| 23-05-2022 22:46 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21597) |
James_ wrote:
The enzyme that was discovered might allow for a scalable form of biofuel production. It basically
converts fatty acids into hydrocarbons without the need for further refinement. The enzyme that was discovered isn't being revealed.
Some will say hoax while others will say protecting intellectual property. After all, the enzyme cannot be patented or copyrighted so making it known offers no legal protection for other groups to pursue a way in which to financially exploit such a discovery.
https://www.cbinsights.com/research/algae-biofuel-enzyme/
It is interesting to note that by oxidizing only one C - H into CHO2 then the long fatty chain becomes a usable hydrocarbon. I guess this means when 17C and 35H are oxidized what happens to the odd hydrogen element? Does the one that forms the CHO2 move to the end of the long fatty chain? If so then 36H + 9O2 > 9H2O along with 17C + 17O2 > 17CO2.
So then would the electrons be converted into plasma energy which excites the other gasses in the combustion chamber or would the extra electrons change the ionization of gasses kind of like photons being fired from a CRT?
I just felt like getting into an argument with someone and you guys make it so easy. Does the carboxylic acid return the hydrogen element to the long fatty chain or not? It makes since if it does because then we wouldn't be asking is HO involved in this chemistry?
p.s., if such a discovery was made, the production method can be patented. That is a specific system which is not of nature. An example of this is that nuclear fission cannot be patented but the power plant's process can be. This is what has limited research into some of the newer designs. Cost of research/investment and possible financial returns.
What oxidizing? What hydrocarbon?
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 |
| 23-05-2022 22:58 |
Swan ★★★★★
(5721) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
noun
plural noun: fossil fuels
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.
Do you honestly believe that hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter?
Why not believe this, since hydrocarbons are formed from decaying organic matter now in the forms of ethanol and methanol. Or are you too dumb to know that corn and algae is used to produce fuel
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Denial of chemistry.
Why would hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter? Please describe this process.
Corn and algae are not hydrocarbons.
Corn and algae are the organic matter tha tis used to form hydrocarbons in real time
No hydrocarbons are in corn or algae.
Swan wrote:
Ethanol is a member of the alcohol hydrocarbon derivative family of chemicals.
No such thing. Alcohol is not a hydrocarbon either.
Swan wrote:
All alcohols are flammable and toxic to some degree. Hydrocarbon derivatives
No such thing as a 'hydrocarbon derivative'. Buzzword fallacy.
Swan wrote:
get their name from the fact they are hydrocarbons to start with
They are not hydrocarbons.
Swan wrote:
and have other chemical elements added to create a new chemical that has some economic value.
...such as...? Obviously you have no idea what a hydrocarbon is.
Swan wrote:
At some point you will need more Vaseline
That's not a hydrocarbon either.
Why is ethanol a hydrocarbon?
In ethanol, the hydroxyl group (-OH) is attached to the carbon atom of the ethyl group (hydrocarbon chain). The formula for ethanol is CH3CH2OH, making ethanol derived from corn a hydrocarbon.
Next government moron doing what they are told
Edited on 23-05-2022 23:03 |
| 23-05-2022 23:06 |
James_★★★★★
(2238) |
Into the Night wrote:
What oxidizing? What hydrocarbon?
Are you discussing biofuel or a dead dinosaur? Dead dinosaurs generate hydrocarbons from the emissions of burning fossil fuels. You know, old geezers like you.
With algae and corn, clean hydrocarbons are generated by getting rid of the end of the chain. To use nuclear terms, the material can be interacted with. You know, firing a proton into cesium 235 might release an alpha particle which is heat, right?
Removing the end hydrogen element might allow for the same effect. O2 could start interacting with the C and H elements in the fatty chain. And then when each new molecule is formed, energy is released just as with nuclear fission.
This is so cool ITN and I am so glad that you understand this.
p.s., just to be technical, with nuclear fission everybody knows that gamma radiation is also released with radioactive 2/4 He (an Alpha particle).
p.s.s.s, gamma radiation is a beta particle.
Edited on 23-05-2022 23:55 |
| 23-05-2022 23:36 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
noun
plural noun: fossil fuels
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.
Do you honestly believe that hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter?
Why not believe this, since hydrocarbons are formed from decaying organic matter now in the forms of ethanol and methanol. Or are you too dumb to know that corn and algae is used to produce fuel
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Denial of chemistry.
Why would hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter? Please describe this process.
Corn and algae are not hydrocarbons.
Corn and algae are the organic matter tha tis used to form hydrocarbons in real time
No hydrocarbons are in corn or algae.
Swan wrote:
Ethanol is a member of the alcohol hydrocarbon derivative family of chemicals.
No such thing. Alcohol is not a hydrocarbon either.
Swan wrote:
All alcohols are flammable and toxic to some degree. Hydrocarbon derivatives
No such thing as a 'hydrocarbon derivative'. Buzzword fallacy.
Swan wrote:
get their name from the fact they are hydrocarbons to start with
They are not hydrocarbons.
Swan wrote:
and have other chemical elements added to create a new chemical that has some economic value.
...such as...? Obviously you have no idea what a hydrocarbon is.
Swan wrote:
At some point you will need more Vaseline
That's not a hydrocarbon either.
Why is ethanol a hydrocarbon?
Because it's an alcohol.
Swan wrote:
In ethanol, the hydroxyl group (-OH) is attached to the carbon atom of the ethyl group (hydrocarbon chain). The formula for ethanol is CH3CH2OH, making ethanol derived from corn a hydrocarbon.
Not a hydrocarbon.
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 23-05-2022 23:38 |
| 24-05-2022 00:01 |
James_★★★★★
(2238) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
noun
plural noun: fossil fuels
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.
Do you honestly believe that hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter?
Why not believe this, since hydrocarbons are formed from decaying organic matter now in the forms of ethanol and methanol. Or are you too dumb to know that corn and algae is used to produce fuel
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Denial of chemistry.
Why would hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter? Please describe this process.
Corn and algae are not hydrocarbons.
Corn and algae are the organic matter tha tis used to form hydrocarbons in real time
No hydrocarbons are in corn or algae.
Swan wrote:
Ethanol is a member of the alcohol hydrocarbon derivative family of chemicals.
No such thing. Alcohol is not a hydrocarbon either.
