[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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"

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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?

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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 ?

[jeffreyH]

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

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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 !

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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



El ninio la nina does not correlate either

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

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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/

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

Evapouration is not calculated by the ammount of energy released,

Yes it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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

[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.

[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.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

I remember you now chemist, you never did tell me where that "ignore" button was.

[puppypower]

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-niņa-el-niņo-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

[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.

[guest39538]

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''.