Remember me
▼ Content

Must read letter



Page 3 of 4<1234>
27-07-2019 07:02
James___
★★★★☆
(1599)
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are alternatives for generating electricity, but gasoline, or liquid fuels, will always be superior in mobile applications. An electric vehicle needs to be charge, and takes hours. Only takes a few minutes to fill a gas tank, and you can drive all week. Electric car needs charging almost daily. There is a fast charge option, which is that bad option, since it usually shortens the lifespan of your expensive to replace battery. There are a few newer chemistry batteries, that claim to tolerate fast charging, but suspect it's mostly marketing, and more expensive. Haven't look into them much, but didn't see a huge jump in service life. Basically, they want that $3,500 battery to be replaced in 3-5 years, so you'll likely just buy a whole new car.



tmiddles doesn't understand how you made a vague statement. You put petroleum based energy in the same grouping as fuel cell technology. And this while supporting petroleum based products.
You're not as ignorant as you let on. It's just that fossil fuels are a finite source of energy. If we do know research now, then how can we adapt when fossil fuels become too expensive?
Miners I've talked to in Kentucky say that other forms of energy are cheaper. Coal in Kentucky which is the US #2 producer of coal has lost thousands of jobs.
Also besides health care costs, no other country is close to the US in the consumption of crude oil.
The European Union uses about 75% of crude oil as the US. It takes countries to come close to us.
We're just wasteful. That's about it.
27-07-2019 07:15
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1435)
James___ wrote:
...no other country is close to the US in the consumption of crude oil.
The European Union uses about 75% of crude oil as the US. It takes countries to come close to us.
We're just wasteful. That's about it.

Yeah, all those people driving to work to be productive and profitable. It's not a waste James. It's something you should look into.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
27-07-2019 07:37
James___
★★★★☆
(1599)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
...no other country is close to the US in the consumption of crude oil.
The European Union uses about 75% of crude oil as the US. It takes countries to come close to us.
We're just wasteful. That's about it.

Yeah, all those people driving to work to be productive and profitable. It's not a waste James. It's something you should look into.



Is that the best you can do, an insult? What was it they said in 1928? Life was good, just buy into what was being sold and everyone bought into it. People were productive then. What happened?
27-07-2019 13:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1327)
James___ wrote:
Is that the best you can do, an insult?


You know when the person you're debating is out of ideas when they stop addressing the issue.

It's an extremely good point that our fossil resources will run out if we simply burn them up.

One of the first petrochemists said burning oil was like burning bank notes. It's a tragic waste of a material that can be used to make a lot of things.

And it's bad for air quality.


27-07-2019 18:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are alternatives for generating electricity, but gasoline, or liquid fuels, will always be superior in mobile applications. An electric vehicle needs to be charge, and takes hours. Only takes a few minutes to fill a gas tank, and you can drive all week. Electric car needs charging almost daily. There is a fast charge option, which is that bad option, since it usually shortens the lifespan of your expensive to replace battery. There are a few newer chemistry batteries, that claim to tolerate fast charging, but suspect it's mostly marketing, and more expensive. Haven't look into them much, but didn't see a huge jump in service life. Basically, they want that $3,500 battery to be replaced in 3-5 years, so you'll likely just buy a whole new car.



tmiddles doesn't understand how you made a vague statement.

He didn't.
James___ wrote:
You put petroleum based energy in the same grouping as fuel cell technology.

No, he didn't. He didn't even mention fuel cells.
James___ wrote:
And this while supporting petroleum based products.

What's wrong with petroleum?
James___ wrote:
You're not as ignorant as you let on.

He's not claiming to be.
James___ wrote:
It's just that fossil fuels are a finite source of energy.

We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn. Why are you suddenly talking about fossils? I thought we were talking about oil. Oil is a renewable fuel. So is methane.
James___ wrote:
If we do know research now, then how can we adapt when fossil fuels become too expensive?

Why would they become expensive?
James___ wrote:
Miners I've talked to in Kentucky say that other forms of energy are cheaper. Coal in Kentucky which is the US #2 producer of coal has lost thousands of jobs.

Thanks to Obama. The damage he did is rather permanent in some areas.
James___ wrote:
Also besides health care costs, no other country is close to the US in the consumption of crude oil.

So? We have plenty of it. We even export it.
James___ wrote:
The European Union uses about 75% of crude oil as the US.

So? I don't give a rat's ass about the EU.
James___ wrote:
It takes countries to come close to us.

So?
James___ wrote:
We're just wasteful. That's about it.

