Instead of destroying A $211 billion industry that touches ALL our lives, why not use wastewater to absorb CO2?

[Crick]

As everyone is convinced you don't know what temperature is ... how would you know what SB says? ... or why Climatologists model atmospheric physics with it ...

Ground School ... cheapskate ... maybe learn something about weather ...

Why don't you take a break? Your embarrassment will all blow over in a while.

 

[ReinyDays]

Why don't you take a break? Your embarrassment will all blow over in a while.

Then you'll discuss temperature? ... why don't YOU TAKE A GODDAM BREAK AND STOP REPLYING TO MY POSTS ... STUPID MOTHERFUCKER ...

Even when I agree with you ... you argue ... because you LIE ... you'll never discuss temperature here, you're to embarrassed ... first-year physics is way over your head ...

 

[JohnDB]

The dummy Biden who doesn't know a "Diatoms" from a "diaper"... wants to do the following:
"I guarantee We Are Going To Get Rid of Fossil Fuels” September 06, 2019, 5:49 PM


But this imbecile wants to cost AMERICANS over $6 quadrillion to build 8,040 ADDITIONAL power plants JUST for EV trucks!
PLEASE folks stop this EV hysteria especially these totally ignorant auto makers.
PLEASE Biden, et.al. why concentrate on destroying the US economy by supposedly reducing CO2 emissions when there are considerably LESS expensive methods?

Diatoms
Diatoms are the most successful contemporary group of photosynthetic eukaryotic microbes that inhabit almost every kind of aquatic ecosystem
Some of the tiniest life forms in the sea are playing a mighty role in protecting life on Earth. Scientists have discovered that microscopic plants called diatoms absorb 10-20 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) every year as they float on the surface of the ocean. That’s equal to the amount of carbon captured annually by all of the world’s rainforests.

Tiny and huge ocean life forms are vital for the climate | World Economic Forum

Direct Air Capture(DAC) that would cost
Which is less expensive at $100 a ton to remove 100% of the CO2 in 2020, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,600,000,000 tons (13.2 trillion pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalents.Mar 24, 2023 or total cost of $660,000,000,000 to remove ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA!

Climate Change Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions | US EPA

This indicator describes emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States.

www.epa.gov

Really for you short attention span, MSM dependent and grossly uninformed...
Look at these two numbers and tell me which is bigger?
A) $660,000,000,000 to absorb all the CO2 emissions in the USA
B) $6,049,642,383,265,680 to build 8,040 power plants to provide 3,024,821,191,633 kWh electricity for 60% of EV Trucks purchased over the next 7 years?
View attachment 796652

Just what we need....
Carbonated sewage.

 

[Crick]

Just what we need....
Carbonated sewage.

I love that tang and the way it tickles my nose...

 

[Crick]

Then you'll discuss temperature? ... why don't YOU TAKE A GODDAM BREAK AND STOP REPLYING TO MY POSTS ... STUPID MOTHERFUCKER ...

Even when I agree with you ... you argue ... because you LIE ... you'll never discuss temperature here, you're to embarrassed ... first-year physics is way over your head ...

What I have been trying to discuss with you is your claim that Stefan Boltzmann essentially refutes AGW. You have repeatedly said that was the case yet, when pressed, you do nothing but stall and stall and stall. I'm not the one that's lying here buddy boy. PS, Ground School? Really?

 

[ReinyDays]

What I have been trying to discuss with you is your claim that Stefan Boltzmann essentially refutes AGW.

Temperature is the first term in SB ... you don't know what that is ... SB explains the physics of AGW ... I guess you don't understand AGW ...

SB refutes YOU ... stupid motherfucker ... lying sack of shit ...

Take the vibrator out of your pussy for longer enough to read the chapter on temperature in a first year physics textbook ... yes, the whole fucking chapter ...

 

[Crick]

Temperature is the first term in SB ... you don't know what that is ... SB explains the physics of AGW ... I guess you don't understand AGW ...

SB refutes YOU ... stupid motherfucker ... lying sack of shit ...

Take the vibrator out of your pussy for longer enough to read the chapter on temperature in a first year physics textbook ... yes, the whole fucking chapter ...

Do you still claim that SB refutes what you call CCC? Do you still claim that SB tells us that CO2 greenhouse warming is a tiny portion of global warming?

 

[ReinyDays]

Do you still claim that SB refutes what you call CCC?

SB explains AGW ...

Do you still claim that SB tells us that CO2 greenhouse warming is a tiny portion of global warming?

My claim is that this is a fourth-root relationship ... did you read the chapter on temperature yet ... there's something all first year physics students understand about temperature which you seem completely clueless ... and it's because you've never taken college physics ... why you're afraid to discuss temperature ... you'll be exposed as a fraud ...

C'mon little girl, what's the definition of temperature? ... STUPID ....

 

[Crick]

SB explains AGW ...



My claim is that this is a fourth-root relationship ... did you read the chapter on temperature yet ... there's something all first year physics students understand about temperature which you seem completely clueless ... and it's because you've never taken college physics ... why you're afraid to discuss temperature ... you'll be exposed as a fraud ...

C'mon little girl, what's the definition of temperature? ... STUPID ....

Do a search for all posts by ReinyDays that include the word temperature. The number of times you've demanded I tell you what temperature scale to use is astounding. I'm beginning to think you don't know. Let me give you some real basics: if you're using temperature differential, it doesn't matter as long as you're consistent. If you have to put in an absolute value, make certain it's absolute, ie, Rankin or Kelvin. Does that help?

 

[ReinyDays]

Do a search for all posts by ReinyDays that include the word temperature. The number of times you've demanded I tell you what temperature scale to use is astounding. I'm beginning to think you don't know. Let me give you some real basics: if you're using temperature differential, it doesn't matter as long as you're consistent. If you have to put in an absolute value, make certain it's absolute, ie, Rankin or Kelvin. Does that help?

Not scale ... stupid ... we use kelvins ... it's the physics you don't understand, why you don't understand my CCC claim ... did you read the chapter in your textbook yet? ... there should be an entire chapter devoted to the subject ... ROLF ... temperature differential is positive regardless of scale HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Lying sack of shit ... if you searched my posts about temperature ... you'd have seen where I gave you the answer to my question last week ...

ETA: We use kelvins when we use the SB constant valued in kelvins ... we'd use a different value if we used any other measurement for temperature ... my question is what are we measuring? ... first year physics ... fucking moron ...

 

[ReinyDays]

... keep replying ... I like seeing the orange and red text ...

 

[Crick]

Not scale ... stupid ... we use kelvins ... it's the physics you don't understand, why you don't understand my CCC claim ... did you read the chapter in your textbook yet? ... there should be an entire chapter devoted to the subject ... ROLF ... temperature differential is positive regardless of scale HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

Lying sack of shit ... if you searched my posts about temperature ... you'd have seen where I gave you the answer to my question last week ...

ETA: We use kelvins when we use the SB constant valued in kelvins ... we'd use a different value if we used any other measurement for temperature ... my question is what are we measuring? ... first year physics ... fucking moron ...

Have you noticed, Reiny, that essentially no one else gets involved in this debate? No one sticks up for you or your position. Plenty of people here don't like me but they don't join in on your "haw, haw, haw"s.

I have no idea what you are looking for with your temperature obsession except to continue to attempt make yourself look smart, make me look ignorant and avoid actually demonstrating any real world use of SB because you don't seem to have the faintest idea how to do so. It was not the least bit unreasonable of me to assume that the problem might be that you didn't know what temperature scale to use since you've never had a class in thermo. I was simply explaining the basics in that regard. If you're dealing with differentials, like d1-d2 or delta D, it doesn't matter what scale you use as long as you're consistent throughout. Keep in mind the distinction between "degrees Centigrade" and "Centigrade degrees". BUT, if you are doing any calculation that makes use of a single temperature, ALWAYS use the absolute value. Centigrade and Fahrenheit have artificial origins. Instead, use the absolute scales that start with absolute zero (and thus are always positive) and that would be Kelvin and Rankin. By they way, if d1 > d2, (d2-d1) is negative. Temperature differentials can have either sign.

These are the sorts of things that would convince most folks to stop embarrassing themselves.

 

[ReinyDays]

Have you noticed, Reiny, that essentially no one else gets involved in this debate? No one sticks up for you or your position. Plenty of people here don't like me but they don't join in on your "haw, haw, haw"s.

I have no idea what you are looking for with your temperature obsession except to continue to attempt make yourself look smart, make me look ignorant and avoid actually demonstrating any real world use of SB because you don't seem to have the faintest idea how to do so. It was not the least bit unreasonable of me to assume that the problem might be that you didn't know what temperature scale to use since you've never had a class in thermo. I was simply explaining the basics in that regard. If you're dealing with differentials, like d1-d2 or delta D, it doesn't matter what scale you use as long as you're consistent throughout. Keep in mind the distinction between "degrees Centigrade" and "Centigrade degrees". BUT, if you are doing any calculation that makes use of a single temperature, ALWAYS use the absolute value. Centigrade and Fahrenheit have artificial origins. Instead, use the absolute scales that start with absolute zero (and thus are always positive) and that would be Kelvin and Rankin. By they way, if d1 > d2, (d2-d1) is negative. Temperature differentials can have either sign.

These are the sorts of things that would convince most folks to stop embarrassing themselves.

The definition of temperature ... c'mon, little girl, you're the only one worried about being embarrassed ... you keep bringing it up ... I personally don't bring my pride to the internet, nothing to be embarrassed about ... I keep a first year textbook on my desk and look this crap up before I post ... if Halliday/Resnick is wrong, them I'm in good company ...

We use kelvins in SB ... and everyplace else ... you should know that ...

 

[Crick]

The definition of temperature ... c'mon, little girl, you're the only one worried about being embarrassed ... you keep bringing it up ... I personally don't bring my pride to the internet, nothing to be embarrassed about ... I keep a first year textbook on my desk and look this crap up before I post ... if Halliday/Resnick is wrong, them I'm in good company ...

We use kelvins in SB ... and everyplace else ... you should know that ...

So when are you going to demonstrate what you claim SB has to say about AGW?

 

[Concerned American]

I'm sorry I didn't mean to be so vindictive! I just have to deal with a group of diminishing people I just don't understand
why the number $ 6.1 quadrillion is so hard to understand when I provide the math to them. The whole idea of replacing gas with EV is just plain ignorance! Especially when CO2 solutions don't call for the destruction of fossil fuel replacing with $6 quadrillion expense is adding nearly 8,000 power plants! That math is not being shared by most anti-EV supporters and that's the biggest issue!
This study The energy consumption and cost savings of truck electrification for heavy-duty vehicle applications
from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory...
NOTE not one single word in this 12 page study about the tremendous increase in kWh!
Battery capacity and recharging needs for electric buses in city transit service (Journal Article) | OSTI.GOV for heavy-duty vehicle applications

My point and again I apologize for the above is why is it so hard for people to understand?
We are replacing an abundant fuel source for a source that will cost us over $ $6,049,642,383,265,680 to use!
Think about how the electric companies will pass on to the 129 million households what is $46,896,453 PER HOUSEHOLD
either directly or indirectly through businesses! Where will that money come from?
Remember the point is the stupid EPA 60% of cars and they forgot trucks being sold to be EVs in 7 years.
In the 7th year we will need 8,000 more electric plants to provide the 3,024,821,191,633 kWh used by EVs.
That's 3/4 of what is currently be generated today of 4.1 trillion kWh. Where will that money come from???

I consider the source, Candy Cornpop, and ignore it. He's a typical democrat, long on pejoratives and lies--lacking on any substantive rebuttal.

 

[Crick]

I consider the source, Candy Cornpop, and ignore it. He's a typical democrat, long on pejoratives and lies--lacking on any substantive rebuttal.

Do you actually think it's objective or the least bit accurate to make derogatory generalizations like that about a group of people as large as democrats? Feel free to make comments about DNC platform positions or policies that a majority of democrats have supported, but when you start making generalizations about "democrats" or any other large group, you are virtually guaranteed to be wrong.

 

[Concerned American]

derogatory generalizations like that about a group of people as large as democrats?

Naw, just, what was that "scientific" number that they used to promote fraud? 81 million of them.

 

[Crick]

Naw, just, what was that "scientific" number that they used to promote fraud? 81 million of them.

I believe that number came from the election authorities in all 50 states. It was not fraudulent. Neither was it particularly scientific. More like bookkeeping.

 

[Woodznutz]

We already have a gigantic CO2 buffer. It is call "the ocean". Works pretty good and that is why CO2 levels at what we see now is not a problem.

Until it starts to affect sea life that is.