What is 400ppm as a percentage of the atmosphere?
Less than a tenth of a percent I believe.
About .04% hence it’s being deemed a “trace gas” as it’s total concentration is far below 1%.
That still doesn’t make full sense to me, however. Is the amount of CO2 that matter or whether it’s a trace gas?
It is the concentration as a percentage of the whole that makes it a trace gas.
I’ll put you with flat earth people, since you seem to have no discernment.
But that is not solely dependent on the level of CO2, right?
It’s the percentage of the whole made up of CO2.
Nitrogen makes up about 78%, Oxygen about 20%, water vapor up to about 4%. The rest are “trace gases”.
There are slight variances in the composition over time but it changes very little no matter what we do.
I still don’t understand the importance of the ‘trace’ amount. CO2 is empirically understood to be a ‘greenhouse gas’. Accepting that, if one increases the amount of CO2 then the warming effect would be more pronounced, like you would expect if water vapor was increased or methane, etc. And its been observed the amount of CO2 has increased about 30%.
It has increased to a minuscule 400ppm or about .04% of the atmosphere. Water Vapor and methane have far more significant roles as greenhouse gasses.
Again, no one has ever been able to demonstrate experimentally that any increase in CO2 where it remains a trace gas will produce a given increase in temps.
But methane is even more miniscule that CO2, something like 2000 parts per billion. That would be 235 times less prevalent than CO2. Much more a trace gas, why would it be more significant then?
So you don’t understand logic. Ok.
Don’t ever change Wildrose.
Uh, is Kepler’s third law no longer true?
I understand logic just fine. You made a claim that you cannot possibly show to be true.
You don’t even understand the 3rd law. Knowing only the period all you can calculate is the “average distance”.
You cannot plot the actual shape of the orbit without taking multiple measurements of the object as it passes along it’s orbital path.
Since the speed is not a constant either increasing as objects head towards the sun and slowing as they begin moving away from them the best you can come up with would also be an average speed.
An object with a highly eccentric orbit has a path that much more resembles a stretched out rubber band than a circle.
Additionally we have no idea what other large bodies far outside of our solar system it may also circle around at or near it’s apogee away from our own sun.
You do that buddy.
I’m just gonna put a little ribbon on your posts because it is classic lib thought.
Better than you. I’ve derived all this information with two hypothetical assumptions which you have me. First is a orbital period of 100,000 years, and second is that it comes close enough to earth to have a gravitational effect. You’re absolutely correct that Kepler’s third law gives the average distance of a planet from the sun. But want to know a secret? The average distance on an ellipse from one of its foci is exactly equal to the semi-major axis.
https://www.farmingdale.edu/faculty/sheldon-gordon/RecentArticles/average-distance-in-ellipse.doc
Now, going back to the law;
https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/91c1aecc8260cb84e57b79debfa52f1fe6712f56
Where alpha is the semi-major axis and T is orbital period.
Solving for a T of 100,000 years gives us a semi-major axis of 2152 AU. Since we need this planet to get close to earth, that puts the the perihelion at 1 AU from the sun and makes the aphelion then 4303 AU from the sun, which is 6.8% of a light I originally said 10% so please forgive me for exaggerating a touch since I was doing the math in my head. You can quibble about where to put the perihelion, doesn’t have to be exactly 1 AU but as you can see it makes a very minimal amount of difference when it comes to the perihelion.
Knowing these parameters (semi-major axis), we can calculate speed at any point along its path (based on distance from the sun), specifically at perihelion it’s going 42.1 km/sec.
You know why that’s important? Because it’s within a hairs breadth of escape velocity. You see, the longer you go in orbital period, and the more eccentric an object’s orbit, the closer you get to escape velocity. And by close, I mean minute factions of a percent away in this hypothetical.
Which is why this is so unlikely. The orbital velocity of an object in your hypothesis has to be so precise. Any less, and it’s orbital period is much, much lower. Any more and it leaves the solar system entirely.
And apogee only refers to the high point of an orbit around Earth. The proper term for something around the sun is aphelion. A generic term would be apoapsis.
Now, want to tell me how I don’t understand what I’m talking about again?
do you know of any astrophysicists or astronomers that share your theory? Can you name one?
Because I’ve searched the Internet quite assiduously and not found one.
If you don’t accept that evidence, please advise what form you would accept. I’m very interested in this, from a logics perspective.
Dante’s, thanks for doing the heavy lifting on what I suspected to be the case. I had been questioning whether such a highly elliptical orbit was even possible for a planet.
Apogee- farthest or most distant point.
We have no idea just how close an unknown object on an unknown orbit comes to the earth therefore you have to be simply making that up.
Without any idea as to the objects size, density, or gravity you can’t even begin to make such assumptions.
Again the only thing you can calculate knowing only the orbital period is an “average” distance from the sun.
