This is funny, GW scientists talking crap.
-
fat_boy wrote:
This is fundamentally crap, because if you heat something, it gets warmer. (With a few exceptions that arent in evidence on earth because the atmosphere isnt turning froma solid to a gas for example)
The Earth isn't a pan of water that you put on the stove.
And therefore it behaves like no other matter? Matter is matter. It doesnt make any difference whether you have 1 gram of water or 20,000 tonnes. Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C. GW theory: Solar energy at the visible wavelength heats the earth. This, being relatively cool, emots its heat in the IR. CO2 in the troposphere absorbs and reradiates this energy, in all directions, so part of it heads back to the surface and causes more warming. All of this, according to the theory, ,results ina temperature change, because the extra energy trapped by the CO2 heats the troposphere, which includes the surface air, and the surface itself. Since neither the air and land is undergoing a pahse change, ie solid to liquid, or liquid to gas, then this extra energy has to cause an increase in temperature of the air or land in accordance with its specific heat capacity. So, we had 30 years of warming at the end of the last century, this was seen as beingn in accord with GW theory. We then havent had warming for 15 years so how can there continue to be more energy in the system? Saying that although the temperature is not increasing, but energy is, then an awful lot of matter must be changing phase. And it isnt. Sea ice is in fact relatively constant when the arctic and antarctic are taken together, and the small loss from glaciers and greenland, which has been going on for centuries, and is not periodic, cannot account for the loss of energy from the air anf land in the last 15 years. Not only that, the affect of CO2 according as per GW theory can not function for 30 years over the entire globe, and then for 15 years only over glaciers and greenland.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
And therefore it behaves like no other matter? Matter is matter. It doesnt make any difference whether you have 1 gram of water or 20,000 tonnes. Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C. GW theory: Solar energy at the visible wavelength heats the earth. This, being relatively cool, emots its heat in the IR. CO2 in the troposphere absorbs and reradiates this energy, in all directions, so part of it heads back to the surface and causes more warming. All of this, according to the theory, ,results ina temperature change, because the extra energy trapped by the CO2 heats the troposphere, which includes the surface air, and the surface itself. Since neither the air and land is undergoing a pahse change, ie solid to liquid, or liquid to gas, then this extra energy has to cause an increase in temperature of the air or land in accordance with its specific heat capacity. So, we had 30 years of warming at the end of the last century, this was seen as beingn in accord with GW theory. We then havent had warming for 15 years so how can there continue to be more energy in the system? Saying that although the temperature is not increasing, but energy is, then an awful lot of matter must be changing phase. And it isnt. Sea ice is in fact relatively constant when the arctic and antarctic are taken together, and the small loss from glaciers and greenland, which has been going on for centuries, and is not periodic, cannot account for the loss of energy from the air anf land in the last 15 years. Not only that, the affect of CO2 according as per GW theory can not function for 30 years over the entire globe, and then for 15 years only over glaciers and greenland.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C.
You're thinking of the calorie.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C.
You're thinking of the calorie.
Yeah, quite correct, its a little over 4 joules. Its been a looonnngggg time since I studied this in detail. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Yeah, quite correct, its a little over 4 joules. Its been a looonnngggg time since I studied this in detail. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
Q = mcΔT. c = 4.18 J.g-1.K-1 = 1 cal.g-1.K-1.
-
Q = mcΔT. c = 4.18 J.g-1.K-1 = 1 cal.g-1.K-1.
Indeed.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
And therefore it behaves like no other matter? Matter is matter. It doesnt make any difference whether you have 1 gram of water or 20,000 tonnes. Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C. GW theory: Solar energy at the visible wavelength heats the earth. This, being relatively cool, emots its heat in the IR. CO2 in the troposphere absorbs and reradiates this energy, in all directions, so part of it heads back to the surface and causes more warming. All of this, according to the theory, ,results ina temperature change, because the extra energy trapped by the CO2 heats the troposphere, which includes the surface air, and the surface itself. Since neither the air and land is undergoing a pahse change, ie solid to liquid, or liquid to gas, then this extra energy has to cause an increase in temperature of the air or land in accordance with its specific heat capacity. So, we had 30 years of warming at the end of the last century, this was seen as beingn in accord with GW theory. We then havent had warming for 15 years so how can there continue to be more energy in the system? Saying that although the temperature is not increasing, but energy is, then an awful lot of matter must be changing phase. And it isnt. Sea ice is in fact relatively constant when the arctic and antarctic are taken together, and the small loss from glaciers and greenland, which has been going on for centuries, and is not periodic, cannot account for the loss of energy from the air anf land in the last 15 years. Not only that, the affect of CO2 according as per GW theory can not function for 30 years over the entire globe, and then for 15 years only over glaciers and greenland.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
And therefore it behaves like no other matter?
Matter is matter. It doesnt make any difference whether you have 1 gram of water or 20,000 tonnes. Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C.First I didn't say that. Second that statement doesn't refute what I said. Third it demonstrates nothing except that you missed the point. Adding energy to a pan of water, which is exactly what you described in your statement above, is NOT the same as adding energy to a complex system like the earth. If you think that they are then either you do not understand what heating a pan of water involves or you do not understand the dynamics and vast complexities of energy systems represented on the earth.
fat_boy wrote:
So, we had 30 years of warming at the end of the last century, this was seen as beingn in accord with GW theory. We then havent had warming for 15 years so how can there continue to be more energy in the system?
Vastly over simplyfing physics doesn't provide a counter argument. Attempting to model the earth as a pan of water doesn't provide a counter argument either.
fat_boy wrote:
Not only that, the affect of CO2 according as per GW theory can not function for 30 years over the entire globe, and then for 15 years only over glaciers and greenland.
There is nothing that uniformly impacts the entire earth. Not at one moment. And not over time.
-
And therefore it behaves like no other matter? Matter is matter. It doesnt make any difference whether you have 1 gram of water or 20,000 tonnes. Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C. GW theory: Solar energy at the visible wavelength heats the earth. This, being relatively cool, emots its heat in the IR. CO2 in the troposphere absorbs and reradiates this energy, in all directions, so part of it heads back to the surface and causes more warming. All of this, according to the theory, ,results ina temperature change, because the extra energy trapped by the CO2 heats the troposphere, which includes the surface air, and the surface itself. Since neither the air and land is undergoing a pahse change, ie solid to liquid, or liquid to gas, then this extra energy has to cause an increase in temperature of the air or land in accordance with its specific heat capacity. So, we had 30 years of warming at the end of the last century, this was seen as beingn in accord with GW theory. We then havent had warming for 15 years so how can there continue to be more energy in the system? Saying that although the temperature is not increasing, but energy is, then an awful lot of matter must be changing phase. And it isnt. Sea ice is in fact relatively constant when the arctic and antarctic are taken together, and the small loss from glaciers and greenland, which has been going on for centuries, and is not periodic, cannot account for the loss of energy from the air anf land in the last 15 years. Not only that, the affect of CO2 according as per GW theory can not function for 30 years over the entire globe, and then for 15 years only over glaciers and greenland.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Since neither the air and land is undergoing a pahse change, ie solid to liquid, or liquid to gas
Except of course for water, which exists in the atmosphere as a liquid (clouds) and as a gas. Which by coincidence is also the strongest greenhouse gas in absolute values. But then again, clouds are also having a greenhouse effect...
-
fat_boy wrote:
And therefore it behaves like no other matter?
Matter is matter. It doesnt make any difference whether you have 1 gram of water or 20,000 tonnes. Its STILL takes one joule of energy to raise one gram one degree C.First I didn't say that. Second that statement doesn't refute what I said. Third it demonstrates nothing except that you missed the point. Adding energy to a pan of water, which is exactly what you described in your statement above, is NOT the same as adding energy to a complex system like the earth. If you think that they are then either you do not understand what heating a pan of water involves or you do not understand the dynamics and vast complexities of energy systems represented on the earth.
fat_boy wrote:
So, we had 30 years of warming at the end of the last century, this was seen as beingn in accord with GW theory. We then havent had warming for 15 years so how can there continue to be more energy in the system?
Vastly over simplyfing physics doesn't provide a counter argument. Attempting to model the earth as a pan of water doesn't provide a counter argument either.
fat_boy wrote:
Not only that, the affect of CO2 according as per GW theory can not function for 30 years over the entire globe, and then for 15 years only over glaciers and greenland.
There is nothing that uniformly impacts the entire earth. Not at one moment. And not over time.
jschell wrote:
First I didn't say that.
Elaborate on what you said then.
jschell wrote:
Second that statement doesn't refute what I said.
If you havent explained yourself then this is likely.
jschell wrote:
Third it demonstrates nothing except that you missed the point
If a point isnt clearly made then this is likely.
jschell wrote:
Adding energy to a pan of water, which is exactly what you described in your statement above, is NOT the same as adding energy to a complex system like the earth.
And it can equally be said that adding CO2 to a container of air in a lab is not the same as adding CO2 to a complex system like the earth. :)
jschell wrote:
Vastly over simplyfing physics doesn't provide a counter argument.
Its not a sumplificaiton, its fact. You add heat to matter and its temperature increases (unless its undergoing a phase change).
jschell wrote:
There is nothing that uniformly impacts the entire earth. Not at one moment. And not over time.
You have missed the point, misunderstood and not refuted. :) In fact CO2 distribution is fairly even over the entire earth and has increased steadilly over time. So in fact if it has caused warming for 30 years it cant stop causingn warming for 15. Unless it wasnt CO2 that caused the warmihng. Which is the point I am making. As I am sure you understand. If you disagree, then perhaps you would like to explin HOW CO2 can switch on and off in this way?
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
fat_boy wrote:
Since neither the air and land is undergoing a pahse change, ie solid to liquid, or liquid to gas
Except of course for water, which exists in the atmosphere as a liquid (clouds) and as a gas. Which by coincidence is also the strongest greenhouse gas in absolute values. But then again, clouds are also having a greenhouse effect...
Yes, adding water into the problem makes it impossibly compex because it does undergo phase changes as thus has a massive effect on the energy in the system. Its ability to take heat fomr the surface through evaporation, transfer that heat high up in the atmosphere as clouds and release that heat from the system as rain is powefull. Not only that coulds change earths albedo and thus the energy received at the surface hugely. Its for this reason, that GCMs dont model water at all well, that they are so inaccurate.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Yes, adding water into the problem makes it impossibly compex because it does undergo phase changes as thus has a massive effect on the energy in the system. Its ability to take heat fomr the surface through evaporation, transfer that heat high up in the atmosphere as clouds and release that heat from the system as rain is powefull. Not only that coulds change earths albedo and thus the energy received at the surface hugely. Its for this reason, that GCMs dont model water at all well, that they are so inaccurate.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Its for this reason, that GCMs dont model water at all well, that they are so inaccurate.
And to make it worse: If you combine two greenhouse gases, the end result is not linear. Same with the clouds, the effect depends on the size of the droplets, the thickness and concentration of the clouds, and then there is a third state to consider. Snow.
-
jschell wrote:
First I didn't say that.
Elaborate on what you said then.
jschell wrote:
Second that statement doesn't refute what I said.
If you havent explained yourself then this is likely.
jschell wrote:
Third it demonstrates nothing except that you missed the point
If a point isnt clearly made then this is likely.
jschell wrote:
Adding energy to a pan of water, which is exactly what you described in your statement above, is NOT the same as adding energy to a complex system like the earth.
And it can equally be said that adding CO2 to a container of air in a lab is not the same as adding CO2 to a complex system like the earth. :)
jschell wrote:
Vastly over simplyfing physics doesn't provide a counter argument.
Its not a sumplificaiton, its fact. You add heat to matter and its temperature increases (unless its undergoing a phase change).
jschell wrote:
There is nothing that uniformly impacts the entire earth. Not at one moment. And not over time.
You have missed the point, misunderstood and not refuted. :) In fact CO2 distribution is fairly even over the entire earth and has increased steadilly over time. So in fact if it has caused warming for 30 years it cant stop causingn warming for 15. Unless it wasnt CO2 that caused the warmihng. Which is the point I am making. As I am sure you understand. If you disagree, then perhaps you would like to explin HOW CO2 can switch on and off in this way?
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Elaborate on what you said then.
Read my first response. Read what I quoted. Read the words that I wrote in response to what I quoted.
fat_boy wrote:
You have missed the point, misunderstood and not refuted
No you did. In my first response I quoted exactly what I was responding to. And I have repeated it several times....the earth is not the same as a pan of water.
fat_boy wrote:
If you disagree, then perhaps you would like to explin HOW CO2 can switch on and off in this way?
What I disagree with is your comparison of the earth to a pan of water.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Its for this reason, that GCMs dont model water at all well, that they are so inaccurate.
And to make it worse: If you combine two greenhouse gases, the end result is not linear. Same with the clouds, the effect depends on the size of the droplets, the thickness and concentration of the clouds, and then there is a third state to consider. Snow.
Yep, and clouds at different altitudes affect cooling in different ways. Its a complex thing, and thats why the models are little more than amusements. What is fairly clear is that positive fedbacks are not in evidence (otherwise with the CO2 we have already added we would have had more than a 0.6 degrees C rise, which is what the IPCC (via CRU) say we have had). Thus the most we will get from doubling CO2 from preindustrial times is around 1 degree C.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
fat_boy wrote:
Elaborate on what you said then.
Read my first response. Read what I quoted. Read the words that I wrote in response to what I quoted.
fat_boy wrote:
You have missed the point, misunderstood and not refuted
No you did. In my first response I quoted exactly what I was responding to. And I have repeated it several times....the earth is not the same as a pan of water.
fat_boy wrote:
If you disagree, then perhaps you would like to explin HOW CO2 can switch on and off in this way?
What I disagree with is your comparison of the earth to a pan of water.
I didnt mention water, you did, thus saying the earth isnt a pan of water and accusing me of saying it was is stupid. I said it doesnt matter how much matter you have, if you add heat, you get a temperature rise, be it one gram or 20,000 tonnes. And in fact the oceans are really imprtant, since they can store far more heat than the air, and arent UHI affected. They are thus a very good measure of how much extra heat is in the system. So your statement, the earth is not a pan of water, is acctually wrong. It doesnt matter whether you have one gram of water, of an entire oceans worth. IF YOU ADD HEAT YOU GET A TEMPERATURWE RISE: ONCE CALORIE WILL RAISE ONE GRAM OF WATER 1 DEGREE C. Its very very basic physics. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
I didnt mention water, you did, thus saying the earth isnt a pan of water and accusing me of saying it was is stupid. I said it doesnt matter how much matter you have, if you add heat, you get a temperature rise, be it one gram or 20,000 tonnes. And in fact the oceans are really imprtant, since they can store far more heat than the air, and arent UHI affected. They are thus a very good measure of how much extra heat is in the system. So your statement, the earth is not a pan of water, is acctually wrong. It doesnt matter whether you have one gram of water, of an entire oceans worth. IF YOU ADD HEAT YOU GET A TEMPERATURWE RISE: ONCE CALORIE WILL RAISE ONE GRAM OF WATER 1 DEGREE C. Its very very basic physics. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
I didnt mention water, you did, thus saying the earth isnt a pan of water and accusing me of saying it was is stupid. I said it doesnt matter how much matter you have, if you add heat, you get a temperature rise, be it one gram or 20,000 tonnes.
You said "...from a solid to a gas". And that is what I quoted. That is a simplistic model that applies to simple compounds such as water. It does not apply to more complex systems. Complex systems exhibit a variety of behaviors when heated. The earth is a hideously complex system - it is not a simple compound.
fat_boy wrote:
So your statement, the earth is not a pan of water, is acctually wrong. It doesnt matter whether you have one gram of water, of an entire oceans worth. IF YOU ADD HEAT YOU GET A TEMPERATURWE RISE: ONCE CALORIE WILL RAISE ONE GRAM OF WATER 1 DEGREE C.
If you take an ocean, the entire thing (just the water) and put that in a pan and apply heat, in a reasonable way to approximate heating a pan, then you get what you describe. But the that does not model the earth.
fat_boy wrote:
Its very very basic physics.
It is a very basic fallacy and nothing more.
-
fat_boy wrote:
I didnt mention water, you did, thus saying the earth isnt a pan of water and accusing me of saying it was is stupid. I said it doesnt matter how much matter you have, if you add heat, you get a temperature rise, be it one gram or 20,000 tonnes.
You said "...from a solid to a gas". And that is what I quoted. That is a simplistic model that applies to simple compounds such as water. It does not apply to more complex systems. Complex systems exhibit a variety of behaviors when heated. The earth is a hideously complex system - it is not a simple compound.
fat_boy wrote:
So your statement, the earth is not a pan of water, is acctually wrong. It doesnt matter whether you have one gram of water, of an entire oceans worth. IF YOU ADD HEAT YOU GET A TEMPERATURWE RISE: ONCE CALORIE WILL RAISE ONE GRAM OF WATER 1 DEGREE C.
If you take an ocean, the entire thing (just the water) and put that in a pan and apply heat, in a reasonable way to approximate heating a pan, then you get what you describe. But the that does not model the earth.
fat_boy wrote:
Its very very basic physics.
It is a very basic fallacy and nothing more.
You know I actually emailed Kevin Anderson, the guy who said this, and he actually admitted what he said was incorrect. So really, everythig you have said is redundant. :) Anyway, regardless of the complexity of a system, adding heat will generate a temperature rise. And dont forget this is the very heart of AGW theory. Additionally, how can you have this happen for 25 years, and then it NOT happen for 10? How does the mechanism switch itself on and off like this? Well, negative feedbacks are one way. The heat is transported OUT of the atmosphee into space byt some process. Or, it wasnt CO2 doing the warming back then, it was some other factor, lilke earth albedo (check out the earthshine project).
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
You know I actually emailed Kevin Anderson, the guy who said this, and he actually admitted what he said was incorrect. So really, everythig you have said is redundant. :) Anyway, regardless of the complexity of a system, adding heat will generate a temperature rise. And dont forget this is the very heart of AGW theory. Additionally, how can you have this happen for 25 years, and then it NOT happen for 10? How does the mechanism switch itself on and off like this? Well, negative feedbacks are one way. The heat is transported OUT of the atmosphee into space byt some process. Or, it wasnt CO2 doing the warming back then, it was some other factor, lilke earth albedo (check out the earthshine project).
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
Anyway, regardless of the complexity of a system, adding heat will generate a temperature rise.
The earth is not a simple system nor is it an ideal (energy) system either. And no matter how many times you repeating your simplistic statement it will never change that.
fat_boy wrote:
And dont forget this is the very heart of AGW theory.
I don't need to "forget" anything because I wasn't commenting on that at all. I was commenting on exactly what I quoted.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Anyway, regardless of the complexity of a system, adding heat will generate a temperature rise.
The earth is not a simple system nor is it an ideal (energy) system either. And no matter how many times you repeating your simplistic statement it will never change that.
fat_boy wrote:
And dont forget this is the very heart of AGW theory.
I don't need to "forget" anything because I wasn't commenting on that at all. I was commenting on exactly what I quoted.
No matter how often you talk of complexity, if you add heat to matter, its tempoerature goes up, unless its undergoing a phase change, in which case its even more aparent. Its fundamental physics.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
No matter how often you talk of complexity, if you add heat to matter, its tempoerature goes up, unless its undergoing a phase change, in which case its even more aparent. Its fundamental physics.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
No matter how often you talk of complexity, if you add heat to matter, its tempoerature goes up, unless its undergoing a phase change, in which case its even more aparent. Its fundamental physics.
No matter how many times you repeat that it still is wrong.
-
fat_boy wrote:
No matter how often you talk of complexity, if you add heat to matter, its tempoerature goes up, unless its undergoing a phase change, in which case its even more aparent. Its fundamental physics.
No matter how many times you repeat that it still is wrong.
No its not wrong. You cant state that 45 billion grams of water behaves differently to one gram. The sasme for air. Unles you have evapopration and condensation, ie phase changes from water vapour in the atmosphere which is transporting the heat OUT of the system the system WILL get warmer. And if the former is the case then thats a hell of a negative feedback.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
No its not wrong. You cant state that 45 billion grams of water behaves differently to one gram. The sasme for air. Unles you have evapopration and condensation, ie phase changes from water vapour in the atmosphere which is transporting the heat OUT of the system the system WILL get warmer. And if the former is the case then thats a hell of a negative feedback.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
No its not wrong. You cant state that 45 billion grams of water behaves differently to one gram. The sasme for air.
I didn't "state" either of those. In any way. But for clarification I will now.... There is a difference, which if you have done lab work you would understand, in that any process that different volumes due can cause problems and lead to different results. Thus if you use a candle to heat one gram of water and use the same candle to heat 45 billion grams then there is in fact a DIFFERENCE, because the volume of the source of heat is different in comparsion between the two. And there are many examples of that when people have tried to scale up processes that work in the lab into practical, and larger, operations. If it worked the way you are claiming then it would be simple to scale any laboratory process in to practical production. There would never be any question that it would succeed. That however is NOT how the real world works.
fat_boy wrote:
Unles you have evapopration and condensation, ie phase changes from water vapour in the atmosphere which is transporting the heat OUT of the system the system WILL get warmer.
Restating your simplistic example still doesn't make it right. In a complex system like the earth heat absorption is NOT a simple process. You are talking about water. The earth is not water in a beaker over a bunsen burner.