Which do you think would put more heat into earth’s atmosphere, all of the fossil fuels that humans have ever burnt combined, or one hour of sunshine?
The answer does not matter, but the point is that the sun provides thousands, maybe millions of times more heat, so it may be far more effective, faster and easier to reduce the solar heat that radiates into our atmosphere by 1%, then to reduce the heat humans generate by 50-90%.
About a month ago I began pointing out that theory scientists have missed a very efficient atmospheric cooling process that earth just lost. If you know where a piece of a forest still is, on the next real hot day go into it and notice how much cooler it feels.
If a great deal of growing is going on (damp ground, plenty of sun) it may even feel air conditioned. Crop dusters and helicopter pilots have often noticed how much cooler forests can be to fly over then near by farms, roads cities are even bodies of water.
But words do not contain substance so before we get started don’t believe anything I say if I can’t provide simple experiments to prove it.
I was called many names by people claiming advanced scientific knowledge for suggesting that the removal of over 80% of earth’s thermally protective surface would have naturally brought on Global Warming, even if we had never burnt fossil fuels. Not that they are not a big problem.
So I decided to point out many other earth cooling effects I also found in forests, but this time with simple experiments that third graders can verify, or prove me wrong. Read on, they’re included.
It is not a good idea to believe me because one supposed scientist said that my “Bad Science” is the most dangerous kind of science because “other” simple minds would actually believe it. He might be correct but the way I see it is that constantly repeating natural actions are constantly verifiable.
Everyday I see how little humanity actually knows about our universe and its processes, which proves that I am actually quite stupid. In turn this bit of absolute awareness keeps me asking stupid questions without minding if people think I’m stupid, I am what I am.
Let’s start with a cooling method that is just too obvious for anyone to deny because science is already suggesting a “giant space shade umbrella” and almost everyone has cooled down some in shade.
The shade of forests helps cool the atmosphere in several obvious ways. First the air under the canopy, (top of trees catching direct sun) is where much of the sun’s heat energy is blocked. So a large mass of air is kept from solar heating, so as a hot breeze blows through it would mix and cool it some.
If the forests disappear, then correct me if this is not 100% obvious, that warmer air would not have that cooler air to cool it down some.
Next, the shade in a forest would also prevent the ground under it from absorbing solar heat, therefore as apposed to ground that is not well shaded it would not become warm from direct sun thus not radiating heat into the atmosphere. Is this also obvious? If not you can use a thermometer to verify it.
We may assume that the canopy is where the solar heat absorbs and then radiates into the atmosphere. Which sounds logical, but a very simple test third graders can easily do may prove this assumption to be even more stupid then I.
Experiment 1: Place artificial plants beside similar real plants in the same sunny places on hot days and start taking the temperatures of the leaves. A laser thermometer may be helpful. I read lower temps of up to 30 degrees on the living plants, but being stupid I may make mistakes, so let some third graders redo this experiment, since it is their world that might be roasting away.
The point of it is that healthy green growing vegetation consumes the solar energy so it can “cook” the plant food it needs to grow instead of letting it radiate the heat into the atmosphere. I bet they will hate this description but scientific word descriptions may not be any better, and can be far more confusing.
The closest example by scientific name, photosynthesis, I could argue my camera also performs.
Because thick vegetation converts solar energy into other things, like food, that might explain why the air above forests would also be cooler then the air over a nearby farm, field, road or town.
But don’t believe anything I say, and I’m not sure if I trust those crop dusters either.
Real science needs clear minds to verify real experiments:
Experiment 2: Is simultaneously monitoring the temperatures at even distances above a farm nearby forest, parking lot, body of water, and any other surface. Using those battery powered transmitters that most department stores now sell to read the outside temps, inside, can be helpful.
They could be hung from multiply tethered helium balloons anchored at 10 to 15 feet above those different surfaces. Repeat this experiment on several days and then average out the readings.
The difference over healthy thick vegetation may be more substantial a day or two after drenching rains, and calm winds. The difference will not be as substantial in real dry or windy conditions.
It is not necessary or simple to prove exact amounts, just verify consistent differences. Some science guys may also hate that statement but the level of precision sometimes requested on a detail in a theory is not worth spending much time on when there are obviously so many unaccounted for factors.
By substantiating a consistently cooler average temperature over, in and on the ground in forests would make it obvious that they do have a natural cooling effect on the atmosphere.
Reflected Solar Heat
It is obvious that light color things on earth’s surface stay cooler in the sun? This is obviously because light colors reflect far more solar heat. But I noticed this is not a consistent fact, when you look at a forest, its leaves are rather dark, so they would not be reflecting very much solar energy either, yet the dark healthy plants will even feel cooler then far lighter colors right beside them so third graders can easily design their own tests to prove me wrong, or right.
I have had several people claiming to be scientists call me a fool for questioning the contention that most reflected heat radiates into space, simply because the ozone layer, according to NASA, blocks 97% of the sun’s heat from penetrating. I often hear weatherman say that the heat radiates away from the planet, but the very limited things I have noticed may make me as dangerous as I am stupid.
Yet they make me suspect that a great deal, if not most of this reflected heat actually does get trapped.
Here is what I do see: NASA web sites claim that if earth’s ozone layer did not block out most solar heat earth would reach several hundred degrees (f) each afternoon and several hundred degrees below zero every night. So for it to be blocking 97% means it is a strong wall that blocks out very some serious heat. I remember reading that it blocks heat much as a 14 foot thick wall of concrete would.
I can’t imagine a 14 foot thick wall of concrete that only blocks heat one way, and science even calls this “greenhouse effect”.
It is obvious that greenhouses and other clear sealing containers trap solar heat. I have never seen a clear container that won’t trap it. I have never seen a bottle made of ozone either, but I have seen more then enough to question the scientific belief that most surface reflected heat leaves our planet.
In May NASA reported that the temperatures in the upper atmosphere have not shown any significant change since they began monitoring them, they were only rising on the surface.
If I am wrong and most reflected solar heat does pass right through and leave we won’t need a space umbrella or any of my irrigation ideas, all we’ll need to do is cover the hottest deserts with highly reflective colors, that prevent heat absorption on the ground.
The ozone layer makes earth a huge terrarium
Just because nature runs perfectly consistent processes I know a glass terrarium would always overheat with too much sunshine. I would also bet that the average CO2 level in the average greenhouse or terrarium is lower then the air just outside it.
That indicates that CO2 has almost nothing to do with the greenhouse effect that heats greenhouses so much under the same hot sun. If it is a different effect they should not call it the greenhouse effect. The point I’m making is the natural comparisons in nature consistently indicate that the solar heat that is reflected off of even white concrete still ends up heating up the planet. I can offer many experiments to back this, I haven’t seen on to the contrary. I believe nature before smart sounding words.
However there is evidence that a great deal of reflected heat is being absorbed by today’s much higher CO2 levels. And because CO2 is a heavier gas it would be holding this extra heat next to the earth’s surface, where it would do the most rapid damage, and also helping to explain higher surface temps.
Experiment: Place CO2 monitors at even height increments, in various settings. The longer you run your test the more accurate it would be. If they conclude the CO2 is most common just above the surface this could be a factor in vegetation height and strong evidence of how the surface is warming.
Quick Review
Before we look for obvious CO2 things lets review of the cooling effects that we have covered so far.
1. Shaded air stays cooler to mix with and thus cool down warmer air.
2. Shaded ground stays much cooler then exposed ground, which holds in more coolness and moisture.
3. The dark canopy over a forest does not get nearly as hot as non living matter of similar color and weight, therefore the top of the forest are not radiating nearly as much heat into the environment.
4. Because leaves are dark they don’t reflect heat into the atmosphere that at least reduces the warming of the CO2 above. That alone would be another cooling factor of vegetation. That covers 4 cooling effects that earth may have recently lost more then 80%. Now let’s look for some more involving CO2, since so many scientists are blaming it for Global Warming.
Questing CO2
Green houses obviously trap heat because they get very warm under strong sun. However the plants don’t produce CO2, they consume it. So if green houses, bottles and car interiors trapped the light, would not they glow more brightly instead of heating up so much? I realize they may be glowing because our eyes only see a fraction of the spectrum of light, but we all can feel the heat.
I could be wrong, I know I’m stupid, and just like theory writers I don’t have all of the facts either.
Fossil fuels are made from carbon based life so after burning them the carbon is released in an assortment of gasses, like CO2. Weinspis.com, the internet’s interactive encyclopedia says CO2 holds in more heat, they also say that the average tree eats 26 pounds of CO2 a year.
Being a heaver gas CO2 contains more substance so it seems obvious that it would hold in more heat for a longer time, and that it would absorb more solar heat, so if this is true, would not the reduction of 80% of earth’s natural CO2 eating machines be an obvious reason for at least a significant percentage of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere?
So would a loss of 80% of earth’s thickest vegetation that eats CO2 cause much higher levels of it?
Did you just verify yet another cooling effect earth lost with out even needing an experiment?
The only test I found on the web that cleverly verified increased levels of CO2 do hold more heat, actually failed to prove that greatly increased levels CO2 held higher levels of heat then moderately increased levels.
It is at http://collaboratory.nunet.net\Carbon D.htm / . Because C02 is a heaver gas it would seem (almost obviously) to spread its extra heat just above earth’s surface, where it could drift around, instead of upward, thus helping to melt polar ice. This makes sense when you realize that all atmospheric also plants absorb their massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, right near the earth’s surface.
You realize that today only a 20% of earth’s forested lands from two centuries ago still exist?
I am not downplaying the amount of devices that spew out huge amounts of CO2, like our cars and trucks, I’m just making the point that without a thick layer of vegetation that lives to eat CO2, in the same place where most of it hangs around, just blaming the fuels alone may be like blaming a dog for an elephant sized footprint.
Hydrogen gas, is the most basic and common element in the universe. It also has the lightest atomic weight. So it makes sense that it would not be commonly found in the heaviest atmosphere, just as lighter oil floats above water.
I graduated with a horticultural degree. Any real agricultural school will verify that plants mix the carbon they get from the CO2 with the hydrogen they separate from ground water to produce the carbohydrates that they convert into sugars (sap). Carbo = Carbon and hydrate = Hydrogen.
The second sentence under “Photosynthesis”, at en.winnipeg.org, states that plants release the oxygen they separate from water. It also verifies that all of the oxygen gas in earth’s atmosphere got their by photosynthesis in plant life separating the oxygen from water. Plants only burn or use a very tiny amount of oxygen so they would naturally release it, like our bodies release CO2.
If something goes from a dense state to a sparse one, without loosing mass, did expansion have to occur?
For pointing out that the oxygen released by Photosynthesis, must also massively expand upon release, resulted in about a hundred new names for me that did not come from my mother.
I also received 30 or so explanations of how this massive expansion could not even occur. However no two were even similar beyond three stated that this expansion would not happen because Photosynthesis is a ‘chemical reaction’, so the oxygen would not expand.
First if something called Photosynthesis is a ‘chemical reaction’ science is about as vague as confused can be. It is called ‘Photosynthesis’ because chemicals are reacting to solar energy, it is not a reaction from simply combining chemicals. So calling photosynthesis a ‘chemical reaction’ makes both terms so vague they become nearly meaningless.
Now for more obvious stuff: Water is over 82% oxygen, even though it has twice as many hydrogen atoms. This is because the atomic weight of an oxygen atom is many times heaver then a hydrogen atom. And at sea level water is about 800 times denser and heavier then the air just above it.
So I estimate that the oxygen that plants release from water has to undergo an expansion of at least 688 times (if into the atmosphere) compared to the total water volume (800 times minus 18%).
I was most viciously attacked for stating that science has missed the massive cooling effect that has been lost from this massive expansion that has been enormously reduced in earth’s atmosphere.
Even if the release of O from H2O is a ‘chemical reaction’ the plants do not consume or burn the oxygen, they just release it in its gas form, which at earth temperatures is always a gas, unless contained by great pressure.
So without the plants burning or consuming the oxygen after they remove the H, it has to expand into the atmosphere because its amount of atoms was not changed, nor was its atomic weight but its volume goes from a very dense liquid state to very sparse gas one. So if someone wants to call this my ‘loony tune method’, then provide one experiment to show how this obvious expansion does not happen. I’ll bet my farm they can’t.
The last time I checked only science fiction writers have ‘completely vanishing matter’, without a black hole handy, which is what has to be occurring if a dense matter is converted into a sparse one without its volume massively expanding.
I may be wrong, but does not this also seem undeniably obvious?
It amazed me that so many people claiming to be modern scientists know nothing about the most basic thermal principles that manufacturing engineers apply every day:
‘The thermal effects of expansion and contraction’
I love engineering science because it has to work, engineers don’t get paid to waste time arguing over science fiction, they must produce real stuff. However from an assumption standpoint ‘Expansion’ is deceiving because we almost always associate it with immense heat, not cooling.
This likely explains why I had many people claiming to be scientists say that expansion has nothing to even do with cooling, and others said it actually “causes heat”. But it is very easy for third graders to prove that expansion is nature’s only one step super-cooling process.
You know how man made science keeps changing, remember Pluto? So I went to ScienceForums.com to ask them to verify if something I learned in physics 101 was still true.
I asked them if physics still teaches that heat always comes from a heat source and cold is simply the absents of heat. They verified that this is still basic physics but it is now worded differently: “If no heat sources are present temperature would be absolute zero”.
They said that the words ‘cold and hot’ are too conceptual for classes, same difference.
We naturally associate expansion with heat, not cooling, because expansion is often triggered by high temperatures, more heat is not the result of expansion it is often the cause of it. Because many if not most materials expand when heated, expansion is an obvious natural way materials react to heat, not generate it.
So is it obvious that the amount of heat a substance needs to match its surrounding temperatures will have to increase if the same amount of matter suddenly occupies more space?
The heat in the O at its compressed liquid size was just enough to balance its temperature to its environment, thus as expanded, the O would instantly mega-chill, thus rapidly drawling heat out of the environment in order to warm it back up to environmental temps.
Here are 4 examples and experiments of expansion
1. In the first .0001 of a second after a firecracker ignites the center may reach 3000 degrees (f), but before that second ends no part of it may even be over 300 degrees (f). Certainly a massive cool down, yet still hot enough to burn our skin, so we would still associate heat with expansion.
2. Sweat is a perfect example of the cooling power of expansion, especially for this report. As the water evaporates it expands just above the skin thus cooling it down.
3. All major manufactures use engineers to help control expansion and contraction of their products. If a molded product is allowed to expand to fast it can cool too fast and crack. If it is compressed too much it may not cool fast enough. I have not seen this constant thermal engineering struggle as part of any theory on global warming, yet it is obviously nature’s primary counterbalancing reaction to either overheating or overcooling.
4. Expansion Experiment: Here is an experiment for a third grade teacher to do in front of his or her students to prove the powerful cooling effect of expansion. Maintain a pot of water at 100º degrees (f). Put a small full can of shaving cream in the pot. Maintain the temperature for long enough to be sure that the can and its contents are also about 100º degrees, an hour should be far more then enough. Remove the can shake and rapidly spray all the cream in a big pile in a box, then rapidly insert a thermometer into the center of the cream.
I used a hot tub set at 105º and the cream was 71º. Expansion super cools things, it is consistent and simple to verify. The reason I used a box to empted the entire can in was to gauge how many times the foam expands. I estimated the pile of cream was 10-15 times larger the size of the can.
However the oxygen released by photosynthesis must expand roughly 800 times minus the 18% for the removed Hydrogen, so I crudely use ‘688’ times O expansion from water to gas.
Expansions 50 times greater then the cream should be cold enough to crack bones if they weren’t delivered one molecule one at a time, spread out over the entire surface of green vegetation.
Thus this may be the most powerful cooling method that earth lost most of because their massive coolness would also sink downward, cooling the surface area that the CO2 is warming.
Is that obvious?
So even if the vegetation did not eat all the CO2, it has other factors that still cool it. Also the loss of so much shade would also expose far more CO2 on the surface to direct solar heat energy, exposing yet two more cooling effects earth lost by the removal of most of its thick vegetation. Is this obvious?
When you realize that these cooling effects, and maybe many others from thick vegetation, have recently been reduced by 80% on earth’s surface, is it obvious that earth will continue to warm until it gets it thermal insulation back?
CO2 is an obvious contributor to Global Warming, but there are obviously many others, so I am not surprised that just last week the head of NASA implied that science is so confused on Global Warming, he cannot see what they are saying (my condensed version).
His report said that satellites are showing that earth’s atmosphere has not shown noticeable increases of temperature. So he even downplayed that G W is a problem. Yet he did note that the surface temperatures have steadily increased. Unfortunately he must have forgotten the pictures NASA crafts took of earth’s ice caps from 1979-2003:
“On Thursday, October 23rd, 2003, NASA released composite images which show the 50% retreat of the arctic ice cap over just two decades, in a press release titled RECENT WARMING OF ARCTIC MAY AFFECT WORLDWIDE CLIMATE.”
Here are two other cooling effects that were thrown into my face, as far more important then this O expansion: First “evaporation”
I want to point out that water vapor, the product of evaporation, is still 82% oxygen. I say this because no one seems to doubt that when water evaporates it massively expands into water vapor, and it massively cools down.
Evaporation (also called (2) ‘transpiration’ when it happens through vegetation) is obviously more commonly occurring then photosynthesis, so from expansion alone is has to create more cooling effect then photosynthesis. However there is an enormous difference in their cooling efficiency.
The oxygen released by Photosynthesis will not condense back into a liquid form until it reaches 297.3 degrees below zero (f), therefore all of the coolness generated by the massive expansion of O into our atmosphere would be entirely warmed by taking heat from it, thus reducing surface temps.
I was called an idiot for not blaming the coolness of plants on transpiration, but at least this person realized the coolness in plants is actually even there.
I have no doubt that transpiration helps cool plants, but whatever you want to call evaporation it still releases the same water vapor which will eventually re-condense at any normal earth temperature with high enough humidity, so the cooling effect of evaporation and or transpiration expansion is constantly counteracted by the concentration of heat as the water vapor condenses, which would be a reduction of it’s volume of about the same 800 times it had expanded.
If the frequency of severe storms has shown an increase, as is being reported by the Weather Channel, so the loss of expanded water vapor generated by transpiration expansion may not be a major factor in earth’s surface temp change.
It seems logical that as earth’s temperatures increase, the rate of evaporation from its oceans would also increase. If the atmosphere now has enough moisture to generate more rainfall, the loss of humidity from transpiration in plants, has switched to increased evaporation from oceans.
However every atom of lost oxygen expansion would have had near 100% cooling efficiency if released high enough in the atmosphere to completely mix with warmer air, simply because the oxygen gas will not condense back to liquid at any normal atmospheric temp on earth.
I had one guy tell me that most of earth’s oxygen comes from photosynthesis in the oceans, I was also trained this in school. However water does something very interesting with oxygen that is somewhat contrary to that statement. You would think that as submerged plants release O would float up to the surface and then expand into the atmosphere. That is not what happens.
Do you realize that the animal life that stays submerged in the seas still breathes oxygen?
This is because pure O released by Photosynthesis under water suspends because it is still compressed by its 800 time greater weight. To super support this into an obvious fact is that these creatures have systems, like gills on fish that scrape these O2 molecules off while flushing out the H2O.
Because the pressure under water would compress the O it would not undergo its great expansion thus not cooling down anything.
Science teaches that most of the O from the seas comes from algae, which floats on top of the water. It would release O into the atmosphere. But we haven’t removed 80% of the algae.
I have seen little to indicate that a significant change in the amount of oceanic photosynthesis has happened over the last few centuries, but a massive drop (easily over 50%) of atmospheric Photosynthesis has recently and undoubtedly happened on land, through deforestation.
What would happen with Global Warming, if we stopped burning Fossil Fuels today?
I have repeatedly heard scientists on television say that there is no strong evidence that even a total abandonment of petroleum based fuels would reverse global warming, at least for many years.
Would not this be exactly the case if CO2 is simply one factor in a full circle of them?
So it may make more sense to make as many changes as possible that require the fewest sacrifices. The more natural cooling effects we identify the faster we can reverse what, if NASA is correct, is a rapid warming of earth’s surface temps. There is now doubt that reducing the burning of these fuels will help, but that and a space umbrella alone look like a pair of very long shots.
Every third grade science class can prove, in at least 8 ways that increasing the amount of photosynthesis in earth’s atmosphere would start cooling the surface temps as soon as these new leaves sprout. But this approach is truly an “amount” thing. We may need 36% more vegetation then earth had in 1800 just to counteract today’s excesses, along with smartly reducing burning carbon based (organic) fuels. I took the next few sentences from NOAA reports posted at spacemart.com.
Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 up 36%
“Each year since global measurements of CO2 began, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased. Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm, at it did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.
NOAA is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce and it is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related events and providing environmental stewardship of the nation’s coastal and marine resources.”
So compared to growing as much thick vegetation as possible on earth’s lands the space umbrella seems like to little to late to be an efficient remedy. Its technology is something for the future as humans have been planting seeds for at least 20,000 years, and irrigating for at least 6000. So even if the umbrella would work, how does that fix the high CO2 levels? Clean the air? (I also found seven ways vegetation cleans the air) add many jobs? Or make usable lands inhabitable for our exploding populations?
Would a space umbrella also help the thousands of creatures we put on our endangered species lists?
Would helping nature grow thick vegetation of earth’s wastelands help those species?
I’m not saying do not develop the space umbrella, I’m just saying cover earth with as much thick vegetation as possible as soon as possible so the lands can start eating up far more of the sun’s heat, and far more of the high CO2 levels, and it is nature’s beautiful balance that does both of those things just too spit out super cold fresh oxygen. Is it obvious yet what we need to do?
All that may be needed are seeds, wastelands, water, workers, farmers, constructors and lots of companies, making lots of money.
Obviously the water is the biggest problem. But it does not have to be. First identify all lightly used damp lands that we just keep clearing and plant them with as fast growing trees or as thick vegetation as possible. Beside the drainage ditches along many highways would be a perfect place to start. Not only would they make cold oxygen and eat up heat they would provide some shade to help keep the road from radiating as much heat, and they would gobble up their CO2 right where cars and trucks spew it out.
Desalinization is one way to tap an endless supply of sea water to spark far more atmospheric photosynthesis. But nature is showing two things that could produce massive amounts of atmospheric photosynthesis, maybe enough to completely reverse Global Warming.
First, many of earth’s hottest, most sun drenches lands also happen to be dry deserts at or under sea level, supporting very little life. Secondly earth’s largest rivers dump billions of gallons of fresh water into the salty seas every day.
I agree the statement at the end of this paragraph is oversimplified, but not in principle. By diverting maybe 1/2 of this wasted fresh water before it mixes with the salty seas it could be used to irrigate and thus cool down these areas of earth that radiate massive amounts of heat into the atmosphere year around. Because many of these areas are lower then sea level the siphon effect could even deliver the water, through real long, very strong hoses.
Now before all of you folks start screaming about what this would do to the natural life in these sparse deserts, I want to make one point very clear about this:
“I am not saying flood any deserts, I am just saying “water them!” they’ll come alive and eat the sun’s heat with water, instead of radiate it.”
You may believe that earth’s deserts occur naturally but maybe some exist because science has not learned what happened in Oklahoma in the early part of the last century.
There is also no debate that when the great pyramids were built in Egypt, they were constructed in a very dense rain forest, which was likely cut down to get the wood to build their ramps and scaffolding. Now the pyramids sit in the scorching hot Sarah desert. Science says the Sahara turned into desert because of the end of the last ice age. Could have the removal of so much thick thermal insulation from such a sun baked land possibly triggered, or contributed too, the end of that ice age? I see plenty of evidence.
Ask skeptics claiming that this is just another normal climate change this one question:
Name any other ‘normal change’ ever discovered that also melted half of earth’s ice in 20 years? Because that is not normal, it is very abnormal. That rapid of a change would take a huge disaster like a strong meteor impact, major eruption or maybe the removal of most earth’s most efficient cooling processes, like atmospheric photosynthesis.
I did one other simple test that I will not share the results of because people would accuse me of scare tactics, so let the third graders test it, it’s their world:
Experiment: On a hot very sunny afternoon place glass of ice tea on a table in direct sun, start it loaded with cubes. Check its temperature every five minutes, in its center about a half inch under the surface. Also note another thermometer just above the table, about the same height as the one in the glass, in the same direct sun.
Use the first table temp as a baseline. Note the first time the temp is taken after the ice melts. Then continue to take the readings until you have doubled that amount of time.
Use the table readings to take out the effects of air temp changes. For instance if the outside temp goes up 3 degrees, in a third column subtract the 3 degrees from the iced tea’s temp, if it goes down, add it to the ice tea’s temp.
The point of this test is to determine the difference in how fast the surface of the tea warms, before and after its ice melts away. I will tell you I was shocked.
From this simple test I may have discovered that earth’s ice caps just might be the reason we have not baked yet. Our ice caps may be taking the first big brunt of this heat giving us a small window of time to start cooling things. At the currant rate the Ice caps are melting they will be gone in 15 more years.
Now that I know that I am stupid I waste no time on scientific maybes, there are just too many obvious things I would have never noticed back when I assumed I was intelligent.
Steven Craig
©2007 Steven Craig
