Remember me
▼ Content

man made or natural



Page 6 of 8<<<45678>
17-01-2020 06:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote: Yes and we are always free to elaborate and clarify what we mean. Taking away the conventional meaning of a word without having a substitute word for the original meaning is simply an attempt to shut someone up (i.e. the classic ITN/IBD refrain of "define climate" ect.).

That's exactly what I was going to say about your hijacking of the word "climate." But you are in a different league entirely. You hijack science and attempt to rewrite it. Few have that kind of gumption!

tmiddles wrote: My interpretation and understanding of the true facts related to global warming is evolving.

Too funny. Translation: "My proficiency at disrupting conversations with dishonesty and confusion is becoming more finely honed every day."

tmiddles wrote: But there is a truth to be known, there is a real right answer to what the facts are and to what is going on.

Nope. It has been proven mathematically that we can never know the whole truth or "reality."

tmiddles wrote:If anyone wants to call what is really true something other than a fact please let me know so I'll realize that when I read your writing.

I take it that the word "empirical" is too clear for you.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-01-2020 06:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
IBdaMann wrote:...hijacking of the word "climate."...the word "empirical" is too clear for you.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/climate?s=t
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/empirical?s=t
17-01-2020 07:53
James___
★★★★★
(3437)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:...when you use something that you give it meaning....
Yes and we are always free to elaborate and clarify what we mean. Taking away the conventional meaning of a word without having a substitute word for the original meaning is simply an attempt to shut someone up (i.e. the classic ITN/IBD refrain of "define climate" ect.).

Words are tools of communication. They only work when a speaker has an intended meaning known by the listener.

My interpretation and understanding of the true facts related to global warming is evolving. I'm often wrong about the facts and misunderstand them. I hope to get closer to understanding the real facts but grasping reality can be a challenge so this is a process.

But there is a truth to be known, there is a real right answer to what the facts are and to what is going on. Without a doubt no human has a complete understanding of those facts but they are there.

If anyone wants to call what is really true something other than a fact please let me know so I'll realize that when I read your writing.



When I was a teenager, one thing our pastor mentioned. 100 people could read the same passage in the Bible and come away with something different from having read it. Yet people say the easiest way to start an argument is to discuss politics or religion.
I'll let you know what I think. I have been pursuing an experiment to see if water vapor and CO2 can go something like H2O + CO2 > CH2O and O2. There's a scientist in Germany I'd like to talk into it. I let him know what the oxidizer could be so I have a hypothesis. After all, a chemical reaction requires an oxidizer.
That could encourage new research into carbon capture. And at the same time, the O2 it generates could be transported up to the tropopause/lower stratosphere where it could increase the amount of oxygen in the Chapman cycle.
And with solar power, it might help it to be an eco friendly process. What makes me think it's possible is something a shipmate of mine pointed out to me when I was in the Navy.
And tmiddles, something that itn/ibdm ignore is that when the combustion process (burning something) and it generates CO2, the combustion process also releases heat. They always omit that part. And what scientists might not know is the rate of entropy for our atmosphere. What if the heat we're releasing into it is staying longer than we think?
If you want an idea about this. Search for the temperatures of the mesopause and the tropopause both during the day and at night.
17-01-2020 11:06
keepit
★★★★☆
(1747)
"Facts" are elusive things composed of simple truths which are composed of earth, water, and fire, which are composed atoms, which are composed of quarks, electrons, and neutrinos. which are composed of little strings.
The point is, things change.
And don't forget the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
You may think you understand quantum mechanics but well ... you don't!
"Someday this war is gonna end", he sighs. Robert Duvall, "Apocolypse Now".
Will that day be the day we've -
a - learned it all.
or
b - destroyed it all.
Edited on 17-01-2020 11:23
17-01-2020 16:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
James___ wrote: And tmiddles, something that itn/ibdm ignore is that when the combustion process (burning something) and it generates CO2, the combustion process also releases heat. They always omit that part.

Yeah, I always forget that part, especially when I build a campfire or barbeque food. I always end up doing a face-palm when I realize that there's heat coming from the combustion.

