July 4, 2023 - Hottest day ever recorded

Swan wrote:
You do not think, you just regurgitate the nonsense that you were taught

Swan wrote:
Furthermore if space were a better insulator than fiberglass insulation then the space in a wall would not need to be filled with insulation to keep out the cold

Swan wrote:
Do you talk to yourself often?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

You will get less triggered if you take your Chlorpromazine.

Since I don't know what it is I wonder why you do.

LOL, so you are too dumb to do a Google search.

Precious

Says Chief Google-n-paste. Precious! LOL.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
Furthermore if space were a better insulator than fiberglass insulation then the space in a wall would not need to be filled with insulation to keep out the cold

Are you seriously comparing the space in a wall to the vacuum of space? Precious! LOL!

HarveyH55 wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
July 4, 2023, was NOT the hottest day ever recorded.

Within two days, the record was broken twice again.

July 2023 was the hottest July since thermometers were invented.

This was not a surprise to climate scientists.

August 2023 was the hottest August ever recorded.

This was not a surprise to climate scientists either.

And then came September 2023.

It was the hottest September ever recorded.

But this one DID surprise the climate scientists.

They expected it to be the warmest September so far.

But they did NOT expect it to be nearly a degree warmer than the previous record.

Something happened to defy the models and cause even more warming than expected.

It will be months or maybe even years before all the data is compiled and analyzed.

Right now the two biggest suspects are:

1. Less global dimming than expected. Particles that reflect or absorb light higher in the atmosphere prevent it from reaching the surface to cause warming. This September, there was less haze, soot, aerosols, etc., than usual in the atmosphere.

2. A BIG volcanic eruption. Usually, a volcano would emit a lot of aerosols into to the atmosphere. Many examples exist in history of significant and sometimes catastrophic cooling after a large volcanic eruption. We know the precise year that a volcano wiped out the Minoan civilization because it was the same year China recorded major crop failures and famine due to freezing.

But this time the big volcanic eruption was deep beneath the sea. Relatively few aerosols made it past the water to enter the atmosphere - instead dissolving into sea water.

Unlike a typical volcano erupting on land, this deep sea volcano caused a HUGE amount of water to vaporize. That massive plume of water vapor shot high into the atmosphere.

Usually the discussion of greenhouse gases is limited to carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

However, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor.

H2O has a much much shorter mean residence time in the atmosphere than CO2, CH4 or N2O, but it does behave as a weak greenhouse gas.

My guess is that when all the calculations are complete, they will find that it was the unusually high concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere that caused this September to be nearly a degree warmer than the previous record.

Never underestimate the power of water vapor.

The Prophet, computer model was wrong? Not much of a fortune teller... So, a big under water volcano caused massive climate-change? One event, caused months of heat waves, and flooding. A massive terrestrial volcanic eruption causes cooling. Essentially, even we stop burning fossil-fuels, nature will still screw up our master plan, with water vapor. Or, give us a super-chill of epic proportions. Do computer models even take into account volcanoes? How about smoke from wildfires? Isn't the ash particulates in the atmosphere? Smoke from the Canadian wildfires made it down to Florida... But, the summer was full of wildfires, all over the globe. California usually has something burning, throughout the year.

Isn't water vapor also a particulate? Forms clouds, which reflect/block sunlight from reaching the surface. Reducing surface warming. Hurricanes use up a lot of thermal energy, concentrating/collecting water vapor, forming dense clouds. Which condenses, and dumps it back down as torrential rain. Another cooling event. Water, and water vapor do quit a bit more toward cooling. About 80% of the planet surface is water. Works pretty well to regulate the planet temperature, to livable conditions, for those strong enough to survive the extremes.

We have no control over this planet, and very little influence. We inhabit less then 10% of the surface... Some people have an ego, the size of a planet, and think they can control anything. Humans survive best, when they adapt to extreme conditions. Foolish humans, who listen to 'prophets' claiming to control the future, usually die horribly. 'Climate-change' isn't really about the planet, it's politics and government. The 'change' is to install a global, one government, a socialist government.

HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]
The Prophet, computer model was wrong? Not much of a fortune teller... So, a big under water volcano caused massive climate-change? One event, caused months of heat waves, and flooding. A massive terrestrial volcanic eruption causes cooling. Essentially, even we stop burning fossil-fuels, nature will still screw up our master plan, with water vapor. Or, give us a super-chill of epic proportions. Do computer models even take into account volcanoes? How about smoke from wildfires? Isn't the ash particulates in the atmosphere? Smoke from the Canadian wildfires made it down to Florida... But, the summer was full of wildfires, all over the globe. California usually has something burning, throughout the year.

Isn't water vapor also a particulate? Forms clouds, which reflect/block sunlight from reaching the surface. Reducing surface warming. Hurricanes use up a lot of thermal energy, concentrating/collecting water vapor, forming dense clouds. Which condenses, and dumps it back down as torrential rain. Another cooling event. Water, and water vapor do quit a bit more toward cooling. About 80% of the planet surface is water. Works pretty well to regulate the planet temperature, to livable conditions, for those strong enough to survive the extremes.

We have no control over this planet, and very little influence. We inhabit less then 10% of the surface... Some people have an ego, the size of a planet, and think they can control anything. Humans survive best, when they adapt to extreme conditions. Foolish humans, who listen to 'prophets' claiming to control the future, usually die horribly. 'Climate-change' isn't really about the planet, it's politics and government. The 'change' is to install a global, one government, a socialist government.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

You will get less triggered if you take your Chlorpromazine.

Since I don't know what it is I wonder why you do.

LOL, so you are too dumb to do a Google search.

Precious

Says Chief Google-n-paste. Precious! LOL.

Im a BM wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
July 4, 2023, was NOT the hottest day ever recorded.

Within two days, the record was broken twice again.

July 2023 was the hottest July since thermometers were invented.

This was not a surprise to climate scientists.

August 2023 was the hottest August ever recorded.

This was not a surprise to climate scientists either.

And then came September 2023.

It was the hottest September ever recorded.

But this one DID surprise the climate scientists.

They expected it to be the warmest September so far.

But they did NOT expect it to be nearly a degree warmer than the previous record.

Something happened to defy the models and cause even more warming than expected.

It will be months or maybe even years before all the data is compiled and analyzed.

Right now the two biggest suspects are:

1. Less global dimming than expected. Particles that reflect or absorb light higher in the atmosphere prevent it from reaching the surface to cause warming. This September, there was less haze, soot, aerosols, etc., than usual in the atmosphere.

2. A BIG volcanic eruption. Usually, a volcano would emit a lot of aerosols into to the atmosphere. Many examples exist in history of significant and sometimes catastrophic cooling after a large volcanic eruption. We know the precise year that a volcano wiped out the Minoan civilization because it was the same year China recorded major crop failures and famine due to freezing.

But this time the big volcanic eruption was deep beneath the sea. Relatively few aerosols made it past the water to enter the atmosphere - instead dissolving into sea water.

Unlike a typical volcano erupting on land, this deep sea volcano caused a HUGE amount of water to vaporize. That massive plume of water vapor shot high into the atmosphere.

Usually the discussion of greenhouse gases is limited to carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

However, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor.

H2O has a much much shorter mean residence time in the atmosphere than CO2, CH4 or N2O, but it does behave as a weak greenhouse gas.

My guess is that when all the calculations are complete, they will find that it was the unusually high concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere that caused this September to be nearly a degree warmer than the previous record.

Never underestimate the power of water vapor.

The Prophet, computer model was wrong? Not much of a fortune teller... So, a big under water volcano caused massive climate-change? One event, caused months of heat waves, and flooding. A massive terrestrial volcanic eruption causes cooling. Essentially, even we stop burning fossil-fuels, nature will still screw up our master plan, with water vapor. Or, give us a super-chill of epic proportions. Do computer models even take into account volcanoes? How about smoke from wildfires? Isn't the ash particulates in the atmosphere? Smoke from the Canadian wildfires made it down to Florida... But, the summer was full of wildfires, all over the globe. California usually has something burning, throughout the year.

Isn't water vapor also a particulate? Forms clouds, which reflect/block sunlight from reaching the surface. Reducing surface warming. Hurricanes use up a lot of thermal energy, concentrating/collecting water vapor, forming dense clouds. Which condenses, and dumps it back down as torrential rain. Another cooling event. Water, and water vapor do quit a bit more toward cooling. About 80% of the planet surface is water. Works pretty well to regulate the planet temperature, to livable conditions, for those strong enough to survive the extremes.

We have no control over this planet, and very little influence. We inhabit less then 10% of the surface... Some people have an ego, the size of a planet, and think they can control anything. Humans survive best, when they adapt to extreme conditions. Foolish humans, who listen to 'prophets' claiming to control the future, usually die horribly. 'Climate-change' isn't really about the planet, it's politics and government. The 'change' is to install a global, one government, a socialist government.

Yes, the models underestimated how much hotter than average September would be this year.

To clarify a couple of points:

The water vapor from the volcano was not predicted at all and was not included in predictive calculations for future temperature.

The degree of global dimming that was predicted to occur in September turned out to be an overestimate. It is welcome by me that the wildfires of July and August tapered off for the peak season in September, as a direct result of all the extra water in the atmosphere.

The undersea volcanic eruption was in the news at the time because the water vapor plume was shooting all the way up into outer space. Look it up if you are intrigued.

No, water vapor is not considered a "particulate" in atmospheric jargon.

Technically, it is a gas made up of individual, separate molecules of water.

Im a BM wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
[quote]
The Prophet, computer model was wrong? Not much of a fortune teller... So, a big under water volcano caused massive climate-change? One event, caused months of heat waves, and flooding. A massive terrestrial volcanic eruption causes cooling. Essentially, even we stop burning fossil-fuels, nature will still screw up our master plan, with water vapor. Or, give us a super-chill of epic proportions. Do computer models even take into account volcanoes? How about smoke from wildfires? Isn't the ash particulates in the atmosphere? Smoke from the Canadian wildfires made it down to Florida... But, the summer was full of wildfires, all over the globe. California usually has something burning, throughout the year.

Isn't water vapor also a particulate? Forms clouds, which reflect/block sunlight from reaching the surface. Reducing surface warming. Hurricanes use up a lot of thermal energy, concentrating/collecting water vapor, forming dense clouds. Which condenses, and dumps it back down as torrential rain. Another cooling event. Water, and water vapor do quit a bit more toward cooling. About 80% of the planet surface is water. Works pretty well to regulate the planet temperature, to livable conditions, for those strong enough to survive the extremes.

We have no control over this planet, and very little influence. We inhabit less then 10% of the surface... Some people have an ego, the size of a planet, and think they can control anything. Humans survive best, when they adapt to extreme conditions. Foolish humans, who listen to 'prophets' claiming to control the future, usually die horribly. 'Climate-change' isn't really about the planet, it's politics and government. The 'change' is to install a global, one government, a socialist government.

This deserves a more complete response.

Wildfires are absolutely included in the models, as the smoke they emit blocks sunlight.

Global dimming is much easier to understand, model, and accurately make predictions about, compared to global warming.

It is much easier to gather the required data to monitor how much incident radiation is being blocked before it reaches the surface.

A big contributor to global dimming is cloud cover.

Water vapor is a transparent gas, not a particulate.

However, particulates can have a lot of influence on how water vapor condenses into droplets that form clouds.

In the absence of particulates, water vapor condenses into relatively large droplets. They form clouds that have enough space between droplets to allow some light through.

In the presence of particulates, they act as nuclei for droplet formation.

Rather than forming clouds comprised of a relatively small number of large droplets, highly reflective clouds comprised of a relatively large number of much smaller droplets form.

Now, tying THIS year's wildfire activity to how much global dimming occurred in July, August, and September. As a gross generalization, September was a pleasant surprise throughout the world, or at least the northern hemisphere.

And it was a surprise to the modelers that so much less smoke than expected was emitted.

My pet hypothesis is that the same event that added so much extra water vapor to the atmosphere, it was literally blowing into outer space, also diminished wildfire activity.

So, there were two unusual additional contributors to global warming in September.

Extra greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and extra precipitation to tamp down the wildfires, resulting in less dimming from wildfire smoke or highly reflective clouds formed around particulates from wildfires.

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

You will get less triggered if you take your Chlorpromazine.

Since I don't know what it is I wonder why you do.

LOL, so you are too dumb to do a Google search.

Precious

Says Chief Google-n-paste. Precious! LOL.

Refine Google searches
There are different ways to filter your Google searches to be more precise or to expand in new directions.

Advanced search
Google offers pages designed to help you perform specialized web and image searches:

Google Advanced Search
Google Advanced Image Search
Filters & topics
After you perform a search, filter and topic buttons appear near the search bar. They may also appear in other places on the page.

Filters
Filters allow you to narrow results to a particular type, such as:

Video
News
Images
The exact filters and the order in which thy appear is dynamic. It's based on what our systems might think are most helpful to your query. If you don't find a particular filter that you want, use the "All Filters" option to check others that are available.

Topics
Topics allow you to add terms to your query that can help you get more specific information or explore related information. Relevant topics for a query are automatically generated and displayed. They're based on what our systems understand about how people search and how content is analyzed across the web. Topics are available on computers for most countries or regions, and they'll expand to more countries or regions and languages on mobile.

Operators
To narrow your results in specific ways, you can use special operators in your search. Do not put spaces between the operator and your search term. A search for [site:nytimes.com] will work, but [site:nytimes.com] won't. Here are some popular operators:

Search for an exact match: Enter a word or phrase inside quotes. For example, [tallest building].

Go to our blogpost for more information about how to search using quotes.

Search for a specific site: Enter site: in front of a site or domain. For example, [site:youtube.com cat videos].

Exclude words from your search: Enter - in front of a word that you want to leave out. For example, [jaguar speed -car].

Related results
After you click a web result and return back to the search results, you may find more related results added to what was originally generated. These added results are related to the web result that you clicked on.

Related searches
After a search, you find related searches to what you originally searched for. Related searches are automatically generated based on what our systems understand about how people search.

Settings
In Google Search, you can use settings that allow you to match or remove certain types of content:

You can filter Google Search results to different languages with the Language results filter.
You can filter explicit content from your results with SafeSearch.
Related resources
Use results language to filter for Google Search
Get notifications & updates for products you track on Google
Do an Advanced Search on Google

LOL, do you really expect me to waste time actually answering you?

Swan wrote:


LOL, do you really expect me to waste time actually answering you?

Im a BM wrote:
government.

James_ wrote:
Another item that science does not know, that the atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and Mars are all relative to one another based on the strength of the Sun's gravitational field.

The atmospheric pressures can be factored following f(x) = Δy/Δx. y = Venus is 1350 psi/93 bars. x = (1+.02395)^x. The exponent will be the times further from the Sun than Venus squared. That allows for the inverse square law to show a decrease in the strength of the Sun's gravitational field. The Earth is ^191 while Mars is ^403. This allows for Earth to be 93/(1+.02395)^191 = 1.01214 bars while it is 1.013 bars. And for Mars to be 93/(1+.02395)^449 = 0.0022 bars while it is .00658 bars.

This proves that the Sun's gravitational field is the common denominator. And this suggests that there is a "geological" relationship between the mass and gravity of the rock type planets orbiting the Sun. This would be the same as cause and effect at the gravitational level. i.e., Venus is denser than the Earth while Mars is less dense.
When Newton created his g = Gm/r^2 and the Earth is 1 AU (astronomical unit/distance from the Sun) then Newtons gravity for the Earth might be g = Gm/r^2 and then the Sun's own Gm/r^2.
Basically the Earth's gravity would be a function of the Sun's gravity creating potential in the form of the Earth conserving the Sun's gravitational energy. Anyway, that is what science suggests.
Where Venus orbits the Sun, the Sun's gravitational energy (acceleration of gravity) is 1.85 times
greater than where the Earth orbits the Sun while the inverse square law states that the difference in the surface area/volume of space is 1.91 times greater.

p.s., With the acceleration of gravity which is g = Gm/r^2
while the orbital velocity is..............................v = √m/r

Dividing the mass of the celestial mass by a function of the radius where an attribute of gravity is to be factored shows that both the acceleration of gravity
and the orbital velocity of gravity are relative to one another.
It is like atmospheric gasses in the troposphere (what we live in) are exposed to an orbital velocity of about 7.9km/s while the Earth's mass escape velocity (to leave the Earth's orbit is 11.2km/s). Yet we get wind gusts up to 40mph/64kph.
Atmospheric gasses might be conserving the Earth's gravitational energy as spin and linear velocity. The surface of the Earth does spin at the Equator about 1,000mph/1,600kph. And atmospheric gasses do orbit the Earth in a geosynchronous orbit like some satellites do.

Im a BM wrote:
This deserves a more complete response.

Wildfires are absolutely included in the models, as the smoke they emit blocks sunlight.

Im a BM wrote:
Global dimming is much easier to understand, model, and accurately make predictions about, compared to global warming.

Im a BM wrote:
It is much easier to gather the required data to monitor how much incident radiation is being blocked before it reaches the surface.

Im a BM wrote:
A big contributor to global dimming is cloud cover.

Im a BM wrote:
Water vapor is a transparent gas, not a particulate.

Im a BM wrote:
However, particulates can have a lot of influence on how water vapor condenses into droplets that form clouds.

Im a BM wrote:
In the absence of particulates, water vapor condenses into relatively large droplets. They form clouds that have enough space between droplets to allow some light through.

Im a BM wrote:
In the presence of particulates, they act as nuclei for droplet formation.

Rather than forming clouds comprised of a relatively small number of large droplets, highly reflective clouds comprised of a relatively large number of much smaller droplets form.

Im a BM wrote:
Now, tying THIS year's wildfire activity to how much global dimming occurred in July, August, and September. As a gross generalization, September was a pleasant surprise throughout the world, or at least the northern hemisphere.

Im a BM wrote:
And it was a surprise to the modelers that so much less smoke than expected was emitted.

Im a BM wrote:
My pet hypothesis is that the same event that added so much extra water vapor to the atmosphere, it was literally blowing into outer space, also diminished wildfire activity.

Im a BM wrote:
So, there were two unusual additional contributors to global warming in September.

Im a BM wrote:
Extra greenhouse gas in the atmosphere,

Im a BM wrote:
and extra precipitation to tamp down the wildfires,

Im a BM wrote:
resulting in less dimming from wildfire smoke or highly reflective clouds formed around particulates from wildfires.

Furthermore if space were a better insulator than fiberglass insulation then the space in a wall would not need to be filled with insulation to keep out the cold that froze your brain long ago

Thermos® flasks make everyday life better, every time. Hot stays hot. Cold stays cold. Food stays fresh. For up to 24 hours. 10 sizes, 27 colours, vacuum insulated, no spills and no fuss. Whether you're spending the day in the office or exploring the great outdoors, your Thermos flasks will keep food and drinks just as you like them, for as long as you need.

Xadoman wrote:

Furthermore if space were a better insulator than fiberglass insulation then the space in a wall would not need to be filled with insulation to keep out the cold that froze your brain long ago

https://thermos.co.uk/shop/flasks

Thermos® flasks make everyday life better, every time. Hot stays hot. Cold stays cold. Food stays fresh. For up to 24 hours. 10 sizes, 27 colours, vacuum insulated, no spills and no fuss. Whether you're spending the day in the office or exploring the great outdoors, your Thermos flasks will keep food and drinks just as you like them, for as long as you need.

Vacuum is perfect insulator for conduction and convection. There are of course thermal bridges in thermos and radiant heat loss but for convection and conduction vacuum is the best insulator.

Again space does not insulate the Earth from the heat or light from the Sun

Xadoman wrote:

Again space does not insulate the Earth from the heat or light from the Sun

Space is a perfect insulation for conduction and convection. That is why vacuum is used in thermos and not fiberglass.

Swan wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Again space does not insulate the Earth from the heat or light from the Sun

Space is a perfect insulation for conduction and convection. That is why vacuum is used in thermos and not fiberglass.

LOL if space is perfect insulation, please explain how the heat and light of the Sun gets to the Earth? Just let me make popcorn first

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Again space does not insulate the Earth from the heat or light from the Sun

Space is a perfect insulation for conduction and convection. That is why vacuum is used in thermos and not fiberglass.

LOL if space is perfect insulation, please explain how the heat and light of the Sun gets to the Earth? Just let me make popcorn first

Radiation. Too quick?

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Again space does not insulate the Earth from the heat or light from the Sun

Space is a perfect insulation for conduction and convection. That is why vacuum is used in thermos and not fiberglass.

LOL if space is perfect insulation, please explain how the heat and light of the Sun gets to the Earth? Just let me make popcorn first

Radiation. Too quick?

Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator. You have made my point quite well

Thanks for letting me make popcorn first.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Again space does not insulate the Earth from the heat or light from the Sun

Space is a perfect insulation for conduction and convection. That is why vacuum is used in thermos and not fiberglass.

LOL if space is perfect insulation, please explain how the heat and light of the Sun gets to the Earth? Just let me make popcorn first

Radiation. Too quick?

Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator. You have made my point quite well

Thanks for letting me make popcorn first.

You are slightly correct that space is not a perfect insulator, but only because of tiny debris that may or may not be present. However, vacuum of space is about as close as you can get to a perfect insulator.

Are you saying for Earth to warm, space debris must be present for conductive heating by the sun? .......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

My turn to go make popcorn.

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Again space does not insulate the Earth from the heat or light from the Sun

Space is a perfect insulation for conduction and convection. That is why vacuum is used in thermos and not fiberglass.

LOL if space is perfect insulation, please explain how the heat and light of the Sun gets to the Earth? Just let me make popcorn first

Radiation. Too quick?

Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator. You have made my point quite well

Thanks for letting me make popcorn first.

You are slightly correct that space is not a perfect insulator, but only because of tiny debris that may or may not be present. However, vacuum of space is about as close as you can get to a perfect insulator.

Are you saying for Earth to warm, space debris must be present for conductive heating by the sun? .......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

My turn to go make popcorn.

If space were a perfect insulator no heat could ever reach the Earth. A concept that is evidentially way over your flea circus.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Again space does not insulate the Earth from the heat or light from the Sun

Space is a perfect insulation for conduction and convection. That is why vacuum is used in thermos and not fiberglass.

LOL if space is perfect insulation, please explain how the heat and light of the Sun gets to the Earth? Just let me make popcorn first

Radiation. Too quick?

Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator. You have made my point quite well

Thanks for letting me make popcorn first.

You are slightly correct that space is not a perfect insulator, but only because of tiny debris that may or may not be present. However, vacuum of space is about as close as you can get to a perfect insulator.

Are you saying for Earth to warm, space debris must be present for conductive heating by the sun? .......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

My turn to go make popcorn.

If space were a perfect insulator no heat could ever reach the Earth. A concept that is evidentially way over your flea circus.

Again, radiation, which is one of the three types of heat. The other two are conduction and convection, which cannot happen in the vacuum of space.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Again space does not insulate the Earth from the heat or light from the Sun

Space is a perfect insulation for conduction and convection. That is why vacuum is used in thermos and not fiberglass.

LOL if space is perfect insulation, please explain how the heat and light of the Sun gets to the Earth? Just let me make popcorn first

Radiation. Too quick?

Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator. You have made my point quite well

Thanks for letting me make popcorn first.

You are slightly correct that space is not a perfect insulator, but only because of tiny debris that may or may not be present. However, vacuum of space is about as close as you can get to a perfect insulator.

Are you saying for Earth to warm, space debris must be present for conductive heating by the sun? .......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

My turn to go make popcorn.

If space were a perfect insulator no heat could ever reach the Earth. A concept that is evidentially way over your flea circus.

Again, radiation, which is one of the three types of heat. The other two are conduction and convection, which cannot happen in the vacuum of space.

Im a BM wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

Again space does not insulate the Earth from the heat or light from the Sun

Space is a perfect insulation for conduction and convection. That is why vacuum is used in thermos and not fiberglass.

LOL if space is perfect insulation, please explain how the heat and light of the Sun gets to the Earth? Just let me make popcorn first

Radiation. Too quick?

Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator. You have made my point quite well

Thanks for letting me make popcorn first.

You are slightly correct that space is not a perfect insulator, but only because of tiny debris that may or may not be present. However, vacuum of space is about as close as you can get to a perfect insulator.

Are you saying for Earth to warm, space debris must be present for conductive heating by the sun? .......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

My turn to go make popcorn.

If space were a perfect insulator no heat could ever reach the Earth. A concept that is evidentially way over your flea circus.

Again, radiation, which is one of the three types of heat. The other two are conduction and convection, which cannot happen in the vacuum of space.

"...three types of heat.."

No, these are not three different "types of heat".

Radiation, conduction, and convection are three different MECHANISMS OF HEAT TRANSFER.

Radiation in the infrared range transfers heat at the speed of light.

Conduction, when heat is transferred by direct touch from something hotter to something warmer... Not a TYPE of heat, just a means by which it get transferred. Depending on temperature difference, heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and thermal diffusivity, heat may be transferred slowly or rapidly.

Convection is not a "type of heat". It is another mechanism of heat transfer involving mass movement of fluid (liquid or gas). As fluid gets warm, it becomes less dense and rises above cooler fluid of the same composition. "Convection currents" are mass movement of fluid in which heat is translocated to a higher elevation.

Something resembling legitimate science is the claim that conduction and convection cannot occur in a vaccuum.

If the most prolific "scientist" on this site is correct, "there is no such thing as radiant energy". So, heat could not be transferred by radiation either in this alternative reality.

But to talk about a mechanism of transfer as a "type of heat" is a strong indicator that there has never been even the most basic training in science.

James_ wrote:
On my website I have a page dedicated to the Earth's "green house" which is the tropopause. https://climate-cycling.com/earths-greenhouse-the-tropopause

The anvil cloud shows there is a barrier that keeps the heat that molecules conserve in the troposphere. Usually the only way that atmospheric gasses in the troposphere and the stratosphere mix is because of a jet stream. This allows for convection between 2 different layers of the atmosphere.
Most heat in the stratosphere comes from O2 + O + hv > O3. An example of the effects of increased ozone in the stratosphere; https://climate-cycling.com/the-ozone-layer
And as I mention on my website, jet streams will move when there's a significant increase in the total ozone column. This is because the stratosphere warms and the troposphere cools. I've noticed the jet streams like moving along the edge of such warming and cooling of the atmosphere.
And I think this helps to show how important the ozone layer is. When there's less ozone in the stratosphere then that just means more UV solar radiation for the oceans to absorb. And we all know that 93% of the excess heat from climate change is in the oceans. This points to both a slowing of ocean currents and a depleted ozone layer.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:
On my website I have a page dedicated to the Earth's "green house" which is the tropopause. https://climate-cycling.com/earths-greenhouse-the-tropopause

The anvil cloud shows there is a barrier that keeps the heat that molecules conserve in the troposphere. Usually the only way that atmospheric gasses in the troposphere and the stratosphere mix is because of a jet stream. This allows for convection between 2 different layers of the atmosphere.
Most heat in the stratosphere comes from O2 + O + hv > O3. An example of the effects of increased ozone in the stratosphere; https://climate-cycling.com/the-ozone-layer
And as I mention on my website, jet streams will move when there's a significant increase in the total ozone column. This is because the stratosphere warms and the troposphere cools. I've noticed the jet streams like moving along the edge of such warming and cooling of the atmosphere.
And I think this helps to show how important the ozone layer is. When there's less ozone in the stratosphere then that just means more UV solar radiation for the oceans to absorb. And we all know that 93% of the excess heat from climate change is in the oceans. This points to both a slowing of ocean currents and a depleted ozone layer.

And oceans are very deep, lot of water. Surface temperature of the ocean means very little, since water conducts heat very well. The warmer surface water also evaporates, carried off as water vapor, removing some of the thermal energy as well. Then of course, the sun sets, no more energy added for the day, but the thermal energy never sleeps, it keeps moving. Daytime/night time, are two slightly different dynamics. Day, you have sun energy added, but still there is cooling. Night time, there is only cooling. The length of the day/night varies throughout the year.

Isn't ozone toxic? Wouldn't getting rid of that nasty crap be a good thing? Besides, ozone holes only occur over the polar regions. Do polar bears an penguins really matter that much? I'm sure if depleted ozone bothered them that much, they would have moved a long time ago. Ozone holes grow during the polar winters, but shrink during the summer, when UV protection is most needed. It's a sign, 'The Big Guy in the Sky' takes care of us...

Im a BM wrote:
No, these are not three different "types of heat".
Radiation, conduction, and convection are three different MECHANISMS OF HEAT TRANSFER.

Im a BM wrote:
Conduction, when heat is transferred by direct touch from something hotter to something warmer... Not a TYPE of heat, just a means by which it get transferred. Depending on temperature difference, heat capacity, thermal conductivity, and thermal diffusivity, heat may be transferred slowly or rapidly.

Im a BM wrote:
"Convection currents" are mass movement of fluid in which heat is translocated to a higher elevation.

Im a BM wrote:
But to talk about a mechanism of transfer as a "type of heat" is a strong indicator that there has never been even the most basic training in science.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:
On my website I have a page dedicated to the Earth's "green house" which is the tropopause. https://climate-cycling.com/earths-greenhouse-the-tropopause

The anvil cloud shows there is a barrier that keeps the heat that molecules conserve in the troposphere. Usually the only way that atmospheric gasses in the troposphere and the stratosphere mix is because of a jet stream. This allows for convection between 2 different layers of the atmosphere.
Most heat in the stratosphere comes from O2 + O + hv > O3. An example of the effects of increased ozone in the stratosphere; https://climate-cycling.com/the-ozone-layer
And as I mention on my website, jet streams will move when there's a significant increase in the total ozone column. This is because the stratosphere warms and the troposphere cools. I've noticed the jet streams like moving along the edge of such warming and cooling of the atmosphere.
And I think this helps to show how important the ozone layer is. When there's less ozone in the stratosphere then that just means more UV solar radiation for the oceans to absorb. And we all know that 93% of the excess heat from climate change is in the oceans. This points to both a slowing of ocean currents and a depleted ozone layer.

And oceans are very deep, lot of water. Surface temperature of the ocean means very little, since water conducts heat very well. The warmer surface water also evaporates, carried off as water vapor, removing some of the thermal energy as well. Then of course, the sun sets, no more energy added for the day, but the thermal energy never sleeps, it keeps moving. Daytime/night time, are two slightly different dynamics. Day, you have sun energy added, but still there is cooling. Night time, there is only cooling. The length of the day/night varies throughout the year.

Isn't ozone toxic? Wouldn't getting rid of that nasty crap be a good thing? Besides, ozone holes only occur over the polar regions. Do polar bears an penguins really matter that much? I'm sure if depleted ozone bothered them that much, they would have moved a long time ago. Ozone holes grow during the polar winters, but shrink during the summer, when UV protection is most needed. It's a sign, 'The Big Guy in the Sky' takes care of us...

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:
On my website I have a page dedicated to the Earth's "green house" which is the tropopause. https://climate-cycling.com/earths-greenhouse-the-tropopause

The anvil cloud shows there is a barrier that keeps the heat that molecules conserve in the troposphere. Usually the only way that atmospheric gasses in the troposphere and the stratosphere mix is because of a jet stream. This allows for convection between 2 different layers of the atmosphere.
Most heat in the stratosphere comes from O2 + O + hv > O3. An example of the effects of increased ozone in the stratosphere; https://climate-cycling.com/the-ozone-layer
And as I mention on my website, jet streams will move when there's a significant increase in the total ozone column. This is because the stratosphere warms and the troposphere cools. I've noticed the jet streams like moving along the edge of such warming and cooling of the atmosphere.
And I think this helps to show how important the ozone layer is. When there's less ozone in the stratosphere then that just means more UV solar radiation for the oceans to absorb. And we all know that 93% of the excess heat from climate change is in the oceans. This points to both a slowing of ocean currents and a depleted ozone layer.

And oceans are very deep, lot of water. Surface temperature of the ocean means very little, since water conducts heat very well. The warmer surface water also evaporates, carried off as water vapor, removing some of the thermal energy as well. Then of course, the sun sets, no more energy added for the day, but the thermal energy never sleeps, it keeps moving. Daytime/night time, are two slightly different dynamics. Day, you have sun energy added, but still there is cooling. Night time, there is only cooling. The length of the day/night varies throughout the year.

Isn't ozone toxic? Wouldn't getting rid of that nasty crap be a good thing? Besides, ozone holes only occur over the polar regions. Do polar bears an penguins really matter that much? I'm sure if depleted ozone bothered them that much, they would have moved a long time ago. Ozone holes grow during the polar winters, but shrink during the summer, when UV protection is most needed. It's a sign, 'The Big Guy in the Sky' takes care of us...

Ozone is toxic in the troposphere. It is also a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. In the stratosphere it can cool the troposphere.
With the oceans you need to consider wind the chill factor and water absorbs UV radiation. And then there is the thermohaline circulation. That's the flow of all water in the oceans. It's one current.
With the surface temperature of oceanic currents, that's getting into kinetic energy and the conservation of energy. A basic example is conduction. When water molecules move into the atmosphere as vapor, that is an example of convection.
When water transfers kinetic energy into the atmosphere and is realized as KE = 3/2kT then that is conduction. Heat would be transferred from water molecules to atmospheric gasses. With thermodynamics, momentum can dictate thermodynamics and warm water transferring kinetic energy to atmospheric gasses would be an example of that.
This "problem" shows 2 different ways warm water can transfer energy into the Earth's atmosphere.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:
On my website I have a page dedicated to the Earth's "green house" which is the tropopause. https://climate-cycling.com/earths-greenhouse-the-tropopause

The anvil cloud shows there is a barrier that keeps the heat that molecules conserve in the troposphere. Usually the only way that atmospheric gasses in the troposphere and the stratosphere mix is because of a jet stream. This allows for convection between 2 different layers of the atmosphere.
Most heat in the stratosphere comes from O2 + O + hv > O3. An example of the effects of increased ozone in the stratosphere; https://climate-cycling.com/the-ozone-layer
And as I mention on my website, jet streams will move when there's a significant increase in the total ozone column. This is because the stratosphere warms and the troposphere cools. I've noticed the jet streams like moving along the edge of such warming and cooling of the atmosphere.
And I think this helps to show how important the ozone layer is. When there's less ozone in the stratosphere then that just means more UV solar radiation for the oceans to absorb. And we all know that 93% of the excess heat from climate change is in the oceans. This points to both a slowing of ocean currents and a depleted ozone layer.

And oceans are very deep, lot of water. Surface temperature of the ocean means very little, since water conducts heat very well. The warmer surface water also evaporates, carried off as water vapor, removing some of the thermal energy as well. Then of course, the sun sets, no more energy added for the day, but the thermal energy never sleeps, it keeps moving. Daytime/night time, are two slightly different dynamics. Day, you have sun energy added, but still there is cooling. Night time, there is only cooling. The length of the day/night varies throughout the year.

Isn't ozone toxic? Wouldn't getting rid of that nasty crap be a good thing? Besides, ozone holes only occur over the polar regions. Do polar bears an penguins really matter that much? I'm sure if depleted ozone bothered them that much, they would have moved a long time ago. Ozone holes grow during the polar winters, but shrink during the summer, when UV protection is most needed. It's a sign, 'The Big Guy in the Sky' takes care of us...

Ozone is toxic in the troposphere. It is also a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. In the stratosphere it can cool the troposphere.
With the oceans you need to consider wind the chill factor and water absorbs UV radiation. And then there is the thermohaline circulation. That's the flow of all water in the oceans. It's one current.
With the surface temperature of oceanic currents, that's getting into kinetic energy and the conservation of energy. A basic example is conduction. When water molecules move into the atmosphere as vapor, that is an example of convection.
When water transfers kinetic energy into the atmosphere and is realized as KE = 3/2kT then that is conduction. Heat would be transferred from water molecules to atmospheric gasses. With thermodynamics, momentum can dictate thermodynamics and warm water transferring kinetic energy to atmospheric gasses would be an example of that.
This "problem" shows 2 different ways warm water can transfer energy into the Earth's atmosphere.

LOL if Ozone increases with the production of fossil fuels, then why is there a hole and wouldn't burning more fossil fuels fix the hole?

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:
On my website I have a page dedicated to the Earth's "green house" which is the tropopause. https://climate-cycling.com/earths-greenhouse-the-tropopause

The anvil cloud shows there is a barrier that keeps the heat that molecules conserve in the troposphere. Usually the only way that atmospheric gasses in the troposphere and the stratosphere mix is because of a jet stream. This allows for convection between 2 different layers of the atmosphere.
Most heat in the stratosphere comes from O2 + O + hv > O3. An example of the effects of increased ozone in the stratosphere; https://climate-cycling.com/the-ozone-layer
And as I mention on my website, jet streams will move when there's a significant increase in the total ozone column. This is because the stratosphere warms and the troposphere cools. I've noticed the jet streams like moving along the edge of such warming and cooling of the atmosphere.
And I think this helps to show how important the ozone layer is. When there's less ozone in the stratosphere then that just means more UV solar radiation for the oceans to absorb. And we all know that 93% of the excess heat from climate change is in the oceans. This points to both a slowing of ocean currents and a depleted ozone layer.

And oceans are very deep, lot of water. Surface temperature of the ocean means very little, since water conducts heat very well. The warmer surface water also evaporates, carried off as water vapor, removing some of the thermal energy as well. Then of course, the sun sets, no more energy added for the day, but the thermal energy never sleeps, it keeps moving. Daytime/night time, are two slightly different dynamics. Day, you have sun energy added, but still there is cooling. Night time, there is only cooling. The length of the day/night varies throughout the year.

Isn't ozone toxic? Wouldn't getting rid of that nasty crap be a good thing? Besides, ozone holes only occur over the polar regions. Do polar bears an penguins really matter that much? I'm sure if depleted ozone bothered them that much, they would have moved a long time ago. Ozone holes grow during the polar winters, but shrink during the summer, when UV protection is most needed. It's a sign, 'The Big Guy in the Sky' takes care of us...

Ozone is toxic in the troposphere. It is also a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels. In the stratosphere it can cool the troposphere.
With the oceans you need to consider wind the chill factor and water absorbs UV radiation. And then there is the thermohaline circulation. That's the flow of all water in the oceans. It's one current.
With the surface temperature of oceanic currents, that's getting into kinetic energy and the conservation of energy. A basic example is conduction. When water molecules move into the atmosphere as vapor, that is an example of convection.
When water transfers kinetic energy into the atmosphere and is realized as KE = 3/2kT then that is conduction. Heat would be transferred from water molecules to atmospheric gasses. With thermodynamics, momentum can dictate thermodynamics and warm water transferring kinetic energy to atmospheric gasses would be an example of that.
This "problem" shows 2 different ways warm water can transfer energy into the Earth's atmosphere.

LOL if Ozone increases with the production of fossil fuels, then why is there a hole and wouldn't burning more fossil fuels fix the hole?

Because of spray painter breathers like you. The propellant in spray cans destroy ozone.

You can back to your cherry tomato suppositories... Maybe you'll break your record today...

LOL if Ozone increases with the production of fossil fuels, then why is there a hole and wouldn't burning more fossil fuels fix the hole?

James_ wrote:

LOL if Ozone increases with the production of fossil fuels, then why is there a hole and wouldn't burning more fossil fuels fix the hole?

Polar stratospheric clouds form when the stratosphere gets cold enough. NOx and SOx are 2 gasses that help PSCs to occur.
Since the Antarctic has Antarctica there's no "warm" water flowing there. This might be an example of "hot" flowing towards where it's cold.
This is where the Earth's spin might act as a centrifuge.

Im a BM wrote:


Maybe just because it is the most recent in mind, the failure to understand that radiation, conduction, and convection are not "types of heat" makes the top.