Is it possible that you're an idiot?
So then the combustion occurred in the atmosphere enough to cause 40 days of continuous rain?
And where is the oxygen in our atmosphere located?
And you do not understand the difference between the temperature between individual particles and the temperature of a region of space. You also do not understand the notion of the density of a reactant and how that is directly proportional to the rate of reaction.
Quite frankly if you think that solar radiation in any amount combined with the stray particles in the outer edges of the atmosphere combusted enough to cause rain for 40 ing days then you deserve the derision you get. Its stupid.
Is it possible that you're an idiot?
How much O2 was there WC?
Care to detail the combustion process for us?
You're joking, right?
The thermosphere reaches temperatures as high as 2500C. Hydrogen will easily have chemical reactions with oxygen at those temperatures.
Care to detail how I'm wrong? Don't forget the intensity of solar radiation to help.
This is so good.
Elaborate please.
I may surprise you.
You surprise me on a daily basis.
Do you want a serious discussion, or not?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-25-2012 at 12:53 AM.
Triple Solar Eruption
What will the future bring?
NASA/SOHO pick of the week:
Why have you left the peanut gallery?
Isn't this stuff above your head?
Its above all our heads. The water factory known as the thermosphere is straight up in the sky, right?
No.
We normally have a net loss of hydrogen because the suns energy in the upper atmosphere actually breaks down water and fair share of the hydrogen escapes the atmospheric bounds. However, when equilibrium is a reality, things change when in a hydrogen cloud that is more dense than the earths outer atmosphere surrounds us after a massive CME.
Still think this is above my head?
I think it's above yours.
Wait, the thermosphere is not above your head? Where exactly are you?
On that count, technically it is.
Do you agree or disagree that water can be created in the thermosphere?
Like I said, we normally have a net loss of water. my example used the "if" qualifier. Again, if the equilibrium were to change by going through a massive CME, don't you think we would create water in the upper atmosphere rather than lose it?
I agree that the Thermosphere - along with many other things -is above your head.
No, not at all. I guess it's good i payed attention to your post this time.
But if you expect someone to take your arguments more seriously you might want to give some more detailed reasons, like a research paper... or letter to editor.
This topic of past analysis and predicting CME isn't the most scientifically verifiable. Nice suggestion with CME to water, but I'm not so sure about the hydrogen from the sun to earth "combustion" idea works out in the magnitudes you describe.
I think it has something to do with hydrogen being everywhere in the universe and likely present at the earth's formation. You might want to try that whole creationist view point there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth
The more important issue is what evidence do you have that these factors deviate from the overall effect of greenhouse gases? a pretty well vetted thermodynamic science.
I see...
You still have nothing serious on the topic to say.
The problem lies in that it is more theoretical since we have never witnessed with the degree of science we have today, a CME event of the magnitude that I am speaking of.
Not part of my discussion. Forget the relevance to creationism.
I don't discount the greenhouse effect at all. It is real. The term is slightly inaccurate, but I accept it for what it is. When it comes to the greenhouse effect, i say that CO2 doesn't have the degree of forcing that is claimed by the alarmists. Some papers show CO2 has a net cooling, though I don't go that far. i am open to that possibility though.
I still do all I am getting out of this is:
You throw out the term equilibrium to the point now where I just want to slap you.A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
There isn't up in the upper atmosphere. Sure what little there is eats raw unadulerated solar radiation and is irradiated to but thats just it. The particles up there are so spread out that they do not have the EM interactions that we know as air pressure. Its mostly void.
You can irradiate the area but its not just going to be localized to the upperatmosphere. Thats what the whole deal with inertia is. If it doesn't hit anything then it just keeps going.
For it to last 40 days the plume would have to cover about 35 degrees because thats how much of the orbit we traverse. So basically the sun explodes and bombards us with massive amounts of protons and you think all it will do is rain for that time period.
What this is, is a bunch of horse that you tell yourself so you can believe what you want to believe. You admit the phenomenon you are describing has never happened nor has even a similar much reduced approximation of it. But because you want to believe something you make regurgitate this excrement. Its confirmation bias meets stupidity.
You make a wonderful minion. Once you are coopted you will make up stories and present them as truth.
Thanks equilibrium boy.
I understand.
You live in a sigma one world, and cannot understand events that could only be covered by looking at 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th level sigmas.
Thanks for that clarification. I will never ask you to look outside that small box you live in again.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-25-2012 at 06:39 AM.
WTF are you even talking about? You take a pos understanding of principles and extend that to your bull . Posturing with this sigma nonsense does not change that. You stupidity is outlined for very specific reasons.
Rather than try and talk about the amount of oxygen available in an area where particles are so widely dispersed they do not have em interactions or how inertia makes your notions of a localized reaction demonstrate you not knowing what the your talking about, you resort to this posturing.
One thing that becomes very obvious to anyone who models natural systems, it is that they are nondeterministic. Every ing thing you do and say reads like it comes from a middle school chemistry text book with your equilibrium and dimwitted attempts at analyzing sequences.
You stumble around trying to make rational constructs to fit your preconceived notions of how you want things to be or were told they should be and do it very very poorly.
This is precious. Warming cultists now have their own version of AttackWatch.
Climate Science Rapid Response Team
http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/
As I see it, there are several reasons the general public have lost faith in this movement:
Al Gore's scifi docudrama
Catastrophic model predictions that don't comport with reality
Climategate
Shouting down legitimate skepticism (e.g. This thead)
Good day
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
