Remember me
▼ Content

Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems



Page 11 of 21<<<910111213>>>
RE: How is heat retained within an actual greenhouse?16-05-2022 01:54
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat?

Swan, you really should learn what heat is.

Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored.

Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't.

The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually.

.



And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity
such as F = Gm1m2/r^2
It is good to know that people like you understand the basics. After all, even
a baby quits suckling its mother.


Right on, James!

Heat CAN be retained.

There is a reason that it is warmer inside an actual greenhouse than outside.

The infrared radiant energy keeps getting caught up and bouncing back inside, instead of going outside.

The greenhouse temperature rises higher than the outside air, despite having LESS radiant energy come in.

Outside the greenhouse, the full spectrum of sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface is there.

Inside the greenhouse, that portion of sun energy in the infrared part of the spectrum is blocked to prevent its entry.

When the sun goes down, the greenhouse takes longer to cool down than outside.

What about "greenhouse effect" from "greenhouse gases".

Radiant energy in the infrared part of the spectrum keeps getting intercepted before it can radiate out into outer space.

Greenhouse gas molecules have bonds that vibrate at infrared frequencies.

The heat being transported as radiation has to run the gauntlet obstacle course before it can get away from the atmosphere.
16-05-2022 02:30
James_
★★★★★
(2149)
You need to slow down. CO2 = KE.
More CO2 = more KE. More KE = more H2O.
It's warmer in a greenhouse because the wavelength of incoming solar IR has been changed. An increase in water vapor (H2O) will show this.
How can that be demonstrated?


Im a BM wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat?

Swan, you really should learn what heat is.

Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored.

Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't.

The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually.

.



And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity
such as F = Gm1m2/r^2
It is good to know that people like you understand the basics. After all, even
a baby quits suckling its mother.


Right on, James!

Heat CAN be retained.

There is a reason that it is warmer inside an actual greenhouse than outside.

The infrared radiant energy keeps getting caught up and bouncing back inside, instead of going outside.

The greenhouse temperature rises higher than the outside air, despite having LESS radiant energy come in.

Outside the greenhouse, the full spectrum of sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface is there.

Inside the greenhouse, that portion of sun energy in the infrared part of the spectrum is blocked to prevent its entry.

When the sun goes down, the greenhouse takes longer to cool down than outside.

What about "greenhouse effect" from "greenhouse gases".

Radiant energy in the infrared part of the spectrum keeps getting intercepted before it can radiate out into outer space.

Greenhouse gas molecules have bonds that vibrate at infrared frequencies.

The heat being transported as radiation has to run the gauntlet obstacle course before it can get away from the atmosphere.
16-05-2022 03:01
James_
★★★★★
(2149)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat?

Swan, you really should learn what heat is.

Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored.

Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't.

The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually.

.

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk



Your use of the 3 Stooges allows for a valid argument. Your "daddy" sneezed and then your "mommy" got pregnant. And next the stork brought you.
16-05-2022 05:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
James_ wrote:And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity such as F = Gm1m2/r^2

Aside from you saying that I said this, when did I actually say this?

I don't often use the word "heat" because I prefer to use it correctly and only use it when it is the correct word.
16-05-2022 05:11
James_
★★★★★
(2149)
Son, and now I need to ask if you used protection. Her "protection" might not always work. And "heat" is a flow of energy and often winds up with the guy saying "it's not my kid".



IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote:And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity such as F = Gm1m2/r^2

Aside from you saying that I said this, when did I actually say this?

I don't often use the word "heat" because I prefer to use it correctly and only use it when it is the correct word.
16-05-2022 05:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
James_ wrote:
Son, and now I need to ask if you used protection. Her "protection" might not always work. And "heat" is a flow of energy and often winds up with the guy saying "it's not my kid".



IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote:And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity such as F = Gm1m2/r^2

Aside from you saying that I said this, when did I actually say this?

I don't often use the word "heat" because I prefer to use it correctly and only use it when it is the correct word.

Attached image:

16-05-2022 06:47
James_
★★★★★
(2149)
Oh My Putin!!!
Didn't the "We'll pay you to make babies work out?"


IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote:
Son, and now I need to ask if you used protection. Her "protection" might not always work. And "heat" is a flow of energy and often winds up with the guy saying "it's not my kid".



IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote:And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity such as F = Gm1m2/r^2

Aside from you saying that I said this, when did I actually say this?

I don't often use the word "heat" because I prefer to use it correctly and only use it when it is the correct word.
16-05-2022 07:51
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5193)
Im a BM wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat?

Swan, you really should learn what heat is.

Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored.

Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't.

The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually.

.



And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity
such as F = Gm1m2/r^2
It is good to know that people like you understand the basics. After all, even
a baby quits suckling its mother.


Right on, James!

Heat CAN be retained.

There is a reason that it is warmer inside an actual greenhouse than outside.

The infrared radiant energy keeps getting caught up and bouncing back inside, instead of going outside.

The greenhouse temperature rises higher than the outside air, despite having LESS radiant energy come in.

Outside the greenhouse, the full spectrum of sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface is there.

Inside the greenhouse, that portion of sun energy in the infrared part of the spectrum is blocked to prevent its entry.

When the sun goes down, the greenhouse takes longer to cool down than outside.

What about "greenhouse effect" from "greenhouse gases".

Radiant energy in the infrared part of the spectrum keeps getting intercepted before it can radiate out into outer space.

Greenhouse gas molecules have bonds that vibrate at infrared frequencies.

The heat being transported as radiation has to run the gauntlet obstacle course before it can get away from the atmosphere.


Load of manure.. Greenhouse doesn't have wind blowing to dissipate the thermal energy. Augmenting the greenhouse with CO2, since plants really do well with more, than what little is currently available from the atmosphere. Doesn't effect the temperature, over a non-CO2 augmented greenhouse. It's something most people can check out in person, and locally, since CO2 augmentation has been pretty much a commercial standard for decades. Yeah, 1200 ppm makes a huge difference in production and quality.
16-05-2022 13:33
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat?

Swan, you really should learn what heat is.

Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored.

Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't.

The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually.

.



And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity
such as F = Gm1m2/r^2
It is good to know that people like you understand the basics. After all, even
a baby quits suckling its mother.


Gravity does create heat as without gravity the Earth would have no internal friction.
16-05-2022 18:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Im a BM wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat?

Swan, you really should learn what heat is.

Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored.

Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't.

The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually.

.



And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity
such as F = Gm1m2/r^2
It is good to know that people like you understand the basics. After all, even
a baby quits suckling its mother.


Right on, James!

Heat CAN be retained.

It is not possible to trap heat.
Im a BM wrote:
There is a reason that it is warmer inside an actual greenhouse than outside.

Yes. Due to lack of heat.
Im a BM wrote:
The infrared radiant energy keeps getting caught up and bouncing back inside, instead of going outside.

There is no such thing as 'radiant energy'. Greenhouses do not trap light.
Im a BM wrote:
The greenhouse temperature rises higher than the outside air, despite having LESS radiant energy come in.

There is no such thing as radiant energy. Light has no temperature.
Im a BM wrote:
Outside the greenhouse, the full spectrum of sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface is there.

Irrelevant. Light has no temperature.
Im a BM wrote:
Inside the greenhouse, that portion of sun energy in the infrared part of the spectrum is blocked to prevent its entry.

WRONG. Infrared light easily passes through the roof of a greenhouse.
Im a BM wrote:
When the sun goes down, the greenhouse takes longer to cool down than outside.

Due to lack of heat.
Im a BM wrote:
What about "greenhouse effect" from "greenhouse gases".

No gas or vapor has the capability to reduce entropy.
Im a BM wrote:
Radiant energy in the infrared part of the spectrum keeps getting intercepted before it can radiate out into outer space.

You can't heat the surface using a colder gas, dumbass. You are AGAIN discarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Im a BM wrote:
Greenhouse gas molecules have bonds that vibrate at infrared frequencies.

The heat being transported as radiation has to run the gauntlet obstacle course before it can get away from the atmosphere.

You are AGAIN discarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You can't reduce entropy...ever.
You can't trap heat.
You can't trap light.
You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Absorbing UV or visible light does not convert to thermal energy. It converts to chemical energy.

Only infrared light converts to thermal energy upon absorption.


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
16-05-2022 18:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
James_ wrote:
You need to slow down. CO2 = KE.
More CO2 = more KE. More KE = more H2O.
It's warmer in a greenhouse because the wavelength of incoming solar IR has been changed. An increase in water vapor (H2O) will show this.
How can that be demonstrated?


Sorry, dude. There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


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
16-05-2022 19:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Swan wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat?

Swan, you really should learn what heat is.

Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored.

Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't.

The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually.

.



And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity
such as F = Gm1m2/r^2
It is good to know that people like you understand the basics. After all, even
a baby quits suckling its mother.


Gravity does create heat as without gravity the Earth would have no internal friction.

Gravity is not energy. Gravity is not friction. Gravity is not heat.


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 16-05-2022 19:08
16-05-2022 22:32
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat?

Swan, you really should learn what heat is.

Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored.

Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't.

The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually.

.



And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity
such as F = Gm1m2/r^2
It is good to know that people like you understand the basics. After all, even
a baby quits suckling its mother.


Gravity does create heat as without gravity the Earth would have no internal friction.

Gravity is not energy. Gravity is not friction. Gravity is not heat.


Gravity is the universal force that creates energy, friction and heat. In fact without gravity there would be nothing to hold the sun together and as such there would be no sun or earth.

However you know better obviously

Now please grace us with your ignorance
16-05-2022 22:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat?

Swan, you really should learn what heat is.

Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored.

Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't.

The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually.

.



And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity
such as F = Gm1m2/r^2
It is good to know that people like you understand the basics. After all, even
a baby quits suckling its mother.


Gravity does create heat as without gravity the Earth would have no internal friction.

Gravity is not energy. Gravity is not friction. Gravity is not heat.


Gravity is the universal force that creates energy,

Gravity is not the universal force. It is simply a force. It is not possible to create energy out of nothing.
Swan wrote:
friction

Gravity does not create friction.
Swan wrote:
and heat.

Gravity is not heat nor does it heat anything.
Swan wrote:
In fact without gravity there would be nothing to hold the sun together and as such there would be no sun or earth.

So?
Swan wrote:
However you know better obviously

Now please grace us with your ignorance

You seem to think I am denying gravity. Why are you attempting to pivot like this?


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 16-05-2022 22:45
16-05-2022 22:53
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat?

Swan, you really should learn what heat is.

Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored.

Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't.

The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually.

.



And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity
such as F = Gm1m2/r^2
It is good to know that people like you understand the basics. After all, even
a baby quits suckling its mother.


Gravity does create heat as without gravity the Earth would have no internal friction.

Gravity is not energy. Gravity is not friction. Gravity is not heat.


Gravity is the universal force that creates energy,

Gravity is not the universal force. It is simply a force. It is not possible to create energy out of nothing.
Swan wrote:
friction

Gravity does not create friction.
Swan wrote:
and heat.

Gravity is not heat nor does it heat anything.
Swan wrote:
In fact without gravity there would be nothing to hold the sun together and as such there would be no sun or earth.

So?
Swan wrote:
However you know better obviously

Now please grace us with your ignorance

You seem to think I am denying gravity. Why are you attempting to pivot like this?

Gravity is the universal force that creates energy, friction and heat. In fact without gravity there would be nothing to hold the sun together and as such there would be no sun or earth.

However you know better obviously

Now please grace us with your ignorance.

LOL.

gravity, also called gravitation, in mechanics, the universal force of attraction acting between all matter. It is by far the weakest known force in nature and thus plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter. On the other hand, through its long reach and universal action, it controls the trajectories of bodies in the solar system and elsewhere in the universe and the structures and evolution of stars, galaxies, and the whole cosmos. On Earth all bodies have a weight, or downward force of gravity, proportional to their mass, which Earth's mass exerts on them. Gravity is measured by the acceleration that it gives to freely falling objects. At Earth's surface the acceleration of gravity is about 9.8 metres (32 feet) per second per second. Thus, for every second an object is in free fall, its speed increases by about 9.8 metres per second. At the surface of the Moon the acceleration of a freely falling body is about 1.6 metres per second per second.
16-05-2022 23:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Swan wrote:
...deleted mindless repetition...

gravity, also called gravitation,

That's not possible, according to you.
Swan wrote:
in mechanics,

Gravity is not mechanics.
Swan wrote:
the universal force of attraction acting between all matter.

It is by far the weakest known force in nature and thus plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter.

Paradox. You are being irrational again.
Swan wrote:
...deleted incomplete argument...


Gravity is not energy. It does not cause heat. It is not friction. It is not heat.


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 16-05-2022 23:11
16-05-2022 23:31
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
...deleted mindless repetition...

gravity, also called gravitation,

That's not possible, according to you.
Swan wrote:
in mechanics,

Gravity is not mechanics.
Swan wrote:
the universal force of attraction acting between all matter.

It is by far the weakest known force in nature and thus plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter.

Paradox. You are being irrational again.
Swan wrote:
...deleted incomplete argument...


Gravity is not energy. It does not cause heat. It is not friction. It is not heat.


All the fundamental forces of the universe are known to follow the laws of quantum mechanics, save one: gravity. Finding a way to fit gravity into quantum mechanics would bring scientists a giant leap closer to a "theory of everything" that could entirely explain the workings of the cosmos from first principles. A crucial first step in this quest to know whether gravity is quantum is to detect the long-postulated elementary particle of gravity, the graviton. In search of the graviton, physicists are now turning to experiments involving microscopic superconductors, free-falling crystals and the afterglow of the big bang.

Quantum mechanics suggests everything is made of quanta, or packets of energy, that can behave like both a particle and a wave—for instance, quanta of light are called photons. Detecting gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of gravity, would prove gravity is quantum. The problem is that gravity is extraordinarily weak. To directly observe the minuscule effects a graviton would have on matter, physicist Freeman Dyson famously noted, a graviton detector would have to be so massive that it collapses on itself to form a black hole.

"One of the issues with theories of quantum gravity is that their predictions are usually nearly impossible to experimentally test," says quantum physicist Richard Norte of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. "This is the main reason why there exist so many competing theories and why we haven't been successful in understanding how it actually works."

Time is an illusion
RE: Not just hadrons, dark matter and dark energy too..16-05-2022 23:59
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
...deleted mindless repetition...

gravity, also called gravitation,

That's not possible, according to you.
Swan wrote:
in mechanics,

Gravity is not mechanics.
Swan wrote:
the universal force of attraction acting between all matter.

It is by far the weakest known force in nature and thus plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter.

Paradox. You are being irrational again.
Swan wrote:
...deleted incomplete argument...


Gravity is not energy. It does not cause heat. It is not friction. It is not heat.


All the fundamental forces of the universe are known to follow the laws of quantum mechanics, save one: gravity. Finding a way to fit gravity into quantum mechanics would bring scientists a giant leap closer to a "theory of everything" that could entirely explain the workings of the cosmos from first principles. A crucial first step in this quest to know whether gravity is quantum is to detect the long-postulated elementary particle of gravity, the graviton. In search of the graviton, physicists are now turning to experiments involving microscopic superconductors, free-falling crystals and the afterglow of the big bang.

Quantum mechanics suggests everything is made of quanta, or packets of energy, that can behave like both a particle and a wave—for instance, quanta of light are called photons. Detecting gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of gravity, would prove gravity is quantum. The problem is that gravity is extraordinarily weak. To directly observe the minuscule effects a graviton would have on matter, physicist Freeman Dyson famously noted, a graviton detector would have to be so massive that it collapses on itself to form a black hole.

"One of the issues with theories of quantum gravity is that their predictions are usually nearly impossible to experimentally test," says quantum physicist Richard Norte of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. "This is the main reason why there exist so many competing theories and why we haven't been successful in understanding how it actually works."

Time is an illusion


Most of the discussion of physics is focused on that small part of everything in the universe comprised of hadrons. Hadrons include protons, neutrons, electrons, photons other particles in the visible part of the universe.

Gravity interacts with all hadrons.

But as far as universal forces go, gravity ALSO interacts with dark matter and dark energy.

Those two thing comprise the majority of the universe.
17-05-2022 01:12
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
...deleted mindless repetition...

gravity, also called gravitation,

That's not possible, according to you.
Swan wrote:
in mechanics,

Gravity is not mechanics.
Swan wrote:
the universal force of attraction acting between all matter.

It is by far the weakest known force in nature and thus plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter.

Paradox. You are being irrational again.
Swan wrote:
...deleted incomplete argument...


Gravity is not energy. It does not cause heat. It is not friction. It is not heat.


All the fundamental forces of the universe are known to follow the laws of quantum mechanics, save one: gravity. Finding a way to fit gravity into quantum mechanics would bring scientists a giant leap closer to a "theory of everything" that could entirely explain the workings of the cosmos from first principles. A crucial first step in this quest to know whether gravity is quantum is to detect the long-postulated elementary particle of gravity, the graviton. In search of the graviton, physicists are now turning to experiments involving microscopic superconductors, free-falling crystals and the afterglow of the big bang.

Quantum mechanics suggests everything is made of quanta, or packets of energy, that can behave like both a particle and a wave—for instance, quanta of light are called photons. Detecting gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of gravity, would prove gravity is quantum. The problem is that gravity is extraordinarily weak. To directly observe the minuscule effects a graviton would have on matter, physicist Freeman Dyson famously noted, a graviton detector would have to be so massive that it collapses on itself to form a black hole.

"One of the issues with theories of quantum gravity is that their predictions are usually nearly impossible to experimentally test," says quantum physicist Richard Norte of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. "This is the main reason why there exist so many competing theories and why we haven't been successful in understanding how it actually works."

Time is an illusion


Most of the discussion of physics is focused on that small part of everything in the universe comprised of hadrons. Hadrons include protons, neutrons, electrons, photons other particles in the visible part of the universe.

Gravity interacts with all hadrons.

But as far as universal forces go, gravity ALSO interacts with dark matter and dark energy.

Those two thing comprise the majority of the universe.


LOL Dark matter and energy are only called dark because they have never been observed and may not be real. So much dark matter and energy is missing that now some are speculating that the universe is a simulation
18-05-2022 18:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
...deleted mindless repetition...

gravity, also called gravitation,

That's not possible, according to you.
Swan wrote:
in mechanics,

Gravity is not mechanics.
Swan wrote:
the universal force of attraction acting between all matter.

It is by far the weakest known force in nature and thus plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter.

Paradox. You are being irrational again.
Swan wrote:
...deleted incomplete argument...


Gravity is not energy. It does not cause heat. It is not friction. It is not heat.


All the fundamental forces of the universe are known to follow the laws of quantum mechanics, save one: gravity.

Pivot fallacy. Gravity is not energy.
Swan wrote:
Finding a way to fit gravity into quantum mechanics would bring scientists a giant leap closer to a "theory of everything" that could entirely explain the workings of the cosmos from first principles.

There is no 'theory of everything'. A theory is not a Universal Truth.
Swan wrote:
A crucial first step in this quest to know whether gravity is quantum is to detect the long-postulated elementary particle of gravity, the graviton. In search of the graviton, physicists are now turning to experiments involving microscopic superconductors, free-falling crystals and the afterglow of the big bang.

How do you know the Big Bang happened? That's a religion.
Swan wrote:
Quantum mechanics suggests everything is made of quanta, or packets of energy, that can behave like both a particle and a wave—for instance, quanta of light are called photons.

Strawman fallacy.
Swan wrote:
Detecting gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of gravity, would prove gravity is quantum.

No, it wouldn't. It would only be an assignment and wouldn't prove anything. Even the photon is so assigned, and so is the electron. Quantum mechanics is just a theory and a model, nothing more. It is not a proof.
Swan wrote:
The problem is that gravity is extraordinarily weak. To directly observe the minuscule effects a graviton would have on matter, physicist Freeman Dyson famously noted, a graviton detector would have to be so massive that it collapses on itself to form a black hole.

"One of the issues with theories of quantum gravity is that their predictions are usually nearly impossible to experimentally test," says quantum physicist Richard Norte of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. "This is the main reason why there exist so many competing theories and why we haven't been successful in understanding how it actually works."

Which is to say it's not falsifiable.
Swan wrote:
Time is an illusion

Another random wandering. Rejected.

Gravity is not energy. Pivoting into quantum mechanics or talking about time does not change that.

Pivoting like this is a fallacy. You are trying to change the subject.


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
18-05-2022 18:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
...deleted mindless repetition...

gravity, also called gravitation,

That's not possible, according to you.
Swan wrote:
in mechanics,

Gravity is not mechanics.
Swan wrote:
the universal force of attraction acting between all matter.

It is by far the weakest known force in nature and thus plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter.

Paradox. You are being irrational again.
Swan wrote:
...deleted incomplete argument...


Gravity is not energy. It does not cause heat. It is not friction. It is not heat.


All the fundamental forces of the universe are known to follow the laws of quantum mechanics, save one: gravity. Finding a way to fit gravity into quantum mechanics would bring scientists a giant leap closer to a "theory of everything" that could entirely explain the workings of the cosmos from first principles. A crucial first step in this quest to know whether gravity is quantum is to detect the long-postulated elementary particle of gravity, the graviton. In search of the graviton, physicists are now turning to experiments involving microscopic superconductors, free-falling crystals and the afterglow of the big bang.

Quantum mechanics suggests everything is made of quanta, or packets of energy, that can behave like both a particle and a wave—for instance, quanta of light are called photons. Detecting gravitons, the hypothetical quanta of gravity, would prove gravity is quantum. The problem is that gravity is extraordinarily weak. To directly observe the minuscule effects a graviton would have on matter, physicist Freeman Dyson famously noted, a graviton detector would have to be so massive that it collapses on itself to form a black hole.

"One of the issues with theories of quantum gravity is that their predictions are usually nearly impossible to experimentally test," says quantum physicist Richard Norte of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. "This is the main reason why there exist so many competing theories and why we haven't been successful in understanding how it actually works."

Time is an illusion


Most of the discussion of physics is focused on that small part of everything in the universe comprised of hadrons. Hadrons include protons, neutrons, electrons, photons other particles in the visible part of the universe.

Gravity interacts with all hadrons.

Protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, and gravity are not visible.
Im a BM wrote:
But as far as universal forces go,

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
gravity ALSO interacts with dark matter and dark energy.

Buzzword fallacies. Define 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'. You are wandering into another religion.
Im a BM wrote:
Those two thing comprise the majority of the universe.

How do you know? Can you see them? If they are 'dark', how do you know they exist?


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
RE: for Roj47514-08-2022 09:16
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
for Roj475

another major area that might be of interest for discussion, rather than "debate".


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



sealover wrote:
Nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems to maximize carbon sequestration into soil organic matter, and minimize emissions of nitrous oxide. Tannin (aka polyphenol) chemical ecology provides insights into biogeochemical mechanisms that regulate carbon and nitrogen cycling.

The convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities has occurred on highly-infertile soils throughout the world. To acquire and conserve nitrogen, these plants allocate much of their organic carbon below ground to support symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi associated with their roots. Tannins in plant litter form recalcitrant complexes with protein, immobilizing this organic form of nitrogen and preventing mineralization. Mycorrhizal fungi produce enzymes that mobilize nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes, which is transferred directly to the root in organic nitrogen form. This short circuiting of the mineralization step in the nitrogen cycle prevents emission of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere, and prevents export of nitrate to groundwater or surface water. Allocation of photosynthate below ground to support mycorrhizal fungi also enhances sequestration of carbon into soil organic matter.

Tannins inhibit the oxidation of ammonium in soil to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria. This minimizes nitrous oxide emission as a by product of microbial nitrate reduction. Nitrogen release from tannin-rich litter is predominantly in the form of dissolved organic nitrogen rather than ammonium or nitrate. Dissolved organic nitrogen adsorbs to soil organic matter, minimizing leaching loss of nitrogen and retaining it in slow release form.

Tannins inhibit the decomposition of organic matter to substantially increase its mean residence in or above the soil. In the most extreme cases, equatorial rainforests form massive litter layers over acid white sand soils that are virtually devoid of nutrients or roots. One- or two-meters thick layers of litter in various stages of decomposition can accumulate above the mineral soil surface. This is despite warm, wet, well drained conditions that favor rapid decomposition. Exceptionally high tannin content in the vegetation of these forests enables them to create an enduring layer of organic matter above the soil surface, where virtually all the root growth and nutrient cycling occurs with high efficiency, and negligible losses.

Tannins themselves are the dominant substrate that transforms into soil humic acids. Humic acids enhance soil fertility in many ways, and their mean residence time in soil can be many centuries long. Tannins can comprise more than half the dry weight in foliage of tannin-rich species, and much of this represents sequestered carbon that will remain for a long time as stable soil organic matter.

We may not want to create thick litter layers above the topsoil in all our croplands. But polyphenol biogeochemistry can still be applied to increase carbon sequestration and decrease nitrous oxide emission. For example, tannin-rich organic matter can be combined with more rapidly decomposable crop residues or manure to slow decomposition and immobilize nitrogen into slowly mineralized organic form, as compost. Crop-mycorrhizal associations could be facilitated to sequester carbon and access recalcitrant soil nitrogen.
14-08-2022 18:25
James_
★★★★★
(2149)
If my experiment shows that CO2 directly supports recovery of the ozone layer then carbon sequestration would need to be a reversible process. This is because if
ODSs are not reduced then where would gasses for the ozone layer come from?

quoting NOAA who is quoting the IPCC;
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.



Im a BM wrote:
for Roj475

another major area that might be of interest for discussion, rather than "debate".


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



sealover wrote:
Nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems to maximize carbon sequestration into soil organic matter, and minimize emissions of nitrous oxide.
14-08-2022 21:37
James_
★★★★★
(2149)
If we consider a greenhouse, it slows light. This means that its amplitude increases. With a prism, it refracts light creating many paths of less amplitude.
This would give heat radiated from a greenhouse barrier a red shift. And with the material they use when it is filled with energy moving in one direction then that would make it difficult for energy of a different frequency to flow against incoming heat. The partition becomes a radiant barrier.
With the mesopause, it is cold just as the tropopause is. When clouds try to move up into the the tropopause, they rarely can. Can you imagine heat being turned away by cold? That is what happens. And this can actually slow the heat trying to radiate from the Earth by means of convection or conduction.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Van Allen radiation belts but they trap charged particles in the solar wind. It's possible that the tropopause and its unique behavior is an attribute of the Earth's geomagnetic field as well.
With the tropopause, it is distinctly different from both the troposphere and the stratosphere.


Im a BM wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat?

Swan, you really should learn what heat is.

Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored.

Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't.

The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually.

.



And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity
such as F = Gm1m2/r^2
It is good to know that people like you understand the basics. After all, even
a baby quits suckling its mother.


Right on, James!

Heat CAN be retained.

There is a reason that it is warmer inside an actual greenhouse than outside.

The infrared radiant energy keeps getting caught up and bouncing back inside, instead of going outside.

The greenhouse temperature rises higher than the outside air, despite having LESS radiant energy come in.

Outside the greenhouse, the full spectrum of sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface is there.

Inside the greenhouse, that portion of sun energy in the infrared part of the spectrum is blocked to prevent its entry.

When the sun goes down, the greenhouse takes longer to cool down than outside.

What about "greenhouse effect" from "greenhouse gases".

Radiant energy in the infrared part of the spectrum keeps getting intercepted before it can radiate out into outer space.

Greenhouse gas molecules have bonds that vibrate at infrared frequencies.

The heat being transported as radiation has to run the gauntlet obstacle course before it can get away from the atmosphere.
15-08-2022 01:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
James_ wrote:
If we consider a greenhouse, it slows light.

It does not slow light.
James_ wrote:
This means that its amplitude increases.

Amplitude is not speed.
James_ wrote:
With a prism, it refracts light creating many paths of less amplitude.

It is not a prism.
James_ wrote:
This would give heat radiated from a greenhouse barrier a red shift.

JamesBabble.
James_ wrote:
And with the material they use when it is filled with energy moving in one direction then that would make it difficult for energy of a different frequency to flow against incoming heat.

Energy is not a frequency. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
James_ wrote:
The partition becomes a radiant barrier.

Then nothing comes into the greenhouse.
James_ wrote:
With the mesopause, it is cold just as the tropopause is.

Colder, actually.
James_ wrote:
When clouds try to move up into the the tropopause, they rarely can.

They often do, and even form in the stratosphere.
James_ wrote:
Can you imagine heat being turned away by cold?

No.
James_ wrote:
That is what happens. And this can actually slow the heat trying to radiate from the Earth by means of convection or conduction.

Convection isn't radiance. Conduction isn't radiance. You cannot slow or trap heat.
James_ wrote:
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Van Allen radiation belts but they trap charged particles in the solar wind. It's possible that the tropopause and its unique behavior is an attribute of the Earth's geomagnetic field as well.

it is not magnetic.
James_ wrote:
With the tropopause, it is distinctly different from both the troposphere and the stratosphere.

Nope. It has properties of both.


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
15-08-2022 03:45
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
James_ wrote:
If we consider a greenhouse, it slows light. This means that its amplitude increases. With a prism, it refracts light creating many paths of less amplitude.
This would give heat radiated from a greenhouse barrier a red shift. And with the material they use when it is filled with energy moving in one direction then that would make it difficult for energy of a different frequency to flow against incoming heat. The partition becomes a radiant barrier.
With the mesopause, it is cold just as the tropopause is. When clouds try to move up into the the tropopause, they rarely can. Can you imagine heat being turned away by cold? That is what happens. And this can actually slow the heat trying to radiate from the Earth by means of convection or conduction.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Van Allen radiation belts but they trap charged particles in the solar wind. It's possible that the tropopause and its unique behavior is an attribute of the Earth's geomagnetic field as well.
With the tropopause, it is distinctly different from both the troposphere and the stratosphere.


Im a BM wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Then why does the atmosphere of the Earth retain heat?

Swan, you really should learn what heat is.

Heat cannot be retained, contained, held, captured, imprisoned or stored.

Whoever baffled you with Global Warming booolsch't was merely manipulating you by your inability to call him/her/them on his/her/their booolsch't.

The atmosphere is part of the earth. It is pointless to discuss only the atmosphere without including the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. When you discuss the planet as a whole, it is in equilibrium; at any given moment, just as much energy is leaving the planet as is being absorbed. It does not matter what is going on in one part individually.

.



And now you're saying heat is generated from terrestrial forces like gravity
such as F = Gm1m2/r^2
It is good to know that people like you understand the basics. After all, even
a baby quits suckling its mother.


Right on, James!

Heat CAN be retained.

There is a reason that it is warmer inside an actual greenhouse than outside.

The infrared radiant energy keeps getting caught up and bouncing back inside, instead of going outside.

The greenhouse temperature rises higher than the outside air, despite having LESS radiant energy come in.

Outside the greenhouse, the full spectrum of sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface is there.

Inside the greenhouse, that portion of sun energy in the infrared part of the spectrum is blocked to prevent its entry.

When the sun goes down, the greenhouse takes longer to cool down than outside.

What about "greenhouse effect" from "greenhouse gases".

Radiant energy in the infrared part of the spectrum keeps getting intercepted before it can radiate out into outer space.

Greenhouse gas molecules have bonds that vibrate at infrared frequencies.

The heat being transported as radiation has to run the gauntlet obstacle course before it can get away from the atmosphere.


If you have pills now would be a great time to take them, preferably with grain alcohol


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
15-08-2022 05:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
James_ wrote:If we consider a greenhouse, it slows light.

To how much below the speed of light does a greenhouse slow light?

James_ wrote: This means that its amplitude increases.

When I slow down, does my amplitude increase?

James_ wrote:This would give heat radiated from a greenhouse barrier a red shift.

Heat is not radiated. Learn what heat is,

James_ wrote:And with the material they use when it is filled with energy moving in one direction then that would make it difficult for energy of a different frequency to flow against incoming heat.

I need a moment to catch my breath on this one.

James_ wrote:The partition becomes a radiant barrier.

What's the barrier's amplitude when it is filled with energy moving in one direction? Wouldn't the heat radiated at a different frequency cause the material to red-shift the light slower than the speed of light, at least while it's in the greenhouse?

James_ wrote: With the mesopause, it is cold just as the tropopause is.

It's the revenge layer of the atmosphere, best served cold.

James_ wrote:When clouds try to move up into the the tropopause, they rarely can.

Their amplitude is slowed.

James_ wrote:Can you imagine heat being turned away by cold?

This gets into poetry. Edmund Spenser's work applies here:

My Love is Like to Ice, and I to Fire
by Edmund Spenser

My Love is like to ice, and I to fire:
How comes it then that this her cold so great
Is not dissolved through my so hot desire,
But harder grows the more I her entreat?
Or how comes it that my exceeding heat
Is not allayed by her heart-frozen cold,
But that I burn much more in boiling sweat,
And feel my flames augmented manifold?
What more miraculous thing may be told,
That fire, which all things melts, should harden ice,
And ice, which is congeal'd with senseless cold,
Should kindle fire by wonderful device?
Such is the power of love in gentle mind,
That it can alter all the course of kind.


Robert Frost built upon Spenser's work and fleshed out these concepts:

Fire And Ice
by Robert Frost

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.


James_ wrote:That is what happens. And this can actually slow the heat trying to radiate from the Earth by means of convection or conduction.

Actually, the vacuum of space puts the kibosh on all convection and conduction. Reduces it to zero.

James_ wrote: I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Van Allen radiation belts but they trap charged particles in the solar wind.

It's how they make the formaldehyde that they pump into the troposphere.

Hey, I heard you found the ozone hole, right over the Norwegian jet stream. I guess it's true that the ozone hole is always in the last place that you look.
Attached image:

RE: stratospheric cooling and denitrification18-08-2022 20:00
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
James_ wrote:
If my experiment shows that CO2 directly supports recovery of the ozone layer then carbon sequestration would need to be a reversible process. This is because if
ODSs are not reduced then where would gasses for the ozone layer come from?

quoting NOAA who is quoting the IPCC;
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4.



Im a BM wrote:
for Roj475

another major area that might be of interest for discussion, rather than "debate".


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



sealover wrote:
Nutrient cycling dynamics of natural ecosystems can be mimicked in cropping systems to maximize carbon sequestration into soil organic matter, and minimize emissions of nitrous oxide.



James, you might want to check something out before you submit your paper for review.

From the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics volume 17 12893-12910

This 2017 paper by Khosrawi et al is titled "Denitrification, dehydration and ozone loss during the 2015/2016 Artic winter."

The first sentence of the abstract:

"The 2015/2016 Artic winter was one of the coldest stratospheric winters in recent years."

While surface temperatures were setting new records for the warmest years, the stratosphere was setting new records for coldest winters.

When the stratosphere gets cold enough, tiny droplets of liquid nitric acid can freeze and fall toward the surface. This is called "denitrification".

Apparently there is no "unambiguous definition" for the term (making it a "buzzword"?), because "denitrification" ALSO means microbial nitrate reduction to form nitrogen gas, and by product nitrous oxide.

"Denitrification" in soil and water at the earth's surface is the largest source of nitrous oxide emitted to the atmosphere.

As you note, nitrous oxide plays a role in the stratosphere.

With a very powerful oxidant such as ozone around, nitrous oxide can oxidize to form nitric acid, taking ozone out in the process.

With stratospheric temperatures setting new records for COLD winters, nitric acid gets more opportunities to freeze. Other ozone destroying agents get caught up in the nitric acid ice crystals as they form.

By some accounts, THIS is what has enabled the ozone layer to recover.

I encourage you to study up a bit on stratospheric denitrification, which happens when some of that nitric acid freezes.

It might help you complete the puzzle you are working on.
19-08-2022 00:15
James_
★★★★★
(2149)
Im a BM wrote:


James, you might want to check something out before you submit your paper for review.

From the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics volume 17 12893-12910

This 2017 paper by Khosrawi et al is titled "Denitrification, dehydration and ozone loss during the 2015/2016 Artic winter."

The first sentence of the abstract:

"The 2015/2016 Artic winter was one of the coldest stratospheric winters in recent years."

While surface temperatures were setting new records for the warmest years, the stratosphere was setting new records for coldest winters.

When the stratosphere gets cold enough, tiny droplets of liquid nitric acid can freeze and fall toward the surface. This is called "denitrification".

Apparently there is no "unambiguous definition" for the term (making it a "buzzword"?), because "denitrification" ALSO means microbial nitrate reduction to form nitrogen gas, and by product nitrous oxide.

"Denitrification" in soil and water at the earth's surface is the largest source of nitrous oxide emitted to the atmosphere.

As you note, nitrous oxide plays a role in the stratosphere.

With a very powerful oxidant such as ozone around, nitrous oxide can oxidize to form nitric acid, taking ozone out in the process.

With stratospheric temperatures setting new records for COLD winters, nitric acid gets more opportunities to freeze. Other ozone destroying agents get caught up in the nitric acid ice crystals as they form.

By some accounts, THIS is what has enabled the ozone layer to recover.

I encourage you to study up a bit on stratospheric denitrification, which happens when some of that nitric acid freezes.

It might help you complete the puzzle you are working on.



I'd be getting sidetracked with that. A sidetrack is when they want a train to pull off the main line so that another train can pass it. They also said

The low temperatures in the polar stratosphere persisted until early March, allowing chlorine activation and catalytic ozone destruction.

What my experiment is about is determining the specific cause of recovery of the ozone layer. And while N2O decreases the amount of ozone, the source of the ozone allows for more ozone than it does for N2O so there is a net gain.
Edited on 19-08-2022 00:16
19-08-2022 02:24
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
James_ wrote:
Im a BM wrote:


James, you might want to check something out before you submit your paper for review.

From the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics volume 17 12893-12910

This 2017 paper by Khosrawi et al is titled "Denitrification, dehydration and ozone loss during the 2015/2016 Artic winter."

The first sentence of the abstract:

"The 2015/2016 Artic winter was one of the coldest stratospheric winters in recent years."

While surface temperatures were setting new records for the warmest years, the stratosphere was setting new records for coldest winters.

When the stratosphere gets cold enough, tiny droplets of liquid nitric acid can freeze and fall toward the surface. This is called "denitrification".

Apparently there is no "unambiguous definition" for the term (making it a "buzzword"?), because "denitrification" ALSO means microbial nitrate reduction to form nitrogen gas, and by product nitrous oxide.

"Denitrification" in soil and water at the earth's surface is the largest source of nitrous oxide emitted to the atmosphere.

As you note, nitrous oxide plays a role in the stratosphere.

With a very powerful oxidant such as ozone around, nitrous oxide can oxidize to form nitric acid, taking ozone out in the process.

With stratospheric temperatures setting new records for COLD winters, nitric acid gets more opportunities to freeze. Other ozone destroying agents get caught up in the nitric acid ice crystals as they form.

By some accounts, THIS is what has enabled the ozone layer to recover.

I encourage you to study up a bit on stratospheric denitrification, which happens when some of that nitric acid freezes.

It might help you complete the puzzle you are working on.



I'd be getting sidetracked with that. A sidetrack is when they want a train to pull off the main line so that another train can pass it. They also said

The low temperatures in the polar stratosphere persisted until early March, allowing chlorine activation and catalytic ozone destruction.

What my experiment is about is determining the specific cause of recovery of the ozone layer. And while N2O decreases the amount of ozone, the source of the ozone allows for more ozone than it does for N2O so there is a net gain.


Can you tell us how you experimented with the ozone layer and how you tracked these experiments that were located at an altitude of 10 to 25 miles high?


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
19-08-2022 03:27
James_
★★★★★
(2149)
Swan wrote:

Can you tell us how you experimented with the ozone layer and how you tracked these experiments that were located at an altitude of 10 to 25 miles high?



I haven't yet. I am pursing my own research. On my website I cited quite a few research papers that involved a large number of scientists. They do go into detail
about their research and some of what their research was based on.
It's a common practice and it's not finger pointing or name calling. It's in a way adding to previous research.
19-08-2022 06:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
James_ wrote:
Swan wrote:

Can you tell us how you experimented with the ozone layer and how you tracked these experiments that were located at an altitude of 10 to 25 miles high?



I haven't yet. I am pursing my own research. On my website I cited quite a few research papers that involved a large number of scientists. They do go into detail
about their research and some of what their research was based on.
It's a common practice and it's not finger pointing or name calling. It's in a way adding to previous research.

I wish you the best in your research. I recommend you brush up on recognizing physics violations so that you can reason why others had to abandon their research ... so that you don't have to.
Attached image:

19-08-2022 07:16
James_
★★★★★
(2149)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote:
Swan wrote:

Can you tell us how you experimented with the ozone layer and how you tracked these experiments that were located at an altitude of 10 to 25 miles high?



I haven't yet. I am pursing my own research. On my website I cited quite a few research papers that involved a large number of scientists. They do go into detail
about their research and some of what their research was based on.
It's a common practice and it's not finger pointing or name calling. It's in a way adding to previous research.

I wish you the best in your research. I recommend you brush up on recognizing physics violations so that you can reason why others had to abandon their research ... so that you don't have to.



Thanks. The IPCC made an observation. They failed to explain it. Neither photolytics nor the halogen process allows for the IPCC's observations. The purpose of science is to understand what is observed but is not understood.
The real question is "why is the IPCC doing nothing?". It is their job to make
sense of their observations. NOAA is not trying to understand this. Why?
I'd like to have a life in the U.S. but my hearing loss will not allow it. Why?

Just 2 B clear, there are no known sources of CH4 and CO2 in the stratosphere.
What in the troposphere can allow for those 2 gasses as well as oxygen? It does need to be a source in the troposphere. See how simple that became?
Edited on 19-08-2022 07:46
19-08-2022 14:07
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
James_ wrote:
Swan wrote:

Can you tell us how you experimented with the ozone layer and how you tracked these experiments that were located at an altitude of 10 to 25 miles high?



I haven't yet. I am pursing my own research. On my website I cited quite a few research papers that involved a large number of scientists. They do go into detail
about their research and some of what their research was based on.
It's a common practice and it's not finger pointing or name calling. It's in a way adding to previous research.


Liar as what you said is this and I quote "What my experiment is about is determining the specific cause of recovery of the ozone layer. And while N2O decreases the amount of ozone, the source of the ozone allows for more ozone than it does for N2O so there is a net gain."

So again tell us how you are currently experimenting with the ozone layer that begins at 10 miles high?

So do you have any extra happy pills?


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
19-08-2022 23:32
James_
★★★★★
(2149)
Swan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Swan wrote:

Can you tell us how you experimented with the ozone layer and how you tracked these experiments that were located at an altitude of 10 to 25 miles high?



I haven't yet. I am pursing my own research. On my website I cited quite a few research papers that involved a large number of scientists. They do go into detail
about their research and some of what their research was based on.
It's a common practice and it's not finger pointing or name calling. It's in a way adding to previous research.


Liar as what you said is this and I quote "What my experiment is about is determining the specific cause of recovery of the ozone layer. And while N2O decreases the amount of ozone, the source of the ozone allows for more ozone than it does for N2O so there is a net gain."

So again tell us how you are currently experimenting with the ozone layer that begins at 10 miles high?

So do you have any extra happy pills?



I am not currently experimenting.
20-08-2022 04:47
James_
★★★★★
(2149)
Observations made in the upper atmosphere are usually made by satellite. With my experiment,
a weather balloon will do. Then the photolytic and halogen processes will be eliminated if any interactions are observed. This is because a weather balloon will create a field where the gasses
in that field will not mix with other gasses that could contaminate the experiment.
20-08-2022 05:17
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5193)
James_ wrote:
Observations made in the upper atmosphere are usually made by satellite. With my experiment,
a weather balloon will do. Then the photolytic and halogen processes will be eliminated if any interactions are observed. This is because a weather balloon will create a field where the gasses
in that field will not mix with other gasses that could contaminate the experiment.


I don't think a weather balloon has enough lift, to raise a Bessler Wheel off the ground. Much less the upper atmosphere.
20-08-2022 07:38
James_
★★★★★
(2149)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James_ wrote:
Observations made in the upper atmosphere are usually made by satellite. With my experiment,
a weather balloon will do. Then the photolytic and halogen processes will be eliminated if any interactions are observed. This is because a weather balloon will create a field where the gasses
in that field will not mix with other gasses that could contaminate the experiment.


I don't think a weather balloon has enough lift, to raise a Bessler Wheel off the ground. Much less the upper atmosphere.


And yet if I am able to move to another country and have a good life people will wonder why I'm not allowed to have a life in the US. I hear it's because I don't think and talk the right way.
And if I say the IPCC should've been doing the research that I'm pursuing, then once again you'll say I don't think and talk the right way. You're a Christian, right?
20-08-2022 09:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14373)
James_ wrote:And if I say the IPCC should've been doing the research that I'm pursuing, then once again you'll say I don't think and talk the right way.

If you say the IPCC should've been doing the research that you're pursuing, you would be mistaken for believing that the IPCC ever did any research or that research was somehow their charter.

The IPCC is a propaganda outfit.

20-08-2022 13:59
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
James_ wrote:
Observations made in the upper atmosphere are usually made by satellite. With my experiment,
a weather balloon will do. Then the photolytic and halogen processes will be eliminated if any interactions are observed. This is because a weather balloon will create a field where the gasses
in that field will not mix with other gasses that could contaminate the experiment.


A delusion of grandeur is the false belief in one's own superiority, greatness, or intelligence. People experiencing delusions of grandeur do not just have high self-esteem; instead, they believe in their own greatness and importance even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Someone might, for example, believe they are destined to be the leader of the world, despite having no leadership experience and difficulties in interpersonal relationships. Delusions of grandeur are characterized by their persistence. They are not just moments of fantasy or hopes for the future.

SYMPTOMS OF DELUSION OF GRANDEUR
Delusions of grandeur vary greatly in their content, but they are similar to one another in that they involve the persistent believe in one's own grandiosity. Common examples of delusions of grandeur include:

Belief that one has a special relationship with a supernatural entity or that they can control weather satellites by telepathy. Cult leaders, for example, might believe they can communicate with a god or that they are a manifestation of a god on earth.
Belief that one has a special relationship with a famous person or authority figure, such as the president.
Belief that one has a unique destiny. These destinies often involve power, fame, fortune, or supernatural concepts.


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Page 11 of 21<<<910111213>>>





Join the debate Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers106-07-2023 23:52
Uses for solid carbon3006-07-2023 23:51
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands9623-06-2023 14:49
Biden wants to force 'carbon capture'821-06-2023 12:55
Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change5216-06-2023 09:44
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact