Remember me
▼ Content

The Gulf Stream



Page 3 of 3<123
05-05-2018 18:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
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 ?

Certainly. A buzzword is a word without meaning, typically used to emphasize a sentence or to impress people.
James___ wrote:
I don't know who is worse, you or wake.

Maybe you ought to look at your own problems instead of blaming others.
James___ wrote:
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.
...deleted insults...

Persecution complex.
James___ wrote:
..itn, it wouldn't surprise me if this is your forum.

It's not. It's Branner's forum. He and I get along pretty well though.
James___ wrote:
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.

Back to these lies again? Persecution complex.


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2018 18:54
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
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 ?

Certainly. A buzzword is a word without meaning, typically used to emphasize a sentence or to impress people.
James___ wrote:
I don't know who is worse, you or wake.

Maybe you ought to look at your own problems instead of blaming others.
James___ wrote:
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.
...deleted insults...

Persecution complex.
James___ wrote:
..itn, it wouldn't surprise me if this is your forum.

It's not. It's Branner's forum. He and I get along pretty well though.
James___ wrote:
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.

Back to these lies again? Persecution complex.


.And not one word about climate change or anything relating to it. I just have to understand why you're right.
.And until I do that you'll have to correct me, right ? Right !
..This is hilarious. Talk about a nagging house wife, sheesh!!!!!!!
Edited on 05-05-2018 19:09
05-05-2018 19:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
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 ?

Certainly. A buzzword is a word without meaning, typically used to emphasize a sentence or to impress people.
James___ wrote:
I don't know who is worse, you or wake.

Maybe you ought to look at your own problems instead of blaming others.
James___ wrote:
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.
...deleted insults...

Persecution complex.
James___ wrote:
..itn, it wouldn't surprise me if this is your forum.

It's not. It's Branner's forum. He and I get along pretty well though.
James___ wrote:
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.

Back to these lies again? Persecution complex.


.And not one word about climate change or anything relating to it.

You didn't bring anything up. Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
I just have to understand why you're right.

About what? Do you have a specific question?
James___ wrote:
And until I do that you'll have to correct me, right ? Right !

That's up to you.
James___ wrote:
..This is hilarious. Talk about a nagging house wife, sheesh!!!!!!!

Persecution complex.


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2018 06:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
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,
..Like tobacco smoke, wood smoke contains fine and ultrafine particles as well as carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and sulfur dioxide.
...deleted Holy Quote....

Wood contains no sulfur. Only poor burns produce carbon monoxide and soot. Properly burned wood doesn't produce either. Formaldehyde burns.
James___ wrote:
..Formaldehyde is in the smoke..
Nope. It burns.
James___ wrote:
I'm not going to get into the chemistry of it..

You already tried. You are wrong.
James___ wrote:
Neither you nor itn seem to have any understanding of science..

Stay off aircraft, don't use paper, avoid flushing the toilet, don't paint your house, don't eat food.

All chemistry. Aircraft, paper, sewage treatment, house paint, and even your food are there because of theories of science.
James___ wrote:
I mean itn went back to "define' what something "is". He hasn't been able to define reality yet for himself..

I have. Pay attention next time. You might learn something. The explanation is lengthy and I will not repeat it here.
James___ wrote:
He should do that before interacting with other people..
No need.
James___ wrote:
.And wake, hopefully you'll learn the difference between the result of combustion and what is burning..

I believe wake has a far better idea of fire than you do. I understand fire quite well, regardless of what is burning.
James___ wrote:
..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.
...deleted Holy Link and Quote....

Correct. Glucose, which is both cellulose and lignin, forms formaldehyde and burns. In properly burned wood, the only result (besides the ash) is carbon dioxide and water.
James___ wrote:
..1/2 of the molecules produced are supposed to be water. I tend to disagree with this. .

Too bad. That's exactly what it is. The end result of any carbon based fuel burning is water and carbon dioxide. Anything that comes out is only the result of an imperfect burn.
James___ wrote:.
..And if I want to try to win the debate with you and itn then I have to accept this..

This is not a debate one wins or loses. This is a discussion board.
James___ wrote:
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..

You are not using science.
James___ wrote:
..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..

Presenting the kinds of references you do is simply using someone else's argument as your own. It is lazy thinking. I automatically tend to discard such 'references'. Learn to think for yourself. If you wish to present a reference for data, that data must conform to the requirements I have set out in the Data Mine for me to accept it.
James___ wrote:
..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..

Methane is odorless and colorless. You can't smell it or see it. The stink is caused by hydrogen sulfide, not methane.
James___ wrote:
..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..
Neither methane nor hydrogen sulfide is the fuel for a forest or grass fire.
James___ wrote:
And I think it's sad that in chemistry they think that glucose burns because of oxidation..

Why? Do you like glucose or something? Is it oxidation that bothers you?
James___ wrote:
It'd need a pretty low flash point for that..

WRONG. Flashpoint has nothing to do with oxidation. Even high flashpoint fuels can burn.
Glucose not only has a fairly low flashpoint in dusty environments, but there is plenty of oxygen available as well. The result is an explosion. Ever hear of a silo fire?
James___ wrote:
Kind of where knowing how fires start helps to consider that..

I know exactly how fires start and how to put them out. I'm an aircraft mechanic.
James___ wrote:
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
.

It all fits on a single web page. Indeed, it fits into a single icon. Go look up the so-called 'fire triangle'.

All you need for any fire is heat, oxygen, and fuel (something that emits heat when oxidized).


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2018 06:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
.And not one word about climate change or anything relating to it. I just have to understand why you're right.


Be specific. What do you want to know?


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2018 20:40
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Into the Night wrote:

Nope. The Gulf Stream doesn't go to the Arctic. It isn't slowing either. It still travels an average speed of about 5 mph at the surface, just like it always has since the 16th century when we first began to measure it.

This old story about the Gulf Stream crops up again and again. It's an urban myth. It doesn't even affect European weather at all.



...ITN,
..I guess you really do know your stuff. Why you and Wake won the debate. You guys clearly know what you're talking about.
07-05-2018 16:50
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
James___ wrote:..I guess you really do know your stuff. Why you and Wake won the debate. You guys clearly know what you're talking about.


James - what do you propose as being debated? There is no debate about what is produced by burning wood. Why are you claiming things that do not exist? It isn't as if you couldn't simply look up what causes wood to burn and what the byproducts are.

Your idea that oxidation is the only form of chemical reactions aided by or producing heat is something else that any idiot could look up.

So why are you making claims completely counter to known FACT?
07-05-2018 17:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:..I guess you really do know your stuff. Why you and Wake won the debate. You guys clearly know what you're talking about.


James - what do you propose as being debated? There is no debate about what is produced by burning wood. Why are you claiming things that do not exist? It isn't as if you couldn't simply look up what causes wood to burn and what the byproducts are.

Your idea that oxidation is the only form of chemical reactions aided by or producing heat is something else that any idiot could look up.

So why are you making claims completely counter to known FACT?


Careful, Wake. It obviously is not a fact to James. It is only a fact to you and me here so far (and to most of the chemistry community). To James, it's an argument (at least until possibly recently).

Remember, a 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.

A 'fact' is nothing more than an assumed predicate.

Also, combustion and its products are not theories of science. They are observations. The theory part of any combustion process is how to best represent it, or in identifying common elements of the combustion process various substances and extending that to unknown substances.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 07-05-2018 17:37
07-05-2018 17:56
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:..I guess you really do know your stuff. Why you and Wake won the debate. You guys clearly know what you're talking about.


James - what do you propose as being debated? There is no debate about what is produced by burning wood. Why are you claiming things that do not exist? It isn't as if you couldn't simply look up what causes wood to burn and what the byproducts are.

Your idea that oxidation is the only form of chemical reactions aided by or producing heat is something else that any idiot could look up.

So why are you making claims completely counter to known FACT?



..Gosh Wake, Glucose doesn't burn but it can be metabolized. The information that you are going by is found on the net. As you said, anyone can do a search and find it.
..Chemistry allows for C6H12O6 + hv. In a tree it would be heat which creates the flash point. A flash point is when a solid or liguid gives off a vapor. Any idiot knows that gasoline does not burn. You can put out matches or a lit cigarette in it. That would not start a fire.
On the other hand, to ignite the vapor it gives off because of it's low flash point will start a fire. I am not sure why glucose would be different. And as you've shown all you know is what anyone can search online just as ITN does.
..I am really surprised that you and ITN miss so much. When
C6H12O6 + hv > 3CH4 + 3CO2 then the CH4 can burn because it is a gas and not a solid. Solids do not burn, not in a fire. Pyrotechnics are solid chemical reactions that burn but the heat they release is not fire but is considered a spark hv. Notice the difference ? Fireworks are chemical based reactions, a warm fire in the fireplace is plasma being released by a gas burning;
CH4 + O2 > CO2 + H2O + hv.
..In wood, C6H12O6 + 3O2 > 3CO2 + 3H2O. This is what's accepted. Do you know what the problem with this is ? You and ITN can explain it to everyone, okay ? You both are familiar with chemistry, right ? You both have made that claim already while stating that I am ignorant of it. And Wake, I think the people watching you and ITN making fools of yourselves are benefiting from these exchanges.
..I'll give you both sometime to think of a response. The answer I think is kind of obvious.
Edited on 07-05-2018 18:08
07-05-2018 18:18
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:..I guess you really do know your stuff. Why you and Wake won the debate. You guys clearly know what you're talking about.


James - what do you propose as being debated? There is no debate about what is produced by burning wood. Why are you claiming things that do not exist? It isn't as if you couldn't simply look up what causes wood to burn and what the byproducts are.

Your idea that oxidation is the only form of chemical reactions aided by or producing heat is something else that any idiot could look up.

So why are you making claims completely counter to known FACT?



..Gosh Wake, Glucose doesn't burn but it can be metabolized. The information that you are going by is found on the net. As you said, anyone can do a search and find it.
..Chemistry allows for C6H12O6 + hv. In a tree it would be heat which creates the flash point. A flash point is when a solid or liguid gives off a vapor. Any idiot knows that gasoline does not burn. You can put out matches or a lit cigarette in it. That would not start a fire.
On the other hand, to ignite the vapor it gives off because of it's low flash point will start a fire. I am not sure why glucose would be different. And as you've shown all you know is what anyone can search online just as ITN does.


Metabolized means being digested by living things. Metabolism releases an equivalent amount of energy to burning, but in a slower, more controlled, and less direct way.

Glucose is a hydrocarbon and in the presence of oxygen can react if enough heat is present to cause a reaction - it BURNS.

I am really surprised that you will argue things this simple.

Is this so difficult for you to understand?
07-05-2018 19:44
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:..I guess you really do know your stuff. Why you and Wake won the debate. You guys clearly know what you're talking about.


James - what do you propose as being debated? There is no debate about what is produced by burning wood. Why are you claiming things that do not exist? It isn't as if you couldn't simply look up what causes wood to burn and what the byproducts are.

Your idea that oxidation is the only form of chemical reactions aided by or producing heat is something else that any idiot could look up.

So why are you making claims completely counter to known FACT?



..Gosh Wake, Glucose doesn't burn but it can be metabolized. The information that you are going by is found on the net. As you said, anyone can do a search and find it.
..Chemistry allows for C6H12O6 + hv. In a tree it would be heat which creates the flash point. A flash point is when a solid or liguid gives off a vapor. Any idiot knows that gasoline does not burn. You can put out matches or a lit cigarette in it. That would not start a fire.
On the other hand, to ignite the vapor it gives off because of it's low flash point will start a fire. I am not sure why glucose would be different. And as you've shown all you know is what anyone can search online just as ITN does.


Metabolized means being digested by living things. Metabolism releases an equivalent amount of energy to burning, but in a slower, more controlled, and less direct way.

Glucose is a hydrocarbon and in the presence of oxygen can react if enough heat is present to cause a reaction - it BURNS.

I am really surprised that you will argue things this simple.

Is this so difficult for you to understand?



...Wake,
..Then why do you claim that scientists are wrong when they say AGW ? If I do not agree with scientists you say I am wrong. I will agree with them then and say AGW is correct. How does this make you feel ?
..You and ITN would have me agree with this because I would say it's wrong;
http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/questions-and-answers/heat-capacity-equation-co2-gas-temperature-range-0-1500-degrees-celsius-cp-3611-10-3-4233--q6973379.
..I don't think the heat that CO2 stores can influence our environment but then the 2 of you would say I am wrong for not being able to grasp such a simple concept. I just don't get it. Maybe you 2 can explain it to me ?

..@Everyone else,
.No reason why C6H12O6 + hv > 3CH4 + 3H2O can't happen. Then in the body CH4 can burn (CH4 + O2) releasing CO2 and 2H2O. Of course hydrohen can burn as well https://www.quora.com/What-does-hydrogen-give-off-when-burned. That is a balanced equation. And with wood, water puts out fires while they say 1 CO2 molecule is released for each H2O molecule.
Edited on 07-05-2018 19:50
07-05-2018 20:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:..I guess you really do know your stuff. Why you and Wake won the debate. You guys clearly know what you're talking about.


James - what do you propose as being debated? There is no debate about what is produced by burning wood. Why are you claiming things that do not exist? It isn't as if you couldn't simply look up what causes wood to burn and what the byproducts are.

Your idea that oxidation is the only form of chemical reactions aided by or producing heat is something else that any idiot could look up.

So why are you making claims completely counter to known FACT?



..Gosh Wake, Glucose doesn't burn but it can be metabolized.

Glucose can burn, sometimes explosively.
James___ wrote:
The information that you are going by is found on the net.

Nope. Practical experience for me. I've seen the results of a glucose explosion. I also make my own black powder.
James___ wrote:
As you said, anyone can do a search and find it.

Apparently you have real trouble with this.
James___ wrote:
..Chemistry allows for C6H12O6 + hv. In a tree it would be heat which creates the flash point. A flash point is when a solid or liguid gives off a vapor.

WRONG. A flash point is when a substance begins to sustain it's own combustion. The VAPOR point is when a vapor is produced.
James___ wrote:
Any idiot knows that gasoline does not burn.

It does, and quite well.
James___ wrote:
You can put out matches or a lit cigarette in it.

People that do this sort of demonstration often get burned.

Gasoline will burn, even as a liquid. It's vaporization point is quite low, however, and usually the vapor is what ignites first. Remember combustion also requires oxygen.
James___ wrote:
That would not start a fire.

Sometimes it does!
James___ wrote:
On the other hand, to ignite the vapor it gives off because of it's low flash point will start a fire.

That can also happen, and usually will.
James___ wrote:
I am not sure why glucose would be different.

The vaporization point of glucose is fairly high. The liquid usually burns first.
James___ wrote:
And as you've shown all you know is what anyone can search online just as ITN does.
..I am really surprised that you and ITN miss so much.

Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
When
C6H12O6 + hv > 3CH4 + 3CO2 then the CH4 can burn because it is a gas and not a solid.

Nope. Solids, liquids, and gases can burn.
James___ wrote:
Solids do not burn, not in a fire.

Yes they do. An example is coal. Another is black powder.
James___ wrote:
Pyrotechnics are solid chemical reactions that burn but the heat they release is not fire but is considered a spark hv. Notice the difference ?

No, it is not considered a spark. It is combustion. It is fire.
James___ wrote:
Fireworks are chemical based reactions,

WRONG. Fireworks are combustion (of solid materials). Not only does the black powder burn, but the colorant also burns (which produces the different colors of fire).
James___ wrote:
a warm fire in the fireplace is plasma being released by a gas burning;

A fireplace does not turn the wood into plasma. It doesn't get hot enough. Plasma in a fireplace would destroy the fireplace!
James___ wrote:
..I'll give you both sometime to think of a response. The answer I think is kind of obvious.

Apparently not to you. You still don't understand combustion.


The Parrot Killer
07-05-2018 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:..I guess you really do know your stuff. Why you and Wake won the debate. You guys clearly know what you're talking about.


James - what do you propose as being debated? There is no debate about what is produced by burning wood. Why are you claiming things that do not exist? It isn't as if you couldn't simply look up what causes wood to burn and what the byproducts are.

Your idea that oxidation is the only form of chemical reactions aided by or producing heat is something else that any idiot could look up.

So why are you making claims completely counter to known FACT?



..Gosh Wake, Glucose doesn't burn but it can be metabolized. The information that you are going by is found on the net. As you said, anyone can do a search and find it.
..Chemistry allows for C6H12O6 + hv. In a tree it would be heat which creates the flash point. A flash point is when a solid or liguid gives off a vapor. Any idiot knows that gasoline does not burn. You can put out matches or a lit cigarette in it. That would not start a fire.
On the other hand, to ignite the vapor it gives off because of it's low flash point will start a fire. I am not sure why glucose would be different. And as you've shown all you know is what anyone can search online just as ITN does.


Metabolized means being digested by living things. Metabolism releases an equivalent amount of energy to burning, but in a slower, more controlled, and less direct way.

Glucose is a hydrocarbon and in the presence of oxygen can react if enough heat is present to cause a reaction - it BURNS.

I am really surprised that you will argue things this simple.

Is this so difficult for you to understand?


Heh. Apparently it is.


The Parrot Killer
07-05-2018 20:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:..I guess you really do know your stuff. Why you and Wake won the debate. You guys clearly know what you're talking about.


James - what do you propose as being debated? There is no debate about what is produced by burning wood. Why are you claiming things that do not exist? It isn't as if you couldn't simply look up what causes wood to burn and what the byproducts are.

Your idea that oxidation is the only form of chemical reactions aided by or producing heat is something else that any idiot could look up.

So why are you making claims completely counter to known FACT?



..Gosh Wake, Glucose doesn't burn but it can be metabolized. The information that you are going by is found on the net. As you said, anyone can do a search and find it.
..Chemistry allows for C6H12O6 + hv. In a tree it would be heat which creates the flash point. A flash point is when a solid or liguid gives off a vapor. Any idiot knows that gasoline does not burn. You can put out matches or a lit cigarette in it. That would not start a fire.
On the other hand, to ignite the vapor it gives off because of it's low flash point will start a fire. I am not sure why glucose would be different. And as you've shown all you know is what anyone can search online just as ITN does.


Metabolized means being digested by living things. Metabolism releases an equivalent amount of energy to burning, but in a slower, more controlled, and less direct way.

Glucose is a hydrocarbon and in the presence of oxygen can react if enough heat is present to cause a reaction - it BURNS.

I am really surprised that you will argue things this simple.

Is this so difficult for you to understand?



...Wake,
..Then why do you claim that scientists are wrong when they say AGW ?

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Science has no theories about something that is undefined.
James___ wrote:
If I do not agree with scientists you say I am wrong.

The 'scientists' you generally refer to are 'climate scientists'. These guys do not use or create any theory of science. They are not scientists.
James___ wrote:
I will agree with them then and say AGW is correct. How does this make you feel ?

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Something undefined is not 'correct'.
James___ wrote:
..I don't think the heat that CO2 stores can influence our environment but then the 2 of you would say I am wrong for not being able to grasp such a simple concept. I just don't get it. Maybe you 2 can explain it to me ?

It is not possible to store or trap heat.

The thermal energy in CO2 is the same as the thermal energy in any other gas in the atmosphere. It is the same temperature as the gas immediately surrounding the CO2.

CO2 is not a magick material. It cannot create energy. It cannot store or trap heat. Like everything else on Earth, it radiates energy into space due to it's own temperature.

Absorption is not warming.

James___ wrote:
..@Everyone else,
.No reason why C6H12O6 + hv > 3CH4 + 3H2O can't happen. Then in the body CH4 can burn (CH4 + O2) releasing CO2 and 2H2O. Of course hydrohen can burn as well https://www.quora.com/What-does-hydrogen-give-off-when-burned. That is a balanced equation. And with wood, water puts out fires while they say 1 CO2 molecule is released for each H2O molecule.

Water does NOT put out all fires. It only puts out certain fires. In some cases, the presence of water can actually START a fire, or even an explosion.

Try chucking some sodium metal into water to see what I mean.


The Parrot Killer
07-05-2018 21:34
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Into the Night wrote:

Water does NOT put out all fires. It only puts out certain fires. In some cases, the presence of water can actually START a fire, or even an explosion.

Try chucking some sodium metal into water to see what I mean.


It puts out a wood fire which is what was being discussed and not Delta
(Class D) type fires. I learned this in firefighting school.
..this is what gets old itn. by changing the subject like wake does, you guys can act like your mentioning something I don't know but will have already posted.
Sometimes I wonder if you're on crack or something because you act like an addict but that's just my opinion.
RE: Gulf Stream07-05-2018 23:11
Gilgamazing
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming


This is getting out of hand...
07-05-2018 23:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Water does NOT put out all fires. It only puts out certain fires. In some cases, the presence of water can actually START a fire, or even an explosion.

Try chucking some sodium metal into water to see what I mean.


It puts out a wood fire which is what was being discussed and not Delta
(Class D) type fires. I learned this in firefighting school.

You obviously never went to firefighting school. Water won't even put out a wood fire unless there is sufficient quantity of it to keep free oxygen from getting to the fire.
James___ wrote:
..this is what gets old itn. by changing the subject like wake does, you guys can act like your mentioning something I don't know but will have already posted.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that keeps changing the subject.
James___ wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if you're on crack or something because you act like an addict but that's just my opinion.

Never touch the stuff. You obviously don't know the symptoms of various kinds of drug use either.


The Parrot Killer
07-05-2018 23:21
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
@All,
..What I'm not being allowed to say is that burning wood doesn't produce water.
.If it did then the smoke from a wood fire would be "wet" or fog like. It would be damp. It's not.
..There is a possible answer but I cannot say it. There might also be a way to show through mathematics or calculus but we won't mention that. At the moment Wake and ITN are teaching me about science. If they can't post the answer then I can't. I'm learning from them.
07-05-2018 23:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Gilgamazing wrote:
https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming


This is getting out of hand...
It isn't sinking.

Erosion will move sand out to sand bars, but that's not sinking.

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
islands don't sink because of undefined buzzwords.


The Parrot Killer
07-05-2018 23:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
@All,
..What I'm not being allowed to say is that burning wood doesn't produce water.

You ARE allowed to say it. You just said it. It's wrong, but nothing is preventing you from saying it.

Wood produces water when burned. So does oil, methane, glucose, or anything else that happens to have hydrogen in it.
James___ wrote:
.If it did then the smoke from a wood fire would be "wet" or fog like.

WRONG. A fog is LIQUID water.
James___ wrote:
It would be damp. It's not.

Ever wonder why your car's tailpipe drips water?
James___ wrote:
..There is a possible answer but I cannot say it. There might also be a way to show through mathematics or calculus but we won't mention that.

No math needed (calculus IS math).
James___ wrote:
At the moment Wake and ITN are teaching me about science.

That's up to you and if you're willing to learn.
James___ wrote:
If they can't post the answer then I can't. I'm learning from them.


While it's weird that burning anything with hydrogen in it produces water as one of the results, it nevertheless is true. The water produced isn't enough to put out the fire. Because of the heat of burning wood, the water stays as vapor and drifts away from the fire along with any smoke.

If you are burning the wood properly (completely), you will have no smoke from the fire.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2018 00:04
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Into the Night wrote:
Gilgamazing wrote:
https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming


This is getting out of hand...
It isn't sinking.

Erosion will move sand out to sand bars, but that's not sinking.

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
islands don't sink because of undefined buzzwords.



...You mean you know the difference between erosion and sinking but don't know what global warming is ? Can I have some of what you're smoking ?
08-05-2018 00:34
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Water does NOT put out all fires. It only puts out certain fires. In some cases, the presence of water can actually START a fire, or even an explosion.

Try chucking some sodium metal into water to see what I mean.


It puts out a wood fire which is what was being discussed and not Delta
(Class D) type fires. I learned this in firefighting school.
..this is what gets old itn. by changing the subject like wake does, you guys can act like your mentioning something I don't know but will have already posted.
Sometimes I wonder if you're on crack or something because you act like an addict but that's just my opinion.


Why do you continue your charade? Water quenches a fire by lowering the heat to below the temperature of combustion. You claimed to have fire training in the Navy. So how is it that you missed this which is a major part of the training?
08-05-2018 00:52
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
Gilgamazing wrote:
https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming


This is getting out of hand...


What is getting out of hand is your belief that somehow currents and weather are supposed to be static.

Tell us HOW we had the Roman Warm Period, the following cool period, the Medieval Warm Period followed by the Little Ice Age?

Exactly what goes on in your head? The world's greatest oceanographer tells us that ocean levels are increasing so slowly that it is difficult to determine if they are rising at all. But then that would contradict a genius like you wouldn't it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poZ0pEOtFYM

Dr. Roy Spencer - the man who was the lead scientist on the NASA weather satellite program shows that the temperature has not been rising for the last 39 years but you know a hell of a lot more than he does, don't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGn-Vcxztng

What's it feel like to have the rug pulled out from under you? Do you continue to insist that it isn't true? That you're still standing?

Five of the Solomon Islands are going to sink? In fact they are gaining more ground than they are losing to erosion.

Prince Edward Island is doomed? Seems like the sort of thing that you can get behind. Some phony claim by some phony "scientist" with no backing is bound to be correct isn't he? Why it would make the slightest difference if that arm of the Gulf Stream which I warrant you know nothing about - has been there for centuries and HOLY COW was just discovered.
08-05-2018 01:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Gilgamazing wrote:
https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming


This is getting out of hand...
It isn't sinking.

Erosion will move sand out to sand bars, but that's not sinking.

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
islands don't sink because of undefined buzzwords.



...You mean you know the difference between erosion and sinking but don't know what global warming is ? Can I have some of what you're smoking ?


A series of non-sequitur statements. None of these have anything to do with any other of these.

Try English. It works better.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2018 02:41
Gilgamazing
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Wake wrote:
Gilgamazing wrote:
https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming


This is getting out of hand...


What is getting out of hand is your belief that somehow currents and weather are supposed to be static.

Tell us HOW we had the Roman Warm Period, the following cool period, the Medieval Warm Period followed by the Little Ice Age?

Exactly what goes on in your head? The world's greatest oceanographer tells us that ocean levels are increasing so slowly that it is difficult to determine if they are rising at all. But then that would contradict a genius like you wouldn't it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poZ0pEOtFYM

Dr. Roy Spencer - the man who was the lead scientist on the NASA weather satellite program shows that the temperature has not been rising for the last 39 years but you know a hell of a lot more than he does, don't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGn-Vcxztng

What's it feel like to have the rug pulled out from under you? Do you continue to insist that it isn't true? That you're still standing?

Five of the Solomon Islands are going to sink? In fact they are gaining more ground than they are losing to erosion.

Prince Edward Island is doomed? Seems like the sort of thing that you can get behind. Some phony claim by some phony "scientist" with no backing is bound to be correct isn't he? Why it would make the slightest difference if that arm of the Gulf Stream which I warrant you know nothing about - has been there for centuries and HOLY COW was just discovered.




I know the climate is not supposed to be static, but I also know that a new current like this could really destroy the ecosystem and affect the island. It's not speculations, it's facts. Go read the article.
08-05-2018 03:14
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Gilgamazing wrote:
Wake wrote:
Gilgamazing wrote:
https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming


This is getting out of hand...


What is getting out of hand is your belief that somehow currents and weather are supposed to be static.

Tell us HOW we had the Roman Warm Period, the following cool period, the Medieval Warm Period followed by the Little Ice Age?

Exactly what goes on in your head? The world's greatest oceanographer tells us that ocean levels are increasing so slowly that it is difficult to determine if they are rising at all. But then that would contradict a genius like you wouldn't it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poZ0pEOtFYM

Dr. Roy Spencer - the man who was the lead scientist on the NASA weather satellite program shows that the temperature has not been rising for the last 39 years but you know a hell of a lot more than he does, don't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGn-Vcxztng

What's it feel like to have the rug pulled out from under you? Do you continue to insist that it isn't true? That you're still standing?

Five of the Solomon Islands are going to sink? In fact they are gaining more ground than they are losing to erosion.

Prince Edward Island is doomed? Seems like the sort of thing that you can get behind. Some phony claim by some phony "scientist" with no backing is bound to be correct isn't he? Why it would make the slightest difference if that arm of the Gulf Stream which I warrant you know nothing about - has been there for centuries and HOLY COW was just discovered.




I know the climate is not supposed to be static, but I also know that a new current like this could really destroy the ecosystem and affect the island. It's not speculations, it's facts. Go read the article.


..The current your talking about is probably because the Greenland Sea abyss is warming. itn said if that were true then heat rises. When that happens cold water doesn't surface.
.. This means the Greenland Sea abyss is feeding a warm gyre above the Labrador Current. In that aspect it's not surprising.
08-05-2018 09:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Gilgamazing wrote:
Wake wrote:
Gilgamazing wrote:
https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming


This is getting out of hand...


What is getting out of hand is your belief that somehow currents and weather are supposed to be static.

Tell us HOW we had the Roman Warm Period, the following cool period, the Medieval Warm Period followed by the Little Ice Age?

Exactly what goes on in your head? The world's greatest oceanographer tells us that ocean levels are increasing so slowly that it is difficult to determine if they are rising at all. But then that would contradict a genius like you wouldn't it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poZ0pEOtFYM

Dr. Roy Spencer - the man who was the lead scientist on the NASA weather satellite program shows that the temperature has not been rising for the last 39 years but you know a hell of a lot more than he does, don't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGn-Vcxztng

What's it feel like to have the rug pulled out from under you? Do you continue to insist that it isn't true? That you're still standing?

Five of the Solomon Islands are going to sink? In fact they are gaining more ground than they are losing to erosion.

Prince Edward Island is doomed? Seems like the sort of thing that you can get behind. Some phony claim by some phony "scientist" with no backing is bound to be correct isn't he? Why it would make the slightest difference if that arm of the Gulf Stream which I warrant you know nothing about - has been there for centuries and HOLY COW was just discovered.




I know the climate is not supposed to be static, but I also know that a new current like this could really destroy the ecosystem and affect the island. It's not speculations, it's facts. Go read the article.


Not a fact. Learn what a 'fact' is. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.

The island isn't sinking.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2018 09:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
Gilgamazing wrote:
Wake wrote:
Gilgamazing wrote:
https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming


This is getting out of hand...


What is getting out of hand is your belief that somehow currents and weather are supposed to be static.

Tell us HOW we had the Roman Warm Period, the following cool period, the Medieval Warm Period followed by the Little Ice Age?

Exactly what goes on in your head? The world's greatest oceanographer tells us that ocean levels are increasing so slowly that it is difficult to determine if they are rising at all. But then that would contradict a genius like you wouldn't it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poZ0pEOtFYM

Dr. Roy Spencer - the man who was the lead scientist on the NASA weather satellite program shows that the temperature has not been rising for the last 39 years but you know a hell of a lot more than he does, don't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGn-Vcxztng

What's it feel like to have the rug pulled out from under you? Do you continue to insist that it isn't true? That you're still standing?

Five of the Solomon Islands are going to sink? In fact they are gaining more ground than they are losing to erosion.

Prince Edward Island is doomed? Seems like the sort of thing that you can get behind. Some phony claim by some phony "scientist" with no backing is bound to be correct isn't he? Why it would make the slightest difference if that arm of the Gulf Stream which I warrant you know nothing about - has been there for centuries and HOLY COW was just discovered.




I know the climate is not supposed to be static, but I also know that a new current like this could really destroy the ecosystem and affect the island. It's not speculations, it's facts. Go read the article.


..The current your talking about is probably because the Greenland Sea abyss is warming.
The Greenland current is a cold current. it is not warming.
James___ wrote:
itn said if that were true then heat rises.

Cold currents run on the bottom, not the surface of the sea. Heat doesn't rise, but warm water does.
James___ wrote:
When that happens cold water doesn't surface.

Cold water sinks.
James___ wrote:
.. This means the Greenland Sea abyss is feeding a warm gyre above the Labrador Current. In that aspect it's not surprising.

The Greenland current is a cold current.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2018 13:58
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
Gilgamazing wrote:
Wake wrote:
Gilgamazing wrote:
https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming


This is getting out of hand...


What is getting out of hand is your belief that somehow currents and weather are supposed to be static.

Tell us HOW we had the Roman Warm Period, the following cool period, the Medieval Warm Period followed by the Little Ice Age?

Exactly what goes on in your head? The world's greatest oceanographer tells us that ocean levels are increasing so slowly that it is difficult to determine if they are rising at all. But then that would contradict a genius like you wouldn't it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poZ0pEOtFYM

Dr. Roy Spencer - the man who was the lead scientist on the NASA weather satellite program shows that the temperature has not been rising for the last 39 years but you know a hell of a lot more than he does, don't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGn-Vcxztng

What's it feel like to have the rug pulled out from under you? Do you continue to insist that it isn't true? That you're still standing?

Five of the Solomon Islands are going to sink? In fact they are gaining more ground than they are losing to erosion.

Prince Edward Island is doomed? Seems like the sort of thing that you can get behind. Some phony claim by some phony "scientist" with no backing is bound to be correct isn't he? Why it would make the slightest difference if that arm of the Gulf Stream which I warrant you know nothing about - has been there for centuries and HOLY COW was just discovered.




I know the climate is not supposed to be static, but I also know that a new current like this could really destroy the ecosystem and affect the island. It's not speculations, it's facts. Go read the article.


To repeat - why do you think that this current is either new or permanent?

When someone says, "If this continues for another 100 years bad things are going to happen", most intelligent people are going to notice that, "if this continues for another 100 years" and not, "bad things are going the happen".
08-05-2018 16:26
James___
★★☆☆☆
(322)
Into the Night wrote:

Not a fact. Learn what a 'fact' is. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.

The island isn't sinking.


Why get caught up in semantics ? That's like your saying heat doesn't rise but warm water does. And why is water "warm" ? Because of it's heat content.
Kind of why I think this is your forum
and it's all a "mind fæk" or is that a "mind fåk" or "mind fäk" ?
..After all, as a teacher you should be making information known and not correcting everyone until they accept what you say. The format that you are using makes me wonder if you are a follower of the bhagwan rajneesh. When we understand why you are right then we can accept your doctrine.
08-05-2018 21:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Not a fact. Learn what a 'fact' is. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.

The island isn't sinking.


Why get caught up in semantics ?

Good question. You seem to enjoy doing so quite a lot though.
James___ wrote:
That's like your saying heat doesn't rise but warm water does.

I stick by what I said.
James___ wrote:
And why is water "warm" ? Because of it's heat content.

WRONG. It's because of it's thermal energy. Heat is the movement of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself.
James___ wrote:
Kind of why I think this is your forum

Non=sequitur. You are also wrong. I do not own the forum or control it.
James___ wrote:
and it's all a "mind fæk" or is that a "mind fåk" or "mind fäk" ?

Theories of science aren't a mind f**k.
James___ wrote:
..After all, as a teacher you should be making information known

I am.
James___ wrote:
and not correcting everyone until they accept what you say.

Teachers are not allowed to correct???
James___ wrote:
The format that you are using makes me wonder if you are a follower of the bhagwan rajneesh.

WTF???
James___ wrote:
When we understand why you are right then we can accept your doctrine.


Maybe you should try to understand, then.


The Parrot Killer
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate The Gulf Stream:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Gulf of Mexico as heat sink2106-06-2018 20:41
The Gulf Stream (for Don from Mexico )1507-09-2017 00:25
Is The Gulf Stream slowing down?2422-10-2015 23:02
▲ 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