climate change

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: climate change

Postby Braininvat on January 13th, 2017, 1:40 pm 

I have a bit of physics training, and would say that waste heat is a miniscule drop in the bucket. The UHI effect (Urban Heat Island) is a factor, but (as Z. alluded to) that is more from changing the absorption of solar radiation by various urban surfaces, masonry buildings, and such. Other factors in urban settings are snow clearance, diesel soot on pale surfaces (including snow, of course), windbreak from concentrations of tall buildings, etc.

Regarding holiday-makers losing their clothes in the sea, I think this deserves further study. By me. In the field.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Lomax liked this post


Re: climate change

Postby Paul Anthony on January 13th, 2017, 1:44 pm 

zetreque » Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:19 am wrote:
If Earth were generating heat, you would think that we would be seeing increased volcanic activity and continental drift. They do explore deep ocean thermals.



Scientists recently warned that the super volcano located under Naples, Italy has reached a point where an eruption is imminent. Of course, "imminent" doesn't mean this week or this year or possibly not this century, but it is going to happen sometime. :)

That said, it should be remembered that isolated incidents do not mean the entire planet is facing volcanic activity in the near future. There is a difference between weather and climate, or so I've been told.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: climate change

Postby Paul Anthony on January 13th, 2017, 1:48 pm 

Braininvat » Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:40 am wrote:

Regarding holiday-makers losing their clothes in the sea, I think this deserves further study. By me. In the field.


Use caution. Or a lot of sunscreen. I went to a nude beach once. Only once. It was very educational. I learned, among other things, that there are certain parts of the male anatomy that should not be exposed to a lot of sunlight. :)
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: climate change

Postby BadgerJelly on January 14th, 2017, 1:02 am 

Lomax -

I would also add that all scientists are skeptical about results they get. No climate scientist I have heard of denies the greenhouse effect. I have seen a few say they don't believe the effect is that great and that some of the evidence backs up what they say. It is certainly not a certainty. It is, as I have stated elsewhere, something worth paying attention to though and putting in safety measures just in case.

Even if there is only a 5% chance that the effect is as bad as some say then that is big enough reason to take immediate action.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: climate change

Postby zetreque on January 14th, 2017, 1:14 am 

BadgerJelly » Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:02 pm wrote:I have seen a few say they don't believe the effect is that great and that some of the evidence backs up what they say.


Were they any of these guys?
Image
https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Heartland-58-Experts-DeSmog-Remixed.jpg


Even if the temperature wasn't changing, the oceans are in deep trouble so I get tired of hearing about one or the other when there are a whole bunch of reasons to stop trying to discredit this topic.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)
BraininvatLomax liked this post


Re: climate change

Postby BadgerJelly on January 14th, 2017, 1:38 am 

I'll play this silly game then ...

Where does all the energy from the sun go? Is any of it captured how much ofnitnis captured? If this energy is then stored it is no longer heating the atmosphere right?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: climate change

Postby zetreque on January 14th, 2017, 1:42 am 

BadgerJelly » Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:38 pm wrote:I'll play this silly game then ...

Where does all the energy from the sun go? Is any of it captured how much ofnitnis captured? If this energy is then stored it is no longer heating the atmosphere right?


Well I'm not going to play this game. I might be misinterpreting your response but you should be able to answer your own question.

BadgerJelly » Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:05 am wrote:
We know about the green house effect.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: climate change

Postby BadgerJelly on January 14th, 2017, 2:26 am 

What are the other causes of rise in global temperatures? Forget about CO2 for now. What do we know about other factors involved in this process?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: climate change

Postby zetreque on January 14th, 2017, 2:34 am 

BadgerJelly » Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:26 pm wrote:What are the other causes of rise in global temperatures? Forget about CO2 for now. What do we know about other factors involved in this process?


If this question is to me, I already pointed out a couple and Brain too.

One thing I could add is that oceans are absorbing quite a lot of solar energy. Changing albedo of polar oceans changes solar radiation absorption. Oceans are to the Earth's climate systems like the Ph buffers in our blood. You are ok until you loose those buffers in your blood and then all hell breaks loose.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: climate change

Postby BadgerJelly on January 14th, 2017, 3:20 am 

So you are suggesting that the oceans act as insulators? The increase in global temperatures is partially due to the oceans retaining and accumulating energy?

Given that tHe sun is our main source of energy then wouldn't minute changes in solar activity produce chnages in global temperatures? Also, fluctuations in the Earths magnetic field would also possibly contribute to temperature changes? If I am asking such questions then I may as well throw in the tilt of the Earths axis too.

The question then becomes how big a change in such factors would have to be for there to be an effect on global temperatures and how can we look at such things?

I am assuming we are missing something. I am assuming that we stop carbon emissions and find the temperature is still rising. I am assuming although carbon emissions undoubtlledly fan the flames they don't create them.

I am not trying to discredit anything by saying what I am saying.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Paul Anthony liked this post


Re: climate change

Postby zetreque on January 14th, 2017, 3:40 am 

James Croll and Milutin Milankovic are just a couple that have spent their life's work on that very topic. There are some good reads out there about it and a very interesting story as the debate went back and forth for many years. Once we came up with all this marvelous technology, it confirmed much of their hypothesis about the temperature of the Earth given multiple factors of it's relation to the sun.

My talk about the oceans was mostly to reinforce previous statements about Alberto. Insulator is not the correct term. Buffer is more the term to use. Since the sun is the main source of heat or radiant energy, if we forget CO2 emissions, then albedo is the next thing to consider in it's many changes. I want to make it clear to future readers though. The moment this thread denies that CO2 is not the major cause of temperature changes, this thread becomes personal alternative theories.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: climate change

Postby BadgerJelly on January 15th, 2017, 2:00 am 

I cannot find any figures for amount of geothermal energy emitted naturally per year.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: climate change

Postby Braininvat on January 15th, 2017, 11:05 am 

The flow of heat from Earth's interior to the surface is estimated at 47terawatts (TW)[1] and comes from two main sources in roughly equal amounts: the radiogenic heat produced by the radioactive decay of isotopes in the mantle and crust, and the primordial heat left over from the formation of the Earth.[2]

Earth's internal heat powers most geological processes[3] and drives plate tectonics.[2] Despite its geological significance, this heat energy coming from Earth's interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation.[4] Theinsolation that eventually, after reflection, reaches the surface penetrates only several tens of centimeters on the daily cycle and only several tens of meters on the annual cycle. This renders solar radiation irrelevant for internal processes.[5]


--- from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_internal_heat_budget

Not so hard....typed in "total heat emitted interior earth" in google, and this was first link.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Lomax liked this post


Re: climate change

Postby BadgerJelly on January 16th, 2017, 1:13 am 

So undoubtedly the largerst factor is the sun.

What shields us from sun? Has the Earth's natural barrier from the sun rays been measureably changing? Yes. Yet people still talk about carbon emissions like its the singular and most influential factor in climate change.

Should we be looking at the Earth's magnetic field more?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: climate change

Postby zetreque on January 16th, 2017, 2:32 am 

BadgerJelly » Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:13 pm wrote:So undoubtedly the largerst factor is the sun.

What shields us from sun? Has the Earth's natural barrier from the sun rays been measureably changing? Yes. Yet people still talk about carbon emissions like its the singular and most influential factor in climate change.

Should we be looking at the Earth's magnetic field more?


Please look into James Croll and Milutin Milankovic then get back to us. I've been trying to tell you that people have spent their lives studying this to great detail. I've read a book written by someone who have must have spent a great deal of time researching the publications of these men as well as all references from other scientists in archives, and personal letters. It's an interesting story. James Croll was the first to study the orientation of the Earth with respect to the sun in detail and correlate it to climate changes that other scientists have spent their lives researching through various separate methods. A lifetime later, Milutin took it a step even further painstakingly doing all the math several times over refining his work into what is known as the Milakovic Cycles or the Croll-Milankovic Cycles to be more precise.

There have been discrepancies, then years spent refining the work and things matched up again, back and forth until hundreds of scientists and now supercomputers have calculated it into some amazing science. That's what's so amazing about science. How it's the limits of human knowledge built up over generations by thousands of dedicated researchers.


PS: Contained within that story there are other scientists doing paleomagnetic research which is looking at the historic condition of Earth's magnetic field.
Last edited by zetreque on January 16th, 2017, 2:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added PS:
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: climate change

Postby BadgerJelly on January 16th, 2017, 2:47 am 

"I don't want to read books."

Most of the population of Earth has neither the time nor the inclination to read such books. I am asking at the request of those willing to dismiss carbon emissions as the most important factor, those who are willing to accept the data, but not the conclusion.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: climate change

Postby zetreque on January 16th, 2017, 2:59 am 

BadgerJelly » Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:47 pm wrote:"I don't want to read books."

Most of the population of Earth has neither the time nor the inclination to read such books. I am asking at the request of those willing to dismiss carbon emissions as the most important factor, those who are willing to accept the data, but not the conclusion.


That's the conundrum. Unless people take some time to look into this, it's very hard to explain the entire picture of how our knowledge has come to be what it is now. If people aren't willing to do some reading here and there (even some paragraphs on a wikipedia page about the various parts of "the story") to figure out why there is a consensus on anthropogenic climate change, then can we really care if they don't accept the conclusion?

You go to the doctor and he recommends surgery. You might get a second opinion but how far are you wiling to go until you accept their conclusion?

I try my best to point people in the direction and explain things here and there. I'm still struggling but I think getting better at trying to help people understand. :)

We basically have rocks that formed from molten magma going back through Earth's history. When magma cools, it's iron aligns with the magnetic field. One can look to see if the strength or change in Earth's magnetic field has changed I would assume but anyone is welcome to do the research into that. Given that this has been a natural process throughout history, I have not encountered anything in the texts suggesting that the strength has changed but again you are welcome to explore that and start a thread in the personal theories section for that.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: climate change

Postby BadgerJelly on January 16th, 2017, 3:56 am 

To me it is obvious, in regard to carbon emissions, to act cautiously. If human activity is a huge component to climate change then we should lower emissions. The science is pretty black and white in this regard. We know what the greenhouse effect is and every person can understand this perfectly well. The problem is risk assessment and pointing out if the science has left out some other factors then we do not suffer from them miscalculating. If they are correct and we take no action then we are talking about famine, disease and war on a global scale in our not so far future, and possibly the decline of civilization and the human species.

If the odds were estimated that there is a 1 in a million chance that the worlds as we know it may decline into chaos then I imagine people would take these odds. If 1 in 100 we should be scared. I believe the odds of distaster in the near future due to global warming (carbon emissions as main factor) are considerably higher than a 1% chance of distaster!

No brainer. Current understanding says reduce carbon emissions or put the existence of the human race up for, at best, a coin toss!

If carbon emissions are not the main concern and we put all our attention into this area (which is already fairly obvious and conclusive) then we may be sucker punched by another underlying factor. The carbon problem may only be a surface problem to a greater natural mechanicism (although I am not saying it does not contribute to this).

People are willing to dismiss carbon emissions simply because science has taught them about the complexity of nature. What is being ignored is the risk assessment.

If solar storms and magnetic fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field contribute to climate change and we can measure this and factor into carbon emissions it will either make the problem of carbon emissions look worse or better ... if it looks like a "rosier" picture and we realise this "rosier" picture is still horrific alongside such immense factors involving solar storms and the Earth's magnetic field, then I would imagine peoppe may be a little more concerned with carbon emissions.

Biv presented a very stark and obvious piece of information regarding heat produced by the Earth. The issue I hear against carbon emissions (skepticism against it) is due to the disbelief that mere humans can have such an effect and that the Earth can recover quickly. The SCALE of the problem is not something people are able to fathom and they will resist it.

Anyway, back to it.

There is evidence for increased solar activity and the magnetic poles have been measureably shifting. This is fairly widely accepted. Because of this some areas of the Earth have fluctuations in magnetic shielding and such fluctuations allow for more, or less, solar radiation to enter the atmosphere.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: climate change

Postby Braininvat on January 16th, 2017, 1:37 pm 

It's weird to me how most people respect the results of science when they concern palpable aspects of their own lives, like transportation or medicine, but turn utterly skeptical when it comes to climatology. They will climb on jets readily, without a tremor of science denial regarding aerodynamic experiments in wind tunnels, materials testing of engine components, etc. They will let themselves go under a surgeon's knife and trust in the science that spotted a tumor or fistula or whatever, and confidently expect science to work for them. They flip on their smartphones, expecting the quantum physics beneath its shell to be spot on. But suggest that centuries of local weather data, plus decades of reams of global satellite data all over the EMF spectrum, plus thousands of experiments verifying the behavior of gases like methane and CO2, plus thousands upon thousands of samplings of trace gases in the atmosphere at thousands of locations, plus thousands of measurements of glacial shrinkage, plus the input of fields like vulcanology, wildlife ecology, agronomy, soil science, marine biology, etc.....might have yielded some solid science regarding climate and all of a sudden there's an utter s--tstorm about conspiracies and treehugging Commies trying to bring down our nation, blah blah blah.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
zetrequeLomax liked this post


Re: climate change

Postby Paul Anthony on January 16th, 2017, 5:03 pm 

BIV,

For some of us it is the vast amount of study and data that makes us wonder how a scientist can determine that CO2 is the culprit. Doing so would seem to require ignoring a lot of what Science knows about the causes of weather patterns and climate.

If it had been presented as a contributing factor rather than an alarmist "we're all gonna die if we don't reduce emissions" I wouldn't be so skeptical.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: climate change

Postby Braininvat on January 16th, 2017, 8:19 pm 

Name one reputable climatologist who has stated that we are all going to die if GHG emissions are not reduced. That statement would indeed be alarmist and also insane, given that climatologists can only model certain changes in temps, ocean currents, sea ice shrinkage, etc. Saying that increased storms and sea level rise and ecosystem damage from soaring temps will be unpleasant for us is not tantamount to declaring we're all dead.

As for having abundant and consistent data that powerfully correlates temperature increases and increases in CO2 after the Industrial Revolution, if you still haven't grasped the scientific techniques to make these interpretations, it's not for the lack of effort of many here who have tried to provide helpful sources, tables, charts, and other explanatory material.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
zetreque liked this post


Re: climate change

Postby Paul Anthony on January 16th, 2017, 9:45 pm 

Braininvat » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:19 pm wrote:Name one reputable climatologist who has stated that we are all going to die if GHG emissions are not reduced. That statement would indeed be alarmist and also insane, given that climatologists can only model certain changes in temps, ocean currents, sea ice shrinkage, etc. Saying that increased storms and sea level rise and ecosystem damage from soaring temps will be unpleasant for us is not tantamount to declaring we're all dead.


Easy now, I didn't attribute that to scientists. I should have clarified the "alarmists" were the news media (and some people who believed them), not actual scientists. It is in the public domain that we hear claims about NY being under water in 20 years and other such inanities, and on another forum where several "believers" have taken the data and extrapolated extremes that were never claimed by the scientific community.

That is the main reason I started this thread. I wanted to hear sound arguments without the hype. Thank you all for your sane contributions.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: climate change

Postby Braininvat on January 16th, 2017, 11:01 pm 

Oh. Well, alright then. :-)
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: climate change

Postby wolfhnd on January 16th, 2017, 11:13 pm 

My take is global warming is it is real, slightly exaggerated by even the scientist, will have substantial negative impacts, there is little that can practically be done about it within the necessary time frame that doesn't come with equally serious negative consequences.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4333
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: climate change

Postby zetreque on January 17th, 2017, 1:26 pm 

Try to find someone NOT tied in some way to the fossil fuel industry or significantly benefiting from it who opposing climate science. It's the oil companies and news stations like Fox that have twisted all this out of control trying to confuse people because of the massive amounts of money behind it. That's why you get alarmists and that's why you get media exaggerating and twisting this topic around in ignorance. Not everyone is in the know and you will get scared people who already are frustrated with corporate powers in other areas of life, and seeing the utter garbage coming out of the anti-climate movement. Then you get those alarmists who feel they have to go to extremes to be heard and sometimes do more damage than good.

And for the ones that just don't get it because they are listening to this twisted manipulative media, reference this again and they should re-evaluate their thought processes because a significant amount of data and work has gone into all the technology we now take for granted. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=29770&p=314401#p314313
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: climate change

Postby BadgerJelly on January 19th, 2017, 3:10 am 

What about deforestation as a major factor? Also there has be a reported decrease in cloud cover too (although I think this is mainly low cloud cover? The ice reflecting light covers a much smaller area than cloud cover right?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4587
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: climate change

Postby doogles on January 19th, 2017, 6:29 am 

BadgerJelly, you appear to have many doubts about the global warming push in the same manner as me.

But I’m quite satisfied that we have had moderate average global near-surface temperature increases since the 1970s and that the IPCC has moderated its claims back from an alarmist level to a realistic level. I am not a climate change denier.

The only part of the whole story that I’m still skeptical about is the importance given to the role of carbon dioxide emissions in the overall theory. My research suggests that the carbon dioxide theory is entirely based on an EDUCATED GUESS by James Hansen and that there have not been any basic experimental studies to support that guess.

I also accept that we have a ‘greenhouse’ effect on this planet. But I’ve found it difficult to access any literature on the simplistic principles behind the theories.

I’ve checked Tyndall’s original work and Arrhenius’ original works. Both worked with carbonic acid and not pure carbon dioxide gas, Even so, Arrhenius drew conclusions about the beneficial effects of the carbon dioxide emissions from industry in his day as possible preventatives against global cooling. And he produced equations correlating carbon dioxide concentrations with temperature changes. But he did not present a simple explanation for his theories.

I like to reduce any problems to its foundations or its basics. In the absence of anything I can find on the web about the basics of the greenhouse effect, I will have a go at explaining it in my own way and as usual I would really appreciate if someone can tell me where I have gone wrong.

I can accept that ozone, water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide all absorb heat (or infrared) energy. Other gases such as nitrogen and oxygen do not.

The ‘greenhouse theory’ seems to be that the sun’s rays beam down towards our planet. The ozone layer reduces much of the ultraviolet radiation, and the infrared wavelengths reach the surfaces of our planet (insolation) except where they are blocked by clouds, particulate matter, and by absorption into the greenhouse gas molecules. These greenhouse gas molecules in turn then radiate the absorbed energy in all directions to lower energy areas, with 50% (semi-spherically) roughly going back towards space and 50% proceeding towards our planet.

So, in effect, the more greenhouse gas molecules there are in our atmosphere, the more they will reduce our planetary insolation.

Then there is the energy that bypassed these greenhouse molecules and reached the surface of the planet. A percentage of this is reflected. Some of this reflected energy is also absorbed by the greenhouse molecules and then again 50% of that energy is reflected back to the planet and 50% towards space.

Sorry to be long-winded, but if this is correct, doesn’t this mean that no matter how much we increase the greenhouse gases that the absorption of heat from radiative forcing will have been negated by the original absorption of energy from the incoming radiation.

I perceive that this is also where BadgerJelly is having problems with the current global warming story.

If, as I’ve suggested above that the greenhouse gases just maintain heat rather than increase it, then we have to go along with BJ and look for intrinsic causes of the increasing global average increases in near-surface temperatures.

I have a couple of ideas on this, but I’ll wait till I get some points of view on my theory that the greenhouse gases are a double-edged sword that simply maintains the status quo regardless of extra gas inputs.
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 859
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: climate change

Postby Lomax on January 19th, 2017, 9:33 am 

Sorry to be long-winded, but if this is correct, doesn’t this mean that no matter how much we increase the greenhouse gases that the absorption of heat from radiative forcing will have been negated by the original absorption of energy from the incoming radiation.

I don't know the answer any better than you do; but isn't it a little odd to presume that the climatology community hasn't considered such things? I don't think dim-wittedness is a criterion they employ by. "Are you more clueless about this than the amateurs? Welcome aboard, here's $1,000,000 funding!"
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3502
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: climate change

Postby Serpent on January 19th, 2017, 10:10 am 

I don't believe any of the thousands of reputable scientists who spent decades working out the effects of various factors and their interactions.
I don't have time to do any reading.
I don't trust bloggers who try to explain it in layman's terms.
I don't interpret the weather i witness as part of a pattern.
I'd be much happier thinking the climate change thing is a hoax.

Okay. Now.

Tell me the whole thing, in three sentences of simple words, in such a way that I'll be convinced.

Ready? Go!
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
Lomax liked this post


Re: climate change

Postby Braininvat on January 19th, 2017, 10:41 am 

Stated very simply, carbon dioxide, or CO2, is nearly transparent to the solar radiation emitted from the sun, but partially opaque to the thermal radiation emitted by the earth. Wavelength matters.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
zetrequeLomaxSerpent liked this post


PreviousNext

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests