What is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect?

Can someone please help me understand this?

Nataliya [291]

Answer:

French physicist Jacques Charles (1746-1823) studied the effect of temperature on the volume of a gas at constant pressure. Charles's Law states that the volume of a given mass of gas varies directly with the absolute temperature of the gas when pressure is kept constant. The absolute temperature is temperature measured with the Kelvin scale. The Kelvin scale must be used because zero on the Kelvin scale corresponds to a complete stop of molecular motion.

alt

Figure 11.5.1: As a container of confined gas is heated, its molecules increase in kinetic energy and push the movable piston outward, resulting in an increase in volume.

Mathematically, the direct relationship of Charles's Law can be represented by the following equation:

V

T

=k

As with Boyle's Law, k is constant only for a given gas sample. The table below shows temperature and volume data for a set amount of gas at a constant pressure. The third column is the constant for this particular data set and is always equal to the volume divided by the Kelvin temperature.

Explanation:

PLEASS MARK ME AS BRAINLIEST ANSWER

4 0

3 years ago

About how long is 1 meter?

lyudmila [28]

It should be 3 feet... I did something like this one day in school but I’m trying to remember

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

How did knowing the number of valence electrons in one

Orlov [11]

Explanation:

Knowing the number of valence electrons in one of the alien elements helps in identifying it because the number of valence electrons can help categorize the alien element. Similar elements have the same valence electrons and knowing the category of the element can help further analyze the element.

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

How are bones important to the lymphatic system?

Marianna [84]

Our bone marrow continuously makes new red and white blood cells. The lymphatic system consists of the bone marrow, the spleen, the thymus (in young people), and lymph nodes.

7 0

3 years ago

Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration p

pochemuha

Answer:

Option A is correct.

At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

Explanation:

The main aim of the argument presented is to talk down the use of burning by incinerators method to dispose chemical waste. The argument presents great points in that there were 40 incidents at two existing commissioned incinerators in the last year where unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents happened.

So, basically, the argument is all about how the high frequency of the unsuspected release of dangerous chemical agents should discourage this method of chemical waste disposal.

The argument then concluded that if more chemical waste are disposed using the burning by incinerator method, there will be more unsuspected release of dangerous chemicals.

We are then required to find the statement that most weakens the conclusion that there will be more toxic releases if more chemical waste are burned.

Analysing the Statements one by one

Statement A

This statement provides a possible reason for this high frequency of dangerous chemical releases. It states that the staff haven't been properly trained. So, this means that properly training the staff should most likely lead to lesser cases of toxic releases into the environment.

This is the statement that most weakens the conclusion.

Statement B

The conclusion wasn't about the incinerator method being the safest method. It was about whether increased incineration would lead to more toxic relaeses. So, this doesn't affect the conclusion.

Statement C

This statement says that incineration can be increased without building new incinerators by tapping into unused capacity at the old incinerators. Also doesn't affect rhe conclusion whether increased use of incineration will lead to more toxic leaks.

Statement D

This statement strengthens the argument; which is the opposite of what we're aiming to achieve.

Statement E

This statement hints that the toxic leaks do not have that much of a harmful effect because the toxic releases do not go beyond the property of the incinerator. This also doesnt tackle the conclusion about the frequency of leaks, it only addresses how not harmful the toxic leaks can be.

Hope this Helps!!!

5 0

3 years ago