Remember me
▼ Content

The Gulf Stream



Page 2 of 3<123>
28-04-2018 20:21
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
@All,
..The link is about Carbon Molecule 60. While I thought it was 51 it seems it was 60 and 70. Since carbon molecules shaped like soccer balls are called fullerenes because they are shaped like his geodisic dome kind of dates their discovery. It was considered that his dome would fail because of it's rather odd/peculiar design.

https://www.space.com/14652-space-soccer-balls-buckyballs-everest.html

..About the discovery of Carbon Molecule 60;
Two significant results emerged from the feverish ten days of experiments: first, the team found, as Smalley put it, "Kroto's long carbon snakes"; second, the scientists also observed, again according to Smalley, "a previously unknown molecule of pure carbon."
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/fullerenes.html

..This is a fairly recent discovery, the 1980's. With the Joules-Thomson Throttling Process dark matter might have the same influence inside the field because the material restricting the flow of gasses is porous. With a static Joules-Thomson Field (completely sealed) the barriers of that field might limit the effect/influence that dark matter could have on work being performed in the experiment.
..About non-locality;
The phenomenon of entanglement between quantum systems raised the non-locality problem first noted in the EPR paper: A projective measurement on a quantum system at one space location instantly collapses the state of an entangled counterpart at a distant location. Quantum mechanical non-locality refers to this apparent entanglement-mediated violation of Einstein locality.

The remarkable thing about quantum non-locality, however, is that it actually does not imply violation of relativistic causality.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/200642/how-to-understand-locality-and-non-locality-in-quantum-mechanics

..Surprisingly, the amount of work done in the tropopause between the Arctic and Antarctic and in both arctic regions might be different. This could explain why ozone occurs between the 2 arctic regions while chlorine and bromide create a different gas in the antarctic.
..This is where I need to finish my other project because I may need to pursue this on my own.
Edited on 28-04-2018 20:22
29-04-2018 18:12
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
@All,
..With the scientist who discovered C-60, it took years before the experiment could be tried. Also, his basis for pursuing that experiment was not made known in the link I shared.
.. With neutrinos, if they conserve energy then before and after an event they will still have the same KE. It might be like a painting. You can't see the canvas but you can see what it allows. And with what I am suggesting, work that is performed when the cause of that work cannot be seen, then we can consider dark matter just like astronomers have done with spiral galaxies.
30-04-2018 17:30
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
James___ wrote:
@All,
..With the scientist who discovered C-60, it took years before the experiment could be tried. Also, his basis for pursuing that experiment was not made known in the link I shared.
.. With neutrinos, if they conserve energy then before and after an event they will still have the same KE. It might be like a painting. You can't see the canvas but you can see what it allows. And with what I am suggesting, work that is performed when the cause of that work cannot be seen, then we can consider dark matter just like astronomers have done with spiral galaxies.


This is REALLY getting tiresome James - how many years are you going to talk about this "experiment" of yours that will answer Life, the Universe and Everything?

Fullerenes do not naturally form on Earth, in space or as part of a main sequence star. There are only 14 naturally forming carbon isotopes and only two stable ones. Fullerenes DO NOT reproduce in any manner outside of the atmosphere of a red giant star. We can make graphene sheets as well but that doesn't mean that they ever occurred naturally.

WHY do you say that we are changing the discussion that your start and then turn around and change it again. And it always seems to be some entirely new point of your experiment which you have never explained.
30-04-2018 20:19
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
@All,
..With the scientist who discovered C-60, it took years before the experiment could be tried. Also, his basis for pursuing that experiment was not made known in the link I shared.
.. With neutrinos, if they conserve energy then before and after an event they will still have the same KE. It might be like a painting. You can't see the canvas but you can see what it allows. And with what I am suggesting, work that is performed when the cause of that work cannot be seen, then we can consider dark matter just like astronomers have done with spiral galaxies.


This is REALLY getting tiresome James - how many years are you going to talk about this "experiment" of yours that will answer Life, the Universe and Everything?

Fullerenes do not naturally form on Earth, in space or as part of a main sequence star. There are only 14 naturally forming carbon isotopes and only two stable ones. Fullerenes DO NOT reproduce in any manner outside of the atmosphere of a red giant star. We can make graphene sheets as well but that doesn't mean that they ever occurred naturally.

WHY do you say that we are changing the discussion that your start and then turn around and change it again. And it always seems to be some entirely new point of your experiment which you have never explained.



Wake
..This article http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/401 disagrees with you.
..I`ve posted in this forum for less than 1 year and not the many years that you claim. You overlooked the fact that Smalley had to wait years.
..What I think you missed is that with fullerenes, they are something new and are still being studied. It takes time for new ideas to be considered. This requires patience which you don't seem to have.
30-04-2018 20:37
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
@All,
..With the scientist who discovered C-60, it took years before the experiment could be tried. Also, his basis for pursuing that experiment was not made known in the link I shared.
.. With neutrinos, if they conserve energy then before and after an event they will still have the same KE. It might be like a painting. You can't see the canvas but you can see what it allows. And with what I am suggesting, work that is performed when the cause of that work cannot be seen, then we can consider dark matter just like astronomers have done with spiral galaxies.


This is REALLY getting tiresome James - how many years are you going to talk about this "experiment" of yours that will answer Life, the Universe and Everything?

Fullerenes do not naturally form on Earth, in space or as part of a main sequence star. There are only 14 naturally forming carbon isotopes and only two stable ones. Fullerenes DO NOT reproduce in any manner outside of the atmosphere of a red giant star. We can make graphene sheets as well but that doesn't mean that they ever occurred naturally.

WHY do you say that we are changing the discussion that your start and then turn around and change it again. And it always seems to be some entirely new point of your experiment which you have never explained.



Wake
..This article http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/401 disagrees with you.
..I`ve posted in this forum for less than 1 year and not the many years that you claim. You overlooked the fact that Smalley had to wait years.
..What I think you missed is that with fullerenes, they are something new and are still being studied. It takes time for new ideas to be considered. This requires patience which you don't seem to have.
01-05-2018 03:43
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
@All,
..A little fun if you will. I do believe these numbers are for 1 molar mass.
H2O is 18.02 u while CO2 is 44.01 u. When divided by 6.022×10^23 then we get molecular mass.
..In empty space (the space between molecules) which is what the tropopause is believed to be, there is no reason for molecules of H2O vapor and CO2 to be attracted to one another.
If there is a field of dark matter (neutrinos) that have a conserved potential u then non-local behavior can cause a water vapor molecule to be attracted to a CO2 molecule. This is because their momentum would effect the conserved energy in field u of dark matter.
..This would allow for hot (CO2) molecules to attract cold (water vapor). This might also be considered atmospheric forcing and it is known that the occurrence of ozone has a cooling effect on our atmosphere. And if CO2 + H2O . CH2O and O2 then this would be one reason why finding out if this is correct or not is important.
..You getting all of this Wake and ITN ? With CO2 + H2O it could also be +/- hv. why the molecular mass of water vapor matters is because it takes according to this source Chemistry Stack Exchange
What is the total bond energy of CO2?
https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/44874
A quick ab-initio calculation of a O=C=O molecule with bond-length 1.164 Angstroems (quite close to experimental and theoretically deduced length) yields the following Hartree-Fock SCF energy (using the 6-31G* basis set):. -187.634176090515 Hartrees, which is -492633.5668524824 kJ/mol.
..If the KE of water vapor is greater than the bonding energies of the double covalent bond found in O=C=O then a field allowing two opposites to attract can also allow for molecules to change because their own KE is able to affect the bonds of another molecule.
..Kind of why I want to see the experiment tried. For simplicity sake I'd like to find out if water vapor has enough KE to break the double covalent bond of a CO2 molecule.
..If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask. But this if successful would influence the debate about climate change and the role that CO2 plays in it. Just showing it is on topic to discuss this in here.
Edited on 01-05-2018 03:44
01-05-2018 15:00
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
@All,
.. Some more fun. Thanks solar wind might have more to do with dark matter. https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/sun-corona/en/
Is it possible that the gravity of our Sun is competing with Dark Matter's desire to conserve energy ? The Solar Wind https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SolarWind.shtml comes from the Sun's Corona.
..There are some interesting aspects to this. The tropopause is cooler than both the troposphere and the stratosphere while the Van Allen Radiation Belts mimic the Sun's Corona on a smaller scale.
..I'm not sure if I should be relating phenomena in astrophysics with the Earth's environment just because it's an astral body as well.
02-05-2018 02:17
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
*things solar wind might have to do with dark matter and not thanks, was on my tablet and we know how that goes don't we ?
..There might be one reason why a warmer planet (before 1 million years ago) had an ice age every 40,000 years while a cooler planet (the last 800,000 years) has one every 100,000 years. Increased glacial melt slows the spin of the Earth just as it is now https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/11/20/earths-rotation-is-mysteriously-slowing-down-experts-predict-uptick-in-2018-earthquakes/#4b16fc746f24. This has to do with angular momentum. A warmer planet slows quicker and it's orbit around the Sun changes faster.
..According to Icecore researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Ph.D. Center for Ice and Climate, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, he states
and circa 1-2 million years ago the ice cap in Greenland and in Scandinavia and Canada arose.
it's 1 million years ago when the cycle of ice ages started changing.
..He also sates
Ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that the last ice age started to become milder 19.000 years ago, completely in accordance with increased solar radiation from the earth's favorable orientation in its orbit around the sun.

http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

..With ice core samples, they alone do not tell the story. Core samples are also taken from the ground in various locations around the world as well as the sea floor. Scientists do not rely on only one type of sampling but 3 at various locations. A global temperature effects more than one area. An example is during an ice age land in certain places will be exposed due to a lack of water in the seas. At the same time less vegetation will grow and where it does will only be in mostly ice free areas. This is why some scientists spend their lives researching only one part of our climate, it can be demanding work.
Edited on 02-05-2018 02:17
02-05-2018 20:23
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
@All,
..This information on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem) mentions how the earth's orbit around the Sun directly influences air and sea temperatures. What happened 1,200,000 to 800,000 years ago ?
..This paper is from Columbia University
Peter deMenocal, an associate
research scientist at Lamont-Doherty, Columbia's earth sciences
research center in Palisades, N.Y.

The drier periods, which would have dramatically affected the
region's plant and animal life, further intensified between 1.2
million and 800,000 years ago, which coincided with the vast
expansion of humankind's most direct ancestor, Homo erectus, from
Africa into a variety of regions and habitats throughout Europe
and Asia.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol19/vol19_iss13/record1913.13

..This tends to suggest that as the population in Africa increased it became a warmer and drier. And this might have influenced everything else. And if this is right then it shows that man has already influenced climate change.
02-05-2018 20:34
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
James___ wrote:
@All,
..This information on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem) mentions how the earth's orbit around the Sun directly influences air and sea temperatures. What happened 1,200,000 to 800,000 years ago ?
..This paper is from Columbia University
Peter deMenocal, an associate
research scientist at Lamont-Doherty, Columbia's earth sciences
research center in Palisades, N.Y.

The drier periods, which would have dramatically affected the
region's plant and animal life, further intensified between 1.2
million and 800,000 years ago, which coincided with the vast
expansion of humankind's most direct ancestor, Homo erectus, from
Africa into a variety of regions and habitats throughout Europe
and Asia.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol19/vol19_iss13/record1913.13

..This tends to suggest that as the population in Africa increased it became a warmer and drier. And this might have influenced everything else. And if this is right then it shows that man has already influenced climate change.


Must you have a loose screw all of the time? What it suggests that as it got warmer Homo Erectus population expanded with the more readily available food supply. It there something wrong in your head where you continually have the wrong take on everything?

Tell us more about your wild discovery of Fullerenes and how they have some sort of effect when the most wild-eyed scientists making the most unlikely claims preface everything with "attempting to correlate" which to you apparently means "proven claims".
03-05-2018 02:04
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
@All,
..This information on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem) mentions how the earth's orbit around the Sun directly influences air and sea temperatures. What happened 1,200,000 to 800,000 years ago ?
..This paper is from Columbia University
Peter deMenocal, an associate
research scientist at Lamont-Doherty, Columbia's earth sciences
research center in Palisades, N.Y.

The drier periods, which would have dramatically affected the
region's plant and animal life, further intensified between 1.2
million and 800,000 years ago, which coincided with the vast
expansion of humankind's most direct ancestor, Homo erectus, from
Africa into a variety of regions and habitats throughout Europe
and Asia.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol19/vol19_iss13/record1913.13

..This tends to suggest that as the population in Africa increased it became a warmer and drier. And this might have influenced everything else. And if this is right then it shows that man has already influenced climate change.


Must you have a loose screw all of the time? What it suggests that as it got warmer Homo Erectus population expanded with the more readily available food supply. It there something wrong in your head where you continually have the wrong take on everything?

Tell us more about your wild discovery of Fullerenes and how they have some sort of effect when the most wild-eyed scientists making the most unlikely claims preface everything with "attempting to correlate" which to you apparently means "proven claims".



Wake,
Wake wrote:
Tell us more about your wild discovery of Fullerenes


Wake,
Don't you mean about possibly being able to infer the existence of dark Matter in our atmosphere ? You seem to forget Occam's razor. If CO2 and water vapor molecules are attracted to each other in a cold vacuum, then something must be there to allow non-locality to become locality. Empty space would not allow for 2 molecules to be attracted to each other.


..@Everyone else,
..The Great Rift Valley quit forming about 1 million years ago. It started forming at about the same time as the Tibetan Plateau, about 22 million years ago. And with the Mediterranean Sea as an example;
The Mediterranean loses more water by evaporation that it gains from rivers and rain. But at present, the shortfall can be made up by the flow across the narrow, shallow Strait of Gibraltar. If this lip were raised, or if the sea water were to fall far enough, the connection to the Atlantic would be cut, and the water's edge would gradually retreat. The sea would become a dense, salty lake, then a salt-encrusted marsh, and finally a desert. Rivers reaching the former coast from Europe and Africa would face a plunge to the floor of this desert two thousand metres below global mean sea level.

This, it seems, is what happened repeatedly between 6 and 5.3 million years ago. But what provoked the Messinian salinity crisis, and what course did it take?
https://www.nature.com/news/1999/990812/full/news990812-10.html


..Kind of why I think we need more research about how/why gasses occur in our atmosphere and how the composition of atmospheric gasses effects it's ability to absorb and release heat. With the earth's energy budget that Wake posted, it claims that the Earth emits 57.9 w/m^2 of infrared radiation. That would be about 0.04% of the Earth's energy budget.

We have added a subscript e to the temperature to emphasize that this would be the temperature at the surface of the planet if it had no atmosphere. It is referred to as the effective temperature of the planet. According to this
calculation, the effective temperature of Earth is about 255 K (or -18 °C).
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

..This last reference link suggests that our atmosphere can absorb and release heat. Atmospheric gasses with different levels of the various molecules has not been tested from what I've been able to find on the internet. There should be some definitive work done to confirm how changing the levels of different gasses affects the temperature of our atmosphere.
03-05-2018 03:52
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
Entertainment seems to be what the internet is for;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=8s&v=Q0VGRlEJewA
03-05-2018 06:14
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
@All,
..This information on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem) mentions how the earth's orbit around the Sun directly influences air and sea temperatures. What happened 1,200,000 to 800,000 years ago ?
..This paper is from Columbia University
Peter deMenocal, an associate
research scientist at Lamont-Doherty, Columbia's earth sciences
research center in Palisades, N.Y.

