Top German Climate Scientists now Acknowledge Global COOLING

Yes, that is exactly how it works.

 

No its not Manny for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is the reaction that causes the damage.

This entire line is pathetic. You played a word game with a difference without distinction. Now you are trying to save face because you were wrong about trenberths argument.

 

Yes, a reaction that adds no energy to the system. showing that this statement by you "Apparently your physics education is so poor you do not realize that the words, drive, force, mix all forceful actions. They take an increase in energy. A decrease in energy is not going to drive, force or mix anything. You were praying your were hoping but you didn't know." is incorrect.

 

What makes you think that there is a decrease in energy??? You think that a car stops without energy? The total energy acting upon the object when stopping is twice the energy as moving.

What external force is acting upon the car to make it stop?

 

Thanks for reminding me in the other thread about this!
How about reality? How about conservation of energy? How about the math?
Change in energy = E[SUB]final[/SUB] – E[SUB]initial[/SUB]
Kinetic energy = mass(velocity)[SUP]2[/SUP]/2

Initial Kinetic energy of Car (1500kg) moving @ 100km/h = 1500kg(100000m/3600s)[SUP]2[/SUP]/2 = 750(771.6)kg-m[SUP]2[/SUP]/s[SUP]2[/SUP] = 578703 J

Final Kinetic energy of car after it hits brick wall = 1500kg (0m[SUP]2[/SUP]/s[SUP]2[/SUP]) = 0kg-m[SUP]2[/SUP]/s[SUP]2[/SUP] = 0 joules

Change in energy = 0 J – 578703 J = – 578703J

Yes, a car hitting a brick wall has a net loss of energy; Very basic physics
Nonsense. The energy equation show you are wrong.

Source of external force is irrelevant. Energy calculations don't change.

I do have to thank you, Windy. My calculations bring back fond memories of doing simple physics homework. I did have to crack open my old Resnick / Halliday to look up the kg-m[SUP]2[/SUP]/s[SUP]2[/SUP] to joules conversion factor, though.

 

Physics 101 "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another." I have no idea where you came up with this doubling of energy. The cars energy came from the gasoline which was converted from chemical energy to kinetic energy. Now I bet your next question will be where does this energy go. Been a long time since I was in a physics class but in theory the majority is converted into heat energy. A tiny amount to light and sound which eventually revert to heat. Some may be converted to potential energy eg it it lifts the wall or distorts metal in a way that it can spring back. To say that the wall absorbs energy is true but not definitive. It will be absorbed but as heat, or as potential energy if the wall is moved upwards or flexes it would be a transference of kinetic energy.

 

I should have been more specific to force. The energy acting upon the car doesn't come from the car. It comes from the walk as it is reflected. Car to wall, wall to car. If the wall were to break easily. The energy would stay in the wall and become kenetic energy as the walk crumbles.

To the original point this had nothing to do with trenberths paper as there is no impact force. The wind dying down as you claim an cause waves isn't a car hitting a wall. Its letting off the gas and coasting.

 

"reflected energy"? Now that's a new physics concept! Light is reflected; electromagnetic waves are reflected. Waves are reflected. In physics, energy is transferred.
The wall has no kinetic energy. The wall gains kinetic energy from the car. But because the wall moves very little, the kinetic energy of the car is converted to heating the car and heating the wall.
High School physics!

Actually it does. It shows that it's the change in energy (actually the change in velocity, E=mv[SUP]2[/SUP]/2 that creates the force; not just an increase in energy. The clue is in the v[SUP]2[/SUP]. V can be either negative or positive, and you would get an increase in energy. So it's an increase or decrease in wind speed that creates the force for mixing. The direction of the F is what changes.
And you're correct about "letting of the gas". But it doesn't change the equation. It just changes the rate of negative acceleration of the car.

 

Yes that is why we call it an energy reflection coefficient.

And you say that I have no understanding of energy transfer.

Ha Ha Ha, when exactly does the velocity go negative? Those forces are already acting upon the the water. When the wind dies down there is no new external force or energy source acting upon the water. It will continue in motion until its kenetic energy bleeds off. It will not reverse direction.

The box of tissue paper does in the back seat does not change state when you hit the wall. It continues doing what it was doing until acted upon by an external force.

A decreace in wind doesn't cause a wave to form. Trenberth doesn't even argue that in his paper he argues specifically that it us caused by an increace in wind. An increace that isn't in the real data just his model.

You are trying to argue it on a forum because you refuse to admit that Trenberth is wrong and the actual data doesn't support his model. We know, the entire warmmonger argument is based on appeal to authority so the authority cannot be wrong. When the authority is wrong warmmongers will bend reason time and space to keep from admitting it. This is fundamental to warmmonger insanity. And it is a major reason you have lost.

 

when their predictions were consistently wrong pretty soon people began to ignore them

Their computer models are a running joke, ski resorts are still operating, there have not been millions of refugees fleeing rising seas. They cried wolf incessantly and destroyed their own credibility with trying to tie every weather event from droughts to floods to heat waves to blizzards

Now it seems the only thing they accomplished was to add to the destruction of the European economy boost China and Indias

 

nm.......old thread