No, we have an economy here. A much more vibrant economy than the EU. That takes energy. Oil is extremely cheap right now. Why not use it?


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 18:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
...no other country is close to the US in the consumption of crude oil.
The European Union uses about 75% of crude oil as the US. It takes countries to come close to us.
We're just wasteful. That's about it.

Yeah, all those people driving to work to be productive and profitable. It's not a waste James. It's something you should look into.



Is that the best you can do, an insult?

He insulted no one.
James___ wrote:
What was it they said in 1928?

They said a lot of things in 1928.
James___ wrote:
Life was good, just buy into what was being sold and everyone bought into it.

Who said that?
James___ wrote:
People were productive then. What happened?

Nothing. They are still productive.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 18:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
Is that the best you can do, an insult?


You know when the person you're debating is out of ideas when they stop addressing the issue.

Like you?
tmiddles wrote:
It's an extremely good point that our fossil resources will run out if we simply burn them up.

We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn.
tmiddles wrote:
One of the first petrochemists said burning oil was like burning bank notes. It's a tragic waste of a material that can be used to make a lot of things.

You don't to speak for anyone except yourself.
tmiddles wrote:
And it's bad for air quality.

Why? Burning oil makes CO2 and water.


The Parrot Killer
27-07-2019 20:40
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1362)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are alternatives for generating electricity, but gasoline, or liquid fuels, will always be superior in mobile applications. An electric vehicle needs to be charge, and takes hours. Only takes a few minutes to fill a gas tank, and you can drive all week. Electric car needs charging almost daily. There is a fast charge option, which is that bad option, since it usually shortens the lifespan of your expensive to replace battery. There are a few newer chemistry batteries, that claim to tolerate fast charging, but suspect it's mostly marketing, and more expensive. Haven't look into them much, but didn't see a huge jump in service life. Basically, they want that $3,500 battery to be replaced in 3-5 years, so you'll likely just buy a whole new car.



tmiddles doesn't understand how you made a vague statement. You put petroleum based energy in the same grouping as fuel cell technology. And this while supporting petroleum based products.
You're not as ignorant as you let on. It's just that fossil fuels are a finite source of energy. If we do know research now, then how can we adapt when fossil fuels become too expensive?
Miners I've talked to in Kentucky say that other forms of energy are cheaper. Coal in Kentucky which is the US #2 producer of coal has lost thousands of jobs.
Also besides health care costs, no other country is close to the US in the consumption of crude oil.
The European Union uses about 75% of crude oil as the US. It takes countries to come close to us.
We're just wasteful. That's about it.


Fuel cells? Pretty sure I didn't mention them lately. Think that perpetual motion invention, was the last time I discus them. Expensive toys, not real practical for most applications. Maybe someday, but not anytime soon.

There are plenty of fossil fuels in the ground, we aren't running out anytime soon. Been hearing about the limitations since the '70s, and still plenty. The main problem is extraction restrictions, like offshore drilling, or protected lands. Obama stabbed the coal industry in the back, as part of his Climate Change agenda. Coal still is a great energy source, but the greeners want to shut it down, always have. The liberals want to shut down the coal industry, to better promote their alternate energy projects. Few homes (voters) use coal anymore, it's more for commercial/industrial use, which are easier to push around.

Yep, American are wasteful, we are free to do so. Sometimes, it's unfortunate. We consumers might be wasteful, but how wasteful is our government? We waste billions on useless climate change research, programs, legislation, and keep going deeper in debt. The 'climate change' crisis isn't as pressing as many other problems we need to resolve, or should have been worked on, decades ago. We waste a lot of time and money investigating our president, where no actual crime ever existed, but still they persist, looking for some legal technicality to charge him with. Bill Clinton did all the same, and much worse, eventually admitted to much of it, and nothing done over it. Why do we continue with Trump?
28-07-2019 05:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1327)
HarveyH55 wrote:American are wasteful, ...waste a lot of time and money investigating our president,


I don't think it matter if we are "wasteful" economically. There are specific activities that have detrimental consequences to our quality of life.

Trump is a walking insult to decency and intelligence. It's vitally important that we know he is thoroughly investigated for the integrity of his own presidency.

He is a stupid pig so he could accidentally commit treason any time.

Sadly he's also ANTI climate debate. He wants to close the book on it and not talk about it.

I'm glad we're here to talk about it. Some of us anyway.



Edited on 28-07-2019 06:05
28-07-2019 06:00
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1435)
tmiddles wrote:I'm glad we're here to talk about it. Some of us anyway.

