Jump to content

Some things I didn't know about the atmosphere and climate


iowaboy1965

Recommended Posts

On 9/22/2023 at 11:04 AM, brahamfireman said:

That chart is a blatant LIE. Global CO2 levels were at 4,000 PPM in the dinosaur era and varied from 2,000ppm to as high as 6,000ppm.

The graph produced by NASA is quite correct... have a look at the scales, thousand of years vs hundreds of millions.... and you have missed the point. CO2 has never been higher for the period humans have been around. Ya know, climate that is compatible for us to live... Thats what the graph is trying to show with different scales, which can not be 'seen' on the larger scale. The second point is the dramatic change since the industrial revolution. Again look at the scales for the rate of change, ~200 years since the industrial revolution vs the millions of years of previous changes. The rate of change is unprecedented.

image.png.74f4a59cfa69ac8196abb3e714186f33.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alleged climate crisis is one of the six biggest lies perpetrated by the G in recent times, and all six are designed to scare people into submission to the G. Carbon dioxide sequestration is a scam where we're supposed to believe a non - pollutant mandatory for plant life that occupies an infinitesimal percentage of the total atmospheric gas contingent is a global emergency and we must act immediately to curtail our behavior to protect the god of Gaia. Then we're not supposed to notice that a handful of elites will profit handsomely from this undoubtedly destructive and possibly dangerous operation while the costs, as usual, are socialized. I wonder if anyone pushing this crap has bothered to consider that human beings are carbon life forms and given the totalitarian mindset involved in all things G it will not be long until sequestration becomes a lot more personal.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, searcyfarms said:

ok so let me get this straight, if I were to put a gallon of gas in my tractor and i put a bag over the exhaust pipe i would get a bag of co2 and other elements and this said bag would weigh over 20lbs? 

 

Yes. 
Air at sea level has a mass of  about .1 pounds per gallon. The proper air:fuel  ratio is 14-15:1 and that is by weight. So every pound of fuel needs 14-15 pounds of air for combustion. 
Where do you think the fuel and air going into an engine go and become after combustion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

anyone pushing this crap has bothered to consider that human beings are carbon life forms and given the totalitarian mindset involved in all things G it will not be long until sequestration becomes a lot more personal.

As the saying goes, YOU (meaning us) are the carbon they wish to eliminate. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

Yes. 
Air at sea level has a mass of  about .1 pounds per gallon. The proper air:fuel  ratio is 14-15:1 and that is by weight. So every pound of fuel needs 14-15 pounds of air for combustion. 
Where do you think the fuel and air going into an engine go and become after combustion?

wow so I am going to have a HUGE ballon to hold 20lbs of exhaust gasses - no wonder i have a hard time getting out of bed in the morning i have to lift all teh air around me to even get up and then there is the gravity thing.....we will never win this battle, i have heard that 100% of people that drink water and breath air die I guess we are doomed 

I can prove it also, there a a bazillion charts n graphs and cemetaries full of people to back up my claim

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, searcyfarms said:

wow so I am going to have a HUGE ballon to hold 20lbs of exhaust gasses - no wonder i have a hard time getting out of bed in the morning i have to lift all teh air around me to even get up and then there is the gravity thing.....we will never win this battle, i have heard that 100% of people that drink water and breath air die I guess we are doomed 

Size of the balloon would depend on the pressure inside the balloon. 
One gallon of gasoline needs about 900 gallons of air to combust in an engine. So about 3 IBC totes of air. 
We are accustomed to the air pressure around us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

Size of the balloon would depend on the pressure inside the balloon. 
One gallon of gasoline needs about 900 gallons of air to combust in an engine. So about 3 IBC totes of air. 
We are accustomed to the air pressure around us. 

i guess we need to start buying up all of the totes on CL and MP - it seems there are a bazillion of those sitting around being unused and lord knows we cant burn them because they will cause air issues so if we all get them and keep them sealed up when things get really bad we can hook a hose up to them and breath the air that was left in them because it wont be polluted with all these gasses - pfff we got this all figured out we dont need any scientists!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere the exhaust from high flying aircraft contributes potentially more to the so called global warning than everything else combined because of where its released. If that is the case, why aren't these G7 nuts traveling around the world in row boats? Hypocrisy!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cedar farm said:

I read somewhere the exhaust from high flying aircraft contributes potentially more to the so called global warning than everything else combined because of where its released. If that is the case, why aren't these G7 nuts traveling around the world in row boats? Hypocrisy!

Because John Kerry-Heinz has important work to do and he is exempt.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MTB98 said:

Yes. 
Air at sea level has a mass of  about .1 pounds per gallon. The proper air:fuel  ratio is 14-15:1 and that is by weight. So every pound of fuel needs 14-15 pounds of air for combustion. 
Where do you think the fuel and air going into an engine go and become after combustion?

There's an old saying that a frontline Army cook and veteran of the Bastogne Winter Camporee once shared with me and most assuredly applies to you: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then just baffle them with bullsh!t."

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

There's an old saying that a frontline Army cook and veteran of the Bastogne Winter Camporee once shared with me and most assuredly applies to you: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then just baffle them with bullsh!t."

Hilarious. 
So far you haven’t been able to point out any “bull$h!t” 

but just want to say I’m a Marxist.  Knowing how to do math and some basic chemistry and physics does not a Marxist make.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

Hilarious. 
So far you haven’t been able to point out any “bull$h!t” 

but just want to say I’m a Marxist.  Knowing how to do math and some basic chemistry and physics does not a Marxist make.

 

im confused, what is the question we are debating? the philosophy of a marxist? the weight of the air in a balloon? how much co2 could a woodchuck spew if a woodshuck could spew co2? does it really matter since there are no knowns regarding the amount of hazard vs of non hazard and what really happens if we reach a certain level of whatever air is in the said balloon? 

talk about off the rails and into a black hole this thing is about as sideways as lost in space

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, searcyfarms said:

im confused, what is the question we are debating? the philosophy of a marxist? the weight of the air in a balloon? how much co2 could a woodchuck spew if a woodshuck could spew co2? does it really matter since there are no knowns regarding the amount of hazard vs of non hazard and what really happens if we reach a certain level of whatever air is in the said balloon? 

talk about off the rails and into a black hole this thing is about as sideways as lost in space

Well we do know a level of CO2 that is hazardous to humans. 
We do know humans burn billions of pounds of carbon based fuel every year. 
We know how much CO2 that produces. 
We know CO2 levels are rising every year in our lifetimes.
Anything wrong there so far? 

We don’t know how much that affects the atmosphere or the weather/climate. 
So that’s what is being debated, whether that is important or if that doesn’t matter at all. If you say it doesn’t matter you should probably have some reasons or evidence to support that stance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

Well we do know a level of CO2 that is hazardous to humans. 
We do know humans burn billions of pounds of carbon based fuel every year. 
We know how much CO2 that produces. 
We know CO2 levels are rising every year in our lifetimes.
Anything wrong there so far? 

We don’t know how much that affects the atmosphere or the weather/climate. 
So that’s what is being debated, whether that is important or if that doesn’t matter at all. If you say it doesn’t matter you should probably have some reasons or evidence to support that stance. 

yep we sure do - and we are not anywhere near it yet - and it took how long to get there and the data is debatable to a degree of factual or not 

yes they do but with the population stable and trending to be decreasing by 2100 whats it going to matter in another 75~ yrs 

supposedly that number is accurate but we cannot say with absolute confidence the % of value since so many other items are constantly changing within the space of the said COtoot

again that is debatable depending on the graphs/charts we use and who modeled the data and where it was modeled and for how long

Correct and/or does it matter? 

the debate appears to be with all the unknowns does it matter since we dont have any facts to say its negatively affected something yet so until it does should we worry about it - our miniscule part of contribution might be better served on other CO2 contributors? 

it doesnt appear we as humans are the deciding factor of COtoot contribution and what that will do to affect in a number large enough to make any difference on anything especially since to many other weighted items can affect the absolution all we know is there is a steady rise supposedly but who/what is mainly responsible for that. 

so are we to say a dripping faucet contributed to the decline in lake levels because of the drought and we used up the water table? 

depends on which chart you pick if co2 levels are rising i would tend to say that is likely true but still to what extent does it matter or not matter? 

if the said prediction of human population decreases as of 2100 this is moot regarding humans and their contribution because its taken us ( according to charts submitted ) millions of yrs to get to the levels we are now what will it matter? 

we really dont know so i guess we are debating unknowns that really dont matter ? at least they havent to this point? 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MTB98 said:

Hilarious. 
So far you haven’t been able to point out any “bull$h!t” 

but just want to say I’m a Marxist.  Knowing how to do math and some basic chemistry and physics does not a Marxist make.

 

It's all bullsh!t from the proven untrustworthy G and that's the point. That's how Marxism is operated. No definitions, examples, data, charts. graphs, Venn diagrams, whatevs are necessary when one self defines.

If someone gave you an enema the remaining parts would fit in a shoebox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May as well throw in my 2 cents before I crack a beer and get really opinionated. 

First off, the cry to rally being chanted is "Stop climate change!" How arrogant a thought. The climate is always changing, and has been doing so since the earth formed. There once was a 1000 foot thick glacier here where my house sits. Long time before that, it's believed this area was once at the bottom of a tropical sea.

Point being, how is it that we're suddenly supposed to lock in the climate of here and now? Not one person I have asked can answer, "what is normal?"

Next, carbon dioxide has increased from .03% to .04% in the last 200 yrs. If we can believe scientific research to be accurate, then we know that our atmosphere has contained much higher amounts of CO2 in the past - long before man came along and industrialized the place. Which shows that there are natural fluctuations of far greater influence than humans.

The earth is an amazing, adaptive place. The carbon cycle of life is quite remarkable. The alarmists would have us believe that every ounce of emissions violates the air and sits forever - irreparable damage. But it is common knowledge that plants need CO2 to grow and do even better with extra CO2. Simply put, the more CO2 goes up, the more plants put off oxygen. The more plants, the more animal life that can be supported. One hand washes the other.

I've had a thought rattling around for a while now. I think the focus on carbon is possibly wrong. Carbon, in normal atmospheric conditions is a harmless solid. Through chemical reactions in our bodies, or a fire, carbon atoms bond with oxygen. CO2 = one carbon atom connected with two oxygen atoms. It is now claimed that methane is 30x more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Methane is CH4 - one carbon atom connected to four hydrogen atoms. The greenhouse gas that nobody talks about though, far more powerful than CO2 or CH4 happens to be water vapor. H2O... two hydrogen atoms connected by one oxygen atom. So.... could it be that hydrogen and oxygen are the greater greenhouse risk?

That all said, don't think that we should just mindlessly go about life making a mess of everything. Resources on our planet won't last forever. Organized human society as we know it has been around for 10,000 yrs, but we have made a sizeable dent in known, attainable supplies of everything from iron to oil in just the last 200 yrs. We won't see the ends of these things in our lifetimes. But I hate to think we relagate those who come 200, 2000, or 10,000 yrs from now back to where we started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...