[Kryptid]

What sort of sense does this make?

I'm trying to understand your argument. Are you saying that when a substance heats up, it doesn't contain more thermal energy than it did before? Is that what your argument is? That's the impression I get when you imply that my response doesn't make sense. Where else could the thermal energy possibly be stored if not in the material itself?

[Colin2B]

Well Colin pop the keys in the ignition and tootle the earth around. …. or perhaps a giant robotic geisha could shade us with her super umbrella.

Give me a lever large enough …..
However, your second suggestion is closer to the mark. The proposal was that NASA put reflective chaff in orbit to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching earth.



If you wish to be so dilute global warming is like  a fridge we only have to remove energy from the earth and well cure it, so I will just hook it up to a refrigerant compressor,Basically under such loose constraints it is energy and we need to have less energy. But a 4 year old can tell you that.

Doesn’t make sense, not sure what you are saying, but it won’t work unless the other end of the fridge is off earth.



All materials will warm at like rate, increacing as the global temperature increace, proportionally to their current temperature, they will reach equilibrium due to emissivity. . That is why heat capacity is important and nothing like a car in the sun.  The thermo dynamics of large omplex systems are different to those of small ones.

no one said otherwise, but non of that negates what kryptid was saying



What sort of sense does this make?

Alancalverd's answer wasn't nonsense, it was the truth. If the air, land and water are getting warmer, then they are storing more thermal energy than they were before. Obviously, the energy that causes a material to heat up is stored in the material itself. I don't know how any other answer would make sense.

It makes perfect sense.
Obviously there are other ways of storing energy in a material other than thermal capacity  eg in chemical reactions such as photosynthesis to wood etc

[alancalverd]

All materials will warm at like rate, increacing as the global temperature increace, proportionally to their current temperature, they will reach equilibrium due to emissivity. .

Alas, no. There is no global equilibrium. Rocks heat up more quickly than water during the day, and cool more quickly at night. If you add in all the complications of a spherical planet with odd-shaped bits of land and sea all covered with a wet atmosphere, you get "weather" - a statement of chaos, not equilibrium.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

.



All materials will warm at like rate, increacing as the global temperature increace, proportionally to their current temperature, they will reach equilibrium due to emissivity. . That is why heat capacity is important and nothing like a car in the sun.  The thermo dynamics of large omplex systems are different to those of small ones.

no one said otherwise, but non of that negates what kryptid was saying

Yes they did Colin, they said cars warm differ tly in the sun, which is just like the thermodynamics of a large system in equilibrium. You will no doubt deny this, but it is what has been written. I will screenshot the thread to stop you altering it to suit your needs as posts have been altered before.

[Kryptid]

Yes they did Colin, they said cars warm differ tly in the sun, which is just like the thermodynamics of a large system in equilibrium.

Who said the Earth was in equilibrium?

[evan_au]

There is no global equilibrium. Rocks heat up more quickly than water during the day...

With satellite data, it is fairly easy to average out global temperature over a day; by averaging global temperature you iron out a lot of the chaotic/turbulent weather effects.
- It is also possible to average out global temperature over a year; this irons out seasonal effects, including perihelion. At this scale, you could say that the Earth is in thermal equilibrium (with some noise from the effects above and below)
- There are hints that the sunspot cycle may have a slight effect on cloud cover, so it is possible to average over multiples of 11 years; on this timescale, most of the impacts are due to human-generated CO₂ emissions
- There are also much longer-term effects like the axial tilt of the Earth at around 40,000 years and changes in perihelion on even longer timescales; on these timescales, human generation of CO₂ since the industrial revolution would be a blip, but the introduction of agriculture around 10,000 years ago may have a measurable impact.

Yes, the weather is chaotic (and on very long timescales, even planetary orbits are chaotic), but by averaging over a relevant domain, it is possible to see the effects of human CO₂ emissions.

[Colin2B]

You will no doubt deny this, but it is what has been written. I will screenshot the thread to stop you altering it to suit your needs as posts have been altered before.

I have never altered a thread to suit my needs, nor those of anyone else.
Think carefully before making false accusations.

My point stands: don’t accuse people of spamming when they are trying to discuss an issue, address the issue directly.

[alancalverd]

- It is also possible to average out global temperature over a year; this irons out seasonal effects, including perihelion. At this scale, you could say that the Earth is in thermal equilibrium (with some noise from the effects above and below)

I disagree. The fact that you can calculate an average does not imply that there is an internal equilibrium in a system, or that it is in equilibrium with its environment.

Since the global mean surface temperature changes, and always has done, the planet is clearly not in thermal equilibrium with the sun and the rest of the universe. If it was a bare rock, it might be, and it is entirely possible that the moon is fairly close to an equilibrium temperature (its radius to the sun varies, so it clearly can't reach a truly static equilibrium). But the albedo of the earth changes, roughly cyclically, so the balance between input and output is never constant.     

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

You will no doubt deny this, but it is what has been written. I will screenshot the thread to stop you altering it to suit your needs as posts have been altered before.

I have never altered a thread to suit my needs, nor those of anyone else.
Think carefully before making false accusations.

My point stands: don’t accuse people of spamming when they are trying to discuss an issue, address the issue directly.

Of course not, nor have moderators ever moved a thread on co2 in the atmosphere not being the cause of global warming. They where merely incorrect or in the wrong place so "dissapearing" them was correct.

Would you perhaps take a stab at answering how plastic in a car in the sun provides suitable countenance to the use of volumetric heat capacitance on the thermal equilibrium of the earth, or shall you dodge it like Boris once more I put ti tou you for a 3rd time it's nonsensical garbage.

[Origin]

Would you perhaps take a stab at answering how plastic in a car in the sun provides suitable countenance to the use of volumetric heat capacitance on the thermal equilibrium of the earth, or shall you dodge it like Boris once more I put ti tou you for a 3rd time it's nonsensical garbage.

Quit being silly.  The point of the car example was to highlight the idea that different materials have different heat capacities.

[Kryptid]

My point with the car example was to counter one specific statement of yours: that all materials warm at a similar rate. They do not.