What was I thinking, right?


James___ wrote: And what scientists might not know is the rate of entropy for our atmosphere.

The atmosphere is not a closed system. It cannot have a "rate of entropy."

James___ wrote: What if the heat we're releasing into it is staying longer than we think?

There is only one verb that applies to heat, and that is "to flow." Heat cannot be "released" and it cannot be "trapped" into "staying longer."


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-01-2020 17:17
James___
★★★★★
(3437)
IBdaMann wrote:


James___ wrote: What if the heat we're releasing into it is staying longer than we think?

There is only one verb that applies to heat, and that is "to flow." Heat cannot be "released" and it cannot be "trapped" into "staying longer."



Kind of why in the morning I put my hot coffee in a thermos. The vacuum around it helps to decrease radiation being emitted by my coffee. Less O2, more CO2 increases IMHO the effect of vacuum or in the case of our atmosphere, areas of extreme cold. It decreases convection as a form of heat loss in our upper atmosphere.
I could say that a denser atmosphere conserves more energy but......


p.s., campfires on your living room floor are usually a bad idea. I can see why you give yourself a face palm. I guess when you see smoke you realize there is heat, right? Heat loss as a form of convection.
Edited on 17-01-2020 17:20
17-01-2020 19:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
James___ wrote: Kind of why in the morning I put my hot coffee in a thermos.

Exactly! You seek to reduce the heat flow.

James___ wrote: Less O2, more CO2 increases IMHO the effect of vacuum

James__, help me out here. I'm having semantic difficulty with any non-vacuum increasing the effect of vacuum.

Are you referring to CO2's ability to "slow" the escape of earth's thermal radiation into space?

James___ wrote: It decreases convection as a form of heat loss in our upper atmosphere.

James__, I have a quick question about this claim of yours.

If you were to fill two identical tanks with a gas, tank A with O2 and tank B with CO2, and you were to apply an equivalent heat source to the base of each tank, wouldn't they internally convect equally?

Ergo, doesn't convection remain constant within the same one atmosphere, irrespective of composition?

James___ wrote: p.s., campfires on your living room floor are usually a bad idea.

Tell me about it. My fourth time was a total disaster.

The big surprise was just how problematic barbequeing in the bathroom can be. I'm not going to do that again until I get a much bigger bathroom.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-01-2020 19:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...hijacking of the word "climate."...the word "empirical" is too clear for you.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/climate?s=t
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/empirical?s=t


No dictionary defines any word, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-01-2020 19:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:...when you use something that you give it meaning....
Yes and we are always free to elaborate and clarify what we mean. Taking away the conventional meaning of a word without having a substitute word for the original meaning is simply an attempt to shut someone up (i.e. the classic ITN/IBD refrain of "define climate" ect.).

Words are tools of communication. They only work when a speaker has an intended meaning known by the listener.

My interpretation and understanding of the true facts related to global warming is evolving. I'm often wrong about the facts and misunderstand them. I hope to get closer to understanding the real facts but grasping reality can be a challenge so this is a process.

But there is a truth to be known, there is a real right answer to what the facts are and to what is going on. Without a doubt no human has a complete understanding of those facts but they are there.

If anyone wants to call what is really true something other than a fact please let me know so I'll realize that when I read your writing.



When I was a teenager, one thing our pastor mentioned. 100 people could read the same passage in the Bible and come away with something different from having read it. Yet people say the easiest way to start an argument is to discuss politics or religion.
I'll let you know what I think. I have been pursuing an experiment to see if water vapor and CO2 can go something like H2O + CO2 > CH2O and O2. There's a scientist in Germany I'd like to talk into it. I let him know what the oxidizer could be so I have a hypothesis. After all, a chemical reaction requires an oxidizer.

Chemical reactions do not require an oxidizer.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-01-2020 19:38
James___
★★★★★
(3437)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:...when you use something that you give it meaning....
Yes and we are always free to elaborate and clarify what we mean. Taking away the conventional meaning of a word without having a substitute word for the original meaning is simply an attempt to shut someone up (i.e. the classic ITN/IBD refrain of "define climate" ect.).

Words are tools of communication. They only work when a speaker has an intended meaning known by the listener.

My interpretation and understanding of the true facts related to global warming is evolving. I'm often wrong about the facts and misunderstand them. I hope to get closer to understanding the real facts but grasping reality can be a challenge so this is a process.

But there is a truth to be known, there is a real right answer to what the facts are and to what is going on. Without a doubt no human has a complete understanding of those facts but they are there.

If anyone wants to call what is really true something other than a fact please let me know so I'll realize that when I read your writing.



When I was a teenager, one thing our pastor mentioned. 100 people could read the same passage in the Bible and come away with something different from having read it. Yet people say the easiest way to start an argument is to discuss politics or religion.
I'll let you know what I think. I have been pursuing an experiment to see if water vapor and CO2 can go something like H2O + CO2 > CH2O and O2. There's a scientist in Germany I'd like to talk into it. I let him know what the oxidizer could be so I have a hypothesis. After all, a chemical reaction requires an oxidizer.

Chemical reactions do not require an oxidizer.


A catalyst, semantics. Where interaction with the atmosphere is concerned, it is however an oxidizer.
Edited on 17-01-2020 19:39
17-01-2020 19:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:...when you use something that you give it meaning....
Yes and we are always free to elaborate and clarify what we mean. Taking away the conventional meaning of a word without having a substitute word for the original meaning is simply an attempt to shut someone up (i.e. the classic ITN/IBD refrain of "define climate" ect.).

Words are tools of communication. They only work when a speaker has an intended meaning known by the listener.

My interpretation and understanding of the true facts related to global warming is evolving. I'm often wrong about the facts and misunderstand them. I hope to get closer to understanding the real facts but grasping reality can be a challenge so this is a process.

But there is a truth to be known, there is a real right answer to what the facts are and to what is going on. Without a doubt no human has a complete understanding of those facts but they are there.

If anyone wants to call what is really true something other than a fact please let me know so I'll realize that when I read your writing.



When I was a teenager, one thing our pastor mentioned. 100 people could read the same passage in the Bible and come away with something different from having read it. Yet people say the easiest way to start an argument is to discuss politics or religion.
I'll let you know what I think. I have been pursuing an experiment to see if water vapor and CO2 can go something like H2O + CO2 > CH2O and O2. There's a scientist in Germany I'd like to talk into it. I let him know what the oxidizer could be so I have a hypothesis. After all, a chemical reaction requires an oxidizer.

Chemical reactions do not require an oxidizer.


A catalyst, semantics.

Nope. Chemistry doesn't require a catalyst either.
James___ wrote:
Where interaction with the atmosphere is concerned, it is however an oxidizer.

Nope. Not necessary.


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
18-01-2020 02:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
keepit wrote:
"Facts" are elusive things...
No keepit. You are proffering your personal and private definition for a common word. Doesn't make it so.

A fact is the truth/reality. It may be hard to get at, you might be wrong about it, you may have opinions about it. However, your opinion about a fact is not the fact it self, your doubts about a fact, are not the fact itself.

If you want to destroy a vocabulary word that means the truth/reality I'm curious what word would you like to use instead?

Here, give it a shot:
"It's a fact that Trump was born in 1946"
Instead you'd say:
"It's a _____ that Trump was born in 1946 "

Help me out here. What is your goal exactly?
18-01-2020 02:54
keepit
★★★★☆
(1747)
Actually i shy away from using the word "fact", kind of like i shy away from voting.
I did say that it's not perfect to not use it - there are instances where it is useful.
However, it is misused so much (trying to gain authority to their interpretation) that i try to stay away from it.
You yourself just described some of the problems with the word.
I just think it is so imprecise that it shouldn't be used, sort of like the 737 Max shouldn't be used right at the moment.
18-01-2020 02:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
keepit wrote:...it is misused so much....
Yes by people getting it wrong. That's not the words fault it is the value of the word.

"You can be sure that's a fact" Is a really useful observation.

You might as well try to destroy the word "purity" or "perfect" or anything else you find is misused by people being hyperbolic or inaccurate.
18-01-2020 02:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
"Facts" are elusive things...
No keepit. You are proffering your personal and private definition for a common word. Doesn't make it so.

A fact is the truth/reality.

Nope. 'Fact' does not mean 'truth' or 'True' or 'reality'. Try again.
tmiddles wrote:
It may be hard to get at, you might be wrong about it, you may have opinions about it. However, your opinion about a fact is not the fact it self, your doubts about a fact, are not the fact itself.

Opinions can be facts. Even fiction can have facts.
tmiddles wrote:
If you want to destroy a vocabulary word that means the truth/reality I'm curious what word would you like to use instead?

Use 'truth' or 'reality'. If you want to use 'reality', make sure you know what it means first!
tmiddles wrote:
Here, give it a shot:
"It's a fact that Trump was born in 1946"
Instead you'd say:
"It's a _____ that Trump was born in 1946 "

How about, 'Trump was born in 1946"?
tmiddles wrote:
Help me out here. What is your goal exactly?

YOUR goal seems to be quibbling about words.


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
18-01-2020 03:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:...it is misused so much....
Yes by people getting it wrong. That's not the words fault it is the value of the word.

"You can be sure that's a fact" Is a really useful observation.

'Fact' does not mean 'observation' either.
tmiddles wrote:
You might as well try to destroy the word "purity" or "perfect" or anything else you find is misused by people being hyperbolic or inaccurate.

It is YOU that is quibbling over words.


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
18-01-2020 03:03
keepit
★★★★☆
(1747)
You can fly the 737Max perfectly and still crash. That's why it shouldn't be used as carelessly as people use it.
18-01-2020 03:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
keepit wrote:
You can fly the 737Max perfectly and still crash.

If you fly a 737Max perfectly, you won't crash.
keepit wrote:
That's why it shouldn't be used as carelessly as people use it.

Both crashes were caused by pilot error and poor training. The trim system is not considered a primary flight control.


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
18-01-2020 03:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
keepit wrote:
You can fly the 737Max perfectly and still crash. That's why it shouldn't be used as carelessly as people use it.


Agreed! But you can't identify the error in their reasoning if they don't have the full menu of words to use and abuse.
18-01-2020 03:53
keepit
★★★★☆
(1747)
But they don't have the right to misuse the full menu of words or any one of them.
18-01-2020 03:57
keepit
★★★★☆
(1747)
ITN,
I haven't read the accident report but from what i've heard the pilots started the emergency following their training. Some one said they should have recognized that the training wasn't working.
If that is the complaint about the pilots, i don't buy it.
Their training and the engineering of the plane (combined with the software) led them down the wrong road. I wouldn't call that pilot error.
Poor training and a questionable trim system were so much a part of the problem that pilot error isn't the right conclusion IMHO.
Edited on 18-01-2020 04:00
18-01-2020 04:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:Here, give it a shot:
"It's a fact that Trump was born in 1946"
Instead you'd say:
"It's a _____ that Trump was born in 1946 "

Oh pick me! Pick me! Dishonest people tee-up the easiest questions.

"It's my understanding that Trump was born June 14, 1946."

Now, repeat after me: "It is a FACT that the RATE of Global Warming ACCELERATION is worse that any human ever feared and we need to tax the SHIT out of ourselves if we want any hope of saving the planet ... but it might already be TOO LATE!"

Hey tmiddles, do you still think that defense attorneys argue "the facts of the case" or are they those things that are simply forthwith agreed, i.e. that are not contested?

You're not bright. You don't think through anything because someone else is doing your thinking for you, and whoever it is, isn't thinking through the opinions and beliefs he is handing you. It must suck to be you.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-01-2020 04:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
IBdaMann wrote:
Oh pick me!
Nope
post ignored
18-01-2020 04:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Oh pick me!
Nope
post ignored

Apparently not. Too funny.

Can I get the email address for whoever does your thinking for you? I'd like to congratulate him on a fine job with you and I'd really like to learn his technique.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-01-2020 04:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3488)
IBdaMann wrote:
Apparently not.
Just letting you know I won't be bothering with you this time IBD.

I got your quote on the subject already:
IBdaMann wrote:
A "fact" is an agreement thing...What may be a "fact" between two people in a conversation can quickly cease to be a fact once someone else joins the conversation.

Edited on 18-01-2020 04:22
18-01-2020 04:35
James___
★★★★★
(3437)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:
"Facts" are elusive things...
No keepit. You are proffering your personal and private definition for a common word. Doesn't make it so.

A fact is the truth/reality. It may be hard to get at, you might be wrong about it, you may have opinions about it. However, your opinion about a fact is not the fact it self, your doubts about a fact, are not the fact itself.

If you want to destroy a vocabulary word that means the truth/reality I'm curious what word would you like to use instead?

Here, give it a shot:
"It's a fact that Trump was born in 1946"
Instead you'd say:
"It's a _____ that Trump was born in 1946 "

Help me out here. What is your goal exactly?



We're actually taking someone else's word for when Trump was born.
If you accept it as a fact, then it is a fact. With me, I don't think that CO2 is as bad as it's made out to be. For many people, it is a fact that CO2 levels are dangerously high. They accept what the IPCC is saying and not looking at what it's doing.
18-01-2020 04:43
James___
★★★★★
(3437)
keepit wrote:
You can fly the 737Max perfectly and still crash. That's why it shouldn't be used as carelessly as people use it.



I think the issue, the actual problem the 737 has is that Boeing didn't want to extend it's landing gear. If they did that then it would look similar to an Airbus with the engines under the wings. And after that it's been one problem after another.
18-01-2020 06:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
James___ wrote: With me, I don't think that CO2 is as bad as it's made out to be.

For being a life-essential compound, CO2 can't be all bad, right? I mean, making beer, champagne and soda what they are has to count for something too, right? Enabling lighter paintball tanks has to count for something, right? Where would we be without dry ice?

You also have to give CO2 credit for supporting all life on the planet, 24/7, for pretty much as long as there has been life on the planet, without ever asking for overtime!

I'm tellin' ya, old-school life-essential compounds like CO2 just don't get the respect they deserve. In fact, CO2 doesn't even get credit for making things organic anymore.

I'm going to be taking up a collection to help sequestered CO2 get back on its feet. Our society asks CO2 to deploy all over the world so that we can enjoy the freedoms we have, and then turns its back on it first opportunity.

I will be asking everyone to help spread awareness of the bullying CO2 is experiencing on a daily basis by displaying the green "CO2 is Life" ribbon.



Let's right these wrongs. Remeber, CO2 has been producing completely organic world leaders for millenia. I think it's time we start showing a little respect.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-01-2020 07:51
James___
★★★★★
(3437)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: With me, I don't think that CO2 is as bad as it's made out to be.

For being a life-essential compound, CO2 can't be all bad, right? I mean, making beer, champagne and soda what they are has to count for something too, right? Enabling lighter paintball tanks has to count for something, right? Where would we be without dry ice?

You also have to give CO2 credit for supporting all life on the planet, 24/7, for pretty much as long as there has been life on the planet, without ever asking for overtime!

I'm tellin' ya, old-school life-essential compounds like CO2 just don't get the respect they deserve. In fact, CO2 doesn't even get credit for making things organic anymore.

I'm going to be taking up a collection to help sequestered CO2 get back on its feet. Our society asks CO2 to deploy all over the world so that we can enjoy the freedoms we have, and then turns its back on it first opportunity.

I will be asking everyone to help spread awareness of the bullying CO2 is experiencing on a daily basis by displaying the green "CO2 is Life" ribbon.



Let's right these wrongs. Remeber, CO2 has been producing completely organic world leaders for millenia. I think it's time we start showing a little respect.


.



You're such an idiot. God, if you knew anything you'd be dangerous. Have you ever dropped a small pellet of dry ice (CO2) into someone's beer in a bar?
You just don't know how to have fun, do you? I bet you hang out with Harvey.
Dry ice will empty any beer in a foam. It'll just start pouring (foam) out of the glass until there is no more beer. That's because of convection.
The beer turns to foam to move cold (dry ice, CO2) to hot. Don't you know anything about thermodynamics? Science is a great bar joke because people don't think that cold can flow to hot.


Sadly you're the opposite of Harvey. Ever hear a climate scientist talk about the need to get it right? On the one hand we have you and on the other we have Harvey. This is funny because then there is Goldilocks and we live in what? The Goldilocks Zone, it's just right.

Edited on 18-01-2020 07:57
18-01-2020 08:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7570)
James___ wrote: You're such an idiot. God, if you knew anything you'd be dangerous. Have you ever dropped a small pellet of dry ice (CO2) into someone's beer in a bar?

I don't make a habit of it, no. Are you under the impression that I suggested such?

Wait a minute, you're about to tell us that you have actually done that, aren't you? Cool! Tell me what happens.

James___ wrote: Dry ice will empty any beer in a foam. It'll just start pouring (foam) out of the glass until there is no more beer. That's because of convection.

Do you think we could use dry ice to power a convection oven? ... maybe if we had enough beer?

James___ wrote: The beer turns to foam to move cold (dry ice, CO2) to hot.

Well, it's more like the heat of the beer flows rapidly into the dry ice causing the CO2 from the dry ice to "bubble the beer" which creates a lot of foam.


... but I'm digging your dry-ice convection oven idea.


.

Sadly you're the opposite of Harvey. Ever hear a climate scientist talk about the need to get it right? On the one hand we have you and on the other we have Harvey. This is funny because then there is Goldilocks and we live in what? The Goldilocks Zone, it's just right.
[/quote]


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-01-2020 08:08
keepit
★★★★☆
(1747)
James,
Re: 737Max.
I take it you mean make a longer landing gear to get the clearance rather than move the engines forward and change the soft ware to compensate.
Potential problems re the extended LG. More weight, could there be a problem fitting the longer LG into the wing, more drag from the longer landing gear causing the plane to pitch forward (how much???), etc. etc. There are always tradeoffs in such things and i'm sure there were many meetings discussing your thought.
I don't know the number or the magnitude of the problems with your plan but i like it. It would be my style.
The tendency to fix basic problems with automation is just overdone.
18-01-2020 13:14
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote: Agreed, increased levels of CO2 alone has increased the RF with 1.95 W/m2.

That is the direct violation of thermodynamics that I mentioned. If you don't understand how that is a violation then you should probably brush up on the matter.



What is it in atmospheric radiation that you think violates thermodynamics ?

If you could explain that (since you refered to both SB and the 2nd law) it would be interesting to know - no offence intended.
18-01-2020 19:06
James___
★★★★★
(3437)
keepit wrote:
James,
Re: 737Max.
I take it you mean make a longer landing gear to get the clearance rather than move the engines forward and change the soft ware to compensate.
Potential problems re the extended LG. More weight, could there be a problem fitting the longer LG into the wing, more drag from the longer landing gear causing the plane to pitch forward (how much???), etc. etc. There are always tradeoffs in such things and i'm sure there were many meetings discussing your thought.
I don't know the number or the magnitude of the problems with your plan but i like it. It would be my style.
The tendency to fix basic problems with automation is just overdone.



I stand corrected up to a point. The Airbus a220 also has it's engines forward and up. I made a picture so the profiles of both planes can be compared.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/k86sBVvJpoqc8iQK9

a220 on runway
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Vq7qT2MsVWI/maxresdefault.jpg

737 on runway
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OtmK_0NxBio/maxresdefault.jpg

While it does look like Airbus' landing gear is slightly taller, that would allow its engines to sit slightly lower. I tried searching if the height the door on the plane has to match a specific gate at an airport. Basically if the gate has height restrictions on how much it can be raised. If so then having taller small planes might mean new gates which would mean added cost.
18-01-2020 20:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I haven't read the accident report

I have.
keepit wrote:
but from what i've heard the pilots started the emergency following their training.

They were not properly trained to deal with this kind of failure.
keepit wrote:
Some one said they should have recognized that the training wasn't working.

They weren't trained for this kind of failure.
keepit wrote:
If that is the complaint about the pilots, i don't buy it.

It's a complaint about the poor training overseas pilots often receive. Blame their governments and their airlines.
keepit wrote:
Their training and the engineering of the plane (combined with the software) led them down the wrong road. I wouldn't call that pilot error.

I would. The plane is quite flyable with a completely wild trim system IF you are trained to handle it.
keepit wrote:
Poor training and a questionable trim system were so much a part of the problem that pilot error isn't the right conclusion IMHO.

Yes it is. I blame the fault for this poor training squarely on the foreign governments and airlines that trained them.


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
18-01-2020 20:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
You can fly the 737Max perfectly and still crash. That's why it shouldn't be used as carelessly as people use it.



I think the issue, the actual problem the 737 has is that Boeing didn't want to extend it's landing gear. If they did that then it would look similar to an Airbus with the engines under the wings. And after that it's been one problem after another.


They did extend the landing gear.


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
18-01-2020 20:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
keepit wrote:
James,
Re: 737Max.
I take it you mean make a longer landing gear to get the clearance rather than move the engines forward and change the soft ware to compensate.

You can't move the engines forward. Balance would be adversely affected. The plane could never take off.
keepit wrote:
Potential problems re the extended LG.

The did extend the landing gear.
keepit wrote:
More weight, could there be a problem fitting the longer LG into the wing,

They also enlarged the landing gear bays.
keepit wrote:
more drag from the longer landing gear causing the plane to pitch forward (how much???), etc. etc.

The only helps to compensate for the lower engine thrust point.
keepit wrote:
There are always tradeoffs in such things and i'm sure there were many meetings discussing your thought.

Indeed there are. That is what they came up with.
keepit wrote:
I don't know the number or the magnitude of the problems with your plan but i like it. It would be my style.
The tendency to fix basic problems with automation is just overdone.

What automation? Aircraft are not designed by robots.


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
18-01-2020 20:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13780)
MarcusR wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
MarcusR wrote: Agreed, increased levels of CO2 alone has increased the RF with 1.95 W/m2.

That is the direct violation of thermodynamics that I mentioned. If you don't understand how that is a violation then you should probably brush up on the matter.



What is it in atmospheric radiation that you think violates thermodynamics ?

If you could explain that (since you refered to both SB and the 2nd law) it would be interesting to know - no offence intended.


Repetitive Question Already Answered (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
18-01-2020 23:28
keepit
★★★★☆
(1747)
ITN,
What a bunch of argumentative and useless crap.

Your statement about "they can't move the engines forward" is especially bogus and false.
Edited on 18-01-2020 23:33
19-01-2020 00:55
James___
★★★★★
(3437)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
What a bunch of argumentative and useless crap.

Your statement about "they can't move the engines forward" is especially bogus and false.


He'd argue that they moved the plane back and down. I think the problems with the Max8 might be the slight upwards tilt of the engines. During take off, that would definitely help to push the nose up. Airbus didn't do that and has no problems with the "pitch" of it's plane. And that's what the MCAS is compensating for.
19-01-2020 01:16
keepit
★★★★☆
(1747)
James,
Looking at the plane it does kind of look like that but that might be just the nacelles and not the engine thrust vector.

ITN does like to argue. I like to agree.
Edited on 19-01-2020 01:17
Page 6 of 8<<<45678>





Join the debate man made or natural:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Next Evolution Of Fuel Energy, Raw Materials Is Natural Fusion615-09-2020 02:56
Technology Stuffs Cause Climate Change Global Warming, Bring Natural Catastrophe Disaster Sooner310-09-2020 22:39
Understanding Why The Natural Disasters Come: Floods, Tsunami, Earthquake, Volcano Eruption009-08-2020 04:35
Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming16103-06-2020 20:20
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o203-03-2020 02:17
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact