Remember me
▼ Content

A personal experience for climate change deniers



Page 4 of 4<<<234
11-11-2020 06:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-11-2020 06:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?



One thing I lean towards is that with the Tunguska meteorite, it might have been a denser, slower moving meteorite. And with the one you mentioned in the Sudan was it? A less dense, faster moving meteorite.
With the Chelyabinsk meteorite, it's possible that airports might've been tracking it. Something that large should show up on radar. Otherwise with the sky for a backdrop, it'd be difficult to say what it's altitude was. But as about all videos show, it had a low trajectory. If it was aimed more directly at the Earth, it would've done a lot more damage. The meteorite you mentioned in the Sudan probably didn't have such a low trajectory. The glass density (% per m^2) could probably show it's trajectory. The amount of glass in the sand would be greatest closest to the blast.
They also say it had 500 kilotons of energy which is about 30 times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.
p.s., planes usually fly between 30 and 35,000 feet. The Chelyabinsk meteorite if @ 12 miles was about 60,000 feet up. At that altitude, it's in the stratosphere which is a very thin layer of the atmosphere.

But a LOT thicker than the mesosphere.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-11-2020 06:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?



One thing I lean towards is that with the Tunguska meteorite, it might have been a denser, slower moving meteorite. And with the one you mentioned in the Sudan was it? A less dense, faster moving meteorite.
With the Chelyabinsk meteorite, it's possible that airports might've been tracking it. Something that large should show up on radar. Otherwise with the sky for a backdrop, it'd be difficult to say what it's altitude was. But as about all videos show, it had a low trajectory. If it was aimed more directly at the Earth, it would've done a lot more damage. The meteorite you mentioned in the Sudan probably didn't have such a low trajectory. The glass density (% per m^2) could probably show it's trajectory. The amount of glass in the sand would be greatest closest to the blast.
They also say it had 500 kilotons of energy which is about 30 times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.
p.s., planes usually fly between 30 and 35,000 feet. The Chelyabinsk meteorite if @ 12 miles was about 60,000 feet up. At that altitude, it's in the stratosphere which is a very thin layer of the atmosphere.


Have you heard the favorite theory of the Tunguska blast? That the meteor flew back into space!


Oh ya, regarding Chelyabinsk meteor, if 12 to 15 miles high is there enough oxygen & nitrogen for the rock to "catch fire" like it did, and drop all that ash?

I don't think it was a meteorite that caused 130 to 50 km of glass across Lybia, Egypt, Sudan borders.



With a hydrogen or nuclear detonation, it's material reaches a critical mass. This is where the detonation device causes the atoms in the device to collide with each other. Then fission starts to occur and it's over in milliseconds. And even with how thin the atmosphere is, it's ability to create resistance, ie., heat up a meteorite can have the same effect.
If a meteorite releases neutrons from what it's composed of, then a chain reaction can happen. At the same time both nickel and iron have a flash point.
With nickel, it's 2,651°F/1,455°C and with iron it's 2,800°F/1,538°C.
The contrail observed might have been out gassing by the meteorite.

Fusion doesn't require a critical mass. Hydrogen does not undergo fission.
Flash point is not a nuclear reaction.
Meteors don't have contrails.
No one observed the so-called Chelyabinsk meteor.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-11-2020 06:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
Spongy can you explain the Relevance of this glass field you mention.I am genuinely interested


The Libyan glass shards are not the same elemental make up as the desert soil at all.

Nope. They are the same material. Silica (just like sand), zircon (also in the sand), and not much more than that. It's just glass from local materials.

How they formed no one knows.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They are an indication of a shattered hole in the sky which fell to earth. Like a dry ice bomb that has exploded from too much pressure.


Skies don't have holes.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Their color looks like the sunrise and sunset.

They are pretty. It adds a nice color to the sands.
Spongy Iris wrote:


Saharan desert sand is 7% aluminum and 4.5% iron oxide. And the Nubian sandstone on which the glass rests is even more varied in composition with 15% Iron Oxide, with carbonate (carbon) and feldspar (potassium, sodium, calcium and aluminium silicon oxides) present! This is confirmed by another source stating that there are also small amounts of siderite (iron carbonate) and chamosite (iron, aluminum, magnesium silicon dioxide).

The sand in the area has a reddish hue... ...the red sand indicates a high iron content in the rock.

The red colour of Nubian sandstone is because of the 15% iron oxide present.

But every single piece of Libyan glass, all 1000+ tonnes of it, is 98% silicon dioxide and some of it is clear with no colourings demonstrating that there is no iron present at all (100% glass). Some pieces are as big as a football and weigh over 25 kg.

So?


The glass is not the same composition as Saharan desert sand or Nubian sandstone upon which it rests.

Actually, it is.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-11-2020 06:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:

True. The glass could be the result of lightning, or even man made. We just don't know.
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
As your linked article says, "As the shock intensity increases, zircon further responds in several unique ways and at extreme pressures, reidite forms"

The extreme pressure part supports my theory that a hole was blown in the "sky/heaven/firmament/container" like a dry ice bomb. Dry ice bombs explode because of extreme pressure. Thanks for the info.

There is no hole in the sky. Dry ice is not a bomb.


Why would you consider this 1000 tonnes of glass to have been the result of lightning?

You don't mean so many lightning bolts hit the desert sand and turned the sand to glass do you?

Perhaps are you considering it was upper atmospheric lightning that was responsible for shattering a hole in the thick yellow wall of protective glass all around the world?

That would be an interesting theory to consider...

But I still think the reidite signature indicates a high pressure type of explosion, the kind which happens if you mix dry ice and water into a glass bottle, and seal the glass bottle. The bottle will explode. People call that a "dry ice bomb."

The atmosphere is not a closed container. There is no wall of protective glass around the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 11-11-2020 06:19
11-11-2020 18:53
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.


The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.
11-11-2020 19:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.


The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.


There is iron in the glass. That's what colors the glass.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-11-2020 21:37
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.


The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.


There is iron in the glass. That's what colors the glass.


Right. There is very little iron in the glass.

The transparent-to-translucent pieces are clear-to-opaque white or yellow-to-green in colour, because of the varying degrees of its metal content (iron/nickel/trace cobalt) which is never higher than 2% of the overall material (98%+ silicon dioxide) and is the purest glass found anywhere in the world.

There is less than 2% iron content in the Libyan glass, but 4.5% iron oxide in Libyan desert sand.

Not a match. Also, I'm not sure there's nickel and cobalt in the Libyan desert sand either.
11-11-2020 21:51
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2753)
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.


The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.


No way of knowing what that land looked like, or what materials were present 29 million years ago. Glass does erode or decay, like a lot of the stuff around it. Iron oxide is rust, takes a will to deposit a large quantity over the desert. Do you know it was there before he glass, or came after. It had 29 million years... There are 16 oxides of iron, each have different properties. They have been used as pigments for thousands of years.
11-11-2020 22:20
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.


The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.


No way of knowing what that land looked like, or what materials were present 29 million years ago. Glass does erode or decay, like a lot of the stuff around it. Iron oxide is rust, takes a will to deposit a large quantity over the desert. Do you know it was there before he glass, or came after. It had 29 million years... There are 16 oxides of iron, each have different properties. They have been used as pigments for thousands of years.


Dating the age of a rock tells you almost nothing. How can you assume this glass landed or formed in the desert 29 million years ago just because of radiometric dating???

I could make a new cabinet today from particle board of chopped up trees, some of which might be 100 years old. Is it a new cabinet or have I had it for 100 years?
12-11-2020 01:23
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2753)
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.


The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.


No way of knowing what that land looked like, or what materials were present 29 million years ago. Glass does erode or decay, like a lot of the stuff around it. Iron oxide is rust, takes a will to deposit a large quantity over the desert. Do you know it was there before he glass, or came after. It had 29 million years... There are 16 oxides of iron, each have different properties. They have been used as pigments for thousands of years.


Dating the age of a rock tells you almost nothing. How can you assume this glass landed or formed in the desert 29 million years ago just because of radiometric dating???

I could make a new cabinet today from particle board of chopped up trees, some of which might be 100 years old. Is it a new cabinet or have I had it for 100 years?


So, the glass was made 29 million years ago, but didn't fall from heaven, until a couple thousand years ago?

How close is the glass field, to the cities, Sodom and Gomorrah? In the Book of Genesis, democrats over ran these two cities, which really pissed off the Big Guy in the sky. Knowing the evil demon-spawn, would never change their disgusting, progressive lifestyle choice, the only option, was to burn the bums out. Think God dumped melted glass on them?
12-11-2020 03:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.


The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.


There is iron in the glass. That's what colors the glass.


Right. There is very little iron in the glass.

No, there is iron in the glass, giving it it's color.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The transparent-to-translucent pieces are clear-to-opaque white or yellow-to-green in colour, because of the varying degrees of its metal content (iron/nickel/trace cobalt) which is never higher than 2% of the overall material (98%+ silicon dioxide) and is the purest glass found anywhere in the world.

There is no such thing as a 'pure' glass. Glass is fused silica compounds.
Spongy Iris wrote:
There is less than 2% iron content in the Libyan glass, but 4.5% iron oxide in Libyan desert sand.

Nope. About the same.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Not a match. Also, I'm not sure there's nickel and cobalt in the Libyan desert sand either.

There is.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
12-11-2020 05:31
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.


The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.


There is iron in the glass. That's what colors the glass.


Right. There is very little iron in the glass.

No, there is iron in the glass, giving it it's color.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The transparent-to-translucent pieces are clear-to-opaque white or yellow-to-green in colour, because of the varying degrees of its metal content (iron/nickel/trace cobalt) which is never higher than 2% of the overall material (98%+ silicon dioxide) and is the purest glass found anywhere in the world.

There is no such thing as a 'pure' glass. Glass is fused silica compounds.
Spongy Iris wrote:
There is less than 2% iron content in the Libyan glass, but 4.5% iron oxide in Libyan desert sand.

Nope. About the same.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Not a match. Also, I'm not sure there's nickel and cobalt in the Libyan desert sand either.

There is.


There is a significant amount more iron in the sand than the glass. The sand has yellow-red color. The glass is clear-to-opaque white or yellow-to-green in colour.

More than 98% silicon dioxide is considered the purest glass found in the world.
12-11-2020 05:50
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1896)
HarveyH55 wrote:
How close is the glass field, to the cities, Sodom and Gomorrah? In the Book of Genesis, democrats over ran these two cities, which really pissed off the Big Guy in the sky. Knowing the evil demon-spawn, would never change their disgusting, progressive lifestyle choice, the only option, was to burn the bums out. Think God dumped melted glass on them?


I don't have access to the IBDaMann bonus points bank account, but if I did I'd certainly issue a few! Great analysis!


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
12-11-2020 05:53
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
29 million years ago... They of course, dated each chunk of glass, and determined they were all formed at about the same time, in the same manner. After all this time, does it really make much difference? Are there similar glass fields in every desert on earth?

What strange, is your assertion the glass is unique, in that it wasn't consistent with the surrounding desert sand or materials. Takes a high temperature to make glass, most stuff vaporizes at before glass forms.


The desert sand is 4.5% iron oxide. Iron has a higher boiling point than glass (and iron oxide just slightly lower melting point than glass). There's no iron in the glass.

If your theory is that this glass formed by heating up the desert sand, wouldn't there be iron present in the glass, because it is present in the sand?

Even if the glass is 29 million years old, doesn't mean the event that caused the glass to be in its current location happened 29 million years ago.


No way of knowing what that land looked like, or what materials were present 29 million years ago. Glass does erode or decay, like a lot of the stuff around it. Iron oxide is rust, takes a will to deposit a large quantity over the desert. Do you know it was there before he glass, or came after. It had 29 million years... There are 16 oxides of iron, each have different properties. They have been used as pigments for thousands of years.


Dating the age of a rock tells you almost nothing. How can you assume this glass landed or formed in the desert 29 million years ago just because of radiometric dating???

I could make a new cabinet today from particle board of chopped up trees, some of which might be 100 years old. Is it a new cabinet or have I had it for 100 years?


So, the glass was made 29 million years ago, but didn't fall from heaven, until a couple thousand years ago?

How close is the glass field, to the cities, Sodom and Gomorrah? In the Book of Genesis, democrats over ran these two cities, which really pissed off the Big Guy in the sky. Knowing the evil demon-spawn, would never change their disgusting, progressive lifestyle choice, the only option, was to burn the bums out. Think God dumped melted glass on them?


Who knows when the great flood was... The oldest known civilization is the Sumerians around 5000 years ago I believe...

I'm hoping to limit the bible thumping to just a few key words from Genesis chapters 1 and 7.

If you'd like to discuss Genesis chapter 19, perhaps the off topic thread about the ammonium nitrate explosion might be a good place to start...
12-11-2020 06:06
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?



One thing I lean towards is that with the Tunguska meteorite, it might have been a denser, slower moving meteorite. And with the one you mentioned in the Sudan was it? A less dense, faster moving meteorite.
With the Chelyabinsk meteorite, it's possible that airports might've been tracking it. Something that large should show up on radar. Otherwise with the sky for a backdrop, it'd be difficult to say what it's altitude was. But as about all videos show, it had a low trajectory. If it was aimed more directly at the Earth, it would've done a lot more damage. The meteorite you mentioned in the Sudan probably didn't have such a low trajectory. The glass density (% per m^2) could probably show it's trajectory. The amount of glass in the sand would be greatest closest to the blast.
They also say it had 500 kilotons of energy which is about 30 times more powerful than the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.
p.s., planes usually fly between 30 and 35,000 feet. The Chelyabinsk meteorite if @ 12 miles was about 60,000 feet up. At that altitude, it's in the stratosphere which is a very thin layer of the atmosphere.


Have you heard the favorite theory of the Tunguska blast? That the meteor flew back into space!


Oh ya, regarding Chelyabinsk meteor, if 12 to 15 miles high is there enough oxygen & nitrogen for the rock to "catch fire" like it did, and drop all that ash?

I don't think it was a meteorite that caused 130 to 50 km of glass across Lybia, Egypt, Sudan borders.



With a hydrogen or nuclear detonation, it's material reaches a critical mass. This is where the detonation device causes the atoms in the device to collide with each other. Then fission starts to occur and it's over in milliseconds. And even with how thin the atmosphere is, it's ability to create resistance, ie., heat up a meteorite can have the same effect.
If a meteorite releases neutrons from what it's composed of, then a chain reaction can happen. At the same time both nickel and iron have a flash point.
With nickel, it's 2,651°F/1,455°C and with iron it's 2,800°F/1,538°C.
The contrail observed might have been out gassing by the meteorite.

Fusion doesn't require a critical mass. Hydrogen does not undergo fission.
Flash point is not a nuclear reaction.
Meteors don't have contrails.
No one observed the so-called Chelyabinsk meteor.


There was a streak of bright light in the sky, a thick grey contrail, and a blast that shattered many windows.

Later they found a hole in a frozen lake, and rocks which they are calling meteorite fragments.

Do you deny these observations???
12-11-2020 06:11
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.


The contrails you can easily see criss crossing all over the sky above any city do not appear to be made from planes cruising at 6 miles altitude. These contrails are from planes which appear to be cruising at much lower altitudes.
12-11-2020 07:52
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.


The contrails you can easily see criss crossing all over the sky above any city do not appear to be made from planes cruising at 6 miles altitude. These contrails are from planes which appear to be cruising at much lower altitudes.



I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/
12-11-2020 08:09
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.


The contrails you can easily see criss crossing all over the sky above any city do not appear to be made from planes cruising at 6 miles altitude. These contrails are from planes which appear to be cruising at much lower altitudes.



I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/


They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"
12-11-2020 08:25
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.


The contrails you can easily see criss crossing all over the sky above any city do not appear to be made from planes cruising at 6 miles altitude. These contrails are from planes which appear to be cruising at much lower altitudes.



I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/


They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"



Think it's possible that high humidity could the reason why? We all know that when a space craft reenters the atmosphere that it heats up. Is it possible that the friction caused by water vapor moving around the wings of airplanes could have a similar effect?
There is resisatnce/pressure under the wing while the air moving above it accelerates. This could excite water vapour even more. As for the contrail spreading, airplanes leave a wake as they move. Of course the atmosphere is thin while water is much denser.
https://images.app.goo.gl/GoMnpureuKfEAfQJA
12-11-2020 19:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.


The contrails you can easily see criss crossing all over the sky above any city do not appear to be made from planes cruising at 6 miles altitude. These contrails are from planes which appear to be cruising at much lower altitudes.



I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/


They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"



Think it's possible that high humidity could the reason why?

No.
James___ wrote:
We all know that when a space craft reenters the atmosphere that it heats up.

Not necessarily. They only heat up because we want them to. Most spacecraft use the atmosphere as a brake.
James___ wrote:
Is it possible that the friction caused by water vapor moving around the wings of airplanes could have a similar effect?

Very little water vapor at altitude. It's frozen, you know.
James___ wrote:
There is resisatnce/pressure under the wing while the air moving above it accelerates. This could excite water vapour even more.

Nope. Neither the water vapor nor the air are 'excited'. Friction applies to both, water vapor less than air.
James___ wrote:
As for the contrail spreading, airplanes leave a wake as they move. Of course the atmosphere is thin while water is much denser.

Nope. Water vapor is LESS dense then air. That's why aircraft require more effort to stay up in humid air. The worse conditions for flight is hot, humid air. Takeoff runs and landing runs are much longer during these conditions.

Any pilot that doesn't realize this is going to have himself an accident.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-11-2020 02:56
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1896)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.


The contrails you can easily see criss crossing all over the sky above any city do not appear to be made from planes cruising at 6 miles altitude. These contrails are from planes which appear to be cruising at much lower altitudes.



I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/


They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"



Think it's possible that high humidity could the reason why?

No.
James___ wrote:
We all know that when a space craft reenters the atmosphere that it heats up.

Not necessarily. They only heat up because we want them to. Most spacecraft use the atmosphere as a brake.
James___ wrote:
Is it possible that the friction caused by water vapor moving around the wings of airplanes could have a similar effect?

Very little water vapor at altitude. It's frozen, you know.
James___ wrote:
There is resisatnce/pressure under the wing while the air moving above it accelerates. This could excite water vapour even more.

Nope. Neither the water vapor nor the air are 'excited'. Friction applies to both, water vapor less than air.
James___ wrote:
As for the contrail spreading, airplanes leave a wake as they move. Of course the atmosphere is thin while water is much denser.

Nope. Water vapor is LESS dense then air. That's why aircraft require more effort to stay up in humid air. The worse conditions for flight is hot, humid air. Takeoff runs and landing runs are much longer during these conditions.

Any pilot that doesn't realize this is going to have himself an accident.


Yup. More home runs hit in warm humid weather. Better gas mileage warm humid weather. My ONLY chance anymore of hitting a golf ball 300 yds is in HOT humid weather.



All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
13-11-2020 06:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, the meteorite in the video could be going faster. With what you posted about in Libya, I am thinking a close proximity blast in the atmosphere. While it doesn't hit the ground, the heat it releases does.
With such blasts, when you have a meteorite traveling about 17,000 mph before entering the atmosphere, that's a lot of stored kinetic energy. And as a meteorite slows in our atmosphere, it needs a way to release that energy. Kind of why meteorites usually burn up, they combust in the upper atmosphere.
With the tree rings, have they compared the DNA of the trees from before and after? Since apparently no other cause was found, I would consider that. It's known that UV radiation can damage plant DNA.
Also, are there any warm water tables below that area that might be leaching to the surface or to the tree's root systems?


What's up James!

There's another article I found on space.com, says it (chelyabinsk meteor) was going 40,000 mph before exploding.

Best comparison I can think is to how fast planes which make obvious contrails appear to move across the sky.

Plane contrails that appear in skies almost every day over cities, often in lines at a steady altitude, seem to happen at a much lower altitude than commercial planes fly.

I'm pretty sure the contrails left by commercial planes which are 6-7 miles high would not be obviously visible to someone on the ground. Way too high.

Obviously that meteor is moving across the sky at many orders of magnitude faster than a plane which leaves an obvious contrail. Whether it was going 17000 or 40000 mph I'm not sure. Maybe that's a believable speed range estimate.

But I'm becoming doubtful the Chelyabinsk meteor was 12 to 15 miles high when it started to explode. The trail of smoke it left is way too visible. The smoke looks lower than clouds. I'm wondering if it's more like 1 to 3 miles...

What do you think?

Contrails from planes at cruising altitude are quite visible. They can also occur at any altitude.


The contrails you can easily see criss crossing all over the sky above any city do not appear to be made from planes cruising at 6 miles altitude. These contrails are from planes which appear to be cruising at much lower altitudes.



I decided to look this up. Apparently when there's good visibility, the plane and contrails can be seen. https://www.aircraftcompare.com/blog/why-planes-leave-white-trails/


They have a nice picture of "Persistent spreading contrails"

Those don't look 6 to 7 miles high. They look much lower. And they are not usually ascending or descending, but cruising, I believe the pilots call it, flying at a steady altitude.

The say "most" plains fly around 6 to 7 miles high. But plains which make "persistent spreading contrails" appear to be flying much lower than "most"



Think it's possible that high humidity could the reason why?

No.
James___ wrote:
We all know that when a space craft reenters the atmosphere that it heats up.

Not necessarily. They only heat up because we want them to. Most spacecraft use the atmosphere as a brake.
James___ wrote:
Is it possible that the friction caused by water vapor moving around the wings of airplanes could have a similar effect?

Very little water vapor at altitude. It's frozen, you know.
James___ wrote:
There is resisatnce/pressure under the wing while the air moving above it accelerates. This could excite water vapour even more.

Nope. Neither the water vapor nor the air are 'excited'. Friction applies to both, water vapor less than air.
James___ wrote:
As for the contrail spreading, airplanes leave a wake as they move. Of course the atmosphere is thin while water is much denser.

Nope. Water vapor is LESS dense then air. That's why aircraft require more effort to stay up in humid air. The worse conditions for flight is hot, humid air. Takeoff runs and landing runs are much longer during these conditions.

Any pilot that doesn't realize this is going to have himself an accident.


Yup. More home runs hit in warm humid weather. Better gas mileage warm humid weather. My ONLY chance anymore of hitting a golf ball 300 yds is in HOT humid weather.

You can always aim for the paved cart path. It might carry your ball further when it bounces!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-11-2020 23:56
Regis
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
To all of the climate change deniers, here are some facts.


For 650,000 years the Earth's atmosphere has had an average of about 280ppm. Only recently in the last 100 years, carbon emissions have risen to over 400ppm.

Global sea level rose about 8 inches (20 centimeters) in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and accelerating slightly every year.

The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30%.

The ocean has absorbed between 20% and 30% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in recent decades (7.2 to 10.8 billion metric tons per year).

Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and the snow is melting earlier.

The large loss – 532 billion tons – is a stark reversal of the more moderate rate of melt seen in the previous two years.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
17-11-2020 00:36
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1392)
Regis wrote:
To all of the climate change deniers, here are some facts.

Oh great... Starting right off the bat with not even knowing what a fact is... A fact is not a universal truth, nor is it a proof. It is an assumed predicate. If you and I were to agree on a predicate, then it would become a fact. Otherwise, that "fact" would return back to being an argument. A proof can only exist in a closed functional system, such as mathematics (or logic), as proofs extend from their axioms.

Regis wrote:
For 650,000 years the Earth's atmosphere has had an average of about 280ppm. Only recently in the last 100 years, carbon emissions have risen to over 400ppm.

Here, you are just parroting the random numbers that you saw from some false source. How does anyone know what the average atmospheric CO2 content of Earth was 650,000 years ago? Was anyone there to measure it? Was there even any capability of measuring it? Heck, we can't even accurately measure it TODAY, let alone 650,000 years ago, and that's IF the Earth is even at least 650,000 years old to begin with... In short, you are not only making a bunch of assumptions, but you are also very gullible...

Regis wrote:
Global sea level rose about 8 inches (20 centimeters) in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and accelerating slightly every year.

More random numbers from some false source... It is not possible to measure "global sea level"... What are you using as a valid reference point to measure it, and how are you measuring it? Why is this supposed "global sea level increase" over an arbitrarily chosen time period of the last two decades meaningful in any way, especially if the Earth is believed to be BILLIONS of years old...?? What about all of those other billions of years?? You seem very easily duped... very gullible...

Regis wrote:
The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels.

Believing in any garbage that the IPCC spews is your first mistake...

This is just more made up numbers... It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature within any usable margin of error, as we do not have enough thermometers to do so... First, thermometers would need to be uniformly spaced and simultaneously read (to remove location and time biases from such data), but since these stations need to be serviced, they need to be located along roads of some sort. That means that we can't uniformly space them out, as required. Even assuming that we COULD do so, we would still need to have multiple hundreds of millions of thermometers to even have any sort of idea as to what Earth's temperature would be at any given time. We simply don't have that many thermometers...

Regis wrote:
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30%.

The ocean has absorbed between 20% and 30% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in recent decades (7.2 to 10.8 billion metric tons per year).

Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and the snow is melting earlier.

The large loss – 532 billion tons – is a stark reversal of the more moderate rate of melt seen in the previous two years.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I grow wary of responding to each line of BS... See the Global Warming Mythology Reference Manual for details about the rest of the Church of Global Warming garbage that you are parroting...
17-11-2020 02:23
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2753)
I think where most people get confused, is that IPCC is a title of video game, that nerds play. It's not open to just nay 'living grandma's basement' nerd, but on a select membership of nerds. These nerds, must posses a government research grant (any field), for which they can use to pay their membership fees (grandma can't afford it). Being that these are nerds, play a video game, they can help but to talk in gibberish, nerd-English, while discussing their video game conquests. Most people think that because they are nerds, and spending federal research grant money, the video game, must be actual research. Of course the nerds can't correct the wrong impression, or they lose their grants, and exclusive membership, to play the coolest nerd game ever written. Besides, the wilder times they have playing the game, seems to encourage governments to increase their grant funding. IPCC World, is a fictional world, meant to approximate Earth, but it's a virtual reality game. They get to make up their own Laws of Physics. They also get to redefine what their science degrees, actually represents, since the are limitations in the real world. Their virtual education, also seems to impress the governments, and the media, giving themselves a sense of importance.
17-11-2020 08:01
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, you might find this meteor shower interesting. It will have fireballs (brighter than a shooting star). This is because these meteors have more energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/might-see-fireball-sky-week-190000358.html


Hey James! I finally caught sight of a meteor zip across the sky, looking up eastward a few minutes ago, ~ 9:50 P.m PDT Zipped across the sky seemed like more than 100 times faster than a plane. A tiny dot of light. A shooting star.
Didn't catch it on film. Way too unexpected and over in a flash.
Edited on 17-11-2020 08:10
17-11-2020 08:27
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(751)
Hi Regis.Welcome to the forum.I went to my local beach at Trigg and took a sample and the PH was 8.4 This was last week.Would you consider taking a sample where you are and reporting it.The sea level at Fremantle harbour has not gone up or down in 168 years.I am still hoping someone can show where it is rising.At some point this information of all the predicted events will have to stop as none of it is happening.I have seen the weather box at Amberley airforce base which has shown at that point to be a full degree C cooler than 1942 how does all this work out.I am so in to this that I ordered and have received my own CO2 meter and it moves around 370-420 ppm.I am still working on this
17-11-2020 10:34
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(751)
I posted this recently

If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.


Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.

Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.
17-11-2020 16:13
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, you might find this meteor shower interesting. It will have fireballs (brighter than a shooting star). This is because these meteors have more energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/might-see-fireball-sky-week-190000358.html


Hey James! I finally caught sight of a meteor zip across the sky, looking up eastward a few minutes ago, ~ 9:50 P.m PDT Zipped across the sky seemed like more than 100 times faster than a plane. A tiny dot of light. A shooting star.
Didn't catch it on film. Way too unexpected and over in a flash.



I'll do that. Thanks for the heads up. I just checked a local TV station and should have clear skies tonight.
17-11-2020 16:31
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
A recent study documented the effect of sea level rise, which averages 3mm per year globally and up to 12mm per year in the western Pacific in recent decades. The team found that islands in Micronesia have disappeared in recent years with little to no evidence they existed at all. Several Solomon Islands had similar fates in recent decades as they were overtaken by the sea.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/09/09/new-study-finds-8-islands-swallowed-by-rising-sea-level/?sh=18e0cfc65283


With that copy and paste work done, it was hard and difficult work, believe me.

And as for the Maldives, it has been shown that one island in the Indian Ocean has been built up. This is because as the tide comes in, it can bring sand with it. The base of the island under water will become a little steeper.
This was found out after the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean where one island didn't suffer erosion but instead increased it's elevation. If researchers ignore this aspect of islands, then their findings could be misleading.
17-11-2020 18:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Regis wrote:
To all of the climate change deniers, here are some facts.

These are not facts. They are bits of manufactured data. Learn what 'fact' means. It does not mean 'Universal Truth' nor 'proof'.
Regis wrote:
For 650,000 years the Earth's atmosphere has had an average of about 280ppm.

Were you there? You have no idea of the conditions of Earth 650,000 years ago!
Regis wrote:
Only recently in the last 100 years, carbon emissions have risen to over 400ppm.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 concentration. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
Regis wrote:
Global sea level rose about 8 inches (20 centimeters) in the last century.
The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and accelerating slightly every year.

It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is no reference point. Land moves, you see. It even has a tide of it's own.
Regis wrote:
The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers. We can't even build as many as we would need, nor service them.
Regis wrote:
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30%.

Ocean water is alkaline. You can't acidify an alkaline. Denial of chemistry. It is not possible to measure the global pH of the oceans. It is not uniform.
Regis wrote:
The ocean has absorbed between 20% and 30% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in recent decades (7.2 to 10.8 billion metric tons per year).

It is not possible to measure the global CO2 content, nor where CO2 comes from. No instrumentation.
Regis wrote:
Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and the snow is melting earlier.

It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice on Earth or on the northern hemisphere. It does not have a spring melt that is uniform. It varies with the weather, the region, and it's altitude.
Regis wrote:
The large loss – 532 billion tons – is a stark reversal of the more moderate rate of melt seen in the previous two years.

It is not possible to measure the amount of snow and ice on Earth.
Regis wrote:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

False authority fallacy. NASA is just spewing manufactured 'data'. It is a government organization. It is not God.

Argument from randU fallacies. You are making up numbers. You are quoting made up numbers. They are just random numbers of type randU.

No gas or vapor has the magick capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics.

E(t+1) = E(t)-U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.

No gas or vapor has the magick capability to reduce entropy. You can't trap heat. You can't trap light. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. Entropy never decreases.

r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is the emissivity constant (a measured constant), and 't' is temperature in deg K.

No manufactured data can falsify these three theories of science nor their corresponding laws. NASA is not God. It is a government organization. It must justify it's funding by convincing others in government that it is somehow solving a 'problem', even if it has to manufacture that 'problem'. It has liberals in charge of several aspects of it, including spewing this so-called 'data'.

You can't measure a global temperature.
You can't measure a global sea level.
You can't measure a global content of CO2.
You can't measure a global snow and ice content.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-11-2020 18:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, you might find this meteor shower interesting. It will have fireballs (brighter than a shooting star). This is because these meteors have more energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/might-see-fireball-sky-week-190000358.html


Hey James! I finally caught sight of a meteor zip across the sky, looking up eastward a few minutes ago, ~ 9:50 P.m PDT Zipped across the sky seemed like more than 100 times faster than a plane. A tiny dot of light. A shooting star.
Didn't catch it on film. Way too unexpected and over in a flash.


You probably saw the recent rocket launch.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-11-2020 18:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
James___ wrote:
A recent study documented the effect of sea level rise, which averages 3mm per year globally and up to 12mm per year in the western Pacific in recent decades. The team found that islands in Micronesia have disappeared in recent years with little to no evidence they existed at all. Several Solomon Islands had similar fates in recent decades as they were overtaken by the sea.
...deleted Holy Link...

It is not possible to measure global sea level. Any 'study' claiming to have done so is bogus. They are making shit up.
James___ wrote:
With that copy and paste work done, it was hard and difficult work, believe me.

And as for the Maldives, it has been shown that one island in the Indian Ocean has been built up. This is because as the tide comes in, it can bring sand with it. The base of the island under water will become a little steeper.
This was found out after the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean where one island didn't suffer erosion but instead increased it's elevation. If researchers ignore this aspect of islands, then their findings could be misleading.

Moving sand around is not increasing global sea level.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-11-2020 22:04
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1392)
James___ wrote:
A recent study documented the effect of sea level rise, which averages 3mm per year globally and up to 12mm per year in the western Pacific in recent decades. The team found that islands in Micronesia have disappeared in recent years with little to no evidence they existed at all. Several Solomon Islands had similar fates in recent decades as they were overtaken by the sea.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/09/09/new-study-finds-8-islands-swallowed-by-rising-sea-level/?sh=18e0cfc65283


With that copy and paste work done, it was hard and difficult work, believe me.

And as for the Maldives, it has been shown that one island in the Indian Ocean has been built up. This is because as the tide comes in, it can bring sand with it. The base of the island under water will become a little steeper.
This was found out after the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean where one island didn't suffer erosion but instead increased it's elevation. If researchers ignore this aspect of islands, then their findings could be misleading.

Clearly, this is a bogus study just making up random numbers and acting as if that is data... It is not possible to measure global sea level.
18-11-2020 00:07
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(311)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, you might find this meteor shower interesting. It will have fireballs (brighter than a shooting star). This is because these meteors have more energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/might-see-fireball-sky-week-190000358.html


Hey James! I finally caught sight of a meteor zip across the sky, looking up eastward a few minutes ago, ~ 9:50 P.m PDT Zipped across the sky seemed like more than 100 times faster than a plane. A tiny dot of light. A shooting star.
Didn't catch it on film. Way too unexpected and over in a flash.


You probably saw the recent rocket launch.


No that Space X rocket launched more than 24 hours prior from the other side of the country.

If you want to selectively believe this information reported from NASA, that the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule is expected to dock with the ISS on Monday at 11 pm ET, that is still almost 2 hours before my sighting of the shooting star.

I just checked the ISS fly overs in my area yesterday. There was just 1 more than 3 hours before my sighting of the shooting star.

My guess is it was a part of Taurid meteor shower which James linked earlier.
18-11-2020 01:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13984)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, you might find this meteor shower interesting. It will have fireballs (brighter than a shooting star). This is because these meteors have more energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/might-see-fireball-sky-week-190000358.html


Hey James! I finally caught sight of a meteor zip across the sky, looking up eastward a few minutes ago, ~ 9:50 P.m PDT Zipped across the sky seemed like more than 100 times faster than a plane. A tiny dot of light. A shooting star.
Didn't catch it on film. Way too unexpected and over in a flash.


You probably saw the recent rocket launch.


No that Space X rocket launched more than 24 hours prior from the other side of the country.

If you want to selectively believe this information reported from NASA, that the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule is expected to dock with the ISS on Monday at 11 pm ET, that is still almost 2 hours before my sighting of the shooting star.

I just checked the ISS fly overs in my area yesterday. There was just 1 more than 3 hours before my sighting of the shooting star.

My guess is it was a part of Taurid meteor shower which James linked earlier.

So you are on the Left Coast? Do you live in the SOTC (otherwise known as California)?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
18-11-2020 03:43
James___
★★★★★
(3454)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Spongy, you might find this meteor shower interesting. It will have fireballs (brighter than a shooting star). This is because these meteors have more energy.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/might-see-fireball-sky-week-190000358.html


Hey James! I finally caught sight of a meteor zip across the sky, looking up eastward a few minutes ago, ~ 9:50 P.m PDT Zipped across the sky seemed like more than 100 times faster than a plane. A tiny dot of light. A shooting star.
Didn't catch it on film. Way too unexpected and over in a flash.


You probably saw the recent rocket launch.


No that Space X rocket launched more than 24 hours prior from the other side of the country.

If you want to selectively believe this information reported from NASA, that the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule is expected to dock with the ISS on Monday at 11 pm ET, that is still almost 2 hours before my sighting of the shooting star.

I just checked the ISS fly overs in my area yesterday. There was just 1 more than 3 hours before my sighting of the shooting star.

My guess is it was a part of Taurid meteor shower which James linked earlier.



I just did a web search for around where I live. I won't be surprised if I'm up between 2 and 4. Louisville is CST while Lexington 80 miles away is EST. They mention different aspects of meteors, meteorites and their color.

https://www.whas11.com/article/weather/storm-team-blog/leonid-meteor-shower-viewing-kentucky-indiana/417-7a6c3679-91eb-443e-985a-b1dee05b120a

p.s., ITN and GFM "is". At the same time, a fungus like a mushroom "is". I'm not sure what the difference between "is" and "is" is..



Thought you might like this news item Spongy. https://www.yahoo.com/news/record-setting-asteroid-zoomed-past-222135711.html
Edited on 18-11-2020 04:02
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate A personal experience for climate change deniers:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There are some paid climate deniers in this forum to spread false information, ignore them13317-02-2020 07:16
Naomi Klein: 'Big Green Groups Are More Damaging Than Climate Deniers'313-08-2019 14:20
President Trump makes a personal sacrifice, for the country...211-07-2019 17:29
Personal environmental monitor/logger/tracker1819-12-2018 20:32
Practical experience v Theory2711-12-2018 00:21
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact