One of the reasons for the cheesecloth experiments was the notion that fresh air was needed for spontaneous generation.
Global Climate Status Report
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
One of the reasons for the cheesecloth experiments was the notion that fresh air was needed for spontaneous generation.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Do you call it a covered wagon or a Dutch oven?
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
I call her Susan
Anyone calling it truth is not correct. Is there anyone besides cooky politicians who are calling it truth? Certainly no "real" scientists. Honestly I have heard a huge number of people calling it a Theory with broad scientific consensus. Can you provide some names of people who call it truth?
Looks like some attempt to trivialize this thread.....
As I noted above, a big.... as in VERY LARGE..... issue in climate is the oceanic heat content. Most researchers look at sea surface temps. Sometimes, when trying to explain a super typhoon or something else way off the charts from "normal", there is some attribution to ocean temps in the top 100 meters. We have a little more data on that.... and it is discussed by professionals making long range projections of various natural "Oscillations" in weather patterns.
Here is what NOAA has to say about oceanic temperature profiles....
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/thermocline.html
As I noted earlier, at appreciable depths, the temp of oceans is generally near 4 C, the point at which water is normally at its greatest density.
That fact is, apparently, not exactly ironclad. NOAA says at greater depths the temp is even lower. I mention the tremendous pressures at these depths, and increasing deuterium replacing hydrogen in water molecules. Some filipino entrepreneurs are trying to finance a "heavy water" mine by pumping seawater from the Philippine Trench....30,000 feet deep.... to the surface because they say it's likely deuterium oxide, a valuable necessity for some nuclear and fusion projects, and of military importance. Other isotopes of other elements may also accumulate at great depth.
But the theory of a huge Planet Earth Thermostat involving ocean waters and ice caps in counterbalancing cycles is the topic I bring into this thread, to say that "Science"...… not "Religion" not "Statistm" not "Progressive Population Manipulations", aka "lies", is subject to contested theories and findings of fact.
I don't need to be a "Climate Denier" to say increased global temps, including oceanic heat increases, are a necessary event in bringing in an Ice Age, and any human contributions to that do not necessarily deny the possible eventual Ice Age.
As I noted above, a big.... as in VERY LARGE..... issue in climate is the oceanic heat content. Most researchers look at sea surface temps. Sometimes, when trying to explain a super typhoon or something else way off the charts from "normal", there is some attribution to ocean temps in the top 100 meters. We have a little more data on that.... and it is discussed by professionals making long range projections of various natural "Oscillations" in weather patterns.
Here is what NOAA has to say about oceanic temperature profiles....
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/thermocline.html
As I noted earlier, at appreciable depths, the temp of oceans is generally near 4 C, the point at which water is normally at its greatest density.
That fact is, apparently, not exactly ironclad. NOAA says at greater depths the temp is even lower. I mention the tremendous pressures at these depths, and increasing deuterium replacing hydrogen in water molecules. Some filipino entrepreneurs are trying to finance a "heavy water" mine by pumping seawater from the Philippine Trench....30,000 feet deep.... to the surface because they say it's likely deuterium oxide, a valuable necessity for some nuclear and fusion projects, and of military importance. Other isotopes of other elements may also accumulate at great depth.
But the theory of a huge Planet Earth Thermostat involving ocean waters and ice caps in counterbalancing cycles is the topic I bring into this thread, to say that "Science"...… not "Religion" not "Statistm" not "Progressive Population Manipulations", aka "lies", is subject to contested theories and findings of fact.
I don't need to be a "Climate Denier" to say increased global temps, including oceanic heat increases, are a necessary event in bringing in an Ice Age, and any human contributions to that do not necessarily deny the possible eventual Ice Age.
Yeah, some did poorly designed experiments where they were "sterilizing" plant and animal matter and seeing life emerge. A pretty cool idea but they lacked the knowhow to understand that their sterilization left misroscopic life behind. And they were incapable of seeing the residual life. It was evidence supporting the hypothesis, but they made poor claims based on flawed experimental methods.
Comparing today's scientific method to the nascent efforts hundreds of years ago is..... well, let's call it a stretch at best.
well, besides kooky politicians and media hucksters, lessee.....
Most of the kids in say Thriller's class and a lot of other public schools pretty much get it that way, just like "Evolution" in the particular as a proof against religious "Bible" beliefs, for most people.
But you're right..…. modern philosophers along the secular humanist trajectory don't believe we have any "Truth", and that is why it's OK for us to do whatever we want, think whatever we want. Maybe. The concerning thing about todays push for socialism ala "Social Democrats" and the Chinese government.... is that somebody needs to regulate peoples' speech in public places quite particularly, for the sake of harmony in the public square.....
As I noted above, Marxism and in general Progressivism are not actually secular humanist philosophies anymore. The push for global governance to "save the Planet" has moved the needle towards a Positivist public management program where people need to be indoctrinated.
We're not far from "The Ministry of Truth" in our governance......
But hey, progressive advocates are pretty cagey. The whole idea of gradualism works pretty good as long as you don't come right out and say it like you really think.
nah. You're saying we're in some kind of optimum understanding or maximum in our science.
I'm saying I think a hundred years or two will prove more radical than the past two hundred years.
But I do kinda agree that we're doing pretty good.... and if we can keep on the track of objective research, we have good prospects for "progress".
Last edited:
So now I have given our best understanding of Oceanic temps on a depth profile.... I need now to quantify just how much water is in the important "layers". Of course there are large areas of shallow seas. And some areas of anomalous temp profiles like the Gulf of Mexico.....not much ice in direct contact...
Here's a table, from NOAA...
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html
1.335 Billion cubic kilometers.
All of the sections given have average depths of over 3000 feet.... The shallow seas are the Arctic and the South China Sea. Over 88% of the Ocean Area averages over 9000 ft in depth. Lots of cold water. A 1 F increase in temp of that water would represent a huge amount of heat storage.... 1 cal per gram per degree.....
a cubic km is exp 5 in cm, exp 125 in cm3.
The heat content of our atmosphere is a fraction of cal per g, a few cals per 22.4 L which is the mole volume of gas molecules at STP with some reasonable approximation, but greater for polyatomic gases like CO2 and H2O. High humidity can greatly increase the heat content of air.
Just to say, predicting global warming without including ocean dynamics might not get us to the real situation exactly....
Here's a table, from NOAA...
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html
1.335 Billion cubic kilometers.
All of the sections given have average depths of over 3000 feet.... The shallow seas are the Arctic and the South China Sea. Over 88% of the Ocean Area averages over 9000 ft in depth. Lots of cold water. A 1 F increase in temp of that water would represent a huge amount of heat storage.... 1 cal per gram per degree.....
a cubic km is exp 5 in cm, exp 125 in cm3.
The heat content of our atmosphere is a fraction of cal per g, a few cals per 22.4 L which is the mole volume of gas molecules at STP with some reasonable approximation, but greater for polyatomic gases like CO2 and H2O. High humidity can greatly increase the heat content of air.
Just to say, predicting global warming without including ocean dynamics might not get us to the real situation exactly....
Last edited:
Greenhouse effect is caused by the absorption by greenhouse gases of low frequency/ high wavelength light being reflected from the Earth's surface.
Greenhouse effect is not caused by higher heat capacity for CO2/ other greenhouse gases (with ~400 ppm CO2 the heat capacity is negligibly different from 0 ppm CO2)
This is neither controversial nor political. Check out any scientific literature.
Heat capacity is not a reservoir. It is the amount of energy it takes to heat a certain amount of material by a certain temperature (calories/ (gram degree C)
Are you sure I said that? You may want to read again more carefully. Good luck.
well, you've got me thinking about this again. Following my last posts yesterday I got to thinking about microwave ovens. If you irradiate water molecules with just the right IR frequency, you can spin those little water molecules and specifically heat them. That frequency corresponds to the energy of that spin, stretch or whatever motion the molecule can take with that specific energy amount.
heat capacity has been studied a lot with almost every molecule of interest to engineers designing engines, or to chemists generally.
It is a property that is a consequence of mass and chemical structure as well as electronic bonding orbitals. It is empirical in the sense that it's value is experimentally determined.... but hey we can calculate it too from known relations just knowing the molecular structure and bonding possibilities (hydrogen bonding,etc)
Temperature might be the more correct measure of heat storage, if mathematically multiplied by heat capacity figures.
I think your concept of mere absorption of IR or "low frequency/high wavelength" light coming up from the earth surface is a simplification. Not exactly untrue, just part of the story. Maybe a big part. "Greenhouse Effect" or "Greenhouse Gases" function like a blanket.
But I think you underestimate the temperature/warmth content of CO2 and water molecules in the air. Sure, they will re-radiate the heat they absorb.... but not very quick.
Black body radiation is always a fact for anything above absolute zero K. 3 degree "heat" is a huge factor in our universe, and so is the zero K heat..... the amount of heat held by material that is at absolute zero. 3 degree heat is the heat radiated from objects at the temp of 3 K.
I'm not trying to minimize the radiation Earth gives off at it's average temps. If we had no atmosphere, it would all go directly out. Even oxygen and nitrogen are huge in containing heat to moderate our climate. Our atmosphere is the reason we don't have daily lows of -200 C and highs of +200 C.... well I didn't check those numbers, it's for sure an exaggeration. Maybe 100C/-100C.
You must have a very special oven that uses infrared radiation. Might be fun to test out your night vision glasses but you will have a long wait to heat up your food. Most of these types of ovens use microwave radiation.
Temperature is a measure of average kinetic energy. Heat capacity is the amount of energy used to change one unit mass by one unit temperature.
You are throwing science words into these posts without an understanding of their fundamental meaning and I am sorry to say you are making no sense. I hope sharing this with you may help you understand some blind spots and encourage you to take some basics physics and science classes that will really help your development.
Good luck, dude.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Cleveland steamer?
Getting Traded
Banned
I'm not a scientist but I had no idea what he was talking about either because the words didn't seem to connect.
I'm not sure what's going on ITT right now. But yes, it does appear to be a **** show.
Are you a physic professor? I recognize quotes from textbook definitions here.
The concept is exactly as I describe it. You don't understand the concept. I'm not just throwing words around. Words have meaning, exact meanings. If you're writing a textbook you expect to define the terms in a precise way, to guide the student away from wrong concepts.
The concept of "heat capacity" is defined as a relation between temperature and heat content for a specific atom or molecule. It is studied, and graphed. Across the whole temperature range you can achieve and measure.
The energy stored in the substance is the sum of the heat put in to achieve the temperature of that substance.
It is exactly the "heat stored". That is what I have said, now, several times.
yah, I think you really are a physics or PChem instructor. Most of those graduate students doing those lectures were still down a bit on their learning curve.
I'm well aware that microwaves are also "infrared" in the sense of being longer wavelength than "red" light.
"infra beneath, below Latin infrastructure - underlying framework of a system; infrared - below the regular light spectrum."
https://www.learnthat.org/pages/view/roots.html#i
The "infra" actually refers to the frequency of the light, not it's wavelength, hence the "below" as in "below the frequency of the regular light spectrum."
A microwave oven is made with a source that is tuned to an exact frequency that will specifically heat a molecule of water. There are two ideas here. A textbook definition meant to classify the spectrum. The definitions have a purpose. There is need to simplify it for the novice. All radiation that is of longer wavelength than visible "red" is defined by the term "infrared". The use of lamps made to keep stuff warm and the use of equipment not intended for that purpose has created the need for two...well, three.... spectral terms. Radio waves even longer in wavelength.... . So, despite the Latin roots of the generic term, we made up "microwave" despite the fact that that term makes no sense. Why would we call it "micro" if it's actually longer.....???? I'd call that the "macrowave" part of the spectrum. But then, there are a whole lot of folks who believe their terminology makes sense.....while missing the basic concept.
Here's a beginner's dilemma:
"A microwave oven's radiation heats up soup in the exact same way that a campfire's radiation heats up campers: through electromagnetic radiation. The misunderstanding that only infrared radiation is thermal perhaps comes from the fact that living human bodies are at a temperature where their thermal radiation peaks in the infrared. "
http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/05...od-even-though-it-emits-no-thermal-radiation/
kinda frustrating trying to talk to really obtuse folks, huh?
I've been trying to shake you outta the notion that the atmosphere, on getting warmer, does not "store" energy. You are focused on the idea of reflection phenomena, seeing the "blanket" as reflecting heat back to earth. I am talking about the fact that warmer temps mean stored heat in the atmosphere.
I think you have the specific misunderstanding outlined in the quote above.
Last edited:
As accurate as your understanding of the science concepts. Dude, these are high school science concepts that you do not understand. You need to quit while you are behind.