Kent Papers: Book on Amazon ($4.95)

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Kent Papers: Book on Amazon ($4.95) > Page 2

Page 2 of 4

RE: methanogenesis is exothermic - hydrogen versus methane04-03-2023 00:33
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Im a BM wrote: This chemical reaction, CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O, certainly does occur and it is exothermic. Methanogenic bacteria have been exploiting it for at least 4000 million years.[/quote] Then Professor Parrot says: The reaction you gave is not exothermic. It is endothermic. There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon. You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry. Im a BM wrote: Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians." Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians. [quote] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Methanogenesis, during which the most ancient lines of bacteria on earth acquire energy for life, is exothermic. CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + energy Let's approach it as a falsifiable theory. There are multiple ways to apply thermodynamics to calculate how much energy is released. But the simplest approach is to view it as a transformation of fuels, both of which can release energy upon combustion: Hydrogen versus methane. Using the same oxidant (O2) for both: H2 + 1/2 O2 = H2O + 286 kJ/mol CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O + 890 kJ/mol Molecule per molecule, more energy is released from oxidation of methane than from oxidation of hydrogen. About three times as much. Methanogenesis is not molecule per molecule. 4 molecules of hydrogen are oxidized to yield one molecule of methane. (4x 286 kJ/mol) CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + 254 kJ/mol (exothermic) 4 x 286 kJ/mol (reactant fuel energy content) = 1144 kJ/mol released from hydrogen oxidation But methane isn't being oxidized and removed. Carbon dioxide is being chemically reduced to generate methane. (890 kJ/mol CONSUMED, not released.) Without invoking thermodynamics, think of a fuel processing facility that consumes four molecules of hydrogen to generate just one molecule of methane. Then do the math and see if it is a good investment. Or consider the converse. If this is NOT an exothermic reaction, someone can get a Nobel prize by discovering how methanogens survive, as it has been long believed that this is their sole source of energy. Of course, no oxygen gas is involved in methanogenesis. To get the exact number you have to apply the thermodynamics knowing the energies of all products and reactants in their "standard states". It is still exothermic, but not exactly 254 kJ/mol. It is more intuitively obvious if one thinks of the energy content of hydrogen fuel on one side of the equation and the methane fuel on the other. Methanogenic bacteria are autotrophic, meaning they take inorganic carbon and transform it to organic carbon (chemically oxidized versus chemically reduced C). Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, carbonate, and carbon monoxide. Organic carbon includes the other 100,000 compounds of carbon, in chemically reduced form, that comprise what is studied in the field of "organic" chemistry. Microbial methanogenesis is quite different than "coal gasification", which South Africa used widely after their oil imports were curtailed. "Coal gasification" uses organic carbon (coal) as the carbon source from which to generate methane. Professor Parrot asserts : "You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry." Science may not be consensus, but there are a whole lot of people who ONLY know me as a chemist. They cite my chemistry research and discoveries. But I could never fool a true scientific genius. The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that: "Alligators are amphibians." WTF???
04-03-2023 00:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Im a BM wrote: Methanogenesis, during which the most ancient lines of bacteria on earth acquire energy for life, is exothermic. CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + energy Where's the hydrogen coming from, dumbass? Im a BM wrote: ...deleted gobbledegook... "Coal gasification" uses organic carbon (coal) as the carbon source from which to generate methane. There is no such thing as 'organic carbon', dumbass. Carbon is an element. Im a BM wrote: Science may not be consensus, but there are a whole lot of people who ONLY know me as a chemist. They cite my chemistry research and discoveries. You are no chemist. You deny chemistry. Im a BM wrote: But I could never fool a true scientific genius. Science isn't a quotient. Im a BM wrote: The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that: "Alligators are amphibians." WTF??? I guess you don't know much about alligators either. They are amphibians. 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
RE: Methanogenesis and thermodynamics05-03-2023 08:33
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	1. Is this reaction exothermic or not? CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O +/- ??? kJ/mol His second rate sidekick says it is endothermic. Perhaps some knowledge of thermodynamics can be displayed to provide a number. Or at least provide a falsifiable theory that leads to the endothermic conclusion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Im a BM wrote: Im a BM wrote: This chemical reaction, CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O, certainly does occur and it is exothermic. Methanogenic bacteria have been exploiting it for at least 4000 million years. Then Professor Parrot says: The reaction you gave is not exothermic. It is endothermic. There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon. You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry. Im a BM wrote: Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians." Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Methanogenesis, during which the most ancient lines of bacteria on earth acquire energy for life, is exothermic. CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + energy Let's approach it as a falsifiable theory. There are multiple ways to apply thermodynamics to calculate how much energy is released. But the simplest approach is to view it as a transformation of fuels, both of which can release energy upon combustion: Hydrogen versus methane. Using the same oxidant (O2) for both: H2 + 1/2 O2 = H2O + 286 kJ/mol CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O + 890 kJ/mol Molecule per molecule, more energy is released from oxidation of methane than from oxidation of hydrogen. About three times as much. Methanogenesis is not molecule per molecule. 4 molecules of hydrogen are oxidized to yield one molecule of methane. (4x 286 kJ/mol) CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + 254 kJ/mol (exothermic) 4 x 286 kJ/mol (reactant fuel energy content) = 1144 kJ/mol released from hydrogen oxidation But methane isn't being oxidized and removed. Carbon dioxide is being chemically reduced to generate methane. (890 kJ/mol CONSUMED, not released.) Without invoking thermodynamics, think of a fuel processing facility that consumes four molecules of hydrogen to generate just one molecule of methane. Then do the math and see if it is a good investment. Or consider the converse. If this is NOT an exothermic reaction, someone can get a Nobel prize by discovering how methanogens survive, as it has been long believed that this is their sole source of energy. Of course, no oxygen gas is involved in methanogenesis. To get the exact number you have to apply the thermodynamics knowing the energies of all products and reactants in their "standard states". It is still exothermic, but not exactly 254 kJ/mol. It is more intuitively obvious if one thinks of the energy content of hydrogen fuel on one side of the equation and the methane fuel on the other. Methanogenic bacteria are autotrophic, meaning they take inorganic carbon and transform it to organic carbon (chemically oxidized versus chemically reduced C). Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, carbonate, and carbon monoxide. Organic carbon includes the other 100,000 compounds of carbon, in chemically reduced form, that comprise what is studied in the field of "organic" chemistry. Microbial methanogenesis is quite different than "coal gasification", which South Africa used widely after their oil imports were curtailed. "Coal gasification" uses organic carbon (coal) as the carbon source from which to generate methane. Professor Parrot asserts : "You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry." Science may not be consensus, but there are a whole lot of people who ONLY know me as a chemist. They cite my chemistry research and discoveries. But I could never fool a true scientific genius. The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that: "Alligators are amphibians." WTF???
05-03-2023 10:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Im a BM wrote: 1. Is this reaction exothermic or not? 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
RE: Methanogenesis and Climate Change05-03-2023 13:03
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Methanogenesis is a biochemical process during which bacteria combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to produce methane. It goes back at least 4000 million years to a time when the earth's crust was constantly emitting hydrogen. Methanogenesis made a major contribution to climate change, facilitating beneficial global warming during the first 1000 million years or so of evolution. 4000 million years ago, the earth's crust frequently spewed out hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The two reactants were widely available. If oxygen had been around, the most ancient line of bacteria would probably have been hydrogen oxidizers using oxygen as oxidant. But there was no oxygen. Very few chemical oxidants of any kind, in fact. But carbon dioxide can act as a very weak oxidant for a strong enough reductant, such as hydrogen. CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + biochemical energy. Methanogens transformed carbon dioxide, a relatively weak greenhouse gas, into methane, which has 20-30 times more global warming potential. 4000 million years ago, the sun was much less luminous than it is today. It wasn't bright enough to heat a planet much further from the sun than venus. Nearly all the liquid water at the surface was frozen. But through the action of methanogenic bacteria, atmospheric concentrations of methane increased and increased, facilitating enough warming to melt some seas along the equator. This enabled life to thrive. The sun is much more luminous today. We want to minimize methane emissions now. His second rate sidekick says it is endothermic. Perhaps some knowledge of thermodynamics can be displayed to provide a number. Or at least provide a falsifiable theory that leads to the endothermic conclusion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Im a BM wrote: Im a BM wrote: This chemical reaction, CO2 + 4H2 = CH4 + 2H2O, certainly does occur and it is exothermic. Methanogenic bacteria have been exploiting it for at least 4000 million years. Then Professor Parrot says: The reaction you gave is not exothermic. It is endothermic. There is no such thing as 'organic' or 'inorganic' carbon. You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry. Im a BM wrote: Or if you want to indulge me, as a thought leader in evolutionary biology, I am dying to know more about the falsifiable theory that leads you to the conclusion that "Alligators are amphibians." Not a theory. Alligators are amphibians. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Methanogenesis, during which the most ancient lines of bacteria on earth acquire energy for life, is exothermic. CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + energy Let's approach it as a falsifiable theory. There are multiple ways to apply thermodynamics to calculate how much energy is released. But the simplest approach is to view it as a transformation of fuels, both of which can release energy upon combustion: Hydrogen versus methane. Using the same oxidant (O2) for both: H2 + 1/2 O2 = H2O + 286 kJ/mol CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O + 890 kJ/mol Molecule per molecule, more energy is released from oxidation of methane than from oxidation of hydrogen. About three times as much. Methanogenesis is not molecule per molecule. 4 molecules of hydrogen are oxidized to yield one molecule of methane. (4x 286 kJ/mol) CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + 254 kJ/mol (exothermic) 4 x 286 kJ/mol (reactant fuel energy content) = 1144 kJ/mol released from hydrogen oxidation But methane isn't being oxidized and removed. Carbon dioxide is being chemically reduced to generate methane. (890 kJ/mol CONSUMED, not released.) Without invoking thermodynamics, think of a fuel processing facility that consumes four molecules of hydrogen to generate just one molecule of methane. Then do the math and see if it is a good investment. Or consider the converse. If this is NOT an exothermic reaction, someone can get a Nobel prize by discovering how methanogens survive, as it has been long believed that this is their sole source of energy. Of course, no oxygen gas is involved in methanogenesis. To get the exact number you have to apply the thermodynamics knowing the energies of all products and reactants in their "standard states". It is still exothermic, but not exactly 254 kJ/mol. It is more intuitively obvious if one thinks of the energy content of hydrogen fuel on one side of the equation and the methane fuel on the other. Methanogenic bacteria are autotrophic, meaning they take inorganic carbon and transform it to organic carbon (chemically oxidized versus chemically reduced C). Inorganic carbon includes carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, carbonate, and carbon monoxide. Organic carbon includes the other 100,000 compounds of carbon, in chemically reduced form, that comprise what is studied in the field of "organic" chemistry. Microbial methanogenesis is quite different than "coal gasification", which South Africa used widely after their oil imports were curtailed. "Coal gasification" uses organic carbon (coal) as the carbon source from which to generate methane. Professor Parrot asserts : "You are not a chemist. You deny chemistry." Science may not be consensus, but there are a whole lot of people who ONLY know me as a chemist. They cite my chemistry research and discoveries. But I could never fool a true scientific genius. The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that: "Alligators are amphibians." WTF??? [/quote]

05-03-2023 22:30
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	Im a BM wrote:The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that: "Alligators are amphibians." I notice that you refuse to publicly declare that alligators are NOT amphibious. Why is that? I urge you to go on record as stating "Alligators are not amphibious." ... then do the same thing with otters, and then ducks and geese. ... and polar bears, and penguins. ... oh, and water moccasins ... and hippopotami. Put your foot down, draw the line in the sand and throw the gauntlet in my face.
RE: definition of amphibian05-03-2023 22:35
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	As most 7th grade students know, alligators are NOT amphibians. Amphibians are a class of animals within the vertebrate sub phylum. The defining feature of this class is the amphi bio (two lives) two-stage life cycle. The juvenile stage acquires oxygen from water through gills. The adult stage acquires oxygen from air through lungs. Alligators are NOT amphibians. Like most 7th graders know. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that: "Alligators are amphibians." I notice that you refuse to publicly declare that alligators are NOT amphibious. Why is that? I urge you to go on record as stating "Alligators are not amphibious." ... then do the same thing with otters, and then ducks and geese. ... and polar bears, and penguins. ... oh, and water moccasins ... and hippopotami. Put your foot down, draw the line in the sand and throw the gauntlet in my face.
05-03-2023 23:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that: "Alligators are amphibians." I notice that you refuse to publicly declare that alligators are NOT amphibious. Why is that? I urge you to go on record as stating "Alligators are not amphibious." ... then do the same thing with otters, and then ducks and geese. ... and polar bears, and penguins. ... oh, and water moccasins ... and hippopotami. Put your foot down, draw the line in the sand and throw the gauntlet in my face. As most 7th grade students know, alligators are NOT amphibians. Amphibians are a class of animals within the vertebrate sub phylum. The defining feature of this class is the amphi bio (two lives) two-stage life cycle. The juvenile stage acquires oxygen from water through gills. The adult stage acquires oxygen from air through lungs. Alligators are NOT amphibians. Like most 7th graders know. ... and you continue your refusal to declare that alligators are not amphibious. One has to assume that you know, just as all 7th graders know, that alligators are amphibious, but that you can't publicly admit to something so basic because then your pure dishonesty will be clearly revealed. Did you think that you were somehow not being watched to see if you will continue to refuse to state the obvious? Too funny.
05-03-2023 23:08
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that: "Alligators are amphibians." I notice that you refuse to publicly declare that alligators are NOT amphibious. Why is that? I urge you to go on record as stating "Alligators are not amphibious." ... then do the same thing with otters, and then ducks and geese. ... and polar bears, and penguins. ... oh, and water moccasins ... and hippopotami. Put your foot down, draw the line in the sand and throw the gauntlet in my face. As most 7th grade students know, alligators are NOT amphibians. Amphibians are a class of animals within the vertebrate sub phylum. The defining feature of this class is the amphi bio (two lives) two-stage life cycle. The juvenile stage acquires oxygen from water through gills. The adult stage acquires oxygen from air through lungs. Alligators are NOT amphibians. Like most 7th graders know. ... and you continue your refusal to declare that alligators are not amphibious. One has to assume that you know, just as all 7th graders know, that alligators are amphibious, but that you can't publicly admit to something so basic because then your pure dishonesty will be clearly revealed. Did you think that you were somehow not being watched to see if you will continue to refuse to state the obvious? Too funny. Just for the record, I was watching. I do have to ask you IBdaMann. Do you think this is pure dishonesty and evasion, or is this possibly a severe reading comprehension problem? I really don't know. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 05-03-2023 23:08
05-03-2023 23:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that: "Alligators are amphibians." I notice that you refuse to publicly declare that alligators are NOT amphibious. Why is that? I urge you to go on record as stating "Alligators are not amphibious." ... then do the same thing with otters, and then ducks and geese. ... and polar bears, and penguins. ... oh, and water moccasins ... and hippopotami. Put your foot down, draw the line in the sand and throw the gauntlet in my face. As most 7th grade students know, alligators are NOT amphibians. Amphibians are a class of animals within the vertebrate sub phylum. The defining feature of this class is the amphi bio (two lives) two-stage life cycle. The juvenile stage acquires oxygen from water through gills. The adult stage acquires oxygen from air through lungs. Alligators are NOT amphibians. Like most 7th graders know. ... and you continue your refusal to declare that alligators are not amphibious. One has to assume that you know, just as all 7th graders know, that alligators are amphibious, but that you can't publicly admit to something so basic because then your pure dishonesty will be clearly revealed. Did you think that you were somehow not being watched to see if you will continue to refuse to state the obvious? Too funny. Just for the record, I was watching. I do have to ask you IBdaMann. Do you think this is pure dishonesty and evasion, or is this possibly a severe reading comprehension problem? I really don't know. GasGuzzler, I believe this is a question of pure dishonesty and evasion. Squeal Over Furniture obviously read my post and decided to respond to the content. Despite my specific wording, he reverted back to "amphibian" so as to EVADE the inescapable logic that all amphibious creatures are amphibian, and that all amphibian creatures are obviously amphibians. His dishonesty won't allow him to let that happen ... except that it just did ... so technically he is now free to be honest without any further loss. If it had been a question of reading comprehension, he would have been mocking me for claiming that those specific animals are [insert misread adjective here]. .
06-03-2023 01:33
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that: "Alligators are amphibians." I notice that you refuse to publicly declare that alligators are NOT amphibious. Why is that? I urge you to go on record as stating "Alligators are not amphibious." ... then do the same thing with otters, and then ducks and geese. ... and polar bears, and penguins. ... oh, and water moccasins ... and hippopotami. Put your foot down, draw the line in the sand and throw the gauntlet in my face. As most 7th grade students know, alligators are NOT amphibians. Amphibians are a class of animals within the vertebrate sub phylum. The defining feature of this class is the amphi bio (two lives) two-stage life cycle. The juvenile stage acquires oxygen from water through gills. The adult stage acquires oxygen from air through lungs. Alligators are NOT amphibians. Like most 7th graders know. ... and you continue your refusal to declare that alligators are not amphibious. One has to assume that you know, just as all 7th graders know, that alligators are amphibious, but that you can't publicly admit to something so basic because then your pure dishonesty will be clearly revealed. Did you think that you were somehow not being watched to see if you will continue to refuse to state the obvious? Too funny. Can believe people are still playing this silly-semantics game... Amphibian and amphibious, are two separate words. Not interchangeable, unless playing a silly game. The context in which amphibian is used, as a classification for alligators, obviously wrong. There are snakes and lizards that spend a lot of time in the water... They are all still reptiles. Some human spend a lot of time in the water as well, they are still mammals...
RE: "You ignore thermodynamics." "You deny thermodynamics."06-03-2023 07:29
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	"You ignore thermodynamics." "You deny thermodynamics." - Parrot Boy Trolls on this website often invoke "thermodynamics" as the sacrosanct authority for their refusal to acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change. People who actually study thermodynamics, even at an introductory college chemistry course level, know how to apply thermodynamics. For example, the reaction for methanogenesis: CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O An exam question might ask them to calculate exactly how much energy is released by this exothermic reaction. They should know how to do it and get the correct answer if they hope to pass the class. Parrot Boy says that this is an endothermic reaction. An unsupported contrarian assertion. An unsupportable contrarian assertion. To anyone who concludes that this is NOT an exothermic reaction: You ignore thermodynamics. To anyone who stubbornly insists that this reaction is endothermic. You deny thermodynamics. It appears that you don't even know what thermodynamics is.
06-03-2023 07:44
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Im a BM wrote: "You ignore thermodynamics." "You deny thermodynamics." - Parrot Boy Trolls on this website often invoke "thermodynamics" as the sacrosanct authority for their refusal to acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change. People who actually study thermodynamics, even at an introductory college chemistry course level, know how to apply thermodynamics. For example, the reaction for methanogenesis: CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O An exam question might ask them to calculate exactly how much energy is released by this exothermic reaction. They should know how to do it and get the correct answer if they hope to pass the class. Parrot Boy says that this is an endothermic reaction. An unsupported contrarian assertion. An unsupportable contrarian assertion. To anyone who concludes that this is NOT an exothermic reaction: You ignore thermodynamics. To anyone who stubbornly insists that this reaction is endothermic. You deny thermodynamics. It appears that you don't even know what thermodynamics is. But, what do you base anthropogenic climate change on? How do you establish a base line, for what the global temperature is suppose to be? How do you differentiate natural, and mankind? Ice core samples, tree growth rings? The planet has never stopped changing, there was never a 'normal', a baseline to compare modern day with. It was a different world in the past, one we could never return to. Life on earth, has always just been along for the ride, adapting to the ever changing world. Those that refuse to adapt, tend to go extinct...
RE: How bacteria changed the climate06-03-2023 07:56
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	When life on earth began, more than 4000 million years ago, most of the surface was inhospitable for life. Too cold for liquid water. But there were warm spots where geothermal water came up to the surface. With high concentrations of hydrogen and carbon dioxide, these were the ideal habitat for methanogens. After methanogens generated enough methane to warm the atmosphere a bit, surface water began to melt along the equator. With open water at the surface, photosynthesis became possible. The first photosynthetic bacteria most likely exploited hydrogen as reductant. They could get very high yield from photosynthesis. No energy was wasted to split water in order to generate hydrogen, and by product oxygen. Instead, anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen produces water as by product. The next to come along used hydrogen sulfide as reductant for photosynthesis. They produced sulfate as by product. This did not produce nearly as high a yield as acquired by photosynthetic bacteria using hydrogen as reductant, given the same amount of sunlight. When both hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide were present, the hydrogen oxidizers out competed the sulfur oxidizers. The consumption of hydrogen sulfide by photosynthetic bacteria had two important consequences. It removed hydrogen sulfide from the atmosphere. And it generated sulfate which could be used as chemical oxidant. As far as changing the climate goes, it was the removal of hydrogen sulfide that mattered most. Hydrogen sulfide contributes to "global dimming". It blocks incoming sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface to produce heat. By removing hydrogen sulfide through anoxygenic photosynthesis, bacteria reduced the global dimming effect. More sunlight could reach the ground to warm the surface. Methanogenic bacteria enhanced global warming by adding methane to the atmosphere to act as a greenhouse gas. Photosynthetic bacteria enhanced global warming by removing hydrogen sulfide from the atmosphere, reducing its contribution to global dimming. In the period between 4000 and about 3000 million years ago, this caused major climate change that enhanced the capacity of the earth to support life. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quote]Im a BM wrote: Methanogenesis is a biochemical process during which bacteria combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to produce methane. It goes back at least 4000 million years to a time when the earth's crust was constantly emitting hydrogen. Methanogenesis made a major contribution to climate change, facilitating beneficial global warming during the first 1000 million years or so of evolution. 4000 million years ago, the earth's crust frequently spewed out hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The two reactants were widely available. If oxygen had been around, the most ancient line of bacteria would probably have been hydrogen oxidizers using oxygen as oxidant. But there was no oxygen. Very few chemical oxidants of any kind, in fact. But carbon dioxide can act as a very weak oxidant for a strong enough reductant, such as hydrogen. CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + biochemical energy. Methanogens transformed carbon dioxide, a relatively weak greenhouse gas, into methane, which has 20-30 times more global warming potential. 4000 million years ago, the sun was much less luminous than it is today. It wasn't bright enough to heat a planet much further from the sun than venus. Nearly all the liquid water at the surface was frozen. But through the action of methanogenic bacteria, atmospheric concentrations of methane increased and increased, facilitating enough warming to melt some seas along the equator. This enabled life to thrive. The sun is much more luminous today. We want to minimize methane emissions now.
06-03-2023 15:50
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	HarveyH55 wrote:Can believe people are still playing this silly-semantics game... There's much more to it than just a "semantics game" and I submit that you are on the wrong side of the issue. The idea here is the hijacking of words, and the use of said hijacked words to control what others are allowed to say in discussions. HarveyH55 wrote:Amphibian and amphibious, are two separate words. Harvey, you are mistaken, objectively. "amphibious" (adjective) and "amphibian" (adjective) are synonyms. "amphibian" (noun) is the noun for those animals that are "amphibious" (adjective). That's English and it has been that way for far longer than you have been alive. So Harvey, I respect you and I always appreciate your posts, but you have officially joined the ranks of those who play stupid, childish word games just to pretend that you get to control what others say ... and you're making shit up because, no, as far as those words go, you are objectively mistaken. Those words mean what I wrote and not what you are pretending they mean. So if you are going to insult me for wishing to speak proper English, then get ready for a whole lot of return fire. Once again, the problem is on your end. You are being dishonest. The other issue, and I wish you would actually read the posts on which you are commenting, is specifically the REFUSAL TO ADMIT that polar bears, penguins, otters, ducks, geese, alligators and all sorts of other animals are amphibious. Did you catch that Harvey, the REFUSAL TO ADMIT that they are amphibious, and now that includes you. People, such as yourself, who are being dishonest on this issue ... on this one, little, petty issue, lash out with insults rather than simply admit that those animals are amphibious. You bitch and whine and complain and gripe that they're different words and that these are silly "semantics games" and everything under the sun just to avoid your dishonest REFUSAL TO ADMIT that they are amphibious ... because you realize that it would be an admission that you have been bullshitting this whole time. HarveyH55 wrote: The context in which amphibian is used, as a classification for alligators, obviously wrong. The language used in this discussion is English and the context I use is determined by me. The moment I made it clear that I was talking about amphibious animals, you should have immediately agreed that it was totally obvious, not turn into a dishonest shit who needs to insult others. So Harvey, I'll say it. You are objectively mistaken. Take the opportunity to admit that you understand that amphibious animals are amphibians and stop demeaning others who are being honest and who are simply making a point. HarveyH55 wrote: There are snakes and lizards that spend a lot of time in the water... Immaterial. Do you speak English? Do you know what "amphibious" means or do you not? Can you identify amphibious animals? I can. HarveyH55 wrote: They are all still reptiles. Polar bears and penguins are not reptiles, nor are ducks, geese, otters and hippopotami. They are, however, amphibious. Please tell me you realize this. Do you realize that an amphibious assault vehicle is an amphibian among vehicles? At issue here is the English language.

06-03-2023 16:21
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	Im a BM wrote:When life on earth began, more than 4000 million years ago, As I have said before, you and I share this speculation, but could you summarize for the board why a rational adult should believe this, as opposed to life having began, say, just under 2000 million years ago vs just under 800 million years ago vs 8 million years ago vs 975,000 years ago vs 65,000 years ago? Im a BM wrote:most of the surface was inhospitable for life. Too cold for liquid water. I do not share this speculation. Frankly, I can't see any reason a rational adult should believe this. Perhaps you aren't a rational adult. Im a BM wrote:But there were warm spots where geothermal water came up to the surface. This is a rather stupid speculation. Don't you mean that ocean water was heated by geothermal vents? Oh wait, you don't believe there were liquid oceans, i.e. that the planet was one big ice ball that was colder than the earth otherwise should be without Global Warming, right? My personal speculation is that there were liquid oceans as we have today, and that life was generated in those ocean depths by the high heat and pressure of geothermal vents, just as diamonds and hydrocarbons are formed in high temperature and pressure environments that produce energy concentrations. Im a BM wrote:They could get very high yield from photosynthesis. No energy was wasted to split water in order to generate hydrogen, and by product oxygen. Instead, anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen produces water as by product. The next to come along used hydrogen sulfide as reductant for photosynthesis. They produced sulfate as by product. This did not produce nearly as high a yield as acquired by photosynthetic bacteria using hydrogen as reductant, given the same amount of sunlight. When both hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide were present, the hydrogen oxidizers out competed the sulfur oxidizers. You still haven't explained why any rational adult should believe your seemingly omniscient play-by-play. Im a BM wrote:As far as changing the climate goes, it was the removal of hydrogen sulfide that mattered most. So you are saying that, at one point, there was a thing called a global climate? What happened to it? Why don't we have one today? You say that it "changed" at some point. Did that cause it to leave? I have been telling Swan that I think the global climate was stolen (I was simply taking him on his word that there was one in the first place) but you say it simply left? Where did it go? Im a BM wrote:Hydrogen sulfide contributes to "global dimming". It blocks incoming sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface to produce heat. Is heat "produced" in that way? Are you erroneously conflating "heat" with " thermal energy"? Im a BM wrote:By removing hydrogen sulfide through anoxygenic photosynthesis, bacteria reduced the global dimming effect. Bacteria Man has arrived to save the day! Are you saying that earth would be dim without bacteria to undim it? Im a BM wrote:In the period between 4000 and about 3000 million years ago, this caused major climate change that enhanced the capacity of the earth to support life. Did all that change when the global climate departed?
RE: definition word games to prevent any discussion06-03-2023 20:59
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	"Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." - Dominant Troll IBdaMann wrote: [quote][b] The idea here is the hijacking of words, and the use of said hijacked words to control what others are allowed to say in discussions. you have officially joined the ranks of those who play stupid, childish word games just to pretend that you get to control what others say You are being dishonest. these are silly "semantics games" a dishonest shit who needs to insult others. stop demeaning others who are being honest and who are simply making a point. At issue here is the English language. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Every new member who attempts to participate in discussion of climate change on this website is immediately subjected to hostile cross examination. "Give me an unambiguous definition for 'climate change' that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics." "Define your fuggin' terms, you lying schitt." - Dominant Troll And the term that must be defined first, before any discussion at all may be allowed, is "climate change". Don't you dare say "fossil fuel", either. The whole point is "to control what others are allowed to say in discussions." This is one reason that... Let's see. 65 new members joined this website after I did, almost a year ago. Unless the Bohdi guy is still here, I'm the only one who wasn't too disgusted to just get the f out of this place where ugly trolls get off on personal insults. 65 new members joined after I did. I count fewer than six members, who have all been here for years, posting anything this week. Except for the Bohdi guy. OF COURSE ALLIGATORS ARE AMPHIBIOUS! So am I. So is driftwood. So what?
06-03-2023 21:55
Swan★★★★★ (5719)	Im a BM wrote: "Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." - Dominant Troll IBdaMann wrote: [quote][b] The idea here is the hijacking of words, and the use of said hijacked words to control what others are allowed to say in discussions. you have officially joined the ranks of those who play stupid, childish word games just to pretend that you get to control what others say You are being dishonest. these are silly "semantics games" a dishonest shit who needs to insult others. stop demeaning others who are being honest and who are simply making a point. At issue here is the English language. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Every new member who attempts to participate in discussion of climate change on this website is immediately subjected to hostile cross examination. "Give me an unambiguous definition for 'climate change' that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics." "Define your fuggin' terms, you lying schitt." - Dominant Troll And the term that must be defined first, before any discussion at all may be allowed, is "climate change". Don't you dare say "fossil fuel", either. The whole point is "to control what others are allowed to say in discussions." This is one reason that... Let's see. 65 new members joined this website after I did, almost a year ago. Unless the Bohdi guy is still here, I'm the only one who wasn't too disgusted to just get the f out of this place where ugly trolls get off on personal insults. 65 new members joined after I did. I count fewer than six members, who have all been here for years, posting anything this week. Except for the Bohdi guy. OF COURSE ALLIGATORS ARE AMPHIBIOUS! So am I. So is driftwood. So what? You're counting while perhaps accurate is misleading as at least one member has as many names as his or her schizoid mind can conceive, and you cannot beat this fool because once you do they become the next fool in line IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
06-03-2023 21:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	Im a BM wrote:Every new member who attempts to participate in discussion of climate change on this website is immediately subjected to hostile cross examination. This is an interesting characterization of a Climate discussion. If there were no cross-examination, would there really be a discussion? Im a BM wrote:"Give me an unambiguous definition for 'climate change' that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics." Can we just agree that your understanding of "having a discussion" means that you preach while others simply believe everything you write/say without asking any questions or asking for any clarification? You could have saved a lot of people from a great deal of frustration if you had announced this upon your arrival. Im a BM wrote:The whole point is "to control what others are allowed to say in discussions." Correct. In your case, your point is to suppress questions that reveal your scientific illiteracy. Your only intention is to preach your WACKY religion, and to that end you need for your intended audience to believe that you are a science guru. Unfortunately, those who realize that you are bluffing your way through your one-way sermons threaten to blow the cover off your sham with their questions and requests for clarification. Im a BM wrote:Unless the Bohdi guy is still here, I'm the only one who wasn't too disgusted to just get the f out of this place where ugly trolls get off on personal insults. ... except that you whined and moaned like a child that you were leaving. I predicted that you could never leave, and guess what, you never can. Im a BM wrote:OF COURSE ALLIGATORS ARE AMPHIBIOUS! ... which means alligators are amphibian (adjective) ... ... which means alligators are amphibians (noun). It's how English works. Deny it. Go on record. Get with Harvey. I'm sure he can explain the proper "semantics" so you can deny whatever you need to deny.
06-03-2023 22:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Im a BM wrote: As most 7th grade students know, You don't get to speak for anyone else but you. Im a BM wrote: alligators are NOT amphibians. Alligators are amphibians. Im a BM wrote: Amphibians are a class of animals within the vertebrate sub phylum. The defining feature of this class is the amphi bio (two lives) two-stage life cycle. The juvenile stage acquires oxygen from water through gills. The adult stage acquires oxygen from air through lungs. Redefinition fallacy. The word 'amphibian' first appeared in the English lexicon around 1630 and comes from Greek. 'amphis', meaning double (or doubtful), and 'bian', meaning life. An amphibian is a creature that lives a double life (both land and water). Alligators live on both land and in water. Alligators are amphibians. Im a BM wrote: Alligators are NOT amphibians. They most certainly are. While living mostly in water, they can easily wander across land to find a mate, for example. During mating season, alligators get into everywhere. After mating, the females will kick the male out. No wonder they're grouchy during mating season. Im a BM wrote: Like most 7th graders know. You don't get to speak for 7th graders. You only get to speak for you. 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
06-03-2023 23:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	HarveyH55 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:The dominant troll and his second rate sidekick CONTINUE to assert that: "Alligators are amphibians." I notice that you refuse to publicly declare that alligators are NOT amphibious. Why is that? I urge you to go on record as stating "Alligators are not amphibious." ... then do the same thing with otters, and then ducks and geese. ... and polar bears, and penguins. ... oh, and water moccasins ... and hippopotami. Put your foot down, draw the line in the sand and throw the gauntlet in my face. As most 7th grade students know, alligators are NOT amphibians. Amphibians are a class of animals within the vertebrate sub phylum. The defining feature of this class is the amphi bio (two lives) two-stage life cycle. The juvenile stage acquires oxygen from water through gills. The adult stage acquires oxygen from air through lungs. Alligators are NOT amphibians. Like most 7th graders know. ... and you continue your refusal to declare that alligators are not amphibious. One has to assume that you know, just as all 7th graders know, that alligators are amphibious, but that you can't publicly admit to something so basic because then your pure dishonesty will be clearly revealed. Did you think that you were somehow not being watched to see if you will continue to refuse to state the obvious? Too funny. Can believe people are still playing this silly-semantics game... Amphibian and amphibious, are two separate words. Not interchangeable, unless playing a silly game. The context in which amphibian is used, as a classification for alligators, obviously wrong. There are snakes and lizards that spend a lot of time in the water... They are all still reptiles. Some human spend a lot of time in the water as well, they are still mammals... Redefinition fallacy. Amphibians are any creature that lives in both water and on land. Snakes and lizards do not spend a lot of time in the water, and they do not live in it (except sea snakes, which cannot move on land). Newts and salamanders do live on both land and in water, and they are a type of lizard. They are also amphibians. Amphibious is just describing what an amphibian does. This is not word games. This IS the meaning of 'amphibian'. The word first appeared in the 1630's and comes from Greek. 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
06-03-2023 23:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Im a BM wrote: "You ignore thermodynamics." "You deny thermodynamics." - Parrot Boy You do ignore thermodynamics. Im a BM wrote: Trolls on this website often invoke "thermodynamics" as the sacrosanct authority for their refusal to acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Buzzword fallacies. You obviously don't know what a 'troll' is either. You haven't yet defined 'climate change' either. Posting random meaningless words is nonsense. Im a BM wrote: People who actually study thermodynamics, even at an introductory college chemistry course level, know how to apply thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is not a college course or chemistry. Im a BM wrote: For example, the reaction for methanogenesis: CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O Buzzword fallacy. Chanting this is meaningless. Im a BM wrote: You deny thermodynamics. It appears that you don't even know what thermodynamics is. You are describing yourself again. 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
06-03-2023 23:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Im a BM wrote: When life on earth began, more than 4000 million years ago, most of the surface was inhospitable for life. Too cold for liquid water. How do you know? Were you there? Im a BM wrote: But there were warm spots where geothermal water came up to the surface. How do you know? Were you there? Im a BM wrote: With high concentrations of hydrogen and carbon dioxide, these were the ideal habitat for methanogens. What high concentrations of hydrogen and carbon dioxide?? Im a BM wrote: After methanogens generated enough methane to warm the atmosphere a bit, surface water began to melt along the equator. With open water at the surface, photosynthesis became possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Im a BM wrote: The first photosynthetic bacteria most likely exploited hydrogen as reductant. Hydrogen isn't a reductant. Im a BM wrote: They could get very high yield from photosynthesis. What photosynthesis?? Im a BM wrote: No energy was wasted to split water in order to generate hydrogen, So...no free hydrogen. Im a BM wrote: and by product oxygen. Free oxygen naturally exists. Im a BM wrote: Instead, anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen produces water as by product. Photosynthesis REQUIRES water, it doesn't produce it! Im a BM wrote: The next to come along used hydrogen sulfide as reductant for photosynthesis. Hydrogen sulfide isn't a reductant nor is photosynthesis. Im a BM wrote: They produced sulfate as by product. Sulfate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: This did not produce nearly as high a yield as acquired by photosynthetic bacteria using hydrogen as reductant, given the same amount of sunlight. When both hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide were present, the hydrogen oxidizers out competed the sulfur oxidizers. Sulfur is not an oxidizer. Hydrogen is not an oxidizer. Im a BM wrote: The consumption of hydrogen sulfide by photosynthetic bacteria had two important consequences. It removed hydrogen sulfide from the atmosphere. And it generated sulfate which could be used as chemical oxidant. Sulfate is not a chemical. Not an oxidizer. Im a BM wrote: As far as changing the climate goes, it was the removal of hydrogen sulfide that mattered most. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Im a BM wrote: Hydrogen sulfide contributes to "global dimming". It blocks incoming sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface to produce heat. Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless gas, moron. Im a BM wrote: By removing hydrogen sulfide through anoxygenic photosynthesis, bacteria reduced the global dimming effect. More sunlight could reach the ground to warm the surface. Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless gas, moron. Im a BM wrote: Methanogenic bacteria enhanced global warming by adding methane to the atmosphere to act as a greenhouse gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Im a BM wrote: Photosynthetic bacteria enhanced global warming by removing hydrogen sulfide from the atmosphere, reducing its contribution to global dimming. Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless gas, moron. Im a BM wrote: In the period between 4000 and about 3000 million years ago, this caused major climate change that enhanced the capacity of the earth to support life. Define 'climate change'. Im a BM wrote: Methanogenesis is a biochemical process during which bacteria combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to produce methane. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: It goes back at least 4000 million years to a time when the earth's crust was constantly emitting hydrogen. The Earth's crust doesn't emit hydrogen. You don't know what happened 4000 million years ago. Im a BM wrote: Methanogenesis made a major contribution to climate change, facilitating beneficial global warming during the first 1000 million years or so of evolution. Buzzword fallacies. Define your terms. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Im a BM wrote: 4000 million years ago, the earth's crust frequently spewed out hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The two reactants were widely available. Hydrogen does not react with carbon dioxide. Im a BM wrote: If oxygen had been around, the most ancient line of bacteria would probably have been hydrogen oxidizers using oxygen as oxidant. Hydrogen is not an oxidizer. Im a BM wrote: But there was no oxygen. There was. It is found in water, in ice, in sulfates, and as a free gas. It didn't just magickally appear out of nowhere. Im a BM wrote: Very few chemical oxidants of any kind, in fact. There is only one oxidant. That is oxygen. Im a BM wrote: But carbon dioxide can act as a very weak oxidant for a strong enough reductant, such as hydrogen. Hydrogen does not react with carbon dioxide. Im a BM wrote: CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + biochemical energy. Chanting this made up equation gains you nothing. Im a BM wrote: Methanogens transformed carbon dioxide, a relatively weak greenhouse gas, into methane, which has 20-30 times more global warming potential. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Im a BM wrote: 4000 million years ago, the sun was much less luminous than it is today. How do you know? Were you there? Im a BM wrote: It wasn't bright enough to heat a planet much further from the sun than venus. Illiteracy: proper names are capitalized. All the planets are heated by the Sun. Im a BM wrote: Nearly all the liquid water at the surface was frozen. How do you know? Were you there? Im a BM wrote: But through the action of methanogenic bacteria, atmospheric concentrations of methane increased and increased, facilitating enough warming to melt some seas along the equator. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Im a BM wrote: This enabled life to thrive. The sun is much more luminous today. We want to minimize methane emissions now. ....and back to the usual scripture from the Church of Global Warming. You want to minimize methane emissions? Don't eat beans. 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
07-03-2023 00:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Im a BM wrote: "Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." - Dominant Troll Buzzword fallacy. Learn what 'troll' means. Im a BM wrote: Every new member who attempts to participate in discussion of climate change on this website is immediately subjected to hostile cross examination. Did you know this site is called 'climate-debate' for a reason? Define 'climate change'. Im a BM wrote: And the term that must be defined first, before any discussion at all may be allowed, is "climate change". That right. You cannot have a discussion about a meaningless phrase. Im a BM wrote: Don't you dare say "fossil fuel", either. There are no fossil fuels. Fossils don't burn. Im a BM wrote: The whole point is "to control what others are allowed to say in discussions." You are not having a discussion. You are ranting. You have to define your words and phrases to have a discussion. Im a BM wrote: This is one reason that... Let's see. 65 new members joined this website after I did, almost a year ago. Unless the Bohdi guy is still here, I'm the only one who wasn't too disgusted to just get the f out of this place where ugly trolls get off on personal insults. No, you cannot blame your inability to define 'climate change' on the number of people that joined. Im a BM wrote: 65 new members joined after I did. I count fewer than six members, who have all been here for years, posting anything this week. Except for the Bohdi guy. And not one of them ever define 'climate change'. Define 'climate change'. Im a BM wrote: OF COURSE ALLIGATORS ARE AMPHIBIOUS! So am I. So is driftwood. Nope. You don't live in water and on land. You just swim (if you can). Driftwood is not alive. 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
07-03-2023 02:10
James_ ★★★★★ (2235)	[quote]Into the Night wrote: Did you know this site is called 'climate-debate' for a reason? Define 'climate change'. [quote/] This song is for you because 1 toke changes the "climate". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNKL9onYB_8
07-03-2023 02:28
Swan★★★★★ (5719)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: When life on earth began, more than 4000 million years ago, most of the surface was inhospitable for life. Too cold for liquid water. How do you know? Were you there? Im a BM wrote: But there were warm spots where geothermal water came up to the surface. How do you know? Were you there? Im a BM wrote: With high concentrations of hydrogen and carbon dioxide, these were the ideal habitat for methanogens. What high concentrations of hydrogen and carbon dioxide?? Im a BM wrote: After methanogens generated enough methane to warm the atmosphere a bit, surface water began to melt along the equator. With open water at the surface, photosynthesis became possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Im a BM wrote: The first photosynthetic bacteria most likely exploited hydrogen as reductant. Hydrogen isn't a reductant. Im a BM wrote: They could get very high yield from photosynthesis. What photosynthesis?? Im a BM wrote: No energy was wasted to split water in order to generate hydrogen, So...no free hydrogen. Im a BM wrote: and by product oxygen. Free oxygen naturally exists. Im a BM wrote: Instead, anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen produces water as by product. Photosynthesis REQUIRES water, it doesn't produce it! Im a BM wrote: The next to come along used hydrogen sulfide as reductant for photosynthesis. Hydrogen sulfide isn't a reductant nor is photosynthesis. Im a BM wrote: They produced sulfate as by product. Sulfate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: This did not produce nearly as high a yield as acquired by photosynthetic bacteria using hydrogen as reductant, given the same amount of sunlight. When both hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide were present, the hydrogen oxidizers out competed the sulfur oxidizers. Sulfur is not an oxidizer. Hydrogen is not an oxidizer. Im a BM wrote: The consumption of hydrogen sulfide by photosynthetic bacteria had two important consequences. It removed hydrogen sulfide from the atmosphere. And it generated sulfate which could be used as chemical oxidant. Sulfate is not a chemical. Not an oxidizer. Im a BM wrote: As far as changing the climate goes, it was the removal of hydrogen sulfide that mattered most. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Im a BM wrote: Hydrogen sulfide contributes to "global dimming". It blocks incoming sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface to produce heat. Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless gas, moron. Im a BM wrote: By removing hydrogen sulfide through anoxygenic photosynthesis, bacteria reduced the global dimming effect. More sunlight could reach the ground to warm the surface. Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless gas, moron. Im a BM wrote: Methanogenic bacteria enhanced global warming by adding methane to the atmosphere to act as a greenhouse gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Im a BM wrote: Photosynthetic bacteria enhanced global warming by removing hydrogen sulfide from the atmosphere, reducing its contribution to global dimming. Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless gas, moron. Im a BM wrote: In the period between 4000 and about 3000 million years ago, this caused major climate change that enhanced the capacity of the earth to support life. Define 'climate change'. Im a BM wrote: Methanogenesis is a biochemical process during which bacteria combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to produce methane. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: It goes back at least 4000 million years to a time when the earth's crust was constantly emitting hydrogen. The Earth's crust doesn't emit hydrogen. You don't know what happened 4000 million years ago. Im a BM wrote: Methanogenesis made a major contribution to climate change, facilitating beneficial global warming during the first 1000 million years or so of evolution. Buzzword fallacies. Define your terms. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Im a BM wrote: 4000 million years ago, the earth's crust frequently spewed out hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The two reactants were widely available. Hydrogen does not react with carbon dioxide. Im a BM wrote: If oxygen had been around, the most ancient line of bacteria would probably have been hydrogen oxidizers using oxygen as oxidant. Hydrogen is not an oxidizer. Im a BM wrote: But there was no oxygen. There was. It is found in water, in ice, in sulfates, and as a free gas. It didn't just magickally appear out of nowhere. Im a BM wrote: Very few chemical oxidants of any kind, in fact. There is only one oxidant. That is oxygen. Im a BM wrote: But carbon dioxide can act as a very weak oxidant for a strong enough reductant, such as hydrogen. Hydrogen does not react with carbon dioxide. Im a BM wrote: CO2 + 4 H2 = CH4 + 2 H2O + biochemical energy. Chanting this made up equation gains you nothing. Im a BM wrote: Methanogens transformed carbon dioxide, a relatively weak greenhouse gas, into methane, which has 20-30 times more global warming potential. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Im a BM wrote: 4000 million years ago, the sun was much less luminous than it is today. How do you know? Were you there? Im a BM wrote: It wasn't bright enough to heat a planet much further from the sun than venus. Illiteracy: proper names are capitalized. All the planets are heated by the Sun. Im a BM wrote: Nearly all the liquid water at the surface was frozen. How do you know? Were you there? Im a BM wrote: But through the action of methanogenic bacteria, atmospheric concentrations of methane increased and increased, facilitating enough warming to melt some seas along the equator. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Im a BM wrote: This enabled life to thrive. The sun is much more luminous today. We want to minimize methane emissions now. ....and back to the usual scripture from the Church of Global Warming. You want to minimize methane emissions? Don't eat beans. You were just owned in full IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
07-03-2023 03:00
James_ ★★★★★ (2235)	Im a BM wrote: "Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games.." - Dominant Troll IBdaMann wrote: [quote][b] The idea here is the hijacking of words, and the use of said hijacked words to control what others are allowed to say in discussions. you have officially joined the ranks of those who play stupid, childish word games just to pretend that you get to control what others say You are being dishonest. these are silly "semantics games" a dishonest shit who needs to insult others. stop demeaning others who are being honest and who are simply making a point. At issue here is the English language. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Every new member who attempts to participate in discussion of climate change on this website is immediately subjected to hostile cross examination. "Give me an unambiguous definition for 'climate change' that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics." "Define your fuggin' terms, you lying schitt." - Dominant Troll And the term that must be defined first, before any discussion at all may be allowed, is "climate change". Don't you dare say "fossil fuel", either. The whole point is "to control what others are allowed to say in discussions." This is one reason that... Let's see. 65 new members joined this website after I did, almost a year ago. Unless the Bohdi guy is still here, I'm the only one who wasn't too disgusted to just get the f out of this place where ugly trolls get off on personal insults. 65 new members joined after I did. I count fewer than six members, who have all been here for years, posting anything this week. Except for the Bohdi guy. OF COURSE ALLIGATORS ARE AMPHIBIOUS! So am I. So is driftwood. So what? Sure you can call some of these people bigots and haters and you'd be right. They are pretty fücked up. I heard inbreeds are less retarded but that's not what we're talking about. They allowed me to have my own opinion and to be able to voice it. It's sad in a way if I want to discuss science this is the only place that I'm allowed to discuss it. And then when I want to feel good about myself I'll let them scratch my hairy balls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WwJ6OVSwkM
07-03-2023 03:23
James_ ★★★★★ (2235)	While I don't care for hexavalent chromium I also don't like Carbon tetrachloride. Hexavalent chromium is for people who actually like people suffering. Carbon tetrachloride and other such compounds are for people who don't like eating. Crops require a functional ozone layer. And now who wants to scratch my hairy balls?
07-03-2023 13:41
Swan★★★★★ (5719)	James_ wrote: While I don't care for hexavalent chromium I also don't like Carbon tetrachloride. Hexavalent chromium is for people who actually like people suffering. Carbon tetrachloride and other such compounds are for people who don't like eating. Crops require a functional ozone layer. And now who wants to scratch my hairy balls? So did the Earth always have an ozone layer? Answer, no. So how can we exist? You may phone your mommy IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
07-03-2023 16:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	Swan wrote:So did the Earth always have an ozone layer? Answer, no. The earth has had ozone for as long as the earth has had oxygen. Swan wrote:So how can we exist? Could you qualify this, or somehow use some pronoun other than the Marxist "we"? Until then, we can exist by eating our Wheaties. Alternate Answer: We can exist by eating fresh, home-grown tomatoes off the trellis.

07-03-2023 18:40
Swan★★★★★ (5719)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:So did the Earth always have an ozone layer? Answer, no. The earth has had ozone for as long as the earth has had oxygen. Swan wrote:So how can we exist? Could you qualify this, or somehow use some pronoun other than the Marxist "we"? Until then, we can exist by eating our Wheaties. Alternate Answer: We can exist by eating fresh, home-grown tomatoes off the trellis. Has the Earth always had an atmosphere? Nope, but change is normal Wheat is for sluggish shits like you, so we do not eat Wheaties. IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL Edited on 07-03-2023 18:42
08-03-2023 01:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:So did the Earth always have an ozone layer? Answer, no. The earth has had ozone for as long as the earth has had oxygen. Swan wrote:So how can we exist? Could you qualify this, or somehow use some pronoun other than the Marxist "we"? Until then, we can exist by eating our Wheaties. Alternate Answer: We can exist by eating fresh, home-grown tomatoes off the trellis. Has the Earth always had an atmosphere? Nope, but change is normal Wheat is for sluggish shits like you, so we do not eat Wheaties. The Earth has had an atmosphere as long as it has existed...just like every other planet or moon. 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 08-03-2023 01:08
08-03-2023 02:48
Swan★★★★★ (5719)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:So did the Earth always have an ozone layer? Answer, no. The earth has had ozone for as long as the earth has had oxygen. Swan wrote:So how can we exist? Could you qualify this, or somehow use some pronoun other than the Marxist "we"? Until then, we can exist by eating our Wheaties. Alternate Answer: We can exist by eating fresh, home-grown tomatoes off the trellis. Has the Earth always had an atmosphere? Nope, but change is normal Wheat is for sluggish shits like you, so we do not eat Wheaties. The Earth has had an atmosphere as long as it has existed...just like every other planet or moon. Before the Earth condensed and cooled it was a spinning ball of dust and gas that had no atmosphere. When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today's atmosphere. IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
08-03-2023 06:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:So did the Earth always have an ozone layer? Answer, no. The earth has had ozone for as long as the earth has had oxygen. Swan wrote:So how can we exist? Could you qualify this, or somehow use some pronoun other than the Marxist "we"? Until then, we can exist by eating our Wheaties. Alternate Answer: We can exist by eating fresh, home-grown tomatoes off the trellis. Has the Earth always had an atmosphere? Nope, but change is normal Wheat is for sluggish shits like you, so we do not eat Wheaties. The Earth has had an atmosphere as long as it has existed...just like every other planet or moon. Before the Earth condensed and cooled it was a spinning ball of dust and gas that had no atmosphere. Paradox. Swan wrote: When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had no atmosphere. Paradox. Swan wrote: The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. How do you know? Were you there? Swan wrote: It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today's atmosphere. How do you know? Were you there? 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
08-03-2023 08:19
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:So did the Earth always have an ozone layer? Answer, no. The earth has had ozone for as long as the earth has had oxygen. Swan wrote:So how can we exist? Could you qualify this, or somehow use some pronoun other than the Marxist "we"? Until then, we can exist by eating our Wheaties. Alternate Answer: We can exist by eating fresh, home-grown tomatoes off the trellis. Has the Earth always had an atmosphere? Nope, but change is normal Wheat is for sluggish shits like you, so we do not eat Wheaties. The Earth has had an atmosphere as long as it has existed...just like every other planet or moon. Before the Earth condensed and cooled it was a spinning ball of dust and gas that had no atmosphere. When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today's atmosphere. Out of the dozens of fantasies about how the Earth was form, why this one? Even going by astronomer observations (guessing) our species hasn't existed long enough to really do more than guess. Much less, had the tools to make any such observations. For me, I don't see the point in guessing, our lifespans are to short for it to make any difference at all.
RE: Non-science gibber babble contamination prevention08-03-2023 09:18
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Swan wrote:So did the Earth always have an ozone layer? The earth has had ozone for as long as the earth has had oxygen. Has the Earth always had an atmosphere? The Earth has had an atmosphere as long as it has existed...just like every other planet or moon. Before the Earth condensed and cooled it was a spinning ball of dust and gas that had no atmosphere. When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. How do you know? Were you there? It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today's atmosphere. How do you know? Were you there?[/quote] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-science gibber babble contamination prevention. I hope that, unlike me, you are one of the smart ones. I hope that you knew better than to let them brainwash you with all the non-science gibber babble. I hope that you refused to read the scientific textbooks and peer-reviewed papers. I hope that you refused to attend the natural science classes at the institutions of higher learning. I hope that you knew better than to pay attention to any of the non-science gibber babble found with Internet search engines. Don't make the mistake that I did. I have so much brainwashing to unlearn. Perhaps I'm just jealous. I'm not free to explore baseless speculation about the atmosphere without the impediment of all those pesky scientific "facts" limiting the horizons of my imagination. I am handicapped by brainwashing, and can't contribute much to a brainstorming session that includes more than one true scientific genius. A true warmazombie, my brainwashing has constrained what I can imagine about the age of the ozone layer. They indoctrinated me to believe that it first began to form very minimally about 600 million years ago. They exploited my gullibility to make me believe that by 500 million years ago, a robust enough ozone layer had established to enable photosynthesis to rise out of the sea and colonize the land without UV damage and death. They pushed this myth about some "Cambrian explosion" about 540 million years ago, when all the lines of oxygen-consuming multicellular animals rose at once. They said that before this, there wasn't enough oxygen in sea water to support it. How do they know? Were they there? They claimed that photosynthesis first evolved 4000 million years ago, but that the kind of photosynthesis that produces oxygen didn't evolve until about 3000 million years ago. Supposedly, it took about 2000 million years of oxygenic photosynthesis to rust away all the ferrous iron in the land and sea before any free oxygen could exist at higher than negligible concentrations in the atmosphere. The claim about very high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and methane in the primordial atmosphere is consistent with what I was taught. What's up with hydrogen sulfide, anyway? They say that when it is emitted to the atmosphere, it lasts less than 24 hours before it is oxidized to sun-blocking aerosol SOx. Photooxidation of sulfide to sulfate, sulfite, SO2, SO3, etc., even with the UV shielding of the ozone layer. As I said, I may just be jealous. It's too late for me to get rid of this meaningless PhD and unlearn all the brainwashing I was subjected to during my decades in the Ivory Tower. But it is NOT too late for you. Stay pure, Brothers!
08-03-2023 14:53
Swan★★★★★ (5719)	Im a BM wrote: Swan wrote:So did the Earth always have an ozone layer? The earth has had ozone for as long as the earth has had oxygen. Has the Earth always had an atmosphere? The Earth has had an atmosphere as long as it has existed...just like every other planet or moon. Before the Earth condensed and cooled it was a spinning ball of dust and gas that had no atmosphere. When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. How do you know? Were you there? It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today's atmosphere. How do you know? Were you there? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-science gibber babble contamination prevention. I hope that, unlike me, you are one of the smart ones. I hope that you knew better than to let them brainwash you with all the non-science gibber babble. I hope that you refused to read the scientific textbooks and peer-reviewed papers. I hope that you refused to attend the natural science classes at the institutions of higher learning. I hope that you knew better than to pay attention to any of the non-science gibber babble found with Internet search engines. Don't make the mistake that I did. I have so much brainwashing to unlearn. Perhaps I'm just jealous. I'm not free to explore baseless speculation about the atmosphere without the impediment of all those pesky scientific "facts" limiting the horizons of my imagination. I am handicapped by brainwashing, and can't contribute much to a brainstorming session that includes more than one true scientific genius. A true warmazombie, my brainwashing has constrained what I can imagine about the age of the ozone layer. They indoctrinated me to believe that it first began to form very minimally about 600 million years ago. They exploited my gullibility to make me believe that by 500 million years ago, a robust enough ozone layer had established to enable photosynthesis to rise out of the sea and colonize the land without UV damage and death. They pushed this myth about some "Cambrian explosion" about 540 million years ago, when all the lines of oxygen-consuming multicellular animals rose at once. They said that before this, there wasn't enough oxygen in sea water to support it. How do they know? Were they there? They claimed that photosynthesis first evolved 4000 million years ago, but that the kind of photosynthesis that produces oxygen didn't evolve until about 3000 million years ago. Supposedly, it took about 2000 million years of oxygenic photosynthesis to rust away all the ferrous iron in the land and sea before any free oxygen could exist at higher than negligible concentrations in the atmosphere. The claim about very high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and methane in the primordial atmosphere is consistent with what I was taught. What's up with hydrogen sulfide, anyway? They say that when it is emitted to the atmosphere, it lasts less than 24 hours before it is oxidized to sun-blocking aerosol SOx. Photooxidation of sulfide to sulfate, sulfite, SO2, SO3, etc., even with the UV shielding of the ozone layer. As I said, I may just be jealous. It's too late for me to get rid of this meaningless PhD and unlearn all the brainwashing I was subjected to during my decades in the Ivory Tower. But it is NOT too late for you. Stay pure, Brothers![/quote] LOL can you rewrite that using at least 100,000 words, because I do not read short stories about your life. So make it big IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
09-03-2023 05:39
James_ ★★★★★ (2235)	Swan wrote: Im a BM wrote: Swan wrote:So did the Earth always have an ozone layer? The earth has had ozone for as long as the earth has had oxygen. Has the Earth always had an atmosphere? The Earth has had an atmosphere as long as it has existed...just like every other planet or moon. Before the Earth condensed and cooled it was a spinning ball of dust and gas that had no atmosphere. When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. How do you know? Were you there? It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today's atmosphere. How do you know? Were you there? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Non-science gibber babble contamination prevention. I hope that, unlike me, you are one of the smart ones. I hope that you knew better than to let them brainwash you with all the non-science gibber babble. I hope that you refused to read the scientific textbooks and peer-reviewed papers. I hope that you refused to attend the natural science classes at the institutions of higher learning. I hope that you knew better than to pay attention to any of the non-science gibber babble found with Internet search engines. Don't make the mistake that I did. I have so much brainwashing to unlearn. Perhaps I'm just jealous. I'm not free to explore baseless speculation about the atmosphere without the impediment of all those pesky scientific "facts" limiting the horizons of my imagination. I am handicapped by brainwashing, and can't contribute much to a brainstorming session that includes more than one true scientific genius. A true warmazombie, my brainwashing has constrained what I can imagine about the age of the ozone layer. They indoctrinated me to believe that it first began to form very minimally about 600 million years ago. They exploited my gullibility to make me believe that by 500 million years ago, a robust enough ozone layer had established to enable photosynthesis to rise out of the sea and colonize the land without UV damage and death. They pushed this myth about some "Cambrian explosion" about 540 million years ago, when all the lines of oxygen-consuming multicellular animals rose at once. They said that before this, there wasn't enough oxygen in sea water to support it. How do they know? Were they there? They claimed that photosynthesis first evolved 4000 million years ago, but that the kind of photosynthesis that produces oxygen didn't evolve until about 3000 million years ago. Supposedly, it took about 2000 million years of oxygenic photosynthesis to rust away all the ferrous iron in the land and sea before any free oxygen could exist at higher than negligible concentrations in the atmosphere. The claim about very high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and methane in the primordial atmosphere is consistent with what I was taught. What's up with hydrogen sulfide, anyway? They say that when it is emitted to the atmosphere, it lasts less than 24 hours before it is oxidized to sun-blocking aerosol SOx. Photooxidation of sulfide to sulfate, sulfite, SO2, SO3, etc., even with the UV shielding of the ozone layer. As I said, I may just be jealous. It's too late for me to get rid of this meaningless PhD and unlearn all the brainwashing I was subjected to during my decades in the Ivory Tower. But it is NOT too late for you. Stay pure, Brothers! LOL can you rewrite that using at least 100,000 words, because I do not read short stories about your life. So make it big[/quote] I like Vikings. They were nice people and educated Europe. They helped to create many countries. For some reason not everyone liked Vikings. Time has changed. The Knights Templar was Europe's answer to those nice Vikings. And then the King of France decided he should rule France and not the Pope. Then Friday the 13th became a bad day in history when the leaders of the Knights Templar were arrested for treason by the King of France. Time changed and people went on living. And today, what will allow people to go on living? There are economies to consider as well as a population that is expected to continue increasing. 10 Billion people by 2050 with an increase of 100 million in the U.S. What to do? When the Vikings educated Europeans, that was after the Dark Ages Cool Period. This brings up an interesting question. Did the Vikings rise to power because Norway warmed before Europe did? This has to do with the Gulf Stream and how it warms Europe. Something people should know but don't. A lot of Europe is further north than New York city and yet has a better climate. And we're back to did Norway warm before Europe which is what allowed for the Vikings to occupy about 1/2 of present day Europe?
09-03-2023 20:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	James_ wrote:A lot of Europe is further north than New York city and yet has a better climate. ... because it doesn't have all the New Yorkers. James_ wrote: And we're back to did Norway warm before Europe which is what allowed for the Vikings to occupy about 1/2 of present day Europe? Of course it did. It had the Norwegian Jet Stream and a steady stream of imported chilli peppers. It was inevitable. How's the Bessler Wheel coming along? Have you considered teaming up with Swan to make a Quantum-Bessler-Entanglement-Wheel? You could make free energy forever at 10 million times the speed of Lite Beer in a vacuum cleaner. You could use Relativity to work out the time libation and realize that the atheist photons don't have a mass.
09-03-2023 20:53
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	IBdaMann wrote: James_ wrote:A lot of Europe is further north than New York city and yet has a better climate. ... because it doesn't have all the New Yorkers. James_ wrote: And we're back to did Norway warm before Europe which is what allowed for the Vikings to occupy about 1/2 of present day Europe? Of course it did. It had the Norwegian Jet Stream and a steady stream of imported chilli peppers. It was inevitable. How's the Bessler Wheel coming along? Have you considered teaming up with Swan to make a Quantum-Bessler-Entanglement-Wheel? You could make free energy forever at 10 million times the speed of Lite Beer in a vacuum cleaner. You could use Relativity to work out the time libation and realize that the atheist photons don't have a mass. Think it won't spin, because a neighbor is running a gravity flux wave generator, unfiltered and unshielded. Not illegal, since the device isn't a commercial product yet. Had thought to sign of or the Kickstarter one, but seem kind of under-powered, and to big for a Back to The Future style hoverboard.

Page 2 of 4

Join the debate Kent Papers: Book on Amazon ($4.95):

Threads	Replies	Last post
Book your bargain rate Israeli Tel Aviv or Jerusalem vacation now, free 4th of July style fireworks inclu	1	18-10-2023 05:25
Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and other tech firms agree to AI safeguards set by the White House	0	21-07-2023 19:45
New Unique Vision For A Better Society Model Book Document For Sale	1	17-06-2023 18:05
Brazil builds 'rings of carbon dioxide' to simulate climate change in the Amazon	2	25-05-2023 01:11
Limited Time Special Book: How To Increase Longevity, Live To 600+ Year More	9	04-04-2023 13:49