That would be OUTWARDS from the core.
From where I stand half of it is heading downwards.
That would be OUTWARDS from the core.
From where I stand half of it is heading downwards.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
That would be OUTWARDS from the core.
From where I stand half of it is heading down.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
Explain how it is possible that any of the 65 mW per square meter that comes into the sub-layer below us can make a U-turn and drive itself into a the more heated and more pressurized environment below.Originally Posted by MikeC
I can't currently quantify or confirm this "65mW per square meter" from the core that you mention. But I would argue that its a rather trivial amount of energy compared to what the sun provides, and what is in effect amplified/trapped by greenhouse gases (including water vapour) in our atmosphere.
I also have to ask, what your point is? You seem to be deviating from your point, which is to argue for the existence of chemtrails, surely?
"The mean heat flows of continents and oceans are 65 and 101 mW m−2, respectively, which when areally weighted yield a global mean of 87 mW m−2"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93RG01249/abstract
I'm working on the video, I am just curious how Mike C. explains this.
OK, and your point is?
I mean, I can list off the temperature of various parts of my garden outside if you like, but without concluding it with a 'point', what is the point?
My point in any disagreement is 1. What is it? In this case it is aerial distribution that some refer to as Chemtrails, although they tend to be considered a little more radicle 2. Is there any justification? For anything there has to be reasoning that drives human behavior no mater what it is. In this situation we call it today "Climate Change" but an underlying driving force is food resources drying up around the world altering weather patterns causing problems with keeping up to food supplies. If justified then... 3. Is there a purpose? If the weather could be altered to increase production, then yes it would be. 4. Is there a reason for secrecy involved in this activity that could promote conspiracy theories?
Last edited by Woody; May 17th, 2013 at 02:06 PM.
As the world draws closer to running out of food to feed all the people, many believe it will not effect them. I recall when Japan was hit and the problems we encountered with production here and delays in products, we live in a world community today. The world had no warning before the stock market collapsed, and there will be no warning about food shortages either, this is the fastest way to collapse capitalism. How do you keep McDonalds and Burger King open with food rationing and keep the economy running? Every season we hear of another devastation, Oklahoma lost 70% of her winter wheat, they are still calculating the losses. You may not believe in climate change, but as we come to 8 billion people we begin to realize there is a limit to how much food we can produce, so we have modified it up to this point, but there are still limitations. To me, putting a haze in the atmosphere to counteract the solar radiation from reaching the surface, which increases the resistance driving down the surface temperature, is a feasible alternative, and the only one they had. I will follow this up with a video explaining these differences in the trails and you can all go into history and try to find these aircraft. It is possible that they are concentrating their efforts on the outer edges of the atmosphere in the mid-latitude regions to aid in increasing the Arctic's influence on our weather. This could explain why I say it's so blatantly obvious to me.
Contrails are made of water, Woody.
There aren't any chemtrails, Woody, because chemtrails are like fairies, they are fairy stories made up by people.
Therefore there is no justification. Therefore there is no secrecy.
Please stop telling us what you think you know. We already know enough of what you think you know to not want to know any more about what you think you know.
Take an accredited course on thermodynamics and pass it if you can, then get back to us. You know so little about simple physics that it is almost impossible to teach you anything.
This thread is a nightmare.
And the heat radiating from the Earth's core through the ground counts to what exactly in this 'twist' in your argument? Do you not see how you endlessly talk about anything except your end-goal, which is explaining the point of chemtrails?
So right now, on one hand, I see someone convinced that chemtrails exist for some purpose of affecting us and "collapse capitalism".. But on the other I have the same person talking about a tiny amount of heat leaching from the core of the planet, read their their rather poor analogy of the atmosphere using a bedroom, and before then base their argument on contrail altitude using trees... Each time not actually connecting their points to their argument, or each other. That person is you - and I think you should see why I'm not at all swayed by anything you have said here.
Last edited by Pete; May 17th, 2013 at 02:35 PM.
Agreed, I am now tired of this too!
Well, why don't you just wait and answer to the video, I am condensing it as its hours long otherwise and no one wants to see all that. This threads concept of physics and yours is in big question, you perhaps agree with Mike C that the 1/2 the cores heat coming to the surface somehow goes back in? I guess if this is the physics your talking about, I skipped that class thankfully. When a plane drops a bomb, that's what you see, a plane and a bomb. Depending upon the reaction we can make determinations about the bomb, not until if you are just a distant observer. When a plane leaves a con-trail at a specific altitude, we can expect to see every plane in that region doing the same thing by their reaction to the atmosphere due to the atmospheric conditions. I see a distinct and different reaction between them like napalm compared to a 500 pounder. So I agree, it frustrating having someone tell you they are the same when they are clearly different, and 100% are not showing up on flightware.
I already know to avoid it.
I don't see a big question at all. Your little question doesn't need an answer.This threads concept of physics and yours is in big question
I don't agree with your suggestion because you are making it..you perhaps agree with Mike C that the 1/2 the cores heat coming to the surface somehow goes back in?
You wouldn't know because you skipped the class.I guess if this is the physics your talking about, I skipped that class thankfully.
It should be aimed at you until you learn anything. It should hit you if you don't. Please God.When a plane drops a bomb
Last edited by Jazzy; May 17th, 2013 at 02:57 PM.
I've tried being like you and my dad, a cynical ole geezer, it's just not in my nature I guess. I have learned that people like this tend to belittle others due to their own insecurities and to lift their egos.
Originally you said the ground had nothing to do with the atmosphere, so I apologize if I took the time to explain how I try to connect the dots and see it all as a cycle, but the ground is the source of all our heat and it does effect the atmosphere, along with the axial tilt bringing us into a swollen atmosphere, as well as the suns hours increasing bringing about more thermal radiation from the ground. As you once said, there is a lot going on.
Last edited by Woody; May 17th, 2013 at 03:27 PM.
What comes from the ground has a negligible effect on the atmosphere. I still say that, and what you've said hasn't supported your claim at all... I repeat: 65mW/m2 is negligible. In fact, its just nothing to do with our weather at all, nor contrails, nor this thread. So you are just 100% wrong. Seriously.
The solar radiation hitting the Earth is around 1300 W per m2. I'll say again: 1300W/m2 !!!! That's 20000 times more of an impact on us than what comes from the ground.
Your point is completely irrelevant. Past things you've said:
Measuring contrail height with trees.
Comparing our atmosphere to a heater in a sealed room.
And now suggesting "the ground is the source of all our heat".
You are wrong and hugely misguided, I will no longer reply as I feel I will be rather rude.
Last edited by Pete; May 17th, 2013 at 03:37 PM.
No, I'm sure you're Mr. Nice Guy.
Mr. Nice Guy slandering thousands of people he has never met, just because he has been deluded.
Which must be a comforting rationalization for you.I have learned that people like this tend to belittle others due to their own insecurities and to lift their egos.
The alternative would be the above scenario, and that could never be, could it?
You are holding to a vicious and wicked frame of mind which you are concealing from yourself. It's not nice.
Is gibberish, claptrap, and doesn't even qualify as pseudoscience.
Nothing that a smart clip round the ear wouldn't fix.There is a lot going on.
Followed by a trip back to fifth grade science class. Sit in the corner, Woody. Don't do that. Wear the hat. Don't worry about the letter D. Pay attention...
Last edited by Jazzy; May 18th, 2013 at 01:18 AM.
"It should be aimed at you until you learn anything. It should hit you if you don't. Please God." The truth is found in ones words
It all begins with the suns reaction with the surface transferring infrared radiation into thermal radiation that drives everything. Here is explains EVERYTHING I have been talking about, and everything you say isn't true. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ance/page3.php PS, as you say, the suns radiance on the GROUND surface heats the planet. This means the GROUND brings forth all of our heat. The ONLY mention I have given regarding the core is that Mike C says it goes back in, and I hope you do not agree because this would violate the laws of physics. I never said or even implied the core brings forth our heat, you have implied I have said this but have confused "Ground" with "Core" but are distinctly different.
Last edited by Woody; May 18th, 2013 at 05:48 AM.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...ance/page5.php "To understand how the Earth’s climate system balances the energy budget, we have to consider processes occurring at the three levels: the surface of the Earth, where most solar heating takes place; the edge of Earth’s atmosphere, where sunlight enters the system; and the atmosphere in between. At each level, the amount of incoming and outgoing energy, or net flux, must be equal." Because energy can never be created or destroyed, all of it must be accounted for. When we step outside and take the temperature readings, what we are reading is the amount of energy transfer taking place. and this occurs at ground level by emitting thermal radiation. The energy budget alters greatly and becomes driven by atmospheric conditions when the ground becomes frozen.
Oh, no!
Some lie, and others simply don't know what they are talking about.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ...Mark Twain
So pretty much nothing to do with the core energy coming through the surface then?! You are now arguing against yourself, Woody!
I am replying to refute any allegation that I am somehow wrong here.
Yes you're right, sort of! The fact the surface can be heated by energy from the sun obviously does something, but ultimately, that's because the sun is inputting that energy into the system. The fact you are now telling me in a round-about way something which I have been clearly stating, and then claiming I'm 'confused' is insane. I think you have lost the thread of your own argument... You went down one road claiming the ground heats the air, which you then linked to the core's heat only going 'up', which is when you then talked about the energy coming up from the ground (65mW)... And now all of a sudden, its the solar energy which bounces back from the ground (which is a given!) which becomes your point.
WHAT IS YOUR POINT? MAKE ONE, AND MAKE IT FAST.
In your case is the exception.
Nothing you say has any truth to it. Some of of what you say slanders innocent people. You can only do harm with what you believe. There will never be any possibility of good arising from your beliefs.
I never said any such thing - "up" is merely a perception - the direction of "up" on one side of the world is the same direction as "down" on the antipode of that point.
The earth's core radiates OUT from it - but at any given point on the globe half that radiation is down relative to that point.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
DP sorry
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
I live in an apartment block. There's a parrot in the flat above. He can imitate literally ANY sound.
He was hard pushed imitating passenger jets taking off (a long whistle decreasing in pitch), and had never heard a 'pop' sound, as one makes with a finger pulled out of one's lips. So I taught him to pop, and to put it at the end of the whistle.
Easier than Woody, I think. Stick to parrots.
MikeC, you can delete a double post. They happen one time in five for me. Select edit on the extra post, hit delete, and a sub window pops up, and asks you the question.
Last edited by Jazzy; Today at 12:11 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks