[The Spoon]

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...

[guest39538]

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.

[The Spoon]

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?

[guest39538]

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? 

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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

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.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

"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...

[Kryptid]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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.................................................................................

[puppypower]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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

[The Spoon]

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?

[guest39538]

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.   

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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

[The Spoon]

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?

[Bored chemist]

Nothing is ever lost or gained except when it grows.   

You have got the quote wrong, in both wording, and meaning.

[Bored chemist]

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.