"Unprecedented" Wildfires TODAY. Thanks to Global Warming.

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Canada's fire season has ALREADY started.

Truly unprecedented.

More than nine million acres, so far.

Terrible air quality in northeast US.

Us old timers who paid attention to the weather all our lives didn't see this before.

Early June.. It's going to be a long, hot summer.

The Canada fires continue to burn.

Many cities in the northeast and midwest US have seen the WORST AIR QUALITY EVER RECORDED because of the smoke in the last month.

And THIS week, many cities in the southern and western US have seen the HIGHEST TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED.

The hottest years since humans invented thermometers have been during the eight years that the dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have posted here.

Georgia's peach crop failed miserably because it was too warm this winter.

Florida strawberry farmers are closing farms in the more southern part of the state and moving north where it is still cool enough to grow them.

Maple farmers have to move farther north as well.

It was just a little less than 23 years ago when the north pole melted for the first time in thousands of years.

Fox news ran a story about it, and about how the ski resort industry was being impacted by climate change.

Of course, they brought in the "expert" who assured us that global warming was a hoax.

They assured us that we were about to begin a "cooling trend", but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

Very few of the threads on this website even attempt to discuss climate change.

Those that do get dominated by the same scientifically illiterate trolls who have driven away anyone who dares to suggest that climate CAN change.

Mockery, insults, and anti scientific assertions that just go on and on and on.

But the ugliest trolls must be taking the day off today.

Im a BM wrote:
Us old timers who paid attention to the weather all our lives didn't see this before.

Im a BM wrote:
Early June.. It's going to be a long, hot summer.

Im a BM wrote:
The Canada fires continue to burn.

Im a BM wrote:
Many cities in the northeast and midwest US have seen the WORST AIR QUALITY EVER RECORDED

Im a BM wrote:
And THIS week, many cities in the southern and western US have seen the HIGHEST TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED

Im a BM wrote:
The hottest years since humans invented thermometers have been during the eight years that the dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have posted here.

Im a BM wrote:
Georgia's peach crop failed miserably because it was too warm this winter.

Im a BM wrote:
Florida strawberry farmers are closing farms in the more southern part of the state and moving north where it is still cool enough to grow them.
Maple farmers have to move farther north as well.

Im a BM wrote:
It was just a little less than 23 years ago when the north pole melted for the first time in thousands of years.

Im a BM wrote:
Fox news ran a story about it, and about how the ski resort industry was being impacted by climate change.

Im a BM wrote:
Of course, they brought in the "expert" who assured us that global warming was a hoax.

Im a BM wrote:
They assured us that we were about to begin a "cooling trend", but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

Im a BM wrote:
Very few of the threads on this website even attempt to discuss climate change

Im a BM wrote:
Those that do get dominated by the same scientifically illiterate trolls who have driven away anyone who dares to suggest that climate CAN change.

Im a BM wrote:
Mockery, insults,

Im a BM wrote:
anti scientific assertions that just go on and on and on

Im a BM wrote:
But the ugliest trolls must be taking the day off today.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Us old timers who paid attention to the weather all our lives didn't see this before.

Fire isn't weather, dumbass.

Im a BM wrote:
Early June.. It's going to be a long, hot summer.

It'll be the same duration as any other year. How do you predict with any accuracy that it will be hot?

Im a BM wrote:
The Canada fires continue to burn.

Who even knew that wood burns in June??!

Im a BM wrote:
Many cities in the northeast and midwest US have seen the WORST AIR QUALITY EVER RECORDED

The air quality meters must surely be off when Biden is in town.

Im a BM wrote:
And THIS week, many cities in the southern and western US have seen the HIGHEST TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED

...and yet here in Iowa we have seen very few hot days. Funny how that equilibrium shit works.

Im a BM wrote:
The hottest years since humans invented thermometers have been during the eight years that the dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have posted here.

Wait...I thought they were measuring the global temperature with satellite data. Boy was I duped! Second rate sidekick? Now which one gets that badge of honor?

Im a BM wrote:
Georgia's peach crop failed miserably because it was too warm this winter.

Don't be stupid. The crop failed because of the COLD.

Im a BM wrote:
Florida strawberry farmers are closing farms in the more southern part of the state and moving north where it is still cool enough to grow them.
Maple farmers have to move farther north as well.

Yaddy yaddy ya we're all going to die.

Im a BM wrote:
It was just a little less than 23 years ago when the north pole melted for the first time in thousands of years.

Who convinced you to believe this?

Im a BM wrote:
Fox news ran a story about it, and about how the ski resort industry was being impacted by climate change.

FOX news has been a huge disappointment lately.

Im a BM wrote:
Of course, they brought in the "expert" who assured us that global warming was a hoax.

Climate change or global warming? Make up your mind already! Which is it?

Im a BM wrote:
They assured us that we were about to begin a "cooling trend", but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

Well then I'd say he's a dumbass just like you. An honest person would not try to predict an unverifiable event.

Im a BM wrote:
Very few of the threads on this website even attempt to discuss climate change

Many attempts have been made to try to get YOU to discuss climate change. So far you have yet to even define it.

Im a BM wrote:
Those that do get dominated by the same scientifically illiterate trolls who have driven away anyone who dares to suggest that climate CAN change.

Those who come here only to preach will be called out every time. That would be you.

Im a BM wrote:
Mockery, insults,

Wait...dumbass, you can hurl insults but no one else is allowed to? I guess your bitchin Berkley PHD is what allows for this? ....checking with Sven on the validity of Berkley permission to insult. I'll get back to you.

Im a BM wrote:
anti scientific assertions that just go on and on and on

Science is not "the study of the world we live in". It's a set of falsifiable theories. You know this, but you are just playing dumb.
So if you could please, would you please share the unfalsified theory of science that supports manmade global warming? Thanks in advance for bringing some real science to the forum. Damn! Now we gonna have a discussion boys and girls!...wait...can I say boys and girls anymore? Checking with Sven on that one too.

Im a BM wrote:
But the ugliest trolls must be taking the day off today.

Bummer, isn't it? I have to assume they have meaningful lives beyond the important work they do right here every day.

Thank you guys for your daily dedication to sharing your vast knowledge with the rest of us. You deserve today off!

Im a BM wrote:
Georgia's peach crop failed miserably because it was too warm this winter.

Im a BM wrote:
Alternative facts galore

Im a BM wrote:
The post below is loaded with alternative facts.

Im a BM wrote:
Some of the gems include:

"The Earth's atmosphere is not an open system. It is a closed system."

Im a BM wrote:
"There is no such thing as radiant energy."

Im a BM wrote:
These anti scientific claims are easily debunked.

Im a BM wrote:
Given that the dominant anti scientist on this website has already posted that the Earth's atmosphere IS an open system...

Im a BM wrote:
What sort of word games would sort this out among them?

When the sidekick claimed that alligators are amphibians, the dominant troll posted that he did NOT believe that alligators are amphibians..

Im a BM wrote:
They had to come up with some pretty silly word games to reconcile.

Im a BM wrote:
Is the Earth's atmosphere an open system?

Im a BM wrote:
Is there such a thing as radiant energy?

HarveyH55 wrote:
How do meteors enter a closed system?

HarveyH55 wrote:
How do our rockets leave Earth's closed system atmosphere?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Then again, meteors burn up, before completely entering.

HarveyH55 wrote:
But, meteorites are the few that make it to the surface.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Rare, and valuable too... If it's a closed system, how do we get energy from the Sun?
Isn't the lack of sunlight, that creates ozone holes?

Im a BM wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
How do meteors enter a closed system? How do our rockets leave Earth's closed system atmosphere? Then again, meteors burn up, before completely entering. But, meteorites are the few that make it to the surface. Rare, and valuable too... If it's a closed system, how do we get energy from the Sun? Isn't the lack of sunlight, that creates ozone holes?

HarveyH55 is quite correct that the atmosphere is an OPEN system.

Im a BM wrote:
Energy and material come in and out of it.

Im a BM wrote:
Including greenhouse gases.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbon dioxide, for example.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere as organic carbon material is burned up in flames or respired by organisms, as the main sources.

Im a BM wrote:
Carbon dioxide exits the atmosphere as photosynthesis transforms it to organic carbon, or as the sea absorbs it, as the main sinks.

Im a BM wrote:
Energy enters the atmosphere as solar radiation, or "radiant energy" (check the basic dictionary).

Im a BM wrote:
Energy exits the atmosphere to space, virtually all as infrared radiant energy.

Im a BM wrote:
Energy exits the atmosphere as it warms up the sea or melts ice, as the main sinks on Earth.

Im a BM wrote:
Heat exits the atmosphere in two directions.

Im a BM wrote:
Heat comes into the atmosphere from above when that imaginary "radiant energy" arrives from the sun.

Im a BM wrote:
Heat exits that atmosphere away from the earth as infrared imaginary "radiant energy".

Im a BM wrote:
Heat exits the atmosphere toward the earth as glaciers are melted by it and seas are warmed by it.

Im a BM wrote:
As someone who sells scientifically-based technological devices, there is no need to cite any LESS credible authority for unsupported contrarian assertions.

Omniscience fallacy?

duncan61 wrote:
I have always felt that direct sunlight melts ice even if it is below freezing. Air temperature does not melt ice below freezing. I read an article and the scientist were allegedly alarmed that it was so much warmer in Antarctica. It was still -13.C in the middle of the day.Thoughts anyone

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Georgia's peach crop failed miserably because it was too warm this winter.

This bowel movement of a statement from the BM just has me fuming. I shouldn't let a little BM BS piss me off, but it does.

Peach trees in Georgia generally begin blooming March 15th. Each bloom could be a peach, but if it freezes, well then no peach soup.

Here's what the low temps were in Fort Valley, a top peach producing area. This was pulled from AccuWeather, and I don't know the location of temp reading, however precision temps are not important here. The dates are important.

March 15th 27F
March 16th 29F
March 20th 28F
March 21st 29F

So even if the peach trees bloomed in the typical time period, they still would have been DESTROYED BY THE COLD.

Unfortunately there are people like BM who have no problem repeating Bowel Movement statements like this without even giving a minor thought to reason.
These are the same evil clowns literally destroying the values my country was founded on. How do we stop them??! I can't take it anymore!!!!

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
How do meteors enter a closed system?

Meteors are not thermodynamics.

HarveyH55 wrote:
How do our rockets leave Earth's closed system atmosphere?

Rockets are not thermodynamics.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Then again, meteors burn up, before completely entering.

Most do, but not all!

HarveyH55 wrote:
But, meteorites are the few that make it to the surface.

Yup. A rather glorious looking crater made by one can be seen in Arizona.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Rare, and valuable too... If it's a closed system, how do we get energy from the Sun?
Isn't the lack of sunlight, that creates ozone holes?

Okay. It's obvious the concept of thermodynamic systems need to be explained more clearly to you.

The systems in question are systems in thermodynamics. Any system may be used, but the system used must be consistent.

A system is defined by you. You define the boundaries of that system. Every system is closed for that reason...even the entire known Universe.

In any given system, the laws of thermodynamics hold. You cannot consider any energy source or sink outside that system. They are simply ignored.

If you consider the confines of your refrigerator as the system, you cannot cools your refrigerator by itself. To cool that refrigerator you need energy from outside, which cannot be considered for this system. Effectively, then, it is if the refrigerator was unplugged.

Any differences in energy (or temperature) will dissipate until the energy (or temperature) is uniformly distributed. This means the refrigerator will slowly warm up until it equals the temperature around it (and fairly quickly spoiling the food).

Thus, the 1st and 2nd laws are satisfied. Energy is not being created or destroyed, and entropy is increasing.


Now let's consider a different system...one that includes the power plant and it's fuel, along with the distribution system to get electricity to your home.

NOW and only now can you consider the power plant that is used to provide power for your refrigerator (you can plug it in!).

The power plant burns the fuel or otherwise consumes energy to convert some of it to electricity (the rest goes up as waste heat). What electricity that does make to your home powers the compressor motor on the refrigerator. The refrigerator now gets cold.

No energy is being created or destroyed. The 1st law is satisfied.
Energy is still being dissipated (at the power plant, and as waste heat, and some that goes into powering the motor). The 2nd law is still satisfied. Entropy is increasing.

These are two different systems, and they cannot be compared as if they were the same system.

Now let's make the system the Earth and it's atmosphere. You cannot consider the Sun, the space surrounding Earth, or anything as far as thermodynamics is concerned with this system. You can only consider the Earth itself including it's atmosphere.

There is no way to make this system warmer or colder. No energy is being created or destroyed. No magick gas has the capability to change this merely by it's presence.

Thus, the 1st law is still satisfied.

Energy will become evenly distributed throughout as well. Entropy will continue to increase until maximum entropy is achieved (energy is uniformly distributed).

Thus, the 2nd law is still satisfied.


Now let's make the system the Earth, the Sun, and the space around Earth.

Now we can consider the Sun as an energy source warming the Earth through radiant heating. We can also consider the surrounding space as something the Earth dissipates energy into through radiant heating.

Note the Sun only warms one side of the Earth at a time, while radiant heating FROM the Earth takes place in all directions, 24 hours a day.

No energy is being created anywhere in the system. The Sun is dissipating it's energy, and some of it reaches Earth, warming it.
No energy is being destroyed anywhere in the system. The Earth radiates energy away into space, cooling it.

The energy absorbed equals the energy radiated. It is not possible to trap light or thermal energy. It is not possible to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is primarily heated by the surface using conductive heat, but also through radiant heat (infrared light emitted from the surface and it being absorbed by gasses in the atmosphere).

Like the Earth and it's surface, the atmosphere also converts thermal energy to light. This is in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

But that light cannot used to heat a warmer surface. Heat NEVER flows from cold to hot. Instead, it joins light emitted from the surface to radiate away into space, cooling the atmosphere, just like the surface is cooled.

If a photon of lower energy strikes an atom or molecule of greater energy, that photon will not be absorbed. It either passes by, or is refracted, or is reflected away again.

Thus, the 1st law is still satisfied. No energy is being created or destroyed.
The 2nd law is also still satisfied. Energy is still being dissipated. Entropy is still increasing.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is satisfied. Thermal energy is converted to light according to the temperature of the emitting substance (to the fourth power).


The Church of Global Warming insists CO2 can warm the Earth by it's mere presence. That is simply not possible. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

If the system is just the Earth and it's atmosphere, that creates a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order, violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. If the system is Earth-Sun-space, the same thing applies. No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. The ONLY way any part of the atmosphere is warmed is by energy dissipating from the Sun.

The Church of Global Warming routinely declares that CO2 can somehow trap thermal energy by blocking light from escaping Earth.

Regardless of whether the system is just the Earth and it's atmosphere, or whether the system is the Earth-Sun-space system, there is no way to trap light. Once a photon is absorbed, it is DESTROYED...utterly. The photon is not trapped.

IF the photon was infrared, that absorption will result in conversion to thermal energy, warming whatever absorbed it. HOWEVER...

Any photon created by that substance as a result of the Stefan-Boltzmann law (conversion of thermal energy into light) will cool that substance. That photon is too weak to be absorbed by anything warmer than what emitted that photon in the first place.

In other words, photons are NOT equal! This was noted by Max Planck, and he created the theory relating photons as energy being related to the frequency of that photon (known as Planck's Law). Through quantum mechanics and the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it can be shown that a photon that is weaker than any substance it strikes MUST have more energy than the substance itself has, in order to be absorbed.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It has no temperature. It is not the thermal energy itself. Like a river, the flow of the river is not the water itself, just it's movement.

You MUST have two regions of different energy that are coupled together to have heat at all. Like the river again, you must have two different levels of energy (in other words height of water) and a path for it to flow (coupling) before you can have a flow in a river.

Heat always flows 'downhill'. In other words, it's flow always tends to distribute thermal energy until it is uniformly distributed (everything is the same temperature). This is true for ANY given system, whether it's the Earth itself, or the Earth-Sun-space system.

There is NEVER any case where energy naturally 'gathers'. Thermal energy is no different. There is NEVER any case where thermal energy gathers together from being uniformly distributed.

NO magick gas can do it. Not CO2, not methane, not water vapor, NOTHING.

Thus, the effect of CO2 (or any of the other so-called 'greenhouse gases') on temperature is absolutely ZERO. NADA. NAN. NULL. NOTHING.

Im a BM wrote:
SIX consecutive posts of parrot poop rants.

Im a BM wrote:
Throwing around big words like "thermodynamics" without a clue what they mean.

Im a BM wrote:
For purposes of thermodynamics, the atmosphere is an OPEN system.

Im a BM wrote:Throwing around big words like "thermodynamics" without a clue what they mean.

Im a BM wrote:For purposes of thermodynamics, the atmosphere is an OPEN system.

keepit wrote:
So, ibd, do you think the earth, with its atmosphere included, is open or closed?
No baloney allowed. There's already too much baloney in the world.

keepit wrote: So, ibd, do you think the earth, with its atmosphere included, is open or closed?

Im a BM wrote: Scientists who actually understand thermodynamics know the criteria for open versus closed systems.

Im a BM wrote: For this post, I'll focus on physical gases escaping the atmosphere into space.

Im a BM wrote: But the most important distinction between an open or closed system is whether it can reach equilibrium or simply achieve a steady state.

Im a BM wrote:That disqualifies the atmosphere right off the bat.

Im a BM wrote: In more general terms,

Im a BM wrote: an open system can have matter and energy enter or exit.

Im a BM wrote: A closed system cannot.

Im a BM wrote: Also an immediate disqualifier for the atmosphere being a "closed system".

keepit wrote:
So, ibd, do you think the earth, with its atmosphere included, is open or closed?
No baloney allowed. There's already too much baloney in the world.

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
So, ibd, do you think the earth, with its atmosphere included, is open or closed?
No baloney allowed. There's already too much baloney in the world.

This could be an excellent chance to get the thread back on topic.

Scientists who actually understand thermodynamics know the criteria for open versus closed systems.

Im a BM wrote:
For this post, I'll focus on physical gases escaping the atmosphere into space.

Im a BM wrote:
But the most important distinction between an open or closed system is whether it can reach equilibrium or simply achieve a steady state.

Im a BM wrote:
The Gibbs free energy of a closed system that has reached equilibrium is zero.

Im a BM wrote:
That disqualifies the atmosphere right off the bat.

Im a BM wrote:
In more general terms, an open system can have matter and energy enter or exit.

Im a BM wrote:
A closed system cannot.

Im a BM wrote:
Also an immediate disqualifier for the atmosphere being a "closed system".

Im a BM wrote:
Part one, to get back to wildfires soon enough.

Im a BM wrote:
Helium and hydrogen gas (H2) are both too light to remain indefinitely in the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Hydrogen gas molecules only weigh half as much as helium atoms.

Im a BM wrote:
Helium is a common by product of nuclear decay that the earth has continuously emitted to the atmosphere since the planet's formation.

Im a BM wrote:
Helium is inert to chemical reaction and does not get sequestered from the atmosphere by any mechanism that brings it into soil or water or anything else at the surface.

Im a BM wrote:
Helium simply floats away into space because the earth's atmosphere is a CLOSED system.

Im a BM wrote:
Hydrogen is even lighter and also floats away into space.

Im a BM wrote:
Unlike helium, hydrogen CAN be sequestered into forms that remain at the surface.

Im a BM wrote:
Indeed, in places on earth where hydrogen is still emitted from underground, bacteria are waiting to capture it and use it as a chemical reductant.

Im a BM wrote:
Over the earth's history, the quantity of hydrogen gas emitted to the atmosphere has been greater than today's atmosphere total pool of nitrogen and oxygen.

Im a BM wrote:
Most of it floated off into space long ago,

Im a BM wrote:
leaving the earth's crust in an increasingly oxidized state.

Im a BM wrote:
A closed system cannot allow matter to exit in the manner that helium and hydrogen exit the atmosphere at the top.

Im a BM wrote:
Far more consequential for the atmosphere NOT being a closed system is the interchange of matter at the BOTTOM, at the interface of atmosphere and land or atmosphere and sea.

Im a BM wrote:
I'm sure that an elaborate word game will redefine the thermodynamic meaning of "closed system", so I'll get the first one started.

Im a BM wrote:
Is the atmosphere an amphibian?

It can exist for extended periods over either land or water, and freely goes back and forth.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Scientists who actually understand thermodynamics know the criteria for open versus closed systems.

Correct. Scientifically illiterate morons do not. I understand the concept of an "open system" vs. a "closed system" and you do not. These concepts are not limited to thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote: For this post, I'll focus on physical gases escaping the atmosphere into space.

Instead of focusing on physical gases, you should be defining your system.

Oh wait, you don't define anything you are discussing. You don't know how to do that. You are content to merely babble and gibber.

Im a BM wrote: But the most important distinction between an open or closed system is whether it can reach equilibrium or simply achieve a steady state.

Nope.

Im a BM wrote:That disqualifies the atmosphere right off the bat.

You haven't defined your system yet. You can't make this statement. If you define your system one way, it will disqualify the system from being the other type right off the bat. You have to define the system first.

You haven't defined it.

Im a BM wrote: In more general terms,

You need to be more specific, not more general. Define your system.

Im a BM wrote: an open system can have matter and energy enter or exit.

Is a car a closed system? Does sunlight enter the car and make the interior hot? Do passengers enter and exit the car?

Say it. Is a car a closed system? [Hint: sure it is]

Im a BM wrote: A closed system cannot.

Sure it can. See above. It depends on how you define your system.

Im a BM wrote: Also an immediate disqualifier for the atmosphere being a "closed system".

Only your definition of the system you are discussing can qualify or disqualify something like a car or an atmosphere in being a open or closed system.

Into the Night wrote:He did define a closed system...Earth (including its atmosphere). He's trying to call it an open system!

Im a BM wrote:Climate change has become much more difficult to deny as it is manifest in extreme weather events.

Im a BM wrote:Record setting heat waves, droughts, floods, "super" storms, and wildfires.

Im a BM wrote:The term "1000 year flood" is now a meaningless buzzword.

Im a BM wrote: Under the climate regime that created the old data sets, it was a reproducibly accurate prediction of how often such an event would occur.

Im a BM wrote: In recent decades, "500 year floods" have hit the same regions more than once on multiple continents.

Im a BM wrote:The record for the hottest day ever recorded is likely to be broken very soon.

Im a BM wrote:The long, hot bummer of a summer in 2023 will certainly make climate change abundantly clear to all but the most gullible, delusional, or poorly informed.

HarveyH55 wrote: When was the monster hurricane?

HarveyH55 wrote: Can't believe we already had one this year, and I missed it...

HarveyH55 wrote: We did get some rain, and strong winds a couple weeks ago, but thought it was just an afternoon thunderstorm.

HarveyH55 wrote: Must have really lowered the bar, for what a hurricane is these days.

HarveyH55 wrote: Past few years the Cat 5's were more like how tropical storms felt...

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:He did define a closed system...Earth (including its atmosphere). He's trying to call it an open system!

This is where the rub occurs every time. Some warmizombie defines his system as just one component of his system, e.g. the atmosphere. You can use it as a five second stopwatch ... 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... and then it happens, every time: "and the energy is radiated out to space" ... obligating you to mention to the warmizombie that he just redefined his system by adding "space" which he did not include previously. Then the warmizombie says "I'm only talking about the atmosphere!" ... and then you realize that one truly needs to be a fuqqing idiot in search of a clue to be a warmizombie. At that point it becomes easy to understand how said moron was so easily fooled into becoming a warmizombie.

IBdaMann wrote:
Enter Robup Northert. He says the stupidest crap and pretends to be butt-hurt when he is not treated like a fuqqing groundbreaking science pioneer ... whose paper on phenols gets mentioned by others trying to get published so they can apply for a reasearch grant. He still tries to mock me over his inability to grasp the concepts of "logarithmic" and "exponential" and his lack of awareness that they share the inverse relationship of pH/acidity. No joke, he doesn't understand that as you move away from 7.0 on the pH scale, the effect is exponential on both acidity and alkalinity. May I remind you that he feigns expertise in chemistry but he doesn't get this. He also demands that I apologize ... for mentioning all this.
.

Im a BM wrote:
Absence of helium to debunk the glass ceiling hypothesis.

Im a BM wrote:
Many eccentric interpretations of atmospheric science can be found on this website.

Im a BM wrote:
One of them is the theory that the earth's atmosphere is contained within an invisible, airtight glass enclosure.

According to the glass ceiling hypothesis, no gas can escape the atmosphere into outer space.

That hypothesis can be readily debunked by the virtual absence of any helium in the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Particularly during the earliest 1000 million years of the Earth's 4600 million year life, a LOT of helium was being generated.

Im a BM wrote:
Today, the supply of remaining radioactive elements in the Earth's crust is severely depleted.

Im a BM wrote:
Only those with the longest half lives are still generating helium as they decay.

Im a BM wrote:
Many different radionuclides emit alpha particles during their decay.

Im a BM wrote:
An alpha particle is a helium nucleus without any electrons.

Im a BM wrote:
Within a microsecond of colliding with just about anything, the alpha particle yanks two electrons off whatever is closest to become a full fledged helium atom.

Im a BM wrote:
Some planets are too small to have a strong enough gravitational field to hold in ANY atmosphere. Even gases much heavier than nitrogen or oxygen cannot be held indefinitely on a small planet.

Im a BM wrote:
The Earth has enough gravity to hold down the nitrogen and oxygen.

But not enough gravity to keep the helium or hydrogen.

Im a BM wrote:
So, the Earth has been emitting helium to the atmosphere since its inception.

Im a BM wrote:
Yet, the concentration of helium in today's atmosphere is effectively zero ppm.

Im a BM wrote:
Either there is not a glass ceiling that keeps in the helium.

Or else some word game can explain that alpha particles are not really proto helium atoms, or radioactive decay never really emitted many alpha particles.

Im a BM wrote:
Climate change has become much more difficult to deny as it is manifest in extreme weather events.

Im a BM wrote:
Record setting heat waves, droughts, floods, "super" storms, and wildfires.

Im a BM wrote:
The term "1000 year flood" is now a meaningless buzzword.

Im a BM wrote:
Under the climate regime that created the old data sets, it was a reproducibly accurate prediction of how often such an event would occur.

Im a BM wrote:
In recent decades, "500 year floods" have hit the same regions more than once on multiple continents.

Im a BM wrote:
The record for the hottest day ever recorded is likely to be broken very soon.

Im a BM wrote:
The long, hot bummer of a summer in 2023 will certainly make climate change abundantly clear to all but the most gullible, delusional, or poorly informed.