Swan wrote:
All alcohols are flammable and toxic to some degree. Hydrocarbon derivatives
No such thing as a 'hydrocarbon derivative'. Buzzword fallacy.
Swan wrote:
get their name from the fact they are hydrocarbons to start with
They are not hydrocarbons.
Swan wrote:
and have other chemical elements added to create a new chemical that has some economic value.
...such as...? Obviously you have no idea what a hydrocarbon is.
Swan wrote:
At some point you will need more Vaseline
That's not a hydrocarbon either.
Why is ethanol a hydrocarbon?
Because it's an alcohol.
Swan wrote:
In ethanol, the hydroxyl group (-OH) is attached to the carbon atom of the ethyl group (hydrocarbon chain). The formula for ethanol is CH3CH2OH, making ethanol derived from corn a hydrocarbon.
Not a hydrocarbon.
Maybe this is why synthesizing corn into fuel is expensive? CH3CH2OH.
Since H2C appears to be the fuel, how much H2C is in ethanol? And in chemistry for the sake of chemistry, 2CH3CH2OH or more molecules can be considered.
My question is this, what are we considering and what is the source of the fuel/energy? |
|
| 24-05-2022 13:59 |
Swan★★★★★
(5721) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
noun
plural noun: fossil fuels
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.
Do you honestly believe that hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter?
Why not believe this, since hydrocarbons are formed from decaying organic matter now in the forms of ethanol and methanol. Or are you too dumb to know that corn and algae is used to produce fuel
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Denial of chemistry.
Why would hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter? Please describe this process.
Corn and algae are not hydrocarbons.
Corn and algae are the organic matter tha tis used to form hydrocarbons in real time
No hydrocarbons are in corn or algae.
Swan wrote:
Ethanol is a member of the alcohol hydrocarbon derivative family of chemicals.
No such thing. Alcohol is not a hydrocarbon either.
Swan wrote:
All alcohols are flammable and toxic to some degree. Hydrocarbon derivatives
No such thing as a 'hydrocarbon derivative'. Buzzword fallacy.
Swan wrote:
get their name from the fact they are hydrocarbons to start with
They are not hydrocarbons.
Swan wrote:
and have other chemical elements added to create a new chemical that has some economic value.
...such as...? Obviously you have no idea what a hydrocarbon is.
Swan wrote:
At some point you will need more Vaseline
That's not a hydrocarbon either.
Why is ethanol a hydrocarbon?
Because it's an alcohol.
Swan wrote:
In ethanol, the hydroxyl group (-OH) is attached to the carbon atom of the ethyl group (hydrocarbon chain). The formula for ethanol is CH3CH2OH, making ethanol derived from corn a hydrocarbon.
Not a hydrocarbon.
Oh I get this, since you can't confuse me with quantum physics or biology you are trying to do the same with chemistry.
LOL, however the fact remains that ethanol or ethyl alcohol or as it is sometimes called or grain alcohol is still a hydrocarbon and can cause serious brain damage as you clearly already know.
Ethanol is a member of the alcohol hydrocarbon derivative family of chemicals. All alcohols are flammable and toxic to some degree. Hydrocarbon derivatives get their name from the fact they are hydrocarbons to start with and have other chemical elements added to create a new chemical that has some economic value.
Edited on 24-05-2022 14:48 |
| 24-05-2022 17:50 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14406) |
Swan wrote:Oh I get this, since you can't confuse me with quantum physics or biology
Actually, it is a simple matter to confuse you with either quantum mechanics or biology. All anyone needs to do is mention one or the other and then tell you some WACKY thing to believe.
How difficult was it to get you to believe in quantum entanglement teleportation?
How difficult was it to get you to believe that amphibian animals are not amphibians?
How difficult was it to get you to believe that all locations that have moraines were somehow under ice at the same time?
How difficult was it to convince you that a vacuum nonetheless can have temperature?
You see? Tooling you is apparently easier than learning to play Pac-Man.
... but don't worry, you'll always have me to answer your tough questions. I got your back. You've got this.
.
Edited on 24-05-2022 17:52 |
| 24-05-2022 19:17 |
Swan★★★★★
(5721) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Oh I get this, since you can't confuse me with quantum physics or biology
Actually, it is a simple matter to confuse you with either quantum mechanics or biology. All anyone needs to do is mention one or the other and then tell you some WACKY thing to believe.
How difficult was it to get you to believe in quantum entanglement teleportation?
How difficult was it to get you to believe that amphibian animals are not amphibians?
How difficult was it to get you to believe that all locations that have moraines were somehow under ice at the same time?
How difficult was it to convince you that a vacuum nonetheless can have temperature?
You see? Tooling you is apparently easier than learning to play Pac-Man.
... but don't worry, you'll always have me to answer your tough questions. I got your back. You've got this.
.
Curled 140 lbs today, then I bought some companion marigolds for my tomato plants.
You are continuously farting in your cubicle as you demonstrate clearly how to be my pet internet parrot. Polly want a crack-er
Yawn, try not doing what they tell you just once |
| 24-05-2022 22:26 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14406) |
Swan wrote:Curled 140 lbs today,
Impressive. Well done! I never got that high. 115 was my top workout level; I never tried to go beyond that.
Swan wrote: ... then I bought some companion marigolds for my tomato plants.
Nice.
Have you ever wondered what would happen to your tomato plants if our atmosphere weren't keeping the planet as cool as it does? Do you know what boiling tomatoes look like?
... not to mention what it would do to life on earth. Do you know what blackened amphibian looks like?
Enjoy! |
| 25-05-2022 00:49 |
Swan★★★★★
(5721) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Curled 140 lbs today,
Impressive. Well done! I never got that high. 115 was my top workout level; I never tried to go beyond that.
Swan wrote: ... then I bought some companion marigolds for my tomato plants.
Nice.
Have you ever wondered what would happen to your tomato plants if our atmosphere weren't keeping the planet as cool as it does? Do you know what boiling tomatoes look like?
... not to mention what it would do to life on earth. Do you know what blackened amphibian looks like?
Enjoy!
Again without the Earths atmosphere the Earth would be the same temp as our moon or minus 243F. So as usual you are trying to fool yourself because you can not mislead me.
CIAO |
| 25-05-2022 02:28 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14406) |
Swan wrote:Again without the Earths atmosphere the Earth would be the same temp as our moon
We don't know what either the earth's or the moon's average temperature would be because we don't know the emissivity of either one, but we can certainly imagine that they are both close to each other and I don't think anyone will complain.
The moon's daytime surface temperature exceeds the boiling temperature of water (@ earth sea level pressure) by a substantial margin ... yet earth's oceans are not boiling away. In fact, even at the equator, ocean water is cold! Our atmosphere is one heckuva uber-powerful planetary refrigeration unit beyond any industrial refrigeration we could ever produce.
Wait, you don't think that the daytime side of the moon is something other than flesh-stripping hot, do you?
Swan wrote: or minus 243F.
That's right, I forgot ... you never went to school so you didn't learn these kinds of things. My bad. Let me explain some fundamentals to you.
The daytime side of the moon is not -243F. It is +243F. On earth, the atmosphere prevents any place from getting anywhere close to that temperature except at the very top of the daytime atmosphere. The atmosphere gives new meaning to the phrase "knows how to keep its cool." Perhaps you made a typo or perhaps you were just regurgitating whatever your nutcase cellmate told you to believe. Whatever the case, you are egregiously mistaken.
Fortunately, you have me right here to keep you from being led astray and to answer all of your perplexing questions. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff. |
| 25-05-2022 03:24 |
gfm7175 ★★★★★
(3314) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Fortunately, you have me right here to keep you from being led astray and to answer all of your perplexing questions. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Wait... I thought that Earth's atmosphere was WARMING the Earth... at least that's what I was told by a very smart and educated "expert" at school... Where did I go wrong? Can you please help me?? Thanks. |
| 25-05-2022 04:12 |
Swan★★★★★
(5721) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Again without the Earths atmosphere the Earth would be the same temp as our moon
We don't know what either the earth's or the moon's average temperature would be because we don't know the emissivity of either one, but we can certainly imagine that they are both close to each other and I don't think anyone will complain.
The moon's daytime surface temperature exceeds the boiling temperature of water (@ earth sea level pressure) by a substantial margin ... yet earth's oceans are not boiling away. In fact, even at the equator, ocean water is cold! Our atmosphere is one heckuva uber-powerful planetary refrigeration unit beyond any industrial refrigeration we could ever produce.
Wait, you don't think that the daytime side of the moon is something other than flesh-stripping hot, do you?
Swan wrote: or minus 243F.
That's right, I forgot ... you never went to school so you didn't learn these kinds of things. My bad. Let me explain some fundamentals to you.
The daytime side of the moon is not -243F. It is +243F. On earth, the atmosphere prevents any place from getting anywhere close to that temperature except at the very top of the daytime atmosphere. The atmosphere gives new meaning to the phrase "knows how to keep its cool." Perhaps you made a typo or perhaps you were just regurgitating whatever your nutcase cellmate told you to believe. Whatever the case, you are egregiously mistaken.
Fortunately, you have me right here to keep you from being led astray and to answer all of your perplexing questions. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Educated people know that without the Earths atmosphere that the Earth's temp would be the same as the moon's. You can never know this because your life is wasted as a communist following orders life is wasted.
By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
Updated on December 10, 2019
Have you ever wondered what would happen if Earth lost its atmosphere? It's believed that the planet is slowly losing its atmosphere, bit by bit, as it bleeds off into space. But what if Earth instantly lost its atmosphere, all at once? Just how bad would it be? Would people die? Would everything die? Could the planet recover?
What Would Happen?
Here's a breakdown of what could be expected:
It would be silent. Sound requires a medium to transmit waves. You could feel vibrations from the ground, but you wouldn't hear anything.
Birds and planes would fall from the sky. Although we can't see air (except clouds), it has mass that supports flying objects.
The sky would turn black. It's blue because of the atmosphere. You know those pictures taken from the Moon? The Earth's sky would look like that.
All unprotected plant and animal life on the Earth's surface would die. We can't survive long in a vacuum, which is what we'd have if the atmosphere suddenly vanished. It would be much like being "spaced' or shot out of an airlock, except the initial temperature would be higher. Eardrums would pop. Saliva would boil. But you wouldn't die instantly. If you held your breath, your lungs would pop, which would be the quickest (albeit most painful) death. If you exhaled, you'd pass out in about 15 seconds and die in around three minutes. Even if you were handed an oxygen mask, you wouldn't be able to breathe. This is because your diaphragm uses the pressure difference between the air inside your lungs and outside your body to inhale.
FEATURED VIDEO
Evidence of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere Found in 3 Billion-Year-Old Soil
Let's say you have a pressure suit and air. You'd live, but you'd get a massive sunburn on exposed skin because the Earth's atmosphere is what filters solar radiation. It's hard to say how much trouble you'd be in from this effect on the dark side of the planet, but being in direct sunlight would be severe.
The rivers, lakes, and oceans would boil. Boiling occurs whenever vapor pressure of a liquid exceeds external pressure. In a vacuum, water readily boils, even if the temperature is warm. You can test this yourself.
Although water would boil, the water vapor would not fully replenish the atmospheric pressure. An equilibrium point would be reached where there would be enough water vapor to prevent the oceans from boiling off. The remaining water would freeze.
Eventually (long after surface life had died), solar radiation would break atmospheric water into oxygen, which would react with carbon on the Earth to form carbon dioxide. The air would still be too thin to breathe.
The lack of atmosphere would chill the Earth's surface. We're not talking absolute zero cold, but the temperature would drop below freezing. Water vapor from the oceans would act as a greenhouse gas, raising the temperature. Unfortunately, the increased temperature would allow more water to transition from the sea into the air, likely leading to a runaway greenhouse effect and making the planet more like Venus than Mars.
Organisms that need air to breathe would die. Plants and land animals would die. Fish would die. Most aquatic organisms would die. However, some bacteria could survive, so losing the atmosphere wouldn't kill all life on Earth. Chemosynthetic bacteria wouldn't even notice the loss of atmosphere.
Volcanoes and geothermal vents would continue to pump out carbon dioxide and other gases to add to the water. The most significant difference between the original and new atmosphere would be the much lower abundance of nitrogen. Earth could replenish some nitrogen from meteor strikes, but most of it would be lost forever.
Could Humans Survive?
There are two ways human beings could survive losing the atmosphere:
Build radiation-shielded domes on the Earth's surface. The domes would need a pressurized atmosphere and would need to support plant life. We would need time to build biodomes, but the result would not be much different from trying to survive on another planet. Water would remain, so there would be a source of oxygen.
Build a dome under the sea. The water could provide pressure and filter out some solar radiation. We wouldn't want to filter out all radiation because we'd probably want to grow plants (though maybe it would be possible to learn some tasty ways to prepare bacteria as food). |
| 25-05-2022 06:16 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2933) |
Swan wrote:
The lack of atmosphere would chill the Earth's surface.
Fascinating! Would this same event cool the moon too?
Swan wrote:
We're not talking absolute zero cold, but the temperature would drop below freezing.
Damn! Sounds miserable! How cold do you estimate the moon's surface would be if the earth lost it's atmosphere?
Swan wrote:
Water vapor from the oceans would act as a greenhouse gas, raising the temperature.
Had no idea I could heat my house with water vapor! Who knew?
Swan wrote:
Unfortunately, the increased temperature would allow more water to transition from the sea into the air, likely leading to a runaway greenhouse effect and making the planet more like Venus than Mars.
So we've gone from somewhere between absolute zero and below freezing, quickly graduating to runaway warming just by adding some water vapor. Amazing! You think the moraines will be OK? |
| 25-05-2022 07:27 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14406) |
Swan wrote:Educated people know that without the Earths atmosphere that the Earth's temp would be the same as the moon's.
Educated people know that nobody knows the emissivity of either the earth or the moon so there is no way to tell whether the earth would be hotter or colder than the moon if the earth were to lose its atmosphere, but it is extremely unlikely that their emissivities are identical, so they probably would be of different temperatures.
Uneducated people simply presume both the moon and the earth would be of the same temperature because uneducated people are typically scientifically illiterate morons who don't understand black body science.
Swan wrote:By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
Updated on December 10, 2019 Have you ever wondered what would happen if Earth lost its atmosphere?
So you're telling me that you rely on others to do your thinking for you, and that all of this confusion on your part stems simply from Anne not really mentioning how someone on the daytime side of the earth would have far greater problems than just a bad sunburn, i.e. skin and flesh would be burning in lethally scalding temperatures.
You should do your own research occasionally instead of regurgitating every WACKY thing that you read on the internet. I know you think that because it's on the internet that it must be absolutely true and accurate. I don't know quite how to break it to you but that just isn't the case.
Did someone tell you that you can become a bona fide climatologist if you merely believe that Climate Change is real and active in our lives?
Do you remember what kind of furniture over which they had bent you? |
|
| 25-05-2022 08:41 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
noun
plural noun: fossil fuels
a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.
Do you honestly believe that hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter?
Why not believe this, since hydrocarbons are formed from decaying organic matter now in the forms of ethanol and methanol. Or are you too dumb to know that corn and algae is used to produce fuel
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Denial of chemistry.
Why would hydrocarbons form from decaying organic matter? Please describe this process.
Corn and algae are not hydrocarbons.
Corn and algae are the organic matter tha tis used to form hydrocarbons in real time
No hydrocarbons are in corn or algae.
Swan wrote:
Ethanol is a member of the alcohol hydrocarbon derivative family of chemicals.
No such thing. Alcohol is not a hydrocarbon either.
Swan wrote:
All alcohols are flammable and toxic to some degree. Hydrocarbon derivatives
No such thing as a 'hydrocarbon derivative'. Buzzword fallacy.
Swan wrote:
get their name from the fact they are hydrocarbons to start with
They are not hydrocarbons.
Swan wrote:
and have other chemical elements added to create a new chemical that has some economic value.
...such as...? Obviously you have no idea what a hydrocarbon is.
Swan wrote:
At some point you will need more Vaseline
That's not a hydrocarbon either.
Why is ethanol a hydrocarbon?
Because it's an alcohol.
Swan wrote:
In ethanol, the hydroxyl group (-OH) is attached to the carbon atom of the ethyl group (hydrocarbon chain). The formula for ethanol is CH3CH2OH, making ethanol derived from corn a hydrocarbon.
Not a hydrocarbon.
Oh I get this, since you can't confuse me with quantum physics or biology you are trying to do the same with chemistry.
I don't need to confuse you. You are already confused about all of these subjects. Mostly because you do not know English.
Swan wrote:
LOL, however the fact remains that ethanol or ethyl alcohol or as it is sometimes called or grain alcohol is still a hydrocarbon
Alcohol is not a hydrocarbon.
Swan wrote:
and can cause serious brain damage as you clearly already know.
Irrelevant. Straw man fallacy.
Swan wrote:
Ethanol is a member of the alcohol hydrocarbon derivative family of chemicals.
Alcohol is not a hydrocarbon. There is no such thing as a 'hydrocarbon derivative family of chemicals'. Buzzword fallacy.
Swan wrote:
All alcohols are flammable and toxic to some degree.
Irrelevant. Straw man fallacy.
Swan wrote:
Hydrocarbon derivatives
No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.
Swan wrote:
get their name from the fact they are hydrocarbons to start with and have other chemical elements added to create a new chemical that has some economic value.
Nature doesn't care about 'economic value'. Alcohol is not a hydrocarbon. Plants are not hydrocarbons and contain no hydrocarbons. Buzzword fallacies. Denial of chemistry. Denial of biology.
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 |
| 25-05-2022 08:43 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Oh I get this, since you can't confuse me with quantum physics or biology
Actually, it is a simple matter to confuse you with either quantum mechanics or biology. All anyone needs to do is mention one or the other and then tell you some WACKY thing to believe.
How difficult was it to get you to believe in quantum entanglement teleportation?
How difficult was it to get you to believe that amphibian animals are not amphibians?
How difficult was it to get you to believe that all locations that have moraines were somehow under ice at the same time?
How difficult was it to convince you that a vacuum nonetheless can have temperature?
You see? Tooling you is apparently easier than learning to play Pac-Man.
... but don't worry, you'll always have me to answer your tough questions. I got your back. You've got this.
.
Curled 140 lbs today, then I bought some companion marigolds for my tomato plants.
You are continuously farting in your cubicle as you demonstrate clearly how to be my pet internet parrot. Polly want a crack-er
Yawn, try not doing what they tell you just once
Insult fallacies. No argument presented.
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 |
| 25-05-2022 08:45 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Curled 140 lbs today,
Impressive. Well done! I never got that high. 115 was my top workout level; I never tried to go beyond that.
Swan wrote: ... then I bought some companion marigolds for my tomato plants.
Nice.
Have you ever wondered what would happen to your tomato plants if our atmosphere weren't keeping the planet as cool as it does? Do you know what boiling tomatoes look like?
... not to mention what it would do to life on earth. Do you know what blackened amphibian looks like?
Enjoy!
Again without the Earths atmosphere the Earth would be the same temp as our moon or minus 243F. So as usual you are trying to fool yourself because you can not mislead me.
CIAO
The temperature of the Moon, however, cannot be measured. It certainly isn't that cold though.
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 |
| 25-05-2022 09:00 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Again without the Earths atmosphere the Earth would be the same temp as our moon
We don't know what either the earth's or the moon's average temperature would be because we don't know the emissivity of either one, but we can certainly imagine that they are both close to each other and I don't think anyone will complain.
The moon's daytime surface temperature exceeds the boiling temperature of water (@ earth sea level pressure) by a substantial margin ... yet earth's oceans are not boiling away. In fact, even at the equator, ocean water is cold! Our atmosphere is one heckuva uber-powerful planetary refrigeration unit beyond any industrial refrigeration we could ever produce.
Wait, you don't think that the daytime side of the moon is something other than flesh-stripping hot, do you?
Swan wrote: or minus 243F.
That's right, I forgot ... you never went to school so you didn't learn these kinds of things. My bad. Let me explain some fundamentals to you.
The daytime side of the moon is not -243F. It is +243F. On earth, the atmosphere prevents any place from getting anywhere close to that temperature except at the very top of the daytime atmosphere. The atmosphere gives new meaning to the phrase "knows how to keep its cool." Perhaps you made a typo or perhaps you were just regurgitating whatever your nutcase cellmate told you to believe. Whatever the case, you are egregiously mistaken.
Fortunately, you have me right here to keep you from being led astray and to answer all of your perplexing questions. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
Educated people know that without the Earths atmosphere that the Earth's temp would be the same as the moon's.
You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. The Moon and the Earth have similar temperatures, but we don't know what it is for either body. It is not possible to measure the temperature of either body.
Swan wrote:
You can never know this because your life is wasted as a communist following orders life is wasted.
He is not a communist, and neither am I. You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.
Swan wrote:
By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
Updated on December 10, 2019
Cut and pasting from some random person does not change anything. Science is not a degree or credential.
Swan wrote:
Have you ever wondered what would happen if Earth lost its atmosphere?
No.
Swan wrote:
It's believed that the planet is slowly losing its atmosphere, bit by bit, as it bleeds off into space.
Not possible. Gravity.
Swan wrote:
But what if Earth instantly lost its atmosphere, all at once? Just how bad would it be? Would people die? Would everything die? Could the planet recover?
RQAA
Swan wrote:
The lack of atmosphere would chill the Earth's surface.
Not possible. You cannot destroy energy into nothing. You are AGAIN denying the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Swan wrote:
We're not talking absolute zero cold, but the temperature would drop below freezing. Water vapor from the oceans would act as a greenhouse gas, raising the temperature.
Not possible. You are AGAIN denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth or cool the Earth.
Swan wrote:
Unfortunately, the increased temperature would allow more water to transition from the sea into the air, likely leading to a runaway greenhouse effect and making the planet more like Venus than Mars.
Contrivance, and AGAIN denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Swan wrote:
...deleted bulk of spam...
Cutting and pasting is not science. This PhD obviously denies the laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Thenevin's law. Contrivances of conditions is just storytelling.
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 |
| 25-05-2022 09:02 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Swan wrote:
The lack of atmosphere would chill the Earth's surface.
Fascinating! Would this same event cool the moon too?
Swan wrote:
We're not talking absolute zero cold, but the temperature would drop below freezing.
Damn! Sounds miserable! How cold do you estimate the moon's surface would be if the earth lost it's atmosphere?
Swan wrote:
Water vapor from the oceans would act as a greenhouse gas, raising the temperature.
Had no idea I could heat my house with water vapor! Who knew?
Swan wrote:
Unfortunately, the increased temperature would allow more water to transition from the sea into the air, likely leading to a runaway greenhouse effect and making the planet more like Venus than Mars.
So we've gone from somewhere between absolute zero and below freezing, quickly graduating to runaway warming just by adding some water vapor. Amazing! You think the moraines will be OK? This is one of his many paradoxes he has locked himself into. He's being irrational.
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 |
| 25-05-2022 14:36 |
Swan★★★★★
(5721) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Educated people know that without the Earths atmosphere that the Earth's temp would be the same as the moon's.
Educated people know that nobody knows the emissivity of either the earth or the moon so there is no way to tell whether the earth would be hotter or colder than the moon if the earth were to lose its atmosphere, but it is extremely unlikely that their emissivities are identical, so they probably would be of different temperatures.
Uneducated people simply presume both the moon and the earth would be of the same temperature because uneducated people are typically scientifically illiterate morons who don't understand black body science.
Swan wrote:By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
Updated on December 10, 2019 Have you ever wondered what would happen if Earth lost its atmosphere?
So you're telling me that you rely on others to do your thinking for you, and that all of this confusion on your part stems simply from Anne not really mentioning how someone on the daytime side of the earth would have far greater problems than just a bad sunburn, i.e. skin and flesh would be burning in lethally scalding temperatures.
You should do your own research occasionally instead of regurgitating every WACKY thing that you read on the internet. I know you think that because it's on the internet that it must be absolutely true and accurate. I don't know quite how to break it to you but that just isn't the case.
Did someone tell you that you can become a bona fide climatologist if you merely believe that Climate Change is real and active in our lives?
Do you remember what kind of furniture over which they had bent you?
You are not educated, oh sure they passed you because no one wanted you back again. Enjoy your government check |
| 25-05-2022 21:16 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Educated people know that without the Earths atmosphere that the Earth's temp would be the same as the moon's.
Educated people know that nobody knows the emissivity of either the earth or the moon so there is no way to tell whether the earth would be hotter or colder than the moon if the earth were to lose its atmosphere, but it is extremely unlikely that their emissivities are identical, so they probably would be of different temperatures.
Uneducated people simply presume both the moon and the earth would be of the same temperature because uneducated people are typically scientifically illiterate morons who don't understand black body science.
Swan wrote:By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
Updated on December 10, 2019 Have you ever wondered what would happen if Earth lost its atmosphere?
So you're telling me that you rely on others to do your thinking for you, and that all of this confusion on your part stems simply from Anne not really mentioning how someone on the daytime side of the earth would have far greater problems than just a bad sunburn, i.e. skin and flesh would be burning in lethally scalding temperatures.
You should do your own research occasionally instead of regurgitating every WACKY thing that you read on the internet. I know you think that because it's on the internet that it must be absolutely true and accurate. I don't know quite how to break it to you but that just isn't the case.
Did someone tell you that you can become a bona fide climatologist if you merely believe that Climate Change is real and active in our lives?
Do you remember what kind of furniture over which they had bent you?
You are not educated, oh sure they passed you because no one wanted you back again. Enjoy your government check
You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy. You don't even known English. You are illiterate in math, science, and philosophy, and spend your time mindlessly cut and pasting.
You haven't thought for yourself for years.
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 |
| 27-05-2022 01:39 |
Swan★★★★★
(5721) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Educated people know that without the Earths atmosphere that the Earth's temp would be the same as the moon's.
Educated people know that nobody knows the emissivity of either the earth or the moon so there is no way to tell whether the earth would be hotter or colder than the moon if the earth were to lose its atmosphere, but it is extremely unlikely that their emissivities are identical, so they probably would be of different temperatures.
Uneducated people simply presume both the moon and the earth would be of the same temperature because uneducated people are typically scientifically illiterate morons who don't understand black body science.
Swan wrote:By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
Updated on December 10, 2019 Have you ever wondered what would happen if Earth lost its atmosphere?
So you're telling me that you rely on others to do your thinking for you, and that all of this confusion on your part stems simply from Anne not really mentioning how someone on the daytime side of the earth would have far greater problems than just a bad sunburn, i.e. skin and flesh would be burning in lethally scalding temperatures.
You should do your own research occasionally instead of regurgitating every WACKY thing that you read on the internet. I know you think that because it's on the internet that it must be absolutely true and accurate. I don't know quite how to break it to you but that just isn't the case.
Did someone tell you that you can become a bona fide climatologist if you merely believe that Climate Change is real and active in our lives?
Do you remember what kind of furniture over which they had bent you?
You are not educated, oh sure they passed you because no one wanted you back again. Enjoy your government check
You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy. You don't even known English. You are illiterate in math, science, and philosophy, and spend your time mindlessly cut and pasting.
You haven't thought for yourself for years.
Retired at 55, growing tomatoes, peppers and eggplants.
Table 5 needs cleaning pronto. |
| 27-05-2022 02:25 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Educated people know that without the Earths atmosphere that the Earth's temp would be the same as the moon's.
Educated people know that nobody knows the emissivity of either the earth or the moon so there is no way to tell whether the earth would be hotter or colder than the moon if the earth were to lose its atmosphere, but it is extremely unlikely that their emissivities are identical, so they probably would be of different temperatures.
Uneducated people simply presume both the moon and the earth would be of the same temperature because uneducated people are typically scientifically illiterate morons who don't understand black body science.
Swan wrote:By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
Updated on December 10, 2019 Have you ever wondered what would happen if Earth lost its atmosphere?
So you're telling me that you rely on others to do your thinking for you, and that all of this confusion on your part stems simply from Anne not really mentioning how someone on the daytime side of the earth would have far greater problems than just a bad sunburn, i.e. skin and flesh would be burning in lethally scalding temperatures.
You should do your own research occasionally instead of regurgitating every WACKY thing that you read on the internet. I know you think that because it's on the internet that it must be absolutely true and accurate. I don't know quite how to break it to you but that just isn't the case.
Did someone tell you that you can become a bona fide climatologist if you merely believe that Climate Change is real and active in our lives?
Do you remember what kind of furniture over which they had bent you?
You are not educated, oh sure they passed you because no one wanted you back again. Enjoy your government check
You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy. You don't even known English. You are illiterate in math, science, and philosophy, and spend your time mindlessly cut and pasting.
You haven't thought for yourself for years.
Retired at 55, growing tomatoes, peppers and eggplants.
Table 5 needs cleaning pronto.
So...you are on welfare, eh?
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 |
| 27-05-2022 03:58 |
Swan★★★★★
(5721) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Educated people know that without the Earths atmosphere that the Earth's temp would be the same as the moon's.
Educated people know that nobody knows the emissivity of either the earth or the moon so there is no way to tell whether the earth would be hotter or colder than the moon if the earth were to lose its atmosphere, but it is extremely unlikely that their emissivities are identical, so they probably would be of different temperatures.
Uneducated people simply presume both the moon and the earth would be of the same temperature because uneducated people are typically scientifically illiterate morons who don't understand black body science.
Swan wrote:By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
Updated on December 10, 2019 Have you ever wondered what would happen if Earth lost its atmosphere?
So you're telling me that you rely on others to do your thinking for you, and that all of this confusion on your part stems simply from Anne not really mentioning how someone on the daytime side of the earth would have far greater problems than just a bad sunburn, i.e. skin and flesh would be burning in lethally scalding temperatures.
You should do your own research occasionally instead of regurgitating every WACKY thing that you read on the internet. I know you think that because it's on the internet that it must be absolutely true and accurate. I don't know quite how to break it to you but that just isn't the case.
Did someone tell you that you can become a bona fide climatologist if you merely believe that Climate Change is real and active in our lives?
Do you remember what kind of furniture over which they had bent you?
You are not educated, oh sure they passed you because no one wanted you back again. Enjoy your government check
You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy. You don't even known English. You are illiterate in math, science, and philosophy, and spend your time mindlessly cut and pasting.
You haven't thought for yourself for years.
Retired at 55, growing tomatoes, peppers and eggplants.
Table 5 needs cleaning pronto.
So...you are on welfare, eh?
CIAO
Edited on 27-05-2022 04:10 |
| 27-05-2022 07:33 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14406) |
Swan wrote:
OK, that explains a few things.
This is my read: You are gay and thus readily bought into the "I'm a victim" schtick the Democrat party ordered you to believe, and that obligated you to buy into the Climate Change religion out of Marxist solidarity to your gay brethren.
(sigh)
So I should find a different metaphor from "bend you over furniture" so I'm not being literal. Let's go with "You shouldn't let them pull your strings like this."
So your allegiance to the Global Warming religion is because you are gay and you need to play the victim. This is absurd. Ditch the religion. You picked a really bogus one.
. |
| 27-05-2022 12:45 |
Swan★★★★★
(5721) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
OK, that explains a few things.
This is my read: You are gay and thus readily bought into the "I'm a victim" schtick the Democrat party ordered you to believe, and that obligated you to buy into the Climate Change religion out of Marxist solidarity to your gay brethren.
(sigh)
So I should find a different metaphor from "bend you over furniture" so I'm not being literal. Let's go with "You shouldn't let them pull your strings like this."
So your allegiance to the Global Warming religion is because you are gay and you need to play the victim. This is absurd. Ditch the religion. You picked a really bogus one.
.
The climate has been changing in a warming direction for 20000 years since the end of the last ice age. Nothing you or Al Gore can do to change this |
| 27-05-2022 17:58 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14406) |
Swan wrote:The climate
There is no such thing as a global climate. The earth has millions of climates. You can't use the definite article "the" when you use the word "climate" unless you are going to specify which particular climate.
Swan wrote: has been changing in a warming direction for 20000 years since the end of the last ice age.
Well, considering that there is no global climate, that nobody has ever known the earth's temperature to any usable accuracy, and that there isn't likely to have ever been an "ice age" (whereby all of the places with moraines were buried under ice at the same time) ... your statement above is absolutely the most absurd string of stupidity in which a religious person can have faith.
You should try something far more plausible, e.g. that humanity was saved by a man who rose from the dead. Ditch your crap that is totally not believable.
At least you aren't including the Marxist doctrine that Global Warming only began relatively recently, i.e. because of the human activity during the Industrial Revolution, at the onset of human GREED.
. |
| 27-05-2022 19:13 |
Swan★★★★★
(5721) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:The climate
There is no such thing as a global climate. The earth has millions of climates. You can't use the definite article "the" when you use the word "climate" unless you are going to specify which particular climate.
Swan wrote: has been changing in a warming direction for 20000 years since the end of the last ice age.
Well, considering that there is no global climate, that nobody has ever known the earth's temperature to any usable accuracy, and that there isn't likely to have ever been an "ice age" (whereby all of the places with moraines were buried under ice at the same time) ... your statement above is absolutely the most absurd string of stupidity in which a religious person can have faith.
You should try something far more plausible, e.g. that humanity was saved by a man who rose from the dead. Ditch your crap that is totally not believable.
At least you aren't including the Marxist doctrine that Global Warming only began relatively recently, i.e. because of the human activity during the Industrial Revolution, at the onset of human GREED.
.
Again the global climate has been warming for 20000 years and it was cooling for millions of years before that |
| 27-05-2022 19:35 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
OK, that explains a few things.
This is my read: You are gay and thus readily bought into the "I'm a victim" schtick the Democrat party ordered you to believe, and that obligated you to buy into the Climate Change religion out of Marxist solidarity to your gay brethren.
(sigh)
So I should find a different metaphor from "bend you over furniture" so I'm not being literal. Let's go with "You shouldn't let them pull your strings like this."
So your allegiance to the Global Warming religion is because you are gay and you need to play the victim. This is absurd. Ditch the religion. You picked a really bogus one.
.
The climate has been changing in a warming direction for 20000 years since the end of the last ice age. Nothing you or Al Gore can do to change this
Climate has no value associated with it. It cannot change.
Climate has no temperature.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
You don't know what happened 20000 year ago.
How do you know there was an ice age? Your magick moraines again?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 27-05-2022 19:37 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:The climate
There is no such thing as a global climate. The earth has millions of climates. You can't use the definite article "the" when you use the word "climate" unless you are going to specify which particular climate.
Swan wrote: has been changing in a warming direction for 20000 years since the end of the last ice age.
Well, considering that there is no global climate, that nobody has ever known the earth's temperature to any usable accuracy, and that there isn't likely to have ever been an "ice age" (whereby all of the places with moraines were buried under ice at the same time) ... your statement above is absolutely the most absurd string of stupidity in which a religious person can have faith.
You should try something far more plausible, e.g. that humanity was saved by a man who rose from the dead. Ditch your crap that is totally not believable.
At least you aren't including the Marxist doctrine that Global Warming only began relatively recently, i.e. because of the human activity during the Industrial Revolution, at the onset of human GREED.
.
Again the global climate has been warming for 20000 years and it was cooling for millions of years before that
There is no such thing as a global climate. Earth has many climates. Climate has no temperature.
You don't know what happened from 20000 years ago.
Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Argument from randU fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
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 |
| 27-05-2022 20:24 |
Swan★★★★★
(5721) |
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
OK, that explains a few things.
This is my read: You are gay and thus readily bought into the "I'm a victim" schtick the Democrat party ordered you to believe, and that obligated you to buy into the Climate Change religion out of Marxist solidarity to your gay brethren.
(sigh)
So I should find a different metaphor from "bend you over furniture" so I'm not being literal. Let's go with "You shouldn't let them pull your strings like this."
So your allegiance to the Global Warming religion is because you are gay and you need to play the victim. This is absurd. Ditch the religion. You picked a really bogus one.
.
The climate has been changing in a warming direction for 20000 years since the end of the last ice age. Nothing you or Al Gore can do to change this
Climate has no value associated with it. It cannot change.
Climate has no temperature.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
You don't know what happened 20000 year ago.
How do you know there was an ice age? Your magick moraines again?
Actually the climate of Earth has never not been changing.
LOL no more than 5 people will ever read your babbles, you are just lucky that I like retards like you
Now is it true that you own an AR-15 and hate the teachers teaching that climate change is real? Can you share your AR-15 fantasies here?
Edited on 27-05-2022 20:26 |
| 27-05-2022 21:58 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14406) |
Swan wrote:Actually the climate of Earth has never not been changing.
There is no "The Climate" of the earth to change. There are millions of climates on earth, and really none of them have changed whatsoever over my lifetime.
Swan wrote:LOL no more than 5 people will ever read your babbles,
Your speculation is as interesting as it is erroneous.
Swan wrote: you are just lucky that I, like retards, like you
So, you and retards join everyone else in liking me. I'm blessed.
Swan wrote: Now is it true that you own an AR-15 and hate the teachers teaching that climate change is real?
Absolutely not. I own an AK-47, not an AR-15.
Swan wrote: Can you share your AR-15 fantasies here?
My favorite AR-15 fantasy is one whereby the AR-15 never jams. Of course, this fantasy has no basis in reality, which is why it is called a fantasy ... but it's a neat one. |
| 27-05-2022 22:29 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
OK, that explains a few things.
This is my read: You are gay and thus readily bought into the "I'm a victim" schtick the Democrat party ordered you to believe, and that obligated you to buy into the Climate Change religion out of Marxist solidarity to your gay brethren.
(sigh)
So I should find a different metaphor from "bend you over furniture" so I'm not being literal. Let's go with "You shouldn't let them pull your strings like this."
So your allegiance to the Global Warming religion is because you are gay and you need to play the victim. This is absurd. Ditch the religion. You picked a really bogus one.
.
The climate has been changing in a warming direction for 20000 years since the end of the last ice age. Nothing you or Al Gore can do to change this
Climate has no value associated with it. It cannot change.
Climate has no temperature.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
You don't know what happened 20000 year ago.
How do you know there was an ice age? Your magick moraines again?
Actually the climate of Earth has never not been changing.
There is no 'climate of Earth'. Climate has no value associated with it. It cannot change.
Swan wrote:
LOL no more than 5 people will ever read your babbles, you are just lucky that I like retards like you
You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
Swan wrote:
Now is it true that you own an AR-15
Yes.
Swan wrote:
and hate the teachers teaching that climate change is real?
Buzzword fallacies. You cannot define 'climate change' and you don't know what 'real' means.
Swan wrote:
Can you share your AR-15 fantasies here?
Sure. Putting the bullet exactly where I want it whenever I shoot it.
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 |
| 27-05-2022 23:24 |
Swan★★★★★
(5721) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually the climate of Earth has never not been changing.
There is no "The Climate" of the earth to change. There are millions of climates on earth, and really none of them have changed whatsoever over my lifetime.
Swan wrote:LOL no more than 5 people will ever read your babbles,
Your speculation is as interesting as it is erroneous.
Swan wrote: you are just lucky that I, like retards, like you
So, you and retards join everyone else in liking me. I'm blessed.
Swan wrote: Now is it true that you own an AR-15 and hate the teachers teaching that climate change is real?
Absolutely not. I own an AK-47, not an AR-15.
Swan wrote: Can you share your AR-15 fantasies here?
My favorite AR-15 fantasy is one whereby the AR-15 never jams. Of course, this fantasy has no basis in reality, which is why it is called a fantasy ... but it's a neat one.
AR-15's were made to jam, which is the only thing that can keep the simpleton who owns one from shooting their self. The AK-47 is commy dog shits. Now turn yourself in to the hospital |
| RE: spam18-06-2023 09:04 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually stupid alligators are reptiles in all languages.
Hey, genius, nobody has yet claimed that alligators are not reptiles. Once again, you have shown that you and English comprehension just do not mix.
You have successfully answered a question that was not asked and not answered the question that was asked.
I'll let you try again: Would you classify alligators as amphibious or not?
This time, focus on the question and the specific words in it.
Never used the word amphibious... Most already got that it was a ridiculous semantics game. Two different words, similar, but different meanings. It silly semantic games, that discredit much of his claims. Usually, it's just baiting in to an argument/debate, which isn't worth playing anyway. |
| RE: spam18-06-2023 09:06 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote: Please be patient with the resident schizzo
sealover wrote:Word games - "amphibious" versus amphibian.
Yes. Amphibious. That is the word in the question. No rational, honest adult would deny that some reptiles are amphibious. Ergo, looking at your denial, the natural conclusion is that you are not rational and honest.
You both had PLENTY of opportunity to acknowledge that alligators are amphibious ... but you both fight tooth and nail to portray alligators as NOT amphibious because they are reptiles.
What more should I expect from schizzos who believe that mangroves will save the ocean, or that the US government hires Putin to put our satellites into orbit, or that transporting sea water to the desert will terraform sand into fertile farms, or that people can teleport wherever using quantum entanglement?
... and now reptiles, such as alligators and snakes, somehow cannot be amphibious because they are reptiles.
You guys are geniuses. From now on, I take notes on everything you write.
I notice that neither of you have nary a peep for the images I present to you. You deny them because they are rather inconvenient. You want to claim that reptiles cannot be amphibious yet here you have images clearly showing amphibious reptiles ... so you descend into your word games and pretend the agreed-upon context for the discussion is the Wikipedia taxonomy.
Word games.
Would I be correct in assuming that you also deny that ducks are amphibious?
Would I be correct in presuming that you deny the amphibious nature of otters?
You guys didn't get very far in school, did you? You never learned what "amphibious" means and now you are too terrified to look it up.
[ Y O U * R E A L L Y * A R E * F A R * T O O * E M B A R R A S S E D ]
[ T O * A N S W E R * T H E * Q U E S T I O N * H O N E S T L Y ]
[ * S O * Y O U * P L A Y * Y O U R * S I L L Y * W O R D * G A M E S ]
. |
| RE: spam18-06-2023 09:08 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:However alligators can not breath thru their skin ...
... which is how you know alligators are not amphibious.
Genius. Sheer genius.
Swan wrote: and alligators are reptiles.
... and reptiles cannot be amphibious.
Genius. Sheer genius.
If only we could harness your genius, we could make toast! I pray that you use your superpowers for good and not for evil. |
| RE: spam18-06-2023 09:11 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote:We know that an amphibian absorbs oxygen through its skin.
Nope. Polar bears, penguins, otters, alligators, ducks, geese, ... and many other amphibious animals do not absorb oxygen through their skin.
Kind of basic information everyone knows.
As an added bonus, I thought I would post a picture of a very amphibious otter not absorbing oxygen through its skin. Enjoy!
|
| RE: spam18-06-2023 09:12 |
Im a BM★★★☆☆
(595) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:However only people with an IQ of 100 or better can understand that not everything that is amphibious is an amphibian.
People with an IQ below 27 probably will not understand that all animals that are amphibian/amphibious are amphibians, and they will likely also believe that their own IQ is actually over 130.
Enjoy!
. |
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/sea-otter-swimming-in-blue-water-526331839-854a624208854ebc8473530b28ade5b8.jpg)
