soda stream

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > soda stream

Page 1 of 4

soda stream28-10-2021 09:58
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I have noticed that with the soda stream if I use tap water at 18.C it will not hold a charge of CO2 it fizzes off immediately.I have to chill the water to 4.C then it takes a charge and I can mix the flavouring and in the morning the bottle still has fiz in it.Could this mean ocean waters over a certain temperature can not hold CO2 duncan61
28-10-2021 19:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	duncan61 wrote: I have noticed that with the soda stream if I use tap water at 18.C it will not hold a charge of CO2 it fizzes off immediately.I have to chill the water to 4.C then it takes a charge and I can mix the flavouring and in the morning the bottle still has fiz in it.Could this mean ocean waters over a certain temperature can not hold CO2 The saturation of CO2 in water is dependent on temperature. You can look up this chart from various engineering sources. The amount of CO2 in the oceans is nowhere near saturation. Your soda dispenser is trying to oversaturate the CO2 in water. That's what the fizz is. CO2 venting from the water to re-establish equilibrium. Warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. Thus, for soda, CO2 will stay dissolved in the soda longer (it won't fizz as fast, but it will still fizz). Oceans, of course, have nowhere near that much CO2 in them. They don't fizz like soda does. The concentration of CO2 in any part of the ocean is about the same as the air above it. Like air, CO2 is not uniformly distributed in ocean water. CO2 also does nothing to ocean water. It does not make the ocean water less alkaline. A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid. This is reaction goes both ways. Carbolic acid in water will also turn into CO2. Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer. Acid-base chemistry is completely denied by the Church of Global Warming in just the same way they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These idiots aren't chemists. I am...among other things. 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 28-10-2021 19:22
28-10-2021 22:53
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	duncan61 wrote: I have noticed that with the soda stream if I use tap water at 18.C it will not hold a charge of CO2 it fizzes off immediately.I have to chill the water to 4.C then it takes a charge and I can mix the flavouring and in the morning the bottle still has fiz in it.Could this mean ocean waters over a certain temperature can not hold CO2 I'm sure Dr. James has all the scientific data. But, it's sort of like when you open a beer, but get distracted (passed out), before you can drink much of it. Hours later, when it's warm, it's also flat. Then again, ocean water isn't beer. If you put salt in soda, doesn't it fizz over? I don't suspect ocean water is carbonated, least not enough to stain your shorts over. Could make for in interesting, Bill Nye style, scientific experiment. Maybe worth grant money, even a Nobel Prize for Climate Change. Just SodaStream some ocean water, stuff a thermometer in it, and log the temperature, and carbonation level as it warms up. Not sure how you would measure carbonation of the water though. Shake the bottle? Certainly, you should be able to eventually find what temperature ocean water instantaneously releases all it's built up man-made CO2, and causes your kitchen-lab to spontaneously warm by 1.5 C... Of course, you'd want to simplify, and speed up the experiment, so grade school kids can re-create the results, in under 30 minutes. Instead of actual ocean water, you'd probably just dump some table salt into tap water. Maybe after you carbonated the water... Amusing messy volcano like reaction, to entertain. Doesn't really matter, salt content, and carbonation level in nature, isn't standardized, or consistent.
29-10-2021 05:27
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I have just opened a bottle of pepsi max I made on Monday and it still fizzed.It was half full and kept sealed in the fridge.Is the claim that the ocean has absorbed all this tonnage of CO2 another bollocks theory.I watch a show recently where this woman stood up and declared half the barrier reef is destroyed permanantly yet Jennifer Marahosy is there on site and she says the reef has never been more alive and even NASA agree from satellite pctures that the mass of the reef is at the maximum that has been observed since records began.In the words of professor Julius Sumner Miller.Why is it so?And another thing now he is dead who is putting the glass and a half of milk in the chocolate?
29-10-2021 08:32
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I have just tried the soda stream with water at 10 degrees and it did not stay in the water.As the ocean of the coast where I live is never below 17.C in winter and as high as 33.C in summer can I assume there is no dissolved CO2.I am also assuming wave action is what puts the CO2 in in the first instance it can never get to the cooler water below.I had the water tested at Trigg beach and it is 8.3ph which is a long way from being acidic.CO2 in my back yard is currently 405ppm and showing no sign of increasing over the time I have had the device.The alarmist need to recognise the way things are now is the way it is.It is not going to get worse

29-10-2021 18:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	duncan61 wrote: I have just opened a bottle of pepsi max I made on Monday and it still fizzed.It was half full and kept sealed in the fridge.Is the claim that the ocean has absorbed all this tonnage of CO2 another bollocks theory.I watch a show recently where this woman stood up and declared half the barrier reef is destroyed permanantly yet Jennifer Marahosy is there on site and she says the reef has never been more alive and even NASA agree from satellite pctures that the mass of the reef is at the maximum that has been observed since records began.In the words of professor Julius Sumner Miller.Why is it so?And another thing now he is dead who is putting the glass and a half of milk in the chocolate? You already asked this question. I already answered it. 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
29-10-2021 18:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	duncan61 wrote: I have just tried the soda stream with water at 10 degrees and it did not stay in the water.As the ocean of the coast where I live is never below 17.C in winter and as high as 33.C in summer can I assume there is no dissolved CO2.I am also assuming wave action is what puts the CO2 in in the first instance it can never get to the cooler water below.I had the water tested at Trigg beach and it is 8.3ph which is a long way from being acidic.CO2 in my back yard is currently 405ppm and showing no sign of increasing over the time I have had the device.The alarmist need to recognise the way things are now is the way it is.It is not going to get worse I have already addressed this topic. 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
29-10-2021 21:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have noticed that with the soda stream if I use tap water at 18.C it will not hold a charge of CO2 it fizzes off immediately.I have to chill the water to 4.C then it takes a charge and I can mix the flavouring and in the morning the bottle still has fiz in it.Could this mean ocean waters over a certain temperature can not hold CO2 The saturation of CO2 in water is dependent on temperature. You can look up this chart from various engineering sources. The amount of CO2 in the oceans is nowhere near saturation. Your soda dispenser is trying to oversaturate the CO2 in water. That's what the fizz is. CO2 venting from the water to re-establish equilibrium. Warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. Thus, for soda, CO2 will stay dissolved in the soda longer (it won't fizz as fast, but it will still fizz). Oceans, of course, have nowhere near that much CO2 in them. They don't fizz like soda does. The concentration of CO2 in any part of the ocean is about the same as the air above it. Like air, CO2 is not uniformly distributed in ocean water. CO2 also does nothing to ocean water. It does not make the ocean water less alkaline. A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid. This is reaction goes both ways. Carbolic acid in water will also turn into CO2. Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer. Acid-base chemistry is completely denied by the Church of Global Warming in just the same way they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These idiots aren't chemists. I am...among other things. This is a very good post. I have appended it to the Ocean Acidification Debunked thread in the Debunking Signature. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
01-11-2021 04:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	IBdaMann wrote: This is a very good post. I have appended it to the Ocean Acidification Debunked thread in the Debunking Signature. . Thank 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
15-07-2024 07:24
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1925)	Before MY time posting here, in October, 2021 The EXACT SAME TEXT AGAIN about "carbolic" acid. IBdaMann seems to agree. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have noticed that with the soda stream if I use tap water at 18.C it will not hold a charge of CO2 it fizzes off immediately.I have to chill the water to 4.C then it takes a charge and I can mix the flavouring and in the morning the bottle still has fiz in it.Could this mean ocean waters over a certain temperature can not hold CO2 The saturation of CO2 in water is dependent on temperature. You can look up this chart from various engineering sources. The amount of CO2 in the oceans is nowhere near saturation. Your soda dispenser is trying to oversaturate the CO2 in water. That's what the fizz is. CO2 venting from the water to re-establish equilibrium. Warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. Thus, for soda, CO2 will stay dissolved in the soda longer (it won't fizz as fast, but it will still fizz). Oceans, of course, have nowhere near that much CO2 in them. They don't fizz like soda does. The concentration of CO2 in any part of the ocean is about the same as the air above it. Like air, CO2 is not uniformly distributed in ocean water. CO2 also does nothing to ocean water. It does not make the ocean water less alkaline. A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid. This is reaction goes both ways. Carbolic acid in water will also turn into CO2. Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer. Acid-base chemistry is completely denied by the Church of Global Warming in just the same way they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These idiots aren't chemists. I am...among other things. This is a very good post. I have appended it to the Ocean Acidification Debunked thread in the Debunking Signature. .
15-07-2024 15:21
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	Im a BM wrote: Before MY time posting here, in October, 2021 The EXACT SAME TEXT AGAIN about "carbolic" acid. IBdaMann seems to agree. Good catch. Write a rational, helpful response and I'll attach it to the thread.
16-07-2024 05:19
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3057)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: Before MY time posting here, in October, 2021 The EXACT SAME TEXT AGAIN about "carbolic" acid. IBdaMann seems to agree. Good catch. Write a rational, helpful response and I'll attach it to the thread. I admittedly know next to nothing about chemistry. I can tell you muratic acid is a fantastic toilet cleaner but don't leave it on your driveway full strength. Bad things happen. That is the extent of my chemistry knowledge. However, I know some of you guys use voice recognition for posting here. Is it possible this was a voice recognition error? Just curious... Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
16-07-2024 18:59
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1925)	No, it wasn't a voice recognition error. It was a READING error. IBdaMann READ the post with the word "carbolic" twice in the place of what would correctly be called carbonic acid. IBdaMann might have dyslexia as I do, but to see the same mistake TWICE without noticing it is still odd. Into the Night consistently used "carbolic" to refer to the weak acid formed when carbon dioxide dissolves in water. Or his voice recognition consistently failed to hear the word right. For years, before I began posting. IBdaMann reads the post and says that it is very good. So good it should be archived in a special place. IBdaMann doesn't know shit about chemistry. GasGuzzler, to your credit, you do not pretend to be a "chemist". Into the Night claims to be a "chemist". Falsely accuses me, over and over, of not really being a chemist or any other kind of scientist. At least you're not an effing LIAR about being some kind of chemist. The kind of chemist who doesn't know the difference between carbolic and carbonic acid. The kind of self identified "expert" who praises the error, so completely uneducated in chemistry that he fails to notice the glaring, repeated mistake. At least you are not THAT kind of liar. GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: Before MY time posting here, in October, 2021 The EXACT SAME TEXT AGAIN about "carbolic" acid. IBdaMann seems to agree. Good catch. Write a rational, helpful response and I'll attach it to the thread. I admittedly know next to nothing about chemistry. I can tell you muratic acid is a fantastic toilet cleaner but don't leave it on your driveway full strength. Bad things happen. That is the extent of my chemistry knowledge. However, I know some of you guys use voice recognition for posting here. Is it possible this was a voice recognition error? Just curious...
16-07-2024 20:44
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	Im a BM wrote: No, it wasn't a voice recognition error. How would you be able to tell? Im a BM wrote: It was a READING error. So, it was not a writing error, correct? Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann READ the post with the word "carbolic" twice in the place of what would correctly be called carbonic acid. IBdaMann might have dyslexia as I do, but to see the same mistake TWICE without noticing it is still odd. You are correct, and I did not catch it ... but you did, and you brought it to my attention, and to everyone's attention. Thank you. I have not seen any rational writeup from you about carbonic acid, preferably one that includes effects of evaporation of water, that I can add to the Debunking thread. Please include mention of how it isn't carbolic acid, whose spelling sometimes confuses matters. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night consistently used "carbolic" to refer to the weak acid formed when carbon dioxide dissolves in water. You caught wind of a discrepancy and are demanding answers, just as the posters of this site noticed your discrepancies and demanded answers when you began posting your Climate sermons. The difference is that you have remained steadfast in your refusal to provide any answers. Can you imagine how you would so not be a Global Warming believer today if you had applied this same level of critical reasoning when you were being indoctrinated? Imagine if you had properly called booooolsch't when you were ordered to believe that dead organisms somehow acquire the ability to drill miles deep into the earth, through impermeable rock. Imagine if you had correctly called boooooolsch't when you were ordered to believe that Dominican coral reefs were dead; you would have actually checked, and discovered that they were still thriving. Give us an official PhD-level writeup, with you as the only listed author, concerning carbonic acid's place in the CO2-cycle, and I'll peer review it for you, if that's what you need. Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann doesn't know shit about chemistry. Again with the declarations. You are free to speculate as to what I do not know and tell us. Let's discuss. Im a BM wrote: GasGuzzler, to your credit, you do not pretend to be a "chemist". GasGuzzler is just like everyone else, except that he's completely different. Of course he wanted to be smart, so he just jumped directly to being a smart person without getting mixed up in all the particulars of any one particular smart person category. I think GasGuzzler might be Climate-Debate's fastest breaker-downer of warmizombie arguments. He also has access to Ralph 24/7 to give him correct answers, but he always plays coy. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night claims to be a "chemist". Falsely accuses me, over and over, of not really being a chemist or any other kind of scientist. What materials have you engineered over the last fifteen years vs. what materials has Into the Night engineered over the same time period? I've engineered some materials, but not for commercial purposes. What have you done? Im a BM wrote: The kind of chemist who doesn't know the difference between carbolic and carbonic acid. You're going to have a difficult time convincing anyone that Into the Night didn't merely mistype. In the very thread you cited, Into the Night states that carbolic acid is not carbonic acid. You aren't going to convince anyone that he doesn't know there's a difference. This is why I claim that you should simply point out what you believe are errors when you see them, rather than appear to whine about things that you merely catch a long time thereafter, giving the appearance that you didn't know previously but only recently learned some new information. If you think there are people who enjoy reading your whinging and griping and complaining ... you are mistaken.
18-07-2024 02:35
Swan★★★★★ (6352)	duncan61 wrote: I have just opened a bottle of pepsi max I made on Monday and it still fizzed.It was half full and kept sealed in the fridge.Is the claim that the ocean has absorbed all this tonnage of CO2 another bollocks theory.I watch a show recently where this woman stood up and declared half the barrier reef is destroyed permanantly yet Jennifer Marahosy is there on site and she says the reef has never been more alive and even NASA agree from satellite pctures that the mass of the reef is at the maximum that has been observed since records began.In the words of professor Julius Sumner Miller.Why is it so?And another thing now he is dead who is putting the glass and a half of milk in the chocolate? You do not make pepsi, nor is there any reason to drink that krap 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? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL

18-07-2024 10:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: Before MY time posting here, in October, 2021 The EXACT SAME TEXT AGAIN about "carbolic" acid. IBdaMann seems to agree. Good catch. Write a rational, helpful response and I'll attach it to the thread. I admittedly know next to nothing about chemistry. I can tell you muratic acid is a fantastic toilet cleaner but don't leave it on your driveway full strength. Bad things happen. That is the extent of my chemistry knowledge. However, I know some of you guys use voice recognition for posting here. Is it possible this was a voice recognition error? Just curious... After you clean your toilet, and before you flush, add some baking soda slowly (until the foaming stops). That converts the acid to salt water, a lot safer for the pipes and even a septic tank, if you have one. 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
18-07-2024 10:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	Im a BM wrote: No, it wasn't a voice recognition error. It was a READING error. IBdaMann READ the post with the word "carbolic" twice in the place of what would correctly be called carbonic acid. IBdaMann might have dyslexia as I do, but to see the same mistake TWICE without noticing it is still odd. Into the Night consistently used "carbolic" to refer to the weak acid formed when carbon dioxide dissolves in water. Or his voice recognition consistently failed to hear the word right. For years, before I began posting. IBdaMann reads the post and says that it is very good. So good it should be archived in a special place. IBdaMann doesn't know shit about chemistry. GasGuzzler, to your credit, you do not pretend to be a "chemist". Into the Night claims to be a "chemist". Falsely accuses me, over and over, of not really being a chemist or any other kind of scientist. At least you're not an effing LIAR about being some kind of chemist. The kind of chemist who doesn't know the difference between carbolic and carbonic acid. The kind of self identified "expert" who praises the error, so completely uneducated in chemistry that he fails to notice the glaring, repeated mistake. At least you are not THAT kind of liar. Too bad you don't know any chemistry. Spamming won't help you either. 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
18-07-2024 10:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	Swan wrote: You do not make pepsi, nor is there any reason to drink that krap This from the idiot that thinks gold is not a molecule. Guess what, gold is not only a molecule, but also an element, and in solid form, also a crystal. 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
18-07-2024 11:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	IBdaMann wrote: What materials have you engineered over the last fifteen years vs. what materials has Into the Night engineered over the same time period? I've engineered some materials, but not for commercial purposes. What have you done? Lessee. Most of the materials my sensors help produce tend to be measured by the ton. They help produce (among other things): Chlorine dioxide, an extremely sensitive explosive used for the bleaching of paper. It must be made on site because it's too dangerous to ship it. The accurate extraction of lignin during the bleaching process itself, allowing for better quality paper. The lignin is used as fuel to power much of the plant. Improved protective coatings of titanium components in pulp mills. Improved techniques to achieve 3rd stage water treatment at wastewater treatment plants, leaving the effluent as potable water, without the use of large settling ponds, by using charge cancelling technique on incoming material at the head of the plant. Improved fuel efficiency of aircraft (almost doubling it!) through better isolation of hot and cold sections of the engine, and by better fuel metering. As for myself, for my own chemistry (not the sensors controlling processes on an industrial scale) this last year: Developed a safer method of mixing explosives used as salutes using automation. Developed a faster and more reliable method of building a lightning effect, constructing 400 ft of it within hours, instead of the weeks it usually took. Developed a safer formula for red stars (the visible part of a firework) that also allows for different manufacturing techniques including cut, rolled, or pressed stars. Improved safe manufacture of aluminum powder, a dangerous conflagrant. Mixed up some 20kg of black power, granulating some for lift charge, coursing some for burst charge, and leaving some as meal for time fuses, blackmatch, or quickmatch. Taught people how to safely construct, then launch their own shell. That's a bit of what I do. 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 18-07-2024 11:05
19-07-2024 05:27
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3057)	IBdaMann wrote: You are correct, and I did not catch it ... but you did, and you brought it to my attention, and to everyone's attention. Thank you. @spamlover This is called honesty and integrity. Give it a try. IBdaMann wrote: I think GasGuzzler might be Climate-Debate's fastest breaker-downer of warmizombie arguments. He also has access to Ralph 24/7 to give him correct answers, but he always plays coy. Ralph is a great resource but he don't know shit for chemistry. I have to get my toilet cleaning tips from Into the Night. Thanks ITN, your check is in the mail. I wonder if Frank knows any chemistry. I'll ask him when he gets home from the hospital. He's recovering from a helium accident at a birthday party. Long story short...it's a damn good thing we were actually in a greenhouse or Frank would have been a goner. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
19-07-2024 06:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	Into the Night wrote: Chlorine dioxide, an extremely sensitive explosive used for the bleaching of paper. What? Do you just explode stains off the paper? Wait. Do you use explosives when you bleach your coral?
20-07-2024 19:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You are correct, and I did not catch it ... but you did, and you brought it to my attention, and to everyone's attention. Thank you. @spamlover This is called honesty and integrity. Give it a try. IBdaMann wrote: I think GasGuzzler might be Climate-Debate's fastest breaker-downer of warmizombie arguments. He also has access to Ralph 24/7 to give him correct answers, but he always plays coy. Ralph is a great resource but he don't know shit for chemistry. I have to get my toilet cleaning tips from Into the Night. Thanks ITN, your check is in the mail. 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
20-07-2024 20:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Chlorine dioxide, an extremely sensitive explosive used for the bleaching of paper. What? Do you just explode stains off the paper? Wait. Do you use explosives when you bleach your coral? No. When dissolved in water in dilute quantities, it's a great bleach that breaks down the lignin. Paper making is all about breaking down the lignin, yet not bleaching so much that you break down the fibers. Too little bleaching means brown paper good for little else than grocery sacks and "kraft" paper. Too much means stuff that is really only good for toilet paper. You want it just right. That's how you get the nice bright office paper and stationary paper. So the bleach is kept in the process for a precise level of dilution and for a precise length of time. Chlorine dioxide is used because it's so reactive. It's also easily extracted when the time comes because it's so reactive. But in the quantity a pulp mill uses the stuff, it can't be shipped safely. So they make it on site. Off to one side is a spherical tank, built nice and beefy. The chlorine dioxide is generated in 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
21-07-2024 04:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	Into the Night wrote: Too little bleaching means brown paper good for little else than grocery sacks and "kraft" paper. Chlorine Dioxide is your friend! Into the Night wrote: Too much means stuff that is really only good for toilet paper. Chlorine Dioxide is your enemy! Into the Night wrote: You want it just right. Chlorine Dioxide is like soldering flux ... you need it just right. Into the Night wrote: That's how you get the nice bright office paper and stationary paper. Then how do you get nice bright toilet paper? Into the Night wrote: So the bleach is kept in the process for a precise level of dilution and for a precise length of time. Into the Night wrote: Chlorine dioxide is used because it's so reactive. It's also easily extracted when the time comes because it's so reactive. So, it never explodes? What about if you want to make paper confetti? Wouldn't it be easier to just let it blow up? ... you know, do the bleaching and the confettisizing in one step? Into the Night wrote: But in the quantity a pulp mill uses the stuff, it can't be shipped safely. So they make it on site. Just ship it with the paper that is going to become confetti.
21-07-2024 21:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Too little bleaching means brown paper good for little else than grocery sacks and "kraft" paper. Chlorine Dioxide is your friend! Into the Night wrote: Too much means stuff that is really only good for toilet paper. Chlorine Dioxide is your enemy! No. Chlorine dioxide is like any material. If you respect it and handle it properly, it's a very useful bleach. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: You want it just right. Chlorine Dioxide is like soldering flux ... you need it just right. One way to put it! It's a lousy flux though, since it's corrosive to the joint. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: That's how you get the nice bright office paper and stationary paper. Then how do you get nice bright toilet paper? Overbleaching. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: So the bleach is kept in the process for a precise level of dilution and for a precise length of time. Into the Night wrote: Chlorine dioxide is used because it's so reactive. It's also easily extracted when the time comes because it's so reactive. So, it never explodes? Yes it does. The generator tank is built nice and beefy because it DOES explode from time to time in the tank. It makes a tremendous boom when it does! The millwrights call that a "burp"! The tank is built to take it. In the water in the bleaching process, a small amount it used. Dissolved this way in such small amounts, it's safe. IBdaMann wrote: What about if you want to make paper confetti? Wouldn't it be easier to just let it blow up? ... you know, do the bleaching and the confettisizing in one step? There are no sheets yet. Just wood and pulp. Sheets (rolls, actually) are made on the dry end, long after the chlorine dioxide has been extracted. 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
21-07-2024 21:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: Too little bleaching means brown paper good for little else than grocery sacks and "kraft" paper. Chlorine Dioxide is your friend! Into the Night wrote: Too much means stuff that is really only good for toilet paper. Chlorine Dioxide is your enemy! No. Chlorine dioxide is like any material. If you respect it and handle it properly, it's a very useful bleach. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: You want it just right. Chlorine Dioxide is like soldering flux ... you need it just right. One way to put it! It's a lousy flux though, since it's corrosive to the joint. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: That's how you get the nice bright office paper and stationary paper. Then how do you get nice bright toilet paper? Overbleaching. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: So the bleach is kept in the process for a precise level of dilution and for a precise length of time. Into the Night wrote: Chlorine dioxide is used because it's so reactive. It's also easily extracted when the time comes because it's so reactive. So, it never explodes? Yes it does. The generator tank is built nice and beefy because it DOES explode from time to time in the tank. It makes a tremendous boom when it does! The millwrights call that a "burp"! The tank is built to take it. In the water in the bleaching process, a small amount it used. Dissolved this way in such small amounts, it's safe. IBdaMann wrote: What about if you want to make paper confetti? Wouldn't it be easier to just let it blow up? ... you know, do the bleaching and the confettisizing in one step? There are no sheets yet. Just wood and pulp. Sheets (rolls, actually) are made on the dry end, long after the chlorine dioxide has been extracted. You never explained whether the chlorine is organic or inorganic. Please, no word games.
21-07-2024 23:05
Swan★★★★★ (6352)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: You do not make pepsi, nor is there any reason to drink that krap This from the idiot that thinks gold is not a molecule. Guess what, gold is not only a molecule, but also an element, and in solid form, also a crystal. Gold is an element, molecules are combinations of elements. You may continue masturbating 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? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
22-07-2024 06:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	Swan wrote: Gold is an element Correct, but you don't get any points for knowing that. Swan wrote: molecules are combinations of elements. You're talking about a "compound" A molecule is just two or more bonded atoms. O2 is an oxygen molecule. A lump of gold is a bunch of bonded gold atoms, and hence, a molecule.
22-07-2024 13:10
Swan★★★★★ (6352)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: Gold is an element Correct, but you don't get any points for knowing that. Swan wrote: molecules are combinations of elements. You're talking about a "compound" A molecule is just two or more bonded atoms. O2 is an oxygen molecule. A lump of gold is a bunch of bonded gold atoms, and hence, a molecule. But Gold is not Oxygen, except in your schizzo mind A bar of pure gold is not considered a molecular compound because gold exists as individual atoms in its elemental form, not as molecules. In molecular compounds, atoms are chemically bonded together to form stable structures called molecules. Gold is an element with the atomic symbol Au and atomic number 79. Now please take your Thorazine 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? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
22-07-2024 16:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: Gold is an element Correct, but you don't get any points for knowing that. Swan wrote: molecules are combinations of elements. You're talking about a "compound" A molecule is just two or more bonded atoms. O2 is an oxygen molecule. A lump of gold is a bunch of bonded gold atoms, and hence, a molecule. But Gold is not Oxygen, ... You've been reading. Great! Unfortunately, this doesn't get you any points either. Swan wrote: A bar of pure gold is not considered a molecular compound because gold exists as individual atoms Nope. A bar of pure gold is not considered a molecular compound because pure gold is not a compound. See above. Swan wrote: In molecular compounds, atoms are chemically bonded together to form stable structures called molecules. The definition holds true even when the substance is not a compound. A bar of pure gold is still multiple atoms bonded together, i.e. a molecule. Check the definition. Now please take your Thorazine and have a great day.

22-07-2024 18:08
Swan★★★★★ (6352)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: Gold is an element Correct, but you don't get any points for knowing that. Swan wrote: molecules are combinations of elements. You're talking about a "compound" A molecule is just two or more bonded atoms. O2 is an oxygen molecule. A lump of gold is a bunch of bonded gold atoms, and hence, a molecule. But Gold is not Oxygen, ... You've been reading. Great! Unfortunately, this doesn't get you any points either. Swan wrote: A bar of pure gold is not considered a molecular compound because gold exists as individual atoms Nope. A bar of pure gold is not considered a molecular compound because pure gold is not a compound. See above. Swan wrote: In molecular compounds, atoms are chemically bonded together to form stable structures called molecules. The definition holds true even when the substance is not a compound. A bar of pure gold is still multiple atoms bonded together, i.e. a molecule. Check the definition. Now please take your Thorazine and have a great day. But Gold is not Oxygen, except in your schizzo mind A bar of pure gold is not considered a molecular compound because gold exists as individual atoms in its elemental form, not as molecules. In molecular compounds, atoms are chemically bonded together to form stable structures called molecules. Gold is an element with the atomic symbol Au and atomic number 79. Now please take your Thorazine 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? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
24-07-2024 02:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: You do not make pepsi, nor is there any reason to drink that krap This from the idiot that thinks gold is not a molecule. Guess what, gold is not only a molecule, but also an element, and in solid form, also a crystal. Gold is an element, molecules are combinations of elements. You may continue masturbating Molecules occur in the same element. You are talking about 'compounds', not molecules. Obviously you don't know chemistry either. 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
24-07-2024 02:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: Gold is an element Correct, but you don't get any points for knowing that. Swan wrote: molecules are combinations of elements. You're talking about a "compound" A molecule is just two or more bonded atoms. O2 is an oxygen molecule. A lump of gold is a bunch of bonded gold atoms, and hence, a molecule. But Gold is not Oxygen, except in your schizzo mind He never said gold was oxygen, idiot. Swan wrote: A bar of pure gold is not considered a molecular compound because gold exists as individual atoms in its elemental form, not as molecules. Gold is an element and also a molecule. It is not a compound. Swan wrote: In molecular compounds, Gold is an element and also a molecule. It is not a compound. Swan wrote: atoms are chemically bonded together to form stable structures called molecules. A molecule is not a compound. Swan wrote: Gold is an element with the atomic symbol Au and atomic number 79. So? Gold is also a molecule. Swan wrote: Now please take your Thorazine Thorazine is a molecule AND a compound. 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
24-07-2024 03:09
Swan★★★★★ (6352)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: You do not make pepsi, nor is there any reason to drink that krap This from the idiot that thinks gold is not a molecule. Guess what, gold is not only a molecule, but also an element, and in solid form, also a crystal. Gold is an element, molecules are combinations of elements. You may continue masturbating Molecules occur in the same element. You are talking about 'compounds', not molecules. Obviously you don't know chemistry either. Same element molecules do not occur in AU Now stop pretending to have graduated anything 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? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
24-07-2024 21:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: You do not make pepsi, nor is there any reason to drink that krap This from the idiot that thinks gold is not a molecule. Guess what, gold is not only a molecule, but also an element, and in solid form, also a crystal. Gold is an element, molecules are combinations of elements. You may continue masturbating Molecules occur in the same element. You are talking about 'compounds', not molecules. Obviously you don't know chemistry either. Same element molecules do not occur in AU They certainly do. Indeed, gold, in it's solid state, forms a crystal. Swan wrote: Now stop pretending to have graduated anything Mantra 1a. Lame. 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
04-09-2024 00:27
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1925)	Buffering is NOT the same as dilution. "Water itself is a buffer for acid." claims the guy who lies about being a chemist. A buffer resists change to pH upon addition of acid or base. A buffer has its maximum ability to resist pH change when the concentration of (deprotonated) oxyanion conjugate base is equal to the concentration of protonated (acid) form. Water is an incredibly weak buffer, and really only acts to DILUTE an acid or base. And, of course, the retarded assertion that it is "carbolic" acid that forms when carbon dioxide combines with water. Will Into the Night EVER admit that he is WRONG about ANYTHING? Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: No, it wasn't a voice recognition error. It was a READING error. IBdaMann READ the post with the word "carbolic" twice in the place of what would correctly be called carbonic acid. IBdaMann might have dyslexia as I do, but to see the same mistake TWICE without noticing it is still odd. Into the Night consistently used "carbolic" to refer to the weak acid formed when carbon dioxide dissolves in water. Or his voice recognition consistently failed to hear the word right. For years, before I began posting. IBdaMann reads the post and says that it is very good. So good it should be archived in a special place. IBdaMann doesn't know shit about chemistry. GasGuzzler, to your credit, you do not pretend to be a "chemist". Into the Night claims to be a "chemist". Falsely accuses me, over and over, of not really being a chemist or any other kind of scientist. At least you're not an effing LIAR about being some kind of chemist. The kind of chemist who doesn't know the difference between carbolic and carbonic acid. The kind of self identified "expert" who praises the error, so completely uneducated in chemistry that he fails to notice the glaring, repeated mistake. At least you are not THAT kind of liar. Too bad you don't know any chemistry. Spamming won't help you either.
04-09-2024 06:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14955)	Im a BM wrote: "Water itself is a buffer for acid." claims the guy who lies about being a chemist. Water is a buffer, albeit a weak one. Given unlimited pure water (simply quantity), you have unlimited buffering. Im a BM wrote: Water is an incredibly weak buffer, So help me figure out where the disconnect is. It sounds like "dilution" is very much a component of overall buffering, just like resistance is simply one component of impedance. Im a BM wrote: No, it wasn't a voice recognition error. It was a READING error. I have been known to make those. I appreciate when people point them out. Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann might have dyslexia as I do, but to see the same mistake TWICE without noticing it is still odd. do I ton have dyslexia, but we should still UNTIE! I often rush in my reading of posts and I do make both reading errors and typos. Please point them out when they occur. I, for one, don't use either "carbolic" or "carbonic" in my daily life outside of posting on the internet so I will typically read over it without really scrutinizing. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night consistently used "carbolic" to refer to the weak acid formed when carbon dioxide dissolves in water. So you know what he means when he uses the term. You, on the other hand, have never defined "organic" carbon vs. "inorganic" carbon, which are not chemistry terms. There is only one flavor of carbon; nonetheless, outside of urging you to define the meaning, nobody is persecuting you for using the terms. You also routinely use categories to mean specific chemicals within those categories. That's a foul. You asked Into the Night what he means by the term "carbolic acid" and he told you. Good news! You can move on. Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann reads the post and says that it is very good. So good it should be archived in a special place. I read for content. I don't get wrapped around the axle over what terms are being used. I only care about the content of the post and whether the terms are being used consistently within the manner in which they were defined by the poster. Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann doesn't know shit about chemistry. Someone who doesn't know the difference between a chemical and a category is projecting. Im a BM wrote: GasGuzzler, to your credit, you do not pretend to be a "chemist". GasGuzzler absolutely professes to be making a career in both organic and non-organic peanut butter. Im a BM wrote: Falsely accuses me, over and over, of not really being a chemist or any other kind of scientist. I'll dogpile on that. You won't define your terms. You refer to clarification questions as "word games." That precludes you from being taken seriously as a scientist. You also believe in egregious physics violations. You wouldn't have been duped by the Church of Global Warming if you weren't scientifically illiterate in the fundamentals.
05-09-2024 00:58
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1925)	Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have noticed that with the soda stream if I use tap water at 18.C it will not hold a charge of CO2 it fizzes off immediately.I have to chill the water to 4.C then it takes a charge and I can mix the flavouring and in the morning the bottle still has fiz in it.Could this mean ocean waters over a certain temperature can not hold CO2 The saturation of CO2 in water is dependent on temperature. You can look up this chart from various engineering sources. The amount of CO2 in the oceans is nowhere near saturation. Your soda dispenser is trying to oversaturate the CO2 in water. That's what the fizz is. CO2 venting from the water to re-establish equilibrium. Warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. Thus, for soda, CO2 will stay dissolved in the soda longer (it won't fizz as fast, but it will still fizz). Oceans, of course, have nowhere near that much CO2 in them. They don't fizz like soda does. The concentration of CO2 in any part of the ocean is about the same as the air above it. Like air, CO2 is not uniformly distributed in ocean water. CO2 also does nothing to ocean water. It does not make the ocean water less alkaline. A very small amount of CO2 in water (around 1%) will form carbolic acid. This is reaction goes both ways. Carbolic acid in water will also turn into CO2. Water itself is a buffer for acid. This means the pH of the ocean water isn't going to change any detectable degree even with the carbolic acid in it. It has the entire ocean itself acting as a buffer. Acid-base chemistry is completely denied by the Church of Global Warming in just the same way they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These idiots aren't chemists. I am...among other things. The ocean is buffered against pH change by what chemists call "The Carbonate System". Bicarbonate ion provides the lion's share of alkalinity. Carbonate ion is the second largest contributor to sea water alkalinity. Carbonic acid is what forms from atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolving into sea water. NOT "carbolic" acid. AND those "idiots" ARE really chemists. Into the Night is not. Not even close.
05-09-2024 02:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (22991)	Im a BM wrote: The ocean is buffered against pH change by what chemists call "The Carbonate System". There is no such thing as "The Carbonate System". Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Bicarbonate ion provides the lion's share of alkalinity. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Carbonate ion is the second largest contributor to sea water alkalinity. Carbonate is not a chemical. Alkalinity is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Carbonic acid is what forms from atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolving into sea water. Carbon dioxide simply dissolves in water. It doesn't even have to be atmospheric. Im a BM wrote: AND those "idiots" ARE really chemists. Into the Night is not. Not even close. You are describing yourself again. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE! 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 05-09-2024 02:49
05-09-2024 06:14
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (3057)	IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler absolutely professes to be making a career in both organic and non-organic peanut butter. You have assigned me a bogus position. I don't know shit about peanut butter except for it goes well with cherry McGillicuddy...and as far as the science tells me, the organic stuff will not warm the planet...or the climate. I can't find any prestigious scientific journals about inorganic peanut butter. I have a feeling Jimmy Carter holds all the science on that topic. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan

Page 1 of 4

Join the debate soda stream:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Gargantuan sluice gate in Gulf Stream to warm Europe, lower nat gas need	29	26-04-2022 18:14
Relaxing Music with a Nice View of the Earth (Live Stream)	33	01-01-2022 03:57
How the Jet Stream Influences the Weather	43	22-11-2020 01:31
The Norwegian Gulf Stream	4	04-03-2020 01:14
Cold can of soda?	10	08-06-2019 00:25