Energy and resource crisis in the future

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Technology > Energy and resource crisis in the future > Page 7

Page 7 of 10

25-12-2019 20:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: Harry C wrote: James___ wrote: Using a microwave oven as an example, most of the microwaves pass through the food without heating it. When a water molecule absorbs microwave radiation it becomes excited. With solar panels, the concept is similar to a basic capacitor. If you wrap aluminum foil and plastic wrap around something, the plastic wrap does need to be stretched, it creates a negative charge. And when grounded it will absorb electrons until it has a sufficient charge. With solar panels, they have crystals in a film to convert solar radiation into electrons. Beneath that they have a ground plate that is wired for current. It might be possible to have gases like CO2 or CH4 in the film or wrapping to see if they can increase the amount of solar radiation that's converted into electrons. I think a better solar panel might be one of the more important things for the future. With that said, what one company has already done. https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=137489034333500&id=110812717001132 Now I'm more confused. I did some reading about how a microwave works. It's function is reliant upon electromagnetic radiation to induce polar molecules in the food, based upon high water content, to rotate and produce thermal energy. Whereas the dipole moment of water is 1.85D, for carbon dioxide it's zero (0). Perhaps I'm mistaken but it wouldn't appear that CO2 would "excite" based upon infrared radiation. Microwaves causes water to vibrate/rotate , that creates friction. There is no friction at the molecular level. James___ wrote: With IR and CO2, CO2 vibrates They do without IR. 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
25-12-2019 21:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Xadoman wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: Thanks for the long exlpanation. Quite welcome. Xadoman wrote: I like a lot that nowadays it is possible to learn from forums more than from highschool. It can be, but there's a lot of trash out there. Forums are electronic meeting places of the same people you see everyday. The same level of education, as a cross section, is pretty much the same on the street as on forums, except that forums draw people willing to put forth arguments more readily. That is, of course, attractive to various religions as a place to come and preach. Xadoman wrote: The problem with highschool is that pupils often just remember the equation and make calculations but they do not have a full understanding what that equation means in real life. It may be that the teacher also does not fully comprehend all those things and avoids conversations about it. It is both. You are a good observer. Mathematics as taught in a typical high school, for example, is taught by someone like the football coach, who has no real interest in it. It is also often taught dry, with no application for it other than contrived story problems. The result is that in a typical math class, most students feel their brain cells sneaking out of class one by one. Half the class is asleep before it's finally over. Mathematics can be a fascinating subject, but as you know from your own experiences, people do not trust it. That is because they do not know it's purpose. Sure, they can balance their checkbooks, maybe run a till or do some specialized math related to their jobs (often without even realizing it! ), but that's it. The rest is for 'eggheads'. and they don't want to deal with it. Where illiteracy reigns, the opportunity to be controlled by others is also there. Xadoman wrote: For example I had a conversation in other forum about closed systems and impulse moments. Some phd made an argument in the tv talk show that the energy from windmills is actually at the expence of the earth rotational movement as the windmill is going to have a dragging effect on earth rotation and therefore it cannot be considered as green energy. You are correct. The 'PhD' is wrong. People on forums often claim some advanced degree or title when they have none. There ARE also some PhD's that are just flat wrong as well. Since it is not possible to show your degree or license to another on a forum, the opportunity to lie is ripe. Further, the argument that is based on a claimed degree or license as a proof is a fallacy (known as an appeal to authority fallacy, a type of false authority fallacy). Using such a claimed degree or license to put down someone else is called the Courtier fallacy, a type of argument of the stone fallacy. Science doesn't care. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Any schmuck can come up with a theory, and it can even be falsifiable. If the theory survives tests to designed to destroy it, the theory is automatically part of the body of science. No sanctification, no blessing, no peer review, no such thing of any kind from some Holy High Authority is required. No license, degree, school, government agency, title, nobility, or association with such is a proof. In philosophy (not taught at grade schools and even most colleges at all!), it comes down to a simple rule. You must present the reasoning for your own arguments. You cannot borrow from the arguments of another (or it's their argument, not yours!), and you cannot base your argument reasoning on a fallacy (internal consistency check). That's it. That's philosophy. What is taught in colleges, if at all, is a tiny bit of a branch of philosophy known as phenomenology, the study of how we perceive the universe. Various logical paradoxes are presented (the sound of one hand clapping, etc) and that is somehow called philosophy. Instructors that teach this way are clueless. The hard part about philosophy is that you must present your own arguments, and your own reasoning for them. This is not a natural way for people to argue. They easily fall into one or more fallacies. Xadoman wrote: Me and my opponent had an argument in the forum whether the windmills are slowing down the earth rotations or not and my argument at that moment was that the net effect of all windmills is zero , because some will drag the earth and others will push it. Later , when I digged deeper into this subject, I understood that it is not possible to change the impulse moment without loosing or getting mass. My opponent who claimed to be a phd, did not even understood how reactive engines work. I explained to him that when you take a reactive engine and put it inside the spacehip so that the exhaust gases can not get out, the spaceship will not move. You are correct. It is not possible to push or pull yourself along (unless you're Wile E. Coyote trying to catch the roadrunner again!). Xadoman wrote: He insisted that it moves till the tempretaure in the spaceship rises to the point it is not possible for a heat engine to operate. He apparently didn't understand heat engines at all. All heat engines have a hot section and a cold section. The engine works by allowing thermal energy to get from the hot section to the cold section, taking some of that heat and extracting mechanical energy. Your car, for example, has a hot section inside the cylinders. The cold section is the air around the car. A steam locomotive is the same way. A jet aircraft is the same way. A rocket is the same way. A Stirling engine is the same way. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Unless there is heat, the engine will not run. You MUST have a difference in thermal energy for heat to flow. Like putting a waterwheel in a current to extract mechanical energy, it is possible to extract mechanical energy from an heat (a 'current' of thermal energy) as well. Xadoman wrote: I said to him many times that even my mother who is a complete zero in math and physics agreed with me that the plane or spaceship will not move when the engine is inside of it. Both you and her are correct. Part of the engine is, in fact, the air (or space) around the engine. Xadoman wrote: He insisted me to go to school and study physics and math. He recommended me many books , talked about entropy, entalpia and quoted many equations. I was amazed that he knew so many formulas, equations etc but could not comprehend the simplest principle how the rocket engine works. Such people often are just googling stuff and parroting it. I am the parrot killer. I kill parrots for entertainment purposes. They spread their ignorance using buzzwords and equations as if they were buzzwords...meaningless. My moniker name, Into the Night, stands a warning...of moving into the night of ignorance for society. One of the best ways to describe what religion is, philosophically speaking, is that a religion is some initial circular argument (by itself that is NOT a fallacy) and arguments extending from that. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'. In Christianity, for example, the initial circular argument is that Jesus Christ exists, walked this Earth, and that He is who He says He is, namely the Son of God. ALL other arguments concerning Jesus Christ or God in this scenario stem from that initial circular argument. In atheism, as another example, the initial circular argument is that no god or gods exist at all. ALL other arguments stem from that initial circular argument. By itself, the circular argument is not a fallacy. It is simply otherwise known as the argument of faith. Where the fallacy occurs is when you try to use a circular argument as a proof. This is what a fundamentalist does. To them, the circular argument itself becomes a proof, or they try to make proof using one. The Church of Global Warming is no different. It's initial circular argument is that the Earth is warming due some magick gas. ALL other arguments stem from this initial argument. Further, the Church of Global Warming believes the initial circular argument is itself a proof. It is, therefore, a fundamentalist style religion in and of itself. Like any fundamentalists, they quote over and over their scripture, often without any meaning whatsoever behind it. Xadoman wrote: He called me fool and flat earther many times Get used to it. You challenged a religion, the Church of Perpetual Motion (and likely the Church of Green). You are an outsider. If you are not one of us...you are one of THEM! I am the Great Satan of the Church of Global Warming. I would see this religion utterly destroyed if I could. Xadoman wrote: and the majoroty of the forum was on his side because his talk sounded educated and smart. Again, this comes down to ignorance prevalent in society today, caused in large part by our lousy school system. Xadoman wrote: I gave up on educating him because at that point I had found from another forum a study that said that it is almost impossible to change people minds when they have their own stronger inner opinion which disagrees with you. You ran headlong into a fundamentalist religion and challenged them. Get used to it. Why do I do it? To find those, like you, that realize that something is wrong with the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green, but can't quite put their finger on what. You are taking steps into a larger world. You will be ridiculed, spat upon, questionable things will be said about your mother, etc. by these religious types. But you have taken major steps beyond them, and they can no longer perceive what you are or why you take the position you do. It's worth it, for you will know WHY they argue the way they do. You will be able to better counter it, despite the insults and rude treatment. Like me, you too will be able to help find those that are out there, confused and doubting the noise of the religion. All that said, I happen to be a Christian. I believe that Christ does exist, that He walked this Earth, and that He is who He says He is. But, I do not try to prove that. It's not possible. My believe is one strictly based on faith. It must be. There is nothing else to base it on. Xadoman wrote: In order to agree with you they have to have their inner opinion already agreed with you before the argument is even made. I try to analyze myself from that point of view every time I have an argument with others. It is very hard to give up a fundamentalist belief. They will entrench instead into their fundamentalism, and cast you out as an enemy of the religion. Xadoman wrote: When it comes to global warming I think it is almost the same as once was with the invention of the perpetuum mobile. The Church of Perpetual Motion is one that simply denies either the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and often denies both. Xadoman wrote: People endlessly filed patents for it and specialists had a lot of trouble to understand and explain why they do not work. Eventually the law of perpetum mobile was formulated and patents were not accepted. With global warming we also have so many scenarios, feedbacks etc etc. Clathrate guns, methan dragons and so on. They still do. Oddly enough, the Church of Perpetual Motion is alive and well. Xadoman wrote: I do not belive in it anymore. Good. Again, you recognized it as a fundamentalist religion, though you probably didn't actually don't describe it that way yet. Xadoman wrote: I see earth as a perfect thermos. No conduction and no convection in space( conduction and convection are basically the same). Only radiation. Pretty close, except a Thermos flask is also silvered, to limit radiant heat loss (or gain) as well. No insulation is perfect, of course. Earth is fully exposed to the Sun on one side, and radiates in all directions into space. Xadoman wrote: In order to trap heat the earth should absorb heat better than it emits it. Here you are using the word 'heat' for 'thermal energy', and using 'heat' again to mean 'light'. Heat is neither. Heat is simply the flow of thermal energy, just as current is a flow in a river. Heat is not energy in and of itself. It is not possible to trap a current, and it is not possible to trap heat. You ARE recognizing something here that has been discovered before, but not yet by you. It is that absorptivity and emissivity are the same. The ability to absorb light and convert it to thermal energy is the same as the ability to have thermal energy convert to light. These two values, which are really the same value, is simply called 'emissivity' and is part of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as a measured constant. r = C * e * t^4 The 'e' is emissivity (or absorptivity) of a surface. All matter can absorb and emit light. All matter has an emitting and absorbing 'surface', even gases. Xadoman wrote: I think in practice it is a self regulating process - if the absortion gets better, the emissivity also gets better and if the absorbtion gets smaller the emissivity also gets smaller. Pretty close, but not quite in the gold. There is no 'regulating process'. Emissivity and absorptivity are simply one and the same value. In the model you often see in physics textbooks on the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you will see a theoretical box with a hole that can absorb all light shone into it, and that emits all the light you shine into it. This is nothing more than an extension of the Conservation of Energy law, prevalent in physics. The box is trying to describe the ideal black body. It is a reference point. There are no actual ideal black bodies that exist. All real bodies are 'grey'. They all have some reflectivity that has nothing to do with emitted or absorbed light. 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
26-12-2019 00:34
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote: Xadoman wrote: Thanks for the long exlpanation. Quite welcome. Great post. I thank you as well. However, I have one minor quibble ... or "quibblet" as I call it. Into the Night wrote: In atheism, as another example, the initial circular argument is that no god or gods exist at all. This is FALSE by virtue of being a contradiction. The statement "no god or gods exist(s) at all" is a necessarily theistic statement. Anyone making this assertion is a theist ... and thus not an atheist. Please feel free to ask me why I care. An atheist's theological argument, or dogma, is a blank page, i.e. there are no statements or assumptions. It is correct to say that an atheist makes no claim about the existence of any god or gods, ergo he is atheistic. If someone's theological argument is that there is no god, then this prevents the page from being blank, and thus prevents said person from being an atheist. Such is common amongst Marxists, i.e. to falsely claim to be atheistic (so as to render their own faith invulnerable to counterattack) and then to attack competing religions with impunity while nonetheless worshiping Climate in peace and tranquility. Quibblet ... Done! Into the Night wrote: Where the fallacy occurs is when you try to use a circular argument as a proof. The best example is for a computer programmer to write a program that generates numbers based on an equation that automatically increases temperatures over time ... and thus produces numbers reflecting increasing temperatures. . 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
26-12-2019 11:41
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Pretty close, except a Thermos flask is also silvered, to limit radiant heat loss (or gain) as well. No insulation is perfect, of course. Earth is fully exposed to the Sun on one side, and radiates in all directions into space. Just a theoretical question. What happens when somehow we could cover the atmosphere with silver lining across the dark side of the world. Would the temperature of earth rise then?
26-12-2019 16:04
MarcusR★☆☆☆☆ (111)	Into the Night wrote: MarcusR wrote: [b]IBdaMann He's not the one insisting that photons are thermal energy. . A Joule is a joule is a joule. A joule is not thermal energy. A joule is a measurement of energy in general. Any energy. So which one is it ?? A Joule, is a Joule, is a Joule, is a Joule. (I wrote it 4 times now since 3 times obviously wasn't enough.... )

26-12-2019 20:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Xadoman wrote: The sea isn't rising as far as anyone can tell. It really is not possible to measure a global sea level. There is no valid reference point to call 'zero'. Land moves, you see. It is a simple law of archimedes. Massive amount of soil that ends up in ocean causes a sea level rise. Xadoman wrote: [quote] The topsoil is not getting thinner. Unfortunately it is . Modern farming is not sustainable the way it is now. Xadoman wrote: [quote]Farmers today have no trouble growing crops, year after year. Each year produces bountiful harvests. The United States literally feeds the world. As long as they use fertilizers and the thickness of the topsoil is adequate to produce they seemingly have no problems. Xadoman wrote: Does not mean there is no problem as the thickness of the topsoil gets thinner year by year till the topsoil thickness reaches to a critical point where plants are no longer able to survive. [quote]Xadoman wrote: After that game is over. [quote] A false equivalence fallacy. Cancer cells are not soil. There is no immune system trying to destroy soil. Just wanted to point out that in there has to be a balance between soil destruction and soil formation. At present the soil that is used by farmers to produce plant matter gets thinner year by year. No, it doesn't. Only poor farming practices destroy soil. Xadoman wrote: Rivers and streams has always washed away soil. Air can erode the land too. I just wanted to point out where the soil goes after erosion by wind etc. Wind and rain help to CREATE soil. They are the elements that break down rock into the sand necessary for soil to form. Xadoman wrote: After tilling and cultivating the soil is extremely susceptible for erosion from wind and rain. [quote]Xadoman wrote:But that is only one part of the problem. Majoroty of the soil nutrients and minerals end up on our table and we consume it and the feces end up berried on the landfills. We do not put our feces in landfills. The majority of soil nutrients do not end up on our tables. Most of a plant is carbohydrates. That comes from carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight. Xadoman wrote: That is a direct loss of soil fertility. No, it isn't. Xadoman wrote: Also the bodies of humans are berried deeply under ground that is also a direct loss of soil fertility. We don't farm in graveyards either. 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
26-12-2019 20:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: Harry C wrote: James___ wrote: With IR and CO2, CO2 vibrates https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation Yes I've heard that information before and seen the animations. There was nothing in there that explains the reaction which is what I'm searching for. People say that's what happens but no one explains how it actually happens, like the microwave example above. What physical properties are at work to cause that reaction? This might get into atomic physics. When a molecule changes its "state" or how excited it is, its nuclei/nucleus needs to change states as well. The least energetic state for an atom is n0 which is its ground state. And as a nucleus becomes more excited it has n1, n2, etc. Both CO2 and water has covalent bonds (share electrons). If we think of molecules as being little electric motors, they develop a field around them. The same thing happens with an electric motor when current runs through it, its spin is relative to its field. I guess in this aspect that a nucleus is like an armature or field windings. And that when different molecules bond, it changes the state of their nuclei (armature/field windings). Nuclei isn't a field winding. 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
26-12-2019 21:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Xadoman wrote: Thanks for the long exlpanation. Quite welcome. Great post. I thank you as well. However, I have one minor quibble ... or "quibblet" as I call it. Into the Night wrote: In atheism, as another example, the initial circular argument is that no god or gods exist at all. This is FALSE by virtue of being a contradiction. The statement "no god or gods exist(s) at all" is a necessarily theistic statement. Anyone making this assertion is a theist ... and thus not an atheist. An interesting argument, but it is actually not false by virtue of a contradiction. The statement that no god(s) exist is not a theistic statement at all. It simply states that nothing like a supreme being or demon exists. IBdaMann wrote: Please feel free to ask me why I care. I assume it's because your are an agnostic, something quite a bit different from an atheist. IBdaMann wrote: An atheist's theological argument, or dogma, is a blank page, i.e. there are no statements or assumptions. It is correct to say that an atheist makes no claim about the existence of any god or gods, ergo he is atheistic. This is simply not true. An atheist's argument is not a blank page at all. It is assumed that there is no god or gods. The atheist DOES make claims continually about the existence of any god or gods. While that IS a religion (and a fundamentalist one at that), it is not theistic. IBdaMann wrote: If someone's theological argument is that there is no god, then this prevents the page from being blank, and thus prevents said person from being an atheist. Not true. Theism is the belief of a god or gods. The atheist says there aren't any. IBdaMann wrote: Such is common amongst Marxists, i.e. to falsely claim to be atheistic (so as to render their own faith invulnerable to counterattack) and then to attack competing religions with impunity while nonetheless worshiping Climate in peace and tranquility. Quibblet ... Done! It is quite common among Marxists. They must, after all, argue that the government is supreme. That leaves no room for any god or gods. The whole 'global warming' noise is just an excuse to justify that goal. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Where the fallacy occurs is when you try to use a circular argument as a proof. The best example is for a computer programmer to write a program that generates numbers based on an equation that automatically increases temperatures over time ... and thus produces numbers reflecting increasing temperatures. This is one example. It is a special case of using random numbers as data. These are random numbers of type randU, the 'psuedo' random number. Whether it comes out of someone's head as an embellishment to an argument, or whether it comes out someone's head in the form of such an equation in a computer, it is the same. This type of random number must come out of someone's head. Every single one has a purpose in being generated. While often called a psuedo-random number, it is a real random number, since we do not know the physical thought processes that would generate one, and the many neurons that need to fire to generate one IS a reduction of resolution to a lower value (the range of the numbers itself). However, such a number is by definition a biased one. It has a purpose in being biased. Use of a randU number as an attempted proof is an argument from randU fallacy, a type of circular argument fallacy. A great example of this is the repetitive arguments from tmiddles, who uses contrived data as proof of his conclusions. Much of the time these also take the form of an extreme argument fallacy as well, which is a type of compositional error 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 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 26-12-2019 21:27
26-12-2019 21:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Xadoman wrote: Pretty close, except a Thermos flask is also silvered, to limit radiant heat loss (or gain) as well. No insulation is perfect, of course. Earth is fully exposed to the Sun on one side, and radiates in all directions into space. Just a theoretical question. What happens when somehow we could cover the atmosphere with silver lining across the dark side of the world. Would the temperature of earth rise then? Why would it? Got enough silver? 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
26-12-2019 21:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	MarcusR wrote: Into the Night wrote: MarcusR wrote: [b]IBdaMann He's not the one insisting that photons are thermal energy. . A Joule is a joule is a joule. A joule is not thermal energy. A joule is a measurement of energy in general. Any energy. So which one is it ?? A Joule, is a Joule, is a Joule, is a Joule. (I wrote it 4 times now since 3 times obviously wasn't enough.... ) False dichotomy fallacy. RQAA. 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
26-12-2019 21:52
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Why would it? Got enough silver As you said : Thermos flask is also silvered, to limit radiant heat loss So what do you think will the temperature of earth rise when we could somehow build or mimic the silver lining across the dark side of the atmosphere of earth. My opinion is that the temperature will rise. If we have two similar houses and one is insulated and the other is not and we heat them every day with the same amount of wood then the house that is insulated would be warmer. Similarily, if we could limit the radiant heat loss by putting a silver lining across the dark side of the earth s armosphere, the temperature should rise. The point of my question is to show that it is very difficult to change the temperature of earth.
26-12-2019 22:26
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	We do not put our feces in landfills So where do they go? Disappear? As much as I know they do not use them as fertilizer. It is too much for people to accept that they eat veggies that are grown on their own feces. There are other problems too of course, for example the waste water and feces are contaminated with so many harmful ingredients( as you know everything from antibiotics to antifreeze goes down the toilet these days) that it is not even possible to use human feces as fertilizer. Wind and rain help to CREATE soil Yes they do but they also help to carry away soil after tilling etc. Have not you heard about giant dust bowls in America? The majority of soil nutrients do not end up on our tables. So where do they go? The point of farming is to produce food for people and cattle. Most of a plant is carbohydrates. That comes from carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight. We need many more things from food than only carbohydrates. Vitamins and minerals are also needed. I do not know whether you know it or not but carbohydrates are actually not needed at all for a person to survive. We need fat and protein and our organism could make glycogen from it on need. Carbohydrates give us cheap energy but the downside is the massive insuline response to clean up the sugar from bloodstream which could lead to blood sugar problems on those who are susceptible to those kind of problems. We don't farm in graveyards either. Just wanted to show where some of the soil nutrients end up.
26-12-2019 22:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Xadoman wrote: Why would it? Got enough silver As you said : Thermos flask is also silvered, to limit radiant heat loss So what do you think will the temperature of earth rise when we could somehow build or mimic the silver lining across the dark side of the atmosphere of earth. I don't bother with extreme speculations. There really is no point. Xadoman wrote: If we have two similar houses and one is insulated and the other is not and we heat them every day with the same amount of wood then the house that is insulated would be warmer. The Sun is not on Earth. Houses have furnaces or fireplaces in them as a source of heat. Insulation in an unheated house does nothing useful. 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
26-12-2019 23:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Xadoman wrote: We do not put our feces in landfills So where do they go? Depends. In cities, it either winds up on the sidewalk (thanks, homeless camps), or in the sanitary sewer system (what city toilets are connected to). Those pipes carry the sewage (water, feces, and whatever else gets flushed down the drains of houses), to a sewage treatment plant. By the time it reaches a plant, feces are dissolved in water. The treatment plant separates out solids from liquids. Everything from $100 dollar bills, tampons, etc. is extracted from the water and sent to a digestion tank (a tank of bacteria that eats this stuff). The dissolved stuff goes into a settling pond where grease, sand, and other materials that either sink or float are separated out. These are sent to the digestion building as well. After digestion, the material is sent back into the head of the plant for separation again. Eventually, it all gets digested by this bacteria. The bacteria is nothing special. We each carry around an entire colony of them in ourselves. They help us digest food and convert it to the sugars we need to live. As people contribute their load to the toilets, some of that bacteria naturally flows to the sewer plants and winds up in the digestion tank. The settling ponds also have air bubbling through them. This removes stuff like solvents that wound up in the system, and provides oxygen in the water, a desirable condition when the stuff is discharged. What makes it through the plant is either discharged into the river, or into the sea. In that form, it is fish food. Oddly enough, that stuff contains nutrients that fish love. What the fish shit winds up in the same water they eat from. The oxygen in the water means the fish don't suffocate in all that food. Some houses are connected to septic tank systems. These are smaller systems that essentially are digestion tank (same bacteria), and a drain field (it serves to fertilize the grass growing above it). Like the sewage plant, only stuff that doesn't float or sink can get to the drain fields. Septic tanks need to be pumped out from time to time. This removes the solids buildup in the tank. If not pumped, solids overflow will get into the drain field, clogging the pipes...an expensive fix! Yes, it disappears. It is converted to useful fertilizer for plants and food for fish. Except for homeless camps. There, the stuff just sits on the sidewalk until the rains dissolved it and wash it away. While it is there, is becomes a source of disease outbreaks, especially cholera. Tuberculosis and bubonic plague are problems in these camps as well. A result of living in unsanitary conditions. Xadoman wrote: Disappear? Yup. Xadoman wrote: As much as I know they do not use them as fertilizer. But they are. They get converted to fertilizer of grass above septic systems, or to fish food. Xadoman wrote: It is too much for people to accept that they eat veggies that are grown on their own feces. Actually, if you buy from organic farms, it is grown on chicken, pig, and cow feces. If you buy from regular sources (cheaper anyway), the farm might use ammonium nitrate or urea nitrate as fertilizer. Xadoman wrote: There are other problems too of course, for example the waste water and feces are contaminated with so many harmful ingredients( as you know everything from antibiotics to antifreeze goes down the toilet these days) that it is not even possible to use human feces as fertilizer. Separated out by the sewage treatment plant. What isn't is of no consequence. Xadoman wrote: Wind and rain help to CREATE soil Yes they do but they also help to carry away soil after tilling etc. Have not you heard about giant dust bowls in America? Have you heard about kudzu? Xadoman wrote: The majority of soil nutrients do not end up on our tables. So where do they go? The point of farming is to produce food for people and cattle. WRONG. The point of farming is to raise crops. They are used not only for food for us or animal feed, but also for clothing, getting high (pot farms are growing in number!), making paper, lumber for houses, or to make alcohol. Xadoman wrote: Most of a plant is carbohydrates. That comes from carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight. We need many more things from food than only carbohydrates. True. Plants are good at playing around with molecules to produce all kinds of weird materials. Most of them are just different arrangements of the same carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. Xadoman wrote: Vitamins and minerals are also needed. Vitamin C, for example, is C6H8O6. The same carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen just arranged in a different way. Xadoman wrote: I do not know whether you know it or not but carbohydrates are actually not needed at all for a person to survive. True. Xadoman wrote: We need fat and protein For that we have animals. They can convert carbohydrates into fat and protein. We ourselves make fat and protein out of carbohydrates, just like any animal. Cows and other grazing animals are especially good at it. Xadoman wrote: and our organism could make glycogen from it on need. We also make protein and fat from carbohydrates. Xadoman wrote: Carbohydrates give us cheap energy but the downside is the massive insuline response to clean up the sugar from bloodstream which could lead to blood sugar problems on those who are susceptible to those kind of problems. A vegetarian diet is indeed a dangerous one. I see plenty of vegetarians that are malnourished. Xadoman wrote: We don't farm in graveyards either. Just wanted to show where some of the soil nutrients end up. There is no fixed supply. This is your initial mistake. Soil is made continuously. Worms and bugs create soil from sand. 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
27-12-2019 00:26
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	After digestion, the material is sent back into the head of the plant for separation again. Eventually, it all gets digested by this bacteria. This process takes time. The amount of sewage water to clean is massive. The sludge goes eventually to landfill and is dumped under ground. There is simply not enough time for the stuff to be eaten by bacteria in the plant. I have seen what happens with the feces in the outhouse and it is not going to be eaten by bacteria during a week or two. It takes years to fully compost the feces. If they would not remove sludge constantly from the plant the plant would be drowning in shit. Yes they do segregation, aeration etc etc, but eventually the stuff gets dried and is carried away and dumped to the landfill. As much as I know it is not lawful to use this stuff on the fields. EU organic regulations don't permit the use of sewage sludge on organic farms The problem with dumping to the landfill is that some of the soil fertility is carried to the landfill and the field gets depleted over time. We ourselves make fat and protein out of carbohydrates, just like any animal. We need to consume protein. We also need fat. We can not survive on only carbohyrdates. Excess carbohydrates are stored as fat but they do not get stored as muscle. A vegetarian diet is indeed a dangerous one. I see plenty of vegetarians that are malnourished. Vegan diet is the most dangerous one. Getting vitamin b12 is not possible naturally unless you eat veggies that are contaminated with feces. The production of vitamin b12 is at the end of the digestive tract so that the vitamin is not absorbed by the body but simply excreted. We also make protein and fat from carbohydrates. Only fat. We need protein food source to survive. Eating only carbs and near zero level protein ends up swollen stomach that is called kwashiorkor. Common problem in africa. There is no fixed supply. This is your initial mistake. Soil is made continuously. Worms and bugs create soil from sand. My concern is that things are currently out of balance.

27-12-2019 00:53
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	I don't bother with extreme speculations. There really is no point. But is not all those claims about clathrat guns, methan dragons, co2 emissions etc causing global warming a wild speculation? I try to think of the problem like they do. They want to overheat the planet and I am looking ways how to do it. The solution for me seems to somehow to limit the radiaton of earth but at the same time the amount of radiaton to earth from the sun should stay the same. To me the possible solution seems to cover the dark side of the earth s atmosphere with silver lining or material that mimics it and that is continuously rotating synhronously with earth s rotation so that it always stays at the dark side. I am not sure it works though. The other way to overheat the earth would be using giant mirrors in space to collect sunlight and direct it to earth.
27-12-2019 05:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Xadoman wrote: After digestion, the material is sent back into the head of the plant for separation again. Eventually, it all gets digested by this bacteria. This process takes time. About an hour. Xadoman wrote: The amount of sewage water to clean is massive. It can seem that way, but these plants can easily handle the loads. Here in the Seattle area, the areas from South Seattle, Tukwila, Issaquah, Kent, Auburn, Newcastle, Renton, and Bellevue, Redmond, and Kirkland all feed into ONE plant, currently running about 30% capacitiy. I installed equipment there to provide that plant with tertiary processing capability. The effluent from that plant is potable water. Xadoman wrote: The sludge goes eventually to landfill and is dumped under ground. Nope. Not lawful to put it in landfills. It is processed right there the plant. Xadoman wrote: There is simply not enough time for the stuff to be eaten by bacteria in the plant. Yes there is. Xadoman wrote: I have seen what happens with the feces in the outhouse and it is not going to be eaten by bacteria during a week or two. An outhouse does NO processing. You bury the waste and move the outhouse from time to time. Xadoman wrote: It takes years to fully compost the feces. But it WILL eventually decompose. Modern sewage treatment plants are considerable better at it than an outhouse! Xadoman wrote: If they would not remove sludge constantly from the plant the plant would be drowning in shit. Nope. The sludge is reprocessed until it passes the plant. Xadoman wrote: Yes they do segregation, aeration etc etc, but eventually the stuff gets dried and is carried away and dumped to the landfill. Nope. Xadoman wrote: As much as I know it is not lawful to use this stuff on the fields. True. Xadoman wrote: The problem with dumping to the landfill is that some of the soil fertility is carried to the landfill and the field gets depleted over time. Nope. Soil is not being depleted. Xadoman wrote: We ourselves make fat and protein out of carbohydrates, just like any animal. We need to consume protein. We make our own protein, just as any animal does. Xadoman wrote: We also need fat. We make our own fat, just as any animal does. Xadoman wrote: We can not survive on only carbohyrdates. Actually, you CAN, if you have water available. Xadoman wrote: Excess carbohydrates are stored as fat but they do not get stored as muscle. Nope. They are stored as either. Xadoman wrote: A vegetarian diet is indeed a dangerous one. I see plenty of vegetarians that are malnourished. Vegan diet is the most dangerous one. It is, because the only way to get certain vitamins is to consume milk, meat, or eggs. Xadoman wrote: Getting vitamin b12 is not possible naturally unless you eat veggies that are contaminated with feces. Nope. B12 is available in milk or eggs. They are not feces or contaminated by feces when sold. Xadoman wrote: The production of vitamin b12 is at the end of the digestive tract so that the vitamin is not absorbed by the body but simply excreted. WRONG. The only the thing the large intestine does is absorb water. The only thing the anus does is store what's left until convenient for you to get rid of it. B12 is absorbed via the small intestine like everything else. Xadoman wrote: We also make protein and fat from carbohydrates. Only fat. Nope. Both. Xadoman wrote: We need protein food source to survive. You can get protein from plants alone. Peas, beans, etc. Meat is a better source. Xadoman wrote: Eating only carbs and near zero level protein ends up swollen stomach that is called kwashiorkor. Common problem in africa. 'Africa' is a proper noun. It is capitalized. Protein is available in plant material, especially in legumes. Xadoman wrote: There is no fixed supply. This is your initial mistake. Soil is made continuously. Worms and bugs create soil from sand. My concern is that things are currently out of balance. Nope. Modern farming can now raise the SAME crop over and over on the same bit of land, without losing any soil. Indeed, some farms do not even use soil at all to raise crops. Such crops are raised hydroponically. 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
27-12-2019 06:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Xadoman wrote: But is not all those claims about clathrat guns, methan dragons, co2 emissions etc causing global warming a wild speculation? Nope. They are FALSE, ergo they are delusions, not speculations. Xadoman wrote: The solution for me seems to somehow to limit the radiaton of earth but at the same time the amount of radiaton to earth from the sun should stay the same. Physics: the only way to limit the earth's radiance is to limit its temperature. You cannot somehow limit earth's temperature in any way. You cannot limit the earth's radiance. . 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
27-12-2019 12:05
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	We make our own protein, just as any animal does. Nope, the digestive part of animals differs a lot. We are not cows. We do not eat hay. Without consuming protein our body is starting to tear down muscle. We make our own fat, just as any animal does. Excess calories are stored as fat, that is true. WRONG. The only the thing the large intestine does is absorb water. The only thing the anus does is store what's left until convenient for you to get rid of it. B12 is absorbed via the small intestine like everything else. My point was that humans produce their own b12 in the end of the digestive truck and is not absorbed. In other to counter it we have to get b12 from food and the vitamin is absorbed via small intestine. Nope. They are stored as either. Clearly wrong. In order to gain muscle you have to eat excess calories and train. The food must contain fat , carbs and protein . Eating only sugar will not make your muscles to grow. You will lose muscle mass if you do not eat protein. Nope. B12 is available in milk or eggs. They are not feces or contaminated by feces when sold. I was talking about vegans. The do not eat milk, eggs or meat.They get zero b12 unless they eat veggies contaminated with feces. Actually, you CAN, if you have water available. Clearly wrong. You can not survive on only sugar alone. The body needs protein to regenerate and build muscle. Without getting protein it is going to tear down muscle. An analogus thing happens with lean meat. It is not possible to survive on lean meat. You can have all the rabbits in the world but you can not survive on them. Called rabbit starvation. You can get protein from plants alone. Peas, beans, etc. Meat is a better source. Protein from plants is not complete. Only meat , eggs and milk is complete. Protein is available in plant material, especially in legumes. Without animal protein it is not complete.
27-12-2019 12:20
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Physics: the only way to limit the earth's radiance is to limit its temperature. You cannot somehow limit earth's temperature in any way. You cannot limit the earth's radiance. So in other words the silver flask of the thermos is a marketing trick? I myself think it is but many belive it limits radiance.
27-12-2019 12:36
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	About an hour. Not that simple. For example a small septic system that is used to treat waste water of homes needs to be emptied from sediment/sludge periodically. A special truck with a vacuum tank comes and empties the septic tank. The sludge has to be disposed somewhere. Nope. Not lawful to put it in landfills. It is processed right there the plant. However, sludge is also contaminated with heavy metals, bacteria and viruses and a number of organic substances, and both EU and national regulations set limits for contaminant concentrations in order to protect the soil and humans from pollution. Landfilling of sludge has hitherto been an inexpensive means of disposal, but both national restrictions and the proposed Landfill Directive will make landfilling more expensive. Several countries have introduced general restrictions on the landfilling of organic waste.
27-12-2019 18:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Xadoman wrote: We make our own protein, just as any animal does. Nope, the digestive part of animals differs a lot. We are not cows. We do not eat hay. Without consuming protein our body is starting to tear down muscle. We do eat plants. I for one enjoy a good salad. Cows can get away with eating grass, a poor source of nutrition. Xadoman wrote: We make our own fat, just as any animal does. Excess calories are stored as fat, that is true. WRONG. The only the thing the large intestine does is absorb water. The only thing the anus does is store what's left until convenient for you to get rid of it. B12 is absorbed via the small intestine like everything else. My point was that humans produce their own b12 in the end of the digestive truck and is not absorbed. In other to counter it we have to get b12 from food and the vitamin is absorbed via small intestine. WRONG. B12 is not produced by the large intestine or the anus. Xadoman wrote: Nope. They are stored as either. Clearly wrong. In order to gain muscle you have to eat excess calories and train. The food must contain fat , carbs and protein . Eating only sugar will not make your muscles to grow. You will lose muscle mass if you do not eat protein. We do eat protein. Even vegans eat protein. Xadoman wrote: Nope. B12 is available in milk or eggs. They are not feces or contaminated by feces when sold. I was talking about vegans. The do not eat milk, eggs or meat.They get zero b12 unless they eat veggies contaminated with feces. Many actually do. Veggies are not contaminated. They have been washed. Xadoman wrote: Actually, you CAN, if you have water available. Clearly wrong. You can not survive on only sugar alone. The body needs protein to regenerate and build muscle. Without getting protein it is going to tear down muscle. An analogus thing happens with lean meat. It is not possible to survive on lean meat. You can have all the rabbits in the world but you can not survive on them. Called rabbit starvation. You can get protein from plants alone. Peas, beans, etc. Meat is a better source. Protein from plants is not complete. Only meat , eggs and milk is complete. Why are making a meal of this? Weren't you worried about soil contamination? Xadoman wrote: Protein is available in plant material, especially in legumes. Without animal protein it is not complete. You seem to have wandered off your own topic. 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
27-12-2019 18:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Xadoman wrote: Physics: the only way to limit the earth's radiance is to limit its temperature. You cannot somehow limit earth's temperature in any way. You cannot limit the earth's radiance. So in other words the silver flask of the thermos is a marketing trick? I myself think it is but many belive it limits radiance. It does limit radiance. 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
27-12-2019 18:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Xadoman wrote: About an hour. Not that simple. For example a small septic system that is used to treat waste water of homes needs to be emptied from sediment/sludge periodically. A special truck with a vacuum tank comes and empties the septic tank. The sludge has to be disposed somewhere. They truck it to a nearby sewage treatment plant, not a landfill. 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
27-12-2019 19:53
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	WRONG. B12 is not produced by the large intestine or the anus. B12 is produced by bacteria that live in the soil and in the intestines of animals, including humans; however, in humans and other animals, it is generally manufactured too far down the intestinal tract (in the colon, in our case) to be absorbed, and is instead excreted in feces, where it is abundant. Another study found that humans suffering from B12 deficiency were able to replenish their B12 levels by consuming their own feces, as several animals do for precisely this reason. It is commonly theorized that in the nonindustrialized world, bacterial contamination from soil or feces brings traces of B12 to plant foods in sufficient amounts to prevent B12 deficiency in humans who do not consume animal products, We do eat protein. Even vegans eat protein. You claimed that it is possible to survive on only carbs. Not true. They truck it to a nearby sewage treatment plant, not a landfill. Probably goes under the forest.
27-12-2019 20:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Xadoman wrote:So in other words the silver flask of the thermos is a marketing trick? I myself think it is but many belive it limits radiance. So in other words, a thermos is a heat source? You're brilliant! So all we need to do is to stick something in a thermos and its temperature will increase! ... or am I missing something? . 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
27-12-2019 21:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Xadoman wrote: WRONG. B12 is not produced by the large intestine or the anus. B12 is produced by bacteria that live in the soil and in the intestines of animals, including humans; however, in humans and other animals, it is generally manufactured too far down the intestinal tract (in the colon, in our case) to be absorbed, and is instead excreted in feces, where it is abundant. Another study found that humans suffering from B12 deficiency were able to replenish their B12 levels by consuming their own feces, as several animals do for precisely this reason. It is commonly theorized that in the nonindustrialized world, bacterial contamination from soil or feces brings traces of B12 to plant foods in sufficient amounts to prevent B12 deficiency in humans who do not consume animal products, We do eat protein. Even vegans eat protein. You claimed that it is possible to survive on only carbs. Not true. Never did. Xadoman wrote: They truck it to a nearby sewage treatment plant, not a landfill. Probably goes under the forest. RQAA. 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
27-12-2019 22:27
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Never did. Yes you did. With or without water it is not possible to survive on only carbs. We need nitrogen. We are what we eat. You can not make protein from simple sugar. So in other words, a thermos is a heat source? You're brilliant! So all we need to do is to stick something in a thermos and its temperature will increase! ... or am I missing something? No I did not mean that. I said that when we cover the dark side of earth atmosphere with silver lining then the radiation at that side should be lessened. The other side gets constant sunlight as always. The temperature of earth should rise. Am I right? I am not sure, that is why I ask.
28-12-2019 02:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Xadoman wrote:No I did not mean that. I said that when we cover the dark side of earth atmosphere with silver lining then the radiation at that side should be lessened. Nope. It will not lessen. It will radiate exactly as before ... except that it will radiate into the lining. The lining will warm and reach equilibrium and will radiate out into space exactly the amount received from the dark side of the earth. Everything will be the same as before ... there will just be a lining as well. When you sit and ponder how nothing changes, you will remember the law of conservation of energy and realize that there isn't any other possible outcome. . 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
28-12-2019 11:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Xadoman wrote: [quote]Never did. Yes you did. Nope. 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

28-12-2019 12:53
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Yes you did. Nope. Yep you did. You said that we could manufacture fats and protein from carbs. As much as I understand chemistry it is not possible. Protein contains nitrogen which is not consisted in simple sugar. Nope. It will not lessen. It will radiate exactly as before ... except that it will radiate into the lining. The lining will warm and reach equilibrium and will radiate out into space exactly the amount received from the dark side of the earth. Everything will be the same as before ... there will just be a lining as well. When you sit and ponder how nothing changes, you will remember the law of conservation of energy and realize that there isn't any other possible outcome. Ok, I think I get it now. The day and night alternating got me confused. Basically I understand it now like this: let say we have three different spheres at the same distance from sun. One is blackbody, one is the opposite - lightbody or how they call it and one is half light/half black body and is rotating. The temperature of those spheres will be the same. The only thing that differs between those spheres is the duration of time they would reach to that temperature or cool down to zero if we could somehow switch on/off the sun. Edited on 28-12-2019 13:02
28-12-2019 20:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Xadoman wrote: Yes you did. Nope. Yep you did. You said that we could manufacture fats and protein from carbs. As much as I understand chemistry it is not possible. Protein contains nitrogen which is not consisted in simple sugar. We can manufacture fat and protein from carbs. 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
28-12-2019 22:28
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	We can manufacture fat and protein from carbs. Death within a year or so. Carbs are not essential, fat and protein however are. You can survive long term till death from old age on zero carb diet, but not on zero fat and/or zero protein diet.
28-12-2019 23:34
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	The only thing that differs between those spheres is the duration of time they would reach to that temperature or cool down to zero if we could somehow switch on/off the sun. Got me thinking about this kind of situation. Lets say we have two spheres located the same distance from the sun. One is blackbody , the other is also a blackbody but we could switch on a silver lining on it if we want. Lets say we can switch on/off the sun. Now lets switch on the sun to heat those spheres for 12 hours and then switch off the sun for 12 hours. On the second sphere we also activate on that moment the silver lining. When the first sphere reaches to zero, the other sphere should have a higher temperature because of the lining. Now lets repeat this cycle endlessly. The first sphere will never reach to equilirium but the second sphere is starting to accumulate heat and should therefore reach to equilirium. In real life what that could mean?
29-12-2019 00:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Xadoman wrote: let say we have three different spheres at the same distance from sun. OK, I am imagining this. Xadoman wrote: One is blackbody, I presume you mean an ideal black body ... emissivity = 1.0 Xadoman wrote: one is the opposite - lightbody or how they call it I presume you mean a white body ... emissivity = 0.0 Xadoman wrote: and one is half light/half black body and is rotating. I presume you mean one hemisphere is black body, the other hemisphere is white body, and the Ying-Yang sphere is rotating such that each hemisphere gets equal time in the sun. Xadoman wrote: The temperature of those spheres will be the same. Nope. The white body will remain forever the temperature it had going into the experiment. It will never absorb any electromagnetic radiation from the sun and it will never radiate any away. It's temperature remains constant. Period. The black body's temperature will follow Stefan-Boltzmann / Inverse Square / Analytic Geometry. The Ying-Yang sphere will only absorb solar radiance and increase in temperature when the black body hemisphere is incident with the sun and will lose temperature when the white body hemisphere is incident with the sun (not absorbing) and black body side is nonetheless radiating into space. The white body hemisphere will change temperature via conduction with the black body hemisphere) . . 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
29-12-2019 00:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Xadoman wrote:Got me thinking about this kind of situation. Lets say we have two spheres located the same distance from the sun. One is blackbody , the other is also a blackbody but we could switch on a silver lining on it if we want. There's a huge problem with your scenario. The "Temperature" of which we are concerned is at the outer surface. The moment you switch on the lining, you bury the surface (and the body) about which we were concerned under the lining ... and we know nothing about the lining's surface. . 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
29-12-2019 01:07
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Nope. The white body will remain forever the temperature it had going into the experiment. It will never absorb any electromagnetic radiation from the sun and it will never radiate any away. It's temperature remains constant. Period. The black body's temperature will follow Stefan-Boltzmann / Inverse Square / Analytic Geometry. The Ying-Yang sphere will only absorb solar radiance and increase in temperature when the black body hemisphere is incident with the sun and will lose temperature when the white body hemisphere is incident with the sun (not absorbing) and black body side is nonetheless radiating into space. The white body hemisphere will change temperature via conduction with the black body hemisphere) . I am a little bit confused now. Let say that one sphere is almost black body and the other sphere is almost a white body? I thought that both of those spheres will reach to the same temperature eventually. Am I right? If not then would not that mean that the earth could also change the point where it sits now on the scale between black and white body. If it moves closer to white body, it gets colder and if it moves towards black body, it gets hotter. Does not that mean that global warming or cooling is possible?
29-12-2019 02:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Xadoman wrote: I am a little bit confused now. Let say that one sphere is almost black body and the other sphere is almost a white body? Sure. One has a very high emissivity and one has a very low emissivity. Clue in on the emissivity; it is key to everything. Xadoman wrote: I thought that both of those spheres will reach to the same temperature eventually. Am I right? Nope. In previous examples, bodies were of the same material and of the same emissivity. You are presenting scenarios of bodies with specifically different emissivities. Emissivity is the efficiency with which a body absorbs and radiates. Higher emissivity absorbs and radiates more while lower emissivity absorbs and radiates less. The best way to imagine this is with two identical spaghetti strainers, ...but collander #1 has a strong flow of water entering from the top (high emissivity) while collander #2 has a light trickle (low emissivity) entering from the top. The high emissivity collander will take a moment longer to reach equilibrium (the same high amount of water entering as exiting) whereas the low emissivity collander will quickly reach "trickle in - trickle out". You will notice that the when the high emissivity collander reaches equilibrium, it has more water in it (temperature) than the low emissivity collander. . 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
29-12-2019 02:35
Xadoman ★★★★☆ (1035)	Clue in on the emissivity; it is key to everything. So the key to global warming/cooling is the emissivity of earth? As much as I understand you do not belive in global warming. Why are you so sure that the emissivity of earth stays the same all the time?
29-12-2019 05:22
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Xadoman wrote:...Why are you so sure that the emissivity of earth stays the same all the time? Because they are insane Xadoman. They have one wierd, totally unsupported theory that nothing is changing and they will stick to it. Like claiming Trump never called for banning Muslims or anything else that is true but contadicts what they said. I went through this with them before, it's linked: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Clouds are absolutely random and have no effect on the planet's average temperature. But the Earth can be inconsistent in how reflective it is can't it? If you have extra cloud cover that's more white and that's more solar radiation to bounce directly out into space without converting to thermal energy. No? I mean it would average out as random things like that do I guess. But moment to moment it would mess up a thermometer reading. Are you saying that it averages out every day? ... NASA Albedo "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them

Page 7 of 10

Join the debate Energy and resource crisis in the future:

Threads	Replies	Last post
THE FUTURE OF HYDROGEN POWER	31	09-08-2023 19:29
The 'crisis' that will 'steal' the 2024 election.	2	15-05-2023 05:02
Climate Change: The Science of Global Warming and Our Energy Future, just $133.79	4	19-02-2023 14:09
Climate Crisis!	8	04-12-2022 07:10
Make Natural Resource Currency Great Again	1	30-07-2022 22:43