upper atmosphere temp

Xadoman wrote:

American geobiologist J.L. Kirschvink suggesting that Earth's oceans and land surfaces were covered by ice from the poles to the Equator during at least two extreme cooling events between 2.4 billion and 580 million years ago.

This guy has a great fantasy, nothing more. Earth was a giant fireball billions of years ago not a giant snowball.

The evidence for this hypothesis is found in old rocks that preserved signs of Earth's ancient magnetic field

What kind of influence the magnetic field has on earth s temperature? I do not see the connection.

Measurements of these rocks indicate that rocks known to be associated with the presence of ice were formed near the Equator.

Are not you aware of continental drift? Even a millimeter per year makes a big difference over billions of years.
Start using your 130 iq instead of being a mainstream brainwashed lamb.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You've been bent over furniture and had too much baloney reamed into you.

Well now this in an interesting "position".
Is this process aided by some type of auger system? Could it be solar powered? Maybe an updated graphic for us would be helpful if you can find some spare time?

Let's see, a solar-powered rotary disinformation reamer with matching credenza. Would it logically come with Everest or Rhino ratchet tie-down straps?

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You've been bent over furniture and had too much baloney reamed into you.

Well now this in an interesting "position".
Is this process aided by some type of auger system? Could it be solar powered? Maybe an updated graphic for us would be helpful if you can find some spare time?

Let's see, a solar-powered rotary disinformation reamer with matching credenza. Would it logically come with Everest or Rhino ratchet tie-down straps?

I feel like they should be rebranded Greene and Penrose tie-downs for superior credibility.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You've been bent over furniture and had too much baloney reamed into you.

Well now this in an interesting "position".
Is this process aided by some type of auger system? Could it be solar powered? Maybe an updated graphic for us would be helpful if you can find some spare time?

Let's see, a solar-powered rotary disinformation reamer with matching credenza. Would it logically come with Everest or Rhino ratchet tie-down straps?

I feel like they should be rebranded Greene and Penrose tie-downs for superior credibility.

I'm beginning to think you're just trying to "string" me along, but your comments are just going into the "black hole" of dismissed ideas.

Gravitational collapse of a gas is just another way of saying that a gas compresses itself, in violation of the laws of thermodynamics and the kinetic theory. A gas can never compress itself. Compression of a gas requires an external agent and a container. In the absence of containment of some kind a gas always expands.

keepit wrote: Planetary formation and star formation is extremely complicated and i don't pretend to understand it.

keepit wrote: The theories of these and their interpretations are constantly changing.

keepit wrote: If you have a valid interpretation of solar and planetary formation, go ahead and present it to the Nobel prize committee, and don't forget to compensate me for encouraging you to receive the prize money.

Xadoman wrote:
[url]Actually Earth was first a loose collection of interstellar debris at the temp of space[/url]

I am sorry but :

Gravitational collapse of a gas is just another way of saying that a gas compresses itself, in violation of the laws of thermodynamics and the kinetic theory. A gas can never compress itself. Compression of a gas requires an external agent and a container. In the absence of containment of some kind a gas always expands.

- Stephen Crothers

keepit wrote:
I saw some female german physicist talking about climate change. By the way, i've seen her on the same stage with Roger Penrose and Brian Greene.
Anyway, she was making the point that the temp difference between the upper atmosphere and lower atmosphere tells us whether or not climate change is being caused by variations in the suns's output. She said that since upper atmospheric temp is going up, that means that the increased temperature at earth's surface isn't due to solar variations.

keepit wrote:
Gas,
First, she offers a lot of physics. That's her job.
As far as credibility, the thing that impressed me was that someone chose her to appear on stage with heavyweights like Brian Greene and Roger Penrose. Those are world class physicists. Also, and there are many alsos, they and she communicated in a sensible manner (no name calling, for example). Credentials matter you know.
What credentials do ibd and itn have?

Swan wrote:

keepit wrote:
Gas,
First, she offers a lot of physics. That's her job. As far as credibility, the thing that impressed me was that someone chose her to appear on stage with heavyweights like Brian Greene and Roger Penrose. Those are world class physicists. Also, and there are many alsos, they and she communicated in a sensible manner (no name calling, for example). Credentials matter you know.
What credentials do ibd and itn have?

No physicist can prove that the universe even exists much less articulate the cause of climate change.

keepit wrote:
Gas, Her name is Sabine Hossenfelder. You can google here for yourself. Also, she has done many presentations on youtube where she spends almost all her time presenting physics principles. There are many other such awesome physicists.

keepit wrote:
More trash talk ibd. Not a word of science in it.

keepit wrote:
Gas, If you want to try to understand greenhouse better, go to sabine hossenfldder 's article about "i misunderstood the greenhouse, here's how it works."

keepit wrote:
She has credentials. And clearly she is sincere in her work. She interacts on the science stage in a constructive manner, etc.

I've never heard an ounce of trash talk from her.

By the way, for Gas, personally, i don't consider disputing someone's interpretations of physics to be "bashing". Name calling and false accusations can easily be seen as bashng.

Swan wrote:

keepit wrote:
She has credentials. And clearly she is sincere in her work. She interacts on the science stage in a constructive manner, etc.

I've never heard an ounce of trash talk from her.

By the way, for Gas, personally, i don't consider disputing someone's interpretations of physics to be "bashing". Name calling and false accusations can easily be seen as bashng.

Physics is math and math is not subject to interpretation, except where math fails and all that remains is interpretive theory, which is not executable mathematics nor physics. Not that you can ever grasp reality

Xadoman wrote:

She said that since upper atmospheric temp is going up, that means that the increased temperature at earth's surface isn't due to solar variations.

The earth has been cooling down since the beginning of the earth. The inner core cools down and with it the whole earth is cooling down. The sun adds its energy on the surface.
According to Boltzmann s law the earth should be a giant ice ball. There is not enough energy from the sun to keep the earth as it now. Fortunately the giant and very hot inner core keeps us warm.

Here is the picture from wiki. Do not you agree how silly is to ignore this giant oven inside the earth?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_inner_core#/media/File:Earth_poster.svg

The greenhouse gas scam is obviously false physics. Greenhouse gases can not produce energy on their own. The inner core however produces enourmous amount of energy which keeps us warm and cozy on this planet.

Do not belive anything that mainstream media is telling to you. They only want to pump money out of you. They invent new scams to keep the money streaming into their pockets. Everything they push at you is most probably a scam.

Swan wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

She said that since upper atmospheric temp is going up, that means that the increased temperature at earth's surface isn't due to solar variations.

The earth has been cooling down since the beginning of the earth. The inner core cools down and with it the whole earth is cooling down. The sun adds its energy on the surface.
According to Boltzmann s law the earth should be a giant ice ball. There is not enough energy from the sun to keep the earth as it now. Fortunately the giant and very hot inner core keeps us warm.

Here is the picture from wiki. Do not you agree how silly is to ignore this giant oven inside the earth?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_inner_core#/media/File:Earth_poster.svg

The greenhouse gas scam is obviously false physics. Greenhouse gases can not produce energy on their own. The inner core however produces enourmous amount of energy which keeps us warm and cozy on this planet.

Do not belive anything that mainstream media is telling to you. They only want to pump money out of you. They invent new scams to keep the money streaming into their pockets. Everything they push at you is most probably a scam.

Actually the Earth has been warming for the last 22,000 years, whether you have the balls to respond or not. Furthermore if Hossenfooler does not know this she is wrong, physics degree or not

Swan wrote:

keepit wrote:
There's a misunderstanding here.
The global warming that is concerning is the near term global warming. Even though there may be cooling in the more distant future, the near term is what we need to deal with.

Actually 22,000 years is near term in Earth years of which there are 5 billion years total.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
You've been bent over furniture and had too much baloney reamed into you.

Well now this in an interesting "position".
Is this process aided by some type of auger system? Could it be solar powered? Maybe an updated graphic for us would be helpful if you can find some spare time?

Let's see, a solar-powered rotary disinformation reamer with matching credenza. Would it logically come with Everest or Rhino ratchet tie-down straps?

I feel like they should be rebranded Greene and Penrose tie-downs for superior credibility.

I'm beginning to think you're just trying to "string" me along, but your comments are just going into the "black hole" of dismissed ideas.

Says the idiot who denies the last ice age

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

keepit wrote:
Gas,
First, she offers a lot of physics. That's her job. As far as credibility, the thing that impressed me was that someone chose her to appear on stage with heavyweights like Brian Greene and Roger Penrose. Those are world class physicists. Also, and there are many alsos, they and she communicated in a sensible manner (no name calling, for example). Credentials matter you know.
What credentials do ibd and itn have?

No physicist can prove that the universe even exists much less articulate the cause of climate change.

The universe exists. Proof by identity.

Climate cannot change.

keepit wrote:
Swan,
Are talking about dark energy and the expansion of the universe or are you talking about dark matter and the formation of galaxies. or both?

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

keepit wrote:
Gas,
First, she offers a lot of physics. That's her job. As far as credibility, the thing that impressed me was that someone chose her to appear on stage with heavyweights like Brian Greene and Roger Penrose. Those are world class physicists. Also, and there are many alsos, they and she communicated in a sensible manner (no name calling, for example). Credentials matter you know.
What credentials do ibd and itn have?

No physicist can prove that the universe even exists much less articulate the cause of climate change.

The universe exists. Proof by identity.

Climate cannot change.

Using the current understanding of gravity, the universe cannot be doing what it is doing, not that I expect you to understand either Newtons gravitational constant and or why it fails without 85% more matter and energy that is needed for the universal expansion as observed. You just keep stocking up on cheap bud light.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

keepit wrote:
Gas,
First, she offers a lot of physics. That's her job. As far as credibility, the thing that impressed me was that someone chose her to appear on stage with heavyweights like Brian Greene and Roger Penrose. Those are world class physicists. Also, and there are many alsos, they and she communicated in a sensible manner (no name calling, for example). Credentials matter you know.
What credentials do ibd and itn have?

No physicist can prove that the universe even exists much less articulate the cause of climate change.

The universe exists. Proof by identity.

Climate cannot change.

Using the current understanding of gravity, the universe cannot be doing what it is doing, not that I expect you to understand either Newtons gravitational constant and or why it fails without 85% more matter and energy that is needed for the universal expansion as observed. You just keep stocking up on cheap bud light.

What do you think the universe is doing?

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

keepit wrote:
Gas,
First, she offers a lot of physics. That's her job. As far as credibility, the thing that impressed me was that someone chose her to appear on stage with heavyweights like Brian Greene and Roger Penrose. Those are world class physicists. Also, and there are many alsos, they and she communicated in a sensible manner (no name calling, for example). Credentials matter you know.
What credentials do ibd and itn have?

No physicist can prove that the universe even exists much less articulate the cause of climate change.

The universe exists. Proof by identity.

Climate cannot change.

Using the current understanding of gravity, the universe cannot be doing what it is doing, not that I expect you to understand either Newtons gravitational constant and or why it fails without 85% more matter and energy that is needed for the universal expansion as observed. You just keep stocking up on cheap bud light.

What do you think the universe is doing?

I know that, observations show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, such that the velocity at which a distant galaxy recedes from the observer is continuously increasing with time. I also know that no one knows why this is happening, and that if the big bang were responsible for acceleration that such acceleration would be decreasing and not increasing, so to fill the void dark matter and energy were created to fix gravitational theory. Which is like saying that 2+2=0.6+1.4 of dark matter and energy, that may or may not be real

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

keepit wrote:
Gas,
First, she offers a lot of physics. That's her job. As far as credibility, the thing that impressed me was that someone chose her to appear on stage with heavyweights like Brian Greene and Roger Penrose. Those are world class physicists. Also, and there are many alsos, they and she communicated in a sensible manner (no name calling, for example). Credentials matter you know.
What credentials do ibd and itn have?

No physicist can prove that the universe even exists much less articulate the cause of climate change.

The universe exists. Proof by identity.

Climate cannot change.

Using the current understanding of gravity, the universe cannot be doing what it is doing, not that I expect you to understand either Newtons gravitational constant and or why it fails without 85% more matter and energy that is needed for the universal expansion as observed. You just keep stocking up on cheap bud light.

What do you think the universe is doing?

I know that, observations show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, such that the velocity at which a distant galaxy recedes from the observer is continuously increasing with time. I also know that no one knows why this is happening, and that if the big bang were responsible for acceleration that such acceleration would be decreasing and not increasing, so to fill the void dark matter and energy were created to fix gravitational theory. Which is like saying that 2+2=0.6+1.4 of dark matter and energy, that may or may not be real

Everything in physics is relative. PV = KE = 3/2kT is right.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

keepit wrote:
Gas,
First, she offers a lot of physics. That's her job. As far as credibility, the thing that impressed me was that someone chose her to appear on stage with heavyweights like Brian Greene and Roger Penrose. Those are world class physicists. Also, and there are many alsos, they and she communicated in a sensible manner (no name calling, for example). Credentials matter you know.
What credentials do ibd and itn have?

No physicist can prove that the universe even exists much less articulate the cause of climate change.

The universe exists. Proof by identity.

Climate cannot change.

Using the current understanding of gravity, the universe cannot be doing what it is doing, not that I expect you to understand either Newtons gravitational constant and or why it fails without 85% more matter and energy that is needed for the universal expansion as observed. You just keep stocking up on cheap bud light.

What do you think the universe is doing?

I know that, observations show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, such that the velocity at which a distant galaxy recedes from the observer is continuously increasing with time. I also know that no one knows why this is happening, and that if the big bang were responsible for acceleration that such acceleration would be decreasing and not increasing, so to fill the void dark matter and energy were created to fix gravitational theory. Which is like saying that 2+2=0.6+1.4 of dark matter and energy, that may or may not be real

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

keepit wrote:
Gas,
First, she offers a lot of physics. That's her job. As far as credibility, the thing that impressed me was that someone chose her to appear on stage with heavyweights like Brian Greene and Roger Penrose. Those are world class physicists. Also, and there are many alsos, they and she communicated in a sensible manner (no name calling, for example). Credentials matter you know.
What credentials do ibd and itn have?

No physicist can prove that the universe even exists much less articulate the cause of climate change.

The universe exists. Proof by identity.

Climate cannot change.

Using the current understanding of gravity, the universe cannot be doing what it is doing, not that I expect you to understand either Newtons gravitational constant and or why it fails without 85% more matter and energy that is needed for the universal expansion as observed. You just keep stocking up on cheap bud light.

What do you think the universe is doing?

I know that, observations show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, such that the velocity at which a distant galaxy recedes from the observer is continuously increasing with time. I also know that no one knows why this is happening, and that if the big bang were responsible for acceleration that such acceleration would be decreasing and not increasing, so to fill the void dark matter and energy were created to fix gravitational theory. Which is like saying that 2+2=0.6+1.4 of dark matter and energy, that may or may not be real

Are you saying, along with every other theoretical physicist, that because galaxies are getting dimmer over time when observed by a telescope, that means they're getting farther away; and because they're getting farther away, that means the universe is expanding?

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Are you saying, along with every other theoretical physicist, that because galaxies are getting dimmer over time when observed by a telescope, that means they're getting farther away; and because they're getting farther away, that means the universe is expanding?

What I am saying is that as Galaxies get farther away that their speed in increasing, instead of waning and that the big bang theory has no method to produce the increasing expansion speeds that are observed which are multiple times the speed of light for entire galaxies. The big bang is also not certain as if it happened there would be a zero or genesis point, surrounded by a 14 billion year old void now composed of empty space surrounded by an outwardly expanding shell of matter. If this were found it would complement the CMB instead of compounding the problem. The lack of mathematical proofing on the universe has led adults who are physicist to babble that the universe is not even there but simulated as are we and everything in the universe, which is merely a scientific method for theoretical physicist to admit the need for God in science as all simulations need a creator.

Which reduces to, in God we trust.

hayden jordan wrote:
you know i never understood why people feel the need for religion. I agree that there are holes in science and we want to understand all we can but religion seems unrealistic. it all seems too good to be true.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Are you saying, along with every other theoretical physicist, that because galaxies are getting dimmer over time when observed by a telescope, that means they're getting farther away; and because they're getting farther away, that means the universe is expanding?

What I am saying is that as Galaxies get farther away that their speed in increasing, instead of waning and that the big bang theory has no method to produce the increasing expansion speeds that are observed which are multiple times the speed of light for entire galaxies. The big bang is also not certain as if it happened there would be a zero or genesis point, surrounded by a 14 billion year old void now composed of empty space surrounded by an outwardly expanding shell of matter. If this were found it would complement the CMB instead of compounding the problem. The lack of mathematical proofing on the universe has led adults who are physicist to babble that the universe is not even there but simulated as are we and everything in the universe, which is merely a scientific method for theoretical physicist to admit the need for God in science as all simulations need a creator.

Which reduces to, in God we trust.

I was asking how they know galaxies are getting further away. Is it because they are appearing dimmer and dimmer when viewed through a telescope over time?

keepit wrote:
Re: Dark energy and Dark matter. Actually the expansion isn't accelerating. It's slowing imoh. From a given point of view it is slowing but considering all points of view it isn't. I know, i know, how do you consider all points of view? Nevertheless, the Friedman equation supports the notion of slowing. You can consider it by knowing that the Hubble constant is decreasing.
What happens is that there are extra dimensions which unpack themselves into our measurements of space when and where there is a sparse gravitational field.
We call this expansion of space.
Wouldn't you know it, almost noone believes me!

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Are you saying, along with every other theoretical physicist, that because galaxies are getting dimmer over time when observed by a telescope, that means they're getting farther away; and because they're getting farther away, that means the universe is expanding?

What I am saying is that as Galaxies get farther away that their speed in increasing, instead of waning and that the big bang theory has no method to produce the increasing expansion speeds that are observed which are multiple times the speed of light for entire galaxies. The big bang is also not certain as if it happened there would be a zero or genesis point, surrounded by a 14 billion year old void now composed of empty space surrounded by an outwardly expanding shell of matter. If this were found it would complement the CMB instead of compounding the problem. The lack of mathematical proofing on the universe has led adults who are physicist to babble that the universe is not even there but simulated as are we and everything in the universe, which is merely a scientific method for theoretical physicist to admit the need for God in science as all simulations need a creator.

Which reduces to, in God we trust.

I was asking how they know galaxies are getting further away. Is it because they are appearing dimmer and dimmer when viewed through a telescope over time?

Google red shift

Swan wrote: Dark matter and energy are merely theoretical mathematical solutions to Newtons failed theory of gravity which predicts a big crunch as a consequence of when the big bang runs out of energy, yet current observations clearly show an increased expansion rate.

Swan wrote: As a consequence, reality is actually in question which has spawned the simulation theory since literally nothing is proofed

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Are you saying, along with every other theoretical physicist, that because galaxies are getting dimmer over time when observed by a telescope, that means they're getting farther away; and because they're getting farther away, that means the universe is expanding?

What I am saying is that as Galaxies get farther away that their speed in increasing, instead of waning and that the big bang theory has no method to produce the increasing expansion speeds that are observed which are multiple times the speed of light for entire galaxies. The big bang is also not certain as if it happened there would be a zero or genesis point, surrounded by a 14 billion year old void now composed of empty space surrounded by an outwardly expanding shell of matter. If this were found it would complement the CMB instead of compounding the problem. The lack of mathematical proofing on the universe has led adults who are physicist to babble that the universe is not even there but simulated as are we and everything in the universe, which is merely a scientific method for theoretical physicist to admit the need for God in science as all simulations need a creator.

Which reduces to, in God we trust.

I was asking how they know galaxies are getting further away. Is it because they are appearing dimmer and dimmer when viewed through a telescope over time?

Google red shift

It means the light is getting dimmer. So your answer to my question is yes.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I was asking how they know galaxies are getting further away. Is it because they are appearing dimmer and dimmer when viewed through a telescope over time?

Google red shift

It means the light is getting dimmer. So your answer to my question is yes.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:I was asking how they know galaxies are getting further away. Is it because they are appearing dimmer and dimmer when viewed through a telescope over time?

Google red shift

It means the light is getting dimmer. So your answer to my question is yes.

No. The answer to your question is not "Yes" but is actually rather complicated because it is laden with assumptions that not everybody shares.

Before you address the topic of "how do we know that galaxies are getting further away," you need to check your own religious views and be careful not to let people like Swan, or me, or anyone feed you conclusions under the pretense that they are somehow "observations." You must remember that all of humanity is stuck on planet earth and we simply can't see any more than a negligible portion of a mere flake of a tiny speck of an inconsequential amount of the universe. To say that our observations are "limited" is an understatement.

What we can observe is that there are countless galaxies, each seemingly filled with countless stars. Again, we might be overwhelmed at the countlessness of the celestial bodies we observe, but it would be stupid to presume that what we see is anything more than an insignificant portion of the universe, leaving us to extrapolate the rest.

Focusing on what we can observe, all of it is moving away from everything else in the following way: Grab an uninflated balloon and a Sharpie. Place a handful of dots on the balloon (as "randomly" as you can) and then inflate the balloon. As the balloon is inflating, notice what is happening to the dots. Every dot gets further and further away from every other dot.

Additionally, for indisputable confirmation, any observer can check the "red shift" as Swan suggested above. Your first step should be to perform some quick research into "Doppler effect" and understand the basic principle as it affects sound waves. Once you feel that you have a firm grasp on Doppler effect, research "red shift" and "blue shift." The effects on sound waves apply to all waves, including light waves. Red shift confirms that something is moving away from the observer. If you were to get the right observation equipment, you would be able to see that every single galaxy that we can observe is moving away from us. Not a single one of the countless galaxies is moving towards us.

You will find many people who will tell you that "The expansion is accelerating" and "the acceleration is worse than previously feared" which of course requires/calls for "explanations" which cause every wacko and his brother to invent wild theories of science fiction such as "dark matter." I would warn you that human egos normally take over and presume that the insignificant set of our observations is nonetheless the entirety of the universe, so you will be told, as a matter of fact, that the entire universe has been observed to be expanding at an accelerating rate ... and that crosses the line into being booolsch't, i.e. nothing more than bogus conclusions being pawned off as observations. All anyone can legitimately say is that whatever humans can observe is moving away, just as if everything is on an inflating balloon ... and no, it's not "accelerating."

At this point, I would recommend you get Into the Night's view. His views on the universe differ from mine, but neither of us appreciate the pretenders of the world passing their own personal cosmic religions off as "observations."

If you like to read, I recommend Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" as a good explanation of astrophysics concepts that would greatly benefit your understanding.