Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

The ozone layer is not depleting. Just another farce sold to people. In this case, DuPont had a patent ending on R-12 refrigerant, so fear was created so that we would switch over to a different refrigerant (R-134a) that was under a new patent.

As long as we have sunlight and oxygen, we have ozone.

 

I see you're making up random numbers again...

 

Thats false, It does get depleted, and then reconstituted.

Can hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water?

QUESTION: Why can’t we combine hydrogen and oxygen to make water?

ANSWER: We can combine hydrogen and oxygen to make water. And we can even get energy out of the process that we might be able to use to light a home or drive a car. But, of course, there are some details that make it a bit challenging.

First of all, if we simply mix a container of oxygen gas with a container of hydrogen gas, at room temperature and pressure, then nothing (or not much) will happen. The molecules of oxygen and hydrogen would be “happier” to join together to form water, but they need a little kick before that reaction will happen. Using an imperfect analogy, you can think of a hydrogen molecule as two magnets joined together, and the oxygen molecule as two differently shaped magnets joined together. A more tightly packed magnet can be formed by joining the hydrogen and oxygen magnets into a water magnet, but unless they bang into each other fast enough this won’t happen. Chemists say that an activation energy is needed for the reaction to occur.


We can supply this activation energy with a spark. But then, as you might guess, kaboom! If the magnets rearrange themselves into the more tightly packed water molecule, there is now energy left over that makes the water (vapor, actually) hot. Based on my calculations, if we combine a typical canister of hydrogen at 2,500 pounds per square inch pressure with a similar oxygen canister, the resulting water vapor will heat up by several thousand degrees Fahrenheit. This is why NASA uses liquid hydrogen and oxygen in the big, orange, external fuel tank that helps the space shuttle get into orbit.


Second Source
CORONAL MASS EJECTIONS

Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) are large expulsions of plasma and magnetic field from the Sun’s corona. They can eject billions of tons of coronal material and carry an embedded magnetic field (frozen in flux) that is stronger than the background solar wind interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) strength. CMEs travel outward from the Sun at speeds ranging from slower than 250 kilometers per second (km/s) to as fast as near 3000 km/s. The fastest Earth-directed CMEs can reach our planet in as little as 15-18 hours. Slower CMEs can take several days to arrive. They expand in size as they propagate away from the Sun and larger CMEs can reach a size comprising nearly a quarter of the space between Earth and the Sun by the time it reaches our planet.

The more explosive CMEs generally begin when highly twisted magnetic field structures (flux ropes) contained in the Sun’s lower corona become too stressed and realign into a less tense configuration – a process called magnetic reconnection. This can result in the sudden release of electromagnetic energy in the form of a solar flare; which typically accompanies the explosive acceleration of plasma away from the Sun – the CME. These types of CMEs usually take place from areas of the Sun with localized fields of strong and stressed magnetic flux; such as active regions associated with sunspot groups. CMEs can also occur from locations where relatively cool and denser plasma is trapped and suspended by magnetic flux extending up to the inner corona - filaments and prominences. When these flux ropes reconfigure, the denser filament or prominence can collapse back to the solar surface and be quietly reabsorbed, or a CME may result. CMEs travelling faster than the background solar wind speed can generate a shock wave. These shock waves can accelerate charged particles ahead of them – causing increased radiation storm potential or intensity.

end of sources

The ozone layer only exists in the upper stratosphere where air pressure much much lower than at sea level. Ozone is such an unstable molecule, this area of the atmosphere is the only place on earth it can exist for more than a second or so.

 

It is pointless to do the math on random numbers. The result is meaningless. It is not possible to measure global CO2 content. It is not possible to know how much is produced by humans compared to natural causes.

CO2 is not a pollutant, nor can it heat Earth's surface. Plus, plants love the ____ out of it.

 

Do you always post non sequitur?

 

Compared to what? Why compared to that as opposed to anything else?

 

That is literally the topic of conversation that I was having with bestviewed which you wanted to join.

 

Yea, yea. I know your talking point, "all data on this subject is unknowable."

Find me a reputable source and I'll review. You are not worthy of any further debate.

 

Again, I see zero discussion of how the Aurora Borealis - or any solar emission - creates water on Earth.

 

It doesn't get depleted. It forms near the tropopause. As it drifts upwards, it runs into UV-C sunlight, which destroys it and turns it back into oxygen.

As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone.

 

Define "global warming".

Regarding the theory that the Earth is warming via IR emitted from Earth's surface due to Greenhouse gases, yes, that theory violates thermodynamics as well as the stefan-boltzmann law.

That theory attempts to trap heat, as well as make it flow from cold to hot. It also attempts to create energy out of nothing. It also attempts to decrease radiance while increasing temperature.

Please describe Greenhouse Effect to me in a manner that does not commit any of these violations.

 

No, your silly post was a non sequitur to the fact that water is one of the most abondant molecule in the universe and the main source of hydrogene and oxygen are in fact the stars.

 

Okay, so science is "knowledge of...".

How, precisely, does one come to this "knowledge"? What is the full process for arriving at a final "theory of science" or a "law of science"?

I think you will find that falsifiable theories are involved...

 

OK.
Lets do this.
we have a world just like earth where we know the average surface temperature, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and the suns irradiance is 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness.
Are we OK so far.

 

Again, you are attempting to equate a few specific examples with "all data on this subject". So long as you continue to ignore logic, science, and mathematics, you're going to get nowhere with this.

I've already given them to you:

The Laws of Thermodynamics.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
The closed-functional system of Logic.
The closed-functional system of Mathematics.

...because I refuse to toss aside logic, math, and science to join your religion?

 

And nothing coming out of the left addresses any of that.

It's all mumbo jumbo bull**** that says, like in the Paris Accord, the US and other nations should just send money to China and North Korea as a "fix".

Not a word on how they address the epic levels of pollution pouring out of the 3rd world.

You forgot the irony that as the western world moves away from fossil fuels, they become cheaper for the most polluting countries to use them even more than they do now.

No conservative is suggesting that CO2 and pollutants shouldn't be addressed. We're saying that the government, as exemplified by all of the bad examples the Obama administration ran with that you listed, isn't running AGW as a solution. They're running it as a method of getting rich.

While you're railing on, and very correctly in your post in many cases, keep in mind that conservatives tend to live in, tend, and experience nature far more than the wailing left.

Solutions should address the biggest problems.

Nothing coming out of the left does.

 

By asking your opinion on the topic of conversation with which you chose to intervene? OK Canadien.

 

You literally have not provided a single source of someone that backs up your interpretation of those laws. Still waiting on you to prove that you can do that simple task.

 

I'm very wary of "step-by-step" situations like this for various reasons, but I'll play along anyway.

Okay. Next?

 

Ok unscientific pseudo lawyer.

 

Yeah, and I don't want to play dodgeball with temperature measurements.
So our little world has a CO2 concentration of 200ppm and a temperature of 58 degrees.
We will do this little experiment very quickly to eliminate other variables. OK?

 

You're still entirely focused on the "who" instead of the "what".

 

I agree its very unstable, but that doesnt mean it doesnt get depleted.

 

posting random letters together that aren't words, is incoherent rambling.

 

I never said the Aurora Borealis is a solar emission. I never said the Aurora Borealis creates water.

The sun showers the Earth with protons (aka Hydrogen atoms), when they strike the ozone layer, they break it down and produce an ever increasing quantity of water on the planet.

You asked for sources. I gave you sources.

It happens everyday.

Earth is not a closed system, and the addition of an ever increasing quantity of water on the Earth surface has added a huge amount of mass, buckling the ocean floor of every ocean on the planet.

as seen in this picture