Remember me
▼ Content

How to solve climate change.


How to solve climate change.26-09-2021 05:02
Lol_dude
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Maybe we should rely on science instead.

Think about glucose. This is edible by humans and animals alike. Its chemical formula is C6H12O6.

Carbon dioxide and methane are the most common greenhouse gasses.

CO2
and
CH4.

If you add them up, you get C2H4O2.

Now, if you multiply that by 3, you get C6H12O6. Look familiar?

And therefore, 3 CO2 + 3 CH4 + Energy = C6H12O6.
17-03-2022 21:24
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
1,275 views and this is the first reply. Absolutely inconceivable that such stuff as the opening post is ignored.

1. THE most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. Its concentration is ~15,000 ppmv.
2. Water vapor absorbs infrared radiation far better than CO2 does.
3. One cannot "add" formulas and get a new compound. That is childishness.

This post by Lol Dude does NOT rely on science.
31-03-2022 15:07
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
1,275 views and this is the first reply. Absolutely inconceivable that such stuff as the opening post is ignored.

1. THE most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. Its concentration is ~15,000 ppmv.
2. Water vapor absorbs infrared radiation far better than CO2 does.
3. One cannot "add" formulas and get a new compound. That is childishness.

This post by Lol Dude does NOT rely on science.


Oh, so true RM, but aren't all of mankind childish? After all, that's how we got into this mess in the first place.

As for you LD, you keep right on calculating. Remember, in every lie there's a little bit of truth, and in every truth there's a little lie. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with anything, but you're obviously very smart and I'm sure you will figure it out.
Edited on 31-03-2022 15:10
01-04-2022 00:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
1,275 views and this is the first reply. Absolutely inconceivable that such stuff as the opening post is ignored.

1. THE most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. Its concentration is ~15,000 ppmv.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics:
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.

RenaissanceMan wrote:
2. Water vapor absorbs infrared radiation far better than CO2 does.

Water absorbs more frequencies too. That does not warm the Earth.

The surface has to emit infrared light, dude. Doing that takes energy. That cools the surface.

It is just the warmer surface heating the colder atmosphere by something other than conductive heating. It is radiant heating. Big hairy deal.

RenaissanceMan wrote:
3. One cannot "add" formulas and get a new compound. That is childishness.

It's actually what you do to describe a reaction, dude.
RenaissanceMan wrote:
This post by Lol Dude does NOT rely on science.

Chemistry is a branch of science.

Fortunately, there is an easier way to make a carbohydrate. Plant something.


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
29-11-2022 09:57
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
The Antarctic ice cores prove that global warming occurs regularly - and much hotter than today - despite CO2 levels never exceeding 280ppm. SO the dogma of GHGs being a 'major cause' of CC is bogus, put about to get money from richer countries and damage their economies.
29-11-2022 15:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:The Antarctic ice cores prove that global warming occurs regularly

Why do you believe this? Are you simply regurgitating WACKY things that you were ordered to believe?

Ice cores do not provide any information beyond, perhaps, how much precipitation occurred over a given year at a particular spot.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:- and much hotter than today - despite CO2 levels never exceeding 280ppm.

Why do you claim to know atmospheric CO2 levels of the distant, unobserved past when you don't even know what they are today?

Nielsenbr56 wrote: SO the dogma of GHGs being a 'major cause' of CC is bogus,

I'm inclined to agree; I find the entire religion to be bogus. Nonetheless, you still must unambiguously define "GHGs" and "CC."

Nielsenbr56 wrote: put about to get money from richer countries and damage their economies.

I'm inclined to agree. Nonetheless, you must unambiguously define your terms.
29-11-2022 16:52
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
Belief is just opinion - when you think you know something without evidence. FAct is backed by actual tested theory through measurement. The Antarctic Ice Cores measure air trapped in the Antarctic Ice (look it up) deep in the Southern Ice Cap. Each year of compacted ice appears like rings on a tree and the analysis of the trapped atmosphere provides direct measurement of all components of the air at that time, including IR absorbers (GHGs). I'm not sure why you think we can't measure CO2 levels in the air today, as well as other gases, it's pretty straightforward.
29-11-2022 17:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:Belief is just opinion

Belief is one's speculation.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:- when you think you know something without evidence.

Nope. This is self-delusion. It is an omniscience fallacy.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:FAct is backed by actual tested theory through measurement.

Nope. A fact is that which is not disputed by the participants in a discussion, e.g. the facts surrounding a murder trial are those items that are stipulated by both the prosecution and the defense. Those items in dispute are the "arguments" or the "claims."

Nielsenbr56 wrote:The Antarctic Ice Cores measure air trapped in the Antarctic Ice

Ice cores do not measure anything.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:including IR absorbers (GHGs)

All substances absorb IR. All of them. Your position is that all substances are therefore gases. Don't you think that is a pretty stupid position?

Nielsenbr56 wrote:I'm not sure why you think we can't measure CO2 levels in the air today,

I'm not sure why you believe we can measure the Earth's atmospheric CO2 content, however I'm happy to open the floor to you to explain how you believe this can be accomplished today.
29-11-2022 17:47
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
No a fact is NOT what people agree on. Just because people agree an old man lives in the sky called god, or that they live on after dying, does not a fact make. A fact in SCIENCE is a theory established as accurate through measurement - and, yes, that 'truth' changes with new measurements, moving us from Newtonian to Quantum Mechanics and will change again, but those are refinements towards establishing a truth independent of opinion (belief). What is pretty stupid is your non-sequitur that because all substances absorb IR are therefore gases. You asked for a SPECIFIC fact that identifies what GHGs are - and that is, GHGs absorb IR - so - obviously to most intelligent people, we are talking about atmospheric gases and vapour, since they are relevant to the question. I just forgot you're a troll. I can only presume you also have difficulty using a book to read how to measure gas composition in the air?
29-11-2022 19:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:No a fact is NOT what people agree on.

A fact is what people agree on. I gave you the court case example. Perhaps you are too stupid to learn.

If you and I were to agree that Corn Flakes is the best creation mankind has ever made, then it is a fact in our discussion. However, the moment GasGuzzler joins our discussion and claims that Fruit Loops is clearly the best creation mankind has ever made, then all of our positions become our claims and our rationales become our arguments. Intellectual cowards who cannot support their positions but who nonetheless need their positions to be accepted as "facts" try to create breakout rooms in which they ban anyone who does not also agree to their positions.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: Just because people agree an old man lives in the sky called god, or that they live on after dying, does not a fact make.

Yes. That is what makes it a fact. Whenever Into the Night and gfm7175 engage in a discussion, that supposition is very much a fact. However, the moment you join such a discussion, that supposition ceases to be a fact, and becomes a claim.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: A fact in SCIENCE is a theory established as accurate through measurement

This is gibber-babble nonsense. You clearly do not know what science is.

All of science is a fact because everybody agrees to all of it ... by virtue of nobody showing any of it to be false. All of science has passed the scrutiny of the scientific method and nobody has, as of yet, shown any of it to be false. If anyone does show any science to be false, it is discarded

Nielsenbr56 wrote:- and, yes, that 'truth' changes with new measurements, moving us from Newtonian to Quantum Mechanics and will change again, but those are refinements towards establishing a truth independent of opinion (belief).

There is so much wrong with this statement above that I will have to unpack it.

1. If the new measurements differ from the old measurements, then someone screwed up on the measurements somewhere.
2. No, we have not abandoned classical physics.
3. Science does not establish truth and it never confirms anything as "true." Yes, we presume science is true, but with the understanding that we could be mistaken and that tomorrow it could be shown to be false.
4. You are trying to get your speculations relabelled as "fact" and not your mere opinion.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:What is pretty stupid is your non-sequitur that because all substances absorb IR are therefore gases.

That is your position. You defined greenhouse gases as IR-absorbing substances. That was not my definition; it was yours. I will remind you that all substances absorb IR. This means that your position is that all substances are greenhouse gas. I will again remind you that this is a stupid position for you to have.

I will presume that you are not very good at formal logic.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: You asked for a SPECIFIC fact that identifies what GHGs are

Nope. That doesn't make any sense and is nothing I would ever request.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: - and that is, GHGs absorb IR

All substances absorb IR, therefore by your definition all substances are GHGs. You really aren't following your own logic, are you?

Nielsenbr56 wrote: I just forgot you're a troll.

I just forgot, you are a scientifically illiterate intellectual coward who cannot support his stupid positions so he needs a safe space in which to post so that I can't pop his delicate delusion bubbles with my science and/or differing positions.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: I can only presume you also have difficulty using a book to read how to measure gas composition in the air?

I can only presume that you are now realizing that what you wrote previously was terribly stupid, that you are embarrassed, that you realize you will never be accepted as any sort of expert in this forum, and that you must now dedicate your efforts to portraying your stupid claim of knowing earth's quantity of atmospheric CO2 as somehow being my fault.
.
29-11-2022 23:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
The Antarctic ice cores prove that global warming occurs regularly - and much hotter than today - despite CO2 levels never exceeding 280ppm. SO the dogma of GHGs being a 'major cause' of CC is bogus, put about to get money from richer countries and damage their economies.

Ice cores do not measure temperature. They do not measure global atmospheric CO2 concentration. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or the global atmospheric CO2 concentration.


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
29-11-2022 23:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Belief is just opinion - when you think you know something without evidence. FAct is backed by actual tested theory through measurement.
[quote]Nielsenbr56 wrote:
The Antarctic Ice Cores measure air trapped in the Antarctic Ice (look it up) deep in the Southern Ice Cap. Each year of compacted ice appears like rings on a tree and the analysis of the trapped atmosphere provides direct measurement of all components of the air at that time, including IR absorbers (GHGs). I'm not sure why you think we can't measure CO2 levels in the air today, as well as other gases, it's pretty straightforward.


It is not possible to measure global atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Ice cores do not measure temperature.
Tree rings do not measure temperature.


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
29-11-2022 23:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
No a fact is NOT what people agree on.

That is exactly what a fact is. A fact is an assumed predicate. The moment someone in the conversation disputes that predicate, it is no longer a fact. It is an argument.

A fact is not a proof. It is not a Universal Truth.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Just because people agree an old man lives in the sky called god, or that they live on after dying, does not a fact make.

Yes it does.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
A fact in SCIENCE

Science is not facts. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
is a theory established as accurate

It is not possible to prove any theory true, not even a scientific one.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
through measurement - and, yes, that 'truth' changes with new measurements,

Observations and the data produced by them are not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
moving us from Newtonian to Quantum Mechanics and will change again,

Newton's laws have not been falsified.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
but those are refinements towards establishing a truth

Science isn't a 'truth'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
independent of opinion (belief).

An theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. ALL arguments are opinions. A theory of science is falsifiable, that is, you can conduct a test of the theory itself to try to break it.

No theory can be proven True.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
What is pretty stupid is your non-sequitur that because all substances absorb IR are therefore gases.

All substances absorb infrared light, regardless of whether it's a gas, liquid, or solid.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
You asked for a SPECIFIC fact that identifies what GHGs are - and that is, GHGs absorb IR

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
- so - obviously to most intelligent people, we are talking about atmospheric gases and vapour, since they are relevant to the question.

You are evading the question. Define 'climate change'.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
I can only presume you also have difficulty using a book to read how to measure gas composition in the air?

It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentration. There is no such book.


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 29-11-2022 23:44
30-11-2022 09:35
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
Well, I guess you don;t want to read a book, apart from mass spectrometer (hey IR is absorbed by CO2..) here's a link to measure CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere: https://www.vaisala.com/sites/default/files/documents/VIM-G-How-to-measure-CO2-Application-Note-B211228EN.pdf

Break out rooms are not to have people who only agree with your comments, it is to debate your positions in a common sense manner - something you, as a troll, fail to do. But since you were never educated, it's not really your fault, so I do feel sorry for you, being someone going through life with a personality like yours. Must be sad you won't be missed.
30-11-2022 16:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
Nielsenbr56 wrote: Well, I guess you don't want to read a book

You can presume that I do not want to read a book. At the moment, there is nothing that I need to learn.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:hey IR is absorbed by CO2..

All substances absorb IR.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: here's a link to measure CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere

That was a beautiful pivot! The topic is Earth's total quantity of atmospheric CO2, not how a gas can be measured. Why should any rational adult believe that you somehow know the quantity of Earth's atmospheric CO2?

Nielsenbr56 wrote: Break out rooms are not to have people who only agree with your comments,

Yes, your type of breakout rooms are.

Censorship by any other name is censorship, and the other name you have selected is "breakout rooms." Censorship never adds value.

Intellectual cowardice by any other name is intellectual cowardice, and the other name you have selected is "breakout rooms." Science is discussed periodically in the main forum, but you can't contribute because you are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. You become compelled to flee, but you have nowhere to go. You want a refuge, a safe-space, a protected bubble into which you can escape and barricade the doors. You need a panic room in which you can decide what you want science to be, and you can ban all those who pose a risk of exposing your cognitive slapstick comedy.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: it is to debate your positions in a common sense manner

Nope. Your type of breakout rooms serve to censor/ban expressions that you find threatening and to exclude "trolls", i.e. people who disagree with you politically in some way.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: something you, as a troll, fail to do.

You have never discussed any science with me, because you aren't capable of doing so. In any event, you have no way of knowing how I discuss science because you panic and flee at the mere sight of the topic.
01-12-2022 16:32
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
Studying apes in their natural habitat. Interesting in that you don't know the law of partial pressures, can't read books, yet you think you know everything. The greatest of faults is to be conscious of none; (TC).
02-12-2022 06:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
Nielsenbr56 wrote: Interesting in that you don't know the law of partial pressures,

Did you wake up today and decide that you were going to declare me ignorant of partial pressures?

Nielsenbr56 wrote: yet you think you know everything.

I am fully aware that there are four things that I do not know. You just don't know what those four things are.

Note: I don't need to know any of them right now.

.
02-12-2022 16:47
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
Come on - you're rants are getting too short - run out of steam??? I'm waiting...
02-12-2022 19:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:Come on - you're rants are getting too short - run out of steam??? I'm waiting...

What rants would those be?
03-12-2022 04:15
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
Continuing the analysis of troll behaviour: seems unable to assess own troll-like actions. Early onset dementia would explain a lot, or an IQ in the low 10s.
03-12-2022 09:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nielsenbr56 wrote:Come on - you're rants are getting too short - run out of steam??? I'm waiting...
What rants would those be?
Continuing the analysis of troll behaviour: seems unable to assess own troll-like actions. Early onset dementia would explain a lot, or an IQ in the low 10s.

Continuing the analysis of troll behaviour: seems unable to read English. Must be a Brit, likely an Eng-bat.

What rants would those be? I'm waiting.
04-12-2022 05:39
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
Troll behaviours: asking for response in order to waste time in needless exchanges. This approach is covered in several treatise on the subject of troll behaviour. Thinking people are interested enough in them to bother with a response to their pleading. Definitely needy for validation.
05-12-2022 15:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:Troll behaviours:

Do you pout like a baby everytime someone either contradicts you or disagrees with you? Are you so insecure that you have to resort to petty name-calling when you encounter others who aren't as gullible and as educationally-challenged as you are?

Nielsenbr56 wrote: asking for response in order to waste time in needless exchanges.

At least you admit that you are here to regurgitate what you have been told to believe and not to discuss anything.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: This approach is covered in several treatise on the subject of troll behaviour.

Yes. They attempt to engage you in an honest discussion but you are too shifty for them and you flee before you inadvertently make a positive contribution.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:Thinking people are interested enough

Look at you! You think you can read other people's minds? Too funny.

So, have you thought of any other censorship we simply must have here on Climate-Debate?
07-12-2022 03:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Well, I guess you don;t want to read a book, apart from mass spectrometer (hey IR is absorbed by CO2..) here's a link to measure CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere: https://www.vaisala.com/sites/default/files/documents/VIM-G-How-to-measure-CO2-Application-Note-B211228EN.pdf

Everything absorbs infrared light. So?

It is not possible to measure the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Break out rooms...

Trolling.


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
07-12-2022 03:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Studying apes in their natural habitat. Interesting in that you don't know the law of partial pressures, can't read books, yet you think you know everything. The greatest of faults is to be conscious of none; (TC).


Buzzword fallacies. You are still trying to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and now the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.


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 07-12-2022 03:59
08-12-2022 19:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
I presume Nielsenbr56 has fled again.
10-12-2022 06:52
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
No - still here, but - unlike you - I have a life.
10-12-2022 20:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
No - still here, but - unlike you - I have a life.

IBdaMann is alive. I assure you. So am I.

Nah. You just don't have any argument, so you turn to insults.


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 10-12-2022 20:16
12-12-2022 20:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:No - still here, but - unlike you - I have a life.

Nope. You're not "still here" when you are off hiding in a corner behind squeal over with your tail between your legs.

You have to get onto the field of play. You can't just be a noisy spectator yelling "boooooooo" from the parking lot.
15-12-2022 22:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
Yep, Nielsenbr56 has fled, rather than let his scientific illiteracy be revealed as the non-contributions that they are.

Does anyone suppose that he's aware that everyone already knows?
17-12-2022 02:00
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
So another interesting fact about trolls - seems they are needy - they keep wanting others to engage with them - I guess it is their only source of engagement - must be lonely. Here they are begging for me to engage. Still didn't get the message that intelligent people are not here to waste time engaging with their ignorance.
19-12-2022 20:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:So another interesting fact about trolls - seems they are needy - they keep wanting others to engage with them

Tell me about it. All I need to do is mention that you have fled and you come rushing back, begging for my attention.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: I guess it is their only source of engagement - must be lonely.

You would know.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:Here they are begging for me to engage.

Nobody is begging you for anything. At one point, some of us were practically begging you to define your terms and to stick to science, but trolls simply don't ever do that. Trolls are locked into one single, solitary mode of mindlessly preaching whatever they have been told to preach by those who do their thinking for them. I see that you never got the message that intelligent people are not here to waste time listening to the mindless regurgitations of others.

Isn't it time for you to flee again right about now?
19-02-2024 04:12
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Lol_dude wrote:
Maybe we should rely on science instead.

Think about glucose. This is edible by humans and animals alike. Its chemical formula is C6H12O6.

Carbon dioxide and methane are the most common greenhouse gasses.

CO2
and
CH4.

If you add them up, you get C2H4O2.

Now, if you multiply that by 3, you get C6H12O6. Look familiar?

And therefore, 3 CO2 + 3 CH4 + Energy = C6H12O6.
z

Carbon dioxide is roughly 414 parts per million.
Methane is approximately 1.8 parts per million.
Water vapor is about 15,000 parts per million.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Carbon dioxide and methane don't simply "add up."
If you want to synthesize glucose, you should present a mechanism showing how you would do it, precisely.

I'm a chemical engineer and I can tell you it will take lots of energy and resources to accomplish.
19-02-2024 12:02
James_
★★★★★
(2248)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
Lol_dude wrote:
Maybe we should rely on science instead.

Think about glucose. This is edible by humans and animals alike. Its chemical formula is C6H12O6.

Carbon dioxide and methane are the most common greenhouse gasses.

CO2
and
CH4.

If you add them up, you get C2H4O2.

Now, if you multiply that by 3, you get C6H12O6. Look familiar?

And therefore, 3 CO2 + 3 CH4 + Energy = C6H12O6.
z

Carbon dioxide is roughly 414 parts per million.
Methane is approximately 1.8 parts per million.
Water vapor is about 15,000 parts per million.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Carbon dioxide and methane don't simply "add up."
If you want to synthesize glucose, you should present a mechanism showing how you would do it, precisely.

I'm a chemical engineer and I can tell you it will take lots of energy and resources to accomplish.



I'm a chemical engineer and I can tell you it will take lots of energy and resources to accomplish.


How do you know? https://climate-cycling.com/cold-fusion
21-02-2024 15:51
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Nope. A fact is that which is not disputed by the participants in a discussion, e.g. the facts surrounding a murder trial are those items that are stipulated by both the prosecution and the defense. Those items in dispute are the "arguments" or the "claims."


The subject is science, not murder trials. Facts are obviously not always known. That is why scientists continue to do *research*. Hello!

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Ice cores do not measure anything.


They measure a great deal. Stop talking smack.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
All substances absorb IR. All of them. Your position is that all substances are therefore gases. Don't you think that is a pretty stupid position?


No, I think yours was a pretty stupid answer. "All" is much too broad to make such a statement.

This is from scied.ucar.edu:

"Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons."

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
I'm not sure why you believe we can measure the Earth's atmospheric CO2 content, however I'm happy to open the floor to you to explain how you believe this can be accomplished today.


We have long been able to measure the composition of gas mixtures. The volume and densities of our atmosphere by altitude are well known and from these factors we can calculate atmospheric content of every gas. For example methane is only 1.8 parts per million of the atmosphere and yet politicians are going bonkers over methane as if it were hydrogen cyanide. Moreover its IR spectrum is trivial, particularly given its trivial concentration.
24-02-2024 11:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Nope. A fact is that which is not disputed by the participants in a discussion, e.g. the facts surrounding a murder trial are those items that are stipulated by both the prosecution and the defense. Those items in dispute are the "arguments" or the "claims."


The subject is science, not murder trials. Facts are obviously not always known. That is why scientists continue to do *research*. Hello!

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Ice cores do not measure anything.


They measure a great deal. Stop talking smack.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
All substances absorb IR. All of them. Your position is that all substances are therefore gases. Don't you think that is a pretty stupid position?


No, I think yours was a pretty stupid answer. "All" is much too broad to make such a statement.

This is from scied.ucar.edu:

"Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons."

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
I'm not sure why you believe we can measure the Earth's atmospheric CO2 content, however I'm happy to open the floor to you to explain how you believe this can be accomplished today.


We have long been able to measure the composition of gas mixtures. The volume and densities of our atmosphere by altitude are well known and from these factors we can calculate atmospheric content of every gas. For example methane is only 1.8 parts per million of the atmosphere and yet politicians are going bonkers over methane as if it were hydrogen cyanide. Moreover its IR spectrum is trivial, particularly given its trivial concentration.

It is not possible to measure the global gas mixture. CO2 concentration varies from location to location and so do other gasses (not at the same location). It is only possible to measure gas mixtures in controlled settings.

As far as infrared absorption is concerned, that is not the issue (most any substance will absorb infrared light, converting that to thermal energy).

Using a cooler gas to heat a warmer surface, however, is NOT possible. You cannot heat a warmer object with a cooler one. That violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. That violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You cannot trap light or thermal energy either. That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


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 24-02-2024 12:03
24-02-2024 18:36
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:


You cannot trap light or thermal energy either. That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


"Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879..."

The Stefan Law says nothing about trapping light or energy, only the radiant power emitted from a surface.
24-02-2024 18:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


You cannot trap light or thermal energy either. That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


"Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879..."

The Stefan Law says nothing about trapping light or energy, only the radiant power emitted from a surface.

You quoted the wrong person.

You cannot trap light or thermal energy. That violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot just keep thermal energy in the Earth. It MUST radiate that energy away in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is the Church of Global Warming that ignores this.


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
29-04-2024 17:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
RenaissanceMan wrote:"Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Not quite. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that the RADIANCE is proportional to the absolute temperature to the fourth power. RADIANCE is light (electromagnetic radiation). Nothing can prevent an object from radiating per the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

RADIANCE = Power / Surface Area
29-04-2024 18:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
RenaissanceMan wrote: The subject is science, not murder trials.

The subject was "facts" and you should learn what they are.

RenaissanceMan wrote: Facts are obviously not always known.

You should definitely learn what facts are. Facts are not always forthwith agreed.

RenaissanceMan wrote: That is why scientists continue to do *research*.

Researchers do research. Hello! Scientists work with science. Research is not science.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: [Ice cores] measure a great deal.

When was the last time any ice core measured something? Stop talking smack.

RenaissanceMan wrote:
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
All substances absorb IR. All of them. Your position is that all substances are therefore gases. Don't you think that is a pretty stupid position?
No, I think yours was a pretty stupid answer. "All" is much too broad to make such a statement.

Sorry, all substances absorb IR. Which ones do you mistakenly believe do not?

RenaissanceMan wrote:"Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons."

Too funny! Instead of calling boooolsch't, you simply regurgitated it because you read it on the internet.

If you were to place a nitrogen/oxygen cloud within close proximity to the sun, would its temperature increase drastically or would its temperature fall to absolute zero? Your current position is the latter, and it's a stupid position.

RenaissanceMan wrote:
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
I'm not sure why you believe we can measure the Earth's atmospheric CO2 content, however I'm happy to open the floor to you to explain how you believe this can be accomplished today.
We have long been able to measure the composition of gas mixtures. The volume and densities of our atmosphere by altitude are well known

Incorrect. They are not well known, which is why they are not known.

You were supposed to be explaining how you would go about measuring/calculating earth's atmospheric CO2 content. Please do that.

RenaissanceMan wrote: For example methane is only 1.8 parts per million of the atmosphere

No gas is evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere. Nobody knows the atmosphere's methane content.

RenaissanceMan wrote: Moreover its IR spectrum is trivial, particularly given its trivial concentration.

Electromagnetic radiation has no "concentration."




Join the debate How to solve climate change.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
I The Savior Do Have A Perfect Strategy To Help All National Government Solve Their Financial Issue213-11-2023 15:37
The Fastest Way To Solve Climate Change Problem Is Making Plant Trees Become A Competitive Sport2229-01-2021 23:51
Want To Solve The Climate Change Problem, You Must Know What Is & Why Climate Change Occur127-09-2020 03:35
You Must Seek Solutions From Outsiders To Solve The Geopolitical Problems In Your Conflict Game127-09-2020 03:25
Technology will solve problem with carbon capture826-11-2019 20:48
▲ 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