| Pages:
1
..
108
109
110
111
112
..
122 |
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 18384
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
Hey, where can i buy mangos for 10 for a penny? I need to shop there!
Woke!
“...ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America
will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”
Prefered gender pronoun: the royal we
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4936
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
Cliffy likes to blather on pretending he is knowledgeable. I'm sure he's never seen anyone selllng 10 mangoes for a penny.
Quote: Originally posted by Cliffy  |
Again all the climate N&zis do is pontificate without offering real solutions to real problems from the stance they take.
Address the problems noted rather than bloviate We're listening.
|
What problems, Cliffy? You keep telling us there is no climate change problem because "the climate has always changed". And helpfully tell us the sun
doesn't shine at night, just in case someone wasn't aware of that. (Actually it does in the Arctic part of the year)
All you ever do is deny the problem, and give reasons why any and all proposed solutions won't work. Your "solutions" are to maintain the status quo.
|
|
|
Tioloco
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2678
Registered: 7-30-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
The status quo is fine. More fossil fuels and nuclear fuel than we need for over 100 years. Panic is not needed. But panic does create political
power. Carry on.
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
Dear ignorant and Rude,
You don’t know Mangos!
We have so many lemon sized Mangos here in BCS that when they ripen they don’t cost a penny. They are free!
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4936
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
You completely missed the point, as is often the case.
I live in a neighborhood filled with mango trees, several different varieties. In mango season I can fill a shopping bag with mangoes in about 2
minutes. There are thousands just rotting on the ground.
I cut them up and put them in freezer bags in the freezer to use in non-mango season, and make jars of mango jam.
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
Well, if Cliffy visited Todos Santos he has seen people on street corners selling mangos for next to nothing!
You, on the other hand, have ignored the point that the research finally being made public shows that the changes made to “improve” the climate
have actually made it worse not better by accelerating the temperature increases!
Something far more important then the price of Mangos!
|
|
|
bajaric
Senior Nomad
Posts: 634
Registered: 2-2-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
Will never forget the first time I experienced a ripe mango picked off the tree, in Cabo San Lucas back in the 80's. Been hooked on mangos ever
since. Unfortunately, the mangos sold in the US are picked green, no comparison.
So here is something to add to the polite discussion of climate change here on Baja Nomad. When a hydrocarbon is oxidized (burned) the combustion by
products include not only carbon dioxide, but also water vapor. So for all the gazillion tons of oil and coal that have been burned since the
industrial revolution about half of that tonnage is water vapor that has been released into the atmosphere. And thank goodness. Without the
protective greenhouse effect of water in the atmosphere the median temperature would be fifty degrees lower, and the surface of the earth would be
covered in ice.
I don't think the average person understands that burning something makes water. It is counter intuitive. But it does. That is why when a car is
started cold sometimes water drips out of the exhaust pipe; the water vapor hits the cold exhaust system and it condenses into liquid water. So by
extension burning coal and oil will increase the humidity. This simple, self-evident fact has been completely ignored by the mainstream media.
[Edited on 5-7-2024 by bajaric]
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by bajaric | | So for all the gazillion tons of oil and coal that have been burned since the industrial revolution about half of that tonnage is water vapor that has
been released into the atmosphere. |
Oh my God! One-half of a "gazillion tons" is water vapor from hydrocarbon combustion. Amazing!
Are you sure it's "about half" the tonnage?
Is it significant compared to the bazillion tons of water vapor in the atmosphere?
I doubt it.
Do you have any pertinent numbers?
This is a scientific debate, after all.
[Edited on 5-7-2024 by SFandH]
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
Yes,
There is actually about 3 times the amount of water underground than there is in all the ocean. In fact there is a waterhole in Death Vally that ofter
has waves when earthquakes occur thousands of miles away from it.
Anytime you burn anything with hydrogen in it you produce yet more water.
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
I’m unsure if Doug will consider this “Politics” or not but!
When the discussion turns to sharing, generating equitable outcomes, social justice and the like it’s best to remember the following.
When everybody own or shares something or everything, someone needs to take charge of whatever that is on behalf of everybody! Being that person or a
part of that group is obviously the best place to be!
In other times that was called “the patronage system”!
|
|
|
bajaric
Senior Nomad
Posts: 634
Registered: 2-2-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
Allright, let's try and quantify the amount of water released to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels since the 1800's.
Here is the stoichiometry for the combustion of pentane:
C5H12 + 8O2 -> 5CO2 + 6H2O
Based on their molecular weights, the combustion products are roughly 57 percent CO2 and 43 percent H20 by weight. Of course, on the surface of the
earth a gas does not weigh anything, but if you froze them into a solid the weights of the combustion products are roughly half carbon dioxide and
half water.
The hydrocarbons in coal and oil have a more complex molecular formula but the ratio of carbon to hydrogen is similar to that of pentane. So as a
ballpark figure when fossil fuels are burned the byproducts are about half CO2 and half H20.
Next, how much oil and gas has been burned since 1850? This is a little tricky, because fossil fuel combustion is expressed in terawatt hours. It
takes 120,000 tons of coal to produce one terawatt hour.
Here are terawatt hours produced by burning fossil fuels starting in 1950 when the combustion of fossil fuels really started to take off:
1950 20,139
1960 31,139
1970 52,000 (muscle cars lol)
1980 70,620
1990 83,064
2000 94,407
2020 136,000
Prior to 1950 the burning of fossil fuels was not as widely practiced. Many people still burned wood for heat. So the carbon emitted from burning
oil and coal in some sense only replaced carbon from burning wood. It was not until the era of mega industrialization that things really started to
heat up!
So say an average of 68,000 terawatt hours per year for the last 70 years. That equals 8,160,000,000 tons of coal (or oil equivalent), or
4,060,000,000 tons water released to the atmosphere since 1950, know colloquially as a "gazillion" if I got the math right.
As to whether or not the release of 8 billion tons of carbon dioxide and water to the atmosphere in the last 70 years will change the climate, I
really don't know. There are arguments on both sides. To me it is just interesting that everyone is focused on Carbon Dioxide and ignores the water
that goes up in the atmosphere along with the CO2. CO2 is like the bogeyman, this mysterious thing that somehow sinister and negative, while the
release of water, another greenhouse gas, is not even brought into the conversation.
Feels kind of sticky today...
[Edited on 5-7-2024 by bajaric]
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64852
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
| Quote: |
Prior to 1950 the burning of fossil fuels was not as widely practiced.
|
Ric, what about the factories, the industrial age, coal (and maybe some gas and oil) burning from the late 1800s on...?
|
|
|
bajaric
Senior Nomad
Posts: 634
Registered: 2-2-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yes. Steam engines, factories, the industrial revolution. But the chart I was looking at, here
https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
shows that the burning of fossil fuels really did not show a massive increase until well into the 1900's. This was the period when the electrical
grid reached most of the population in developed countries as well as population growth due to the discovery of antibiotics etc.
But hey look on the bright side maybe if it gets really tropical and humid we can grow some decent mangos around here --
[Edited on 5-7-2024 by bajaric]
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
Guys,
You’re not remembering that cellulose (trees, plants, ect) is a hydrocarbon C6 H10 O5 - forest fires burn hydrocarbons, cave people burned
hydrocarbons. It’s a part of a complicated cycle that goes back to the earth’s early days.
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by bajaric |
As to whether or not the release of 8 billion tons of carbon dioxide and water to the atmosphere in the last 70 years will change the climate,
I really don't know.
|
Emphasis added.
OK. In a previous post you said:
| Quote: Originally posted by bajaric |
So for all the gazillion tons of oil and coal that have been burned since the industrial revolution about half of that tonnage is water vapor that has
been released into the atmosphere. And thank goodness. Without the protective greenhouse effect of water in the atmosphere the
median temperature would be fifty degrees lower, and the surface of the earth would be covered in ice.
|
Emphasis added.
You said "thank goodness" about the burning of oil and coal. That's an unusual comment when considering its effect on climate and implies you knew how
the atmosphere is affected.
[Edited on 5-7-2024 by SFandH]
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4936
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by RFClark | Guys,
You’re not remembering that cellulose (trees, plants, ect) is a hydrocarbon C6 H10 O5 - forest fires burn hydrocarbons, cave people burned
hydrocarbons. It’s a part of a complicated cycle that goes back to the earth’s early days. |
There weren't 8.1 billion cave people. Nor were there anywhere near the number of forest fires, because 85% of forest fires are caused by humans.
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
Argue with them and not me, you as is usually the case are wrong!
“ Lightning strokes are the main igniters of natural wildfires worldwide. Lightning-Ignited Wildfires (LIW) produce large emissions of carbon,
nitrogen oxides and other trace gases1 playing a key role in climate. The occurrence of lightning-ignited wildfires, in turn, is related to the
meteorological conditions that favor the occurrence of lightning and fuel availability. Multiple laboratory experiments [e.g., refs. 2,3,4] and field
observations [e.g., refs. 5,6,7] indicate that continuing electrical currents in lightning flowing for more than some tens of milli-seconds (so called
Long-Continuing-Currents, LCC) are likely to produce fires. The evolution and spreading of fires are determined by fuel availability and
meteorological conditions, such as air temperature, precipitation rate, and wind strength8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15.”
[Edited on 5-7-2024 by RFClark]
|
|
|
surabi
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4936
Registered: 5-6-2016
Member Is Offline
|
|
No, I am not wrong. You apparently don't understand what "natural wildfires" means. Yes, lightening strikes are the main cause of natural wildfires.
Human-caused wildfires are not "natural" wildfires.
https://www.science.org/content/article/human-sparked-wildfi...
|
|
|
Tioloco
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 2678
Registered: 7-30-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
*lightning
|
|
|
RFClark
Super Nomad
Posts: 2462
Registered: 8-27-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: Delighted with 2024 and looking forward to 2025
|
|
No, you’re never wrong! But your statistic is just for the US not the world and not for the number of fires but for the area that the human caused
fires burned in the US!
You also can’t spell just like the rest of us lesser mortals!
“Nor were there anywhere near the number of forest fires, because 85% of forest fires are caused by humans.” Your complete quote on the subject!
By total number not area!
You also overlook the fact that Volcanos and asteroid impacts have in the past (which is what was being discussed) burned up a majority of all living
things both plant and animal on the earth in minutes to hours quite a few times! Both classes are “Natural wildfires”! Both classes overshadow any
human caused destruction to date!
[Edited on 5-7-2024 by RFClark]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
108
109
110
111
112
..
122 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
