Remember me
▼ Content

Work and Heat



Page 2 of 3<123>
22-06-2018 10:33
James___
★★★☆☆
(560)
Into the Night wrote:


WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.


James___ wrote:
..What is it that you have against people ?


Nothing.[/quote]


...All you used to say was Stefan-Boltzmann and now you're saying that doesn't matter. It's unusual for someone to attack the argument they've used for over a year. Kind of why I do think you have something against people.
22-06-2018 15:16
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.


James___ wrote:
..What is it that you have against people ?


Nothing.



...All you used to say was Stefan-Boltzmann and now you're saying that doesn't matter. It's unusual for someone to attack the argument they've used for over a year. Kind of why I do think you have something against people.[/quote]

To my mind he is growing more and more aware of what a failure he is and is doing nothing more than acting out like a teenager.
22-06-2018 15:43
James___
★★★☆☆
(560)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.


James___ wrote:
..What is it that you have against people ?


Nothing.



...All you used to say was Stefan-Boltzmann and now you're saying that doesn't matter. It's unusual for someone to attack the argument they've used for over a year. Kind of why I do think you have something against people.


To my mind he is growing more and more aware of what a failure he is and is doing nothing more than acting out like a teenager.[/quote]


...It's always possible he's realized that science can explain things without it being overly complicated. With the earth's emissivity I think it does go beyond the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. All that means is that a variable would need to be added to make it planet/star specific. I'm not sure if people in here would want to get that much into things. That's where the energy we consume for performing work is about the 10 w/m^2. That's something better solar panels could help with. So the solution then would be improved technology which would create more jobs.
22-06-2018 16:25
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
...It's always possible he's realized that science can explain things without it being overly complicated. With the earth's emissivity I think it does go beyond the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. All that means is that a variable would need to be added to make it planet/star specific. I'm not sure if people in here would want to get that much into things. That's where the energy we consume for performing work is about the 10 w/m^2. That's something better solar panels could help with. So the solution then would be improved technology which would create more jobs.


He has a great deal of difficulty understanding concepts of energy. For instance - he doesn't understand that all of the energy that is shown upon this planet each day doesn't leave it. A very small portion, 1% or so, remains here in the form of plant growth. Plants do not totally decay in areas if rapid plant growth such as forests and even plains. This is how coal, oil and natural gas deposits are laid down. Now it is possible for oil and gas to be formed from bacterial growth but this happens near the surface and is in general absorbed into the surrounding soil.

But coal and oil are from the far distant past and are limited resources. But as long as they are available it's stupid not to use them.

He doesn't believe that you can measure MGT from a satellite. And entire branch of science he denies. And he is so cocksure of that he has the nerve to degrade scientists that know 1,000 times more than he does.

It has reached the point where he writes such preposterous things that it isn't even worth commenting on his postings. I just laugh and move on. If you want to argue with him that's your business but I would think that learning more for yourself would be a more productive thing.

In a science forum I showed the NASA claimed MGT growth curve and those of Dr. Spencer. They had the nerve to send me a email saying that they would only accept "real scientific papers". Those charts were DIRECTLY from NASA. The one made public to "prove" global warming and the other from their own weather satellites. When I gave them direct references to the NASA papers they shut up but stopped including me in their lists. Seems like university professors don't like having their own shortcomings shoved into their faces.
22-06-2018 17:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
James___ wrote:
...All you used to say was Stefan-Boltzmann and now you're saying that doesn't matter. It's unusual for someone to attack the argument they've used for over a year. Kind of why I do think you have something against people.


It does matter. Redefining the Stefan-Boltzmann law as you are doing doesn't matter.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 22-06-2018 17:48
22-06-2018 17:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.


James___ wrote:
..What is it that you have against people ?


Nothing.


He is not discussing the Stefan-Boltzmann law and neither are you.You both deny that law.

...All you used to say was Stefan-Boltzmann and now you're saying that doesn't matter. It's unusual for someone to attack the argument they've used for over a year. Kind of why I do think you have something against people.


To my mind he is growing more and more aware of what a failure he is and is doing nothing more than acting out like a teenager.[/quote]


The Parrot Killer
22-06-2018 17:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
James___ wrote:
...It's always possible he's realized that science can explain things without it being overly complicated.

And this is a problem?
James___ wrote:
With the earth's emissivity I think it does go beyond the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

Nonsense statement.
James___ wrote:
All that means is that a variable would need to be added to make it planet/star specific.

What, you mean emissivity? It's already there. It is not a variable. It is a measured constant.
James___ wrote:
I'm not sure if people in here would want to get that much into things.

You and Wake certainly don't. You both deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
James___ wrote:
That's where the energy we consume for performing work is about the 10 w/m^2. That's something better solar panels could help with. So the solution then would be improved technology which would create more jobs.

What solution? What problem?


The Parrot Killer
22-06-2018 17:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
He has a great deal of difficulty understanding concepts of energy.
For instance - he doesn't understand that all of the energy that is shown upon this planet each day doesn't leave it.

A very small portion, 1% or so, remains here in the form of plant growth. Plants do not totally decay in areas if rapid plant growth such as forests and even plains. This is how coal, oil and natural gas deposits are laid down. Now it is possible for oil and gas to be formed from bacterial growth but this happens near the surface and is in general absorbed into the surrounding soil.

All the energy arriving on Earth leaves Earth. Any potential energy that is temporarily stored leaves as well eventually. Potential energy doesn't have a temperature, Wake.
Wake wrote:
But coal and oil are from the far distant past and are limited resources.

WRONG. Oil is synthesized continuously. It does not come from plants. Coal is primarily carbon. It is not plant material. We don't know where coal comes from or whether it is also a renewable material.
Wake wrote:
But as long as they are available it's stupid not to use them.

Agreed. Let the market decide.
Wake wrote:
He doesn't believe that you can measure MGT from a satellite.

You can't. Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
And entire branch of science he denies.

Not a branch of science. You deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
Wake wrote:
And he is so cocksure of that he has the nerve to degrade scientists that know 1,000 times more than he does.

Science doesn't use consensus, Wake.
Wake wrote:
It has reached the point where he writes such preposterous things that it isn't even worth commenting on his postings.

LOL. You're commenting on it now!
Wake wrote:
I just laugh and move on. If you want to argue with him that's your business but I would think that learning more for yourself would be a more productive thing.

Take your own advice, Wake.
Wake wrote:
In a science forum I showed the NASA claimed MGT growth curve and those of Dr. Spencer.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
hey had the nerve to send me a email saying that they would only accept "real scientific papers".

Not surprised.
Wake wrote:
Those charts were DIRECTLY from NASA.

Science isn't NASA or any other government agency. Science isn't data either. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Wake wrote:
The one made public to "prove" global warming and the other from their own weather satellites.

Both manufactured data. A satellite cannot measure temperature. It can only measure light. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
When I gave them direct references to the NASA papers they shut up but stopped including me in their lists.

Not surprised.
Wake wrote:
Seems like university professors don't like having their own shortcomings shoved into their faces.

The shortcoming is in you, Wake.


The Parrot Killer
22-06-2018 17:55
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.


James___ wrote:
..What is it that you have against people ? ...All you used to say was Stefan-Boltzmann and now you're saying that doesn't matter. It's unusual for someone to attack the argument they've used for over a year. Kind of why I do think you have something against people.

Into the Night wrote:
Nothing.

He is not discussing the Stefan-Boltzmann law and neither are you.You both deny that law.


Wake wrote:
To my mind he is growing more and more aware of what a failure he is and is doing nothing more than acting out like a teenager.


I see that you can't even get the quotes accurate now. No one is denying the Stefan-Boltzman Law. You don't understand it and it isn't applicable in most of the cases you seem to think it is.
22-06-2018 22:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. The black body you refer to is the ideal black body...a reference point. Earth is not an ideal black body. It is a gray body. There is no such thing as an ideal black body except as a reference point in math. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.


James___ wrote:
..What is it that you have against people ? ...All you used to say was Stefan-Boltzmann and now you're saying that doesn't matter. It's unusual for someone to attack the argument they've used for over a year. Kind of why I do think you have something against people.

Into the Night wrote:
Nothing.

He is not discussing the Stefan-Boltzmann law and neither are you.You both deny that law.


Wake wrote:
To my mind he is growing more and more aware of what a failure he is and is doing nothing more than acting out like a teenager.


I see that you can't even get the quotes accurate now. No one is denying the Stefan-Boltzman Law. You don't understand it and it isn't applicable in most of the cases you seem to think it is.

You are. You keep trying to change it. It's pretty straightforward:

radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4


The Parrot Killer
23-06-2018 03:15
James___
★★★☆☆
(560)
...itn,
..you're missing something when it comes to radiance. Thought I'd be a friend and let you know.
23-06-2018 04:41
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
...itn,
..you're missing something when it comes to radiance. Thought I'd be a friend and let you know.


Yes, he isn't the shining beacon of light he thinks himself.
23-06-2018 05:00
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
I heard he was a 'beta-homosexual' who needs to kill himself. lol.
But then again, you do tend to say that about everyone don't you, woke?
And on a fairly regular basis.
23-06-2018 05:05
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Look I'm sorry, I've had a few beers.
There's only so much bullshit role play I can watch.
This c*nt workd on the ISS what Wake9000?
23-06-2018 05:07
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Bullshit.
23-06-2018 05:11
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
You need to sort your story out, get your shit straight - and keep this lunatic away from your main message ....

From 'Wake'

"Let's be even clearer about this - you don't know a single thing about science and all you can offer on this group is a he said-she said bullshit. You have no business on a site on which you can't add one single thing to the discussion but you are here only to interfere with the discussions of others. I have NO doubt that you and litebrain will commit suicide when your fondest dream of a dying Earth are shown to be nothing more than fantasy. You and he are psychologically damaged and both of you have the mental fantasies of beta homosexuals."

Look, I added quotes.
Edited on 23-06-2018 05:25
23-06-2018 05:34
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
And hey - ground control to major Tom.
Retire the 'wake' persona.
I mean in insult terms - wtf is a beta-homosexual?
A 'lesser' homosexual? All that anger? Wtf?
And **** you, I've never had a B in anything straight C's.
23-06-2018 07:27
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
ok there's a pecker order. Scheisse!
23-06-2018 15:02
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
monckton wrote:
ok there's a pecker order. Scheisse!


As if you could have a "couple of beers". You are a drunk and a total loser. If you showed up in anything other than a gay bar you'd be thrown out on your ear.
23-06-2018 16:22
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
ok there's a pecker order. Scheisse!


As if you could have a "couple of beers". You are a drunk and a total loser. If you showed up in anything other than a gay bar you'd be thrown out on your ear.


"Though I'm past one hundred thousand miles..."

It's a euphemism Captain.
I had to beat you to the joke if you'd beat me I'd be upset.


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
23-06-2018 16:37
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
I keep misreading this title as "US Military Openly..." ah whatever ...

US military accepts openly gay recruits
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/20/us-military-openly-gay-recruits

... what 2010? Did they call it 'the surge'?
Anyway fck em I'm with Bill Hicks, for the war - against the troops, and I'm not even american!

But I think others on here should pretend to pay more respect.

(Did they sneak it into the URL?)


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
23-06-2018 20:16
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
monckton wrote:
I keep misreading this title as "US Military Openly..." ah whatever ...

US military accepts openly gay recruits
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/20/us-military-openly-gay-recruits

... what 2010? Did they call it 'the surge'?
Anyway fck em I'm with Bill Hicks, for the war - against the troops, and I'm not even american!

But I think others on here should pretend to pay more respect.

(Did they sneak it into the URL?)


I wonder if you think that anyone cares what you think? Only the lowest of the low would steal another's name to try to protest the truth.
23-06-2018 22:02
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Wake wrote:
I wonder if you think that anyone cares what you think? Only the lowest of the low would steal another's name to try to protest the truth.


What you talking about now you filthy little terrorist.
I gave Bill credit for his joke and not even I care what I think.

Wake ... I'm worried about your repeated claims regarding the functionality of the ISS and your, hmmm, 'loose grip on empathy'.
Plus everyone else here hates NASA.
And I reckon they banned the undercover FBI guy by mistake for repeating himself, so I guess it's on me to ask.

When you gonna bring it down Wake?
How'd you plan to do it?
Are there O rings on it Wake?
Is it the O rings again?
Where's it going to hit, when?
Is it because of the beta-homosexuals Wake?


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
23-06-2018 22:09
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Wake wrote:
Only the lowest of the low would steal another's name to try to protest the truth.


And btw halfwit - I'm supposed to be talking a load of shit remember?
Tut, tut.


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
24-06-2018 05:24
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
monckton wrote:
Wake wrote:
Only the lowest of the low would steal another's name to try to protest the truth.


And btw halfwit - I'm supposed to be talking a load of shit remember?
Tut, tut.


From the sound of you, you're a queer who eats shit. I think it's time you commit suicide. That's what your kind do when the curtain falls on your identity.
24-06-2018 16:40
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
That's more like it.
24-06-2018 17:27
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
monckton wrote:
That's more like it.


Shouldn't you be drunk now and trying to think of the identity of someone else to steal?
24-06-2018 20:46
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
I don't drink.
25-06-2018 00:37
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
monckton wrote:
I don't drink.


Sorry Charley - beer is alcoholic and considering the way you post you're like those kids who've gotten into the cupboard when mommy is out walking the streets.
25-06-2018 02:59
James___
★★★☆☆
(560)
Wake wrote:
monckton wrote:
I don't drink.


Sorry Charley - beer is alcoholic and considering the way you post you're like those kids who've gotten into the cupboard when mommy is out walking the streets.



...Lot's of heat (passion) in here but it's not allowing for any work.
..With what itn left out of radiance = is astrophysics. I don't think most people want to get into things that much. Astrophysics suggests that Newton's Theory of Gravity is dependent on 2 different effects that create an equal effect which is There is something everyone has overlooked including scientists. If we understand how energy propagates in our atmosphere that understanding might allow for solar panels to be more efficient.
..With me, I think a solar panel that's any good would cool the air around it. This really isn't close to happening but should be the goal. At the moment they're mostly passive which means they only absorb any heat that requires the solar panel to do know work.
..With this, the mass of the earth or moon could change because of a flux in the Sun's gravitational field. Why I mentioned astrophysics is because the field around the Sun might not be uniform. We assume it's curvature is but most likely that's an early view which allows for this consideration.

https://binged.it/2luQDJP
Attached image:

25-06-2018 07:34
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Wake wrote:
Sorry Charley - beer is alcoholic and considering the way you post you're like those kids who've gotten into the cupboard when mommy is out walking the streets.


Not in the US it isn't.

I've got my own cupboard now wake and 'mommy' isn't coming back - she's gone to a better place. Lichtenstein last we heard, insurance underwriting or something.
But I don't like to talk about it. It's such a dry topic.


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
25-06-2018 17:46
James___
★★★☆☆
(560)
...@All,
..1 AU = 1 Astronomical Unit. This is the Earth's distance from the Sun, gravity on it's surface and it's density. With radiance, the density of a planet and it's gravity relative to the Sun's gravitational field that it's in will all effect radiance. What my friend itn wasn't mentioning. It's rotational velocity also effects it's gravity which in turn effects it's radiance. Since the Earth's rotation is slowing it's radiance will likewise have a small decrease.
..This is where there are a lot of variables that effect our climate.

Edited on 25-06-2018 17:46
25-06-2018 18:47
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
...@All,
..1 AU = 1 Astronomical Unit. This is the Earth's distance from the Sun, gravity on it's surface and it's density. With radiance, the density of a planet and it's gravity relative to the Sun's gravitational field that it's in will all effect radiance. What my friend itn wasn't mentioning. It's rotational velocity also effects it's gravity which in turn effects it's radiance. Since the Earth's rotation is slowing it's radiance will likewise have a small decrease.
..This is where there are a lot of variables that effect our climate.


An AU has nothing whatsoever to do with the gravity of the Sun or its density. Radiance of Earth isn't effected by that of the Sun other than to warm the Earth. Radiance of the Earth is only caused by the temperature of the Earth and that of open space.

We have worked the climate to death and we know that this is due to the Milankovitch Cycles of the Earth and the solar cycles of radiation.

We usually do not try to involve the slowing rotational speed of the Earth into climate cycles for several reasons - the Earth has been slowing its rotation at nearly the same rate since it captured the moon. It is the tidal actions of the Moon upon the Earth that causes this slowing and it is something like a little less than 2 milliseconds per century. And all of the climate cycles have operated exactly the same despite this almost imperceptible slowing. This is shown plainly by geological evidence.
25-06-2018 19:04
James___
★★★☆☆
(560)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
...@All,
..1 AU = 1 Astronomical Unit. This is the Earth's distance from the Sun, gravity on it's surface and it's density. With radiance, the density of a planet and it's gravity relative to the Sun's gravitational field that it's in will all effect radiance. What my friend itn wasn't mentioning. It's rotational velocity also effects it's gravity which in turn effects it's radiance. Since the Earth's rotation is slowing it's radiance will likewise have a small decrease.
..This is where there are a lot of variables that effect our climate.


An AU has nothing whatsoever to do with the gravity of the Sun or its density. Radiance of Earth isn't effected by that of the Sun other than to warm the Earth. Radiance of the Earth is only caused by the temperature of the Earth and that of open space.

We have worked the climate to death and we know that this is due to the Milankovitch Cycles of the Earth and the solar cycles of radiation.

We usually do not try to involve the slowing rotational speed of the Earth into climate cycles for several reasons - the Earth has been slowing its rotation at nearly the same rate since it captured the moon. It is the tidal actions of the Moon upon the Earth that causes this slowing and it is something like a little less than 2 milliseconds per century. And all of the climate cycles have operated exactly the same despite this almost imperceptible slowing. This is shown plainly by geological evidence.



...Wake,
..You've never have explained the Milankovitch Cycles. You say that 2 of those cycles are based on the tilt of the Earth's axis. That's physically impossible. The Earth can only have one axial tilt.
..This is a climate debate forum yet you say
[quote]Wake wrote:We have worked the climate to death

..This is kind of why I said that if we can account reducing the approximate 10 w/m^2 of energy we are releasing into the atmosphere we can slow or stop warming. But this might not be the only concern but for now it might be enough. Still, you haven't shown where you know anything. Kind of gets old for me :-)
25-06-2018 20:32
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
...@All,
..1 AU = 1 Astronomical Unit. This is the Earth's distance from the Sun, gravity on it's surface and it's density. With radiance, the density of a planet and it's gravity relative to the Sun's gravitational field that it's in will all effect radiance. What my friend itn wasn't mentioning. It's rotational velocity also effects it's gravity which in turn effects it's radiance. Since the Earth's rotation is slowing it's radiance will likewise have a small decrease.
..This is where there are a lot of variables that effect our climate.


An AU has nothing whatsoever to do with the gravity of the Sun or its density. Radiance of Earth isn't effected by that of the Sun other than to warm the Earth. Radiance of the Earth is only caused by the temperature of the Earth and that of open space.

We have worked the climate to death and we know that this is due to the Milankovitch Cycles of the Earth and the solar cycles of radiation.

We usually do not try to involve the slowing rotational speed of the Earth into climate cycles for several reasons - the Earth has been slowing its rotation at nearly the same rate since it captured the moon. It is the tidal actions of the Moon upon the Earth that causes this slowing and it is something like a little less than 2 milliseconds per century. And all of the climate cycles have operated exactly the same despite this almost imperceptible slowing. This is shown plainly by geological evidence.



...Wake,
..You've never have explained the Milankovitch Cycles. You say that 2 of those cycles are based on the tilt of the Earth's axis. That's physically impossible. The Earth can only have one axial tilt.
..This is a climate debate forum yet you say
Wake wrote:We have worked the climate to death

..This is kind of why I said that if we can account reducing the approximate 10 w/m^2 of energy we are releasing into the atmosphere we can slow or stop warming. But this might not be the only concern but for now it might be enough. Still, you haven't shown where you know anything. Kind of gets old for me :-)


Now you're sounding a whole lot like nightmare, your nemesis. If you find yourself incapable of looking up the explanation of the Milankovitch Cycles perhaps you shouldn't be posting at all.
25-06-2018 20:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
...@All,
..1 AU = 1 Astronomical Unit. This is the Earth's distance from the Sun, gravity on it's surface and it's density. With radiance, the density of a planet and it's gravity relative to the Sun's gravitational field that it's in will all effect radiance. What my friend itn wasn't mentioning. It's rotational velocity also effects it's gravity which in turn effects it's radiance. Since the Earth's rotation is slowing it's radiance will likewise have a small decrease.
..This is where there are a lot of variables that effect our climate.


An AU has nothing whatsoever to do with the gravity of the Sun or its density. Radiance of Earth isn't effected by that of the Sun other than to warm the Earth. Radiance of the Earth is only caused by the temperature of the Earth and that of open space.

We have worked the climate to death and we know that this is due to the Milankovitch Cycles of the Earth and the solar cycles of radiation.

We usually do not try to involve the slowing rotational speed of the Earth into climate cycles for several reasons - the Earth has been slowing its rotation at nearly the same rate since it captured the moon. It is the tidal actions of the Moon upon the Earth that causes this slowing and it is something like a little less than 2 milliseconds per century. And all of the climate cycles have operated exactly the same despite this almost imperceptible slowing. This is shown plainly by geological evidence.



...Wake,
..You've never have explained the Milankovitch Cycles. You say that 2 of those cycles are based on the tilt of the Earth's axis. That's physically impossible. The Earth can only have one axial tilt.


The Earth has two variations in its tilt, not one.

The first is precession. The tilt of the Earth moves around in a small circle. What we use for the North Star today will not be the North Star in the future. This is sometimes known as Earth's 'wobble' in space. The effect of this precession is to change the dates aphelion and perihelion occur, which governs the intensity of seasons. This year, we will pass aphelion on July 6, at 1646 UTC. Our next perihelion will be on Jan 3rd, 2019, at 0419 UTC. Earth moves slower at aphelion, but it's further away from the Sun. This is why the northern hemisphere gets milder summers and winters than the southern one does. It takes 26000 years to make one complete circuit.

The second is that the tilt itself changes from about 22 deg to about 24 and a half degrees over a 40,000 year period. Currently it is at 23.5 degrees and increasing.

The primary driver of the Milanakovitch cycle is the eccentricity of Earth's orbit. This varies from about 0.07 to almost zero. It currently is at 0.017 and decreasing. It takes 90000 to 100000 years for one complete cycle of Earth's eccentricity of orbit. It varies somewhat depending on the positions of the other planets in their orbits (they have Milankovitch cycles too).

James___ wrote:
..This is kind of why I said that if we can account reducing the approximate 10 w/m^2 of energy we are releasing into the atmosphere we can slow or stop warming.

You cannot slow or trap heat. You don't need to worry this energy.
James___ wrote:
But this might not be the only concern but for now it might be enough.
It doesn't matter. It's 'enough' already.
James___ wrote:
Still, you haven't shown where you know anything. Kind of gets old for me :-)

Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
25-06-2018 20:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]James___ wrote:
...@All,
..1 AU = 1 Astronomical Unit. This is the Earth's distance from the Sun, gravity on it's surface and it's density. With radiance, the density of a planet and it's gravity relative to the Sun's gravitational field that it's in will all effect radiance. What my friend itn wasn't mentioning. It's rotational velocity also effects it's gravity which in turn effects it's radiance. Since the Earth's rotation is slowing it's radiance will likewise have a small decrease.
..This is where there are a lot of variables that effect our climate.


An AU has nothing whatsoever to do with the gravity of the Sun or its density. Radiance of Earth isn't effected by that of the Sun other than to warm the Earth. Radiance of the Earth is only caused by the temperature of the Earth and that of open space.

We have worked the climate to death and we know that this is due to the Milankovitch Cycles of the Earth and the solar cycles of radiation.

We usually do not try to involve the slowing rotational speed of the Earth into climate cycles for several reasons - the Earth has been slowing its rotation at nearly the same rate since it captured the moon. It is the tidal actions of the Moon upon the Earth that causes this slowing and it is something like a little less than 2 milliseconds per century. And all of the climate cycles have operated exactly the same despite this almost imperceptible slowing. This is shown plainly by geological evidence.



...Wake,
..You've never have explained the Milankovitch Cycles. You say that 2 of those cycles are based on the tilt of the Earth's axis. That's physically impossible. The Earth can only have one axial tilt.
..This is a climate debate forum yet you say
Wake wrote:We have worked the climate to death

..This is kind of why I said that if we can account reducing the approximate 10 w/m^2 of energy we are releasing into the atmosphere we can slow or stop warming. But this might not be the only concern but for now it might be enough. Still, you haven't shown where you know anything. Kind of gets old for me :-)


Now you're sounding a whole lot like nightmare, your nemesis. If you find yourself incapable of looking up the explanation of the Milankovitch Cycles perhaps you shouldn't be posting at all.


Bulverism. I already explained the Milankovitch cycles to him now...twice.


The Parrot Killer
25-06-2018 21:34
James___
★★★☆☆
(560)
...@All,.
Neither wake or tin can explain how something can have 2 different axis of rotation at the same time. They can't because that's physically impossible. Yet they both accept it.
26-06-2018 00:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
James___ wrote:
...@All,.
Neither wake or tin can explain how something can have 2 different axis of rotation at the same time. They can't because that's physically impossible. Yet they both accept it.


Inversion fallacy and argument of the stone fallacy. I just explained it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 26-06-2018 00:23
26-06-2018 06:41
James___
★★★☆☆
(560)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...@All,.
Neither wake or tin can explain how something can have 2 different axis of rotation at the same time. They can't because that's physically impossible. Yet they both accept it.


Inversion fallacy and argument of the stone fallacy. I just explained it.



...And hopefully no one will step in it
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Work and Heat:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Is there an equation available for black body irradiated heat loss vs. font?023-06-2018 08:01
Gulf of Mexico as heat sink2106-06-2018 20:41
Heat324-05-2018 20:48
Radio Ecoshock: The Heat Goes On324-05-2018 18:10
Atmospheric Heat Entropy6726-03-2018 20:46
▲ 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