[Bored chemist]

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

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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.

[opportunity]

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.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

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?

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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

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

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 ?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

You can alter the length of the day by walking upstairs.
You just don't change it much.

[alancalverd]

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!

[Bored chemist]

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!

[alancalverd]

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.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

I also sort of agree with deep sea waters volcanic activities, seems quite possible...

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[alancalverd]

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

[PmbPhy]

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.

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.

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.

[alancalverd]

Ahaa, you clicked on this ready to make statements about carbon dioxide.

But not the statement you expected.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Ahaa, you clicked on this ready to make statements about carbon dioxide.

But not the statement you expected.

Que ?


Ifa yau meena the thhreeada didnt maaach wiiith miiy inital theyri theen yau would biy riite