So you ARE here to have a DISCUSSION with ONLY those that agree with you. Wasn't it you that was complaining there was no debate here?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
28-07-2019 06:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1327)
GasGuzzler wrote:
you ARE here to have a DISCUSSION with ONLY those that agree with you.


Once again the one note "we can't debate at all"

Make an argument about something other than if we can debate at all. Tuning you out till then.


28-07-2019 06:46
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1362)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:American are wasteful, ...waste a lot of time and money investigating our president,


I don't think it matter if we are "wasteful" economically. There are specific activities that have detrimental consequences to our quality of life.

Trump is walking insult to decency and intelligence. It's vitally important that we know he is thoroughly investigated for the integrity of his own presidency.

He is a stupid pig so he could accidentally commit treason any time.

Sadly he's also ANTI climate debate. He wants to close the book on it and not talk about it.

I'm glad we're here to talk about it. Some of us anyway.


I think Trump is a lot smarter than he lets on in public. Most people don't think about all he's accomplished during his business life, just the childish clown he portrays. It's just a tool he uses, people tend to underestimate him. The porn star and Playboy model... He probably was the first to live the fantasy of many men across the planet. There are probably a few other similar things, that aren't really anybody's business. If there were any serious violations, they would have been dug up by the Clinton, and Obama, in 2016. Nobody is investigating Obama's misuse of intelligence agencies, even though it came up in the Mueller investigation. Though it might, if they get an investigation started, into why there was even a Russian investigation.

Climate Change isn't a good business deal for anybody, and not a certainty. Obviously, the vast majority of people aren't buying it either. They have been trying to sell this thing for decades, and it's still a slow moving product. Basically, just the folks who want to appear fashionable and trendy, buy it, mostly to gain attention for themselves. It's very weak science, nothing to back it up. If and when it's ever proven wrong, they claim all that is wasted is time and money, and at least we have a cleaner planet. That time and money needs to be spent on more immediate, and real problems. The proposals needed are going to massively expensive, which means paying for it comes from each and everyone of us. Many already struggle to get by, without those added expenses. Lot of people are going to die, just to make the planet nicer for future generations, of rich kids. Guess that's part of the cleansing plan, kill off the poor.

Trump definitely has good business sense, which would be unlikely for a complete idiot. He's been doing it a long time, wasn't just luck. He know's how much a project should cost before starting, and how to keep it on track, and within the budget. Not an easy thing to do, after you get started, since everyone involved knows that you aren't going to pull out of the deal, and lose a ton of money. Further into a project, it's easy to raise prices, hidden costs. Sometimes it's legitimate, sometimes it's just contractors trying to squeeze a few extra bucks. I do believe Trump has a lot of smarts, just not real good at politics, or people in general, but he's learning quick. When he visited other countries, he didn't act like an idiot, actually, he acted appropriately for the office. I believe there is a reason for him acting differently here, and it's not entirely just for him. Pretty sure we are going to have a very interesting election year this time. Democrats are going to have a huge fight among themselves, to thin the herd. Trump will provoke and prod most of it. He'll have the House and Senate democrats fighting among themselves as well. They'll probably lose a few seats over it. The impeachment thing will be key, they are waiting until it's closer to the elections, hoping to effect the outcome. They didn't have strong grounds to launch the investigation, it's really weak to impeach. That plan will fail as well, but the American people will tired of all the petty wasted time, while Trump has been busy actually trying to get some work done on real problems, that should have been addressed for decades.
28-07-2019 06:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
tmiddles wrote:Trump is a walking insult to decency and intelligence.

Once again, you don't have to be so specific about what he did.

tmiddles wrote: It's vitally important that we know he is thoroughly investigated for the integrity of his own presidency.

Oh yeah, vitally!

I take it therefore that your position is that Obama's Presidency had no integrity.

tmiddles wrote: He is a stupid pig so he could accidentally commit treason any time.

What could be more absurd than a scientifically illiterate moron (you) calling "stupid" a self-made billionaire who was smart enough to get himself elected President of the US in 2016 *and* in the 2020 election that hasn't even happened yet?

Only someone of your obviously lacking education would believe that treason happens accidentally.

tmiddles wrote: Sadly he's also ANTI climate debate. He wants to close the book on it and not talk about it.

He's like many people who are simply not believers in that religion. Here in the US, Congress shall make no law respecting any religion. It is unconstitutional for Congress to be officially recognizing the Global Warming pantheon.

tmiddles wrote:I'm glad we're here to talk about it. Some of us anyway.

You used the pronoun "we" as though you are not here to simply preach your faith to those who already believe the dogma you regurgitate.

Only Marxists bring your level of dishonesty to a forum. It's people like you who ensure people like Trump get elected. We need more people like you.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-07-2019 07:14
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1435)
tmiddles wrote:
Make an argument about something....

Sure thing.
The sun heats the earth's surface.
The surface heats the atmosphere (including CO2, methane, and whatever else is included at any location) and from there it radiates to space.
CO2 is warmed BY the surface. It is not an energy source, therefore it cannot warm the surface. Remember the surface heats the air, so it is impossible for CO2 to raise the temperature of the surface or atmosphere. This would be heat flowing backwards. Disagree? Explain why.

[quote]tmiddles wrote:Tuning you out till then.

Although I'm not worthy, I'd be honored if I could make the official ignore list.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
28-07-2019 07:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1327)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think Trump is a lot smarter than he lets on in public.


There's a Pretty funny old SNL sketch where Reagan, after the "I don't recall" contra stuff, was portrayed as acting uninformed to the press while running the show back stage:
Reagan Mastermind

Trump is the Paris Hilton of American Business. A few major bankruptcies get over shadowed by his WWF PRO wrestler flair.

But it's a different skill set anyway. I wouldn't want the Wal-Mart kids, Pablo Escobar or anyone to be president based on wealth by birth or not.

Trump is VERY key to this topic and this board. To those who want scientific discovery, investigation and progress on pollution he represents a head in the sand leap backwards. He's also committed to the erosion of trust in science, research and sharing of information.

But tell me. Is he acting like a total moron here on purpose and if so why?:
Trump: "Clean coal...they're going to take it out, they're going to clean it



Edited on 28-07-2019 07:38
28-07-2019 07:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1327)
GasGuzzler wrote:
This would be heat flowing backwards. Disagree? Explain why.


I do yes. The repeatedly verified fact is that a planet with an atmosphere retains the heat of the sun more and has a higher surface temp. Disagree?

"backwards" ? You do know to say that and mean "downwards" would be as silly as asking how a thermos knows how to keep something warm or cold.


28-07-2019 08:00
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1435)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
This would be heat flowing backwards. Disagree? Explain why.


I do yes. The repeatedly verified fact is that a planet with an atmosphere retains the heat of the sun more and has a higher surface temp. Disagree?

"backwards" ? You do know to say that and mean "downwards" would be as silly as asking how a thermos knows how to keep something warm or cold.


You warm your coffee to 100 degrees. You put it in a thermos. At what point does the coffee reach 102 degrees?

Just a side note...you can't retain heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, always flowing from hot to cold. There is always heat, whether that be through conduction, convection or radiation. Heat by conduction is via coupling. A better coupling will better transfer heat. A thermos is a poor coupling, therefore the coffee will stay warm longer.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 28-07-2019 08:11
28-07-2019 08:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
tmiddles wrote: Trump is VERY key to this topic and this board.

... but you refuse to discuss any of the reasons he does what he does.

R - E - F - U - S - E

tmiddles wrote: To those who want scientific discovery, investigation and progress on pollution he represents a head in the sand leap backwards.

"planting one's head in the sand" and "taking a leap backwards" are metaphors that don't combine well.

I presume this will be yet another generic unsupported Trump-bash.

tmiddles wrote: He's also committed to the erosion of trust in science, research and sharing of information.

Examples?

But tell me. Are you acting like a total moron here on purpose and if so why?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-07-2019 08:05
luvioni
☆☆☆☆☆
(5)
maybe enhancing humans will bring us new ideas to solve these kinds of problems
https://www.luvioni.com/neuralink-a-method-to-enhance-mankind/
28-07-2019 08:06
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1362)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think Trump is a lot smarter than he lets on in public.


There's a Pretty funny old SNL sketch where Reagan, after the "I don't recall" contra stuff, was portrayed as acting uninformed to the press while running the show back stage:
Reagan Mastermind

Trump is the Paris Hilton of American Business. A few major bankruptcies get over shadowed by his WWF PRO wrestler flair.

But it's a different skill set anyway. I wouldn't want the Wal-Mart kids, Pablo Escobar or anyone to be president based on wealth by birth or not.

Trump is VERY key to this topic and this board. To those who want scientific discovery, investigation and progress on pollution he represents a head in the sand leap backwards. He's also committed to the erosion of trust in science, research and sharing of information.

But tell me. Is he acting like a total moron here on purpose and if so why?:
Trump: "Clean coal...they're going to take it out, they're going to clean it


I think Reagan was pretty clueless, and actually had trouble recalling things, do to his age. He stumbled a lot in his later years.

I'm use dial-up internet, video takes a long time. Waiting for a print to finish, kind of late to do videos. Maybe tomorrow. But, I think you'll find he's accurate, though presenting it like a moron. Coal does get processed some, to remove as much of the impurities as possible before get burned, helps reduce the pollution qualities of the product. Cleaner air has been a concern for a long time, coal had to take on a few extra steps, to make their product more appealing, rather than phased out. Gasoline went through some similar changes, they no longer sell leaded gas.
28-07-2019 08:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
This would be heat flowing backwards. Disagree? Explain why.


I do yes.

You deny science because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. In this case, you deny Planck's law and the second law of thermodynamics.


tmiddles wrote: The repeatedly verified fact ...

You take scientific illiteracy to new lengths.

tmiddles wrote: ... is that a planet with an atmosphere retains the heat of the sun more and has a higher surface temp. Disagree?

You take pride in not knowing what "heat" is. You insist on making no sense when you discuss Global Warming and Greenhouse Effect.

From The MANUAL.

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-07-2019 09:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1327)
GasGuzzler wrote:
You warm your coffee to 100 degrees. You put it in a thermos. At what point does the coffee reach 102 degrees?


To follow that analogy:
Two cups of room temp coffee, Cup A and Cup B
Each cup of coffee is put onto a burner for 20 min, and then left off the burner for 20 min, the cycle repeating for 10 hours (total of 5 hours on and 5 hours off). A cycle just like our sun exposure.
The cups are identical except Cup A has a foam sheet wrapped around it.
Which cup gets to 102 degrees faster?
Which cup has a higher stasis temperature?
Cup A of course. Insulation is real.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Just a side note...you can't retain heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, always flowing from hot to cold.


Important question do you believe Venus is hotter than Mercury? Not a trick question there is some controversy about that on this board alone.



Edited on 28-07-2019 09:21
28-07-2019 09:26
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1327)
HarveyH55 wrote:Coal does get processed some, to remove as much of the impurities


Yes but if the president of the united states thinks that's what Clean Coal technology refers to then he is a moron twice over. Once for not knowing in the first place and again for being such a jack ass that he doesn't have an organization around him to prevent that huge a public gaff.

luvioni wrote:
maybe enhancing humans will bring us new ideas to solve these kinds of problems


Reminds me of the BLACK MIRROR episode with the memory implants Luvioni

I don't know that we are helpless now. There is plenty we can do. It's not like we even have to switch gears and go in a new direction. We can just adapt what we are already doing to make it work better.

LED light bulbs are amazing!

A car only uses about 12% of the energy generated by gasoline to move forward.

There is plenty of room of improvement as is.



Edited on 28-07-2019 09:27
28-07-2019 09:44
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1435)
tmiddles wrote:
To follow that analogy:
Two cups of room temp coffee, Cup A and Cup B
Each cup of coffee is put onto a burner for 20 min, and then left off the burner for 20 min, the cycle repeating for 10 hours (total of 5 hours on and 5 hours off). A cycle just like our sun exposure.
The cups are identical except Cup A has a foam sheet wrapped around it.
Which cup gets to 102 degrees faster?
Which cup has a higher stasis temperature?
Cup A of course. Insulation is real.


Nice try. CO2 is not an insulator. It absorbs heat from the surface quite well, and radiates it to space just the same. Interestingly enough, in this process, the surface was COOLED by CO2. (heat flowing from hot to cold) The only way to increase the air temp is more output from the sun, or another energy source.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 28-07-2019 09:44
28-07-2019 09:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1327)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Nice try. CO2 is not an insulator.


You don't believe an atmosphere acts as an insulator?
"in·su·la·tor
noun
a substance which does not readily allow the passage of heat or sound."

So a planet with no atmosphere at all, like Mercury, with the surface exposed directly to the void of space, is no warmer than it would be if it had a heavy atmosphere, like Venus?

Come on you're trying to skip answering this.

And I didn't say CO2 I said an atmosphere.



Edited on 28-07-2019 09:48
28-07-2019 19:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:American are wasteful, ...waste a lot of time and money investigating our president,


I don't think it matter if we are "wasteful" economically. There are specific activities that have detrimental consequences to our quality of life.

...such as?
tmiddles wrote:
Trump is a walking insult to decency and intelligence.

You hate Trump. We already knew that. You can't really say why, you just hate, hate hate.
tmiddles wrote:
It's vitally important that we know he is thoroughly investigated for the integrity of his own presidency.

...and nothing was found, despite liberals wasting 4 years on it.
tmiddles wrote:
He is a stupid pig so he could accidentally commit treason any time.

...how?
tmiddles wrote:
Sadly he's also ANTI climate debate.

Define 'climate change'. Trump just happens to be against your religion.
tmiddles wrote:
He wants to close the book on it and not talk about it.

He wants government agencies to stop pushing your religion.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm glad we're here to talk about it. Some of us anyway.

YOU can talk about whatever you want, anytime you want (subject to the rules of the forum of course). Trump is simply telling government agencies to stop pushing the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 19:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
you ARE here to have a DISCUSSION with ONLY those that agree with you.


Once again the one note "we can't debate at all"

Coming from you.
tmiddles wrote:
Make an argument about something other than if we can debate at all. Tuning you out till then.


So again you say "we can't debate at all".

Grow up, snowflake. You can't make us go away.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 19:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think Trump is a lot smarter than he lets on in public.


There's a Pretty funny old SNL sketch where Reagan, after the "I don't recall" contra stuff, was portrayed as acting uninformed to the press while running the show back stage:
Reagan Mastermind

Trump is the Paris Hilton of American Business. A few major bankruptcies get over shadowed by his WWF PRO wrestler flair.

Few people become as successful a real estate investor and developer also.
tmiddles wrote:
But it's a different skill set anyway. I wouldn't want the Wal-Mart kids, Pablo Escobar or anyone to be president based on wealth by birth or not.

The President is elected, dumbass. We don't have kings in the United States.
tmiddles wrote:
Trump is VERY key to this topic and this board.

Not particularly, but you seem to think he is.
tmiddles wrote:
To those who want scientific discovery, investigation and progress on pollution he represents a head in the sand leap backwards.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that denies science. Specifically, you deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Science isn't 'discovery'. It is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not an 'investigation'. It is not 'progress'.

Define 'pollution'.

I'll let your confusing use of thought terminating cliches slide this time...no I guess not.

tmiddles wrote:
He's also committed to the erosion of trust in science,

Science doesn't depend on trust. Neither does it require it. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories.
tmiddles wrote:
research

Science isn't a 'research' or a 'study'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
tmiddles wrote:
and sharing of information.

You don't need the government to share information for you.
tmiddles wrote:
But tell me. Is he acting like a total moron here on purpose and if so why?:
Trump: "Clean coal...they're going to take it out, they're going to clean it

Misquoting Trump is not going to help you. Coal is clean. Is it primarily carbon. Burning carbon produces CO2 and H2O. 'Cleaning coal' means capturing any impurities in it, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 19:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
This would be heat flowing backwards. Disagree? Explain why.


I do yes. The repeatedly verified fact is that a planet with an atmosphere retains the heat of the sun more and has a higher surface temp. Disagree?

* You cannot trap heat. (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat (2nd law of thermodynamics).
* You cannot trap light. (Plank's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law).
* You cannot create energy (1st law of thermodynamics).

tmiddles wrote:
"backwards" ? You do know to say that and mean "downwards" would be as silly as asking how a thermos knows how to keep something warm or cold.

False equivalence fallacy.

A Thermos jug is not an intelligence. You conveniently try to shift the conversation here away from answering his question.

* You cannot heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. CO2 is incapable of warming the surface.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 19:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think Trump is a lot smarter than he lets on in public.


There's a Pretty funny old SNL sketch where Reagan, after the "I don't recall" contra stuff, was portrayed as acting uninformed to the press while running the show back stage:
Reagan Mastermind

Trump is the Paris Hilton of American Business. A few major bankruptcies get over shadowed by his WWF PRO wrestler flair.

But it's a different skill set anyway. I wouldn't want the Wal-Mart kids, Pablo Escobar or anyone to be president based on wealth by birth or not.

Trump is VERY key to this topic and this board. To those who want scientific discovery, investigation and progress on pollution he represents a head in the sand leap backwards. He's also committed to the erosion of trust in science, research and sharing of information.

But tell me. Is he acting like a total moron here on purpose and if so why?:
Trump: "Clean coal...they're going to take it out, they're going to clean it


I think Reagan was pretty clueless, and actually had trouble recalling things, do to his age. He stumbled a lot in his later years.

