New study of CO2, H2O, global warming

[mdn2000]

You folks can "cut and paste" all you want, that does not make either sides point, the validity of Old Rocks sources are equal to any opponents source.

That said, I see each side do the same thing, copy a story, nothing more. Search the net until you find something, what catches your attention, the headline, the headline confirms your belief and with a cursory glance you have your proof, an article, nothing more.

When the post is more, when the post contains technical analysis its not your work, its someone elses, and you post a mere fragment of what the person who made the study allows you to see.

I see articles presented as fact, the article links to a study, click the link and find the study to be a summary of a study that is coming in the future, no facts presented just a chain of links to headlines, nothing more.

The studies I have seen posted, the technical, science stuff, it pure theory, not proven, not disproved, simple theory, stuff done on computer models, programs they write and modify as they study, the model goes to far in one direction, no problem change a number or two here or there, try another formula, throw out certain facts, ignore peculiar characteristics, read the actual study, if it the study is done by reputable scientists or researchers, than they definitely state this in the summary of the report or study. Old Rock posted a study in these threads that states exactly what I just summarized.

Dry Ice is CO2, a simple post intended to make one think and ponder, put a block of dry ice in a beer cooler and it will stay cold for days, the CO2 is not under any pressure, it just likes to be cold, if you dont open that cooler, if no CO2 escapes, it will be cold a long time, try it.

You could melt the block of dry ice with a torch, try it, it melts, it disappears, changes to a gas, but does not retain the intense heat of the torch, not a bit, CO2 runs from the heat.

I dont need to link to someones theory or study, all that means nothing, literally nothing.

These people so deep in their books and numbers are as far removed from reality as politicians, which coincidently have a symbiotic relationship.

Links and Quotes of others has proven not a thing.

No matter, the solution they propose is more insane than the admitted theories, make more CO2 burning fossil fuel, to make green energy, to make electricity, fossil fuel directly to electricity produces more electricity without the CO2 created by a "middle process".

Direct copies are better than a copy of a copy.

Go ahead post another link, I will take it to its logical conclusion and I can pick out where the author will admit the idea is still a theory and not a fact.

The only fact presented is mine, dry ice is pure CO2, not under pressure, too cold to touch, just freezing cold.

Riddle me this batman. How do you obtain dry ice? Do you go out and collect it from the atmosphere? Do you leap out into space and collect it from Titan and bring it back to Earth in your teleport machine? Or perhaps do you purchase it from a store? And how does that store obtain it? I see, the store buys it from a factory. And how does the factory get it?

Look it up then get back to us when you have learned something. See, I didn't provide you a link so you can find it for yourself.

Where does the factory get it, where all CO2 is found, the south pole where its cold.

So everything else I said stands as fact, thanks.

 

[westwall]

You folks can "cut and paste" all you want, that does not make either sides point, the validity of Old Rocks sources are equal to any opponents source.

That said, I see each side do the same thing, copy a story, nothing more. Search the net until you find something, what catches your attention, the headline, the headline confirms your belief and with a cursory glance you have your proof, an article, nothing more.

When the post is more, when the post contains technical analysis its not your work, its someone elses, and you post a mere fragment of what the person who made the study allows you to see.

I see articles presented as fact, the article links to a study, click the link and find the study to be a summary of a study that is coming in the future, no facts presented just a chain of links to headlines, nothing more.

The studies I have seen posted, the technical, science stuff, it pure theory, not proven, not disproved, simple theory, stuff done on computer models, programs they write and modify as they study, the model goes to far in one direction, no problem change a number or two here or there, try another formula, throw out certain facts, ignore peculiar characteristics, read the actual study, if it the study is done by reputable scientists or researchers, than they definitely state this in the summary of the report or study. Old Rock posted a study in these threads that states exactly what I just summarized.

Dry Ice is CO2, a simple post intended to make one think and ponder, put a block of dry ice in a beer cooler and it will stay cold for days, the CO2 is not under any pressure, it just likes to be cold, if you dont open that cooler, if no CO2 escapes, it will be cold a long time, try it.

You could melt the block of dry ice with a torch, try it, it melts, it disappears, changes to a gas, but does not retain the intense heat of the torch, not a bit, CO2 runs from the heat.

I dont need to link to someones theory or study, all that means nothing, literally nothing.

These people so deep in their books and numbers are as far removed from reality as politicians, which coincidently have a symbiotic relationship.

Links and Quotes of others has proven not a thing.

No matter, the solution they propose is more insane than the admitted theories, make more CO2 burning fossil fuel, to make green energy, to make electricity, fossil fuel directly to electricity produces more electricity without the CO2 created by a "middle process".

Direct copies are better than a copy of a copy.

Go ahead post another link, I will take it to its logical conclusion and I can pick out where the author will admit the idea is still a theory and not a fact.

The only fact presented is mine, dry ice is pure CO2, not under pressure, too cold to touch, just freezing cold.

Riddle me this batman. How do you obtain dry ice? Do you go out and collect it from the atmosphere? Do you leap out into space and collect it from Titan and bring it back to Earth in your teleport machine? Or perhaps do you purchase it from a store? And how does that store obtain it? I see, the store buys it from a factory. And how does the factory get it?

Look it up then get back to us when you have learned something. See, I didn't provide you a link so you can find it for yourself.

Where does the factory get it, where all CO2 is found, the south pole where its cold.

So everything else I said stands as fact, thanks.

It's a good thing for you I can figure out when someone is serious or not. Thanks for the laugh!

 

[westwall]

You folks can "cut and paste" all you want, that does not make either sides point, the validity of Old Rocks sources are equal to any opponents source.

That said, I see each side do the same thing, copy a story, nothing more. Search the net until you find something, what catches your attention, the headline, the headline confirms your belief and with a cursory glance you have your proof, an article, nothing more.

When the post is more, when the post contains technical analysis its not your work, its someone elses, and you post a mere fragment of what the person who made the study allows you to see.

I see articles presented as fact, the article links to a study, click the link and find the study to be a summary of a study that is coming in the future, no facts presented just a chain of links to headlines, nothing more.

The studies I have seen posted, the technical, science stuff, it pure theory, not proven, not disproved, simple theory, stuff done on computer models, programs they write and modify as they study, the model goes to far in one direction, no problem change a number or two here or there, try another formula, throw out certain facts, ignore peculiar characteristics, read the actual study, if it the study is done by reputable scientists or researchers, than they definitely state this in the summary of the report or study. Old Rock posted a study in these threads that states exactly what I just summarized.

Dry Ice is CO2, a simple post intended to make one think and ponder, put a block of dry ice in a beer cooler and it will stay cold for days, the CO2 is not under any pressure, it just likes to be cold, if you dont open that cooler, if no CO2 escapes, it will be cold a long time, try it.

You could melt the block of dry ice with a torch, try it, it melts, it disappears, changes to a gas, but does not retain the intense heat of the torch, not a bit, CO2 runs from the heat.

I dont need to link to someones theory or study, all that means nothing, literally nothing.

These people so deep in their books and numbers are as far removed from reality as politicians, which coincidently have a symbiotic relationship.

Links and Quotes of others has proven not a thing.

No matter, the solution they propose is more insane than the admitted theories, make more CO2 burning fossil fuel, to make green energy, to make electricity, fossil fuel directly to electricity produces more electricity without the CO2 created by a "middle process".

Direct copies are better than a copy of a copy.

Go ahead post another link, I will take it to its logical conclusion and I can pick out where the author will admit the idea is still a theory and not a fact.

The only fact presented is mine, dry ice is pure CO2, not under pressure, too cold to touch, just freezing cold.

Riddle me this batman. How do you obtain dry ice? Do you go out and collect it from the atmosphere? Do you leap out into space and collect it from Titan and bring it back to Earth in your teleport machine? Or perhaps do you purchase it from a store? And how does that store obtain it? I see, the store buys it from a factory. And how does the factory get it?

Look it up then get back to us when you have learned something. See, I didn't provide you a link so you can find it for yourself.

Where does the factory get it, where all CO2 is found, the south pole where its cold.

So everything else I said stands as fact, thanks.

It's a good thing for you I can figure out when someone is serious or not. Thanks for the laugh!

 

[BlindBoo]

And what have you contributed, you most likely have never considered that dry ice is cold, that dry is pure CO2.

Why is CO2 found where it is cold, in ice, is it possible the two are related, that ice got there when it was snowing a lot, you need a link to prove this, CO2 got in the snow falling to earth forming ice on the poles, seems if CO2 were something that liked to be hot not so much would be found in ice formed by snow.

So what is a post that thinks its responding to spam, when in fact, I present fact you refuse to bounce around inside your thick skull.

I know retarded people, its a handicap, a very sad disease, for the un-educated they use retarded as an ugly slur, ugly slur's come from plain old dumb, lazy people.

Dry ice is CO2, CO2 is never used in any form to keep things hot.

Hey, dont they use Argon gas in windows and not CO2, seems like if you wanted to keep your house warm you would want CO2 not Argon, even a little bit would make a huge difference and this would take it out of the air.

But they use Argon gas, never wondered why?

Dry Ice is CO2, why is it so cold, why? You dont freeze CO2 to make it cold, you do not magically take the hot out of CO2 to make it cold,

Dry Ice stays colder longer than Ice made of water, how come, is it because CO2 likes to be hot, seems if that was the case dry ice would not last so much longer than frozen water.

So, I say CO2 is dry ice, think about it, if you cant figure it out than you may not be that smart, if you cannot think of one reason I say Dry Ice is CO2, you aint that smart.

I must say. Hahahahahahahahahaha, this is the funniest post I've read in a long time. I do hope mdn is kidding. Just in case you're not let me help clear a few things up for you. Yes Dry Ice is CO2. Not all CO2 is Dry Ice. The atmospheric CO2 is not Dry Ice. Dry Iced is produced by freezing CO2. CO2 freezes at about -110 F. The CO2 they sample from ice cores are from tiny bubbles of air trapped in the ice not the frozen form of CO2 built up in the ice.

Why is it always cold where you find Dry Ice? Good question I guess. Perhaps it's because it is almost alway kept in some very cold freezer before being sold?

Ifs thats funny this will be even funnier, CO2 is not froze to make dry ice. Look it up. If you dont know this simple fact you know even less of anything more complicated concerning CO2

Okie Dokie Smokie.

Now about the Dihydrogen Oxide problem.........

 

[antagon]

Where does the factory get it, where all CO2 is found, the south pole where its cold.

So everything else I said stands as fact, thanks.

no way.

that's why we have so much global warming. the dry ice mines on the south pole are over-harvesting the world's dry ice supply!

then again,

the coldest average monthly temps on the planet are around -65*C, and CO2 starts to freeze around -80*C.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Ol' mdn is serious. Just as serious as when he say that you have to use electricity to turn the blades of a wind turbine, that they just take electricity off of the grid.

 

[Old Rocks]

You folks can "cut and paste" all you want, that does not make either sides point, the validity of Old Rocks sources are equal to any opponents source.

That said, I see each side do the same thing, copy a story, nothing more. Search the net until you find something, what catches your attention, the headline, the headline confirms your belief and with a cursory glance you have your proof, an article, nothing more.

When the post is more, when the post contains technical analysis its not your work, its someone elses, and you post a mere fragment of what the person who made the study allows you to see.

I see articles presented as fact, the article links to a study, click the link and find the study to be a summary of a study that is coming in the future, no facts presented just a chain of links to headlines, nothing more.

The studies I have seen posted, the technical, science stuff, it pure theory, not proven, not disproved, simple theory, stuff done on computer models, programs they write and modify as they study, the model goes to far in one direction, no problem change a number or two here or there, try another formula, throw out certain facts, ignore peculiar characteristics, read the actual study, if it the study is done by reputable scientists or researchers, than they definitely state this in the summary of the report or study. Old Rock posted a study in these threads that states exactly what I just summarized.

Dry Ice is CO2, a simple post intended to make one think and ponder, put a block of dry ice in a beer cooler and it will stay cold for days, the CO2 is not under any pressure, it just likes to be cold, if you dont open that cooler, if no CO2 escapes, it will be cold a long time, try it.

You could melt the block of dry ice with a torch, try it, it melts, it disappears, changes to a gas, but does not retain the intense heat of the torch, not a bit, CO2 runs from the heat.

I dont need to link to someones theory or study, all that means nothing, literally nothing.

These people so deep in their books and numbers are as far removed from reality as politicians, which coincidently have a symbiotic relationship.

Links and Quotes of others has proven not a thing.

No matter, the solution they propose is more insane than the admitted theories, make more CO2 burning fossil fuel, to make green energy, to make electricity, fossil fuel directly to electricity produces more electricity without the CO2 created by a "middle process".

Direct copies are better than a copy of a copy.

Go ahead post another link, I will take it to its logical conclusion and I can pick out where the author will admit the idea is still a theory and not a fact.

The only fact presented is mine, dry ice is pure CO2, not under pressure, too cold to touch, just freezing cold.

Riddle me this batman. How do you obtain dry ice? Do you go out and collect it from the atmosphere? Do you leap out into space and collect it from Titan and bring it back to Earth in your teleport machine? Or perhaps do you purchase it from a store? And how does that store obtain it? I see, the store buys it from a factory. And how does the factory get it?

Look it up then get back to us when you have learned something. See, I didn't provide you a link so you can find it for yourself.

Where does the factory get it, where all CO2 is found, the south pole where its cold.

So everything else I said stands as fact, thanks.

Of course you are correct, the south pole of Mars, right

 

[mdn2000]

LOL. Ol' mdn is serious. Just as serious as when he say that you have to use electricity to turn the blades of a wind turbine, that they just take electricity off of the grid.

Old Crock is just that, a drooling old man, a crock.

Consumption of Electricity by Wind Turbines [AWErg]

Among the wind turbine functions that use electricity are the following:†
yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) -- the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine

blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)

lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.

heating the blades -- this may require 10%-20% of the turbine's nominal (rated) power

heating and dehumidifying the nacelle -- according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, "power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds"

oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox

hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)

thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) -- 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost

magnetizing the stator -- the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a "large" amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous "cage rotor" that encloses the generator shaft; at the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine's rated capacity, in slower winds possibly much more

using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not,‡ particularly during important site tours) -- it seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind§

 

[antagon]

aweo.org