , but so does the piece of coal you started with.

What is actually happening is a Universal warming, therefore all things within the observable Universe are warming. All things want to reach room temperature relative to the field density.



What utter nonsense. You have demonstrated that you know less about the subject than Donald Trump.
I know beyond your ability, so stop being  arrogant.    Changing the form of the piece of coal does not change the mass of the total of the new formation of the coal.   Splitting one big battery into several different batteries doesn't change the fact that the several small batteries are the one battery.
You really don't 'know beyond my ability' though do you little pigeon?
You have revealed that weather and climate are another thing you know absolutely sod all about. Especially your last post about the mass of the earth increasing due to wildlife and this causing warming of the climate.

It is as if you post anything, any nonsense you can think of so your posts are at the top of the pile...
Your inability to think is not my failure.
Is that the best you can do pigeon?
Your poor attempt at baiting is a failure.  Stop thread wrecking and discuss the topic. 

Are you familiar with Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier findings? 
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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"

No.
The laws of momentum conservation make this impossible.
Essentially, nothing on earth can change the earth's orbit, because it would have nothing to push against.

The detonation of a Tsar Bomb at the Mariana's trench, at the bottom of the pacific ocean would surely move the planet out of its current position...
Needless to say, gigantic tsunamis would kill most of humans on the process witch given the facts is not entirely a bad thing...
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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?
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox 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.................................................................................
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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?
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 18:35:18
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?
Nothing is ever lost or gained except when it grows.   
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 18:58:12
S + 1 = Δ 

S - 1 = Δ 
OK
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.


Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 19:01:15
S + 1 = Δ 

S - 1 = Δ 
OK
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.



Huh?  That is two separate equations  , have you been drinking this evening or summit?

Delta = change , change can be a variate you know like, its not the same change like, pfffff
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: The Spoon on 14/02/2018 19:02:57
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?
Nothing is ever lost or gained except when it grows.   
Very profound, but what does that have do with it?
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 19:06:51
Nothing is ever lost or gained except when it grows.   
You have got the quote wrong, in both wording, and meaning.
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. 

Now if the test tubes are empty, and something grows in them, well the mass is changed ,   
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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 changed
Stop doing magic.
If the tubes are empty, nothing will grow in them.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 19:10:45
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."
Are you mad or summit?   They are two separate equations that do not equal the same.

S + 1 = Δ   
S + 1 = S+1=ΔS

S - 1 = Δ

S-1 = S-1 = ΔS

S+1 ≠  S - 1
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 19:11:37
It looks like you misquoted Lavoisier.
"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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: The Spoon on 14/02/2018 19:13:51
Nothing is ever lost or gained except when it grows.   
You have got the quote wrong, in both wording, and meaning.
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. 

Now if the test tubes are empty, and something grows in them, well the mass is changed ,   
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.

Anyway, I thought you were giving up again?
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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?

Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 19:16:38
It looks like you misquoted Lavoisier.
"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.
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.   
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 19:18:09
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?


Delta is not a constant, Delta is a variate, so no, delta does not equal to delta.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 19:24:42
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.
I wish this forum had an ignore option, you aren't half stupid at times with what you say. 

Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 19:26:47
-1....................0...................+1


(S+1)+(S-1)=0

(S-1)+(S+1)=0

(S-1)+(S-1)=S-2
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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?

Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: The Spoon on 14/02/2018 19:28:56
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.
I wish this forum had an ignore option, you aren't half stupid at times with what you say. 


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...
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 19:29:33
(S+1)+(S-1)=0

(S-1)+(S+1)=0

(S-1)+(S-1)=S-2
I guess two out of three isn't too bad.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 19:32:59
The original experiment was done rather before Lavoisier's time
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
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 19:35:42
(S+1)+(S-1)=0

(S-1)+(S+1)=0

(S-1)+(S-1)=S-2
I guess two out of three isn't too bad.
That's 3/3 and you know it and I know it.   
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 19:37:24
The original experiment was done rather before Lavoisier's time
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
I know gases have mass my friend, my N-field holds them together.   
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 19:42:22
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.
I wish this forum had an ignore option, you aren't half stupid at times with what you say. 


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 am aware of the experiment and know not to have a milk diet, anything else I really need to know?
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 19:51:16
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?


I think  I know that mass can transform because E=mc²
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 19:56:35
p.s My predictive insight allows me to answer a question you have not asked , but yes

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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 20:42:17
Δt=ΔS

ΔS=Δt
That implies S =t + an arbitrary constant.

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 yes
What did you think that meant?
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 20:43:17
I think  I know that mass can transform because E=mc²
Plants don't usually grow by exploiting local nuclear power.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 20:56:12
Δt=ΔS

ΔS=Δt
That implies S =t + an arbitrary constant.

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 
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 21:04:09
I think  I know that mass can transform because E=mc²
Plants don't usually grow by exploiting local nuclear power.
They get sunlight , i.e nuclear power.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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?
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 21:15:14

What question did you think I was going to ask?

Δ t (m1) ≠  Δ  t' (m2)  = simultaneity  relative to absolute time (k)

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.

680159f35ab4813a00e0096a5219e776.gif=(1≠1)



Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 21:22:16

What question did you think I was going to ask?

Δ t (m1) ≠  Δ  t' (m2)  = simultaneity  relative to absolute time (k)

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.

That's not the sort of question I would ask.
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?
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 21:25:28

What question did you think I was going to ask?

Δ t (m1) ≠  Δ  t' (m2)  = simultaneity  relative to absolute time (k)

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.

That's not the sort of question I would ask.
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?

I answered that ..
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 21:26:41
=(1≠1)
680159f35ab4813a00e0096a5219e776.gif=(1≠1)
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Thebox on 14/02/2018 21:33:39
c/x=1.s

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.

Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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"

No.
The laws of momentum conservation make this impossible.
Essentially, nothing on earth can change the earth's orbit, because it would have nothing to push against.

The detonation of a Tsar Bomb at the Mariana's trench, at the bottom of the pacific ocean would surely move the planet out of its current position...
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
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 14/02/2018 23:01:32
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.
Seems wierd that to me, perhaps a contender for dark 3nergy or dark matter.

Apparently the collision of the primeval earth at an angle with another planetoid did not alter its orbital plane either.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2018 19:24:17
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.
The word "fly" does not mean what you think it does.
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2018 19:27:10
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.
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..
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 16/02/2018 19:04:30
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.
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..
Unfortunatley, im only comparitavley young.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 16/02/2018 19:06:42
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.
The word "fly" does not mean what you think it does.
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.
It does

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight

Again comparitavley  young.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 00:51:55
Do you realise how pathetic it is when you try to double down on one mistake by posing more nonsense?
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
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 17/02/2018 11:14:32
Well lqnguage has a funy way of evolving, did you know there are lots of obsolete words that only have use these days in negative form. For example you are very dolent on these threads. Very peccable indeed

link (http://viz.co.uk/category/rogers-profanisaurus/)
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 11:20:10
I am aware that language changes.
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: opportunity on 17/02/2018 11:22:41
Is global warming man-made?

Man is from the planet right? It's planet made. The question is whether we have an "outer-planet" alternative.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 27/02/2018 23:22:37
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?
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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 ?

Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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?
 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?
No
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2018 11:25:55
I'm pleased to see you recognise this fact
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 11:20:05
You can alter the length of the day by walking upstairs.
You just don't change it much.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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!
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2018 13:24:59
It's true that there's a lot of heat coming up from the earth.
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!
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/03/2018 13:42:02
Far be it from me to quote a consensus, but most Warmists say that previous peaks in CO2 levels were caused by volcanic eruptions.

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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Alex Dullius Siqueira on 04/03/2018 23:25:46
I also sort of agree with deep sea waters volcanic activities, seems quite possible...
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 17/03/2018 11:10:51
Ok then.

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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.

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.
Are you somehow unable to grasp the concept of "change"?
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.

Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/03/2018 11:27:02
So what caused the extremely rapid temperature rises, followed each time by CO2 rises, around very 150,000 years in the past? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png)
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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. etc
That'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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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.
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
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
Title: Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 17/09/2018 00:18:37
In light of nasa launching its glacier measurement device, I am brought to the conclusion that they should be measuring the atmosphere thickness, due to the ever so slight increace in energy in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel usage.

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