The drier periods, which would have dramatically affected the
region's plant and animal life, further intensified between 1.2
million and 800,000 years ago, which coincided with the vast
expansion of humankind's most direct ancestor, Homo erectus, from
Africa into a variety of regions and habitats throughout Europe
and Asia.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol19/vol19_iss13/record1913.13

..This tends to suggest that as the population in Africa increased it became a warmer and drier. And this might have influenced everything else. And if this is right then it shows that man has already influenced climate change.


Must you have a loose screw all of the time? What it suggests that as it got warmer Homo Erectus population expanded with the more readily available food supply. It there something wrong in your head where you continually have the wrong take on everything?

Tell us more about your wild discovery of Fullerenes and how they have some sort of effect when the most wild-eyed scientists making the most unlikely claims preface everything with "attempting to correlate" which to you apparently means "proven claims".



Wake,
Wake wrote:
Tell us more about your wild discovery of Fullerenes


Wake,
Don't you mean about possibly being able to infer the existence of dark Matter in our atmosphere ? You seem to forget Occam's razor. If CO2 and water vapor molecules are attracted to each other in a cold vacuum, then something must be there to allow non-locality to become locality. Empty space would not allow for 2 molecules to be attracted to each other.


..@Everyone else,
..The Great Rift Valley quit forming about 1 million years ago. It started forming at about the same time as the Tibetan Plateau, about 22 million years ago. And with the Mediterranean Sea as an example;
The Mediterranean loses more water by evaporation that it gains from rivers and rain. But at present, the shortfall can be made up by the flow across the narrow, shallow Strait of Gibraltar. If this lip were raised, or if the sea water were to fall far enough, the connection to the Atlantic would be cut, and the water's edge would gradually retreat. The sea would become a dense, salty lake, then a salt-encrusted marsh, and finally a desert. Rivers reaching the former coast from Europe and Africa would face a plunge to the floor of this desert two thousand metres below global mean sea level.

This, it seems, is what happened repeatedly between 6 and 5.3 million years ago. But what provoked the Messinian salinity crisis, and what course did it take?
https://www.nature.com/news/1999/990812/full/news990812-10.html


..Kind of why I think we need more research about how/why gasses occur in our atmosphere and how the composition of atmospheric gasses effects it's ability to absorb and release heat. With the earth's energy budget that Wake posted, it claims that the Earth emits 57.9 w/m^2 of infrared radiation. That would be about 0.04% of the Earth's energy budget.

We have added a subscript e to the temperature to emphasize that this would be the temperature at the surface of the planet if it had no atmosphere. It is referred to as the effective temperature of the planet. According to this
calculation, the effective temperature of Earth is about 255 K (or -18 °C).
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

..This last reference link suggests that our atmosphere can absorb and release heat. Atmospheric gasses with different levels of the various molecules has not been tested from what I've been able to find on the internet. There should be some definitive work done to confirm how changing the levels of different gasses affects the temperature of our atmosphere.


Let's use simple words for you James - carbon in enough mass to be "dark matter" would hide ALL of the stars in this galaxy let alone the other galaxies in the Universe.

98% of ALL of the matter in the universe is thought to be "dark matter" and it has NEVER BEEN DETECTED. But we're all sure that among the dozens of other things your "great experiment" is going to do is detect "dark matter" in the form of Fullerenes.

I tried to tell you before to stop taking every single new thing you read as life, the universe and everything. But you continue to spout ignorance of a sort that is almost unbelievable. The worst garbage that nightmare ever spouted is 100 times more educated than your postings.
03-05-2018 10:51
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
Wake,
You're showing yourself to be nothing more than a troll. Either that or without my attention you have nothing. It's sad because the other cyber bully I know posted to me that he'll hath no fury like a woman scorned. I'll post an image of it later today but I'm getting the same attitude from you.
.. You know that I used the discovery of fullerenes as an example since that's a fairly recent discovery, the 1980's.

p.s., scientists already credit Dark Matter for spiral galaxies which are the primary type of galaxies in the universe. What I might be doing is showing scientists a way to observe dark matter performing work.
..Still, the experiment is about seeing if CO2 helps ozone to occur in the tropoause. That's more important right now because it would have an effect on the climate change debate.
.. You do know Wake then you are showing one problem with America. All you can do is harras me because you never took the time to learn something. And because that's all that you can do it is what you are going to keep doing. It's about you making me look bad. Yet litesong got banned for posting stuff about climate change. Why I think you're doing itn"'s dirty work for him.
Edited on 03-05-2018 11:11
03-05-2018 16:58
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
You're showing yourself to be nothing more than a troll. Either that or without my attention you have nothing. It's sad because the other cyber bully I know posted to me that he'll hath no fury like a woman scorned. I'll post an image of it later today but I'm getting the same attitude from you.
.. You know that I used the discovery of fullerenes as an example since that's a fairly recent discovery, the 1980's.

p.s., scientists already credit Dark Matter for spiral galaxies which are the primary type of galaxies in the universe. What I might be doing is showing scientists a way to observe dark matter performing work.
..Still, the experiment is about seeing if CO2 helps ozone to occur in the tropoause. That's more important right now because it would have an effect on the climate change debate.
.. You do know Wake then you are showing one problem with America. All you can do is harras me because you never took the time to learn something. And because that's all that you can do it is what you are going to keep doing. It's about you making me look bad. Yet litesong got banned for posting stuff about climate change. Why I think you're doing itn"'s dirty work for him.


"What I might be doing is showing scientists a way to observe dark matter performing work."

Nightmare - I leave this to you. You're much better at noting these sorts of delusions than I am.
03-05-2018 20:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
You're showing yourself to be nothing more than a troll.

I don't think you have any idea what an internet troll is. This word is too often used as a general buzzword insult. That's the way you are using it now.
James___ wrote:
Either that or without my attention you have nothing.

Wake is actually right on this one.
James___ wrote:
It's sad because the other cyber bully I know posted to me that he'll hath no fury like a woman scorned. I'll post an image of it later today but I'm getting the same attitude from you.
.. You know that I used the discovery of fullerenes as an example since that's a fairly recent discovery, the 1980's.

Because fullerenes are a synthetic molecule. It doesn't occur naturally.
Your persecution complex is amazing.
James___ wrote:
p.s., scientists already credit Dark Matter for spiral galaxies which are the primary type of galaxies in the universe.

Most dark matter is hydrogen. There are some other molecules, but no fullerenes.
James___ wrote:
What I might be doing is showing scientists a way to observe dark matter performing work.

Matter doesn't perform work. It takes both matter, energy, and time to perform work.
James___ wrote:
..Still, the experiment is about seeing if CO2 helps ozone to occur in the tropoause.

Go study chemistry. CO2 does not form O3 or act as a catalyst to form O3. Ozone is formed in the tropopause and lower stratosphere by the action of UV-B light. See the Chapman cycle.
James___ wrote:
That's more important right now because it would have an effect on the climate change debate.

Ozone does not affect climate in any area. Neither does CO2. The formation of ozone by UV-B light is an endothermic reaction, leaving the lower stratosphere cold. It's the coldest part of our atmosphere, dropping to temperatures as low as -50 degF.

The destruction of ozone by UV-C light at the top of our stratosphere is an exothermic reaction, leaving the top of the stratosphere warmer than the bottom, and a resulting temperature inversion in the stratosphere.

CO2 is not part of this process at all.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm or cool the Earth.

James___ wrote:
.. You do know Wake then you are showing one problem with America. All you can do is harras me because you never took the time to learn something.

Persecution complex again. We 'harrass' you because you're wrong.
James___ wrote:
And because that's all that you can do it is what you are going to keep doing. It's about you making me look bad.

Persecution complex.
James___ wrote:
Yet litesong got banned for posting stuff about climate change.

No, he got banned because he was spamming. Branner takes a dim view of that, and he should. He gave litebeer every chance to correct his behavior.
James___ wrote:
Why I think you're doing itn"'s dirty work for him.

My work is quite clean, actually. I build instrumentation that, among other things, helps to clean up the environment.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 03-05-2018 20:17
03-05-2018 20:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
You're showing yourself to be nothing more than a troll. Either that or without my attention you have nothing. It's sad because the other cyber bully I know posted to me that he'll hath no fury like a woman scorned. I'll post an image of it later today but I'm getting the same attitude from you.
.. You know that I used the discovery of fullerenes as an example since that's a fairly recent discovery, the 1980's.

p.s., scientists already credit Dark Matter for spiral galaxies which are the primary type of galaxies in the universe. What I might be doing is showing scientists a way to observe dark matter performing work.
..Still, the experiment is about seeing if CO2 helps ozone to occur in the tropoause. That's more important right now because it would have an effect on the climate change debate.
.. You do know Wake then you are showing one problem with America. All you can do is harras me because you never took the time to learn something. And because that's all that you can do it is what you are going to keep doing. It's about you making me look bad. Yet litesong got banned for posting stuff about climate change. Why I think you're doing itn"'s dirty work for him.


"What I might be doing is showing scientists a way to observe dark matter performing work."

Nightmare - I leave this to you. You're much better at noting these sorts of delusions than I am.

Thanks. Not sure what I can do though. He is clearly illiterate in the chemistry involved.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2018 20:28
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
You're showing yourself to be nothing more than a troll. Either that or without my attention you have nothing. It's sad because the other cyber bully I know posted to me that he'll hath no fury like a woman scorned. I'll post an image of it later today but I'm getting the same attitude from you.
.. You know that I used the discovery of fullerenes as an example since that's a fairly recent discovery, the 1980's.

p.s., scientists already credit Dark Matter for spiral galaxies which are the primary type of galaxies in the universe. What I might be doing is showing scientists a way to observe dark matter performing work.
..Still, the experiment is about seeing if CO2 helps ozone to occur in the tropoause. That's more important right now because it would have an effect on the climate change debate.
.. You do know Wake then you are showing one problem with America. All you can do is harras me because you never took the time to learn something. And because that's all that you can do it is what you are going to keep doing. It's about you making me look bad. Yet litesong got banned for posting stuff about climate change. Why I think you're doing itn"'s dirty work for him.


"What I might be doing is showing scientists a way to observe dark matter performing work."

Nightmare - I leave this to you. You're much better at noting these sorts of delusions than I am.

Thanks. Not sure what I can do though. He is clearly illiterate in the chemistry involved.


I can make one correction to your posting: no one has any idea what dark matter is. The motions of the universe make it appear to be everywhere. Yet if any real matter were involved, it would dim the light from distant galaxies and it does not.

Presently one new theory is making the rounds that "dark matter" is composed of particles as much as 100 times smaller (and lighter than electrons) and that this is the reason that it isn't detectable.

In order to have such a large overall mass as to compose some 98% of the universe this would be so thick that you could not detect anything but perhaps wave actions from it. And so far even two black holes colliding and forming extremely large gravity waves has not been sufficient to show any correlation with dark matter.
03-05-2018 20:52
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
Wake,
..You just posted that I said it was fullerenes. Now you're saying something else entirely different. Do you have any idea what you are talking about ? You don't. That's why you said
[quote]Wake wrote: I can make one correction to your posting: no one has any idea what dark matter is. [/b]
Then you said
[quote]Wake wrote: Presently one new theory is making the rounds that "dark matter" is composed of particles as much as 100 times smaller (and lighter than electrons) and that this is the reason that it isn't detectable.
[/b]

..It's funny, you say no one has any idea then you say someone does have an idea. You discredit what I say and then say the same thing I am saying. That is really clever Wake. And as ITN posted to you, I am illiterate about chemistry but not you. This makes you both nothing more than a couple of trolls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
..After all ITN, you claim that heat "is". If that's the case then how can it act as an oxidizer which is needed for a chemical reaction ? That's kind of why my experiment isn't supposed to work, no obvious oxidizer involved. I would think that 2 individuals like you and Wake would know that an oxidizer is essential for a chemical reaction but neither of you have mentioned this violation in my experiment. This is why I consider you both nothing more than trolls, neither one of you mentioned the lack of an oxidizer. That should've been the first thing mentioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidizing_agent

..And Wake, this is something one of you should've already have mentioned if you're familiar with chemistry. You guys missed why scientists do not think my experiment could work. While oxygen (O2) is an oxidizer, that would be one of the products of my experiment which means in that situation it would not be an oxidizer because it would be from a reaction between CO2 and H2O.
..But trolls don't take the time to learn what they're talking about, only how they might be disruptive for their own pleasures. I just wonder if it's like sex when the 2 of you try to have your way with me like I'm man candy that you both want;
Edited on 03-05-2018 21:02
03-05-2018 20:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
You're showing yourself to be nothing more than a troll. Either that or without my attention you have nothing. It's sad because the other cyber bully I know posted to me that he'll hath no fury like a woman scorned. I'll post an image of it later today but I'm getting the same attitude from you.
.. You know that I used the discovery of fullerenes as an example since that's a fairly recent discovery, the 1980's.

p.s., scientists already credit Dark Matter for spiral galaxies which are the primary type of galaxies in the universe. What I might be doing is showing scientists a way to observe dark matter performing work.
..Still, the experiment is about seeing if CO2 helps ozone to occur in the tropoause. That's more important right now because it would have an effect on the climate change debate.
.. You do know Wake then you are showing one problem with America. All you can do is harras me because you never took the time to learn something. And because that's all that you can do it is what you are going to keep doing. It's about you making me look bad. Yet litesong got banned for posting stuff about climate change. Why I think you're doing itn"'s dirty work for him.


"What I might be doing is showing scientists a way to observe dark matter performing work."

Nightmare - I leave this to you. You're much better at noting these sorts of delusions than I am.

Thanks. Not sure what I can do though. He is clearly illiterate in the chemistry involved.


I can make one correction to your posting: no one has any idea what dark matter is.

True. Hydrogen is dark matter, however, thin as it is.
Wake wrote:
The motions of the universe make it appear to be everywhere. Yet if any real matter were involved, it would dim the light from distant galaxies and it does not.

We cannot observe that. No one knows how bright the galaxies should be, since whatever matter that does exist between us can't be removed to see. I do agree that fullerenes would black out the sky if they were dark matter.
Wake wrote:
Presently one new theory is making the rounds that "dark matter" is composed of particles as much as 100 times smaller (and lighter than electrons) and that this is the reason that it isn't detectable.

Yes, I've heard of that theory also.
Wake wrote:
In order to have such a large overall mass as to compose some 98% of the universe this would be so thick that you could not detect anything but perhaps wave actions from it. And so far even two black holes colliding and forming extremely large gravity waves has not been sufficient to show any correlation with dark matter.

Heh. We're not even sure there IS dark matter beyond our own immediate area of space.


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2018 22:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
..You just posted that I said it was fullerenes.

You DID say it was fullerenes. Are you retracting your statement??
James___ wrote:
Now you're saying something else entirely different.
Nope. You are making a contextomy.
James___ wrote:
Do you have any idea what you are talking about ? You don't. That's why you said
[quote]Wake wrote: I can make one correction to your posting: no one has any idea what dark matter is. [/b]
Then you said
[quote]Wake wrote: Presently one new theory is making the rounds that "dark matter" is composed of particles as much as 100 times smaller (and lighter than electrons) and that this is the reason that it isn't detectable.
[/b]

..It's funny, you say no one has any idea then you say someone does have an idea. You discredit what I say

Wake has not made a paradox. He is correct that no one has any idea. There are a few theories around, but that's all.
James___ wrote:
and then say the same thing I am saying.
He did not say the same thing you're saying. Contextomy.
James___ wrote:
That is really clever Wake.
That is a contextomy James.
James___ wrote:
And as ITN posted to you, I am illiterate about chemistry but not you.
Wake actually knows quite a bit more about chemistry than you. You don't know any.
James___ wrote:
This makes you both nothing more than a couple of trolls.
Buzzword fallacy.
James___ wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...
..After all ITN, you claim that heat "is".

That is true. That does not make me a troll.
James___ wrote:
If that's the case then how can it act as an oxidizer which is needed for a chemical reaction ?
It doesn't. I never said it did.
James___ wrote:
That's kind of why my experiment isn't supposed to work, no obvious oxidizer involved.
What's that got to do with it??
James___ wrote:
I would think that 2 individuals like you and Wake would know that an oxidizer is essential for a chemical reaction

WRONG. An oxidizer is NOT essential for a chemical reaction. Sodium and chlorine, for example will make sodium chloride without the use of any oxidizer. The formation of hydrocarbons do not require an oxidizer.
James___ wrote:
but neither of you have mentioned this violation in my experiment.

Because it's not a violation.

Your experiment, however, IS.
James___ wrote:
This is why I consider you both nothing more than trolls,

Buzzword fallacy.
James___ wrote:
neither one of you mentioned the lack of an oxidizer.
Oxygen is an oxidizer. So is ozone (which is actually an even better oxidizer!).
James___ wrote:
That should've been the first thing mentioned.
...deleted Redundant Holy Link..

..And Wake, this is something one of you should've already have mentioned if you're familiar with chemistry.

You do not know what oxidation is. Your 'experiment' attempting to link CO2 with ozone production makes no sense since CO2 doesn't produce ozone.
James___ wrote:
You guys missed why scientists do not think my experiment could work.

No, YOU missed why scientists do not think your experiment would work.
James___ wrote:
While oxygen (O2) is an oxidizer, that would be one of the products of my experiment which means in that situation it would not be an oxidizer because it would be from a reaction between CO2 and H2O.

CO2 and H2O does not produce ozone. CO2 simply dissolves into H2O. A very small part of it becomes carbonic acid. Think soda pop. A can of Coke left to go flat does not produce ozone.
James___ wrote:
..But trolls don't take the time to learn what they're talking about, only how they might be disruptive for their own pleasures.

Buzzword fallacy. Insult fallacy.
James___ wrote:
I just wonder if it's like sex when the 2 of you try to have your way with me like I'm man candy that you both want;

Insult fallacy.

Instead of feeling persecuted, insulting others, or depending on buzzwords to cover what you don't know, why don't you try to actually learn a bit of chemistry?


The Parrot Killer
03-05-2018 23:26
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
..You just posted that I said it was fullerenes. Now you're saying something else entirely different. Do you have any idea what you are talking about ? You don't. That's why you said
[quote]Wake wrote: I can make one correction to your posting: no one has any idea what dark matter is. [/b]
Then you said
[quote]Wake wrote: Presently one new theory is making the rounds that "dark matter" is composed of particles as much as 100 times smaller (and lighter than electrons) and that this is the reason that it isn't detectable.
[/b]

..It's funny, you say no one has any idea then you say someone does have an idea. You discredit what I say and then say the same thing I am saying. That is really clever Wake. And as ITN posted to you, I am illiterate about chemistry but not you. This makes you both nothing more than a couple of trolls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
..After all ITN, you claim that heat "is". If that's the case then how can it act as an oxidizer which is needed for a chemical reaction ? That's kind of why my experiment isn't supposed to work, no obvious oxidizer involved. I would think that 2 individuals like you and Wake would know that an oxidizer is essential for a chemical reaction but neither of you have mentioned this violation in my experiment. This is why I consider you both nothing more than trolls, neither one of you mentioned the lack of an oxidizer. That should've been the first thing mentioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidizing_agent

..And Wake, this is something one of you should've already have mentioned if you're familiar with chemistry. You guys missed why scientists do not think my experiment could work. While oxygen (O2) is an oxidizer, that would be one of the products of my experiment which means in that situation it would not be an oxidizer because it would be from a reaction between CO2 and H2O.
..But trolls don't take the time to learn what they're talking about, only how they might be disruptive for their own pleasures. I just wonder if it's like sex when the 2 of you try to have your way with me like I'm man candy that you both want;


First you show that you don't know what a hypothesis is. Then you are not clear on what a theory is. And you try to call BOTH indisputable fact.

Then you show us that you haven't any training in chemistry. Oxidation is only one of many, many chemical reactions. Carbon Dioxide is an oxidized compound. You CANNOT oxidize something with it without first discovering a method of removing the oxygen atoms from the carbon. It took millions of years of plant evolution to do this and apparently you have a way of doing it by waving your hands about.

Heat is not an oxidizer though it can help in an oxidation reaction. Burning wood with is composed largely of carbon will allow it to react with atmospheric oxygen and produce CO2. FeCl3 is Ferric triCloride. It requires iron, chloride and HEAT to form at levels of approximately 600 degrees C. Do you see ANY oxygen in that compound that will act as an oxidizer? Moreover, mixing this with water will cause an exothermic reaction. In this process it will lock up the odors given off by sewage disposal plants. I would suggest that you actually learn at least a little chemistry but that is so unlikely that I will refrain.

The trouble is that you knowledge is so limited and you actually do not WANT to learn anything. You want to be the genius at the center of the maypole. Just saying all the BS you're putting out doesn't make you smart - it merely makes you look foolish.
04-05-2018 00:49
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
Wake wrote:

The trouble is that you knowledge is so limited and you actually do not WANT to learn anything. You want to be the genius at the center of the maypole. Just saying all the BS you're putting out doesn't make you smart - it merely makes you look foolish.



...Wake,
..You're jealous. When I don't post you don't post and neither does ITN. I think everyone has seen that. You also failed to mention that I usually post reference links to various sources of information. What you're posting is what you people to think you know.
..Here is something you and ITN say scientists don't know but the 2 of you do;
Simply put, neutrinos come in different flavors and the probability that a neutrino is a particular flavor can change as the particle propagates. If these oscillations do indeed occur (and there are experiments that believe to have detected them), then the neutrino would be required to have a rest mass.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/108-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/dark-matter/656-could-neutrinos-be-dark-matter-intermediate

..@All,
I've already posted the quote and the link but it seems that someone deleted it from my post. And yet ITN and wake started posting that scientists have no idea about this. And as Wake said, posting BS like this merely makes me look foolish. Why I think ITN and Wake are a couple of trolls. With the link on dark matter, I don't think they know enough to understand what's being discussed.
..And abusive posting like this >> The trouble is that you knowledge is so limited and you actually do not WANT to learn anything. << is by someone who was too good to learn anything. Just never saw the need for it I guess.
..And Wake, this has been old. All you and ITN can do is try to discredit me. It's all either of you have.
04-05-2018 01:01
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:

The trouble is that you knowledge is so limited and you actually do not WANT to learn anything. You want to be the genius at the center of the maypole. Just saying all the BS you're putting out doesn't make you smart - it merely makes you look foolish.



...Wake,
..You're jealous. When I don't post you don't post and neither does ITN. I think everyone has seen that. You also failed to mention that I usually post reference links to various sources of information. What you're posting is what you people to think you know.
..Here is something you and ITN say scientists don't know but the 2 of you do;
Simply put, neutrinos come in different flavors and the probability that a neutrino is a particular flavor can change as the particle propagates. If these oscillations do indeed occur (and there are experiments that believe to have detected them), then the neutrino would be required to have a rest mass.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/108-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/dark-matter/656-could-neutrinos-be-dark-matter-intermediate

..@All,
I've already posted the quote and the link but it seems that someone deleted it from my post. And yet ITN and wake started posting that scientists have no idea about this. And as Wake said, posting BS like this merely makes me look foolish. Why I think ITN and Wake are a couple of trolls. With the link on dark matter, I don't think they know enough to understand what's being discussed.
..And abusive posting like this >> The trouble is that you knowledge is so limited and you actually do not WANT to learn anything. << is by someone who was too good to learn anything. Just never saw the need for it I guess.
..And Wake, this has been old. All you and ITN can do is try to discredit me. It's all either of you have.



When you don't post there isn't something really stupid to explain to you.

Ten you are going to tell us that scientist KNOW that of all things neutrinos are dark matter.

Firstly, the rest mass of a neutrino has never been measured. It has been suggested by the relative sparsity of neutrinos being emitted by the Sun. But you're off on one of your usual wild goose chases telling us that you know what dark matter is.

Look up "hypothesis", "theory", "fact" and "law".
04-05-2018 01:11
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
deleted post,
As Wake said, there's no need for him and ITN to post if they aren't going to be calling someone stupid. The definition of trolls.
Edited on 04-05-2018 01:19
04-05-2018 01:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:

The trouble is that you knowledge is so limited and you actually do not WANT to learn anything. You want to be the genius at the center of the maypole. Just saying all the BS you're putting out doesn't make you smart - it merely makes you look foolish.



...Wake,
..You're jealous. When I don't post you don't post and neither does ITN.

I usually post as responses to people's arguments. I rarely initiate a discussion. I let people make their argument and cross analyze it for them (and for others to see).

Occasionally, I will initiate new discussion, but I have nothing to prove like you do. I simply accept science as it is. I don't need to initiate arguments. There are plenty of people here that try to push their own arguments and beliefs in the Church of Global Warming as it is.
James___ wrote:
I think everyone has seen that.

Big hairy deal.
James___ wrote:
You also failed to mention that I usually post reference links to various sources of information.

The Holy Link is not a valid reference. It is only showing how weak minded you are. You are simply using the arguments of others as your own. Because of this, you do not know how to critically analyze an argument.
James___ wrote:
What you're posting is what you people to think you know.

What I am posting is theories of science that you are ignoring, mathematics that you are ignoring, logic that you are ignoring, and philosophy that you are ignoring.
James___ wrote:
..Here is something you and ITN say scientists don't know but the 2 of you do;
Simply put, neutrinos come in different flavors and the probability that a neutrino is a particular flavor can change as the particle propagates. If these oscillations do indeed occur (and there are experiments that believe to have detected them), then the neutrino would be required to have a rest mass.
...deleted Redundant Holy Quote...

Neutrinos have a mass, just as photons do.
James___ wrote:
..@All,
I've already posted the quote and the link but it seems that someone deleted it from my post.

I usually remove Holy Links. They don't prove anything. They are waste of time. Learn to think for yourself.
James___ wrote:
And yet ITN and wake started posting that scientists have no idea about this.

WRONG. They do. They are called 'theories'. No theory about dark matter is falsifiable as of yet.
James___ wrote:
And as Wake said, posting BS like this merely makes me look foolish.

Nah. You look foolish because you post your own BS.
James___ wrote:
Why I think ITN and Wake are a couple of trolls.

Buzzword fallacy.
James___ wrote:
With the link on dark matter, I don't think they know enough to understand what's being discussed.

Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
..And abusive posting like this >> The trouble is that you knowledge is so limited and you actually do not WANT to learn anything. << is by someone who was too good to learn anything. Just never saw the need for it I guess.

Fallacy fallacy.
James___ wrote:
..And Wake, this has been old. All you and ITN can do is try to discredit me. It's all either of you have.

You have done that quite effectively yourself. You didn't need our help!


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2018 02:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
James___ wrote:
@All,
..What is being overlooked is that neutrinos would need to conserve energy.

[/quote]
Not overlooked at all. Why you bring it up is apparently a way to distract again.
James___ wrote:
This means that if a light wave or electron passes through a field of neutrinos then those neutrinos will resort to the same KE as before the event that excited them.

Light does not affect neutrinos.
James___ wrote:
This is why they would be difficult to detect.

No, they are difficult to detect because not much is affected by a neutrino.
James___ wrote:
..Between what they absorb and emit there would be a constant equilibrium which means no observations.

There is no equilibrium for neutrinos. Buzzword fallacy.
James___ wrote:
..With this Occam's razor applies. A very small particle with very little mass. And scientists have been considering this. My experiment might give them a way to observe molecules interacting because of non-locality.

Try English. It works better.
James___ wrote:
..At the same time, if CO2 + H2O (vapor) =/- hv? = CH2O and O2 might not be as interesting if what Wake and ITN are showing.

Putting carbon dioxide into water does not form formaldehyde.
James___ wrote:
And we all know that O2 is a part of the Chapman Cycle which is the cyclical nature of ozone.

Ozone does not have a cyclic nature. It simply is. Maybe you should read up on the Chapman cycle before making another stupid comment such as this.
James___ wrote:
..Maybe one day I will have the opportunity to try the experiment. Not having a PhD makes things more difficult for obvious reasons.

One does not need a PhD to perform an experiment. Even little kids perform experiments all the time. It's how they learn about the world.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2018 05:18
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
ITN,
You leave nothing to discuss just like Wake. When one of you gives an answer, everyone is expected to accept what ever it is either one of you says.
And ITN, you should've corrected Wake about trees. While they are about 50% carbon, wood burns because most of the carbon is in methane (CH4). That's 7th grade earth science. Yet you both missed it. Could explain the chemistry but you both have shown that you don't know the basics.
04-05-2018 07:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
James___ wrote:
ITN,
You leave nothing to discuss just like Wake.

You could always continue to deny theories of science and deny chemistry just like you are doing, of course.
James___ wrote:
When one of you gives an answer, everyone is expected to accept what ever it is either one of you says.

Go study chemistry. If you want to deny it that's your business, but don't expect everyone to accept your views.
James___ wrote:
And ITN, you should've corrected Wake about trees.
Nothing to correct.
James___ wrote:
While they are about 50% carbon, wood burns because most of the carbon is in methane (CH4).

WRONG. Wood is primarily made of cellulose and lignin (both carbohydrates), not methane.
James___ wrote:
That's 7th grade earth science.

No, it isn't. In case you haven't noticed, the 7th grade teaches very little science, if any.
James___ wrote:
Yet you both missed it.
Missed what? Go study chemistry.
James___ wrote:
Could explain the chemistry but you both have shown that you don't know the basics.

Go look up the composition of wood and how it forms. You might also want to study the chemistry of the pulp and paper industry.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2018 16:29
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1054)
James wrote:
That's 7th grade earth science.


Into the Night wrote:
No, it isn't. In case you haven't noticed, the 7th grade teaches very little science, if any.


Well now I gotta chime in here. I happen to have a son in 7th grade, and I can tell you without a doubt this is not 7th grade science. The "educators" are too busy bashing Trump and spouting global warming to do any real teaching. My kid is getting really sick of it.

Last week teacher said "have a good weekend everyone, and next week we will begin a new topic. We will be studying carbon dioxide and it's affects on the planet".
My son raised his hand...Yes?
"So what you're saying is that we will be studying plant food?"


Proud dad moment right there!
04-05-2018 17:24
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
That's 7th grade earth science.


Into the Night wrote:
No, it isn't. In case you haven't noticed, the 7th grade teaches very little science, if any.


Well now I gotta chime in here. I happen to have a son in 7th grade, and I can tell you without a doubt this is not 7th grade science. The "educators" are too busy bashing Trump and spouting global warming to do any real teaching. My kid is getting really sick of it.

Last week teacher said "have a good weekend everyone, and next week we will begin a new topic. We will be studying carbon dioxide and it's affects on the planet".
My son raised his hand...Yes?
"So what you're saying is that we will be studying plant food?"


Proud dad moment right there!



GasGuzzler,
When I was in 7th grade we were heating wood in a test tube to extract it's gases. The test tube would be in a beaker filled with ice water. The heavier gasses would condense.
..What Wake and ITN missed is that when wood burns, it is methane (CH4) that is burning as a gas and not the wood itself. This is typical of any ash fire. Gasses burn, solids don't, even with metal. When metal burns it is because it's outgassing and yes, metal can burn.
..With wood, it's CH4 + (2)O2 > CO2 and (2)H2O. This means that wood has a lot of hydrogen in it.
..Kind of why it's a waste of time for me to post in here. All wake and itn want to do is to get into (itn^2, itn * wake) a pissing contest.
..GasGuzzler, it might be waste heat and the depletion of aquifers that are the biggest problems. Dammed rivers also warm. Check out the Colorado River system. What most people don't understand is if we know how we are influencing the environment then we can make the necessary changes. At this moment I don't think we know what we should. It'd be easy enough to say that people who say only CO2 are like itn and wake saying there's nothing for us to be concerned about.
..Did you know that putting out forest fires might be helping our planet to become warmer ? That's true but don't know if itn and wake would allow for a discussion on current land management practices that could be interfering with the natural cooling processes of our planet. I am surprised that those 2 haven't used something like this as an argument against CO2 being the cause of global warming. And this isn't something that you learn in a chemistry class. After all, CO2 + H2O (vapor) +/_ hv > CH2O and O2 is a chemical equation. Until it is tried it cannot be known if it is a valid formula. If the chemical interaction takes place then it will be accepted. This is how science was meant to be pursued. Hypothesize an idea and then try it. And if it works then what in the tropopause or upper troposphere that allows it to work would be up to actual scientists. I could speculate but that is all. And since I am speculating I do not need to have my own theory as to what is acting as an oxidizer.

..What you might consider and this would be an unpopular view is that if we let forest fires burn as they did before industrialization that the soot in the atmosphere might help to insulate the earth from solar radiation. In the grand scheme of things a forest fire might be carbon neutral. This is because a balance would exist between CO2 in the atmosphere and the frequency of forest fires. Overall (over a period of time) nothing would really change as far as our climate goes. Simply put, CO2 emissions and absorption would average out to be the same.
..This is where the question can be asked, by limiting forest fires does the decrease in their byproducts have an impact on our climate outside of CO2 ?
..But can't discuss anything in here because wake and itn don't know shat about anything.
Edited on 04-05-2018 17:59
04-05-2018 17:34
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
That's 7th grade earth science.


Into the Night wrote:
No, it isn't. In case you haven't noticed, the 7th grade teaches very little science, if any.


Well now I gotta chime in here. I happen to have a son in 7th grade, and I can tell you without a doubt this is not 7th grade science. The "educators" are too busy bashing Trump and spouting global warming to do any real teaching. My kid is getting really sick of it.

Last week teacher said "have a good weekend everyone, and next week we will begin a new topic. We will be studying carbon dioxide and it's affects on the planet".
My son raised his hand...Yes?
"So what you're saying is that we will be studying plant food?"


Proud dad moment right there!


There cannot be any warming without it being reflected in changes in sea levels. So lets see what the world's greatest expert on oceanography has to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poZ0pEOtFYM

I am a sailor and have looked at tide markers along the San Francisco waterfront set almost at the time of the gold rush. There appears to be no changes at high slackwater. And yet we have people claiming that sea levels have risen a foot.

The True Believers will make any claims despite direct measurements that show otherwise. Better have your son loaded for bear.
04-05-2018 17:43
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James wrote:
That's 7th grade earth science.


Into the Night wrote:
No, it isn't. In case you haven't noticed, the 7th grade teaches very little science, if any.


Well now I gotta chime in here. I happen to have a son in 7th grade, and I can tell you without a doubt this is not 7th grade science. The "educators" are too busy bashing Trump and spouting global warming to do any real teaching. My kid is getting really sick of it.

Last week teacher said "have a good weekend everyone, and next week we will begin a new topic. We will be studying carbon dioxide and it's affects on the planet".
My son raised his hand...Yes?
"So what you're saying is that we will be studying plant food?"


Proud dad moment right there!



GasGuzzler,
When I was in 7th grade we were heating wood in a test tube to extract it's gases. The test tube would be in a beaker filled with ice water. The heavier gasses would condense.
..What Wake and ITN missed is that when wood burns, it is methane (CH4) that is burning as a gas and not the wood itself. This is typical of any ash fire. Gasses burn, solids don't.
..With wood, it's CH4 + (2)O2 > CO2 and (2)H2O. This means that wood has a lot of hydrogen in it.
..Kind of why it's a waste of time for me to post in here. All wake and itn want to do is to get into (itn2) a pissing contest.


Well somebody is missing something. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/fire1.htm
04-05-2018 18:25
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
Wake wrote:

Well somebody is missing something. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/fire1.htm



...Wake,
..When I was in the US Navy I went to firefighting school 3 times. I know a great deal about fires like they have 4 different classifications, A, B, C and D.
And that for a fire to occur there is a fire triangle. This is because if anyone of the 3 requirements for a fire are removed then the fire will quit burning.
..It's VERY basic knowledge that a fire requires oxygen (O2), fuel and heat. when I was in dry dock on board the USS Kitty Hawk we installed the Halon AFFF 1301 fire suppression system. It smothered fires with foam so that air was removed from the fire triangle.
..I transferred from the USS Ranger which was going on West-Pac. Because it did not have the Halon AFFF 1301 fire suppression system 3 people died fighting an engine room fire that melted holes in the bulkheads to other engineering spaces. This is because they had to rely on spraying water on the fire to cool it.
..To give you an idea Wake they flood the engine room on fire. Not once but twice because when they drained the flooded engine room the fire re-flashed.
..I think it's funny Wake that you keep posting very basic stuff and then act like you know something. You've never fought any fires, have you ? You should try it sometime.

..Wake, AFFF stands for aqueous film forming foam. It saves lives because it fights the fire. You really need to actually learn something some time.

..@All,
.An Alpha (Class A) fire leaves an ash.
Bravo (Class
flammable liquid which includes grease in the kitchen.
Charlie (C) an electrical fire. Turning of the source of power is option #1. The 2nd option is a chemical agent designed for electrical fires.
Delta (D) is metal burning. Throw it overboard if you can. Water will cause an explosion so never pour or spray water on burning metal.


..Want to try a neat experiment or 2 ? If you have access to a damaged mag wheel from a car, carefully sand off some of it into a dust. Then take a match to the dust. Like creamer used for coffee it will flame up.
With coffee creamer, have some of it in your hand and have a flame that you can dust with it. Kind of why granaries will sometimes explode and burn
https://www.brighthub.com/education/homework-tips/articles/122532.aspx

..And Wake, some more for you and maybe ITN can correct me ?
.While on board the USS Kitty Hawk we ran over a Russian submarine. I was in P-4 Div./3MMR. I went on watch after the accident.
..The fuel tank that one of the 2 D - type boilers was punctured by the screw of on the Russian submarine. sea water in DFM makes for a poor burn and as a result the fires in the fire box of one boiler couldn't produce sufficient heat to keep generating 1,200 pis steam at about 1,000° F. It was taken offline following emergency operating procedures.
..With the last situation mentioned water hammers can occur. If they do then the main steam line is at risk of rupturing. If that happens then everybody in that engine room dies. Actually I was told they'd live for a maximum of about 6 seconds if they can get into the emergency exit.
..Wake, don't think you've experienced much in your life. Same for ITN.
The experiment that I am pursuing, some of it is based on what I learned while serving in the US Navy and being assigned to P-4 Div./3MMR. I think it's a joke Wake when I hear I am ignorant because I've taken the time to learn more and have built on what I learned/was exposed to in the Navy. Isn't America GREAT ?
Edited on 04-05-2018 18:39
04-05-2018 18:39
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Well somebody is missing something. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/fire1.htm



...Wake,
..When I was in the US Navy I went to firefighting school 3 times. I know a great deal about fires like they have 4 different classifications, A, B, C and D.
And that for a fire to occur there is a fire triangle. This is because if anyone of the 3 requirements for a fire are removed then the fire will quit burning.
..It's VERY basic knowledge that a fire requires oxygen (O2), fuel and heat. when I was in dry dock on board the USS Kitty Hawk we installed the Halon AFFF 1301 fire suppression system. It smothered fires with foam so that air was removed from the fire triangle.
..I transferred from the USS Ranger which was going on West-Pac. Because it did not have the Halon AFFF 1301 fire suppression system 3 people died fighting an engine room fire that melted holes in the bulkheads to other engineering spaces. This is because they had to rely on spraying water on the fire to cool it.
..To give you an idea Wake they flood the engine room on fire. Not once but twice because when they drained the flooded engine room the fire re-flashed.
..I think it's funny Wake that you keep posting very basic stuff and then act like you know something. You've never fought any fires, have you ? You should try it sometime.

..Wake, AFFF stands for aqueous film forming foam. It saves lives because it fights the fire. You really need to actually learn something some time.

..@All,
.An Alpha (Class A) fire leaves an ash.
Bravo (Class
flammable liquid which includes grease in the kitchen.
Charlie (C) an electrical fire. Turning of the source of power is option #1. The 2nd option is a chemical agent designed for electrical fires.
Delta (D) is metal burning. Throw it overboard if you can. Water will cause an explosion so never pour or spray water on burning metal.


..Want to try a neat experiment or 2 ? If you have access to a damaged mag wheel from a car, carefully sand off some of it into a dust. Then take a match to the dust. Like creamer used for coffee it will flame up.
With coffee creamer, have some of it in your hand and have a flame that you can dust with it. Kind of why granaries will sometimes explode and burn
https://www.brighthub.com/education/homework-tips/articles/122532.aspx


Since what is burning in a wood fire is mostly formaldehyde (CH2O) I'm still trying to work out where your get methane from.

I'm really not interested in your experiences in the Navy if they ever gave you the idea that burning wood generates methane (CH4).
04-05-2018 18:45
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
Wake wrote:

Since what is burning in a wood fire is mostly formaldehyde (CH2O) I'm still trying to work out where your get methane from.

I'm really not interested in your experiences in the Navy if they ever gave you the idea that burning wood generates methane (CH4).



...Wake,
..You and ITN win. You've won the debate. I admit that the both of you have out debated me. And Yes Wake, I am accepting that I lost the DEBATE with you and ITN.
Edited on 04-05-2018 18:46
05-05-2018 00:52
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Since what is burning in a wood fire is mostly formaldehyde (CH2O) I'm still trying to work out where your get methane from.

I'm really not interested in your experiences in the Navy if they ever gave you the idea that burning wood generates methane (CH4).



...Wake,
..You and ITN win. You've won the debate. I admit that the both of you have out debated me. And Yes Wake, I am accepting that I lost the DEBATE with you and ITN.


We didn't "win". We weren't TRYING to "win". We were trying to correct your twisted view of reality.
05-05-2018 03:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Since what is burning in a wood fire is mostly formaldehyde (CH2O) I'm still trying to work out where your get methane from.

I'm really not interested in your experiences in the Navy if they ever gave you the idea that burning wood generates methane (CH4).



...Wake,
..You and ITN win. You've won the debate. I admit that the both of you have out debated me. And Yes Wake, I am accepting that I lost the DEBATE with you and ITN.


We didn't "win". We weren't TRYING to "win". We were trying to correct your twisted view of reality.


Careful. You have to define what 'real' means. It's just a buzzword until you do.


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2018 19:14
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Since what is burning in a wood fire is mostly formaldehyde (CH2O) I'm still trying to work out where your get methane from.

I'm really not interested in your experiences in the Navy if they ever gave you the idea that burning wood generates methane (CH4).



...Wake,
..You and ITN win. You've won the debate. I admit that the both of you have out debated me. And Yes Wake, I am accepting that I lost the DEBATE with you and ITN.


We didn't "win". We weren't TRYING to "win". We were trying to correct your twisted view of reality.


Careful. You have to define what 'real' means. It's just a buzzword until you do.


Can you define "buzzword" without using circular arguments ? I don't know who is worse, you or wake. Anymore wake posts a lot like my cyber stalker. my cyber stalker wants me using the name James so they'll know it's me.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/BukjVSsv1NBDL4fU9

..What he really looks like,
https://photos.app.goo.gl/omXaV7JwA53SG1qb9

..And wake, as you can see, he said why work with me when he can show me a scorned woman. That's what you're showing me, the scorn of a woman.

..itn, it wouldn't surprise me if this is your forum. You hate white people (they came to America and many Native Americans died as a result) and this would give you a way of messing with them without them knowing that you're doing.
05-05-2018 19:30
James___
★★★☆☆
(868)
Wake wrote:


Since what is burning in a wood fire is mostly formaldehyde (CH2O) I'm still trying to work out where your get methane from.

I'm really not interested in your experiences in the Navy if they ever gave you the idea that burning wood generates methane (CH4).



wake,
..Like tobacco smoke, wood smoke contains fine and ultrafine particles as well as carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and sulfur dioxide.
https://www.iqair.com/blog/wood-burning-fireplaces-not-such-hot-idea

..Formaldehyde is in the smoke. I'm not going to get into the chemistry of it. Neither you nor itn seem to have any understanding of science. I mean itn went back to "define' what something "is". He hasn't been able to define reality yet for himself. He should do that before interacting with other people.
..And wake, hopefully you'll learn the difference between the result of combustion and what is burning.

..And this is where we get to why you and itn win the debate. Glucose is supposed to be what burns when wood is being burned.
http://www.whatischemistry.unina.it/en/burn.html
C6H12O6 + 6O^2 > 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy

..1/2 of the molecules produced are supposed to be water. I tend to disagree with this. https://goo.gl/images/LNwNA1

..And if I want to try to win the debate with you and itn then I have to accept this. This is why I am willing to acknowledge that you and itn have won the debate. I cannot win since I disagree with certain assumptions made in science.

..And itn, why I use reference links is because I am familiar with many things but do not know everything. If I knew everything then I wouldn't need to reference other people's work the way that I do.

@All, I can't say
C6H12O6 + hv > 3CH4 + 3CO2

..And if anyone wants to know, farts burn because the gas a parson is expelling through their rectum is methane (CH4). That's what also smells around dairy farms, etc.
..And the hv is the spark that starts forest fires. Of course as wake and itn have repeatedly pointed out, I don't know chemistry. And I think it's sad that in chemistry they think that glucose burns because of oxidation. It'd need a pretty low flash point for that. Kind of where knowing how fires start helps to consider that. There are specific elements needed for a fire to occur and they don't seem to put it all on a single web page, why wake would've missed it.
Edited on 05-05-2018 20:25
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate The Gulf Stream:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Gulf stream weakening.206-10-2018 20:50
Gulf of Mexico as heat sink2106-06-2018 22:41
The Gulf Stream (for Don from Mexico )1507-09-2017 02:25
Is The Gulf Stream slowing down?2423-10-2015 01:02
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact