Greenhouse gasses

HarveyH55 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:


I agree with your assesment of education.

I have an interest in history.

History is obviously the best story ever. The way it is taught in school is to make it the most boring impossible to be interested in subject ever. This is also the case for all other subjects.

I believe it may be due to the infiltration of the education management by the left. The hard communist left. The goal of which is the destruction of society to then build their new world order. Although it is almost all about the destruction part really. Basically traitor personality type.

These people exists. They work together to do what they do.

History covers a lot of area, unfortunately most of the history classes I took focused on war and government, both weren't of any particular interest to me. I guess it was because there was so much of it going on at the time, it was like getting a double dose, and sort crowded everything else. Starting with the Kennedy assassinations, Vietnam war, and Watergate. A lot of repetition, and no end or change in sight. Guess I just learned to find something else to study, or do, and it sort of carried over to history class, or pretty much anything related. Now, I like natural history, local history, and most anything related to subject had an interest in.

I real do believe there is something more going on with many of the democrats, least the far left progressives. It's not just a common set of views and values, but there seems to be a well defined path to reach certain goals. Seemed pretty obvious that there was no collusion, and no real definitive proof given of the Russian meddling (details were never released, because of the investigation). But, it was important to keep Trump busy, and away from even talking to the Russians. Russia is a strong power on the planet, like them or hate them, we need to have some sort of relationship. All the past presidents have had many talks with russian leaders, and Trump should have been doing so, regardless of the investigation. I think ObamaCare was the thing that really opened my eyes. Health insurance certainly isn't health care. It's everyone paying, for something most don't need, and many don't need. It was already widely available, and affordable through many employers. Insurance is great, but pretty useless, if you can't afford the co-pay or deductible. If your young, in good health, just starting out on your own, it's not a high priority. The claimed 50 million Americans were uninsured, didn't seem like a high number, to force the other 350 million to pay more, and get less. Would have been better to encourage more employers to offer a group plan. Many of those uninsured, simply needed to get a job. Took three tries to push Obamacare through, and quite a few in congress admitted they hadn't read the bill, before voting for it, they didn't do their job, and it didn't matter. There really wasn't any urgency, other than politics, and losing power to get it passed.

The border wall, and security seems like a long neglected, and more urgently needed topic to address. Instead of individuals and small groups, they come to the border by the thousands. While we are focused on the large group, the rest of the border is wide open for the smaller groups and individuals. A wall won't stop them much, but slow them down some, make it a little easier to catch them in the act. Really don't get how foreign criminals are entitled to the same legal rights as our own citizens. Shouldn't be a trial process, just send them back over the border. A wall, a physical barrier is just a good start, easier to patrol and defend. Technology can be added and used later, as needed.

There are a lot of good ideas, but the urgency and implementation is all wrong. A lot of people are getting hurt, financially, and some people are getting wealthy out of the political agenda of pushing these things. Seems well planned, and focused. What we see as sources of the main problems, are defended, protected. The people who provide use jobs, and protect our savings and investments, are attacked and crippled.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Either way, the surface, where we live stays cooler than the atmosphere, since heat is still escaping out to space. The atmosphere cannot create energy, only convert what's there, or conduct heat, which will always rise toward space. The gasses may slow the escape, but not stop, or reverse the direction it's moving.

Consider a hot air balloon, it's filled by burning gas, so must contain a good portion of CO2. You have to keep adding heat, to keep it rising, keep it from sinking. You also hit hot and warm pockets, that can change your altitude considerably. If you stop burning, you slowly descend. You can open vents, to fall quicker. Now, if all that CO2 in the balloon behaves the same as atmospheric CO2, the people in the basket would be getting burned, if the heat is being directed down to earth. Doubt many people would enjoy flying in a balloon, if it's so uncomfortably hot under it...

Even with the alarming effects of global warming, it only got up to 77F here today. It was 60F when I got of bed this morning, almost put a sweatshirt on, but figured I'd just take it off, after a few minutes of work. It has been overcast most of the day, may have got back to more normal climate otherwise (80s). Really don't see the planet getting to seriously warm, water vapor will just increase, and cool things down.

Had a thought at work... The main CO2 monitor is on the side of a volcano. Pretty sure all the Hawaiian volcanoes are classified as active, not all erupt very often though. They all vent gas though, and some of that gas would be CO2. I wondered how much that vented gas would effect the readings, that are the basis for 'Climate Change'. Thought it amusing, that if they found a serious vent, right near the sensor someday, and the rise in CO2 has just been an increase in volcanic activity, more gas venting, and not 'fossil fuels'... It would be a much bigger scientific blunder, than Cold Fusion, about a decade ago.

CO2 vented from volcanos or from the ocean are "new" and have large amounts of Carbon-14 in them.

There is no such thing as 'new' CO2, Wake. Neither have large amounts of C-14 in them.

Wake wrote:
Fossil fuels contain almost no carbon-14

That's because fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.

Wake wrote:
and hence you can tell the difference in many cases though not all. For instance - volcanos that burn through coal and oil beds have low carbon-14.

Volcanoes don't burn through anything layer, Wake. They're magma IS the layer powering a volcano.

Wake wrote:
Watching some of the videos or reading some of the horse manure published in Skeptical Science is funny. For instance: acid rain. Water is a base:

Water is not an alkaline, Wake. It is neutral. It has a pH of 7.

Wake wrote:
adding carbolic acid (a very weak acid) makes is less of a base and not an acid.

Adding carbolic acid to water makes acid, Wake.

Wake wrote:
Even more so with salt water.

Sale makes no difference, Wake. NaCl is also neutral.

Wake wrote:
The oceans are not absorbing CO2.

Yes they are, Wake. The amount of CO2 in ocean water is about the same as the atmosphere above it.

Wake wrote:
As the temperature of the Earth returns to normal after the Little Ice Age, the oceans are in fact warming and expelling CO2.

The oceans aren't warming, Wake. The Sun is putting out the same energy.

Wake wrote:
So aside from the very slow increase in atmospheric CO2 why isn't the CO2 build-up in the atmosphere much more rapid?

Ocean water CO2 and atmospheric CO2 are the same concentrations, Wake. Most CO2 in ocean water is simply dissolved CO2, only about 1% becomes carbolic acid.

Wake wrote:
There comes a point at which CO2 will not be venting from the ocean because it stabilizes when the oceans water stops heating.

Like the land, ocean water absorbs energy from the Sun and radiates into space. They never stop heating or being heated.

Wake wrote:
This is very slow to happen since the amount of water in the oceans is so very large. And at some point the amount of plant life will be so large that the amount of CO2 being introduced by man with be in balance with nature.

What balance??

Wake wrote:
I expect forests to begin returning to the grass areas of the world that were once covered in forests.

Most grasslands were never covered by forests at all. We do have more trees than ever in the United States though, thanks to people like Weyerhauser.

Wake wrote:
As the CO2 levels fell below a certainly level the forests disappeared without enough CO2 to support it and the grasslands of the Great Plains and the Savanas of African appeared.

There were never trees there, Wake...other than the kind of stuff that's there now.

Most of the land is grasslands. Grass is an amazing plant. It can grow almost anywhere, including the Antarctic!

Wake wrote:
Grass requires less CO2 and the CO2 produced is far more likely to be recycled since it rots and the carbon left combines with atmospheric oxygen to return CO2 back to whence it came.

It doesn't require less CO2, Wake. Grass grows fast. It requires MORE CO2 (per equivalent surface area) to build all those carbohydrates it needs. Given proper conditions, grass can grow as tall as a tree.

Wake wrote:
The pure ignorance of the environmentalists of the world around them and for that matter for anything of historic value is one of the driving factors of phony science researchers and politicians who can take advantage of ignorance of the sort that these people demonstrate.

Like you?

Im a BM wrote:
DECEMBER 2018 - ALWAYS WITH THE CARBOLIC ACID!

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Either way, the surface, where we live stays cooler than the atmosphere, since heat is still escaping out to space. The atmosphere cannot create energy, only convert what's there, or conduct heat, which will always rise toward space. The gasses may slow the escape, but not stop, or reverse the direction it's moving.

Consider a hot air balloon, it's filled by burning gas, so must contain a good portion of CO2. You have to keep adding heat, to keep it rising, keep it from sinking. You also hit hot and warm pockets, that can change your altitude considerably. If you stop burning, you slowly descend. You can open vents, to fall quicker. Now, if all that CO2 in the balloon behaves the same as atmospheric CO2, the people in the basket would be getting burned, if the heat is being directed down to earth. Doubt many people would enjoy flying in a balloon, if it's so uncomfortably hot under it...

Even with the alarming effects of global warming, it only got up to 77F here today. It was 60F when I got of bed this morning, almost put a sweatshirt on, but figured I'd just take it off, after a few minutes of work. It has been overcast most of the day, may have got back to more normal climate otherwise (80s). Really don't see the planet getting to seriously warm, water vapor will just increase, and cool things down.

Had a thought at work... The main CO2 monitor is on the side of a volcano. Pretty sure all the Hawaiian volcanoes are classified as active, not all erupt very often though. They all vent gas though, and some of that gas would be CO2. I wondered how much that vented gas would effect the readings, that are the basis for 'Climate Change'. Thought it amusing, that if they found a serious vent, right near the sensor someday, and the rise in CO2 has just been an increase in volcanic activity, more gas venting, and not 'fossil fuels'... It would be a much bigger scientific blunder, than Cold Fusion, about a decade ago.

CO2 vented from volcanos or from the ocean are "new" and have large amounts of Carbon-14 in them.

There is no such thing as 'new' CO2, Wake. Neither have large amounts of C-14 in them.

Wake wrote:
Fossil fuels contain almost no carbon-14

That's because fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.

Wake wrote:
and hence you can tell the difference in many cases though not all. For instance - volcanos that burn through coal and oil beds have low carbon-14.

Volcanoes don't burn through anything layer, Wake. They're magma IS the layer powering a volcano.

Wake wrote:
Watching some of the videos or reading some of the horse manure published in Skeptical Science is funny. For instance: acid rain. Water is a base:

Water is not an alkaline, Wake. It is neutral. It has a pH of 7.

Wake wrote:
adding carbolic acid (a very weak acid) makes is less of a base and not an acid.

Adding carbolic acid to water makes acid, Wake.

Wake wrote:
Even more so with salt water.

Sale makes no difference, Wake. NaCl is also neutral.

Wake wrote:
The oceans are not absorbing CO2.

Yes they are, Wake. The amount of CO2 in ocean water is about the same as the atmosphere above it.

Wake wrote:
As the temperature of the Earth returns to normal after the Little Ice Age, the oceans are in fact warming and expelling CO2.

The oceans aren't warming, Wake. The Sun is putting out the same energy.

Wake wrote:
So aside from the very slow increase in atmospheric CO2 why isn't the CO2 build-up in the atmosphere much more rapid?

Ocean water CO2 and atmospheric CO2 are the same concentrations, Wake. Most CO2 in ocean water is simply dissolved CO2, only about 1% becomes carbolic acid.

Wake wrote:
There comes a point at which CO2 will not be venting from the ocean because it stabilizes when the oceans water stops heating.

Like the land, ocean water absorbs energy from the Sun and radiates into space. They never stop heating or being heated.

Wake wrote:
This is very slow to happen since the amount of water in the oceans is so very large. And at some point the amount of plant life will be so large that the amount of CO2 being introduced by man with be in balance with nature.

What balance??

Wake wrote:
I expect forests to begin returning to the grass areas of the world that were once covered in forests.

Most grasslands were never covered by forests at all. We do have more trees than ever in the United States though, thanks to people like Weyerhauser.

Wake wrote:
As the CO2 levels fell below a certainly level the forests disappeared without enough CO2 to support it and the grasslands of the Great Plains and the Savanas of African appeared.

There were never trees there, Wake...other than the kind of stuff that's there now.

Most of the land is grasslands. Grass is an amazing plant. It can grow almost anywhere, including the Antarctic!

Wake wrote:
Grass requires less CO2 and the CO2 produced is far more likely to be recycled since it rots and the carbon left combines with atmospheric oxygen to return CO2 back to whence it came.

It doesn't require less CO2, Wake. Grass grows fast. It requires MORE CO2 (per equivalent surface area) to build all those carbohydrates it needs. Given proper conditions, grass can grow as tall as a tree.

Wake wrote:
The pure ignorance of the environmentalists of the world around them and for that matter for anything of historic value is one of the driving factors of phony science researchers and politicians who can take advantage of ignorance of the sort that these people demonstrate.

Like you?