Reply With Quote
Yeah, well a good tax increase will take care of all that "boiling global warming".
That's what all the experts say, anyhow.
it wasn't you. i was awake cuz of the boiling global warming.
Yeah, well a good tax increase will take care of all that "boiling global warming".
That's what all the experts say, anyhow.
i just turn on the a/c
Me too. Which reminds me, gotta call my a/c man to check that little jewel out.
I recognize this for what it is. You'll draw no further responses from me on this matter.
Gah......I can't resist teaching. I'll help you out here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturb...28astronomy%29
The presence of atmospheric contents is a special perturbation (orbital) and explains any deviation from Keplers Laws.
My rate is $300/hr for additional lessons.
The goal? God you are dumb what part of
A dog is a canine, an animal, a mammal, a carnivore, a domesticaed species etc.
Those satellites are also stratospheric, balloons, mylar, electronic, etc.
its things like this that make me say that you are dumb. This is a very simple concept that most people understand. You OTOH require it be dumbed down into singulars.
thats why I treat you with such contempt when a scientific discussion happens. its like the soot argument. Scientist actually consider the effect it has an include it in the whole yet you portray it as this all or nothing thing and try to pass off there admission that it exists as some sort of triumph.
Its pathetic.
LOL...Gah......I can't resist teaching. I'll help you out here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturb...28astronomy%29
The presence of atmospheric contents is a special perturbation (orbital) and explains any deviation from Keplers Laws.
My rate is $300/hr for additional lessons.
Atmospheric drag and winds changing the path isn't quite the same as gravitational changes.
I know this is what you mean, but the consideration is for the molecules of gas that exist above the atmosphere where is still isn't like open space. Not continually being in the atmosphere. ... we may as well call ships at sea satellites if we are going to call balloons that. I wonder ay what TORR low earth satellites operate in?In astrodynamics and the case of man-made satellites, orbital perturbation may be a consequence of atmospheric drag or solar radiation pressure.
$300/hr... That's might be on the cheap for private tutoring, of what you may be capable of.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-03-2012 at 12:01 AM.
Thats not his point dimwit. He is talking about multiple forces impacting a system. A Satellite that impacts anything including gas will be deviated from Keplers geometric predictions. Kepler attributed geometry to celestial bodies and you should look up the definition of celestial anyway. What he is getting at is Newton's F=ma which was inspired by Kepler's observations. Newton understood that there were multiple forces that could act on a body.
What you are doing here is once again dumbing it down to a singular. Your pea brain cannot fathom complex systems. The definition of a satellite is not an orbiting body only influenced by gravity but you are so stupid you have to frame it as such.
That you are arguing with a physics research scientist when your specialty is limited to troubleshooting checklists that you have memorized is just sad.
Pathetic.
It's not so much as he is dumbing it down here or elesewhere, it's that he's subjectively dumbing it down
If you break it down the right way, obeying conservation laws (thermodynamics) it becomes simple.
Greenhouse gasses have lower specific heat capacity than normal ambient air. They also absorb more sunlight. By inserting them into the atmosphere and out of the ground, we're putting them first in line to absorb solar energy. Significant T increase should be anticipated.
All of the extra crap is just filling gaps in the energy balance equation, we already know what these gases do.
Wow there is so much thermodynamic fail in this statement. If the ocean is collecting heat, its not driving any warming. Also, if only the top of the oceans can release IR then how the are the bottom of the oceans warming anything? And LOL @ light penetrating very deep. 200 meters in an ocean 10s of kilometers deep is not "very deep" by any stretch of the imagination. Dr. Optics ftw.
Oh and no, ocean currents do not take an average of 800 years to circulate. Europe is not being heated by Gulf Stream waters that predate Columbus. SMH.
But seriously, even a modest understanding of thermodynamics is needed to understand that an ocean that is warming can not possibly be driving atmospheric heating.
This made me spit juice out.This country is going to I swear, nobody should be this stupid.
Great for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, but the rest of us are screwed.
Pretty sure WC is a troll account but I sometimes still cant' resist responding to him when he posts the so obviously wrong climate change crap.
Can you imagine the number of hurricanes we'd have in the winter months if the ocean moved heat that slowly? You could kiss seasonality good bye.
When you're ready to step out of the peanut gallery, let me know.
Rather then responding to specific refutations you resort to this. I understand you not wanting to discuss thermodynamics. Even the 2-D heat equation would make your pea brain explode.
LOL 800 years.
http://texasgeography.files.wordpres...t_anim365d.gif
But don't you know the heat was all hiding in the ocean to explain the heating he formerly argued did not exist. The entire line is asinine.
That's right. Choose a small segment rather than the whole. Probably all a peanut gallery seat holder can comprehend.
Maybe you can try to wrap your head around this:
Thermohaline circulation
While the bulk of it upwells in the Southern Ocean, the oldest waters (with a transit time of around 1600 years) upwell in the North Pacific (Primeau, 2005).
As for thermodynamics, I'm not going to try to guess what your accusation is. It has several mechanisms. Without a specific example of what you think I don't understand, it would a complete waste of time for me to keep guessing what you are assuming.
That's the point really. Think about it. Since you invoked them, re-read Keplers Laws again then review general and special perturbations.
Atmospheric density is a gradient no? Here you imply that you have knowledge of a cutoff density, above which consideration of special perturbations comes into play. Do share.
Hint: For purposes of this argument, providing a link to any published study would clinch it for me.
Because ships at sea operate in low pressure systems and are subject to the same perturbations as satellites operating in thin atmosphere? smh.
If you know of any ships at sea whose inertial frames correlate with those observed for perturbed orbiting objects, I'd like to hear about it. In layterms, turn off the engine and observe where your boat floats.
Side note: Kudos for actually reading the link this time. I didn't think you would.
Equal opportunity biller. You, Mayo Clinic, et al.......
https://multimedia-site.s3.amazonaws...t_original.pdf
I'm glad I never met Will.
You did say most ocean currents, right? Large scale longer circulation =! Most currents but nice try!That's right. Choose a small segment rather than the whole. Probably all a peanut gallery seat holder can comprehend.
Maybe you can try to wrap your head around this:
Thermohaline circulation
As for thermodynamics, I'm not going to try to guess what your accusation is. It has several mechanisms. Without a specific example of what you think I don't understand, it would a complete waste of time for me to keep guessing what you are assuming.
As for the thermodynamics, its obvious you don't know what I'm talking about. You made that quite clear.
I completely understand your point. However, when you get to that extreme, do you honestly consider it the notion of a celestial body, which is what a satellite is by definition as well?
Consider when you stop reading pressure by lbs/inch, bar, etc. and start reading what vacuums are read in. Torr.
Not that important. You guys can call it a satellite all you want. take the hollow win if you like.
I generally do read the links. Sometimes I don't take the time, generally because I already spend too much time here. I often bring up parts I think others miss in an article, or have a different view on what's said, and it's funny when people think I didn't read it the times I do.Side note: Kudos for actually reading the link this time. I didn't think you would.
You live in AZ? My girlfriend is talking about moving to a suburb of Phoenix. Forget the name, but it's just SW of Sun City. If she moves, and I visit her there, do I need to prove to you she's black?
Oooops...
Deleted the ship part. However, a ship will follow the currents until it gets beached. the same as those balloons, though they are given power to navigate also. Real man made satellites on use power rarely to maintain a given orbit. have you read about the stratospheric satellite sails, control, etc?
...Again... SAILS!
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-03-2012 at 11:39 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
