Remember me
▼ Content

Scientific Consensus



Page 3 of 4<1234>
18-05-2018 22:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Davros wrote:
I only know this CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are thickening the blanket around the earth and the vast majority of our brightest and best have told us this will be bad for both us and those who come after us, so I'm off to seek a solution so my grandkids won't think to badly of me, I really can't be bothered with those who deny the science.


H2O in it's three phases - gas, liquid and solid is 100 times more common and 1000 times more effective.

Can you explain what effect CO2 could possibly have?


Neither water nor CO2 have the capability to warm the Earth.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.


Will you please stop that? No one is saying that this is actually "warming" the Earth.

You just did.
Wake wrote:
They mean that it slows the loss of heat absorbed from Sunlight.

You just did it again.

You can't slow or trap heat.
Wake wrote:
This in turn means that the temperature in the atmosphere has to rise to a higher level so that "energy in equals energy out".

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. You can't reduce radiance and warm the Earth at the same time.
Wake wrote:
This is nothing more than the second law of thermodynamics.

It is neither the 2nd law of thermodynamics nor the Stefan-Boltzmann law, both of which you denying.
Wake wrote:
These effects are both spontaneous at night and non-spontaneous during the day.

It is 'spontaneous' always, night and day.


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2018 22:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.


Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.


Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.


The Parrot Killer
18-05-2018 23:06
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
StarMan wrote:
A lion does not turn his head when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb


Excellent proverb. After all, it's probably wake anyway LMAO !!!!


...@All,
..What wake (what happens when someone dies, you go to wake
hold a vigil beside (someone who has died).
"we waked Jim last night"
https://www.google.com/search?q=wake&oq=wake&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.991j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) doesn't understand is that a near earth asteroid or comet could change the earth's orbit. This is because it would effect it's gravitational field as it passes through it.
..In astronomy they can use a Sun's wobble to determine what planets can be expected to be orbiting it, this includes both mass (size) and orbit in some cases.
..If astronomers can't see the planets, how do they know that they are there at all? According to astronomers, some stars appear to wobble back and forwards. Yes that's right, wobble! But stars don't move...do they?
http://www.planet-science.com/categories/over-11s/space/2010/09/it%E2%80%99s-in-the-shake-and-wobble!-.aspx
..If a planet can cause a star to wobble then why can't an asteroid or comet effect our planet ? Because wake said so, that's why.

I kind of wonder if itn and wake will ever read actual books on physics. It's not the same as surfing the next, it takes time and you have to consider things from the author's perspective first.

..Yep, I got "waked" LMAO!!!


So now you are an astronomer. Is that what your "experiment" is about?

In order to detect planets there are several methods. About the only one that works is when we are directly on the plane of the orbits of any extra-solar planets and their star. As a planet crosses between us and their star it causes a slight dimming of the star. However, this is not used very often because one time can simply be storms upon the star changing its brilliance. So you have to have enough telescope time to promote a program of reading the brilliance of the star over long extended periods. Orbital period of Jupiter is 12 years and of Saturn is 29 years. You would need several repetitions to have a fairly good chance at accuracy. And the planet would have to be the size of Jupiter against a background of a main sequence star in order to notice anything from even the closest stars.

A transit of Venus doesn't noticeably dim the Sun's emissions upon the Earth and the only way it can be observed is with the proper gear. And the distance between Earth and Venus at that time is only 26 million miles away vs the distance from here to Alpha Centuri being 26 trillion miles away or a million times further/smaller.

As for your idea that the small wobble in the place of the Sun is pretty silly. We would have to be at exactly 90 degrees to the orbital plain of another star. And with the effects of the 8 planets you could not tell the effects of the smaller planets from the larger ones. The total effects upon the Sun from all of the combined planets end up measurable from the 30 light years away in only 1.6 milliarcseconds. And this could not be used to determine the number of planets because orbital eccentricities would hide that information.

There are other methods that have been attempted such as microlensing etc. but these two are only marginally effective.

Its too bad that James is so concerned with getting back for perceived insults that he is incapable of holding intelligent conversations.

For instance -exactly where did the subject of the Sun's wobble come from? I It isn't as if these effects aren't part and parcel of the life of the solar system and if the Earth's climate hasn't included the microscopic effect of them since the beginning of time.
18-05-2018 23:53
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.


Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.


Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?
19-05-2018 00:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.


Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.


Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 19-05-2018 00:22
19-05-2018 01:08
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.


Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.


Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.


Styrofoam or any other "insulator" doesn't "reduce" heat. It slows the transmission of it. Obvious you think that a thermos bottle reduces the heat of the hot water inside.

Are you on some sort of medication? One posting out of 10 you will seem totally intelligent and know what reality is. Then this sort of thing pops up. Do you have dementia or Alzheimer?
19-05-2018 04:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.


Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.


Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.


Styrofoam or any other "insulator" doesn't "reduce" heat.
Yes it does.
Wake wrote:
It slows the transmission of it.

You cannot slow or trap heat.
Wake wrote:
Obvious you think that a thermos bottle reduces the heat of the hot water inside.
...deleted usual insults...

Hot water is not heat.

Thermos bottles (proper name) reduce heat. That's why the hot water in them stays hot longer.


The Parrot Killer
19-05-2018 10:19
James___
★★★☆☆
(450)
wake and itn,
..The reason thermoses are slow to lose heat is because of vacuum. There's a shell around the part of the thermos that gets filled. With fewer air molecules to transfer heat from the contents the rate of entropy is slowed. This last part is something it said can't happen.
..In newer windows they'll use double panes for this same reason. Helps to stay cooler inside during the summer and warmer during the winter.
..In fact some of the more expensive windows might have steel that it's thickness is measured in microns between the 2 panes of the window.
19-05-2018 15:43
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
James___ wrote:
wake and itn,
..The reason thermoses are slow to lose heat is because of vacuum. There's a shell around the part of the thermos that gets filled. With fewer air molecules to transfer heat from the contents the rate of entropy is slowed. This last part is something it said can't happen.
..In newer windows they'll use double panes for this same reason. Helps to stay cooler inside during the summer and warmer during the winter.
..In fact some of the more expensive windows might have steel that it's thickness is measured in microns between the 2 panes of the window.


James perhaps you really ought to read what the hell is going on before commenting. It is nightmare who is telling us that you can't slow the transmission of heat. This is so bizarre that your adding anything about "vacuum" no matter how accurate is staggering.

He said that Styrofoam "reduces heat".

"Styrofoam is a good insulator because the plastic foam contains billions of trapped gas bubbles. Gases hinder heat conduction because their molecules are very far apart making it difficult for other molecules to collide with them. When molecules DO collide, they either give or take away energy."

In other words it slows the transmission of heat and in no way reduces it other than the general way that a center source of heat spreads and while doing each individual molecule consecutively receives less heat.

The atmosphere behaves like the insulators slowing the transmission of heat to space. CO2 is a heavier molecule and theoretically would pass heat on more rapidly except of physics which demonstrates that it only absorbs heat from a very limited band of radiant energy (actually three major bands) and hence cannot absorb much heat to begin with.

You have a great deal more in common with nightmare since the both of you have the most outlandish ideas of the reality around you.
19-05-2018 16:46
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.


Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.


Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.


Styrofoam or any other "insulator" doesn't "reduce" heat.
Yes it does.
Wake wrote:
It slows the transmission of it.

You cannot slow or trap heat.
Wake wrote:
Obvious you think that a thermos bottle reduces the heat of the hot water inside.
...deleted usual insults...

Hot water is not heat.

Thermos bottles (proper name) reduce heat. That's why the hot water in them stays hot longer.


You can't trap heat. I get that. Makes sense.
Hot water stay hot longer by reducing heat. I get that too.
Can you please explain the difference between "reducing" and "slowing" heat?

To me, and to others it seams, they are one in the same.
19-05-2018 17:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
James___ wrote:
wake and itn,
..The reason thermoses are slow to lose heat

Thermos jugs don't lose heat. They reduce heat.
James___ wrote:
is because of vacuum. There's a shell around the part of the thermos that gets filled. With fewer air molecules to transfer heat

Heat doesn't transfer. It's just heat. Heat IS transfer.
James___ wrote:
from the contents the rate of entropy is slowed.

No, the rate of entropy increase is reduced.
James___ wrote:
This last part is something it said can't happen.

Of course it can happen.
James___ wrote:
..In newer windows they'll use double panes for this same reason.

I have a set.
James___ wrote:
Helps to stay cooler inside during the summer and warmer during the winter.

Because they reduce heat.
James___ wrote:
..In fact some of the more expensive windows might have steel that it's thickness is measured in microns between the 2 panes of the window.

This is for the same reason silvering is used in Thermos jugs. It reduces radiant heat.


The Parrot Killer
19-05-2018 17:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
wake and itn,
..The reason thermoses are slow to lose heat is because of vacuum. There's a shell around the part of the thermos that gets filled. With fewer air molecules to transfer heat from the contents the rate of entropy is slowed. This last part is something it said can't happen.
..In newer windows they'll use double panes for this same reason. Helps to stay cooler inside during the summer and warmer during the winter.
..In fact some of the more expensive windows might have steel that it's thickness is measured in microns between the 2 panes of the window.


James perhaps you really ought to read what the hell is going on before commenting. It is nightmare who is telling us that you can't slow the transmission of heat. This is so bizarre that your adding anything about "vacuum" no matter how accurate is staggering.

No, he's doing what you're doing, trying to give examples of thermal insulation.
Wake wrote:
He said that Styrofoam "reduces heat".
That it does.
Wake wrote:
"Styrofoam is a good insulator because the plastic foam contains billions of trapped gas bubbles. Gases hinder heat conduction because their molecules are very far apart making it difficult for other molecules to collide with them. When molecules DO collide, they either give or take away energy."

In other words it slows the transmission of heat
Heat doesn't 'transmit'. Heat IS transmission. Heat is reduced. You cannot slow or trap heat.
Wake wrote:
and in no way reduces it

That's exactly what it does. That's all it does.
Wake wrote:
other than the general way that a center source of heat spreads

Heat doesn't 'spread out'. Thermal energy does. That's called dispersion.
Wake wrote:
and while doing each individual molecule consecutively receives less heat.

Dispersion does not change how much heat a molecule absorbs or emits.
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere behaves like the insulators slowing the transmission of heat to space.

The atmosphere does not slow, trap, or reduce heat.
Wake wrote:
CO2 is a heavier molecule

Weight of a molecule makes no difference.
Wake wrote:
and theoretically would pass heat on more rapidly except of physics which demonstrates that it only absorbs heat from a very limited band of radiant energy (actually three major bands) and hence cannot absorb much heat to begin with.

CO2 happens to have better thermal conductivity than almost any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.

Makes no difference. ALL heat from the Earth is by radiance. Most of that radiance is from the surface itself. Very little of it comes from the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
You have a great deal more in common with nightmare since the both of you have the most outlandish ideas of the reality around you.

Define 'real'. Yet another buzzword from you.


The Parrot Killer
19-05-2018 18:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.


Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.


Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.


Styrofoam or any other "insulator" doesn't "reduce" heat.
Yes it does.
Wake wrote:
It slows the transmission of it.

You cannot slow or trap heat.
Wake wrote:
Obvious you think that a thermos bottle reduces the heat of the hot water inside.
...deleted usual insults...

Hot water is not heat.

Thermos bottles (proper name) reduce heat. That's why the hot water in them stays hot longer.


You can't trap heat. I get that. Makes sense.
Hot water stay hot longer by reducing heat. I get that too.
Can you please explain the difference between "reducing" and "slowing" heat?

To me, and to others it seams, they are one in the same.

Sure. Heat doesn't have a speed. So you can't 'slow' it. Heat is nothing more than the transfer of thermal energy from one place to another.

Heat is the rate of thermal energy transfer. If you put an insulator in the way, you decouple the two regions, and thus reduce heat. Insulation not only helps to reduce heat, it works both ways. Heat from the inside of a container of insulation is reduced as well as heat going into the container.

The only speed associated with heat at all (indirectly) is the speed of light, which is what radiant heat is using as its medium. If a photon is emitted as a result of the Stefan-Boltzmann law type of radiance, there is no heat until that photon is absorbed by something else and that photon results in an increase of thermal energy. Even in that case, even the speed of light is not the speed of heat. Heat has no speed.


The Parrot Killer
19-05-2018 18:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
This whole discussion of 'heat' and what it is stems from the parent discussion of 'greenhouse effect' (which doesn't exist) and how it works.

To raise the temperature of anything, you need energy to do it.

The 'explanations' of the 'greenhouse effect' fall into two types:

The first I call the Magick Blanket argument. This is the argument under discussion now. It is wrong. It violates physics. It attempts to establish some kind of magick insulation that allows thermal energy in, but doesn't allow it to leave. In other words, heat is NOT reduced for incoming energy, but it IS reduced for outgoing energy. It's a one-way insulator, you see. In this way, they figure, radiance from the Earth is reduced while the temperature of the Earth is increased.

No such substance exists. The Stefan-Boltzmann law clearly states that radiance and temperature are proportional, never inversely proportional. The Magick Blanket argument violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The Magick Blanket argument also includes the argument that the upper atmosphere is made cooler while the surface is made warmer by this magick substance. This is a reduction of entropy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics clearly states that entropy may never be reduced in any system. It can only increase or stay the same. That system does not have to be a closed system. That system is literally what you choose it to be, but it must stay consistent.

The Magick Blanket argument doesn't work. It is a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.

The leads most often into the 2nd argument that 'greenhouse effect' believers use, which I call the Magick Bouncing Photon Argument.

In this argument, a photon, emitted from the surface of the Earth due to its temperature happens to be in the infrared band that can be absorbed by a magick gas (we'll use CO2 just for fun). Upon absorption, this magick gas then emits the photon again, which bounces between the Earth and the magick gas molecule...forever. As the Sun adds more, than more and more molecules are added to the magick bounce. Curiously, they often miss the point that a photon emitted by anything cools that anything in the process.

The reason this doesn't work is simply the same reason that a Superball doesn't bounce forever. With each bounce energy is lost to thermal energy in the Superball. In the case of the magick photon, the Believer completely fails to realize that the CO2 in the atmosphere is colder than the surface. They are trying to heat the surface using a colder gas.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics clearly states that you cannot decrease entropy in a system. That law gives a direction for heat. Heat always flows from hot to cold. It never flows from cold to hot. In other words, the colder CO2 cannot heat the surface. It can't do it by conduction, by convection, or even by radiance.

While the surface is cooled by photon emission (radiant heat), and some of those photons might be absorbed by a gas in the atmosphere, raising its temperature, that energy is dispersed. That gas also emits photons by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, but not as many and on a lower frequency. These photons don't have as much energy. The remaining thermal energy in the magick gas is dispersed by conductive heat or even by convection (all liquids have convection, including the air). In other words, the molecule in question heats space by radiance, heats neighboring gas molecules (of any type) by conduction, and heats the upper atmosphere by convection.

The surface that heated that molecule in the first place cannot in turn be heated by the molecule. Heat never flows from cold to hot. Entropy can never decrease in a system.

Like the Magick Blanket argument, the Magick Bouncing Photon argument depends on 'trapping' the photon, in other words, reducing the radiance of Earth while increasing its temperature. This again violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work. It is a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.

The 'greenhouse effect' argument also builds a paradox. Here's how:

The outer skin temperature of the ISS (which is orbiting Earth of course) can reach temperatures of 250 deg F when lit by the Sun. There is no appreciable atmosphere outside the ISS. There is no CO2, water, or any other magick gas. This is effectively the daylight side of the ISS.

There is nowhere on the surface of the Earth that reaches temperatures that high during the day...not even close. If CO2 (we'll still use this magick gas for now) has the ability to make the Earth warmer simply by its presence, how come the surface of the Earth is so much colder during the day? The ISS has no CO2 outside it, and the Earth does.

The Church of Global Warming ignores all these things. This religion comes in two varieties, or sects, both of which hate each other as well as any Outsider of the religion.

The first, and more predominant, sect believes that magick gases are made by man and are destroying the Earth.

The second sect believes that magick gases occur naturally and are a natural part of Earth's history, therefore not Man's problem.

Both sects believe in the magick gases, which include CO2, water, and methane.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The Church of Global Warming is a false religion. These two theories, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, say so.
19-05-2018 18:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1133)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.


Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.


Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.


Styrofoam or any other "insulator" doesn't "reduce" heat.
Yes it does.
Wake wrote:
It slows the transmission of it.

You cannot slow or trap heat.
Wake wrote:
Obvious you think that a thermos bottle reduces the heat of the hot water inside.
...deleted usual insults...

Hot water is not heat.

Thermos bottles (proper name) reduce heat. That's why the hot water in them stays hot longer.


You can't trap heat. I get that. Makes sense.
Hot water stay hot longer by reducing heat. I get that too.
Can you please explain the difference between "reducing" and "slowing" heat?

To me, and to others it seams, they are one in the same.


GG,

ITN has no idea what he is talking about.

James has it right.

Heat energy is transfered by conduction, radiation or convection.

There is such a thing as heat energy and it is different to temperature. It is different to power. The rate at which heat energy is transfered is measured in watts. This a unit of power. That is because energy per unit time is power.

So if you have a stone slab heated in a fire untill it is at 700c then take it out of the fire and use it to heat a pan of water the rate of heat energy transfered to the pan of water siting on top of it is a power thing.

The water in the pan will boil when a certain amount of heat energy has been transfered to the pan and then the water in it.

Edited on 19-05-2018 18:51
19-05-2018 19:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.


As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.


Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.


Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.


Styrofoam or any other "insulator" doesn't "reduce" heat.
Yes it does.
Wake wrote:
It slows the transmission of it.

You cannot slow or trap heat.
Wake wrote:
Obvious you think that a thermos bottle reduces the heat of the hot water inside.
...deleted usual insults...

Hot water is not heat.

Thermos bottles (proper name) reduce heat. That's why the hot water in them stays hot longer.


You can't trap heat. I get that. Makes sense.
Hot water stay hot longer by reducing heat. I get that too.
Can you please explain the difference between "reducing" and "slowing" heat?

To me, and to others it seams, they are one in the same.


GG,

ITN has no idea what he is talking about.

James has it right.

Heat energy is transfered by conduction, radiation or convection.

There is such a thing as heat energy and it is different to temperature. It is different to power. The rate at which heat energy is transfered is measured in watts. This a unit of power. That is because energy per unit time is power.

So if you have a stone slab heated in a fire untill it is at 700c then take it out of the fire and use it to heat a pan of water the rate of heat energy transfered to the pan of water siting on top of it is a power thing.

The water in the pan will boil when a certain amount of heat energy has been transfered to the pan and then the water in it.


What you are calling 'heat energy' is just 'heat'. You are correct in that is not temperature. It can be measured in watts, horsepower, or any other unit of power.

Thermal energy is measured as a temperature.

Heat is not thermal energy. It is the flow of thermal energy from one region to another. Its rate is determined by the difference of temperature between the two regions and the coupling between the two regions.

The greater the temperature, the more heat.

The better the coupling, the more heat.

Heat is the flow, like the flow of a river. It is not the thermal energy itself any more than the current of a river is the water itself.


The Parrot Killer
19-05-2018 20:22
James___
★★★☆☆
(450)
Into the Night wrote:

What you are calling 'heat energy' is just 'heat'. You are correct in that is not temperature. It can be measured in watts, horsepower, or any other unit of power.

Thermal energy is measured as a temperature.

Heat is not thermal energy. It is the flow of thermal energy from one region to another. Its rate is determined by the difference of temperature between the two regions and the coupling between the two regions.

The greater the temperature, the more heat.

The better the coupling, the more heat.

Heat is the flow, like the flow of a river. It is not the thermal energy itself any more than the current of a river is the water itself.


itn,
.. What your missing on is context. You should look up what some of the definitions are to what Tim was mentioning.
You tend to reject the common usage of how heat and temperature are defined. Temperature is the heat content , example is one molecule of N2. That's why Boltzmann's constant is (3/2KT)/Na. T which is temperature in kelvins is the heat content. This is where 3/2KT is the amount of heat that one mol of a gas contains. I think that's about the simplest way of looking at it. One molecule has temperature while a volume has heat. This means that room temperature is the average temperature of one molecule.
.. It's most likely that why one molecule has temperature but not heat is because it's conserving energy. Conserved energy is not heat because that molecule remains at the same temperature or has the same KE. When energy it becomes heat or those things that Tim mentioned.
Edited on 19-05-2018 20:26
19-05-2018 21:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1133)
Heat is the rate at which particles are bvouncing off one another.

It does not really work at the molecular level.

The atom of gas that hits the International Space Station was not bouncing off anything for ages before it hit but that collision was the same as a temperature of 2000c. But the heat energy involved was so little and the gap between it happening and the next so long that the effective temperature of the skin of the ISS is very low in shade.

Edited on 19-05-2018 21:27
19-05-2018 21:30
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
wake and itn,
..The reason thermoses are slow to lose heat is because of vacuum. There's a shell around the part of the thermos that gets filled. With fewer air molecules to transfer heat from the contents the rate of entropy is slowed. This last part is something it said can't happen.
..In newer windows they'll use double panes for this same reason. Helps to stay cooler inside during the summer and warmer during the winter.
..In fact some of the more expensive windows might have steel that it's thickness is measured in microns between the 2 panes of the window.


James perhaps you really ought to read what the hell is going on before commenting. It is nightmare who is telling us that you can't slow the transmission of heat. This is so bizarre that your adding anything about "vacuum" no matter how accurate is staggering.

No, he's doing what you're doing, trying to give examples of thermal insulation.
Wake wrote:
He said that Styrofoam "reduces heat".
That it does.
Wake wrote:
"Styrofoam is a good insulator because the plastic foam contains billions of trapped gas bubbles. Gases hinder heat conduction because their molecules are very far apart making it difficult for other molecules to collide with them. When molecules DO collide, they either give or take away energy."

In other words it slows the transmission of heat
Heat doesn't 'transmit'. Heat IS transmission. Heat is reduced. You cannot slow or trap heat.
Wake wrote:
and in no way reduces it

That's exactly what it does. That's all it does.
Wake wrote:
other than the general way that a center source of heat spreads

Heat doesn't 'spread out'. Thermal energy does. That's called dispersion.
Wake wrote:
and while doing each individual molecule consecutively receives less heat.

Dispersion does not change how much heat a molecule absorbs or emits.
Wake wrote:
The atmosphere behaves like the insulators slowing the transmission of heat to space.

The atmosphere does not slow, trap, or reduce heat.
Wake wrote:
CO2 is a heavier molecule

Weight of a molecule makes no difference.
Wake wrote:
and theoretically would pass heat on more rapidly except of physics which demonstrates that it only absorbs heat from a very limited band of radiant energy (actually three major bands) and hence cannot absorb much heat to begin with.

CO2 happens to have better thermal conductivity than almost any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.

Makes no difference. ALL heat from the Earth is by radiance. Most of that radiance is from the surface itself. Very little of it comes from the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
You have a great deal more in common with nightmare since the both of you have the most outlandish ideas of the reality around you.

Define 'real'. Yet another buzzword from you.


Why do you have this moronic idea that you can change from common definitions to exact scientific definitions in order to argue with someone?

Virtually ALL of the heat that radiates from the ground or the water is transmitted to the stratosphere via conduction and convection.

By all means play your games but do it alone. You're back on ignore.
19-05-2018 21:43
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Heat is the rate at which particles are bvouncing off one another.

It does not really work at the molecular level.

The atom of gas that hits the International Space Station was not bouncing off anything for ages before it hit but that collision was the same as a temperature of 2000c. But the heat energy involved was so little and the gap between it happening and the next so long that the effective temperature of the skin of the ISS is very low in shade.


"In an ideal gas, the internal energy is the statistical mean of the kinetic energy of the gas particles, and it is this kinetic motion that is the source and the effect of the transfer of heat across a system boundary. For this reason, the term "thermal energy" is sometimes used synonymously with internal energy."

So thermal energy is commonly referred to as heat because we are in a specific atmospheric density. You wouldn't say, "my this room is active with thermal energy" as nightmare suggests.
20-05-2018 02:56
James___
★★★☆☆
(450)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Heat is the rate at which particles are bvouncing off one another.

It does not really work at the molecular level.

The atom of gas that hits the International Space Station was not bouncing off anything for ages before it hit but that collision was the same as a temperature of 2000c. But the heat energy involved was so little and the gap between it happening and the next so long that the effective temperature of the skin of the ISS is very low in shade.


"In an ideal gas, the internal energy is the statistical mean of the kinetic energy of the gas particles, and it is this kinetic motion that is the source and the effect of the transfer of heat across a system boundary. For this reason, the term "thermal energy" is sometimes used synonymously with internal energy."

So thermal energy is commonly referred to as heat because we are in a specific atmospheric density. You wouldn't say, "my this room is active with thermal energy" as nightmare suggests.


https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/work-and-energy/work-and-energy-tutorial/a/what-is-thermal-energy
20-05-2018 09:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Heat is the rate at which particles are bvouncing off one another.

It does not really work at the molecular level.

The atom of gas that hits the International Space Station was not bouncing off anything for ages before it hit but that collision was the same as a temperature of 2000c. But the heat energy involved was so little and the gap between it happening and the next so long that the effective temperature of the skin of the ISS is very low in shade.


"In an ideal gas, the internal energy is the statistical mean of the kinetic energy of the gas particles, and it is this kinetic motion that is the source and the effect of the transfer of heat across a system boundary. For this reason, the term "thermal energy" is sometimes used synonymously with internal energy."

So thermal energy is commonly referred to as heat because we are in a specific atmospheric density. You wouldn't say, "my this room is active with thermal energy" as nightmare suggests.


https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/work-and-energy/work-and-energy-tutorial/a/what-is-thermal-energy


Thermal energy is not heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself.


The Parrot Killer
20-05-2018 15:54
James___
★★★☆☆
(450)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Heat is the rate at which particles are bvouncing off one another.

It does not really work at the molecular level.

The atom of gas that hits the International Space Station was not bouncing off anything for ages before it hit but that collision was the same as a temperature of 2000c. But the heat energy involved was so little and the gap between it happening and the next so long that the effective temperature of the skin of the ISS is very low in shade.



Tim,
..Think super collider (CERN) here with the space station winning.
20-05-2018 15:59
James___
★★★☆☆
(450)
Into the Night wrote:


Thermal energy is not heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself.


http://tes.asu.edu/newwhatstes.html
RE: https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-20-05-2018 16:03
Gilgamazing
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
This is crazy


https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming
Edited on 20-05-2018 16:04
20-05-2018 16:48
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Gilgamazing wrote:
This is crazy


https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming


The True Believers will say absolutely anything. There is no BS deep enough for them.
20-05-2018 18:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Thermal energy is not heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself.


http://tes.asu.edu/newwhatstes.html


Thank you for confirming that radiance is one form of heat.


The Parrot Killer
20-05-2018 18:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
Gilgamazing wrote:
This is crazy


https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming


The True Believers will say absolutely anything. There is no BS deep enough for them.


The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist religion. What do you expect?


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2018 00:46
RenaissanceMan
☆☆☆☆☆
(38)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?


Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.



"Heat doesn't have a speed. Styrofoam doesn't slow heat."

Hold a copper rod in your left hand and a styrofoam rod in the other.
Then just for fun, hold a glass rod in the same hand with the styrofoam rod.
Put all three rods into a propane flame at the same time and tell us about
heat not having a speed.

Gas and vapor INSULATE the earth. That is what is meant. You know it, but you are playing games. Very unscientific.
25-05-2018 02:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?


Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.



"Heat doesn't have a speed. Styrofoam doesn't slow heat."

Hold a copper rod in your left hand and a styrofoam rod in the other.
Then just for fun, hold a glass rod in the same hand with the styrofoam rod.
Put all three rods into a propane flame at the same time and tell us about
heat not having a speed.

Heat doesn't have a speed. The styrofoam rod will melt in a propane flame...end of experiment. The glass rod reduces heat compared to the copper rod, therefore I will feel the cold end of the copper rod get warmer first.
RenaissanceMan wrote:
Gas and vapor INSULATE the earth.

No, they don't. They are simply part of the Earth. Earth loses energy by radiant heat. Most of that radiance is from the surface itself. The rest comes from the atmosphere.
RenaissanceMan wrote:
You know it, but you are playing games.

Nope. No games being played.

Heat is like current in a river. There is not speed to a current in a river either. We only measure a current in terms of the amount of water per second, yet water itself is not the current. The speed of any bit of water in miles per hour is not used to measure current. It does not matter if the current is a slow moving river or the same gallons per second moving at high speed in a pipe. It is the SAME current.

If a current 'slows', it is because the amount of water per second is reduced. Current is reduced, not 'slowed'.

In electric current, it is measured in coulombs per second. The current itself has no inherent speed. It is the movement of electrons, not the electrons themselves. Reducing current means less coulombs per second. It doesn't matter if the electrons are flowing through copper, aluminum, or a vacuum.

Similarly, heat can be measured in watts, or joules per second. It is the movement of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. It doesn't matter if it is flowing through styrofoam, glass, copper, the atmosphere, or through open space.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-05-2018 02:32
25-05-2018 03:37
RenaissanceMan
☆☆☆☆☆
(38)
Into the Night wrote:

The glass rod reduces heat compared to the copper rod, therefore I will feel the cold end of the copper rod get warmer first.


[quote]RenaissanceMan: You know it, but you are playing games.

Nope. No games being played.

Yes, lots of games are you playing.

The glass rod does NOT "reduce heat compared to the copper rod."
It's called thermal conductivity. Copper has a thermal conductivity of 398 at 437 degrees F. The thermal conductivity of glass is approximately 1.

I don't need any physics lessons from you when you continue to play games and claim that glass "reduces heat."
25-05-2018 03:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

The glass rod reduces heat compared to the copper rod, therefore I will feel the cold end of the copper rod get warmer first.


[quote]RenaissanceMan: You know it, but you are playing games.

Nope. No games being played.

Yes, lots of games are you playing.

The glass rod does NOT "reduce heat compared to the copper rod."

Yes it does.
RenaissanceMan wrote:
It's called thermal conductivity.

That's right.
RenaissanceMan wrote:
Copper has a thermal conductivity of 398 at 437 degrees F. The thermal conductivity of glass is approximately 1.
That's also right.
RenaissanceMan wrote:
I don't need any physics lessons from you when you continue to play games and claim that glass "reduces heat."

Glass reduces heat compared to copper. It has a lower thermal conductivity. That means it doesn't conduct thermal energy as well in the form of conductive heat. That means heat is reduced.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2018 12:25
James___
★★★☆☆
(450)
RMan,
This is how he claims to teach people.
25-05-2018 14:30
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?


Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.



"Heat doesn't have a speed. Styrofoam doesn't slow heat."

Hold a copper rod in your left hand and a styrofoam rod in the other.
Then just for fun, hold a glass rod in the same hand with the styrofoam rod.
Put all three rods into a propane flame at the same time and tell us about
heat not having a speed.

Gas and vapor INSULATE the earth. That is what is meant. You know it, but you are playing games. Very unscientific.


Saying that he is unscientific will make not the slightest dent in his insistence that there is no such thing as insulation. He has no knowledge whatsoever of science and he is growing worse by the second. I think that it is early onset dementia or Alzheimers.
Edited on 25-05-2018 14:30
25-05-2018 15:21
James___
★★★☆☆
(450)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

The glass rod reduces heat compared to the copper rod, therefore I will feel the cold end of the copper rod get warmer first.


[quote]RenaissanceMan: You know it, but you are playing games.

Nope. No games being played.

Yes, lots of games are you playing.

The glass rod does NOT "reduce heat compared to the copper rod."
It's called thermal conductivity. Copper has a thermal conductivity of 398 at 437 degrees F. The thermal conductivity of glass is approximately 1.

I don't need any physics lessons from you when you continue to play games and claim that glass "reduces heat."



https://photos.app.goo.gl/c4Xr1rPxWbg7afW93
Edited on 25-05-2018 15:22
25-05-2018 16:53
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(997)
From what I gather ITNs stance is that the subject of heat is being taught wrong in schools and in textbooks. Full disclosure, again, this is coming from me, who paid little attention in school and now I'm trying to learn. That said, his description of heat makes sense to me.

Too often we describe temperature as heat. It is not.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Can it be trapped? No. Can it be slowed? ITN will say no...still can't get my brain around that one.

However, if you use his river analogy, water is not flow.
If you reduce the flow, say with a dam, you get a flood.

The same with heat. An object will remain warmer(temperature) be reducing heat.

Insulation REDUCES heat.

...let the corrections begin.
25-05-2018 16:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
Wake wrote:
RenaissanceMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?


Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.



"Heat doesn't have a speed. Styrofoam doesn't slow heat."

Hold a copper rod in your left hand and a styrofoam rod in the other.
Then just for fun, hold a glass rod in the same hand with the styrofoam rod.
Put all three rods into a propane flame at the same time and tell us about
heat not having a speed.

Gas and vapor INSULATE the earth. That is what is meant. You know it, but you are playing games. Very unscientific.


Saying that he is unscientific will make not the slightest dent in his insistence that there is no such thing as insulation. He has no knowledge whatsoever of science and he is growing worse by the second. I think that it is early onset dementia or Alzheimers.


Up to you usual insults Wake?

Insulation works by reducing heat.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2018 17:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5419)
GasGuzzler wrote:
From what I gather ITNs stance is that the subject of heat is being taught wrong in schools and in textbooks. Full disclosure, again, this is coming from me, who paid little attention in school and now I'm trying to learn. That said, his description of heat makes sense to me.

Too often we describe temperature as heat. It is not.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Can it be trapped? No. Can it be slowed? ITN will say no...still can't get my brain around that one.

However, if you use his river analogy, water is not flow.
If you reduce the flow, say with a dam, you get a flood.

The same with heat. An object will remain warmer(temperature) be reducing heat.

Insulation REDUCES heat.

...let the corrections begin.


You've got exactly the right idea.

The reason is can't be slowed is that it has no inherent speed.

We measure flow in <insert substance here> per <insert time here>, such as gallons per hour, coulombs per second (otherwise known as amperes), or in the case of heat, joules per second (otherwise known as watts).

Whether a parcel of water is moving slowly in a large river or more quickly through a narrow passage, the flow is the same gallons per hour. It is the same flow.

Whether an electron is moving through a copper wire or through a vacuum (electrons can move more quickly through a vacuum) it is the same current.

If there is less gallons per hour in a river flow. Flow is reduced, not 'slowed'.


The reason you can't trap thermal energy is because there is always heat as long as there is a difference of temperature and some kind of coupling between the two regions.

Insulation does reduce this coupling, but it will never bring it to zero. No insulation is perfect.

This whole argument that tries to trap heat or thermal energy stems from the Magick Blanket argument from the Church of Global Warming.

CO2 is not an insulator. Indeed, it has better thermal conductivity than almost any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere. Conductive heat is IMPROVED with CO2.

Convection is not affected. The atmosphere is open and has no lid. Convective heat is available, unlike the inside of a hot car or a greenhouse. See Thunderstorm and 'glider aircraft'.

Radiance is not affected. There is no silvering or lining in the atmosphere to stop radiance. CO2 does absorb radiance, but it in turn has radiance as well. It is colder than the surface and that radiance cannot heat the surface. Heat only flows from hot to cold. No atom or molecule will accept a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has. To such a photon, the atom or molecule is transparent or reflective. It does not absorb.

The Church of Global Warming insists that photons magickally bounce forever between CO2 and the surface, heating the surface each time it hits. Like trying to explain a superball bouncing forever, and in fact going higher and higher with each bounce, this model is just a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order, and violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I call that one the Magick Bouncing Photon argument.

These are the two arguments the Church of Global Warming presents. They both violate thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-05-2018 17:14
25-05-2018 17:30
James___
★★★☆☆
(450)
GasGuzzler wrote:
From what I gather ITNs stance is that the subject of heat is being taught wrong in schools and in textbooks. Full disclosure, again, this is coming from me, who paid little attention in school and now I'm trying to learn. That said, his description of heat makes sense to me.
Heat is the flow of



What he's posted is found in any online search. By not showing his source of information his posts become nothing more than plagiarism.
25-05-2018 17:36
James___
★★★☆☆
(450)
GasGuzzler wrote:
From what I gather ITNs stance is that the subject of heat is being taught wrong in schools and in textbooks. Full disclosure, again, this is coming from me, who paid little attention in school and now I'm trying to learn. That said, his description of heat makes sense to me.
Heat is the flow of



..What he's posted is found in any online search. By not showing his source of information his posts become nothing more than plagiarism.
..And GasGuzxler, you accept what he's posted as itn's own work. This IMO is why he calls referencing other people's work as "holy links" and states that such people are not thinking for themselves.
This makes any discussion a waste of time IMO.

Strange but Wikipedia says the same thing that tin days
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
Edited on 25-05-2018 17:50
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Scientific Consensus:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Scientific Challenge8304-08-2017 00:03
Consensus of Scientists and Proof30705-05-2017 18:09
Where the 97% consensus among scientists comes from3531-12-2016 11:53
Scientific Theories?5007-09-2016 11:11
THE GLOBAL COOLING CONSENSUS IN THE 1970s3413-03-2016 23:07
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact