climate

keepit wrote: I was just listening to a presentation from Michael Mann from University Of Pennsylvania.

keepit wrote: It was a very sophisticated approach to climate change.

keepit wrote: There were 2 takeaways that i liked.

keepit wrote: One of them was the fact that increased co2 does bring about the growth of more veggies but that those veggies aren't as nutritious as veggies grown under a smaller concentration of co2.

keepit wrote: It reminded me of Harvey.

keepit wrote: The other takeaway that i liked best wasn't quite as clear to me

but still very important. He made the case that it would be easier to reverse the trend toward higher co2 than was the opinion of some. He said that the ocean absorb co2 in greater quantities if they cool down. The bottom line of that is that the oceans can do more than was previously thought help the problem of climate change. Sorry but i missed the part about how to cool down the oceans. I think it was a snowball effect of simply reducing co2 and that would piggyback onto the ocean's effect to perpetuate even more reduction in atmospheric co2.

keepit wrote: Gosh, he didn't bother to define climate or climate change.

keepit wrote:
He (Mann) mentioned that the melting of methane hydrates in polar regions was also contributing toe global warming.

keepit wrote:
I was just listening to a presentation from Michael Mann from University Of Pennsylvania. It was a very sophisticated approach to climate change.

keepit wrote:
There were 2 takeaways that i liked. One of them was the fact that increased co2 does bring about the growth of more veggies but that those veggies aren't as nutritious as veggies grown under a smaller concentration of co2. It reminded me of Harvey.

keepit wrote:
The other takeaway that i liked best wasn't quite as clear to me but still very important. He made the case that it would be easier to reverse the trend toward higher co2 than was the opinion of some. He said that the ocean absorb co2 in greater quantities if they cool down. The bottom line of that is that the oceans can do more than was previously thought help the problem of climate change.

keepit wrote:
Sorry but i missed the part about how to cool down the oceans. I think it was a snowball effect of simply reducing co2 and that would piggyback onto the ocean's effect to perpetuate even more reduction in atmospheric co2.

keepit wrote:
Gosh, he didn't bother to define climate or climate change.

keepit wrote:
He (Mann) mentioned that the melting of methane hydrates in polar regions was also contributing toe global warming.

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote:
He (Mann) mentioned that the melting of methane hydrates in polar regions was also contributing toe global warming.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

keepit wrote:
itn.
Re: the nutritional value of the plant with respect to co2 concentration. - Michael Mann says the plants become less nutritious when the co2 conc gets too high and itn say they don't.

Hmm, who do i believe?

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote:
He (Mann) mentioned that the melting of methane hydrates in polar regions was also contributing toe global warming.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Actually they don't. We don't know that friction causes heat by transferring momentum at the molecular level. We don't know that gas molecules have energy and heat when KE = 3/2kT where k is Boltzmann's constant and T is the temperature in kelvins. Can the friction between molecules actually constitute what heat is? The conservation of momentum?
Thermodynamics does allow for momentum to dictate thermodynamics and momentum = mv (mass x velocity). I think.

keepit wrote:
itn,
Many times i've heard you say that energy CAN'T be created out of nothing as if there is someone saying that it can be created out of nothing. Who is saying this?

keepit wrote:
Also, many times you've said that no gas or vapor has the ability to warm the earth. Who is saying that there is a gas or vapor that can warm the earth?

keepit wrote:
I've never heard anyone say that.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote:
He (Mann) mentioned that the melting of methane hydrates in polar regions was also contributing toe global warming.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Actually they don't. We don't know that friction causes heat by transferring momentum at the molecular level. We don't know that gas molecules have energy and heat when KE = 3/2kT where k is Boltzmann's constant and T is the temperature in kelvins. Can the friction between molecules actually constitute what heat is? The conservation of momentum?
Thermodynamics does allow for momentum to dictate thermodynamics and momentum = mv (mass x velocity). I think.

Heat is not friction.

James_ wrote:Then how the fields surrounding molecules interact with other such fields would suggest that heat and momentum can dictate thermodynamics. This is one reason why magnetic fields matter. They can control the flow of heat. This is actually a very interesting aspect of atmospheric chemistry. And it is what would allow for eWeather. That's basically how the field around the Earth is influenced by dark matter/gravitational field. And when the Moon's gravity creates a high tide on the opposite side of the Earth, the Earth's gravitational field is distorted. And all of these things might play in how severe a storm can become or could explain why a storm fails to develop.

James_ wrote: This could end up becoming some of the coolest research in science.

James_ wrote:And that's because there's more to the weather than what I've said.

keepit wrote:
itn,
Could you explain your self.
I've never said that and i'm not aware of any church of global warming.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote:Then how the fields surrounding molecules interact with other such fields would suggest that heat and momentum can dictate thermodynamics. This is one reason why magnetic fields matter. They can control the flow of heat. This is actually a very interesting aspect of atmospheric chemistry. And it is what would allow for eWeather. That's basically how the field around the Earth is influenced by dark matter/gravitational field. And when the Moon's gravity creates a high tide on the opposite side of the Earth, the Earth's gravitational field is distorted. And all of these things might play in how severe a storm can become or could explain why a storm fails to develop.

What language is this?

James_ wrote: This could end up becoming some of the coolest research in science.

There is no research in science.

James_ wrote:And that's because there's more to the weather than what I've said.

You don't say.

Have you tried packing your Bessler wheel with magnets ... you know, to let them dictate thermodynamics? Maybe you could try warping the earth's gravitational field or something. I know, try painting your Bessler wheel with some dark matter. It's bound to dictate thermodynamics better than what you have.

IBdaMann wrote:
What language is this?

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote:Then how the fields surrounding molecules interact with other such fields would suggest that heat and momentum can dictate thermodynamics. This is one reason why magnetic fields matter. They can control the flow of heat. This is actually a very interesting aspect of atmospheric chemistry. And it is what would allow for eWeather. That's basically how the field around the Earth is influenced by dark matter/gravitational field. And when the Moon's gravity creates a high tide on the opposite side of the Earth, the Earth's gravitational field is distorted. And all of these things might play in how severe a storm can become or could explain why a storm fails to develop.

What language is this?

James_ wrote: This could end up becoming some of the coolest research in science.

There is no research in science.

James_ wrote:And that's because there's more to the weather than what I've said.

You don't say.

Have you tried packing your Bessler wheel with magnets ... you know, to let them dictate thermodynamics? Maybe you could try warping the earth's gravitational field or something. I know, try painting your Bessler wheel with some dark matter. It's bound to dictate thermodynamics better than what you have.

IBdaMann wrote:
What language is this?

I actually think the energy that is lost when an electric motor performs work is its magnetic field and the energy it takes to create it. No magnetic field and no output
from the shaft the armature is on.
And the heat loss in the magnetic field is equal to the work the output shaft does.
How thermodynamics is considered when it is being converted into mechanical work.
With the Van Allen radiation belts (magnetosphere), if those 2 fields attract the tropopause which is also a field, science allows for 2 fields to interact. That is what Coulomb's law is about. When molecules are positively ionized/polarized then they are attracted to molecules that are negatively polarized/ionized because opposites attract.
One question you can ask yourself is how does one magnetic field know what the other magnetic field is. What can act on both magnetic fields?

keepit wrote:
itn,
ok, so where are the posts? If you're going by memory let me suggest they're just a filiment of your imagination.

keepit wrote:
Sounds like they don't exist.

keepit wrote:
I certainly doesn't remember them.

keepit wrote:
And i wouldn't deny the laws of thermodynamics.

keepit wrote:
I think you're just a hot bluff.

keepit wrote:
itn.
Re: the nutritional value of the plant with respect to co2 concentration. - Michael Mann says the plants become less nutritious when the co2 conc gets too high and itn say they don't.

Hmm, who do i believe?

keepit wrote:
I was just listening to a presentation from Michael Mann from University Of Pennsylvania. It was a very sophisticated approach to climate change.
There were 2 takeaways that i liked. One of them was the fact that increased co2 does bring about the growth of more veggies but that those veggies aren't as nutritious as veggies grown under a smaller concentration of co2.

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
itn.
Re: the nutritional value of the plant with respect to co2 concentration. - Michael Mann says the plants become less nutritious when the co2 conc gets too high and itn say they don't.

Hmm, who do i believe?

Is Michael Mann a botanist?

Kind of obvious most consumers don't care about nutrition. Often, less is actually more. Maybe we have less obesity and other health issues. But, stronger, healthier plants, are better than not enough to go around.

Less nutrition only applies to certain, cherry-picked types of plants, in lab experiments. Plants can't absorb nutrients from the soil, that aren't provide in sufficient quantities for their growth. The test plants and control group were given the same amount... Plant's also adapt, generation, after generation. Who's to say that these plants would eventual regain their previous nutritional value over time. Those nutrients in plants aren't for feeding others. They are important to the plant.

IBdaMann wrote:
Excellent points, Harvey. Once CO2 falls below a certain threshhold, plants simply begin to die. We should all know what the "tree line" is. There is still Co2 in the air, but not enough to sustain life in the trees.

keepit wrote:
So , how would i find these imaginary posts

Jakob wrote:
­

keepit wrote:
I was just listening to a presentation from Michael Mann from University Of Pennsylvania. It was a very sophisticated approach to climate change.
There were 2 takeaways that i liked. One of them was the fact that increased co2 does bring about the growth of more veggies but that those veggies aren't as nutritious as veggies grown under a smaller concentration of co2.

Yes, that is interesting, and thank you for sharing.
If you think of CO2 as a fertilizer, the logic fits very well.
There must be a number of different balanced substances available to crops if they are to achieve the desired nutritional value.

One thing is farming but what about nature, did he talk about that.?
There is a huge problem with nitrate coming everywhere from industry and farming.

Jakob wrote:
­A consequence is that the nitrate-saving plants are threatened or eradicated by more nitrate-hungry plants. The thrifty plants are shaded out or otherwise suffocated by nitrate. This is also a major problem for insect life because many species depend on these thrifty plants.
It doesn't take much to imagine that CO2 either amplifies this or otherwise does similar things to some plants.
­

keepit wrote:
itn,
Many times i've heard you say that energy CAN'T be created out of nothing as if there is someone saying that it can be created out of nothing. Who is saying this?
Also, many times you've said that no gas or vapor has the ability to warm the earth. Who is saying that there is a gas or vapor that can warm the earth? I've never heard anyone say that.

keepit wrote:The problem occurs when the level of CO2 in the atmosphere gets too high. When this happens, the Earth is prevented from releasing the heat back into outer space.

keepit wrote:
What is the problem with CO2?
It's really quite simple. First the sun pours heat onto the Earth. Then the Earth radiates enough heat back into outer space to maintain a constant temperature on Earth. The problem occurs when the level of CO2 in the atmosphere gets too high. When this happens, the Earth is prevented from releasing the heat back into outer space. As a result the Earth heats up and the problems begin. The science of this is undeniable.

keepit wrote:
(though you haven't said it, I am assuming those emissions that cause global warming

keepit wrote:
By the way, the Stephan Boltzman law doesn't take into account the heat trapping effect of CO2.

keepit wrote:
Also, it isn't the CO2 that is heating up the earth and ocean, the CO2 is just holding in the heat that the sun sent to us.

Jakob wrote: So when there are no trees on the coast or in the desert, it is because the trees are being suffocated by too little CO2.

GasGuzzler wrote: Took me about 48 seconds to dig these up. If you like, there's a lot more where that came from.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote: Took me about 48 seconds to dig these up. If you like, there's a lot more where that came from.

You're booooolsch'ting. You clearly took at least 57 seconds. You have to include the time switching between pages; that totally counts.

Remember, honesty is the best policy.

keepit wrote:
Thanks for posting that. It doesn't say anything about energy being created out of nothing. It says that co2 slows the escape of thermal energy from the earth. As a result of the same amount of thermal energy from the sun arriving and slower rate of release from the earth, the thermal energy of the atmosphere goes up.
I don't see it as a difficult concept to understand.

keepit wrote:
I'm not doing anything really. The temp is going up because the outflow of thermal energy is being slowed by co2. The inflow from the sun is the same.