It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time to Ask WHAT TEMPERATURE IS PERFECT for the average on Earth?

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2019 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

how about you get water flowing and comb your hair with a comb and put the comb near the water flow and see the water bend away from the energy built up on the comb. The static or electric field.
You are somewhat lost on water.

So keep up this pretend ignorance if you know and your continued ignorance if you don't.

ETA

www.technocracy.news...

edit on 9-5-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 9 2019 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman




The static or electric field.

Yes. That would be an example of electrostatic attraction, not magnetic attraction.

Do you think the north magnetic pole has a static electric charge?




edit on 5/9/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2019 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Justoneman




The static or electric field.

Yes. That would be an example of electrostatic attraction, not magnetic attraction.

Do you think the north magnetic pole has a static electric charge?





See you still don't get it and have revealed you won't when confronted with it doing the mental gymnastics.

You haven't proven to care to know the data but you spew out the narrow band of cherry picked data.

You don't understand Chemistry very well, as we established yesterday.


to answer the N Pole question
I think the Earth with Poles being positive and negative along with Molecules ALL have some magnetic attraction which in chemical bonds can be expressed as electromagnetic attraction of the positive and negative elements within atoms and molecules.


edit on 9-5-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2019 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Justoneman

Is the rising magma also causing the ice melt?


Yes there are. There are an estimated over 3 million underwater vocanoes, and that's not counting the amount of underwater vents.



...
Using radar techniques to map how water flows under ice sheets, UTIG researchers were able to estimate ice melting rates and thus identify significant sources of geothermal heat under Thwaites Glacier. They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed.

The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet's stability and its contribution to future sea level rise.

The cause of the variable distribution of heat beneath the glacier is thought to be the movement of magma and associated volcanic activity arising from the rifting of the Earth's crust beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
...

Researchers find major West Antarctic glacier melting from geothermal sources

Surprise, West Antarctic volcano melts ice

There are only about 150-155 land volcanoes, but their underground cousins outnumber the ones on land by over 3 million. Then there are the underwater vents which also release heat and CO2.



posted on May, 9 2019 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Those who think Phage is right and putting stars on are welcome to prove he is right or debate the data, whichever.

He has proven to be a troll so many times by calling in tangential data that barely relates to the discussion and deflecting. I would welcome honest debate and not a being thinking they are god, trying to force feed us UN lies.
drtimball.ca...

To my knowledge we still don't know Phages view on what the Temp average should be i am guessing colder than now. That speaks volumes.


edit on 9-5-2019 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Yes. Water vapor is the most influential greenhouse gas. However, its abundance in the atmosphere is temperature dependent. CO2 is not. The only thing that can increase the overall amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is higher temperatures.

So, when CO2 causes temperatures to rise a bit, it means that water vapor content increases, which causes more warming. It's one of the feedback effects of CO2 warming, like albedo reduction in the Arctic.



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The question is, has volcanic activity been increasing? It doesn't seem to be so with known volcanoes, there was a slight bump 10 years ago but nothing significant. I suppose you could speculate about those under water and ice, but without historical data it's not much but speculation.


www.volcano.si.edu...


edit on 5/10/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:02 AM
link   
55 degrees.

we need to stay in this ice age as long as possible



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: MetalThunder

I starred you for the simple reason that your link is the closest anyone has come to answering the question. Allow me to add a link: link.

The global mean surface air temperature for that period [1951-1980] was estimated to be 14°C (57°F), with an uncertainty of several tenths of a degree.

That's from NASA and is an obviously biased article in favor of Global Warming, but the numbers are likely still accurate. And they do correlate with the temperatures specified in your link as well, so there's that.

So to answer the OP, based on the known positive benefits to mankind that come with previous time expanses where the temperature rose, as well as the known detriments to mankind that came with lower temperatures, I would estimate the optimal global average temperature for perpetuation of the species homo sapiens sapiens to be around 60°F.

That comes with the caveat that my little area of Alabama never drops below 50°F... just consider me the real-life version of Heat Miser.

(Guy used to be my hero growing up, lol)

TheRedneck



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




That's from NASA and is an obviously biased article in favor of Global Warming, but the numbers are likely still accurate.

You accept global surface temperature models as likely accurate.
Noted.


To clarify, I'm not referring to predictive models, but to the models which produce an average global temperature based on surface observations. In the case of your link that would be the GISS model.

edit on 5/10/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




...unless a gas is ionized it isn't affected by magnetism at all.


Paramagnetism, diamagnetism:



so, did they ionize the frog?
edit on 10-5-2019 by Zelun because: to avoid pedantics



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

Paramagneticism, diamagneticism:

Indeed. Thank you for asking. Two Socratic questions:

1) What is the strength of Earth's magnetic field?
2) Do either paramagnetism or diamagnetism cause water (or air) to be attracted to (or repelled from) a particular magnetic pole?
3) Is nitrogen paramagnetic or diamagnetic?

oops. 3.


so, did they ionize the frog?
Is the frog a gas?

edit on 5/10/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Electromagnetic attraction as applied to chemistry is a pretty simple concept. Opposite charges attract. Electrons are attracted to positive ions, for example.

Simple? So all those books employing calculus, numerical methods, iteration, and differential equation analysis to explain and quantify electrochemical interactions are just light reading? Wow... guess I should have went into chemistry if the most complex subject is so Mickey Mouse...

How much do the molecules attract? How does this attraction (or repulsion) affect the physical structure of the molecules? I mean, really, BitCoin was initially introduced (I believe) to get people to run protein bending algorithms on their computers when not in use, and very little progress has been made in spite of that. Protein bending is accomplished at the base level by electrochemical interactions that make slight changes in the physical structure of the proteins.

That stream of water that someone mentioned is a good example. Why would it bend up? Isn't water electrically neutral? OK, OK, that's a trick question, because it's not. Water is a very polar molecule (which is why it makes such a great solvent and why hydrogen bonding is so integral in its structure). It contains two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to one oxygen at an angle of approximately 105° (~1.82 radians). This angle is the result of electrostatic forces between the hydrogen atoms and the valence electrons in the oxygen atom, and can change depending on the sum of the electrostatic fields external to the molecule. This change then changes the electrostatic field induced by the water molecule, which affects the water molecules around it.

Incidentally, this explains why water vapor has such a wide spectral absorption range... but I digress.

Actual calculations require numerical analysis, including iteration, just to give an approximation. That's far from simple, Phage.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Actual calculations require numerical analysis, including iteration, just to give an approximation. That's far from simple, Phage.


Tell me, do opposite charges attract?

That's what I meant by simple.



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


You accept global surface temperature models as likely accurate.
Noted.

I see no reason not to in this instance. Why?

I use the word "likely" because there is a concern about conditions surrounding observation stations (calibration, local environment change, etc.). But for purposes of identifying an optimal global average temperature, sure...

TheRedneck



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Would you like some blueberry syrup with your waffles?

The temperature you accept as a global average is based on surface observations.


edit on 5/10/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

1. about a quarter to a half a Tesla

2. I don't know, but water is a polar molecule, and any external magnetic force would certainly tend to polarize it's attitude, and perhaps as a mass that water would gain a net reactance to a B field, and reluctance, for that matter.

3. Diamagnetic.



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Ooh! Ooh! Can I play?


1) What is the strength of Earth's magnetic field?
2) Do either paramagnetism or diamagnetism cause water (or air) to be attracted to (or repelled from) a particular magnetic pole?
3) Is nitrogen paramagnetic or diamagnetic?

1) Assumed to be between 25 and 65 μT. Quite weak compared to observable magnets. However, there has been no research on magnetic derivatives, so there is the possibility the static field we measure is simply a background level.
2) Yes.
3) Slightly paramagnetic, with a relative permeability of 1.0006.

Oh, almost missed this:

Is the frog a gas?

No, but it does exhibit diamagnetic properties.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

1. Try again.
2. Water is slightly diamagnetic. Slightly, which is why #1 is important.
3. So, it would run away from Earth's magnetic field if it weren't for gravity?



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Tell me, do opposite charges attract?

That's what I meant by simple.

Tell me, does a car go form point A to point B?

Congratulations, Phage! You're a certified auto mechanic!

Er... can you fix my transmission? It slips when doing a hard downshift from third to second gear...

TheRedneck




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join