I'm use dial-up internet, video takes a long time. Waiting for a print to finish, kind of late to do videos. Maybe tomorrow. But, I think you'll find he's accurate, though presenting it like a moron. Coal does get processed some, to remove as much of the impurities as possible before get burned, helps reduce the pollution qualities of the product. Cleaner air has been a concern for a long time, coal had to take on a few extra steps, to make their product more appealing, rather than phased out. Gasoline went through some similar changes, they no longer sell leaded gas.


The video is an excerpt from a Trump campaign speech. He is talking about restoring the coal industry, pointing out that coal can be a clean energy source.

Leaded gasoline is still sold, though not for cars. TEL is still a required additive for some purposes, such as aircraft. They can't use ethanol to slow the rate of reaction when burning the fuel. Ethanol in gasoline undergoes phase separation at altitude. Worse, it attacks the gaskets used in the fuel systems of aircraft.

Cars today use ethanol and are stuck with it, due to their use of catalytic converters, which are poisoned by TEL, destroying them. Since these pollution to pollution converters are required on all cars today by the government, we can't have THAT!


Leaded gasoline does not pollute the air any more than ethanol gasoline.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 19:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
You warm your coffee to 100 degrees. You put it in a thermos. At what point does the coffee reach 102 degrees?


To follow that analogy:
Two cups of room temp coffee, Cup A and Cup B
Each cup of coffee is put onto a burner for 20 min, and then left off the burner for 20 min, the cycle repeating for 10 hours (total of 5 hours on and 5 hours off). A cycle just like our sun exposure.
The cups are identical except Cup A has a foam sheet wrapped around it.
Which cup gets to 102 degrees faster?

cup B.
tmiddles wrote:
Which cup has a higher stasis temperature?

Neither.
tmiddles wrote:
Cup A of course. Insulation is real.

WRONG. Insulation does NOT make anything warmer.

* You can't create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics).

tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Just a side note...you can't retain heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, always flowing from hot to cold.


Important question do you believe Venus is hotter than Mercury?

Do you believe black asphalt is better at absorbing sunlight and converting it to heat than the grass planted nearby?
tmiddles wrote:
Not a trick question there is some controversy about that on this board alone.

No controversy. You just ignore the concept that different things absorb sunlight differently.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 20:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Coal does get processed some, to remove as much of the impurities


Yes but if the president of the united states thinks that's what Clean Coal technology refers to then he is a moron twice over.

He is a moron because he realizes that coal is processed before use??? HUH???
tmiddles wrote:
Once for not knowing in the first place and again for being such a jack ass that he doesn't have an organization around him to prevent that huge a public gaff.

What public gaff???
tmiddles wrote:
I don't know that we are helpless now. There is plenty we can do. It's not like we even have to switch gears and go in a new direction. We can just adapt what we are already doing to make it work better.

We already have and already continue to do so.

Private industry invented the EGR system used in cars today. As a result, smog isn't a bit problem anymore. Engineers and scientists like me, ingrate.

Private industry invented the FADEC engine and made it cheap enough for every car to have it. Efficiency went way up as a result of it. Engineers and scientists like me, ingrate.

Coal processing techniques and scrubbing systems in coal plants were invented by private industry. Coal is clean burning now. Engineers and scientists like me, ingrate.

Even wastewater treatment plants benefit from the use of my instruments to discharge potable water, not polluted water after treatment. I designed and built those instruments, ingrate.

tmiddles wrote:
LED light bulbs are amazing!

Another item invented by private industry. An industry YOU want to shut down, ingrate.
tmiddles wrote:
A car only uses about 12% of the energy generated by gasoline to move forward.

WRONG. You are WAY out of date. Efficiency today is approx 20-30%, depending on the type of car (this is assuming level ground and no wind).

You will NEVER reach 100% efficiency. See the work of Carnot and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote:
There is plenty of room of improvement as is.

Now it is YOU sticking your head in the sand. Improvements take place all the time. That's what industry does. YOU want to shut it down.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 20:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
To follow that analogy:
Two cups of room temp coffee, Cup A and Cup B
Each cup of coffee is put onto a burner for 20 min, and then left off the burner for 20 min, the cycle repeating for 10 hours (total of 5 hours on and 5 hours off). A cycle just like our sun exposure.
The cups are identical except Cup A has a foam sheet wrapped around it.
Which cup gets to 102 degrees faster?
Which cup has a higher stasis temperature?
Cup A of course. Insulation is real.


Nice try. CO2 is not an insulator. It absorbs heat from the surface quite well, and radiates it to space just the same. Interestingly enough, in this process, the surface was COOLED by CO2. (heat flowing from hot to cold) The only way to increase the air temp is more output from the sun, or another energy source.


Exactly right.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 20:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Nice try. CO2 is not an insulator.


You don't believe an atmosphere acts as an insulator?
"in·su·la·tor
noun
a substance which does not readily allow the passage of heat or sound."

So a planet with no atmosphere at all, like Mercury, with the surface exposed directly to the void of space, is no warmer than it would be if it had a heavy atmosphere, like Venus?

Come on you're trying to skip answering this.

And I didn't say CO2 I said an atmosphere.


An atmosphere is not a thermal insulator. It if was, the surface would be much COLDER than the atmosphere.

It isn't.

If you somehow could build a box that is a perfect insulator (no thermal coupling at all to the outside), the contents of the box would be the same temperature, regardless of any sunlight, any cold space, any CO2, or anything else. You could put the thing in a lit furnace and it's contents won't get any hotter.

* You can't create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics).
* You can't trap heat (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics).
* You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat. (2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law).
* You can't trap light (Plank's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law).

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm a planet. That includes EVERYTHING in the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
28-07-2019 20:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
tmiddles wrote:You don't believe an atmosphere acts as an insulator?

So you don't believe the atmosphere is part of the earth?

You don't understand what I'm asking, do you?


tmiddles wrote:So a planet with no atmosphere at all, like Mercury, with the surface exposed directly to the void of space, is no warmer than it would be if it had a heavy atmosphere, like Venus?

Because you don't understand that the atmosphere is part of the planet, right? You don't understand that what happens in the atmosphere is happening to the planet.

I see why you refuse to discuss physics, but I don't understand your compulsion to pretend to want to discuss physics.

tmiddles wrote:And I didn't say CO2 I said an atmosphere.

Do you know why CO2 is an industrial REFRIGERANT?

Hint: for the same reason Venus' daytime and nighttime temperatures are close.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-07-2019 20:33
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1435)
tmiddles wrote:
To follow that analogy:
Two cups of room temp coffee, Cup A and Cup B
Each cup of coffee is put onto a burner for 20 min, and then left off the burner for 20 min, the cycle repeating for 10 hours (total of 5 hours on and 5 hours off). A cycle just like our sun exposure.
The cups are identical except Cup A has a foam sheet wrapped around it.
Which cup gets to 102 degrees faster?
Which cup has a higher stasis temperature?
Cup A of course. Insulation is real.


Sorry, I did not address this last night...it was 2AM something and I shoulda been sleeping.

Cup B would reach 102 degrees much faster. You have insulated cup A from your heat source.

Yes, insulation is real.
Edited on 28-07-2019 20:34
28-07-2019 21:05
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1327)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Cup B would reach 102 degrees much faster. You have insulated cup A from your heat source.


And here I was using common objects and you still burned the kitchen down.

Ok two gardens, one covered by a greenhouse the other not, same question.


28-07-2019 21:27
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1435)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Cup B would reach 102 degrees much faster. You have insulated cup A from your heat source.


And here I was using common objects and you still burned the kitchen down.

Ok two gardens, one covered by a greenhouse the other not, same question.


Greenhouse. It does it by REDUCING heat. Go figure!



I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 28-07-2019 21:27
28-07-2019 21:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1327)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenhouse. It does it by REDUCING heat. Go figure!


Stop running away

Come on

Which garden, from a tomato plants POV has a warmer CLIMATE?


28-07-2019 21:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
To follow that analogy:
Two cups of room temp coffee, Cup A and Cup B
Each cup of coffee is put onto a burner for 20 min, and then left off the burner for 20 min, the cycle repeating for 10 hours (total of 5 hours on and 5 hours off). A cycle just like our sun exposure.
The cups are identical except Cup A has a foam sheet wrapped around it.
Which cup gets to 102 degrees faster?
Which cup has a higher stasis temperature?
Cup A of course. Insulation is real.


Sorry, I did not address this last night...it was 2AM something and I shoulda been sleeping.

Cup B would reach 102 degrees much faster. You have insulated cup A from your heat source.

Yes, insulation is real.


Assuming he doesn't melt the foam insulation by putting it on a heat source of course!



The Parrot Killer
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Must read letter:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Our leaders should read this204-12-2018 23:19
An open letter to the Prime Minister on the climate crisis, from 154 scientists - August 24, 20161216-12-2017 01:03
Letter to NASA From Skeptical NASA Employees426-07-2017 02:13
Read this and think4924-09-2016 06:26
An open letter to all members of Climate-debate.com7202-11-2015 22:55
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact