Climate Change

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Climate Change

Climate Change24-06-2020 11:14
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Copy and paste item Ya'all might find it interesting, had less CO2. As so many other studies have revealed, both before and after 1996, Hass' work adds to the mountain of evidence supporting the reality of a repetitive worldwide cycling of climate between Medieval Warm Period- and Little Ice Age-like conditions. In addition, he notes that "at the onset of the Modern Climate Optimum ... conditions change again to a level to the Medieval Warm Period," even though there was not nearly as much CO2 in the air back then as there was at the time of his study. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mwp_n_europe.pdf Edited on 24-06-2020 11:19
24-06-2020 11:49
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Good link.The good part of the Warmazombie movement is real people started getting involved and finding the truth
24-06-2020 13:59
Nobi ☆☆☆☆☆ (29)	what is the millennial-scale oscillation of climate? In the graph they just plotted temperatures right? I know that climate isn't temperature Attached image: Edited on 24-06-2020 13:59
24-06-2020 18:11
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Nobi wrote: what is the millennial-scale oscillation of climate? In the graph they just plotted temperatures right? I know that climate isn't temperature A lot of people won't like that. The graph shows at least 3 occasions when the temperature had a cold spike before there was a spike in warming. What I find interesting are the lengths of the cool periods in the time frame covered by the graph. And warming after the Little Ice Age which was noticeably colder than the Dark Ages Cool Period, what we're seeing now might be a "rebound" effect. And from looking at the graph, it suggests that we might actually be at the beginning of a warm period while it has been said that the current warming started about 1850. I know graphs that start at 1880 shows 1910 to be the coldest year and then it warmed until about 1944. Then flattened out until 1978. It does look different when the scale is changed. It's not as noticeable. Edited on 24-06-2020 18:20
24-06-2020 18:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Nobi wrote: what is the millennial-scale oscillation of climate? In the graph they just plotted temperatures right? I know that climate isn't temperature It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. CO2 has absolutely no capability of warming the Earth. No gas or vapor does. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

25-06-2020 02:50
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Nobi wrote:I know that climate isn't temperature What do you mean? Climate is the long term weather which includes temperature. When we discuss climate in this context we almost exclusively mean temperature or a consequence of temperature.
25-06-2020 03:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Nobi wrote:I know that climate isn't temperature What do you mean? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Climate is the long term weather which includes temperature. So what is the temperature of a desert climate? What is the temperature of a marine climate? Define 'a long time'. Be specific. Describe why any period you choose as 'a long time' is significant. Describe why any other period is not significant. tmiddles wrote: When we discuss climate in this context we almost exclusively mean temperature or a consequence of temperature. Mantra 25j...10b... No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of mathematics. Semantics fallacies. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 25-06-2020 03:21
25-06-2020 18:52
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: Nobi wrote:I know that climate isn't temperature What do you mean? Climate is the long term weather which includes temperature. When we discuss climate in this context we almost exclusively mean temperature or a consequence of temperature. And here you derailed this thread to get into your personal debate with ITN and company. Temperature is only one component that helps to define what a climate is. That is not what this thread was about and now it is. Thank You.
25-06-2020 21:06
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	And nuclear fission has been studied for over 80 years. I'd like to think that we can understand the rate of decay in various isotopes. At the same time, matter which over time becomes buried and that such material can be used to understand the environment at that time which includes it's temperature. An example of this is that temperature influences various isotopes and can be used to consider a temperature range comparable with what is observed today under similar conditions. And this is getting on the technical side of how temperature can be inferred years later. Kind of why I think it is possible to have an understanding of the past. The error of margin would largely be on dating samples which might only be within +/- 50 years and going back even further than 10,000 years, the range could become +/- 500 years or more. The range of dating material is made known. If people have no interest in learning about the different types of dating used, that is up to them. And yet the statistical analysis of isotopes would give a good idea approximate to a period of time. And if anyone reads about the various warming and cooling cycles since Roman times, people will use different reasons for saying what the ranges of such periods were. Data is one thing and what gives it meaning is someone with an opinion that is either +/- or neutral.
25-06-2020 21:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: Nobi wrote:I know that climate isn't temperature What do you mean? Climate is the long term weather which includes temperature. When we discuss climate in this context we almost exclusively mean temperature or a consequence of temperature. And here you derailed this thread to get into your personal debate with ITN and company. Temperature is only one component that helps to define what a climate is. That is not what this thread was about and now it is. Thank You. Temperature is not a component of climate and never was. What is the temperature of a desert climate? What is the temperature of a marine climate? It is what this thread is about. It's about climate and how its changing. One must be able to define what they are talking about. So far no one has. No one has defined 'a long time'. No one has been able to associate any particular metric against 'climate' successfully. There is no global climate. There are many climates on Earth. You might say this thread was never 'railed'. It started out as a void argument fallacy, which is contained in the OP. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-06-2020 22:53
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	An example of how isotopes can determine temperature. In the warmer parts of Arizona, there will be more O18 isotopes than O16 in the water, soil, sediment. And if those isotopes become a part of the sediment then it can be used to determine the probability of the temperature for that region. As with most things, it would be average temperature, etc. And if the decay rate is known or the half life, then that can be compared to other elements that are apart of that sample. And I think that with what is happening today (in the last 100 years), how does that compare with past time periods? With the graph that Nobi posted, it is highly likely that those scientists used such an analysis to make their determinations. And with my initial post, the scientists that I quoted said that it was actually warmer in the location they sampled during the Medieval Warm Period. This suggests that they compared the earlier deposits in the sediment with those that have recently been made. Edited on 25-06-2020 22:54
26-06-2020 01:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: An example of how isotopes can determine temperature. In the warmer parts of Arizona, there will be more O18 isotopes than O16 in the water, soil, sediment. And if those isotopes become a part of the sediment then it can be used to determine the probability of the temperature for that region. As with most things, it would be average temperature, etc. And if the decay rate is known or the half life, then that can be compared to other elements that are apart of that sample. And I think that with what is happening today (in the last 100 years), how does that compare with past time periods? With the graph that Nobi posted, it is highly likely that those scientists used such an analysis to make their determinations. And with my initial post, the scientists that I quoted said that it was actually warmer in the location they sampled during the Medieval Warm Period. This suggests that they compared the earlier deposits in the sediment with those that have recently been made. There is nothing magick about any isotope concerning temperature. Isotopes don't necessarily undergo nuclear decay. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-06-2020 02:05
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: An example of how isotopes can determine temperature. In the warmer parts of Arizona, there will be more O18 isotopes than O16 in the water, soil, sediment. And if those isotopes become a part of the sediment then it can be used to determine the probability of the temperature for that region. As with most things, it would be average temperature, etc. And if the decay rate is known or the half life, then that can be compared to other elements that are apart of that sample. And I think that with what is happening today (in the last 100 years), how does that compare with past time periods? With the graph that Nobi posted, it is highly likely that those scientists used such an analysis to make their determinations. And with my initial post, the scientists that I quoted said that it was actually warmer in the location they sampled during the Medieval Warm Period. This suggests that they compared the earlier deposits in the sediment with those that have recently been made. There is nothing magick about any isotope concerning temperature. Isotopes don't necessarily undergo nuclear decay. Everything has a half life, even you. You might've missed it without knowing it. With elements, there is this; Delta-O-18 changes directly as a result of temperature fluctuations, so it provides a very good record of the climate. Oceanic delta-O-18 values that are high represent cold climates, while lower values indicate a warm climate. This trend occurs because of the effects of precipitation and evaporation. Since it is lighter than 18O, 16O evaporates first, so in warm, tropical areas, the ocean is high in 18O. Additionally, as water vapor condenses to form rain, water droplets rich in 18O precipitate first because it is heavier than 16O. https://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/research/equable/isotope.html This is why I mentioned the deposits of the last 100 years. They would create a standard to relate present day to temperatures with those of the past. It would most likely take compost (rotted vegetable matter) to show what grew in the area. Then how the balance between O16 and O18 and the temperature that it suggests would also take into account the amount of water (rain, marshland or delta) would allow for in the air, ie., humidity and rainfall. At this point you would need to start considering what kind of ecosystem the sedimentary samples were taken from and ecosystems are a different discussion.
26-06-2020 02:19
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I have gleaned a lot of good information out of the link you posted james and have been reading it over and over.All threads get derailed here but as long as covid and racism stay away we should be alright
26-06-2020 04:04
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: I have gleaned a lot of good information out of the link you posted james and have been reading it over and over.All threads get derailed here but as long as covid and racism stay away we should be alright Thanks Duncan. One thing the original post did mention was that about 1,000 years ago that it was warmer while having less CO2. That region has been inhabited longer than that but even today is still about the same as it's always been. That's probably why they chose to do their research there. I agree with you on the other points you made

26-06-2020 04:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	James___ wrote: Delta-O-18 changes directly as a result of temperature fluctuations, so it provides a very good record of the climate. James__, everything you wrote about δ18O is instantly dismissed. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you've been hornswoggled. Let me educate you on radioactive decay. It doesn't change due to temperature, or to pressure or altitude or humidity or any other environmental factors. This is why it is called a "half-life," i.e. it is constant and doesn't change. It couldn't have a certain, fixed half-life if the decay varied depending on whether it was in Gobi desert vs. Antarctica. Your red flag should have been that this wondrous, miraculous, Climate-sacred isotope only exists in "Climate" church material and in Wikipedia. You know that Global Warming is nothing more than a WACKY religion and that Climate is just a mythological figure of that religion ... and never occurs in any actual science discussions. δ18O is only ever described as an element for studying Climate, and really nothing else. Just be prepared for any and all further discussions of δ18O to be peppered with some light mockery, you know, to maintain interest level. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
26-06-2020 04:55
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: Delta-O-18 changes directly as a result of temperature fluctuations, so it provides a very good record of the climate. James__, everything you wrote about δ18O is instantly dismissed. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you've been hornswoggled. Let me educate you on radioactive decay. It doesn't change due to temperature, or to pressure or altitude or humidity or any other environmental factors. This is why it is called a "half-life," i.e. it is constant and doesn't change. It couldn't have a certain, fixed half-life if the decay varied depending on whether it was in Gobi desert vs. Antarctica. Your red flag should have been that this wondrous, miraculous, Climate-sacred isotope only exists in "Climate" church material and in Wikipedia. You know that Global Warming is nothing more than a WACKY religion and that Climate is just a mythological figure of that religion ... and never occurs in any actual science discussions. δ18O is only ever described as an element for studying Climate, and really nothing else. Just be prepared for any and all further discussions of δ18O to be peppered with some light mockery, you know, to maintain interest level. . Am now wondering why I thought of that Weird Al Yankovich song "White and Nerdy" for. I mean with me, I try to bring up ozone depletion as a concern. I did think of something that might be really cool though. The last time the Moon was as close to the Earth as it was around 1910 was about 1,000 years ago. And that's about when the Medieval Warm Period started. The Moon can influence the amount of earthquakes that the Earth has. And at the same time this would slightly alter the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Just a thought but back to ozone depletion; If anyone scrolls down to the last graph in this link, if you look at a global average temperature graph, I think you'll notice that as the amount of ozone decreased that the average temperature increased. And remember, they said there was a global warming pause from 1998 to 2013. Then they changed how they collected oceanic temperatures going back to 1998. I'll combine the 2 graphs and then post them. http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/ozone/montreal-protocol/graphs
26-06-2020 05:07
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	If the image doesn't upload, it's what the link is for. And basically less ozone means more solar radiation and whatever else that causes. Basically if it was warming anyway then it might be a little warmer. An example of this would be a few more droughts in Australia. This has already been linked to warmer springs on the southern African continent. With the 2 graphs, about 2000 is when ozone started recovering and on the global temperature graph, it flattened out. Although I would need to spend some more time on ozone depletion because it still continued after 2000. It does show an interesting relationship from 1960 to 2000 though. https://photos.app.goo.gl/dbamv2PQQnMyQ6nk8] Edited on 26-06-2020 05:14
26-06-2020 06:15
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	The ozone hole over Antarctica makes a nice comparison. And I am pursuing a science project that could have something to do with this. One of the reasons for my interest in the ozone layer. https://photos.app.goo.gl/qsHrnSAXSit9voMm7 Attached image:
26-06-2020 07:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	James___ wrote: Am now wondering why I thought of that Weird Al Yankovich song "White and Nerdy" for. I mean with me, I try to bring up ozone depletion as a concern. You have brought up "ozone depletion" as a "concern" many times. It still doesn't exist. It isn't a thing. Ozone is created by the sun during the day and changes back to O2 at night. It's a daily cycle. The earth's atmosphere has just as much ozone right now as it did 4,823 years ago. Why did I pick 4,823 years ago? I haven't the vaguest idea, but there is always a side of the earth facing the sun and it is refreshing its ozone all the while it does while the ozone on the side facing away from the sun is reverting back to O2. ... and you are aware of all this, as are most people who post on this forum. Yet strangely you have this lingering hope that we will all think the sun's radiation will somehow cease creating ozone as it has done for the last 4,823 years ... maybe more. I'll tell you what, I'll be on your team. The ozone is being depleted, by aerosols that are eating the ozone like a PacMan. I made a pic for you ... because we're on the same team! James___ wrote: The Moon can influence the amount of earthquakes that the Earth has. Those aren't earthquakes. Everytime the moon steers a little too tight on its orbit it clips the earth and we can feel that sucker. Why do you think it has all those craters and chips in the paint? . Attached image:
26-06-2020 11:28
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: Am now wondering why I thought of that Weird Al Yankovich song "White and Nerdy" for. I mean with me, I try to bring up ozone depletion as a concern. You have brought up "ozone depletion" as a "concern" many times. It still doesn't exist. It isn't a thing. Ozone is created by the sun during the day and changes back to O2 at night. It's a daily cycle. The earth's atmosphere has just as much ozone right now as it did 4,823 years ago. Why did I pick 4,823 years ago? I haven't the vaguest idea, but there is always a side of the earth facing the sun and it is refreshing its ozone all the while it does while the ozone on the side facing away from the sun is reverting back to O2. ... and you are aware of all this, as are most people who post on this forum. Yet strangely you have this lingering hope that we will all think the sun's radiation will somehow cease creating ozone as it has done for the last 4,823 years ... maybe more. I'll tell you what, I'll be on your team. The ozone is being depleted, by aerosols that are eating the ozone like a PacMan. I made a pic for you ... because we're on the same team! James___ wrote: The Moon can influence the amount of earthquakes that the Earth has. Those aren't earthquakes. Everytime the moon steers a little too tight on its orbit it clips the earth and we can feel that sucker. Why do you think it has all those craters and chips in the paint? . It's actually ODSs. Some aerosols actually help to reflect solar radiation. What might be the environmental issue that has everyone upset is actually hydrocarbons. CO2 is only one component of those emissions. If you look at Los Angeles, it's smog can be so bad that it can trap cooler air near the surface. This is also why California has stricter emission limits, etc. And it's stuff like that is where "heat trapping" might come from. Basically when smog disperses, does it still maintain the same properties but not in such an obvious way? With something like that, I haven't seen any research on it so can't say. https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/weather/2020/06/24/how-does-smog-form-and-why-is-it-so-bad-in-los-angeles- Edited on 26-06-2020 11:29
26-06-2020 19:29
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: Am now wondering why I thought of that Weird Al Yankovich song "White and Nerdy" for. I mean with me, I try to bring up ozone depletion as a concern. You have brought up "ozone depletion" as a "concern" many times. It still doesn't exist. It isn't a thing. Ozone is created by the sun during the day and changes back to O2 at night. It's a daily cycle. The earth's atmosphere has just as much ozone right now as it did 4,823 years ago. Why did I pick 4,823 years ago? I haven't the vaguest idea, but there is always a side of the earth facing the sun and it is refreshing its ozone all the while it does while the ozone on the side facing away from the sun is reverting back to O2. ... and you are aware of all this, as are most people who post on this forum. Yet strangely you have this lingering hope that we will all think the sun's radiation will somehow cease creating ozone as it has done for the last 4,823 years ... maybe more. I'll tell you what, I'll be on your team. The ozone is being depleted, by aerosols that are eating the ozone like a PacMan. I made a pic for you ... because we're on the same team! James___ wrote: The Moon can influence the amount of earthquakes that the Earth has. Those aren't earthquakes. Everytime the moon steers a little too tight on its orbit it clips the earth and we can feel that sucker. Why do you think it has all those craters and chips in the paint? . It's actually ODSs. Some aerosols actually help to reflect solar radiation. What might be the environmental issue that has everyone upset is actually hydrocarbons. CO2 is only one component of those emissions. If you look at Los Angeles, it's smog can be so bad that it can trap cooler air near the surface. This is also why California has stricter emission limits, etc. And it's stuff like that is where "heat trapping" might come from. Basically when smog disperses, does it still maintain the same properties but not in such an obvious way? With something like that, I haven't seen any research on it so can't say. https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/weather/2020/06/24/how-does-smog-form-and-why-is-it-so-bad-in-los-angeles- California has stricter emission limits, because the are a bunch socialist, nazi bastards. Smog comes main because LA, is an over crowded, rat infested, shithole. If the socialist bastards, spent less on social programs, and more on infrastructure, and forest management, they would have a smog problem. I don't understand people that park on ****ing highways, for hours, everyday, and leave the engine running the who time. What good are emission limits, if you burn through a tank of gas everyday, but the car only actually moves a few miles? Most would probably get to work faster, if the walked.
26-06-2020 22:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	HarveyH55 wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: Am now wondering why I thought of that Weird Al Yankovich song "White and Nerdy" for. I mean with me, I try to bring up ozone depletion as a concern. You have brought up "ozone depletion" as a "concern" many times. It still doesn't exist. It isn't a thing. Ozone is created by the sun during the day and changes back to O2 at night. It's a daily cycle. The earth's atmosphere has just as much ozone right now as it did 4,823 years ago. Why did I pick 4,823 years ago? I haven't the vaguest idea, but there is always a side of the earth facing the sun and it is refreshing its ozone all the while it does while the ozone on the side facing away from the sun is reverting back to O2. ... and you are aware of all this, as are most people who post on this forum. Yet strangely you have this lingering hope that we will all think the sun's radiation will somehow cease creating ozone as it has done for the last 4,823 years ... maybe more. I'll tell you what, I'll be on your team. The ozone is being depleted, by aerosols that are eating the ozone like a PacMan. I made a pic for you ... because we're on the same team! James___ wrote: The Moon can influence the amount of earthquakes that the Earth has. Those aren't earthquakes. Everytime the moon steers a little too tight on its orbit it clips the earth and we can feel that sucker. Why do you think it has all those craters and chips in the paint? . It's actually ODSs. Some aerosols actually help to reflect solar radiation. What might be the environmental issue that has everyone upset is actually hydrocarbons. CO2 is only one component of those emissions. If you look at Los Angeles, it's smog can be so bad that it can trap cooler air near the surface. This is also why California has stricter emission limits, etc. And it's stuff like that is where "heat trapping" might come from. Basically when smog disperses, does it still maintain the same properties but not in such an obvious way? With something like that, I haven't seen any research on it so can't say. https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/weather/2020/06/24/how-does-smog-form-and-why-is-it-so-bad-in-los-angeles- California has stricter emission limits, because the are a bunch socialist, nazi bastards. Smog comes main because LA, is an over crowded, rat infested, shithole. If the socialist bastards, spent less on social programs, and more on infrastructure, and forest management, they would have a smog problem. I don't understand people that park on **ing highways, for hours, everyday, and leave the engine running the who time. What good are emission limits, if you burn through a tank of gas everyday, but the car only actually moves a few miles? Most would probably get to work faster, if the walked. Smog comes as a result of unburned fuel and and nitrous oxides mixing with ozone (produced by the engine itself, or from the action of sunlight on oxygen. Nitrous oxides are formed from nitrogen and oxygen in the air from high peak internal engine temperatures. A simple system, which feeds some of the positive pressure pulse on the exhaust back into the induction system (basically a tube and valve), lowers internal peak burn temperatures, and inhibits the formation of the nitrous oxides needed to form smog. This system is called the EGR system. The valves initially had some problems, but they are easier to maintain now. Just take it off and clean the carbon out of it when it has problems. Another source of unburned fuel was crankcase blowby gasses being vented to the atmosphere. Today, another simple bit of plumbing connects these gasses back into the induction system to burn the unburned fuel contained in it. These two systems are cheap. They are basically plumbing and a simple reed or vacuum operated valve. Further, today's FADEC engines are better at not wasting fuel (unburned fuel going out the exhaust system is reduced). While not particularly cheap, they are reliable, produce better power for the fuel used, and actually make diagnosing most things on the car engine pretty simple. A simple inexpensive ODBC instrument can tell you exactly what is wrong with something on the engine most of the time. The result is that, despite being a lot more cars on the road, SMOG isn't nearly the problem it was (even in L.A.). L.A. is on the ocean, and it sits on desert sand. Marine haze and dust combine to produce a yellow haze, but this is not smog. A larger version of this blows out of the Sahara around the summer solstice (right now). That marine and dust cloud can stretch across the Atlantic all the way to the Southeast United States. People often confuse these dust/marine hazes with SMOG, but they are not the same. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan** Edited on 26-06-2020 22:47
27-06-2020 03:59
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	catalytic converters help too
27-06-2020 06:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	James___ wrote: If you look at Los Angeles, it's smog can be so bad that it can trap cooler air near the surface. Smog doesn't do that. Gravity does that. James___ wrote: Basically when smog disperses, does it still maintain the same properties but not in such an obvious way? Yes, when it disperses, it is just less dense (has a lower partial pressure) but retains the same property in its estate. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-06-2020 07:32
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: Basically when smog disperses, does it still maintain the same properties but not in such an obvious way? Yes, when it disperses, it is just less dense (has a lower partial pressure) but retains the same property in its estate. . And as I mentioned, this might be what they base the global warming argument on.
27-06-2020 07:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	James___ wrote:And as I mentioned, this might be what they base the global warming argument on. I have recently renewed my vows to my Bratwurst Warming faith, this time to include caramelized onions. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-06-2020 17:37
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:And as I mentioned, this might be what they base the global warming argument on. I have recently renewed my vows to my Bratwurst Warming faith, this time to include caramelized onions. . It seems that you're not following the discussion. With smog as in LA and an inversion, it is cooler at ground level, warmer in the upper atmosphere. During the Medieval Warm Period, it was warmer while having less CO2. What some scientists are saying about aerosols; Research examines the possibility of spraying tiny particles into the stratosphere to block the sun a bit and cool the planet https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/09/harvard-groups-research-planet-cooling-aerosols/ and But there's a catch. Our surplus of aerosols is a huge problem for those of us who like to breathe air. At high concentrations, these tiny particles are one of the deadliest substances in existence, burrowing deep into our bodies where they can damage hearts and lungs. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/devils-bargain-why-aerosols-pose-a-deadly-climate-change-threat-126855/ With me, I'm actually pursuing an idea to use waste heat to capture carbon and instead have O2 that can be released into the stratosphere. O2 directly supports the Chapman cycle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0bx2BuxT-I My actual opinion is that we need to reduce ODSs. And if you read the 3rd paragraph, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (hydrocarbons for short) are an ODS. https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/f9dff68b-68ba-4a6d-97a1-7ec85340eae3/HandbookOzoneDepletingSubstancesAlternatives.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=jqeAGzA So you see IBDM, there is actually an area of interest that I'm focused on. At the same time I also know that sustainable technologies need to allow for an economy as well. Otherwise we're back to talking about viruses while I happen to like science. Edited on 27-06-2020 17:38
27-06-2020 19:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	duncan61 wrote: catalytic converters help too Actually, they don't do a whole lot for smog. They are essentially pollution to pollution converters, using a rare and valuable metal to accomplish the conversion. They convert poor burns resulting in carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide, using some of the available oxygen in the exhaust stream. They can also handle some unburnt fuel, but the use of sour fuels can result in sulfur dioxides, causing acid rain and that familiar stink you sometimes smell from car exhausts. Sulfur dioxide is also known as 'rotten egg' gas. While they also can remove nitrous oxides and free oxygen, lower peak engine temperatures prevent their formation in the first place. That's what the EGR system does. There are cars driving around that pass city pollution tests for NOx even with a bad catalytic convertor, as long as the EGR system is working and the engine is running reasonably well. NOx is caused by high peak temperatures in the engine. Nothing else. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-06-2020 20:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	James___ wrote: At high concentrations, these tiny particles are one of the deadliest substances in existence, burrowing deep into our bodies where they can damage hearts and lungs. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/devils-bargain-why-aerosols-pose-a-deadly-climate-change-threat-126855/ James__, did you just cite Rolling Stone? If you plead for leniency I think I can get your sentence reduced from forty lashes down to twenty. James___ wrote: With me, I'm actually pursuing an idea to use waste heat to capture carbon and instead have O2 that can be released into the stratosphere. O2 directly supports the Chapman cycle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0bx2BuxT-I Waste heat? Did I read that correctly? If you were looking to have the internet revoke your privileges, this is the way. James___ wrote: My actual opinion is that we need to reduce ODSs. I presume that is On Demand Sports ... presumably because you have something against pay-per-view. James___ wrote:So you see IBDM, there is actually an area of interest that I'm focused on. At the same time I also know that sustainable technologies need to allow for an economy as well. Otherwise we're back to talking about viruses while I happen to like science. Well, I'm intrigued by your pioneering work in "waste heat." I can't wait to see the model. Rock on. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

27-06-2020 21:09
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: My actual opinion is that we need to reduce ODSs. I presume that is On Demand Sports ... presumably because you have something against pay-per-view. James___ wrote:So you see IBDM, there is actually an area of interest that I'm focused on. At the same time I also know that sustainable technologies need to allow for an economy as well. Otherwise we're back to talking about viruses while I happen to like science. Well, I'm intrigued by your pioneering work in "waste heat." I can't wait to see the model. Rock on. . I actually NFL Game Pass free Research can be entertaining in it's own way. Some research that is being done with CO2. And what I'm pursuing could help people like these as well. Scientists have invented a new method for turning carbon dioxide into a liquid fuel that can efficiently store energy in fuel cells. The fuel could one day be the future of green transport, cramming more energy into the tank than the same volume of hydrogen while also serving as a building block for a whole chemical production industry. https://www.sciencealert.com/engineers-build-a-new-kind-of-device-that-effectively-transforms-co2-into-liquid-fuel
28-06-2020 04:55
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Cold fusion, again...
28-06-2020 05:48
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: Cold fusion, again... And yet nuclear power generates heat. This is getting into the basics but neutrons destabilizing heavy nuclei allows for what? This happens at room temperature. When cold fusion happens. This also gets into the meltdown of Chernobyl. They pulled the rods out too quickly and everything got hotter instead of cooling down. They didn't consider the fact that radioactive decay would increase internally. They learned something new. This is kind of like something being heated. The heat will radiate. But what if it can't radiate? With fuel rods, they simply become hotter. Before Chernobyl, this wasn't known. They thought that all heat radiated. And yet embers burn ever so slowly as they grow hotter. In the age of the Vikings this fact was known. The Vikings possessed what was known as "crucible" steel. It was extremely pure. As it turns out, only Iraq could make this steel. It required a very specific process to heat and purify steel. And swords made from it destroyed those made from cast iron which everyone had. That's if you get into history Gotta love those Vikings I'm not picking on you Harvey but give me a chance to show something in history, chances are I'll take it. I owe you a big Thank You on this one Harvey. If scientists were aware of history and metallurgy, Chernobyl might never have happened. Of course if they ever banked a fire to cook a pig or fish, they might've known it as well. Both taste pretty d@mned good cooked that way. Have tried both and liked what I ate for those who don't know how to bank a fire, get the coals burning and then bury them and dinner. The ground helps to keep air out and the heat in. It slows the burn while it gets hotter. The heat is contained. And who knows, maybe one day we can try cooking a pig where you live with no fire and it's buried. The whole pig isn't necessary, just what's for dinner. And yes, I am serious. I'd get a laugh out of showing you guys how to cook. Edited on 28-06-2020 06:04
28-06-2020 06:40
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	With cooking meats, there is a difference. If it's "jerked", that means it's smoked or dried. That's to preserve it. When it's cooked in the ground, it becomes tender and needs to be eaten. And as I mentioned, if everything works out for me, maybe some of you will be "open" to learning something about cooking. And either way, jerked or banked, a few beers might be needed.
28-06-2020 17:58
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	It seems that the key components of what is causing the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica comes from cars. With the experiment that I am pursuing, what would support it being worth trying is showing when different gases occur that they have common variables. It's like in (4x^3*v^6 + 2x^2r^4z + 6x^3v^2z) 2x^2(2xv^6 + r^4z + 3xv^2z) 2x^2 is the lowest common denominator. And with gases that occur in the atmosphere, there should be conditions that while being a variable will have something in common. And that will be an example of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor (or Ockham's Razor, also known as the Principle of Parsimony) is the idea that more straightforward explanations are, in general, better. That is, if you have two possible theories that fit all available evidence, the best theory is the one with fewer moving parts. https://philosophyterms.com/occams-razor/

Join the debate Climate Change: