Remember me
▼ Content

Warming acceleration



Page 2 of 4<1234>
27-07-2018 22:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Redman's quotes

Said weather maps have nothing to do with climate. Just because your map says everything is fine, it doesn't mean that everything is fine everywhere.

Point is, you can't read the simplest of weather maps, yet you're telling us all how factual it is that heat is causing floods. I just want you to explain how. Can you do that?
And by the way. That map may say everything is fine, to you. However, that was just a snapshot of our weather.

Bingo!!! And "hottest global temps ever recorded" which no one actually knows and cannot be accurately measured, are also just a snapshot...a blink in history. Dude, how old is the earth?
Not sure if the numbers were highs, averages, current, or what. Sorry, missed that in weather class.

actually, none of the above.



I don't think they had that in my school back then. They probably don't explain freaking weather charts even today. Graduating class was around 150. P.O. Dunk to say the least.

My school didn't have weather either. I just began to realize how many people spouted off about the weather and how often they were always wrong. I decided to actually learn what I could. Turns out the more I learned the more there was to know. It's a fascinating subject, and even the "expert meteorologists" have significant difficulty producing an accurate forecast 120 hour out. But hold the phone! Redman has created an Algoreism and he can tell us the ENTIRE EARTHS TEMPERATURE 100 years from now!!!
And that's because you didn't get to see the color radar maps they used to show on the radio, down in Greenville, SC.
I can't say I've ever seen anything on the radio.


Nice chatting with you, Gassy.

You too Redman!
I can't wait to meet your hot ole lady,

I would have no problem with that, she'll kick your ass!
and much on some of them grilled cheese burgers, and drink your beer.

Typical liberal...can't even bring his own beer. Isn't the guest supposed to bring a bottle of wine or something like that?
I like Elysian Space Dust IPA. But don't worry, I'm a lightweight, and a six pack will put me right out [and totally hose the next day].

Good for you...buy some.
Let's get together and talk about growing corn after it starts hitting 100 F in the spring.

That sounds wonderful after last spring! We had snow on April 15th! Yep, bad day! Paid my damn taxes and it snowed.
I'm interested in your ideas on this.

Really? OK. From what I understand the more heat the better for getting that corn going early. Get the plants up and get that canopy closed quick to hold more moisture in the soil. Also a benefit when you have a later freeze date...allows for a bigger yield producing variety seed, which takes a week or two more, and no worries about an early freeze before the crop is mature.

What are your thoughts Redman?


I see one problem that you are having, Gassy. You apparently don't know the difference between weather and climate, so you think they are the same. Yes, they are related, but they are not the same thing. Weather is what's around you today. Your weather today might include rain, or sunshine. Climate is a summary of what the weather has been like over a period of time.

Okay, how long a period of time? A millenium? A century? A year? A month? A day? An hour? A second? Just what is a 'long' period of time??
GreenMan wrote:
And yes, I can tell you that the earth's average surface temperature will be about 3C warmer in 100 years, if nothing happens to reverse the warming trend we are currently experiencing.

Two problems. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, and secondly, statistical math does not have the power of prediction due to the importation of random number mathematics from a foreign Domain.
GreenMan wrote:
But I have no idea if it will be raining or not on 07/27/2118. Whether it's raining or not is a weather forecast. How hot the average temperature of the planet will be is a climate forecast.

There is no such thing as a global climate because there is no such thing as a global weather. Remember the definition of climate you used? It's actually correct. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational.
GreenMan wrote:
You think a warmer spring and a later frost will actually help your corn grow.
It does, so long as the corn gets sufficient water.
GreenMan wrote:
And it will, if your corn can handle the heat of the summer.

Summer isn't heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. Corn can easily handle high temperatures, given the water it needs.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm not sure if irrigation is the answer to that or not.

Putting water on corn is as easy as getting the water to the fields.
GreenMan wrote:
The prophecies indicate clearly that food will become scarce, so I suspect there will be a problem that irrigation can't fix.

You seem to think that fresh water supplies will disappear due to evaporation breaking down.
GreenMan wrote:
You asked how a warmer climate can cause flooding. That's easy. Evaporation is caused by heat.

No, it's caused by an unbalanced equilibrium reaction between air and water. Warmer air can accept more water, but warmer air is not heat.
GreenMan wrote:
More heat means more evaporation.

Paradox! You JUST SAID water supplies are going to disappear due to high temperatures!!!
GreenMan wrote:
More evaporation means more rain.

Paradox!
GreenMan wrote:
So in areas that have a lot of water nearby, like the east coast of the US, we should see more flooding. And we are seeing more flooding.

??? Which is it dude??? Dry corn fields or flooding???
GreenMan wrote:
There isn't a lot of water in the mid-west, so we aren't seeing a lot of flooding there.

You DO realize the Mississippi and Missouri rivers FLOOD from time to time, don't you?
GreenMan wrote:
Instead, we are seeing a lot of drought, because the mountains block the moisture.

Gawd. Learn about weather patterns dude. Moisture for the plains doesn't come from the west, but from the SOUTH. It generally comes from the Gulf of Mexico.
GreenMan wrote:
Lake Mead for example, is constantly dropping.

Lake Mead does not supply water to the plains.

This lake is low because of the regulation of water from upstream dams. See the Colorado River Compact.
GreenMan wrote:
I flew over it a couple of years ago, and you can clearly see how much it has dropped from when it was full. I doubt it will be full again for quite a while.

It won't the Compact won't be up for renegotiation for some time. Upstream dams and the regions they supply along this river get more water now.
GreenMan wrote:
I'll try to swing by your place in a few years, to see how you and your grain fed ole lady are holding out. I'll bring my own beer, and have a couple cases for you. I'm thinking you are a Bud Light kind of guy. Is that right?

At least you offered a few beers.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2018 23:23
James___
★★★☆☆
(895)
..The problem with you ITN is that you don't know the difference between an ear of corn and ear wax. For all I know you can't tell the difference between a fart and your own breath.
..Maybe you should've banned yourself instead of litesong ? At least one of you made some sense and it wan't you.
Edited on 27-07-2018 23:28
28-07-2018 02:51
James___
★★★☆☆
(895)
GreenMan wrote:
You asked how a warmer climate can cause flooding. That's easy. Evaporation is caused by heat.

Into the Night wrote:
No, it's caused by an unbalanced equilibrium reaction between air and water. Warmer air can accept more water, but warmer air is not heat.
[/b]


..Umm, Fog is caused by lots of moisture in cold air. It seems that in warm air there are actually fewer water molecules. Why it's humid but not as humid when it's foggy. When it's foggy you can see the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere.

..And itn, I won't pick on you for missing something obvious. I'd think tha a teaching method wouldn't leave the teacher looking like an idiot but it's your method.

..@All,
..That's one of my favorite examples for supporting my experiment. Water vapor is supposed to be steam which is 100° C. Obviously it's not. Why I support Conservation of Momentum in that atmospheric gasses like N2, O2 and CO2 transfer angular momentumhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html to liquid water molecules.

.Have to add; if warmer air is heat then it can transfer it's heat content to water molecules allowing for airborne clouds of water vapor. This brings up the debate of is it angular momentum dictating thermodynamics or vice versa ? ITN made no such stipulation in his argument. Just a vague reference of some law allowing for some behavior and we're left to figure it out for ourselves.
..I give our teacher a solid F-.
Edited on 28-07-2018 02:58
28-07-2018 14:39
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Parrot, your method of debate is to cast doubt on what your opposition says. Your points are quite often meaningless, like the thing about heat not causing evaporation, because warmer air is what causes evaporation. And then you go on to say I must think water is going to disappear when evaporation breaks down. You are a meaningless joke, lol.

How did the air get warm? Was it not by heat?

More heat equals warmer air. And that means more evaporation. And no, the water isn't going to disappear. It just moves around a lot. Droughts are caused by water not moving over that part of the country for a while. There is still water floating around somewhere, just not where the drought is occurring. That can happen while other regions are being inundated with rain and houses are washing out to sea. In fact, that is happening in our nation now, even as we speak/type.

Why did you ban lite song? His, or her, stuff was funny, and often made good points, if you could get through the introductions.

And by the way, isn't letting you be a moderator in a group that discusses Climate Change like having a fox guard the hen house?

People who come here want to know the truth about Climate Change. But your job is to confuse everyone. We don't need that in here. We need to know what is going on in the world. People need to know of the danger we are facing. Instead, they come in here asking questions and find out that no one knows anything, thanks to you.

But there are people that do know what's going on, Parrot. And the conclusion that I'm coming to is that you are actually a paid shill. You have sold your soul to the devil.

Do you really think there are no repercussions for misleading people and causing them to make the wrong decisions about the future of our planet? You need to do a little soul searching my friend, and consider what you are doing for a living. There are other ways to make money, that don't involve hurting people.
Edited on 28-07-2018 14:42
28-07-2018 15:17
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
A news story, that sounds like I wrote it, lol.

https://www.usnews.com/news/news/articles/2018-07-27/science-says-record-heat-fires-worsened-by-climate-change

Scientists from around the world are finally starting to relate Climate Change to fires and flooding.
29-07-2018 01:23
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
And this just in:


https://thinkprogress.org/california-wildfires-fire-tornado-14e2fb92d7bd/ said:
Across the Western United States, the wildfire season is 105 days longer than it was in the 1970s, according to research from Climate Central, and the average number of large fires burning each year has more than tripled.


The evidence is getting hard to dispute, especially when it's pouring in from all side of us.

From the same article:

California isn't alone. Deadly wildfires are currently raging around the country and the world. In addition to California, the states of Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon are also grappling with their own deadly blaze, while much of the wider United States faces a record-shattering heat wave. Across the ocean, Europe is facing its own crisis — nearly 80 people have died in Greece due to wildfires. To the north, Sweden is battling fires in the Arctic Circle that are burning so brightly they can be seen from space at night.


It's not really that surprising that land in the Arctic Circle is burning, since most of the regional warming has been in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. The real problem is that it's not going to get any better. This thing we face is just going to continue getting worse and worse. And it is now picking up steam.

Did you know that Ostridges dont really stick their head in a hole when danger is present?

So, uh, why are we?
29-07-2018 14:57
James___
★★★☆☆
(895)
https://www.facebook.com/visitsenja/videos/2167439536915797/?t=11

..If fires are allowed to burn then new growth which is good for smaller mammals is encouraged. By not letting fires burn stands of trees become to thick diminishing the amount of undergrowth.
..Forest fires happen for a reason. Stands of trees become tinder because a lack of moisture.
Same reason the grass in California burns. It's dried out, put in a pipe and then a spark ignites it when the wind blows or in California's case someone inhales. ITN probably knows about this type of grass fire in a controlled urban setting. Why I think he's devoutly religious. He believes people should get stoned when they have impure thoughts such as math and/or science.
Edited on 29-07-2018 14:57
30-07-2018 04:21
James___
★★★☆☆
(895)
Dark green foliage of trees tends to absorb heat from the sun while the snow covered ground is more reflective.
The study, led by Dr Brendan Rogers at Woods Hole Research Centre in Massachusetts, found that in areas where the destruction is greatest the cooling affect is also bigger.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2956892/Are-wildfires-COOLING-Earth-Forest-blazes-make-landscape-reflect-sunlight-reduce-global-warming-study-finds.html
30-07-2018 07:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
James___ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You asked how a warmer climate can cause flooding. That's easy. Evaporation is caused by heat.

Into the Night wrote:
No, it's caused by an unbalanced equilibrium reaction between air and water. Warmer air can accept more water, but warmer air is not heat.
[/b]


..Umm, Fog is caused by lots of moisture in cold air.

Kind of. Fog is caused by the condensation of water vapor. It can happen at any temperature, but will tend to happen as the air cools.
James___ wrote:
It seems that in warm air there are actually fewer water molecules.

Nope. Same amount.
James___ wrote:
Why it's humid but not as humid when it's foggy.
This by the definition of humidity. Perhaps you should look it up.
James___ wrote:
When it's foggy you can see the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere.

WRONG. Fog is not water vapor.
James___ wrote:
..And itn, I won't pick on you for missing something obvious. I'd think tha a teaching method wouldn't leave the teacher looking like an idiot but it's your method.

..@All,
..That's one of my favorite examples for supporting my experiment. Water vapor is supposed to be steam which is 100° C. Obviously it's not.

Ever wonder why? Water vapor can even exist below freezing temperatures!
James___ wrote:
Why I support Conservation of Momentum in that atmospheric gasses like N2, O2 and CO2 transfer angular momentumhttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html to liquid water molecules.

Angular momentum has nothing to do with water vapor or water.
James___ wrote:
Have to add; if warmer air is heat
Warmer air is not heat. Heat is the movement of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself.
James___ wrote:
then it can transfer it's heat content
Heat doesn't have a content.
James___ wrote:
to water molecules
The water vapor and clouds are the same temperature as the air they are in.
James___ wrote:
allowing for airborne clouds of water vapor.

Clouds are not water vapor. They are liquid water.
James___ wrote:
This brings up the debate of is it angular momentum dictating thermodynamics or vice versa ?
Angular momentum is not involved. Buzzword fallacy.
James___ wrote:
ITN made no such stipulation in his argument.

You never wandered down this stupid path before.
James___ wrote:
Just a vague reference of some law allowing for some behavior and we're left to figure it out for ourselves.
..I give our teacher a solid F-.

Should've done your homework. I give my student a solid F so far.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2018 07:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
GreenMan wrote:
Parrot, your method of debate is to cast doubt on what your opposition says.

No, my method of debate is point out the math and science you idiots keep ignoring.
GreenMan wrote:
Your points are quite often meaningless,

Science and math are not meaningless.
GreenMan wrote:
like the thing about heat not causing evaporation,

It doesn't. Dry air near water causes evaporation.
GreenMan wrote:
because warmer air is what causes evaporation.

WRONG. Dry air causes evaporation.
GreenMan wrote:
And then you go on to say I must think water is going to disappear when evaporation breaks down. You are a meaningless joke, lol.

Still trying to argue both side of your paradox? I guess you like irrational arguments.
GreenMan wrote:
How did the air get warm? Was it not by heat?

Yup. That's how it gets warm!
GreenMan wrote:
More heat equals warmer air.

More heat means more energy. Where is that additional energy coming from? The Sun's output hasn't changed much.
GreenMan wrote:
And that means more evaporation.

Nope. Evaporation is caused by dry air, not heat.
GreenMan wrote:
And no, the water isn't going to disappear. It just moves around a lot. Droughts are caused by water not moving over that part of the country for a while. There is still water floating around somewhere, just not where the drought is occurring. That can happen while other regions are being inundated with rain and houses are washing out to sea. In fact, that is happening in our nation now, even as we speak/type.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You think the weather works like clockwork???
GreenMan wrote:
Why did you ban lite song?

I didn't.
GreenMan wrote:
His, or her, stuff was funny, and often made good points,

He was banned for spamming.
GreenMan wrote:
if you could get through the introductions.

I ignored him. He barely used any English.
GreenMan wrote:
And by the way, isn't letting you be a moderator in a group that discusses Climate Change like having a fox guard the hen house?

I'm not the moderator.
GreenMan wrote:
People who come here want to know the truth about Climate Change.

There is no truth about 'climate change'. There isn't even a definition of 'climate change'! You first have to define 'climate change' without using circular definitions if you want to get anywhere.
GreenMan wrote:
But your job is to confuse everyone.

Inversion fallacy. That is the what the Church of Global Warming does.
GreenMan wrote:
We don't need that in here. We need to know what is going on in the world.

Try reading the news. This isn't a news service.
GreenMan wrote:
People need to know of the danger we are facing.

There is no danger. Not the kind the Church of Global Warming keeps going on about anyway.
GreenMan wrote:
Instead, they come in here asking questions and find out that no one knows anything, thanks to you.

I answer them as best I can.
GreenMan wrote:
But there are people that do know what's going on, Parrot.

Indeed there are. Far more than you idiots are willing to admit!
GreenMan wrote:
And the conclusion that I'm coming to is that you are actually a paid shill. You have sold your soul to the devil.

Paid by who? Who do you think is the devil? As far as the Church of Global Warming, I am the Great Satan Himself. I abhor your religion. I will do anything I can to destroy it.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you really think there are no repercussions for misleading people

Inversion fallacy. It is the Church of Global Warming that is misleading people. I prefer science and math.
GreenMan wrote:
and causing them to make the wrong decisions about the future of our planet?

You can't control the weather or the climate. Deal with it.
GreenMan wrote:
You need to do a little soul searching my friend,

My soul is just fine, thanks.
GreenMan wrote:
and consider what you are doing for a living.

You don't want me to clean up the environment??
GreenMan wrote:
There are other ways to make money, that don't involve hurting people.

Cleaning up the environment and making industrial processes more efficient is not hurting people.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2018 07:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
GreenMan wrote:
A news story, that sounds like I wrote it, lol.

...deleted Holy Link...

Scientists from around the world are finally starting to relate Climate Change to fires and flooding.


Define 'climate change'. There have always been fires in the summer. It's part of the normal summer. There have always been floods too.

Meh.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2018 07:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
GreenMan wrote:
And this just in:


https://thinkprogress.org/california-wildfires-fire-tornado-14e2fb92d7bd/ said:
Across the Western United States, the wildfire season is 105 days longer than it was in the 1970s, according to research from Climate Central, and the average number of large fires burning each year has more than tripled.


No it hasn't. This is just propaganda. Fires tend to be more intense in California lately because of the lousy response system there. Wildfire is a normal part of summer.
GreenMan wrote:
The evidence is getting hard to dispute, especially when it's pouring in from all side of us.

Propaganda is not evidence.
GreenMan wrote:
From the same article:

California isn't alone. Deadly wildfires are currently raging around the country and the world. In addition to California, the states of Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon are also grappling with their own deadly blaze, while much of the wider United States faces a record-shattering heat wave. Across the ocean, Europe is facing its own crisis — nearly 80 people have died in Greece due to wildfires. To the north, Sweden is battling fires in the Arctic Circle that are burning so brightly they can be seen from space at night.


It's not really that surprising that land in the Arctic Circle is burning, since most of the regional warming has been in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. The real problem is that it's not going to get any better. This thing we face is just going to continue getting worse and worse. And it is now picking up steam.

Land in the Arctic Circle burns every summer. It always has. Big deal.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2018 07:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
James___ wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/visitsenja/videos/2167439536915797/?t=11

..If fires are allowed to burn then new growth which is good for smaller mammals is encouraged. By not letting fires burn stands of trees become to thick diminishing the amount of undergrowth.
..Forest fires happen for a reason. Stands of trees become tinder because a lack of moisture.
Same reason the grass in California burns. It's dried out, put in a pipe and then a spark ignites it when the wind blows or in California's case someone inhales. ITN probably knows about this type of grass fire in a controlled urban setting. Why I think he's devoutly religious. He believes people should get stoned when they have impure thoughts such as math and/or science.


It is normal for vegetation to dry out in late summer. Big deal. Wildfire is a normal part of summer.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2018 07:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
James___ wrote:
Dark green foliage of trees tends to absorb heat from the sun while the snow covered ground is more reflective.
The study, led by Dr Brendan Rogers at Woods Hole Research Centre in Massachusetts, found that in areas where the destruction is greatest the cooling affect is also bigger.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2956892/Are-wildfires-COOLING-Earth-Forest-blazes-make-landscape-reflect-sunlight-reduce-global-warming-study-finds.html


He sounds like an idiot. Oh yeah...I looked him up. He's a climate 'scientist'. He denies both science and mathematics.

Guess he denies the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the concept of emissivity as well.

Yet another priest of the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2018 13:59
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Parrot, your method of debate is to cast doubt on what your opposition says.

No, my method of debate is point out the math and science you idiots keep ignoring.
GreenMan wrote:
Your points are quite often meaningless,

Science and math are not meaningless.
GreenMan wrote:
like the thing about heat not causing evaporation,

It doesn't. Dry air near water causes evaporation.
GreenMan wrote:
because warmer air is what causes evaporation.

WRONG. Dry air causes evaporation.
GreenMan wrote:
And then you go on to say I must think water is going to disappear when evaporation breaks down. You are a meaningless joke, lol.

Still trying to argue both side of your paradox? I guess you like irrational arguments.
GreenMan wrote:
How did the air get warm? Was it not by heat?

Yup. That's how it gets warm!
GreenMan wrote:
More heat equals warmer air.

More heat means more energy. Where is that additional energy coming from? The Sun's output hasn't changed much.
GreenMan wrote:
And that means more evaporation.

Nope. Evaporation is caused by dry air, not heat.
GreenMan wrote:
And no, the water isn't going to disappear. It just moves around a lot. Droughts are caused by water not moving over that part of the country for a while. There is still water floating around somewhere, just not where the drought is occurring. That can happen while other regions are being inundated with rain and houses are washing out to sea. In fact, that is happening in our nation now, even as we speak/type.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You think the weather works like clockwork???
GreenMan wrote:
Why did you ban lite song?

I didn't.
GreenMan wrote:
His, or her, stuff was funny, and often made good points,

He was banned for spamming.
GreenMan wrote:
if you could get through the introductions.

I ignored him. He barely used any English.
GreenMan wrote:
And by the way, isn't letting you be a moderator in a group that discusses Climate Change like having a fox guard the hen house?

I'm not the moderator.
GreenMan wrote:
People who come here want to know the truth about Climate Change.

There is no truth about 'climate change'. There isn't even a definition of 'climate change'! You first have to define 'climate change' without using circular definitions if you want to get anywhere.
GreenMan wrote:
But your job is to confuse everyone.

Inversion fallacy. That is the what the Church of Global Warming does.
GreenMan wrote:
We don't need that in here. We need to know what is going on in the world.

Try reading the news. This isn't a news service.
GreenMan wrote:
People need to know of the danger we are facing.

There is no danger. Not the kind the Church of Global Warming keeps going on about anyway.
GreenMan wrote:
Instead, they come in here asking questions and find out that no one knows anything, thanks to you.

I answer them as best I can.
GreenMan wrote:
But there are people that do know what's going on, Parrot.

Indeed there are. Far more than you idiots are willing to admit!
GreenMan wrote:
And the conclusion that I'm coming to is that you are actually a paid shill. You have sold your soul to the devil.

Paid by who? Who do you think is the devil? As far as the Church of Global Warming, I am the Great Satan Himself. I abhor your religion. I will do anything I can to destroy it.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you really think there are no repercussions for misleading people

Inversion fallacy. It is the Church of Global Warming that is misleading people. I prefer science and math.
GreenMan wrote:
and causing them to make the wrong decisions about the future of our planet?

You can't control the weather or the climate. Deal with it.
GreenMan wrote:
You need to do a little soul searching my friend,

My soul is just fine, thanks.
GreenMan wrote:
and consider what you are doing for a living.

You don't want me to clean up the environment??
GreenMan wrote:
There are other ways to make money, that don't involve hurting people.

Cleaning up the environment and making industrial processes more efficient is not hurting people.


Parrot, you are quite a good shill, and well versed in methods of confusion that appear to be contradictory to that of your opposition, but really agree. For example, I said heat causes evaporation. You then say warm air causes evaporation. When I point out that the air was heated to get warm, you change to another thing that causes evaporation. Yes, it does take air that is dry enough to hold moisture for evaporation to occur. But did you know that in South Georgia, the humidity in the summer stays around 98%. But believe it or not, there is still plenty of evaporation going on. But not as much as it would be in a dryer environment. By your argument, a mud puddle would never dry up in Georgia.

Heat causes evaporation, along with suitable air. The transfer of thermal energy is clearly what is warming the air. And it is also what is drying the air, in reverse. When moist warm air encounters lower temperature, it condenses, forming droplets of water, which fall, drying the air they just formed in. So Heat has everything to do with the water cycle. More heat, an increase in the water cycle. And of course, heat is what causes the warm moist air to rise, so that it can cool off and make the rain that we were talking about.

Calling people idiots won't make your problems go away. We may be idiots compared to you in IQ, but that doesn't mean that we are wrong. Actually, it means that you aren't as smart as you think you are. And I doubt that anyone even knows who you are, in the climate change arena. So you have no status in your church of denial. You're just a lowly shill, paid meagerly for his meager offerings of confusion.

What's the matter? Not enough going on in the real world to pay your bills? The high tech machine control industry is going wide open. Seems like a man with a business of improving industrial processes should be quite busy. So there is something fishy about your story.

You shouldn't even have time to hang out in here. But you spend hours at a time responding with confusion to anyone who has anything to say regarding climate change. Do you know how stupid you sound, when you challenge someone about not being able to define climate change? It's funny that you still try to maintain an intelligent aptitude for math. Even though you can add, and subtract, and even parrot a few algorithms with names, that explain things like the energy budget of our planet, you don't have the ability to put the entire meaning of those algorithms in your head. You therefore think that a warming of the planet from anything other than a change in the sun's intensity is impossible.

So, I'm sorry to inform you, but your mathematical mind is of no use to anyone interested in knowing what Global Warming is, or how it is causing Climate Change.

But it is good to know that you aren't a moderator in here. And yes, the apparently don't like spam in here. I'm thinking that's why they turned off my signature line, lol.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
30-07-2018 15:04
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
And this just in:


https://thinkprogress.org/california-wildfires-fire-tornado-14e2fb92d7bd/ said:
Across the Western United States, the wildfire season is 105 days longer than it was in the 1970s, according to research from Climate Central, and the average number of large fires burning each year has more than tripled.


No it hasn't. This is just propaganda. Fires tend to be more intense in California lately because of the lousy response system there. Wildfire is a normal part of summer.
GreenMan wrote:
The evidence is getting hard to dispute, especially when it's pouring in from all side of us.

Propaganda is not evidence.
GreenMan wrote:
From the same article:

California isn't alone. Deadly wildfires are currently raging around the country and the world. In addition to California, the states of Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon are also grappling with their own deadly blaze, while much of the wider United States faces a record-shattering heat wave. Across the ocean, Europe is facing its own crisis — nearly 80 people have died in Greece due to wildfires. To the north, Sweden is battling fires in the Arctic Circle that are burning so brightly they can be seen from space at night.


It's not really that surprising that land in the Arctic Circle is burning, since most of the regional warming has been in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. The real problem is that it's not going to get any better. This thing we face is just going to continue getting worse and worse. And it is now picking up steam.

Land in the Arctic Circle burns every summer. It always has. Big deal.


Again, Parrot, we see your tactic of confusion, in calling factual data, "propaganda." An increase of 105 days in the fire season is quite significant, along with triple the amount of big fires, it points to something changing. No, they didn't just make those numbers up to scare people. Believe it or not, we do have the technology to count fires, and also to note on a map when they occurred. And we can do this quite accurately. It's not propaganda, it is information, that people should be using to realize that something is wrong.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
30-07-2018 18:16
James___
★★★☆☆
(895)
You mean depleting aquifers out west is paying dividends ?

p.s., how many trees/acre now and 30 years ago ?
30-07-2018 20:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
GreenMan wrote:
Parrot, you are quite a good shill, and well versed in methods of confusion that appear to be contradictory to that of your opposition, but really agree.

Nope. We don't agree. You are in paradox.
GreenMan wrote:
For example, I said heat causes evaporation. You then say warm air causes evaporation. When I point out that the air was heated to get warm, you change to another thing that causes evaporation.

I never said warm air causes evaporation, liar. Dry air causes evaporation.
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, it does take air that is dry enough to hold moisture for evaporation to occur. But did you know that in South Georgia, the humidity in the summer stays around 98%.

Yup. Pretty much that way along all the gulf coast.
GreenMan wrote:
But believe it or not, there is still plenty of evaporation going on. But not as much as it would be in a dryer environment.

Never said there wasn't.
GreenMan wrote:
By your argument, a mud puddle would never dry up in Georgia.

It can take awhile!
GreenMan wrote:
Heat causes evaporation, along with suitable air.

Nope. Just dry air is needed.
GreenMan wrote:
The transfer of thermal energy is clearly what is warming the air.

True.
GreenMan wrote:
And it is also what is drying the air, in reverse.

Not necessarily true. Air can be dried by several means, not just convection.
GreenMan wrote:
When moist warm air encounters lower temperature, it condenses, forming droplets of water, which fall, drying the air they just formed in.

Good. You understand convection in this scenario at least.
GreenMan wrote:
So Heat has everything to do with the water cycle.

Heat is not capitalized, but yes, the water cycle is driven by heat. I never said otherwise.
GreenMan wrote:
More heat, an increase in the water cycle.

Not necessarily.
GreenMan wrote:
And of course, heat is what causes the warm moist air to rise, so that it can cool off and make the rain that we were talking about.

True.
GreenMan wrote:
Calling people idiots won't make your problems go away.

I don't have a problem.
GreenMan wrote:
We may be idiots compared to you in IQ, but that doesn't mean that we are wrong.

In this case, yes it does.
GreenMan wrote:
Actually, it means that you aren't as smart as you think you are.

Actually, I am.
GreenMan wrote:
And I doubt that anyone even knows who you are, in the climate change arena.

I could give a dead rat. You can't even define what 'climate change' is!
GreenMan wrote:
So you have no status in your church of denial.

Science and mathematics is not a religion.
GreenMan wrote:
You're just a lowly shill, paid meagerly for his meager offerings of confusion.

You keep saying this. Who do you think is paying me?
GreenMan wrote:
What's the matter? Not enough going on in the real world to pay your bills?

Actually, business is quite good.
GreenMan wrote:
The high tech machine control industry is going wide open. Seems like a man with a business of improving industrial processes should be quite busy.

I am.
GreenMan wrote:
So there is something fishy about your story.

Like what?
GreenMan wrote:
You shouldn't even have time to hang out in here.

It doesn't take much time.
GreenMan wrote:
But you spend hours at a time responding with confusion to anyone who has anything to say regarding climate change.

Nope. Just a few minutes is all it takes.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you know how stupid you sound, when you challenge someone about not being able to define climate change?

Doesn't matter. Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. You can't have a theory based on a meaningless buzzword.
GreenMan wrote:
It's funny that you still try to maintain an intelligent aptitude for math. Even though you can add, and subtract, and even parrot a few algorithms with names, that explain things like the energy budget of our planet, you don't have the ability to put the entire meaning of those algorithms in your head. You therefore think that a warming of the planet from anything other than a change in the sun's intensity is impossible.

Not a math problem. A science problem. You really don't understand the difference, do you? Do you know what the 1st law of thermodynamics is?
GreenMan wrote:
So, I'm sorry to inform you, but your mathematical mind is of no use to anyone interested in knowing what Global Warming is, or how it is causing Climate Change.

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. They don't mean anything until you do.
GreenMan wrote:
But it is good to know that you aren't a moderator in here. And yes, the apparently don't like spam in here. I'm thinking that's why they turned off my signature line, lol.

Perhaps.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2018 20:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
And this just in:


https://thinkprogress.org/california-wildfires-fire-tornado-14e2fb92d7bd/ said:
Across the Western United States, the wildfire season is 105 days longer than it was in the 1970s, according to research from Climate Central, and the average number of large fires burning each year has more than tripled.


No it hasn't. This is just propaganda. Fires tend to be more intense in California lately because of the lousy response system there. Wildfire is a normal part of summer.
GreenMan wrote:
The evidence is getting hard to dispute, especially when it's pouring in from all side of us.

Propaganda is not evidence.
GreenMan wrote:
From the same article:

California isn't alone. Deadly wildfires are currently raging around the country and the world. In addition to California, the states of Colorado, Nevada, and Oregon are also grappling with their own deadly blaze, while much of the wider United States faces a record-shattering heat wave. Across the ocean, Europe is facing its own crisis — nearly 80 people have died in Greece due to wildfires. To the north, Sweden is battling fires in the Arctic Circle that are burning so brightly they can be seen from space at night.


It's not really that surprising that land in the Arctic Circle is burning, since most of the regional warming has been in the Arctic and Antarctic regions. The real problem is that it's not going to get any better. This thing we face is just going to continue getting worse and worse. And it is now picking up steam.

Land in the Arctic Circle burns every summer. It always has. Big deal.


Again, Parrot, we see your tactic of confusion, in calling factual data, "propaganda." An increase of 105 days in the fire season is quite significant,

No, it is just renaming things.
GreenMan wrote:
along with triple the amount of big fires, it points to something changing.

No, it is just a result of renaming things.
GreenMan wrote:
No, they didn't just make those numbers up to scare people.

Yes they do.
GreenMan wrote:
Believe it or not, we do have the technology to count fires, and also to note on a map when they occurred. And we can do this quite accurately. It's not propaganda, it is information, that people should be using to realize that something is wrong.

Something is wrong. You are believing the propaganda.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2018 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
James___ wrote:
You mean depleting aquifers out west is paying dividends ?

p.s., how many trees/acre now and 30 years ago ?


Go ask Weyerhauser. They can answer the question better than I can.


The Parrot Killer
30-07-2018 20:37
James___
★★★☆☆
(895)
@All,
.With the fires in California, they've found that they can pump water from a depth of about 2,400 ft.
In contrast, San Joaquin Valley groundwater levels are plummeting. Drought-battered farms have chased water by drilling wells as much as 2,000 feet deep and over-drafted aquifers are causing the ground in some areas to sink several inches annually.


https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/county-study-finds-mostly-stable-groundwater-levels/article_80a38f37-69ce-51a9-ac94-c233e578762d.html

>>It seems the San Joaquin Valley goes from about Sacramento to Bakersfield, Ca. while the Napa Valley is near Santa Rosa, Ca. west of Sacramento.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/QqUHdUP3WXFp43hk7
Edited on 30-07-2018 20:48
31-07-2018 19:55
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1271)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Redman's quotes

Said weather maps have nothing to do with climate. Just because your map says everything is fine, it doesn't mean that everything is fine everywhere.

Point is, you can't read the simplest of weather maps, yet you're telling us all how factual it is that heat is causing floods. I just want you to explain how. Can you do that?
And by the way. That map may say everything is fine, to you. However, that was just a snapshot of our weather.

Bingo!!! And "hottest global temps ever recorded" which no one actually knows and cannot be accurately measured, are also just a snapshot...a blink in history. Dude, how old is the earth?
Not sure if the numbers were highs, averages, current, or what. Sorry, missed that in weather class.

actually, none of the above.



I don't think they had that in my school back then. They probably don't explain freaking weather charts even today. Graduating class was around 150. P.O. Dunk to say the least.

My school didn't have weather either. I just began to realize how many people spouted off about the weather and how often they were always wrong. I decided to actually learn what I could. Turns out the more I learned the more there was to know. It's a fascinating subject, and even the "expert meteorologists" have significant difficulty producing an accurate forecast 120 hour out. But hold the phone! Redman has created an Algoreism and he can tell us the ENTIRE EARTHS TEMPERATURE 100 years from now!!!
And that's because you didn't get to see the color radar maps they used to show on the radio, down in Greenville, SC.
I can't say I've ever seen anything on the radio.


Nice chatting with you, Gassy.

You too Redman!
I can't wait to meet your hot ole lady,

I would have no problem with that, she'll kick your ass!
and much on some of them grilled cheese burgers, and drink your beer.

Typical liberal...can't even bring his own beer. Isn't the guest supposed to bring a bottle of wine or something like that?
I like Elysian Space Dust IPA. But don't worry, I'm a lightweight, and a six pack will put me right out [and totally hose the next day].

Good for you...buy some.
Let's get together and talk about growing corn after it starts hitting 100 F in the spring.

That sounds wonderful after last spring! We had snow on April 15th! Yep, bad day! Paid my damn taxes and it snowed.
I'm interested in your ideas on this.

Really? OK. From what I understand the more heat the better for getting that corn going early. Get the plants up and get that canopy closed quick to hold more moisture in the soil. Also a benefit when you have a later freeze date...allows for a bigger yield producing variety seed, which takes a week or two more, and no worries about an early freeze before the crop is mature.

What are your thoughts Redman?


I see one problem that you are having, Gassy. You apparently don't know the difference between weather and climate, so you think they are the same. Yes, they are related, but they are not the same thing. Weather is what's around you today. Your weather today might include rain, or sunshine. Climate is a summary of what the weather has been like over a period of time.

And yes, I can tell you that the earth's average surface temperature will be about 3C warmer in 100 years, if nothing happens to reverse the warming trend we are currently experiencing. But I have no idea if it will be raining or not on 07/27/2118. Whether it's raining or not is a weather forecast. How hot the average temperature of the planet will be is a climate forecast.

You think a warmer spring and a later frost will actually help your corn grow. And it will, if your corn can handle the heat of the summer. I'm not sure if irrigation is the answer to that or not. The prophecies indicate clearly that food will become scarce, so I suspect there will be a problem that irrigation can't fix.

You asked how a warmer climate can cause flooding. That's easy. Evaporation is caused by heat. More heat means more evaporation. More evaporation means more rain. So in areas that have a lot of water nearby, like the east coast of the US, we should see more flooding. And we are seeing more flooding. There isn't a lot of water in the mid-west, so we aren't seeing a lot of flooding there. Instead, we are seeing a lot of drought, because the mountains block the moisture. Lake Mead for example, is constantly dropping. I flew over it a couple of years ago, and you can clearly see how much it has dropped from when it was full. I doubt it will be full again for quite a while.

I'll try to swing by your place in a few years, to see how you and your grain fed ole lady are holding out. I'll bring my own beer, and have a couple cases for you. I'm thinking you are a Bud Light kind of guy. Is that right?


IPCC says that the maximum warming will be of about 3c.

That said that was said way back in 2007(?) based on the prediction of 1998. The prediction of the max seems not to have changed in spie of the lack of significant warming since then. Has it managed 0.1c in the last 2 decades?

At this rate it will be a long time before we see +1c never mind 3c.
01-08-2018 03:00
James___
★★★☆☆
(895)
Tim the plumber wrote:


IPCC says that the maximum warming will be of about 3c.

That said that was said way back in 2007(?) based on the prediction of 1998. The prediction of the max seems not to have changed in spie of the lack of significant warming since then. Has it managed 0.1c in the last 2 decades?

At this rate it will be a long time before we see +1c never mind 3c.


..https://gizmodo.com/massive-forest-fires-could-be-cooling-the-earth-1685431254

..And with me, am doubtful that a "greenhouse effect" is caused by atmospheric gasses. That scenario was though up around 1827. I think it's wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/feb/03/lastword.environment

The story starts in 1827 with the French mathematician Fourier. He coined the term "greenhouse effect" and provided an explanation for the relatively small temperature difference between daytime and night-time on the Earth - and the development of a climate that was, among other things, suitable for human beings.


..I think something else is going on which is why we have both a tropopause and a mesopause. Neither are dependent on a relationship between energy and pressure...

Ideal Gas Law from Kinetic Theory
From the above study, we found that the average kinetic energy is proportional to the temperature, according to

(1/2 mv^2)=3/2KT

..And as we all should now by now, in our atmosphere, less pressure means a colder atmosphere. With the tropopause, as the pressure drops the temperature doesn't. It's at that point, the beginning of the tropopause that pressure and heat in our atmosphere have no relationship with the other.
This suggests that the Earth's magnetosphere is hard at work.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/WbQKZRVP9p3Y1nwV8
Edited on 01-08-2018 03:02
01-08-2018 05:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:


IPCC says that the maximum warming will be of about 3c.

That said that was said way back in 2007(?) based on the prediction of 1998. The prediction of the max seems not to have changed in spie of the lack of significant warming since then. Has it managed 0.1c in the last 2 decades?

At this rate it will be a long time before we see +1c never mind 3c.


..https://gizmodo.com/massive-forest-fires-could-be-cooling-the-earth-1685431254

..And with me, am doubtful that a "greenhouse effect" is caused by atmospheric gasses. That scenario was though up around 1827. I think it's wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/feb/03/lastword.environment

The story starts in 1827 with the French mathematician Fourier. He coined the term "greenhouse effect" and provided an explanation for the relatively small temperature difference between daytime and night-time on the Earth - and the development of a climate that was, among other things, suitable for human beings.


..I think something else is going on which is why we have both a tropopause and a mesopause. Neither are dependent on a relationship between energy and pressure...

Ideal Gas Law from Kinetic Theory
From the above study, we found that the average kinetic energy is proportional to the temperature, according to

(1/2 mv^2)=3/2KT

..And as we all should now by now, in our atmosphere, less pressure means a colder atmosphere. With the tropopause, as the pressure drops the temperature doesn't. It's at that point, the beginning of the tropopause that pressure and heat in our atmosphere have no relationship with the other.
This suggests that the Earth's magnetosphere is hard at work.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/WbQKZRVP9p3Y1nwV8


Go look up the Chapman cycle. It explains why you see a temperature inversion in the stratosphere. The magnetosphere does not affect temperatures in the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
01-08-2018 22:40
James___
★★★☆☆
(895)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:


IPCC says that the maximum warming will be of about 3c.

That said that was said way back in 2007(?) based on the prediction of 1998. The prediction of the max seems not to have changed in spie of the lack of significant warming since then. Has it managed 0.1c in the last 2 decades?

At this rate it will be a long time before we see +1c never mind 3c.


..https://gizmodo.com/massive-forest-fires-could-be-cooling-the-earth-1685431254

..And with me, am doubtful that a "greenhouse effect" is caused by atmospheric gasses. That scenario was though up around 1827. I think it's wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/feb/03/lastword.environment

The story starts in 1827 with the French mathematician Fourier. He coined the term "greenhouse effect" and provided an explanation for the relatively small temperature difference between daytime and night-time on the Earth - and the development of a climate that was, among other things, suitable for human beings.


..I think something else is going on which is why we have both a tropopause and a mesopause. Neither are dependent on a relationship between energy and pressure...

Ideal Gas Law from Kinetic Theory
From the above study, we found that the average kinetic energy is proportional to the temperature, according to

(1/2 mv^2)=3/2KT

..And as we all should now by now, in our atmosphere, less pressure means a colder atmosphere. With the tropopause, as the pressure drops the temperature doesn't. It's at that point, the beginning of the tropopause that pressure and heat in our atmosphere have no relationship with the other.
This suggests that the Earth's magnetosphere is hard at work.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/WbQKZRVP9p3Y1nwV8


Go look up the Chapman cycle. It explains why you see a temperature inversion in the stratosphere. The magnetosphere does not affect temperatures in the atmosphere.



..itn,
.I do owe you an apology. My disagreeing with mainstream physics which you seem to accept is because I have my own beliefs about how our atmosphere works.
.Once again, I do apologize for having my own thoughts.

James
02-08-2018 21:50
James___
★★★☆☆
(895)
Into the Night wrote:

Go look up the Chapman cycle. It explains why you see a temperature inversion in the stratosphere. The magnetosphere does not affect temperatures in the atmosphere.


James___ wrote:
..itn,
.I do owe you an apology. My disagreeing with mainstream physics which you seem to accept is because I have my own beliefs about how our atmosphere works.
.Once again, I do apologize for having my own thoughts.

James



...@All,
..If I am right about the tropopause and mesopause then that could give me some name recognition in astrophysics. This is because I'd be explaining why Saturn has rings around it. It would be a feature that helps to show how strong a planet's magnetosphere is. The current accepted reasoning;

https://www.universetoday.com/84129/why-does-saturn-have-rings/
The simplest answer as to why Saturn has rings and what they are made of is that the planet has accumulated a great deal of dust, particles, and ice at varying distances from its surface. These items are most likely trapped by gravity. The rings appear because of the wavelengths of light reflected by the these rings of debris.


..And if my experiment is successful then it would show that more work is being done than previously thought possible. And this then would allow for the Van Allen Radiation Belts to be a similar effect to a ring around Saturn.
..Our proximity to the Sun and the Earth having a weaker magnetosphere than Saturn would be why the Van Allen Radiation Belts are different.
Edited on 02-08-2018 21:59
02-08-2018 22:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Go look up the Chapman cycle. It explains why you see a temperature inversion in the stratosphere. The magnetosphere does not affect temperatures in the atmosphere.


James___ wrote:
..itn,
.I do owe you an apology. My disagreeing with mainstream physics which you seem to accept is because I have my own beliefs about how our atmosphere works.
.Once again, I do apologize for having my own thoughts.

James



...@All,
..If I am right about the tropopause and mesopause then that could give me some name recognition in astrophysics. This is because I'd be explaining why Saturn has rings around it. It would be a feature that helps to show how strong a planet's magnetosphere is. The current accepted reasoning;
James___ wrote:
https://www.universetoday.com/84129/why-does-saturn-have-rings/
[quote]The simplest answer as to why Saturn has rings and what they are made of is that the planet has accumulated a great deal of dust, particles, and ice at varying distances from its surface. These items are most likely trapped by gravity. The rings appear because of the wavelengths of light reflected by the these rings of debris.


..And if my experiment is successful then it would show that more work is being done than previously thought possible. And this then would allow for the Van Allen Radiation Belts to be a similar effect to a ring around Saturn.

The rings around Saturn are debris from a crushed moon or a moon that never formed because of the two pilot moons that create the rings. The Van Allen belts are protons trapped by the Earth's magnetic field. They are not caused by any pilot moons. This is not 'accepted reasoning'. It is an observation, done by our deep space probes that actually went out and looked at the thing. It happens to fit both of Newton's laws of momentum and gravity and Kepler's laws quite well. All large planets have such rings. Saturn's just happens to be the brightest.

James___ wrote:
..Our proximity to the Sun and the Earth having a weaker magnetosphere than Saturn would be why the Van Allen Radiation Belts are different.

They are different because they have different causes, different materials they are made up with, and have completely different properties. They really have no relationship to each other.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-08-2018 22:27
03-08-2018 01:33
James___
★★★☆☆
(895)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Go look up the Chapman cycle. It explains why you see a temperature inversion in the stratosphere. The magnetosphere does not affect temperatures in the atmosphere.


James___ wrote:
..itn,
.I do owe you an apology. My disagreeing with mainstream physics which you seem to accept is because I have my own beliefs about how our atmosphere works.
.Once again, I do apologize for having my own thoughts.

James



...@All,
..If I am right about the tropopause and mesopause then that could give me some name recognition in astrophysics. This is because I'd be explaining why Saturn has rings around it. It would be a feature that helps to show how strong a planet's magnetosphere is. The current accepted reasoning;
James___ wrote:
https://www.universetoday.com/84129/why-does-saturn-have-rings/
[quote]The simplest answer as to why Saturn has rings and what they are made of is that the planet has accumulated a great deal of dust, particles, and ice at varying distances from its surface. These items are most likely trapped by gravity. The rings appear because of the wavelengths of light reflected by the these rings of debris.


..And if my experiment is successful then it would show that more work is being done than previously thought possible. And this then would allow for the Van Allen Radiation Belts to be a similar effect to a ring around Saturn.

The rings around Saturn are debris from a crushed moon or a moon that never formed because of the two pilot moons that create the rings. The Van Allen belts are protons trapped by the Earth's magnetic field. They are not caused by any pilot moons. This is not 'accepted reasoning'. It is an observation, done by our deep space probes that actually went out and looked at the thing. It happens to fit both of Newton's laws of momentum and gravity and Kepler's laws quite well. All large planets have such rings. Saturn's just happens to be the brightest.

James___ wrote:
..Our proximity to the Sun and the Earth having a weaker magnetosphere than Saturn would be why the Van Allen Radiation Belts are different.

They are different because they have different causes, different materials they are made up with, and have completely different properties. They really have no relationship to each other.



...As I said before itn, I owe you an apology for having my own opinion. All you have is disagreeing with me. That means that you have nothing. The sum total of your name.
..And what's even funnier itn is that you said I was wrong by quoting the link I posted. Anyway this is your forum so I hope you're getting your monies worth out of it.
Edited on 03-08-2018 02:07
03-08-2018 14:12
James___
★★★☆☆
(895)
James___ wrote:

..Our proximity to the Sun and the Earth having a weaker magnetosphere than Saturn would be why the Van Allen Radiation Belts are different.



...I'll try to give a brief explanation and since I did mention this is about astrophysics, we need to consider the Earth's shape. It's not round like a globe. This is because it bulges out at the equator. I need to be technical here because of the Inner Van Allen radiation belt.
..If this bulge has an effect on the space around our planet then the inner belt might be it's opposing effect. And as we all know, magnetic fields can push things away, one example is how jet aircraft are launched.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/29/uss-ford-makes-history-launches-lands-fighter-jet-with-magnetic-technology.html

..The Van Allen Belts might be nothing more than the Earth warping the space around it because of it's gravity, spin and magnetosphere. Basically because it's a spinning mass it distorts it's own magnetosphere. And the same can be said for Saturn.
..With Saturn, Current distance from Saturn to Sun is 0.93 billion miles (1.5 billion km, 10.0 au) https://www.bing.com/search?FORM=SK216DF&PC=SK216&q=how+far+is+saturn+from+the+sun

...Some "heavy" (?) reading;
If the material carried by the solar wind reached a planet's surface, its radiation would do severe damage to any life that might exist. Earth's magnetic field serves as a shield, redirecting the material around the planet so that it streams beyond it.
https://www.space.com/22215-solar-wind.html


..We know the trapped particles from the Solar Wind are in the Van Allen radiation belts. If the radiation belts on the night side of the Earth release trapped solar radiation then the Van Allen radiation belts are redirecting the flow of the solar wind around the Earth.
..With Saturn, the solar radiation reaching it should be inverse square to what the Earth receives. And since it's 10 au (1 au is the earth's distance from the Sun) and we have a solar constant of about 1,360 w/m^2, Saturn's should be about 13.6 w/m^2.
..This says 15, all that means is that Saturn's distance from the Sun is a little less than 10 au.http://alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space/Solar_Constant.htm

..I'll give ya'all a chance to read this and consider it. And with me, I do think the effects of the tropopause, mesopause and the 2 radiation belts help to insulate the Earth as far as any "greenhouse" effect goes.

I sent this link to a woman I know. Not sure if you guys will like it but energy can be pretty cool; https://www.facebook.com/visitsenja/videos/2111236665869418/?t=19
Edited on 03-08-2018 14:17
03-08-2018 18:46
PoseidonFoundation
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
muc82 wrote:
I doubt that we will ever be able to cut the emmisions. Our civilisation and mentality runs like that. For me cutting the emissions even for 50-60% (which globally will never happen) means nothing, we have still so much that it cause the warming. So here my thinking:
1.) Have more CO2 emmisions will mean warmer earth -> ice will melt, we will have less sun reflection, temperature will rise even faster
2.) We consume more and more energy, we have more buildings and more tarmac roads -> all this things cause more higher temperatures
3.) warmer temperature -> permafrost will melt, methane will strenghten the warming effect, temperature will rise faster
4.) ...
Basically I see here a lot of natural reactions which accelerate the global warming. Everything leads to more and more warm temperatures.
Does anybody know some cooling effect in the nature which starts when the temperature rise and rise? Does something like that exist? Or will we end like Venus in couple of centuries?



Hello,

you should probably have a look at Poseidon Foundation. a non-profit committed to offset carbon emissions using blockchain. Poseidon already achieved important parterships, including with Liverpool City Council, in fact Liverpool is committed to become first city to go climate "positive" in 2020.
Here a website where you can find more information https://poseidon.eco/
03-08-2018 22:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
PoseidonFoundation wrote:
muc82 wrote:
I doubt that we will ever be able to cut the emmisions. Our civilisation and mentality runs like that. For me cutting the emissions even for 50-60% (which globally will never happen) means nothing, we have still so much that it cause the warming. So here my thinking:
1.) Have more CO2 emmisions will mean warmer earth -> ice will melt, we will have less sun reflection, temperature will rise even faster
2.) We consume more and more energy, we have more buildings and more tarmac roads -> all this things cause more higher temperatures
3.) warmer temperature -> permafrost will melt, methane will strenghten the warming effect, temperature will rise faster
4.) ...
Basically I see here a lot of natural reactions which accelerate the global warming. Everything leads to more and more warm temperatures.
Does anybody know some cooling effect in the nature which starts when the temperature rise and rise? Does something like that exist? Or will we end like Venus in couple of centuries?



Hello,

you should probably have a look at Poseidon Foundation. a non-profit committed to offset carbon emissions using blockchain. Poseidon already achieved important parterships, including with Liverpool City Council, in fact Liverpool is committed to become first city to go climate "positive" in 2020.
Here a website where you can find more information https://poseidon.eco/

You have already spammed this twice.


The Parrot Killer
05-08-2018 19:37
James___
★★★☆☆
(895)
...Record levels of CO2 and CH4 are helping to save the ozone layer;

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

..And then there's this from the same report;
The projection of CCl4 remains more uncertain than projections for other ODSs due to our incomplete understanding of the current CCl4 budget (likely a missing source; see Chapter 1).


..The experiment that I am pursuing might help to understand where the CCl4 (it destroys ozone) is coming from. Chlorine is used in laundry, water treatment, etc. and when it's exposed to the atmosphere it becomes a gas. Then the following formulas might be valid;

..CO2 + H2O > HCHO, O2 (Chapman cycle)

..HCHO + HCHO > Ch4, C (C + 4Cl > CCl4), O2

Questions like can a chlorine molecule break the 2 double covalent bonds of CO2? If so then there might be more atmospheric mixing going on in the upper troposphere than what we're aware of.
Edited on 05-08-2018 19:37
05-08-2018 19:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
James___ wrote:
...Record levels of CO2 and CH4 are helping to save the ozone layer;

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

..And then there's this from the same report;
The projection of CCl4 remains more uncertain than projections for other ODSs due to our incomplete understanding of the current CCl4 budget (likely a missing source; see Chapter 1).


..The experiment that I am pursuing might help to understand where the CCl4 (it destroys ozone) is coming from. Chlorine is used in laundry, water treatment, etc. and when it's exposed to the atmosphere it becomes a gas. Then the following formulas might be valid;

..CO2 + H2O > HCHO, O2 (Chapman cycle)

..HCHO + HCHO > Ch4, C (C + 4Cl > CCl4), O2

Questions like can a chlorine molecule break the 2 double covalent bonds of CO2? If so then there might be more atmospheric mixing going on in the upper troposphere than what we're aware of.


This is NOAA crap again.

Chlorine is a very reactive gas. It reacts with something else long before it gets a few feet. This is the ozone hole nonsense again.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-08-2018 19:49
06-08-2018 18:28
James___
★★★☆☆
(895)
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

Into the Night wrote:

This is NOAA crap again.

Chlorine is a very reactive gas. It reacts with something else long before it gets a few feet. This is the ozone hole nonsense again.



..It's always possible that chlorine interacts with hydrocarbons. This would be getting into smog and emissions from power plants and factories, motor vehicles, airplanes, etc.
06-08-2018 20:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
James___ wrote:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

Into the Night wrote:

This is NOAA crap again.

Chlorine is a very reactive gas. It reacts with something else long before it gets a few feet. This is the ozone hole nonsense again.



..It's always possible that chlorine interacts with hydrocarbons. This would be getting into smog and emissions from power plants and factories, motor vehicles, airplanes, etc.


...so?


The Parrot Killer
07-08-2018 01:22
James___
★★★☆☆
(895)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

Into the Night wrote:

This is NOAA crap again.

Chlorine is a very reactive gas. It reacts with something else long before it gets a few feet. This is the ozone hole nonsense again.



..It's always possible that chlorine interacts with hydrocarbons. This would be getting into smog and emissions from power plants and factories, motor vehicles, airplanes, etc.


...so?



...Particulates in the air can absorb or reflect heat. This also has a cumulative effect on the atmosphere as well. Kind of like mud on animals can keep them cooler by creating a barrier to the atmosphere. Been watching nature documentaries again.
07-08-2018 18:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

Into the Night wrote:

This is NOAA crap again.

Chlorine is a very reactive gas. It reacts with something else long before it gets a few feet. This is the ozone hole nonsense again.



..It's always possible that chlorine interacts with hydrocarbons. This would be getting into smog and emissions from power plants and factories, motor vehicles, airplanes, etc.


...so?



...Particulates in the air can absorb or reflect heat. This also has a cumulative effect on the atmosphere as well. Kind of like mud on animals can keep them cooler by creating a barrier to the atmosphere. Been watching nature documentaries again.

Heat is not something that reflects.


The Parrot Killer
08-08-2018 07:55
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1059)
Not a climate question, but this got the old tiny brain going a bit....

Heat always goes from hot to cold, right?

The surface, which is warmed by the sun, warms the air, and the CO2 and all that BS...

And as you(ITN) have said many times, that is how the surface cools itself.

Ok, our body temp is 98. Why do we feel the need to cool down around 90 and above? If heat is going from hot to cold, 90 degrees should feel "rather chilly"....but it doesn't. Why not?
08-08-2018 20:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Not a climate question, but this got the old tiny brain going a bit....

Heat always goes from hot to cold, right?

The surface, which is warmed by the sun, warms the air, and the CO2 and all that BS...

And as you(ITN) have said many times, that is how the surface cools itself.

Ok, our body temp is 98. Why do we feel the need to cool down around 90 and above? If heat is going from hot to cold, 90 degrees should feel "rather chilly"....but it doesn't. Why not?


An excellent question, and not from a tiny brain one bit! Here's the answer:

Our bodies are constantly consuming food to produce that temperature. It will continue to burn food, even if it doesn't need to produce body heat. This is necessary because the sugars we get from that food power our brain, muscles, heart, etc.

So we always have to get rid of the excess thermal energy.

Heat will flow from hot to cold at a rate determined by the difference between the hot and cold regions, and is affected by the coupling between those regions. This means that the greater the difference, the more heat will flow. The greater the coupling, the more heat will flow. If there isn't a great difference in temperature, less heat will flow. If coupling is reduced, less heat will flow.

The body has a couple of ways to couple to the outside air. They are not 100% efficient.

The first is simple convection. We are mostly water, so convection can actually take place inside us. This convective heating brings our internal temperature upward where it is conducted to the outside via our skin. Unfortunately, air is a fairly good insulator of thermal energy so this coupling is not very good. This is why we need fans on circuit boards to rid the CPU of excess heat, and why we need fans in our cars for the radiator. It's also why blankets and other insulation work by trapping air.

The second is by sweat glands all along our skin. When the body is hot, these glands open and produce moisture. The evaporation of this moisture produces a fairly good coupling to outside air since the heat of evaporation is fairly high. The resulting water vapor carries it on into the atmosphere. This is great, but it only works so far. The coupling again isn't perfect. It IS good enough to allow us to survive at temperatures far greater than 98 degrees, where the air starts heating us instead.

It is the heat of evaporation that makes this possible. It takes a tremendous amount of heating to get water to evaporate away. During that time, the measured temperature doesn't change.

As outside temperature increases, we still need to lose all that thermal energy we are producing, but the difference in temperature is dropping. We are producing more energy than we can get rid of with the coupling available to us. We feel hot. We can only sweat so fast, and the cost is losing water from our system (we feel thirsty).

If we use extra energy (by exercising or doing heavy work) under such conditions, we are burning even MORE energy to do it. The same coupling to get rid of it, however, applies. Under such conditions, we can overtax our body's ability to rid itself of this excess thermal energy and we start suffering from the effects of hyperthermia (heat stroke). Heat stroke is at greater risk if we are already thirsty. The body will shut down the sweat glands to save water enough to stay alive at some point.

If we find ourselves too hot on such a day, one of the best ways to cool off fast is to simply get your arms and head wet and stand in a breeze. You will cool right off. There are a lot of blood vessels in your arms so they can help you get rid of heat (the same way a jackrabbit's ears do). The heat of evaporation does the rest for you.

It's all about the heat of evaporation and the coupling available from our bodies to the surrounding air.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-08-2018 20:30
09-08-2018 07:40
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1059)
ITN wrote:
Our bodies are constantly consuming food to produce that temperature. It will continue to burn food, even if it doesn't need to produce body heat. This is necessary because the sugars we get from that food power our brain....

So maybe James just needs to eat more?
Kidding!

Thanks for the explanation ITN and I think that all makes perfect sense.

While I'm at it I'd like one more question, COMPLETELY unrelated to climate. I do appreciate the knowledge here.

I was yacking at a family reunion (wife's side
) with an lifelong appliance repair guy. We were discussing the propane powered refrigerator in the cabin on a fly in fishing trip to Canada. He didn't know how they worked. I didn't either. Got any insight ITN?

By the way, he told me that A/C and Freon work by removing heat. A very interesting conversation ensued.
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Warming acceleration:

Remember me

▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact