climate

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > climate > Page 3

Page 3 of 3

23-12-2020 22:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	Spongy Iris wrote:"In order to test the effect of overlying gases on the evaporation rate of water, two identical 'Lucite' chambers were constructed to house shallow brass evaporation dishes 2 cm in diameter. Under uniform ambient conditions this would ensure equal evaporation from both dishes. I need to see the data showing the control test, i.e. that the evaporation was, in fact, equal from both dishes in those specific Lucite chambers. It appears that this crucial test was not performed under subjunctive reasoning that "it would be equal." Without this data I have to presume that any differences noted thereafter simply show that the evaporation was not, in fact, equal in both Lucite chambers, owing to some difference not initially detected. Spongy Iris wrote: The diminishing height of the water meniscus over the dishes filled with distilled water provided a measure of evaporation rate; the menisci were optically projected onto a grid on which the lowering of the meniscus apex was recorded every 15 or 30 min, depending on the evaporation rate, for periods of 3-4 h. Initially, one chamber was ventilated with carbon dioxide, the other with air. The water sample in the chamber containing carbon dioxide was observed to evaporate most rapidly... It sounds to me like the fan providing the ventilation for the CO2 was a bit more powerful and thus caused a greater evaporation rate. Spongy Iris wrote:As a result of fifteen sets of observations, the water containing the dissolved carbon dioxide consistently evaporated more rapidly than the control water sample. The increase in evaporation varied between 15 and 50 percent" Clearly must have been the fan. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-12-2020 22:31
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:I have already posted the 40 year time lapse of surface ice extent at the north pole many times. You have never posted any valid dataset in any thread on this site for any of your WACKY arguments. So, you claim that clouds have some magical ability to control temperature as opposed to changing weather conditions forming the clouds. You are on tap to post the valid dataset that supports that argument. Post it here in this thread. Until then, your claims are summarily dismissed. . The frequency of rain, frost, and snow in the SF Bay Area. Go look it up yourself.
23-12-2020 22:45
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Into the Night wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: 6 observations where The Parrot, and anyone who agrees with him, buries their heads in the sand. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. Spongy Iris wrote: 1. Temperature of a cloudy winter night versus clear winter night in all climates outside the tropics. You have not observed all climates or all days. You have not observed what the temperature would have been had a cloud that was present had not been there. Base rate fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: 2. Satellite observations of the north pole. What about it? Spongy Iris wrote: 3. The effect of cold on air pressure. The temperature at a location does not affect it's pressure. Static pressure does not change temperature. Weather observations at weather stations disagree with you. KSEA 231753Z 33003KT 3SM R16L/3000VP6000FT BR SCT001 BKN150 02/01 A3051 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 7 SLP343 VIS S-W-N 2 T00170011 10017 21006 56004 KSEA 231748Z 00000KT 2SM R16L/2000VP6000FT BR SCT001 BKN150 02/01 A3051 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 7 KSEA 231721Z 00000KT 1/4SM R16L/1200V3500FT FG VV001 01/01 A3051 RMK AO2 T00110011 KSEA 231653Z 04008KT 1/8SM R16L/0800V1600FT FG VV001 01/00 A3051 RMK AO2 SLP343 T00110000 KSEA 231637Z 03008KT 1/4SM R16L/1000V2000FT FG VV001 01/00 A3051 RMK AO2 T00110000 KSEA 231632Z 02007KT 1/2SM R16L/1600VP6000FT FG OVC001 01/00 A3051 RMK AO2 T00110000 KLAS 231956Z 06021G27KT 10SM FEW250 11/M14 A3043 RMK AO2 PK WND 04029/1937 SLP301 T01061139 KLAS 231856Z 04019KT 10SM FEW250 10/M14 A3044 RMK AO2 PK WND 04027/1813 SLP305 T01001139 KLAS 231756Z 05020G26KT 10SM FEW250 09/M14 A3044 RMK AO2 PK WND 05027/1718 SLP309 T00891139 10094 20061 51026 KLAS 231656Z 05018G25KT 10SM FEW250 08/M14 A3043 RMK AO2 SLP303 T00831139 Spongy Iris wrote: 4. Carbon dioxide's effect on water evaporation. Again, weather stations disagree with you. See above. Spongy Iris wrote: 5. The frequency of rain, frost, and snow in San Francisco winters.. KSFO 231956Z 12007KT 10SM SCT200 13/M02 A3025 RMK AO2 SLP243 T01331022 KSFO 231856Z 12008KT 10SM FEW200 13/M02 A3026 RMK AO2 SLP245 T01281022 KSFO 231756Z 14011KT 10SM FEW200 12/M03 A3026 RMK AO2 SLP245 T01171028 10117 20078 53013 This weather station disagrees with you. Spongy Iris wrote: 6. The freezing rate of lakes in Minnesota What about it? Argument from randU fallacy. Spongy Iris wrote: It's like arguing with children, when they deny, or deflect, from every inconvenient truth that opposes their anti climate change religion. Science isn't a religion. Math isn't a religion. The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. Inversion fallacy. Have you ever heard the phrase, "a cold front moving in?" Harvey talked about a Yankee cold front blowing in from the North recently in a different thread. Is this an example of cold air moving in to displace hot air? Isn't that a violation of physics?
23-12-2020 22:50
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:"In order to test the effect of overlying gases on the evaporation rate of water, two identical 'Lucite' chambers were constructed to house shallow brass evaporation dishes 2 cm in diameter. Under uniform ambient conditions this would ensure equal evaporation from both dishes. I need to see the data showing the control test, i.e. that the evaporation was, in fact, equal from both dishes in those specific Lucite chambers. It appears that this crucial test was not performed under subjunctive reasoning that "it would be equal." Without this data I have to presume that any differences noted thereafter simply show that the evaporation was not, in fact, equal in both Lucite chambers, owing to some difference not initially detected. Spongy Iris wrote: The diminishing height of the water meniscus over the dishes filled with distilled water provided a measure of evaporation rate; the menisci were optically projected onto a grid on which the lowering of the meniscus apex was recorded every 15 or 30 min, depending on the evaporation rate, for periods of 3-4 h. Initially, one chamber was ventilated with carbon dioxide, the other with air. The water sample in the chamber containing carbon dioxide was observed to evaporate most rapidly... It sounds to me like the fan providing the ventilation for the CO2 was a bit more powerful and thus caused a greater evaporation rate. Spongy Iris wrote:As a result of fifteen sets of observations, the water containing the dissolved carbon dioxide consistently evaporated more rapidly than the control water sample. The increase in evaporation varied between 15 and 50 percent" Clearly must have been the fan. . What makes you suspect the fan ventilating CO2 was more powerful than the fan ventilating air?
23-12-2020 22:56
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Dude! The top water of a lake in Minnesota will freeze in the winter. But the water won't freeze all the way to the bottom of the lake! Therefore the water does insulate against cold. This is one of the stupidest responses available on the internet. Technically all matter is an insulator. Technically all matter is a conductor. Technically all matter is a resistor. Just answer the question: When you exit your house to walk around outside on an extremely cold day, do you A) first drench your clothes in water to add extra insulation against the cold ... or do you wear them dry because it would stupid to wear them wet considering water's tremendous ability to conduct thermal energy? Spongy, which is it? ... A) or ? . I'm not going to answer your irrelevant question which we both know the answer to. Technically water in the sky appears to act as an insulator from cold descending upon it. It can also act as a conductor, as you can see when lightning happens.

24-12-2020 00:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Dude! The top water of a lake in Minnesota will freeze in the winter. But the water won't freeze all the way to the bottom of the lake! Therefore the water does insulate against cold. This is one of the stupidest responses available on the internet. Technically all matter is an insulator. Technically all matter is a conductor. Technically all matter is a resistor. Just answer the question: When you exit your house to walk around outside on an extremely cold day, do you A) first drench your clothes in water to add extra insulation against the cold ... or do you wear them dry because it would stupid to wear them wet considering water's tremendous ability to conduct thermal energy? Spongy, which is it? ... A) or ? . I'm not going to answer your irrelevant question which we both know the answer to. It's a relevant question. You are just choosing to evade. Answer the question. Spongy Iris wrote: Technically water in the sky appears to act as an insulator from cold descending upon it. It can't. Water conducts thermal energy, and water vapor just moves out of the way like everything else when cold air descends. We call that a 'high'. Spongy Iris wrote: It can also act as a conductor, as you can see when lightning happens. Lightning does not need water. While thunderstorms do create lightning, it is not the only way to create lightning. Pure distilled water is an excellent electrical insulator. Anything dissolved in the water makes it conductive. The more material dissolved in the water, the lower the resistance. Apparently you deny electroplating and electroetching techniques as well. A static electricity generator can still hurl lightning bolts even in bone dry air. Free electrons in the air conduct the current, not water. Ions provide the free electrons. Thunderstorms have violent updrafts and downdrafts right next to each other (the leading edge of the storm is the downdraft area). Like rubbing a balloon on the carpet, these molecules passing each other in these air currents strip off electrons. Eventually, the charge becomes big enough and WHAM! This discharges the cloud to ground (or to another cloud) and the whole process begins again. High tension powerlines (such as 800kv lines) can also hurl lightning, sometimes causing wildfires or killing some unfortunate bird or other animal that got too close. This can happen even in bone dry air. Not the action of these switches which are located in the desert and there isn't a cloud in the sky. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMbN9nb3qyk 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 24-12-2020 00:45
24-12-2020 00:40
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Dude! The top water of a lake in Minnesota will freeze in the winter. But the water won't freeze all the way to the bottom of the lake! Therefore the water does insulate against cold. This is one of the stupidest responses available on the internet. Technically all matter is an insulator. Technically all matter is a conductor. Technically all matter is a resistor. Just answer the question: When you exit your house to walk around outside on an extremely cold day, do you A) first drench your clothes in water to add extra insulation against the cold ... or do you wear them dry because it would stupid to wear them wet considering water's tremendous ability to conduct thermal energy? Spongy, which is it? ... A) or ? . I'm not going to answer your irrelevant question which we both know the answer to. It's a relevant question. You are just choosing to evade. Answer the question. Spongy Iris wrote: Technically water in the sky appears to act as an insulator from cold descending upon it. It can't. Water conducts thermal energy, and water vapor just moves out of the way like everything else when cold air descends. We call that a 'high'. Spongy Iris wrote: It can also act as a conductor, as you can see when lightning happens. Lightning does not need water. While thunderstorms do create lightning, it is not the only way to create lightning. Pure distilled water is an excellent electrical insulator. Anything dissolved in the water makes it conductive. The more material dissolved in the water, the lower the resistance. Apparently you deny electroplating and electroetching techniques as well. A static electricity generator can still hurl lightning bolts even in bone dry air. Ions in the air conduct the current, not necessarily water. You are correct sir. Lightning does not need water. Lightning flows from the Earth to the cloud. Since the earth is neutral, what is the cloud? Bodies of water is known for cooling clouds which causes tornadoes. But you post is and was about tornadoes caused by a difference in charge, etc. Simply put, tornadoes are caused by the upward flow of electrons. Excluding physics, can't cum up with another answer.
24-12-2020 01:18
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Simply speaking, clouds are negatively charged. They are lacking in electrons. While the earth is neutrally charged, the earth becomes negatively charged when clouds because of lighting absorb a charge. And why are clouds negatively charged? And it all starts in the tropopause. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp-8xp_3hqU This stuff is old. Give things a rest, okay? Yep, some dick gets it up. Kind of why there are sprites. Edited on 24-12-2020 01:50
24-12-2020 03:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Dude! The top water of a lake in Minnesota will freeze in the winter. But the water won't freeze all the way to the bottom of the lake! Therefore the water does insulate against cold. This is one of the stupidest responses available on the internet. Technically all matter is an insulator. Technically all matter is a conductor. Technically all matter is a resistor. Just answer the question: When you exit your house to walk around outside on an extremely cold day, do you A) first drench your clothes in water to add extra insulation against the cold ... or do you wear them dry because it would stupid to wear them wet considering water's tremendous ability to conduct thermal energy? Spongy, which is it? ... A) or ? . I'm not going to answer your irrelevant question which we both know the answer to. It's a relevant question. You are just choosing to evade. Answer the question. Spongy Iris wrote: Technically water in the sky appears to act as an insulator from cold descending upon it. It can't. Water conducts thermal energy, and water vapor just moves out of the way like everything else when cold air descends. We call that a 'high'. Spongy Iris wrote: It can also act as a conductor, as you can see when lightning happens. Lightning does not need water. While thunderstorms do create lightning, it is not the only way to create lightning. Pure distilled water is an excellent electrical insulator. Anything dissolved in the water makes it conductive. The more material dissolved in the water, the lower the resistance. Apparently you deny electroplating and electroetching techniques as well. A static electricity generator can still hurl lightning bolts even in bone dry air. Ions in the air conduct the current, not necessarily water. You are correct sir. Lightning does not need water. Lightning flows from the Earth to the cloud. Since the earth is neutral, what is the cloud? The cloud is typically negative with respect to Earth on one side of the storm, and can be quite positive with respect to Earth on the other side of the storm. Remember, electrons were stripped of of atoms, leaving positively charged ions in the storm. Cloud to cloud lightning (or even the same cloud) is more common than ground strikes. James___ wrote: Bodies of water is known for cooling clouds which causes tornadoes. Bodies of water does not necessarily cool clouds. James___ wrote: But you post is and was about tornadoes caused by a difference in charge, etc. Nope. No tornado is necessary. James___ wrote: Simply put, tornadoes are caused by the upward flow of electrons. Nope. Tornadoes are violent air updrafts. That's not electrons, that's air moving. Tornadoes can certainly contribute to charging a cloud enough to produce lightning though. Reversal fallacy. James___ wrote: Excluding physics, can't cum up with another answer. Why exclude physics? 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-12-2020 03:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: Simply speaking, clouds are negatively charged. They are lacking in electrons. While the earth is neutrally charged, the earth becomes negatively charged when clouds because of lighting absorb a charge. And why are clouds negatively charged? And it all starts in the tropopause. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp-8xp_3hqU This stuff is old. Give things a rest, okay? Yep, some dick gets it up. Kind of why there are sprites. An electron is a negative charge, not a positive charge. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-12-2020 21:34
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Dude! The top water of a lake in Minnesota will freeze in the winter. But the water won't freeze all the way to the bottom of the lake! Therefore the water does insulate against cold. This is one of the stupidest responses available on the internet. Technically all matter is an insulator. Technically all matter is a conductor. Technically all matter is a resistor. Just answer the question: When you exit your house to walk around outside on an extremely cold day, do you A) first drench your clothes in water to add extra insulation against the cold ... or do you wear them dry because it would stupid to wear them wet considering water's tremendous ability to conduct thermal energy? Spongy, which is it? ... A) or ? . I'm not going to answer your irrelevant question which we both know the answer to. It's a relevant question. You are just choosing to evade. Answer the question. Spongy Iris wrote: Technically water in the sky appears to act as an insulator from cold descending upon it. It can't. Water conducts thermal energy, and water vapor just moves out of the way like everything else when cold air descends. We call that a 'high'. Spongy Iris wrote: It can also act as a conductor, as you can see when lightning happens. Lightning does not need water. While thunderstorms do create lightning, it is not the only way to create lightning. Pure distilled water is an excellent electrical insulator. Anything dissolved in the water makes it conductive. The more material dissolved in the water, the lower the resistance. Apparently you deny electroplating and electroetching techniques as well. A static electricity generator can still hurl lightning bolts even in bone dry air. Ions in the air conduct the current, not necessarily water. You are correct sir. Lightning does not need water. Lightning flows from the Earth to the cloud. Since the earth is neutral, what is the cloud? Bodies of water is known for cooling clouds which causes tornadoes. But you post is and was about tornadoes caused by a difference in charge, etc. Simply put, tornadoes are caused by the upward flow of electrons. Excluding physics, can't cum up with another answer. Yep lightning flows from the Earth to the cloud. https://youtu.be/CctTDj6SN1U
24-12-2020 21:36
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	James___ wrote: Simply speaking, clouds are negatively charged. They are lacking in electrons. While the earth is neutrally charged, the earth becomes negatively charged when clouds because of lighting absorb a charge. And why are clouds negatively charged? And it all starts in the tropopause. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp-8xp_3hqU This stuff is old. Give things a rest, okay? Yep, some dick gets it up. Kind of why there are sprites. Tropopause is around start of ozone layer.
25-12-2020 00:30
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Dude! The top water of a lake in Minnesota will freeze in the winter. But the water won't freeze all the way to the bottom of the lake! Therefore the water does insulate against cold. This is one of the stupidest responses available on the internet. Technically all matter is an insulator. Technically all matter is a conductor. Technically all matter is a resistor. Just answer the question: When you exit your house to walk around outside on an extremely cold day, do you A) first drench your clothes in water to add extra insulation against the cold ... or do you wear them dry because it would stupid to wear them wet considering water's tremendous ability to conduct thermal energy? Spongy, which is it? ... A) or ? . I'm not going to answer your irrelevant question which we both know the answer to. It's a relevant question. You are just choosing to evade. Answer the question. Spongy Iris wrote: Technically water in the sky appears to act as an insulator from cold descending upon it. It can't. Water conducts thermal energy, and water vapor just moves out of the way like everything else when cold air descends. We call that a 'high'. Spongy Iris wrote: It can also act as a conductor, as you can see when lightning happens. Lightning does not need water. While thunderstorms do create lightning, it is not the only way to create lightning. Pure distilled water is an excellent electrical insulator. Anything dissolved in the water makes it conductive. The more material dissolved in the water, the lower the resistance. Apparently you deny electroplating and electroetching techniques as well. A static electricity generator can still hurl lightning bolts even in bone dry air. Ions in the air conduct the current, not necessarily water. You are correct sir. Lightning does not need water. Lightning flows from the Earth to the cloud. Since the earth is neutral, what is the cloud? Bodies of water is known for cooling clouds which causes tornadoes. But you post is and was about tornadoes caused by a difference in charge, etc. Simply put, tornadoes are caused by the upward flow of electrons. Excluding physics, can't cum up with another answer. Yep lightning flows from the Earth to the cloud. https://youtu.be/CctTDj6SN1U Not always... We have 'heat' lightning, that travels from cloud, to cloud...
25-12-2020 06:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Dude! The top water of a lake in Minnesota will freeze in the winter. But the water won't freeze all the way to the bottom of the lake! Therefore the water does insulate against cold. This is one of the stupidest responses available on the internet. Technically all matter is an insulator. Technically all matter is a conductor. Technically all matter is a resistor. Just answer the question: When you exit your house to walk around outside on an extremely cold day, do you A) first drench your clothes in water to add extra insulation against the cold ... or do you wear them dry because it would stupid to wear them wet considering water's tremendous ability to conduct thermal energy? Spongy, which is it? ... A) or ? . I'm not going to answer your irrelevant question which we both know the answer to. It's a relevant question. You are just choosing to evade. Answer the question. Spongy Iris wrote: Technically water in the sky appears to act as an insulator from cold descending upon it. It can't. Water conducts thermal energy, and water vapor just moves out of the way like everything else when cold air descends. We call that a 'high'. Spongy Iris wrote: It can also act as a conductor, as you can see when lightning happens. Lightning does not need water. While thunderstorms do create lightning, it is not the only way to create lightning. Pure distilled water is an excellent electrical insulator. Anything dissolved in the water makes it conductive. The more material dissolved in the water, the lower the resistance. Apparently you deny electroplating and electroetching techniques as well. A static electricity generator can still hurl lightning bolts even in bone dry air. Ions in the air conduct the current, not necessarily water. You are correct sir. Lightning does not need water. Lightning flows from the Earth to the cloud. Since the earth is neutral, what is the cloud? Bodies of water is known for cooling clouds which causes tornadoes. But you post is and was about tornadoes caused by a difference in charge, etc. Simply put, tornadoes are caused by the upward flow of electrons. Excluding physics, can't cum up with another answer. Yep lightning flows from the Earth to the cloud. https://youtu.be/CctTDj6SN1U It always flows from cloud to ground. The leader may appear to move from ground to cloud, but the actual current is always from the negative bottom of the cloud to the more positive ground. Lightning usually strikes cloud to cloud or within the same cloud, since the tops of clouds are positively charged while their bottoms are negatively charged in thunderstorms. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 25-12-2020 06:13
26-12-2020 03:29
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Into the Night wrote: [quote] It always flows from cloud to ground. The leader may appear to move from ground to cloud, but the actual current is always from the negative bottom of the cloud to the more positive ground. Lightning usually strikes cloud to cloud or within the same cloud, since the tops of clouds are positively charged while their bottoms are negatively charged in thunderstorms. "Atmospheric electricity is always present, and during fine weather away from thunderstorms, the air above the surface of Earth is positively charged, while the Earth's surface charge is negative." Edited on 26-12-2020 03:42

26-12-2020 04:22
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote] It always flows from cloud to ground. The leader may appear to move from ground to cloud, but the actual current is always from the negative bottom of the cloud to the more positive ground. Lightning usually strikes cloud to cloud or within the same cloud, since the tops of clouds are positively charged while their bottoms are negatively charged in thunderstorms. "Atmospheric electricity is always present, and during fine weather away from thunderstorms, the air above the surface of Earth is positively charged, while the Earth's surface charge is negative." It's a work in progress.
26-12-2020 05:30
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote] It always flows from cloud to ground. The leader may appear to move from ground to cloud, but the actual current is always from the negative bottom of the cloud to the more positive ground. Lightning usually strikes cloud to cloud or within the same cloud, since the tops of clouds are positively charged while their bottoms are negatively charged in thunderstorms. "Atmospheric electricity is always present, and during fine weather away from thunderstorms, the air above the surface of Earth is positively charged, while the Earth's surface charge is negative." A part of the research that I am pursuing could show that thunderstorms and cirrus clouds are different for a reason. This gets highly technical.
26-12-2020 09:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote] It always flows from cloud to ground. The leader may appear to move from ground to cloud, but the actual current is always from the negative bottom of the cloud to the more positive ground. Lightning usually strikes cloud to cloud or within the same cloud, since the tops of clouds are positively charged while their bottoms are negatively charged in thunderstorms. "Atmospheric electricity is always present, and during fine weather away from thunderstorms, the air above the surface of Earth is positively charged, while the Earth's surface charge is negative." A part of the research that I am pursuing could show that thunderstorms and cirrus clouds are different for a reason. This gets highly technical. Happy researching, but cirrrus clouds are high wispy clouds of ice where there is little moisture. There are too high to produce any precipitation and occur in stable air, while thunderstorms only occur in unstable air (because the air is so unstable). 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-12-2020 14:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	Spongy Iris wrote:"Atmospheric electricity is always present, and during fine weather away from thunderstorms, the air above the surface of Earth is positively charged, while the Earth's surface charge is negative." You misspelled 'neutral.'. It's correctly spelled 'neutral.'. You accidentally added a 'negative.' . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-12-2020 22:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:"Atmospheric electricity is always present, and during fine weather away from thunderstorms, the air above the surface of Earth is positively charged, while the Earth's surface charge is negative." You misspelled 'neutral.'. It's correctly spelled 'neutral.'. You accidentally added a 'negative.' . Quite right. Zero is where you say it is. Earth is considered zero volts for anything electrical related to Earth or it's atmosphere. That's why power companies refer to the line that is connected to Earth via a copper rod driven into the ground the 'neutral' wire. On a single phase distribution system, this wire runs lower on the pole than the primary, which is the highest wire on the pole. All poles are considered electrically neutral, and are isolated from any primary or secondary line by insulators. All trees are considered electrically neutral, and when they touch any primary line will usually catch fire and burn the offending branch away. This is a power loss for the company and might blow a fuse, so power companies will often come out from time to time to trim them away. Current flows from negative to positive. Current is the flow of electrons. Ions are too large to flow very far, and are like 'holes' for electrons to fit into. If you dig a hole, then dig another hole and use that dirt to fill the first one, you could say the hole 'moved', but holes don't flow....the dirt is what moved. This is exactly how ions work. They are 'holes' for electrons to fill. Thunderstorms have terrific updrafts and downdrafts right next to each other. This strips electrons from atoms just as surely as rubbing a balloon on a carpet does, and on a much more massive scale. These atoms stripped of the their electrons (now called positive ions) continue in the updraft, while the electrons are left free and tend to get drawn down with the downdraft and the rain, leaving the bottom of the cloud at a more negative charge than the top. It also more negatively charged then the ground, again considered the zero volt reference (which is more positive than the cloud). Lightning can strike from any negatively charged area to anything that is more positive. Inside the same cloud (bottom to top), cloud to cloud (bottom of one to the top of another, or even to a less negatively charged bottom of another), or cloud to ground. The visible leaders you see start at both ends. Both are caused by ions. Negatively charged ones extending from the cloud, and positively charged ones starting from the ground. Both can and do produce visible light in exactly the same way a fluorescent lamp does. Charge moves through the gas by each ion step moving the charge along. When the arc reaches the other side, there is a conductive path for electrons to flow, and ionization is kept open along this path. Like a chain reaction, one fast moving electron can knock another or two off another atom. Single electrons don't flow along the entire arc in either lightning or fluorescent lamps. All this stopping and starting is what produces the actual light you see as the lightning stroke or the fluorescent light. Light is produced by excited electrons falling into their 'holes' or lower energy levels. Lightning is hot. It's a plasma, a fourth state of matter, where the atoms within it are all ions and free electrons in sort of an electron 'soup'. Like the Sun, the light is bright, wideband, and intense...but only for a split second. After the charges creating it are discharged, the current stop, and the lightning stroke ends. You can think of clouds a bit like capacitors, using air as the dielectric. Charging, then discharging by shorting the charge through the air once the voltage gets high enough. It is literally a giant spark. Spark plugs in cars work the same way. So do lightning arrestors (you can usually find them on communications lines and power lines). A power line lightning arrestor looks like a regular insulator on a power pole, but has and kind of peg sticking out one side and a dull spike pointing toward the power line. This spike is grounded to a rod that runs up the pole, and the bottom is wired to a rod driven into the ground. The distance is set so that the 7.2kv primary voltage won't arc, but anything much bigger will. Long haul high tension lines don't usually bother with them, since voltage regulators at the substations and along distribution lines maintain a stable voltage for you. These look like a rack of transformers and are often mistaken by the public as such. Unlike a transformer though, these don't have a secondary tap. If one is put on a high tension line, they look like hula hoops hanging under the lines at the top of a tower. In ALL cases, current flows from negative to positive, and Earth's surface, considered the zero reference is more positive than the cloud 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-12-2020 18:29
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	I have found conflicting data about the charge of Earth's surface... How do you all reconcile this? "If we place a flat metal plate at the earth's surface and ground it, negative charges appear on it. If this plate is now covered by another grounded conducting cover B, the charges will appear on the cover, and there will be no charges on the original plate A. If we measure the charge that flows from plate A to the ground (by, say, a galvanometer in the grounding wire) as we cover it, we can find the surface charge density that was there, and therefore also find the electric field."
27-12-2020 20:39
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: I have found conflicting data about the charge of Earth's surface... How do you all reconcile this? "If we place a flat metal plate at the earth's surface and ground it, negative charges appear on it. If this plate is now covered by another grounded conducting cover B, the charges will appear on the cover, and there will be no charges on the original plate A. If we measure the charge that flows from plate A to the ground (by, say, a galvanometer in the grounding wire) as we cover it, we can find the surface charge density that was there, and therefore also find the electric field." That's the premise (as far as I know) behind modern electronica and electrical engineering. It's like if they measure the entropy of a high voltage line. They would need to know the value of the field to get entropy right. That would verify work done on impedance.
27-12-2020 21:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	Spongy Iris wrote: I have found conflicting data about the charge of Earth's surface... How do you all reconcile this? "If we place a flat metal plate at the earth's surface and ground it, negative charges appear on it. If this plate is now covered by another grounded conducting cover B, the charges will appear on the cover, and there will be no charges on the original plate A. If we measure the charge that flows from plate A to the ground (by, say, a galvanometer in the grounding wire) as we cover it, we can find the surface charge density that was there, and therefore also find the electric field." What is conflicting about this? The earth is a virtually unlimited supply of electrons. If the passage had read that the plate somehow developed positive charges then I would assert that the plate wasn't grounded as claimed ... but there are negative charges, i.e. excess electrons, so I don't see any problems. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-12-2020 21:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote] It always flows from cloud to ground. The leader may appear to move from ground to cloud, but the actual current is always from the negative bottom of the cloud to the more positive ground. Lightning usually strikes cloud to cloud or within the same cloud, since the tops of clouds are positively charged while their bottoms are negatively charged in thunderstorms. "Atmospheric electricity is always present, and during fine weather away from thunderstorms, the air above the surface of Earth is positively charged, while the Earth's surface charge is negative." Nope. The Earth's surface is neutral, or ground. We call it 'ground' for a reason. The atmosphere does not carry an overall charge. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-12-2020 21:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: I have found conflicting data about the charge of Earth's surface... How do you all reconcile this? "If we place a flat metal plate at the earth's surface and ground it, negative charges appear on it. Nope. No charges appear. Spongy Iris wrote: If this plate is now covered by another grounded conducting cover B, the charges will appear on the cover, and there will be no charges on the original plate A. Nope. You cannot reduce entropy. Spongy Iris wrote: If we measure the charge that flows from plate A to the ground (by, say, a galvanometer in the grounding wire) as we cover it, we can find the surface charge density that was there, Nope. No charges. Spongy Iris wrote: and therefore also find the electric field." A charge is not an electric field. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-12-2020 21:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: I have found conflicting data about the charge of Earth's surface... How do you all reconcile this? "If we place a flat metal plate at the earth's surface and ground it, negative charges appear on it. If this plate is now covered by another grounded conducting cover B, the charges will appear on the cover, and there will be no charges on the original plate A. If we measure the charge that flows from plate A to the ground (by, say, a galvanometer in the grounding wire) as we cover it, we can find the surface charge density that was there, and therefore also find the electric field." That's the premise (as far as I know) behind modern electronica and electrical engineering. It's like if they measure the entropy of a high voltage line. They would need to know the value of the field to get entropy right. That would verify work done on impedance. Word salad. Ignored. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-12-2020 21:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: I have found conflicting data about the charge of Earth's surface... How do you all reconcile this? "If we place a flat metal plate at the earth's surface and ground it, negative charges appear on it. If this plate is now covered by another grounded conducting cover B, the charges will appear on the cover, and there will be no charges on the original plate A. If we measure the charge that flows from plate A to the ground (by, say, a galvanometer in the grounding wire) as we cover it, we can find the surface charge density that was there, and therefore also find the electric field." What is conflicting about this? The earth is a virtually unlimited supply of electrons. If the passage had read that the plate somehow developed positive charges then I would assert that the plate wasn't grounded as claimed ... but there are negative charges, i.e. excess electrons, so I don't see any problems. . Why would there be excess electrons? 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-12-2020 22:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	Into the Night wrote:Why would there be excess electrons? Not "would" but "will" ...there will be excess electrons just as a course of normal random activity in nature at the quantum level. As soon as the grounded plate develops any sort of positive charge the earth immediately provides electrons to ground it to zero. However when the plate catches some excess electrons, i.e. a negative charge, those electrons cannot effectively be forced into the earth because we're talking about such an extremely low voltage. It takes a sufficient voltage to "break inertia" and to force electrons into ground. Moments before lightning strikes, storm clouds still don't have sufficient voltage to force electrons into ground ... and then suddenly they do and lightning strikes. Of course storm clouds require voltage on a much greater scale because they are not properly grounded. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-12-2020 23:25
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Why would there be excess electrons? Not "would" but "will" ...there will be excess electrons just as a course of normal random activity in nature at the quantum level. As soon as the grounded plate develops any sort of positive charge the earth immediately provides electrons to ground it to zero. However when the plate catches some excess electrons, i.e. a negative charge, those electrons cannot effectively be forced into the earth because we're talking about such an extremely low voltage. It takes a sufficient voltage to "break inertia" and to force electrons into ground. Moments before lightning strikes, storm clouds still don't have sufficient voltage to force electrons into ground ... and then suddenly they do and lightning strikes. Of course storm clouds require voltage on a much greater scale because they are not properly grounded. . Hmm... If there's excess electrons on Earth's surface, doesn't that mean it's negatively charged?
27-12-2020 23:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	Spongy Iris wrote:Hmm... If there's excess electrons on Earth's surface, doesn't that mean it's negatively charged? No. It means that the plate developed a (very small) negative charge at some point. Increase the area of the plate and you decrease the occurrence of negative charges as more of its developed positive charges gain zeroing electrons from developed negative charges as opposed to from ground. All-in-all, we're talking very small-scale activity that amounts to nothing more than "background noise." This is a good example of where we are focusing on non-zero values that are normally treated as zero. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

28-12-2020 00:01
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	James___ wrote: It's like if they measure the entropy of a high voltage line. James__, this statement is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. A "high voltage line" is itself an open system. The concept of entropy strictly requires a closed system. Ergo, there is no such thing as the entropy of a high voltage line. I'm guessing from your following statement that you mean impedance which would make far more sense. James___ wrote: That would verify work done on impedance. OK. I suppose. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-12-2020 02:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Why would there be excess electrons? Not "would" but "will" ...there will be excess electrons just as a course of normal random activity in nature at the quantum level. As soon as the grounded plate develops any sort of positive charge the earth immediately provides electrons to ground it to zero. However when the plate catches some excess electrons, i.e. a negative charge, those electrons cannot effectively be forced into the earth because we're talking about such an extremely low voltage. It takes a sufficient voltage to "break inertia" and to force electrons into ground. Moments before lightning strikes, storm clouds still don't have sufficient voltage to force electrons into ground ... and then suddenly they do and lightning strikes. Of course storm clouds require voltage on a much greater scale because they are not properly grounded. . Free electrons are not excess electrons. They are simply free electrons. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-12-2020 02:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Why would there be excess electrons? Not "would" but "will" ...there will be excess electrons just as a course of normal random activity in nature at the quantum level. As soon as the grounded plate develops any sort of positive charge the earth immediately provides electrons to ground it to zero. However when the plate catches some excess electrons, i.e. a negative charge, those electrons cannot effectively be forced into the earth because we're talking about such an extremely low voltage. It takes a sufficient voltage to "break inertia" and to force electrons into ground. Moments before lightning strikes, storm clouds still don't have sufficient voltage to force electrons into ground ... and then suddenly they do and lightning strikes. Of course storm clouds require voltage on a much greater scale because they are not properly grounded. . What excess electrons? Hmm... If there's excess electrons on Earth's surface, doesn't that mean it's negatively charged? 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-12-2020 02:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: It's like if they measure the entropy of a high voltage line. James__, this statement is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. A "high voltage line" is itself an open system. The concept of entropy strictly requires a closed system. Ergo, there is no such thing as the entropy of a high voltage line. I'm guessing from your following statement that you mean impedance which would make far more sense. James___ wrote: That would verify work done on impedance. OK. I suppose. . This is correct. A high voltage line described as any kind of entropy is nonsense. Impedance is not entropy either. 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-12-2020 03:42
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	Into the Night wrote:Free electrons are not excess electrons. They are simply free electrons. Sure. I'm fine with whatever word you prefer. I was speaking from the perspective of a grounded plate. All free electrons are in excess of zero volts ... but we can certainly go with the electrons' perspective of simply being "free" as well. The plate will always generate a few "free" electrons as a result of normal random activity. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist Edited on 28-12-2020 03:51
28-12-2020 03:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	Into the Night wrote:Impedance is not entropy either. No, it's not, but high voltage lines do have impedance. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Page 3 of 3

Join the debate climate: