Remember me
▼ Content

The Atmosphere's Ability to Absorb and Release Heat



Page 4 of 4<<<234
20-05-2017 04:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:

You're a troll. You only attack people because they're not you.

@All, have better things to do. As Wake said,, he better like what I post. As for everybody else, maybe he doesn't think you're smart enough to read between the lines.


There you go crying again. Unfortunately you aren't smart enough to READ THE LINES. I have given enough references so that you could learn something. Instead of learning you are simply refusing to learn because you'd rather invent an insult where none was.
20-05-2017 13:54
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:

You're a troll. You only attack people because they're not you.

@All, have better things to do. As Wake said,, he better like what I post. As for everybody else, maybe he doesn't think you're smart enough to read between the lines.


There you go crying again. Unfortunately you aren't smart enough to READ THE LINES. I have given enough references so that you could learn something. Instead of learning you are simply refusing to learn because you'd rather invent an insult where none was.


Post the math to show if I am right or wrong about Conservation of Momentum. If you can't then all you are is a cyber bully.
20-05-2017 17:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:

You're a troll. You only attack people because they're not you.

@All, have better things to do. As Wake said,, he better like what I post. As for everybody else, maybe he doesn't think you're smart enough to read between the lines.


There you go crying again. Unfortunately you aren't smart enough to READ THE LINES. I have given enough references so that you could learn something. Instead of learning you are simply refusing to learn because you'd rather invent an insult where none was.


Post the math to show if I am right or wrong about Conservation of Momentum. If you can't then all you are is a cyber bully.


I just gave you a reference to it from your heroes at NASA. But apparently you cannot even read. "cyber bully" huh? Are you going to tell the teacher? What do you do when she tells you to actually read what is being written?
20-05-2017 18:31
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:

You're a troll. You only attack people because they're not you.

@All, have better things to do. As Wake said,, he better like what I post. As for everybody else, maybe he doesn't think you're smart enough to read between the lines.


There you go crying again. Unfortunately you aren't smart enough to READ THE LINES. I have given enough references so that you could learn something. Instead of learning you are simply refusing to learn because you'd rather invent an insult where none was.


Post the math to show if I am right or wrong about Conservation of Momentum. If you can't then all you are is a cyber bully.


I just gave you a reference to it from your heroes at NASA. But apparently you cannot even read. "cyber bully" huh? Are you going to tell the teacher? What do you do when she tells you to actually read what is being written?


If you can't show me the math then just say you can't show it.
20-05-2017 22:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:

You're a troll. You only attack people because they're not you.

@All, have better things to do. As Wake said,, he better like what I post. As for everybody else, maybe he doesn't think you're smart enough to read between the lines.


There you go crying again. Unfortunately you aren't smart enough to READ THE LINES. I have given enough references so that you could learn something. Instead of learning you are simply refusing to learn because you'd rather invent an insult where none was.


Post the math to show if I am right or wrong about Conservation of Momentum. If you can't then all you are is a cyber bully.


I just gave you a reference to it from your heroes at NASA. But apparently you cannot even read. "cyber bully" huh? Are you going to tell the teacher? What do you do when she tells you to actually read what is being written?


If you can't show me the math then just say you can't show it.


So who exactly is the troll now?

- (delta pressure/delta time) = (density) x (velocity) x (delta velocity/delta distance)

OK, now tell us what it means.
20-05-2017 23:34
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:

You're a troll. You only attack people because they're not you.

@All, have better things to do. As Wake said,, he better like what I post. As for everybody else, maybe he doesn't think you're smart enough to read between the lines.


There you go crying again. Unfortunately you aren't smart enough to READ THE LINES. I have given enough references so that you could learn something. Instead of learning you are simply refusing to learn because you'd rather invent an insult where none was.


Post the math to show if I am right or wrong about Conservation of Momentum. If you can't then all you are is a cyber bully.


I just gave you a reference to it from your heroes at NASA. But apparently you cannot even read. "cyber bully" huh? Are you going to tell the teacher? What do you do when she tells you to actually read what is being written?


If you can't show me the math then just say you can't show it.


So who exactly is the troll now?

- (delta pressure/delta time) = (density) x (velocity) x (delta velocity/delta distance)

OK, now tell us what it means.


More games. Still trolling I see. You're a loser in my opinion.

@All,
It is strange that someone is trying to prove I am ignorant of science while claiming to be my adviser. You know, I know nothing about Conservation of momentum while trying to say he is going to teach me about it.
Edited on 20-05-2017 23:41
20-05-2017 23:44
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
And what is odd is he wants me to keep pursuing my experiment while he's claiming to teach me. The experiment is already posted so there is no reason for him to keep harassing me.
20-05-2017 23:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:

You're a troll. You only attack people because they're not you.

@All, have better things to do. As Wake said,, he better like what I post. As for everybody else, maybe he doesn't think you're smart enough to read between the lines.


There you go crying again. Unfortunately you aren't smart enough to READ THE LINES. I have given enough references so that you could learn something. Instead of learning you are simply refusing to learn because you'd rather invent an insult where none was.


Post the math to show if I am right or wrong about Conservation of Momentum. If you can't then all you are is a cyber bully.


I just gave you a reference to it from your heroes at NASA. But apparently you cannot even read. "cyber bully" huh? Are you going to tell the teacher? What do you do when she tells you to actually read what is being written?


If you can't show me the math then just say you can't show it.


So who exactly is the troll now?

- (delta pressure/delta time) = (density) x (velocity) x (delta velocity/delta distance)

OK, now tell us what it means.


More games. Still trolling I see. You're a loser in my opinion.

@All,
It is strange that someone is trying to prove I am ignorant of science while claiming to be my adviser. You know, I know nothing about Conservation of momentum while trying to say he is going to teach me about it.


What I am trying to prove is that there is something wrong with your ideas of an experiment if you cannot understand what you are trying to demonstrate.
21-05-2017 00:39
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

What I am trying to prove is that there is something wrong with your ideas of an experiment if you cannot understand what you are trying to demonstrate.


I know what it's about. It's like you said, I shouldn't post in here because all you're going to do is to try dominating me.
You want to be my adviser but don't need one. If the scientist at the University of Kentucky tries it and it works then it's his experiment. It's one thing to understand the basic idea and it's something different to be able to write a paper that would be accepted by the scientific community.
Then after that there would be more research. Kind of why a scientist should be involved with the experiment.

Jim
21-05-2017 01:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

What I am trying to prove is that there is something wrong with your ideas of an experiment if you cannot understand what you are trying to demonstrate.


I know what it's about. It's like you said, I shouldn't post in here because all you're going to do is to try dominating me.
You want to be my adviser but don't need one. If the scientist at the University of Kentucky tries it and it works then it's his experiment. It's one thing to understand the basic idea and it's something different to be able to write a paper that would be accepted by the scientific community.
Then after that there would be more research. Kind of why a scientist should be involved with the experiment.

Jim


I'm trying to get through to you but it's like talking to a wall. What sort of baby are you that you believe someone is "trying to dominate" you? YOU came on this site. You put your ideas out there for everyone to comment on. I commented on them - I explained that you were making basic mistakes. You then came out with the "conservation of momentum" business and I explained that this has to do with the actions of heat in the atmosphere via conduction and had nothing to do with radiation.

The MEANS by which CO2 is claimed to increase global warming is through radiation. Because it has more or less similar responses to conduction as all other components of the atmosphere.

So conservation of momentum could have nothing whatsoever to do with the claimed Greenhouse Effect.

You complained that you were being attacked by others as well. Perhaps you ought to think about that. If you are unwilling to learn you simply look like one of the religious True Believers that have no knowledge and believe with pure faith.

I really couldn't care less if you are alive or dead. But if you come on this discussion group and make a comment don't expect that other people are going to allow you to make any stupid comment that might come to your mind.

I would suggest that you try to pin down your "scientist" at the University of Kentucky. But perhaps you wouldn't like the result. He might try to dominate you.
21-05-2017 02:13
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

What I am trying to prove is that there is something wrong with your ideas of an experiment if you cannot understand what you are trying to demonstrate.


I know what it's about. It's like you said, I shouldn't post in here because all you're going to do is to try dominating me.
You want to be my adviser but don't need one. If the scientist at the University of Kentucky tries it and it works then it's his experiment. It's one thing to understand the basic idea and it's something different to be able to write a paper that would be accepted by the scientific community.
Then after that there would be more research. Kind of why a scientist should be involved with the experiment.

Jim


I'm trying to get through to you but it's like talking to a wall. What sort of baby are you that you believe someone is "trying to dominate" you? YOU came on this site. You put your ideas out there for everyone to comment on. I commented on them - I explained that you were making basic mistakes. You then came out with the "conservation of momentum" business and I explained that this has to do with the actions of heat in the atmosphere via conduction and had nothing to do with radiation.

The MEANS by which CO2 is claimed to increase global warming is through radiation. Because it has more or less similar responses to conduction as all other components of the atmosphere.

So conservation of momentum could have nothing whatsoever to do with the claimed Greenhouse Effect.

You complained that you were being attacked by others as well. Perhaps you ought to think about that. If you are unwilling to learn you simply look like one of the religious True Believers that have no knowledge and believe with pure faith.

I really couldn't care less if you are alive or dead. But if you come on this discussion group and make a comment don't expect that other people are going to allow you to make any stupid comment that might come to your mind.

I would suggest that you try to pin down your "scientist" at the University of Kentucky. But perhaps you wouldn't like the result. He might try to dominate you.


I think you're mentally ill. You're first two sentences suggest it. Just because I'm posting in this forum it doesn't give you the right to be abusive towards me or expect me to accept what you say.
Any more I would say you need counseling.
21-05-2017 02:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

What I am trying to prove is that there is something wrong with your ideas of an experiment if you cannot understand what you are trying to demonstrate.


I know what it's about. It's like you said, I shouldn't post in here because all you're going to do is to try dominating me.
You want to be my adviser but don't need one. If the scientist at the University of Kentucky tries it and it works then it's his experiment. It's one thing to understand the basic idea and it's something different to be able to write a paper that would be accepted by the scientific community.
Then after that there would be more research. Kind of why a scientist should be involved with the experiment.

Jim


I'm trying to get through to you but it's like talking to a wall. What sort of baby are you that you believe someone is "trying to dominate" you? YOU came on this site. You put your ideas out there for everyone to comment on. I commented on them - I explained that you were making basic mistakes. You then came out with the "conservation of momentum" business and I explained that this has to do with the actions of heat in the atmosphere via conduction and had nothing to do with radiation.

The MEANS by which CO2 is claimed to increase global warming is through radiation. Because it has more or less similar responses to conduction as all other components of the atmosphere.

So conservation of momentum could have nothing whatsoever to do with the claimed Greenhouse Effect.

You complained that you were being attacked by others as well. Perhaps you ought to think about that. If you are unwilling to learn you simply look like one of the religious True Believers that have no knowledge and believe with pure faith.

I really couldn't care less if you are alive or dead. But if you come on this discussion group and make a comment don't expect that other people are going to allow you to make any stupid comment that might come to your mind.

I would suggest that you try to pin down your "scientist" at the University of Kentucky. But perhaps you wouldn't like the result. He might try to dominate you.


I think you're mentally ill. You're first two sentences suggest it. Just because I'm posting in this forum it doesn't give you the right to be abusive towards me or expect me to accept what you say.
Any more I would say you need counseling.


I thought that you said that if you couldn't block me out that you would leave this site?
29-06-2017 01:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:

You're a troll. You only attack people because they're not you.

@All, have better things to do. As Wake said,, he better like what I post. As for everybody else, maybe he doesn't think you're smart enough to read between the lines.


There you go crying again. Unfortunately you aren't smart enough to READ THE LINES. I have given enough references so that you could learn something. Instead of learning you are simply refusing to learn because you'd rather invent an insult where none was.


Post the math to show if I am right or wrong about Conservation of Momentum. If you can't then all you are is a cyber bully.


I am new to this thread and take it that it has wander off into the normal gibberish of denial from all sides.

What is it about conservation of momentum that is interesting?

Thanks.
29-06-2017 01:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:

You're a troll. You only attack people because they're not you.

@All, have better things to do. As Wake said,, he better like what I post. As for everybody else, maybe he doesn't think you're smart enough to read between the lines.


There you go crying again. Unfortunately you aren't smart enough to READ THE LINES. I have given enough references so that you could learn something. Instead of learning you are simply refusing to learn because you'd rather invent an insult where none was.


Post the math to show if I am right or wrong about Conservation of Momentum. If you can't then all you are is a cyber bully.


I am new to this thread and take it that it has wander off into the normal gibberish of denial from all sides.

What is it about conservation of momentum that is interesting?

Thanks.


Tim, welcome back, though I'm sure that you won't be able to make heads or tails of what James is saying. As far as I can make out he reads a line out of a science books and then tries to use it as some sort of explanation for God only knows what.

When I question him about his odd beliefs he calls me a bully. I suppose that's his way of saying that he doesn't want to learn anything.
30-06-2017 01:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:

You're a troll. You only attack people because they're not you.

@All, have better things to do. As Wake said,, he better like what I post. As for everybody else, maybe he doesn't think you're smart enough to read between the lines.


There you go crying again. Unfortunately you aren't smart enough to READ THE LINES. I have given enough references so that you could learn something. Instead of learning you are simply refusing to learn because you'd rather invent an insult where none was.


Post the math to show if I am right or wrong about Conservation of Momentum. If you can't then all you are is a cyber bully.


I am new to this thread and take it that it has wander off into the normal gibberish of denial from all sides.

What is it about conservation of momentum that is interesting?

Thanks.


Tim, welcome back, though I'm sure that you won't be able to make heads or tails of what James is saying. As far as I can make out he reads a line out of a science books and then tries to use it as some sort of explanation for God only knows what.

When I question him about his odd beliefs he calls me a bully. I suppose that's his way of saying that he doesn't want to learn anything.


Possibly but I would like to hear it from James.

I have previously posted stuff about conservation of momentum and day length which I consider makes it very clear that the poles are gaining ice mass. Rotational dynamics is the asiest bit of physics withe the most intimidating name.
30-06-2017 02:13
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Hi Tim,
Welcome back. There are a couple of different aspects of Conservation of Momentum. If there is something specific just let me know and I can let you know my opinion.
With our atmosphere the rules of physics are followed. Kinetic energy for an ideal gas is calculated KE = [1/2mv^2] = 3/2KT where K is the Boltzmann constant and K is the temperature in kelvins. With mv^2/r is inertia. If a gas contracts then it's inertia increases. This also increases it's rotational velocity because it is conserving angular momentum. As a result a gas can store more energy.
An increase in heavy gases could cause our atmosphere to become denser. With CO2, does it cause other gases to become more or less excited ? Excited gases give off heat.. If you've ever noticed the change in atmospheric (barometric) pressure, it also has a temperature change that goes up or down with it.
When pressure is dropping and it's cooling then atmospheric gases are becoming denser/absorbing more and releasing less energy.


Jim
Edited on 30-06-2017 02:32
30-06-2017 03:39
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Tim the plumber wrote:I am new to this thread and take it that it has wander off into the normal gibberish of denial from all sides.

Lest we forget, you are a devoted science denier. We established that quite clearly and if you'd like to run through it again I'd be more than happy to do so.

You are a climate lemming who runs away from science and blames others.

Again, lest we forget.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-06-2017 04:24
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@Tim the Plumber,
There is an ice core researcher who has said that there were climate ripples during the last Ice Age that CO2 could not account for. He did say that CO2 is an intensifier. If it is an intensifier then that means it's a match and there's fuel somewhere.
30-06-2017 05:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
James_ wrote:
@Tim the Plumber,
There is an ice core researcher who has said that there were climate ripples during the last Ice Age that CO2 could not account for. He did say that CO2 is an intensifier. If it is an intensifier then that means it's a match and there's fuel somewhere.


What is a "climate ripples?

The earth has millions of climates. Which one had the ripple.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-06-2017 16:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:

You're a troll. You only attack people because they're not you.

@All, have better things to do. As Wake said,, he better like what I post. As for everybody else, maybe he doesn't think you're smart enough to read between the lines.


There you go crying again. Unfortunately you aren't smart enough to READ THE LINES. I have given enough references so that you could learn something. Instead of learning you are simply refusing to learn because you'd rather invent an insult where none was.


Post the math to show if I am right or wrong about Conservation of Momentum. If you can't then all you are is a cyber bully.


I am new to this thread and take it that it has wander off into the normal gibberish of denial from all sides.

What is it about conservation of momentum that is interesting?

Thanks.


Tim, welcome back, though I'm sure that you won't be able to make heads or tails of what James is saying. As far as I can make out he reads a line out of a science books and then tries to use it as some sort of explanation for God only knows what.

When I question him about his odd beliefs he calls me a bully. I suppose that's his way of saying that he doesn't want to learn anything.


Possibly but I would like to hear it from James.

I have previously posted stuff about conservation of momentum and day length which I consider makes it very clear that the poles are gaining ice mass. Rotational dynamics is the easiest bit of physics withe the most intimidating name.


To my knowledge the Arctic is losing ice mass and the Antarctic is gaining. But this also matches with the Melankovich cycle we are presently in. Additional mass at the poles is hardly going to change the length of a day through "conservation of momentum" which would do just the opposite - cause the length of a day to remain the same.

Can you suggest where we could get a "torque" to allow rotational dynamics to have any effect on the rotation of the Earth?
30-06-2017 17:39
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:

You're a troll. You only attack people because they're not you.

@All, have better things to do. As Wake said,, he better like what I post. As for everybody else, maybe he doesn't think you're smart enough to read between the lines.


There you go crying again. Unfortunately you aren't smart enough to READ THE LINES. I have given enough references so that you could learn something. Instead of learning you are simply refusing to learn because you'd rather invent an insult where none was.


Post the math to show if I am right or wrong about Conservation of Momentum. If you can't then all you are is a cyber bully.


I am new to this thread and take it that it has wander off into the normal gibberish of denial from all sides.

What is it about conservation of momentum that is interesting?

Thanks.


Tim, welcome back, though I'm sure that you won't be able to make heads or tails of what James is saying. As far as I can make out he reads a line out of a science books and then tries to use it as some sort of explanation for God only knows what.

When I question him about his odd beliefs he calls me a bully. I suppose that's his way of saying that he doesn't want to learn anything.


Possibly but I would like to hear it from James.

I have previously posted stuff about conservation of momentum and day length which I consider makes it very clear that the poles are gaining ice mass. Rotational dynamics is the easiest bit of physics withe the most intimidating name.


To my knowledge the Arctic is losing ice mass and the Antarctic is gaining. But this also matches with the Melankovich cycle we are presently in. Additional mass at the poles is hardly going to change the length of a day through "conservation of momentum" which would do just the opposite - cause the length of a day to remain the same.

Can you suggest where we could get a "torque" to allow rotational dynamics to have any effect on the rotation of the Earth?


Can you suggest where we could get a "torque" to allow rotational dynamics to have any effect on the rotation of the Earth?


Conservation of Angular Momentum. :-)

For you Wake I'll explain, okay ?
Between Ice Ages like we are now our planet wobbles more. This increases the elliptical orbit just a tad. Because of gravity's (dark matter's) repulsive potential the Earth gets a slightly longer orbit. This longer orbit slightly cools our planet because the amount of solar radiation watts/m^2 decreases. This is where deep faults enter the picture to allow for hydrothermal warming.
Although a sudden uptick in warming or a climate ripple during an Ice Age suggests volcanic activity and possibly deep faults as well being the result of too much increase in mass above where 2 tectonic plates meet. Think of it as a cumulative effect.
Edited on 30-06-2017 18:19
30-06-2017 19:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:

You're a troll. You only attack people because they're not you.

@All, have better things to do. As Wake said,, he better like what I post. As for everybody else, maybe he doesn't think you're smart enough to read between the lines.


There you go crying again. Unfortunately you aren't smart enough to READ THE LINES. I have given enough references so that you could learn something. Instead of learning you are simply refusing to learn because you'd rather invent an insult where none was.


Post the math to show if I am right or wrong about Conservation of Momentum. If you can't then all you are is a cyber bully.


I am new to this thread and take it that it has wander off into the normal gibberish of denial from all sides.

What is it about conservation of momentum that is interesting?

Thanks.


Tim, welcome back, though I'm sure that you won't be able to make heads or tails of what James is saying. As far as I can make out he reads a line out of a science books and then tries to use it as some sort of explanation for God only knows what.

When I question him about his odd beliefs he calls me a bully. I suppose that's his way of saying that he doesn't want to learn anything.


Possibly but I would like to hear it from James.

I have previously posted stuff about conservation of momentum and day length which I consider makes it very clear that the poles are gaining ice mass. Rotational dynamics is the easiest bit of physics withe the most intimidating name.


To my knowledge the Arctic is losing ice mass and the Antarctic is gaining. But this also matches with the Melankovich cycle we are presently in. Additional mass at the poles is hardly going to change the length of a day through "conservation of momentum" which would do just the opposite - cause the length of a day to remain the same.

Can you suggest where we could get a "torque" to allow rotational dynamics to have any effect on the rotation of the Earth?


Can you suggest where we could get a "torque" to allow rotational dynamics to have any effect on the rotation of the Earth?


Conservation of Angular Momentum. :-)

For you Wake I'll explain, okay ?
Between Ice Ages like we are now our planet wobbles more. This increases the elliptical orbit just a tad. Because of gravity's (dark matter's) repulsive potential the Earth gets a slightly longer orbit. This longer orbit slightly cools our planet because the amount of solar radiation watts/m^2 decreases. This is where deep faults enter the picture to allow for hydrothermal warming.
Although a sudden uptick in warming or a climate ripple during an Ice Age suggests volcanic activity and possibly deep faults as well being the result of too much increase in mass above where 2 tectonic plates meet. Think of it as a cumulative effect.


James - the planet wobbles BECAUSE of the Milankovitch cycles and not the other way around. The Milankovitch cycles are probably the cause of Ice Ages but this hasn't really been pinned down.

Gravity is not a "repulsive force" but an attractive one.

Dark matter probably doesn't exist. They've been looking for it for 40 years and haven't detected anything. What they are detecting is a great many more black holes than they thought previously existed and perhaps this is the source of the missing matter that causes the motions of the Universe to show 80% more matter than can be accounted for by visible matter.

What's more, calculations of light travel strongly suggests that there is no matter between galaxies which would absorb light from stars. The only thing that dims stars is their distance.

While you are no doubt correct that there is some hydro-thermal warming especially along fault lines I've listed the amount of heat from this and shown it to be a tiny portion of the energy from the Sun. Ocean currents are effected just like air currents - from the temperature differences between the equator and the poles and the spinning of the Earth.

I can't understand how you believe that there is any increase in mass along fault lines. The motion of tectonic plates is either transformative where plate slip along each other, convergent or divergent where one plate moves under the other or both plates slide apart allowing the mantel to rise.

You are speaking of divergent boundaries where heated mantel material rises and transfers heat. But this isn't as much as you might expect because it is an adiabatic process and transfers heat more as work than as a direct transfer of molten magma. In other words, most of the heat of the magma is released lifting and pushing the crust above out of the way.
01-07-2017 01:24
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake,
You don't really have the time to consider anything, do you ? If something is mentioned that you don't know you give an explanation that makes no sense.
An example is that you do not consider glaciers about 2 miles tall extending down as far as the 47th parallel as having any significant mass. Geologists accept that this can cause a tectonic plate to tilt. Haven't you studied any geology ? That doesn't seem to be the case.
01-07-2017 02:09
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake,
You don't really have the time to consider anything, do you ? If something is mentioned that you don't know you give an explanation that makes no sense.
An example is that you do not consider glaciers about 2 miles tall extending down as far as the 47th parallel as having any significant mass. Geologists accept that this can cause a tectonic plate to tilt. Haven't you studied any geology ? That doesn't seem to be the case.


Tell me why you call gravity a "repulsive force". That has to be one of the most original statements I've ever heard.

Tell me why you can talk about "dark matter" when it has been a theory for 40 years and hasn't been detected in any manner. The most sensitive tests have turned up not questionable results but completely and totally negative.

We know what glacier rebound is. So what is that supposed to mean?

Don't tell me that "geologists accept" unless you have a reference. There MUST be something behind what you're saying. Or is this all one of your original theories that you somehow haven't managed to put into words?

If you do have a theory I'm more than willing to give it some thought. But you never quite say anything.

I would like to know what you believe I should consider? That somehow local heating from volcanic activity along a tectonic plate will effect the entire world? If that's so why hasn't it happened in Hawaii?
01-07-2017 03:22
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake,
You don't really have the time to consider anything, do you ? If something is mentioned that you don't know you give an explanation that makes no sense.
An example is that you do not consider glaciers about 2 miles tall extending down as far as the 47th parallel as having any significant mass. Geologists accept that this can cause a tectonic plate to tilt. Haven't you studied any geology ? That doesn't seem to be the case.


Tell me why you call gravity a "repulsive force". That has to be one of the most original statements I've ever heard.

Tell me why you can talk about "dark matter" when it has been a theory for 40 years and hasn't been detected in any manner. The most sensitive tests have turned up not questionable results but completely and totally negative.

We know what glacier rebound is. So what is that supposed to mean?

Don't tell me that "geologists accept" unless you have a reference. There MUST be something behind what you're saying. Or is this all one of your original theories that you somehow haven't managed to put into words?

If you do have a theory I'm more than willing to give it some thought. But you never quite say anything.

I would like to know what you believe I should consider? That somehow local heating from volcanic activity along a tectonic plate will effect the entire world? If that's so why hasn't it happened in Hawaii?


Scroll down to the last section where it says ISOSTASY and read. One of my cousins in Norway pointed this out to me. That section of the Eurasian tectonic plate is still rising. I told them I thought Norway might start sinking as the glacier on Greenland melts. Who knows, might create some nice deep faults.
https://english.fossiel.net/information/article.php?id=335&/Tectonics

As for dark matter, why is light from a distant star bent away from the Sun in the same manner as Mercury and it's 43" of arc precession per 100 years ?
Precession is moving away from the Sun before something should. An example is if light from a distant star bent towards the Sun then it would have post-cession. Einstein predicted that light would be bent AWAY FROM the Sun which is why it got everyone's attention.
As everyone knows gravity is an attractive force. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity or GR stated that as gravity becomes stronger it's ability to warp space increases. Dark matter allows for this. If space itself becomes slightly denser then light will follow the path of least resistance which is what energy (including electricity) tends to do.
Edited on 01-07-2017 03:30
01-07-2017 11:35
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
James_ wrote:
Hi Tim,
Welcome back. There are a couple of different aspects of Conservation of Momentum. If there is something specific just let me know and I can let you know my opinion.
With our atmosphere the rules of physics are followed. Kinetic energy for an ideal gas is calculated KE = [1/2mv^2] = 3/2KT where K is the Boltzmann constant and K is the temperature in kelvins. With mv^2/r is inertia. If a gas contracts then it's inertia increases. This also increases it's rotational velocity because it is conserving angular momentum. As a result a gas can store more energy.
An increase in heavy gases could cause our atmosphere to become denser. With CO2, does it cause other gases to become more or less excited ? Excited gases give off heat.. If you've ever noticed the change in atmospheric (barometric) pressure, it also has a temperature change that goes up or down with it.
When pressure is dropping and it's cooling then atmospheric gases are becoming denser/absorbing more and releasing less energy.


Jim


OK, you have no clue about it.

m(v^2)/2 is kinetic energy.

Not inertia. Or momentum. And not 3/2 x the temperature in kelvin.

The inertia of a given mass of gass does not change when it is conmpressed. It's temperature and pressure do.

Those that do not understand physics should not talk about it.

I don't talk about the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 or wavelengths of IR. I don't know enough about it.

Don't go to areas of debate where you have no clue.
01-07-2017 13:52
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
James_ wrote:

It seems that Wake is unaware that co2 is considered to be warming our planet. Of which the title of this thread asks if our atmosphere can store energy. Since it does can it store more energy if it's composition is changed. I think I lose him when I consider how co2 interacts with our atmosphere. It might be that people who support co2 warms our planet might not have considered that it might not warm our environment as much as they believe. Until we know more about the specific amount of heat it can cause our atmosphere to store then we can't know it's true influence.

Jim


By adding more molecules you increase the energy content of mass in the system, but decrease the amount of available heat to each molecule. Which means lower temperature. Adding potent heat absorbers into the fluid at low temperature which absorb the emitted heat from earth(which is constant and limited, more so than the TSI), will only result in less average energy per molecule.

Read carefully: you cannot increase the amount of heat flowing through cold air by increasing the fraction of dry ice, without increasing the power of the heat source. Co2 does what dry ice does, it absorbs heat effectively without increasing it´s own or other molecules average temperature in the atmosphere.

Heat absorption does not cause rising temperature. Absorption does not cause emission, emissive power depends only on temperature of the emitter. That is the foundation of thermodynamics. All (practically) solids glow at the same temperature. The emission(the glow) is therefore independent of the mass that heat flows through. Co2 can suck my balls.
01-07-2017 14:04
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
James_ wrote:
Wade,
This is impossible according to the Laws of Thermodynamics.


No, its a fact. Evaporation from heating change the humidity while lowering temperature in the air and the evaporating surface, but keeping the energy of the air constant through the increase of higher energy state water molecules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler

"Evaporative coolers lower the temperature of air using the principle of evaporative cooling, unlike typical air conditioning systems which use vapor-compression refrigeration or absorption refrigerator. Evaporative cooling is the addition of water vapor into air, which causes a lowering of the temperature of the air. The energy needed to evaporate the water is taken from the air in the form of sensible heat, which affects the temperature of the air, and converted into latent heat, the energy present in the water vapor component of the air, whilst the air remains at a constant enthalpy value. This conversion of sensible heat to latent heat is known as an adiabatic process because it occurs at a constant enthalpy value. Evaporative cooling therefore causes a drop in the temperature of air proportional to the sensible heat drop and an increase in humidity proportional to the latent heat gain."

Searching wikipedia for applied thermodynamics in engineering, described as the functions of thermodynamic inventions like the evaporative cooler, is much more informative than searching climate information or regular thermodynamics. Often you find these very basic and informative, easy to understand, descriptions. Like the one above.

When reading the above, the concept of water vapor as a "greenhouse" heating gas, becomes nonsense to everyone with a head and an ass.
01-07-2017 14:13
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Into the Night wrote:
The only work being done here is a diffusion of material across a volume with a vacuum in it.


Quite a lot of work then. Don´t you agree? No doubt the vertical displacement of excited water molecules carrying energy internally on global scale, needs an enormous amount of energy to drive the force of moving all that mass. When temperature is constant while energy is obviously being absorbed and connected to evaporation, there is no doubt that heat is turned into work. There is no other alternative, delta U=Q-W. No way around it.
01-07-2017 14:23
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
James_ wrote:


I find you offensive.


You have to keep in mind that the skeptics have been attacked personally and ridiculed for decades, being called everything from creationist, greedy, immoral, corrupt to "deniers" of science. Most of the skeptics are very focused on the physics and the problems arising in the gh-theory when questioned with physics. They are more often than not much more scientific than the doomsday preachers filled with guilt over their existence.

What you experience is the result from decades of verbal, public abuse of honest and scientific skeptics. Suck it up!
Edited on 01-07-2017 14:23
01-07-2017 14:29
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
IBdaMann wrote:
Temperature is the only independent variable.


I can´t help thinking how this must make a measurement of temperature a measure of the only fixed point in reality, by being a measure of the only independent observed property of the universe.

Heat flow is the only independent force, everything depends on the heat flow. The heat flow depends on nothing.
01-07-2017 15:55
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
James_ wrote:
I find you offensive.

You have to keep in mind that the skeptics have been attacked personally and ridiculed for decades....They are more often than not much more scientific than the doomsday preachers....Suck it up!

skeptics are often skkkeptic AGW denier liar whiners, not science oriented, but "sigh-ants"-fed by oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un AGW denier liar whiner websites, big money &/or PR propaganda poop.
Often AGW denier liar whiners are self-righteous (kkk members are self-righteous, also), believing they support mechanisms that make rich white men become richer white men. With that broken thinking in place, AGW denier liar whiners also use racism, continuing attacks, & even over-the-top threats to back up the worst temptations of rich men to become richer men.
Your name itself, supports the idea that continued fossil, coal, oil, & gas burning is the only future path for technical society to proceed.
Edited on 01-07-2017 15:57
01-07-2017 19:03
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Hi Tim,
Welcome back. There are a couple of different aspects of Conservation of Momentum. If there is something specific just let me know and I can let you know my opinion.
With our atmosphere the rules of physics are followed. Kinetic energy for an ideal gas is calculated KE = [1/2mv^2] = 3/2KT where K is the Boltzmann constant and K is the temperature in kelvins. With mv^2/r is inertia. If a gas contracts then it's inertia increases. This also increases it's rotational velocity because it is conserving angular momentum. As a result a gas can store more energy.
An increase in heavy gases could cause our atmosphere to become denser. With CO2, does it cause other gases to become more or less excited ? Excited gases give off heat.. If you've ever noticed the change in atmospheric (barometric) pressure, it also has a temperature change that goes up or down with it.
When pressure is dropping and it's cooling then atmospheric gases are becoming denser/absorbing more and releasing less energy.


Jim


OK, you have no clue about it.

m(v^2)/2 is kinetic energy.

Not inertia. Or momentum. And not 3/2 x the temperature in kelvin.

The inertia of a given mass of gass does not change when it is conmpressed. It's temperature and pressure do.

Those that do not understand physics should not talk about it.

I don't talk about the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 or wavelengths of IR. I don't know enough about it.

Don't go to areas of debate where you have no clue.


And to think I am pursuing an experiment that would demonstrate that. I also noticed that you said when compressed. The reason it's temperature and pressure increases is because it's inertia increases as well. when this happens friction increases of which friction releases heat. What I am discussing is negative pressure which has been little researched, that's something different but thanks for correcting me.
What people might not understand is that when 2 molecules are rubbing against each other that that friction helps to equalize their behavior (Conservation of Momentum which dictates how energy flows) which would help to transfer energy, ie. allow for heat.
Edited on 01-07-2017 19:29
01-07-2017 19:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Hi Tim,
Welcome back. There are a couple of different aspects of Conservation of Momentum. If there is something specific just let me know and I can let you know my opinion.
With our atmosphere the rules of physics are followed. Kinetic energy for an ideal gas is calculated KE = [1/2mv^2] = 3/2KT where K is the Boltzmann constant and K is the temperature in kelvins. With mv^2/r is inertia. If a gas contracts then it's inertia increases. This also increases it's rotational velocity because it is conserving angular momentum. As a result a gas can store more energy.
An increase in heavy gases could cause our atmosphere to become denser. With CO2, does it cause other gases to become more or less excited ? Excited gases give off heat.. If you've ever noticed the change in atmospheric (barometric) pressure, it also has a temperature change that goes up or down with it.
When pressure is dropping and it's cooling then atmospheric gases are becoming denser/absorbing more and releasing less energy.


Jim


OK, you have no clue about it.

m(v^2)/2 is kinetic energy.

Not inertia. Or momentum. And not 3/2 x the temperature in kelvin.

The inertia of a given mass of gass does not change when it is conmpressed. It's temperature and pressure do.

Those that do not understand physics should not talk about it.

I don't talk about the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 or wavelengths of IR. I don't know enough about it.

Don't go to areas of debate where you have no clue.


And to think I am pursuing an experiment that would demonstrate that. I also noticed that you said when compressed. The reason it's temperature and pressure increases is because it's inertia increases as well. when this happens friction increases of which friction releases heat. What I am discussing is negative pressure which has been little researched, that's something different but thanks for correcting me.
What people might not understand is that when 2 molecules are rubbing against each other that that friction helps to equalize their behavior (Conservation of Momentum which dictates how energy flows) which would help to transfer energy, ie. allow for heat.


If you wish to learn about this stuff do a physics course. Something simple, high school level. Everything you have written is 100% gibberish.
01-07-2017 22:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
And to think I am pursuing an experiment that would demonstrate that. I also noticed that you said when compressed. The reason it's temperature and pressure increases is because it's inertia increases as well. when this happens friction increases of which friction releases heat. What I am discussing is negative pressure which has been little researched, that's something different but thanks for correcting me.
What people might not understand is that when 2 molecules are rubbing against each other that that friction helps to equalize their behavior (Conservation of Momentum which dictates how energy flows) which would help to transfer energy, ie. allow for heat.


If you wish to learn about this stuff do a physics course. Something simple, high school level. Everything you have written is 100% gibberish.


For reasons entirely beyond me he doesn't WANT to know anything about physics and throws out this sort of stuff in a continuous stream. Conservation of momentum dictates how energy will flow?
02-07-2017 13:59
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
litesong wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
James_ wrote:
I find you offensive.

You have to keep in mind that the skeptics have been attacked personally and ridiculed for decades....They are more often than not much more scientific than the doomsday preachers....Suck it up!

skeptics are often skkkeptic AGW denier liar whiners, not science oriented, but "sigh-ants"-fed by oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un AGW denier liar whiner websites, big money &/or PR propaganda poop.
Often AGW denier liar whiners are self-righteous (kkk members are self-righteous, also), believing they support mechanisms that make rich white men become richer white men. With that broken thinking in place, AGW denier liar whiners also use racism, continuing attacks, & even over-the-top threats to back up the worst temptations of rich men to become richer men.
Your name itself, supports the idea that continued fossil, coal, oil, & gas burning is the only future path for technical society to proceed.


There was recently a global mockery of science called "march for science". It was an expression of guilt-ridden concern about how we must repent and hand over power and money to our saviours in climate science who insists that their failure to provide a single correct prediction of changes in climate, is reason to trust their doomsday cult. The march was a perfect example of collective whining from the poor victims of evil from the diabolic oil companies.

All wealth in modern society depends on fossile fuels. It is not the wealth of the richest only, you are part of it as well. YOU are the cause of what you say is the problem.

In that march we could see messages from smiling delusional people, for example "beware of the guillotine Mr.Trump". There we have violent expressions from our concerned protectors of moral. Then we heard about shots being fired towards the department of a humble scientist which object to the unproven "climate change". More violence. Then we saw the classic polar bears portraying victims of human behaviour, although it is a lie to say that polar bears are victims of our actions.

So a march carrying threats to a president and false messages about the effects of human use of fossile fuels, thousands or maybe millions of people whining about how dry ice heats earth in violation of proven physics, that is your camp in this debate. You seem to think that your delusional moral high ground concern about human existence which you use to place guilt on individuals for just being alive in modern society, gives you right to use whatever means you like to relieve yourself from your self-hatred. Like death-threats to a president, while smiling.

Do you see the parallell to the role of religion in history? Surrender, give us your cash and ask for forgiveness for being alive, and Jesus/AlGore will save you from yourself?

Could you please tell me again: who are the whiny bitches?
02-07-2017 14:27
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
James_ wrote:
As everyone knows gravity is an attractive force. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity or GR stated that as gravity becomes stronger it's ability to warp space increases.


Yes, gravity is an attractive force. A force is energy flowing in the shape of work being done by the flow. So gravity needs to be connected to a flow of energy to fulfill the definition "force" that does work by displacing mass. Magnetism is a force doing work when displacing mass, and it is the equivalent opposite of the flow of electric energy. They cannot be separated. Gravity needs a flow of energy to warp space or even have a strength at all. Without connecting it to a source of energy, it is not particularly useful to include in physical models, it is just an observation of work being done.

Dark matter allows for this. If space itself becomes slightly denser then light will follow the path of least resistance which is what energy (including electricity) tends to do.


Lots of things could allow for that. Unicorns, fairys, God, Muhammed, superman and Dark Matter. But none of those are scientific.
Edited on 02-07-2017 14:29
02-07-2017 20:42
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
James_ wrote:
As everyone knows gravity is an attractive force. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity or GR stated that as gravity becomes stronger it's ability to warp space increases.


Yes, gravity is an attractive force. A force is energy flowing in the shape of work being done by the flow. So gravity needs to be connected to a flow of energy to fulfill the definition "force" that does work by displacing mass. Magnetism is a force doing work when displacing mass, and it is the equivalent opposite of the flow of electric energy. They cannot be separated. Gravity needs a flow of energy to warp space or even have a strength at all. Without connecting it to a source of energy, it is not particularly useful to include in physical models, it is just an observation of work being done.

Dark matter allows for this. If space itself becomes slightly denser then light will follow the path of least resistance which is what energy (including electricity) tends to do.


Lots of things could allow for that. Unicorns, fairys, God, Muhammed, superman and Dark Matter. But none of those are scientific.


Astrophysicists are in agreement that dark matter accounts for the behavior of spiral galaxies. Do you disagree with this and if so, why ?
Can you show where a repulsive force such as magnetism is causing Mercury's precession of 43" of arc for every 100 years of it orbiting the Sun ?
Dark matter would also help to explain this; http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/17/qba-how-does-a-gravity-slingshot-work/#.WVkvqYgrLIU

One reason why is that the gain in velocity is not lost to escaping the gravitational field because the satellite is being pushed away. It's possible that it was helped to be realized because of how Einstein explained the precession of Mercury with his GR theory along with observations that astronomers made.
03-07-2017 03:41
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Could you please tell me again: who are the whiny bitches?


Well, it's those polar bears. There was only 5,000 of them and now thanks to all that excess CO2 there's only 25,000 left. After all, according to chief litehead polar bears can only mate on ice bergs. And all of that ice has been melting in the summer.
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate The Atmosphere's Ability to Absorb and Release Heat:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Holding in heat1704-06-2019 19:08
What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?028-04-2019 15:40
Heat7119-04-2019 23:53
Ocean heat sources419-04-2019 23:21
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact