Is the world a...

[Robp]

So yeah, the thing is, Im going to keep using you guys to help me with my future research [i really am that eager to my reports weeks in advance, quite strange for a uni student I know!]

 

Well I've read a few books [i.e glaciers & glaciation by benn & evans etc] And they all summarise, that the world is a "closed system".

Going on the principles, it is subjected to change, and infrequent patterns in ocean & atmospheric currents show that this "system" is changing. To minimise it, or not, I haven't a clue. Yet. Also, the relative matter gained and loss is negligable, so it points towards the "closed system" idea...

 

However, matter is still lost, and it is subjected to change from outside the system as well, which supports the open system Idea...

 

My lecturer did say to me, it has characteristics of both... But if you were going to catagorise it, what would you class it as?

 

(This links into my report, and how if we're changing this world, will it shift to minimise this change, and bring about a short period of global cooling, instead of everyone's anticipated "tipping point")

 

Thanks,

Rob

[Ophiolite]

I suggest it depends upon which aspects of the world you are looking at. If you are looking at it from a purely mass perspective then it is, almost, a closed system. However, in most instances it is assuredly not a closed system since we have substantial thermal input from the sun. I'm surprised you've found textbooks describing it as closed. I suggest you take a closer look at the caveats they may have applied that would render it a closed system in the context they are considering.

[superball]

I suggest it depends upon which aspects of the world you are looking at. If you are looking at it from a purely mass perspective then it is, almost, a closed system. However, in most instances it is assuredly not a closed system since we have substantial thermal input from the sun. I'm surprised you've found textbooks describing it as closed. I suggest you take a closer look at the caveats they may have applied that would render it a closed system in the context they are considering.

 

In one way its closed, in another it is open. refer to auroras, it is a result of an external force. A CME does cause induction of that energy into the ionosphere, that energy can indeed reach the surface as electric charge.

 

I said it was closed, because I was relating to the atmosphere, assuming it did not leak into outer-space, but in reality it can.

 

I vote open. 1 for open technically.

 

I would include both perspectives in your report. Good poll.

Edited November 18, 2011 by superball

[superball]

, I haven't a clue. Yet. Also, the relative matter gained, and loss is negligable, so it points towards the "closed system" idea...

 

 

ocean & atmospheric currents show that this "system" is changing.

 

 

(This links into my report, and how if we're changing this world, will it shift to minimise this change, and bring about a short period of global cooling, instead of everyone's anticipated "tipping point")

 

What leads you to the assumption relative matter gain, or losses are negligible? A common mistake.

 

yes the system is changing quickly, a body in motion remains in motion.

In this case the changing circulation patterns, oceanic tides, or king tides if you like. A bubble on the level only takes the slightest movements to cause a shift.

 

On a global scale cold air circulation from the southern hemisphere will produce immediate effects in the form of powerful storms. The changes are related to today, and is valid for future outcomes.

The tipping point, or plane of equality has already been found to have changed, by the balance on the scale.

 

Linking a further assumptions is another mistake.

Edited November 19, 2011 by superball