Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 ocean uptake



Page 6 of 8<<<45678>
16-02-2021 21:16
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(392)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Glacial moraines created in the past can be observed in the present.

LOL Totally irrelevant post Yawn Yawn LOL Yawn.

How long has it been that you have riding on zero support for your claim of an ice age?

ZERO Yawn LOL Yawn.

LOL

LOL

Yawn.

.


LOL as if I really need or want support from the local schizzo who can not accept that there was an ice age or that heat is energy.

See doofus people like you actually prove my worth.

CIAO
16-02-2021 22:20
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1866)
HarveyH55 wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Okay. I'll ignore your question then.

Good idea. Swan is merely diverting attention away from his absence of any reason that any rational adult should believe his WILD speculations of the unobserved past.

If you had engaged with him, your life would not have been able to get any of that time back.

His African name is N. Kanze Kwenshle.

.


Glacial moraines created in the past can be observed in the present. Not that you will ever know

Is this from 20,000 years ago?? LOL the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Jeeze, didn't you go to school? LOL

Yawn.


He obviously went to a 'liberal' arts school, where he learn about progressive 'lifestyle' choices, bent over his desk...

Sucks to be Swan...
16-02-2021 22:28
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1866)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Glacial moraines created in the past can be observed in the present.

LOL Totally irrelevant post Yawn Yawn LOL Yawn.

How long has it been that you have riding on zero support for your claim of an ice age?

ZERO Yawn LOL Yawn.

LOL

LOL

Yawn.

.


LOL as if I really need or want support from the local schizzo who can not accept that there was an ice age

I have yet to see anyone here be a fundamentalist anti-ice-ager, but you are the only one in this discussion who has been a fundamentalist believer in it...

Swan wrote:
or that heat is energy.

Heat is not energy. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, as a current (with regard to water) is the flow of water. A current is not water itself, just as heat is not thermal energy itself. This has already been explained to you ad nauseum, but it goes against your fundamentalist religious beliefs. You are incapable of learning this since you have outsourced your thinking to others.

Swan wrote:
See doofus people like you actually prove my worth.

CIAO

LOL you're the doofus, moron.

CIAO

Yawn.
Edited on 16-02-2021 22:31
17-02-2021 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Glacial moraines created in the past can be observed in the present.

LOL Totally irrelevant post Yawn Yawn LOL Yawn.

How long has it been that you have riding on zero support for your claim of an ice age?

ZERO Yawn LOL Yawn.

LOL

LOL

Yawn.

.


LOL as if I really need or want support from the local schizzo who can not accept that there was an ice age or that heat is energy.

Pivot fallacy. IBD wasn't talking about that kind of support. Pay attention.
It is unknown whether there was an ice age or not. Your continue fundamentalism is already noted.
Heat is not energy. Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Swan wrote:
See doofus people like you actually prove my worth.

CIAO

Fundamentalism and denial of science isn't worth much.


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
17-02-2021 01:06
keepit
★★★★★
(2072)
It's positively known that here have been many ice ages. There are scientists that have figured this out.
There is no denial of the 2nd law, there is just a pointless argument about semantics.
17-02-2021 01:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
keepit wrote:It's positively known that here have been many ice ages.

Nope.

Start explaining how you know.

keepit wrote: There are scientists that have figured this out.

Nope. You don't get to make this claim without producing scientists who can explain how they know. You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself.

Until such time that you provide said scientists, you need to explain how you know.

Get to it.

keepit wrote: There is no denial of the 2nd law,

LOL LOL Not only do you deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you deny that you deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Too funny.

You're a moron.

You can't even learn what a word means, even when it is explained to you.

Way too funny.

You're a moron.

.


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
17-02-2021 01:56
James___
★★★★★
(4137)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:It's positively known that here have been many ice ages.

Nope.

Start explaining how you know.




In the simplest terms it's based on the half life of radioactive isotopes. And with such isotopes, the specific isotope will vary depending on global atmospheric temperature. And it is the prevalence of such isotopes that can be dated to the same time period that allows the temperature at that time to be known.
Such samples come from ice cores, bedrock and sediment in the sea floor so no one source is indicative of what any climate was at any given time in the past.
A more technical answer will require individuals like yourself learning atomic physics which dating is based upon. Of course you will also debate a hydrogen bomb vs a thermonuclear device based on such understanding. Until you understand the physics, please note that a hydrogen bomb is not a thermonuclear device. Some advancements have been made and today we can make a better, more destructive example of understanding radioactive elements.

What gets old about the arguments that you guys promote, they never change. The car was a fad just like electricity. It seems to be more of a need to be in control. Change will always be a threat to those who desire power.

Edited on 17-02-2021 02:01
17-02-2021 02:24
keepit
★★★★★
(2072)
ibd and ITN,
You guys think you make the rules of discourse but you don't!
Edited on 17-02-2021 02:33
17-02-2021 04:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
keepit wrote:
It's positively known that here have been many ice ages.

How do you know? Were you there? I'm going to have to call a circular argument fallacy on this one. In other words, fundamentalism.
keepit wrote:
There are scientists that have figured this out.

Science is not scientists. There are no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. Speculations and religions is not 'figuring it out'.
keepit wrote:
There is no denial of the 2nd law,

You routinely ignore this law. You can't reduce entropy in any system. You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one.
keepit wrote:
there is just a pointless argument about semantics.

Semantics fallacy.

It is YOU trying to argue about semantics, over an EQUATION no less!


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
17-02-2021 04:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:It's positively known that here have been many ice ages.

Nope.

Start explaining how you know.




In the simplest terms it's based on the half life of radioactive isotopes. And with such isotopes, the specific isotope will vary depending on global atmospheric temperature. And it is the prevalence of such isotopes that can be dated to the same time period that allows the temperature at that time to be known.
Such samples come from ice cores, bedrock and sediment in the sea floor so no one source is indicative of what any climate was at any given time in the past.
A more technical answer will require individuals like yourself learning atomic physics which dating is based upon. Of course you will also debate a hydrogen bomb vs a thermonuclear device based on such understanding. Until you understand the physics, please note that a hydrogen bomb is not a thermonuclear device. Some advancements have been made and today we can make a better, more destructive example of understanding radioactive elements.

What gets old about the arguments that you guys promote, they never change. The car was a fad just like electricity. It seems to be more of a need to be in control. Change will always be a threat to those who desire power.

More James Babble.


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
17-02-2021 04:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
keepit wrote:
ibd and ITN,
You guys think you make the rules of discourse but you don't!

Neither of us never claimed to. Now you are wandering into hallucinations.


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
17-02-2021 04:30
James___
★★★★★
(4137)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:It's positively known that here have been many ice ages.

Nope.

Start explaining how you know.




In the simplest terms it's based on the half life of radioactive isotopes. And with such isotopes, the specific isotope will vary depending on global atmospheric temperature. And it is the prevalence of such isotopes that can be dated to the same time period that allows the temperature at that time to be known.
Such samples come from ice cores, bedrock and sediment in the sea floor so no one source is indicative of what any climate was at any given time in the past.
A more technical answer will require individuals like yourself learning atomic physics which dating is based upon. Of course you will also debate a hydrogen bomb vs a thermonuclear device based on such understanding. Until you understand the physics, please note that a hydrogen bomb is not a thermonuclear device. Some advancements have been made and today we can make a better, more destructive example of understanding radioactive elements.

What gets old about the arguments that you guys promote, they never change. The car was a fad just like electricity. It seems to be more of a need to be in control. Change will always be a threat to those who desire power.

More James Babble.



Okay, I accept that IBDm is my son, butt you too? I think I'll be having a nightmare tonight. 2 kids like you guys?
17-02-2021 06:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
keepit wrote:ibd and ITN,You guys think you make the rules of discourse but you don't!

keepit, you think you make sense but you don't.

keepit, you think you are correct sometimes but you aren't.

keepit, you think earth can defy physics, that the Federal Reserve can defy economics and that 120 nanometer objects can be stopped by 5 micron holes ...

... but they can't.

keepit, you think you're not a moron but you are.

.


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
17-02-2021 06:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
James___ wrote: In the simplest terms it's based on the half life of radioactive isotopes.

... and don't forget the profound faith in the insamely improbable possibility that there is never any decay matter whatsoever at the point considered to be the beginning of the time span being measured.

James___ wrote: Of course you will also debate a hydrogen bomb vs a thermonuclear device based on such understanding.

I assure you, I never argue with a hydrogen bomb.

James___ wrote:Until you understand the physics, please note that a hydrogen bomb is not a thermonuclear device.

Hydrogen bombs are definitely thermonuclear but I believe you meant to discuss neutron bombs.


.


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
17-02-2021 16:19
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1866)
keepit wrote:
It's positively known that here have been many ice ages.

Correction: There are TWO fundamentalist ice age believers here... I guess you are on the list too...

keepit wrote:
There are scientists that have figured this out.

Scientists are not time travelers.

keepit wrote:
There is no denial of the 2nd law, there is just a pointless argument about semantics.

You deny the 2nd law all the time...

Patented "whining about semantics", keepit style!
17-02-2021 16:23
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1866)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:ibd and ITN,You guys think you make the rules of discourse but you don't!

keepit, you think you make sense but you don't.

keepit, you think you are correct sometimes but you aren't.

keepit, you think earth can defy physics, that the Federal Reserve can defy economics and that 120 nanometer objects can be stopped by 5 micron holes ...

... but they can't.

keepit, you think you're not a moron but you are.

.

Well said!
17-02-2021 17:09
keepit
★★★★★
(2072)
to those who think that co2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere and therefore it can't make a big difference consider the fact that hydrogen is the smallest atom yet it can make the biggest explosion.
Edited on 17-02-2021 17:12
17-02-2021 17:31
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2015)
keepit wrote:
to those who think that co2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere and therefore it can't make a big difference consider the fact that hydrogen is the smallest atom yet it can make the biggest explosion.


What??!!! Wait!!

All the scientific studies show that the expert consensus is that size matters.


Showing up with a gun at all is just weird and gross.--tmiddles
17-02-2021 18:12
keepit
★★★★★
(2072)
Just saying.

since co2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere it takes a small amount fo co2 to increase the percentage.
Edited on 17-02-2021 18:24
17-02-2021 18:19
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3185)
keepit wrote:
to those who think that co2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere and therefore it can't make a big difference consider the fact that hydrogen is the smallest atom yet it can make the biggest explosion.


Hydrogen doesn't explode, if there is no oxygen in the mix... Hydrogen, is also one of the most plentiful atoms on the planet... Is there anything you aren't afraid of? If you step outside, and see your shadow, do you run and hide in your basement?
17-02-2021 18:25
keepit
★★★★★
(2072)
Sorry you missed the point. It seems like a lot of your existence is just fantasy.
17-02-2021 18:54
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1866)
GasGuzzler wrote:
keepit wrote:
to those who think that co2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere and therefore it can't make a big difference consider the fact that hydrogen is the smallest atom yet it can make the biggest explosion.


What??!!! Wait!!

All the scientific studies show that the expert consensus is that size matters.

I thought that keepit was all about the scientific studies and the expert consensus... interesting...
17-02-2021 18:57
keepit
★★★★★
(2072)
I like scientific studies, and cookies, and presents, etc.
17-02-2021 19:08
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1866)
keepit wrote:
I like scientific studies, and cookies, and presents, etc.

I've give you a present of a box of cookies if you can manage to get two things right this year.

As of right now, you have laid a gigantic goose egg...
17-02-2021 19:25
keepit
★★★★★
(2072)
You keep telling yourself that gfm.

Harvey, Try to understand the difference between precautions and fear. It's subtle i know. I could give you examples but i want you to figure it out for yourself.
Edited on 17-02-2021 19:37
17-02-2021 20:11
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2015)
keepit wrote:
You keep telling yourself that gfm.

Harvey, Try to understand the difference between precautions and fear. It's subtle i know. I could give you examples but i want you to figure it out for yourself.


I'd be up for an example or two...

I'm just not grasping the difference you claim is so subtle. Can you name any precautions you took that were not a result of fear?


Showing up with a gun at all is just weird and gross.--tmiddles
17-02-2021 20:21
keepit
★★★★★
(2072)
OK, i'll play your silly game this once.
Take for example a fireman. I was never a fireman. Fireman train all the time to know which precautions to take when the need arises. Matter of fact the vast majority of their time is spent in training to take precautions.
So - do you think they are doing that because they are afraid of their job?
This is all the time i what to spend on this.
17-02-2021 20:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
keepit wrote:
to those who think that co2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere and therefore it can't make a big difference consider the fact that hydrogen is the smallest atom yet it can make the biggest explosion.


Actually, helium is the smallest atom. You might check a periodic table listing sizes of atoms.

It's also why a hydrogen filled balloon will stay inflated longer than a helium inflated balloon.


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
17-02-2021 20:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
keepit wrote:
Just saying.

since co2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere it takes a small amount fo co2 to increase the percentage.

Why are you fixated on CO2?


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
17-02-2021 20:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
to those who think that co2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere and therefore it can't make a big difference consider the fact that hydrogen is the smallest atom yet it can make the biggest explosion.


Hydrogen doesn't explode, if there is no oxygen in the mix... Hydrogen, is also one of the most plentiful atoms on the planet... Is there anything you aren't afraid of? If you step outside, and see your shadow, do you run and hide in your basement?

With oxygen available, it STILL doesn't explode. It catches fire, but it won't explode unless it's contained and only in the right conditions. It just burns rapidly.


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
17-02-2021 20:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
keepit wrote:
Sorry you missed the point. It seems like a lot of your existence is just fantasy.


You weren't making any point.


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
17-02-2021 20:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
keepit wrote:
I like scientific studies, and cookies, and presents, etc.

There is no such thing as a 'scientific study'. Science is not a study or a research program.


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
17-02-2021 20:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
keepit wrote:
You keep telling yourself that gfm.

Harvey, Try to understand the difference between precautions and fear. It's subtle i know. I could give you examples but i want you to figure it out for yourself.

Pascal's Wager fallacy.


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
17-02-2021 20:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
keepit wrote:
OK, i'll play your silly game this once.
Take for example a fireman. I was never a fireman. Fireman train all the time to know which precautions to take when the need arises. Matter of fact the vast majority of their time is spent in training to take precautions.
So - do you think they are doing that because they are afraid of their job?
This is all the time i what to spend on this.

Firemen train because they fear fire. They respect what it can do.


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
17-02-2021 20:50
keepit
★★★★★
(2072)
Do you remember nuclear physics in general?
17-02-2021 20:55
keepit
★★★★★
(2072)
Some have been overly trained in english such as the proper use of capital letters and undertrained in the understanding of figures of speech.
17-02-2021 21:18
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1866)
keepit wrote:
to those who think that co2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere and therefore it can't make a big difference consider the fact that hydrogen is the smallest atom yet it can make the biggest explosion.

Actually, helium is the smallest atom. Hydrogen is, rather, the lightest atom.
Edited on 17-02-2021 21:21
17-02-2021 22:51
keepit
★★★★★
(2072)
gfm,
If you consider atoms to be fields rather than particles you'll understand better.
18-02-2021 01:59
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3185)
GasGuzzler wrote:
keepit wrote:
You keep telling yourself that gfm.

Harvey, Try to understand the difference between precautions and fear. It's subtle i know. I could give you examples but i want you to figure it out for yourself.


I'd be up for an example or two...

I'm just not grasping the difference you claim is so subtle. Can you name any precautions you took that were not a result of fear?


Precautions have nothing to do with fear. Caution, is understanding, and respect of something known. Fear, is the panic, hysteria, reflex reaction to things you don't understand, or don't know. During the past year of pandemic, you showed your fear, every time there was some exaggerated claim, about what the China Virus, could be doing, consistently. Researchers make these observations, in hopes of being granted free-money, to further study. Media loves these fear mongering claims for viewers and ratings. Rational people understand this, and that anything virus related, would be happening, to pretty much everybody infected, not a fraction of 1%.
18-02-2021 02:41
keepit
★★★★★
(2072)
Harvey,
That's just a bunch of rationalization. You combine precautions with fantasy and call it fear.
Page 6 of 8<<<45678>





Join the debate CO2 ocean uptake:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 monitors can help prevent the spread of COVID-19, experts say1524-02-2021 18:04
could we slow co2 release in enviornment by engineering a virus to kill wood eating bacteria?1719-02-2021 19:06
Can CO2 capture be a starter for geothermal energy?2017-02-2021 01:49
The truth about CO2 is that without it you would be dead3207-02-2021 21:44
The Atlantic Ocean Is Growing2530-01-2021 03:11
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact