Leaderboard

Yes. If you turn up the bass.

On one point, your comment that greater mass of the molecule is responsible does not sound right to me. CO2 and water molecules have dipoles, (O-C-O being - + - and H-O-H being + - + ) which will couple to the electric vector of radiation at characteristic frequencies, determined by the resonance frequencies of the stretching and bending of their chemical bonds. As a result they both absorb in the IR. By contrast, O2 and N2 have no dipoles and are therefore transparent in the IR. So what happens is sun light of all wavelengths warms the ground, which then re-radiates predominantly in the IR and some of this gets absorbed by water and CO2 instead of being radiated directly out into space. (The molar specific heats of gases are not a function of their molecular weight, but depend on the number of degrees of freedom the molecule has to take up energy. For monatomic gases, which can't rotate and have only 3 translational degrees of freedom, it is 3/2RT. For diatomic gases, which can rotate in 2 dimensions as well, it is 5/2RT.)

Here they do:

Yes fish dance, watching their mating dances is one of the rewards of fish keeping!

As other have pointed out the stars are in constant motion. The stars in constellations are also not typically even gravitationally bound to each other. Here is a view of Ursa Major (the big dipper) from a view different than earth. That is right there is no absolute motion, all motion is relative.

I can't see why anyone should give you a negative rep for these questions so I have reversed them. +1 also to exchem for introducing some scientific sanity here. I am suprised you are only offering these oversimplistic responses to someone who is perhaps a youngster trying to understand climate change. @CrystalMagic To answer you questions and offer some further information about the subject. The fundamental driver for the average surface temperature of the Earth is the balance between energies reaching the Earth, energies leaving the Earth and energies being transported within the Earth. None of these three energy flows have ever been constant. As a result there have been periods when the Earth's surface has been warmer than at present and also colder than at present, both on average. Climate is the result of the fact that the average surface temperature is the average of a very uneven distribution of temperature and also the three energy flows. Climate is the response by the Earth's fluid environments (Atmosphere and Ocean) to this uneven distribution towards evening this out. The processes of climate are affected by many factors including the two you have asked about. The last major volcanic eruption, Krakatoa in 1883, cooled the Earth for about a decade becasue the dust released in the atmosphere reflected back some solar energy before it reached the surface. And yes, as sensei says there were bigger and better eruption a long time ago. As to your second question, yes the Earth has warmed and cooled many times before the present as the actual prevailing position of that energy balance shifts. The shifts occur over periods of hundreds of years, thousands of years as well as the millions sensei mentioned. We are currently in a period between two much colder periods commonly called ice ages. Please indicate if you have further interest when you reply.

Sometimes. Millions years ago. Sometimes. Millions years ago. It is true, but irrelevant to human-made global warming due to usage of fossil fuels.. "Global warming" is not about change on the Earth (which does not bother about such things, being just a planet), but a devastating change that will kill most humans, animals and plants. If you dramatically change the environment, living organisms will not survive, most of them. They are not accustomed to the new environment.

I hadn't thought of that answer, i was going for Pithyon.

I’d say a feeling (or any kind of mind-state in general) is never in itself reprehensible, because it is the result of very many different internal and external causes and conditions that we generally do not choose to put in place. What we can choose though - at least to a degree - is how to act in response to our mind-states. Thus, merely having personal distaste or discomfort over anything is ethically neutral, whereas (eg.) beating someone to a bloody pulp because of such mind-states, is not.

That is equivalent to the unit cost of four B-2 bombers; not including operational costs. The US SAC has a fleet of about 20. Shouldn't Thewowsignal be bitchin' about the cost of something else ?

There are two theories that seem interesting to me 1 The theory of volcanologists that volcanoes can sometimes create more pollution than all the factories of people. 2 It is said that scientists studying the pattern of ice noticed that warming had already happened before. Do you think this could be true?