Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.environment > #97947 > unrolled thread

Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere

Back to article view | Back to sci.environment

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 11:41 +0000
    Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere "everyone hates me" <ssos@bungay.com> - 2016-10-09 07:05 -0500
      Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 12:24 +0000
        Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere "everyone hates me" <ssos@bungay.com> - 2016-10-09 08:02 -0500
          Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-10-09 15:07 +0200
          Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 15:26 +0000
            Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-10-09 20:11 +0200
              Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 18:21 +0000
                Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere "everyone hates me" <ssos@bungay.com> - 2016-10-09 13:36 -0500
                  Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 18:47 +0000
                    Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-10-09 22:23 +0200
                      Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-10 20:44 +0000
                        Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-10-12 13:45 +0200
        Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere "everyone hates me" <ssos@bungay.com> - 2016-10-09 08:09 -0500
          Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 15:21 +0000
            Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-10-09 17:22 +0200
              Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2016-10-09 11:31 -0400
                Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-10-09 17:39 +0200
            Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere "everyone hates me" <ssos@bungay.com> - 2016-10-09 11:27 -0500
              Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 18:32 +0000
                Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere "everyone hates me" <ssos@bungay.com> - 2016-10-09 13:46 -0500
                  Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-09 18:55 +0000
                    Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere "everyone hates me" <ssos@bungay.com> - 2016-10-09 14:02 -0500
                      Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-10-10 20:35 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#97947 — Re: Cars that remove carbon from the atmosphere

DVH wrote:

> Speculative.
> 
> "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative (reducing
> the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just carbon neutral (not
> adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say researchers at Vanderbilt University
> and George Washington University (GWU).
> 
> The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries (used in
> electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers recovered
> from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new technology could also be
> used in sodium-ion batteries, currently under development for
> large-scale applications, such as the electric grid."
> 
> http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries


The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.

Quaaackhhhh!!!

Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
500 x 500 miles square of forest.

Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.

The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.

Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.

Climate trolls are lying fscktards about
glow ball wamming.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#97948

On 09 Oct 2016 12:41 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> DVH wrote:
> 
> > Speculative.
> > 
> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative (reducing
> > the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just carbon neutral (not
> > adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say researchers at Vanderbilt University
> > and George Washington University (GWU).
> > 
> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries (used in
> > electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers recovered
> > from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new technology could also be
> > used in sodium-ion batteries, currently under development for
> > large-scale applications, such as the electric grid."
> > 
> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
> 
> 
> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
> 
> Quaaackhhhh!!!
> 
> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
> 
> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
> 
> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
> 
> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.

Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to measure. 

You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to outgoing long wave radiation as you increase the CO2. 

And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a long way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour. 

The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water vapour it can hold. 

And so, in this respect, the process will slowly become self accelerating. 



> 
> Climate trolls are lying fscktards about
> glow ball wamming.
> 


-- 
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97949

everyone hates me wrote:

> 
> On 09 Oct 2016 12:41 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> DVH wrote:
>> 
>> > Speculative.
>> > 
>> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative (reducing
>> > the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just carbon neutral (not
>> > adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say researchers at Vanderbilt University
>> > and George Washington University (GWU).
>> > 
>> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries (used
>> > in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers
>> > recovered from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new technology
>> > could also be used in sodium-ion batteries, currently under development
>> > for large-scale applications, such as the electric grid."
>> > 
>> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
>> 
>> 
>> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
>> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
>> 
>> Quaaackhhhh!!!
>> 
>> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
>> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
>> 
>> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
>> 
>> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
>> 
>> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
>> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
> 
> Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to measure.
> 
> You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to outgoing
> long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.

Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
of this than CO2.
 
> And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a long
> way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.

No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.

CO2 has no effect on this.

 
> The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water vapour
> it can hold.

False.

All heat is lost during the night at the rate of around 1 degree
per hour. The Sun has to put it all back the next day.

Usually solar activity increases temporarily and a lot more water gets in
to the atmosphere but over the next few days that means
thunderstorms as it comes crashing all the way back down.

 
> And so, in this respect, the process will slowly become self accelerating.

Not a fscking chance.

Then only thing that can keep the water up there is the Sun and its
average temperature.

CO2 has no part to play in it.
 
>> Climate trolls are lying fscktards about
>> glow ball wamming.

The only reason why globe is warming is because lying climate
trolls are sticking even more thermometers into the same areas 
around cities and industrialized counteis forcing the average
to go up.

Its like sticking more thermometers around a fire to make
the average go up.

Nothing of the sort has happened as the average temperture
of the room has not gone up.

US climate trolls in NOAA throws away twice a day balloon data which 
measures actual temperatures and CO2 1km to 10km up in the air
where the air has had a chance to mix
because it tells the truth - there is no glow ball wamming.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97950

On 09 Oct 2016 01:24 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> everyone hates me wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On 09 Oct 2016 12:41 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> >> DVH wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Speculative.
> >> > 
> >> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative (reducing
> >> > the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just carbon neutral (not
> >> > adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say researchers at Vanderbilt University
> >> > and George Washington University (GWU).
> >> > 
> >> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries (used
> >> > in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers
> >> > recovered from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new technology
> >> > could also be used in sodium-ion batteries, currently under development
> >> > for large-scale applications, such as the electric grid."
> >> > 
> >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
> >> 
> >> 
> >> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
> >> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
> >> 
> >> Quaaackhhhh!!!
> >> 
> >> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
> >> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
> >> 
> >> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
> >> 
> >> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
> >> 
> >> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
> >> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
> > 
> > Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to measure.
> > 
> > You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to outgoing
> > long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.
> 
> Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
> of this than CO2.
>  
> > And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a long
> > way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.
> 
> No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
> heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.
> 
> CO2 has no effect on this.
> 
>  
> > The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water vapour
> > it can hold.
> 
> False.
> 
> All heat is lost during the night at the rate of around 1 degree
> per hour. The Sun has to put it all back the next day.

Nonsense. 

You need to stop reading Noddy's Guide To Diurnal Temperature Variation and try a proper science book.

> 
> Usually solar activity increases temporarily and a lot more water gets in
> to the atmosphere but over the next few days that means
> thunderstorms as it comes crashing all the way back down.
> 
>  
> > And so, in this respect, the process will slowly become self accelerating.
> 
> Not a fscking chance.
> 
> Then only thing that can keep the water up there is the Sun and its
> average temperature.
> 
> CO2 has no part to play in it.
>  
> >> Climate trolls are lying fscktards about
> >> glow ball wamming.
> 
> The only reason why globe is warming is because lying climate
> trolls are sticking even more thermometers into the same areas 
> around cities and industrialized counteis forcing the average
> to go up.
> 
> Its like sticking more thermometers around a fire to make
> the average go up.
> 
> Nothing of the sort has happened as the average temperture
> of the room has not gone up.
> 
> US climate trolls in NOAA throws away twice a day balloon data which 
> measures actual temperatures and CO2 1km to 10km up in the air
> where the air has had a chance to mix
> because it tells the truth - there is no glow ball wamming.
> 


-- 
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97951

On Sun, 09 Oct 2016 08:02:13 -0500, "everyone hates me"
<ssos@bungay.com> wrote:

>
>On 09 Oct 2016 01:24 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> everyone hates me wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> > On 09 Oct 2016 12:41 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> >> DVH wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Speculative.
>> >> > 
>> >> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative (reducing
>> >> > the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just carbon neutral (not
>> >> > adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say researchers at Vanderbilt University
>> >> > and George Washington University (GWU).
>> >> > 
>> >> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries (used
>> >> > in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers
>> >> > recovered from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new technology
>> >> > could also be used in sodium-ion batteries, currently under development
>> >> > for large-scale applications, such as the electric grid."
>> >> > 
>> >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
>> >> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
>> >> 
>> >> Quaaackhhhh!!!
>> >> 
>> >> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
>> >> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
>> >> 
>> >> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
>> >> 
>> >> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
>> >> 
>> >> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
>> >> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
>> > 
>> > Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to measure.
>> > 
>> > You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to outgoing
>> > long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.
>> 
>> Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
>> of this than CO2.
>>  
>> > And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a long
>> > way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.
>> 
>> No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
>> heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.
>> 
>> CO2 has no effect on this.
>> 
>>  
>> > The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water vapour
>> > it can hold.
>> 
>> False.
>> 
>> All heat is lost during the night at the rate of around 1 degree
>> per hour. The Sun has to put it all back the next day.
>
>Nonsense. 
>
>You need to stop reading Noddy's Guide To Diurnal Temperature Variation and try a proper science book.

waste of time...he probably belongs to some fundamentalist cult



-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97955

everyone hates me wrote:


>> >> > Speculative.
>> >> > 
>> >> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative
>> >> > (reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just carbon
>> >> > neutral (not adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say researchers at
>> >> > Vanderbilt University and George Washington University (GWU).
>> >> > 
>> >> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries
>> >> > (used in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon
>> >> > nanofibers recovered from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new
>> >> > technology could also be used in sodium-ion batteries, currently
>> >> > under development for large-scale applications, such as the electric
>> >> > grid."
>> >> > 
>> >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
>> >> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
>> >> 
>> >> Quaaackhhhh!!!
>> >> 
>> >> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
>> >> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
>> >> 
>> >> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
>> >> 
>> >> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
>> >> 
>> >> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
>> >> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
>> > 
>> > Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to measure.
>> > 
>> > You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to outgoing
>> > long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.
>> 
>> Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
>> of this than CO2.
>>  
>> > And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a long
>> > way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.
>> 
>> No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
>> heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.
>> 
>> CO2 has no effect on this.
>> 
>>  
>> > The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water
>> > vapour it can hold.
>> 
>> False.
>> 
>> All heat is lost during the night at the rate of around 1 degree
>> per hour. The Sun has to put it all back the next day.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You need to stop reading Noddy's Guide To Diurnal Temperature Variation
> and try a proper science book.

TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do tell us which science books Noddy told you read???!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the Earth's temperature is not dropping an average of 1 degree per hour
during the night what do you think it is doing?

Half degree per hour?

0.01 degree per hour?

In deserts with no cloud cover its several degrees per hour.

Climate trolls have no idea how much heat is lost during
the night that the Sun has to put back during the day.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97959

On 9 Oct 2016 15:26:15 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

>everyone hates me wrote:
>
>
>>> >> > Speculative.
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative
>>> >> > (reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just carbon
>>> >> > neutral (not adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say researchers at
>>> >> > Vanderbilt University and George Washington University (GWU).
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries
>>> >> > (used in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon
>>> >> > nanofibers recovered from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new
>>> >> > technology could also be used in sodium-ion batteries, currently
>>> >> > under development for large-scale applications, such as the electric
>>> >> > grid."
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
>>> >> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Quaaackhhhh!!!
>>> >> 
>>> >> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
>>> >> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
>>> >> 
>>> >> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
>>> >> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
>>> > 
>>> > Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to measure.
>>> > 
>>> > You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to outgoing
>>> > long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.
>>> 
>>> Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
>>> of this than CO2.
>>>  
>>> > And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a long
>>> > way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.
>>> 
>>> No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
>>> heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.
>>> 
>>> CO2 has no effect on this.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> > The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water
>>> > vapour it can hold.
>>> 
>>> False.
>>> 
>>> All heat is lost during the night at the rate of around 1 degree
>>> per hour. The Sun has to put it all back the next day.
>> 
>> Nonsense.
>> 
>> You need to stop reading Noddy's Guide To Diurnal Temperature Variation
>> and try a proper science book.
>
>TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Do tell us which science books Noddy told you read???!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>If the Earth's temperature is not dropping an average of 1 degree per hour
>during the night what do you think it is doing?
>
>Half degree per hour?
>
>0.01 degree per hour?
>
>In deserts with no cloud cover its several degrees per hour.
>
>Climate trolls have no idea how much heat is lost during
>the night that the Sun has to put back during the day.

the numbers are well known by anyone who studies


-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97960

abelard wrote:

> On 9 Oct 2016 15:26:15 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> 
>>everyone hates me wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> >> > Speculative.
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative
>>>> >> > (reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just
>>>> >> > carbon neutral (not adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say researchers
>>>> >> > at Vanderbilt University and George Washington University (GWU).
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries
>>>> >> > (used in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon
>>>> >> > nanofibers recovered from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The
>>>> >> > new technology could also be used in sodium-ion batteries,
>>>> >> > currently under development for large-scale applications, such as
>>>> >> > the electric grid."
>>>> >> > 
>>>> >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
>>>> >> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Quaaackhhhh!!!
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
>>>> >> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
>>>> >> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
>>>> > 
>>>> > Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to measure.
>>>> > 
>>>> > You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to
>>>> > outgoing long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.
>>>> 
>>>> Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
>>>> of this than CO2.
>>>>  
>>>> > And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a
>>>> > long way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.
>>>> 
>>>> No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
>>>> heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.
>>>> 
>>>> CO2 has no effect on this.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> > The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water
>>>> > vapour it can hold.
>>>> 
>>>> False.
>>>> 
>>>> All heat is lost during the night at the rate of around 1 degree
>>>> per hour. The Sun has to put it all back the next day.
>>> 
>>> Nonsense.
>>> 
>>> You need to stop reading Noddy's Guide To Diurnal Temperature Variation
>>> and try a proper science book.
>>
>>TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>Do tell us which science books Noddy told you read???!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>If the Earth's temperature is not dropping an average of 1 degree per hour
>>during the night what do you think it is doing?
>>
>>Half degree per hour?
>>
>>0.01 degree per hour?
>>
>>In deserts with no cloud cover its several degrees per hour.
>>
>>Climate trolls have no idea how much heat is lost during
>>the night that the Sun has to put back during the day.
> 
> the numbers are well known by anyone who studies

TROLL!!!!


Yes well known well known.
Anyone is anyone.
Studies is studies.
Brexshit is Brexshit.
Today is Today.
Tomorrow is Tomorrow.

But you don't know is you don't know.

Naturally.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97962

On 09 Oct 2016 07:21 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> abelard wrote:
> 
> > On 9 Oct 2016 15:26:15 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>everyone hates me wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> >> > Speculative.
> >>>> >> > 
> >>>> >> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative
> >>>> >> > (reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just
> >>>> >> > carbon neutral (not adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say researchers
> >>>> >> > at Vanderbilt University and George Washington University (GWU).
> >>>> >> > 
> >>>> >> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries
> >>>> >> > (used in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon
> >>>> >> > nanofibers recovered from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The
> >>>> >> > new technology could also be used in sodium-ion batteries,
> >>>> >> > currently under development for large-scale applications, such as
> >>>> >> > the electric grid."
> >>>> >> > 
> >>>> >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
> >>>> >> 
> >>>> >> 
> >>>> >> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
> >>>> >> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
> >>>> >> 
> >>>> >> Quaaackhhhh!!!
> >>>> >> 
> >>>> >> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
> >>>> >> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
> >>>> >> 
> >>>> >> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
> >>>> >> 
> >>>> >> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
> >>>> >> 
> >>>> >> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
> >>>> >> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
> >>>> > 
> >>>> > Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to measure.
> >>>> > 
> >>>> > You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to
> >>>> > outgoing long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
> >>>> of this than CO2.
> >>>>  
> >>>> > And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a
> >>>> > long way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.
> >>>> 
> >>>> No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
> >>>> heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.
> >>>> 
> >>>> CO2 has no effect on this.
> >>>> 
> >>>>  
> >>>> > The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water
> >>>> > vapour it can hold.
> >>>> 
> >>>> False.
> >>>> 
> >>>> All heat is lost during the night at the rate of around 1 degree
> >>>> per hour. The Sun has to put it all back the next day.
> >>> 
> >>> Nonsense.
> >>> 
> >>> You need to stop reading Noddy's Guide To Diurnal Temperature Variation
> >>> and try a proper science book.
> >>
> >>TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>
> >>Do tell us which science books Noddy told you read???!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>
> >>If the Earth's temperature is not dropping an average of 1 degree per hour
> >>during the night what do you think it is doing?
> >>
> >>Half degree per hour?
> >>
> >>0.01 degree per hour?
> >>
> >>In deserts with no cloud cover its several degrees per hour.
> >>
> >>Climate trolls have no idea how much heat is lost during
> >>the night that the Sun has to put back during the day.
> > 
> > the numbers are well known by anyone who studies
> 
> TROLL!!!!
> 
> 
> Yes well known well known.
> Anyone is anyone.
> Studies is studies.
> Brexshit is Brexshit.
> Today is Today.
> Tomorrow is Tomorrow.
> 
> But you don't know is you don't know.
> 
> Naturally.
> 
> 


Reduced to dodging now.

-- 
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97964

everyone hates me wrote:

> 
> On 09 Oct 2016 07:21 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> abelard wrote:
>> 
>> > On 9 Oct 2016 15:26:15 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >>everyone hates me wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>> >> > Speculative.
>> >>>> >> > 
>> >>>> >> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative
>> >>>> >> > (reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just
>> >>>> >> > carbon neutral (not adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say
>> >>>> >> > researchers at Vanderbilt University and George Washington
>> >>>> >> > University (GWU).
>> >>>> >> > 
>> >>>> >> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries
>> >>>> >> > (used in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon
>> >>>> >> > nanofibers recovered from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The
>> >>>> >> > new technology could also be used in sodium-ion batteries,
>> >>>> >> > currently under development for large-scale applications, such
>> >>>> >> > as the electric grid."
>> >>>> >> > 
>> >>>> >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
>> >>>> >> 
>> >>>> >> 
>> >>>> >> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
>> >>>> >> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
>> >>>> >> 
>> >>>> >> Quaaackhhhh!!!
>> >>>> >> 
>> >>>> >> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
>> >>>> >> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
>> >>>> >> 
>> >>>> >> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
>> >>>> >> 
>> >>>> >> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
>> >>>> >> 
>> >>>> >> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
>> >>>> >> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
>> >>>> > 
>> >>>> > Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to
>> >>>> > measure.
>> >>>> > 
>> >>>> > You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to
>> >>>> > outgoing long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
>> >>>> of this than CO2.
>> >>>>  
>> >>>> > And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a
>> >>>> > long way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
>> >>>> heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> CO2 has no effect on this.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>>  
>> >>>> > The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water
>> >>>> > vapour it can hold.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> False.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> All heat is lost during the night at the rate of around 1 degree
>> >>>> per hour. The Sun has to put it all back the next day.
>> >>> 
>> >>> Nonsense.
>> >>> 
>> >>> You need to stop reading Noddy's Guide To Diurnal Temperature
>> >>> Variation and try a proper science book.
>> >>
>> >>TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> >>
>> >>Do tell us which science books Noddy told you read???!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> >>
>> >>If the Earth's temperature is not dropping an average of 1 degree per
>> >>hour during the night what do you think it is doing?
>> >>
>> >>Half degree per hour?
>> >>
>> >>0.01 degree per hour?
>> >>
>> >>In deserts with no cloud cover its several degrees per hour.
>> >>
>> >>Climate trolls have no idea how much heat is lost during
>> >>the night that the Sun has to put back during the day.
>> > 
>> > the numbers are well known by anyone who studies
>> 
>> TROLL!!!!
>> 
>> 
>> Yes well known well known.
>> Anyone is anyone.
>> Studies is studies.
>> Brexshit is Brexshit.
>> Today is Today.
>> Tomorrow is Tomorrow.
>> 
>> But you don't know is you don't know.
>> 
>> Naturally.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Reduced to dodging now.

Not dodging anything. 

The abeltard has dodged the issue and doesn't know Earth's
temperature drops an average 1 degree per hour during
the night and climbs 1 degree per hour during day.

Climate trolls I assume are having a fit knowing this.

The Sun is causing 1 degree per hour glow ball warming.
Glow ball wamming has now gone mad.
Let all jump off a cliff.
Save the planet.
Yay!

Is that about right?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97967

On 9 Oct 2016 18:47:37 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

>everyone hates me wrote:
>
>> 
>> On 09 Oct 2016 07:21 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>> abelard wrote:
>>> 
>>> > On 9 Oct 2016 15:26:15 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> >>everyone hates me wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>> >> > Speculative.
>>> >>>> >> > 
>>> >>>> >> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative
>>> >>>> >> > (reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just
>>> >>>> >> > carbon neutral (not adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say
>>> >>>> >> > researchers at Vanderbilt University and George Washington
>>> >>>> >> > University (GWU).
>>> >>>> >> > 
>>> >>>> >> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries
>>> >>>> >> > (used in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon
>>> >>>> >> > nanofibers recovered from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The
>>> >>>> >> > new technology could also be used in sodium-ion batteries,
>>> >>>> >> > currently under development for large-scale applications, such
>>> >>>> >> > as the electric grid."
>>> >>>> >> > 
>>> >>>> >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
>>> >>>> >> 
>>> >>>> >> 
>>> >>>> >> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
>>> >>>> >> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
>>> >>>> >> 
>>> >>>> >> Quaaackhhhh!!!
>>> >>>> >> 
>>> >>>> >> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
>>> >>>> >> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
>>> >>>> >> 
>>> >>>> >> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
>>> >>>> >> 
>>> >>>> >> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
>>> >>>> >> 
>>> >>>> >> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
>>> >>>> >> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
>>> >>>> > 
>>> >>>> > Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to
>>> >>>> > measure.
>>> >>>> > 
>>> >>>> > You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to
>>> >>>> > outgoing long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
>>> >>>> of this than CO2.
>>> >>>>  
>>> >>>> > And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a
>>> >>>> > long way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
>>> >>>> heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> CO2 has no effect on this.
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>>  
>>> >>>> > The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water
>>> >>>> > vapour it can hold.
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> False.
>>> >>>> 
>>> >>>> All heat is lost during the night at the rate of around 1 degree
>>> >>>> per hour. The Sun has to put it all back the next day.
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> Nonsense.
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> You need to stop reading Noddy's Guide To Diurnal Temperature
>>> >>> Variation and try a proper science book.
>>> >>
>>> >>TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> >>
>>> >>Do tell us which science books Noddy told you read???!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> >>
>>> >>If the Earth's temperature is not dropping an average of 1 degree per
>>> >>hour during the night what do you think it is doing?
>>> >>
>>> >>Half degree per hour?
>>> >>
>>> >>0.01 degree per hour?
>>> >>
>>> >>In deserts with no cloud cover its several degrees per hour.
>>> >>
>>> >>Climate trolls have no idea how much heat is lost during
>>> >>the night that the Sun has to put back during the day.
>>> > 
>>> > the numbers are well known by anyone who studies
>>> 
>>> TROLL!!!!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes well known well known.
>>> Anyone is anyone.
>>> Studies is studies.
>>> Brexshit is Brexshit.
>>> Today is Today.
>>> Tomorrow is Tomorrow.
>>> 
>>> But you don't know is you don't know.
>>> 
>>> Naturally.

>> Reduced to dodging now.
>
>Not dodging anything. 
>
>The abeltard has dodged the issue and doesn't know Earth's
>temperature drops an average 1 degree per hour during
>the night and climbs 1 degree per hour during day.
>
>Climate trolls I assume are having a fit knowing this.
>
>The Sun is causing 1 degree per hour glow ball warming.
>Glow ball wamming has now gone mad.
>Let all jump off a cliff.
>Save the planet.
>Yay!
>
>Is that about right?

you are so uneducated and too dim to realise it!

why do you suppose under earth heat exchangers work? or don't
    you even know what they are?

here's one of the pages i produced while studying the problems 10
    years ago...
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming_atmospheric_chemistry_physics.php


here is one of the books i used widely...it remains in my library...

: reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary by Raymond S. Bradley

£60.60 [amazon.co.uk]
$64.60 [amazon.com]

Academic Press,1999, hbk
ISBN-10: 012124010X
ISBN-13: 978-0121240103

you know nothing you silly little poser

get back down the shallow end where you belong

you have no self-knowledge or awareness of how dopey you look
    to anybody who got beyond infant school...

do you live in a trailer park?



-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97969

abelard wrote:

> On 9 Oct 2016 18:47:37 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> 
>>everyone hates me wrote:
>>
>>> 
>>> On 09 Oct 2016 07:21 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > On 9 Oct 2016 15:26:15 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>>> > 
>>>> >>everyone hates me wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>> >> > Speculative.
>>>> >>>> >> > 
>>>> >>>> >> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative
>>>> >>>> >> > (reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just
>>>> >>>> >> > carbon neutral (not adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say
>>>> >>>> >> > researchers at Vanderbilt University and George Washington
>>>> >>>> >> > University (GWU).
>>>> >>>> >> > 
>>>> >>>> >> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion
>>>> >>>> >> > batteries (used in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes
>>>> >>>> >> > and carbon nanofibers recovered from carbon dioxide in the
>>>> >>>> >> > atmosphere. The new technology could also be used in
>>>> >>>> >> > sodium-ion batteries, currently under development for
>>>> >>>> >> > large-scale applications, such as the electric grid."
>>>> >>>> >> > 
>>>> >>>> >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
>>>> >>>> >> 
>>>> >>>> >> 
>>>> >>>> >> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
>>>> >>>> >> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
>>>> >>>> >> 
>>>> >>>> >> Quaaackhhhh!!!
>>>> >>>> >> 
>>>> >>>> >> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
>>>> >>>> >> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
>>>> >>>> >> 
>>>> >>>> >> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
>>>> >>>> >> 
>>>> >>>> >> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
>>>> >>>> >> 
>>>> >>>> >> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
>>>> >>>> >> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
>>>> >>>> > 
>>>> >>>> > Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to
>>>> >>>> > measure.
>>>> >>>> > 
>>>> >>>> > You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to
>>>> >>>> > outgoing long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.
>>>> >>>> 
>>>> >>>> Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
>>>> >>>> of this than CO2.
>>>> >>>>  
>>>> >>>> > And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by
>>>> >>>> > a long way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.
>>>> >>>> 
>>>> >>>> No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
>>>> >>>> heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.
>>>> >>>> 
>>>> >>>> CO2 has no effect on this.
>>>> >>>> 
>>>> >>>>  
>>>> >>>> > The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of
>>>> >>>> > water vapour it can hold.
>>>> >>>> 
>>>> >>>> False.
>>>> >>>> 
>>>> >>>> All heat is lost during the night at the rate of around 1 degree
>>>> >>>> per hour. The Sun has to put it all back the next day.
>>>> >>> 
>>>> >>> Nonsense.
>>>> >>> 
>>>> >>> You need to stop reading Noddy's Guide To Diurnal Temperature
>>>> >>> Variation and try a proper science book.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Do tell us which science books Noddy told you read???!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>> >>
>>>> >>If the Earth's temperature is not dropping an average of 1 degree per
>>>> >>hour during the night what do you think it is doing?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Half degree per hour?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>0.01 degree per hour?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>In deserts with no cloud cover its several degrees per hour.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Climate trolls have no idea how much heat is lost during
>>>> >>the night that the Sun has to put back during the day.
>>>> > 
>>>> > the numbers are well known by anyone who studies
>>>> 
>>>> TROLL!!!!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Yes well known well known.
>>>> Anyone is anyone.
>>>> Studies is studies.
>>>> Brexshit is Brexshit.
>>>> Today is Today.
>>>> Tomorrow is Tomorrow.
>>>> 
>>>> But you don't know is you don't know.
>>>> 
>>>> Naturally.
> 
>>> Reduced to dodging now.
>>
>>Not dodging anything.
>>
>>The abeltard has dodged the issue and doesn't know Earth's
>>temperature drops an average 1 degree per hour during
>>the night and climbs 1 degree per hour during day.
>>
>>Climate trolls I assume are having a fit knowing this.
>>
>>The Sun is causing 1 degree per hour glow ball warming.
>>Glow ball wamming has now gone mad.
>>Let all jump off a cliff.
>>Save the planet.
>>Yay!
>>
>>Is that about right?
> 
> you are so uneducated and too dim to realise it!
> 
> why do you suppose under earth heat exchangers work? or don't
>     you even know what they are?
> 
> here's one of the pages i produced while studying the problems 10
>     years ago...
> 
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming_atmospheric_chemistry_physics.php

OMG! You are a fscking basket case!!

The radiative forcing values for example are close to nil.

The trolls who made up those numbers by 'estimating'
didn't take account of water vapour.
So they were lying more like.

And the equations that give the numbers is some negative
exponential which the original authors of these trolls now concede.

My advise is buy the biggest banana your local shop sells,
and stick it up your asp. It would make me feel better.

TIA.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97970

On 10 Oct 2016 20:44:20 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:



>http://www.abelard.org/briefings/global_warming_atmospheric_chemistry_physics.php
>
>OMG! You are a fscking basket case!!
>
>The radiative forcing values for example are close to nil.
>
>The trolls who made up those numbers by 'estimating'
>didn't take account of water vapour.

so you're still babbling on...

god you're thick...water vapour is a dependent variable you oaf


>So they were lying more like.
>
>And the equations that give the numbers is some negative
>exponential which the original authors of these trolls now concede.
>
>My advise is buy the biggest banana your local shop sells,
>and stick it up your asp. It would make me feel better.



-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97952

On 09 Oct 2016 01:24 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> everyone hates me wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On 09 Oct 2016 12:41 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> >> DVH wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Speculative.
> >> > 
> >> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative (reducing
> >> > the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just carbon neutral (not
> >> > adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say researchers at Vanderbilt University
> >> > and George Washington University (GWU).
> >> > 
> >> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries (used
> >> > in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers
> >> > recovered from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new technology
> >> > could also be used in sodium-ion batteries, currently under development
> >> > for large-scale applications, such as the electric grid."
> >> > 
> >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
> >> 
> >> 
> >> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
> >> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
> >> 
> >> Quaaackhhhh!!!
> >> 
> >> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
> >> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
> >> 
> >> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
> >> 
> >> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
> >> 
> >> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
> >> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
> > 
> > Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to measure.
> > 
> > You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to outgoing
> > long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.
> 
> Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
> of this than CO2.
>  
> > And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a long
> > way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.
> 
> No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
> heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.
> 
> CO2 has no effect on this.
> 
>  
> > The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water vapour
> > it can hold.
> 
> False.

True. 

Why do you think clouds form?

Because as air rises and cools, the cooler air cannot contain the same amount of water vapour and so the excess condenses into tiny water droplets (ice crystals if the temperature is low enough). 

Have you never breathed onto a window pane and wondered why it will mist up on a cold day?

I cannot discuss this with an ignoramus. 

-- 
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97953

everyone hates me wrote:

> 
> On 09 Oct 2016 01:24 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> everyone hates me wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> > On 09 Oct 2016 12:41 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> >> DVH wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Speculative.
>> >> > 
>> >> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative
>> >> > (reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just carbon
>> >> > neutral (not adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say researchers at
>> >> > Vanderbilt University and George Washington University (GWU).
>> >> > 
>> >> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries
>> >> > (used in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon
>> >> > nanofibers recovered from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new
>> >> > technology could also be used in sodium-ion batteries, currently
>> >> > under development for large-scale applications, such as the electric
>> >> > grid."
>> >> > 
>> >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
>> >> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
>> >> 
>> >> Quaaackhhhh!!!
>> >> 
>> >> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
>> >> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
>> >> 
>> >> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
>> >> 
>> >> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
>> >> 
>> >> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
>> >> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
>> > 
>> > Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to measure.
>> > 
>> > You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to outgoing
>> > long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.
>> 
>> Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
>> of this than CO2.
>>  
>> > And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a long
>> > way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.
>> 
>> No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
>> heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.
>> 
>> CO2 has no effect on this.
>> 
>>  
>> > The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water
>> > vapour it can hold.
>> 
>> False.
> 
> True.
> 
> Why do you think clouds form?

You are distorting the context.

The globe is not warmied by CO2 as claimed by climate trolls
to hold more water in the atmosphere.

The temperature of the earth rises an average 1 degree per hour
during the day and loses 1 degree per hour in the night.

CO2 has no place in there to make the atmosphere warmer
to hold more water.



> Because as air rises and cools, the cooler air cannot contain the same
> amount of water vapour and so the excess condenses into tiny water
> droplets (ice crystals if the temperature is low enough).
> 
> Have you never breathed onto a window pane and wondered why it will mist
> up on a cold day?
> 
> I cannot discuss this with an ignoramus.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97954

On 9 Oct 2016 15:21:03 GMT, 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

>everyone hates me wrote:
>
>> 
>> On 09 Oct 2016 01:24 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>> everyone hates me wrote:
>>> 
>>> > 
>>> > On 09 Oct 2016 12:41 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>> >> DVH wrote:
>>> >> 
>>> >> > Speculative.
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative
>>> >> > (reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just carbon
>>> >> > neutral (not adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say researchers at
>>> >> > Vanderbilt University and George Washington University (GWU).
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries
>>> >> > (used in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon
>>> >> > nanofibers recovered from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new
>>> >> > technology could also be used in sodium-ion batteries, currently
>>> >> > under development for large-scale applications, such as the electric
>>> >> > grid."
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
>>> >> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Quaaackhhhh!!!
>>> >> 
>>> >> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
>>> >> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
>>> >> 
>>> >> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
>>> >> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
>>> > 
>>> > Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to measure.
>>> > 
>>> > You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to outgoing
>>> > long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.
>>> 
>>> Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
>>> of this than CO2.
>>>  
>>> > And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a long
>>> > way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.
>>> 
>>> No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
>>> heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.
>>> 
>>> CO2 has no effect on this.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> > The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water
>>> > vapour it can hold.
>>> 
>>> False.
>> 
>> True.
>> 
>> Why do you think clouds form?
>
>You are distorting the context.
>
>The globe is not warmied by CO2 as claimed by climate trolls
>to hold more water in the atmosphere.
>
>The temperature of the earth rises an average 1 degree per hour
>during the day and loses 1 degree per hour in the night.
>
>CO2 has no place in there to make the atmosphere warmer
>to hold more water.
>
>
>
>> Because as air rises and cools, the cooler air cannot contain the same
>> amount of water vapour and so the excess condenses into tiny water
>> droplets (ice crystals if the temperature is low enough).
>> 
>> Have you never breathed onto a window pane and wondered why it will mist
>> up on a cold day?
>> 
>> I cannot discuss this with an ignoramus.

where do you believe the radiator is you kook?


-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97956

On Sun, 09 Oct 2016 17:22:36 +0200
abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:

> kook?
NOAA finds cows driving methane rise, not fossil fuels

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/fossil-fuels-not-raising-air-pollution-as-much-as-/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97957

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 11:31:29 -0400, burfordTjustice
<burfordTjustice@tues.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Oct 2016 17:22:36 +0200
>abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> wrote:
>
>> kook?
>NOAA finds cows driving methane rise, not fossil fuels

so?

the pair of you are a daft as one another

>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/fossil-fuels-not-raising-air-pollution-as-much-as-/


-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97958

On 09 Oct 2016 04:21 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> everyone hates me wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On 09 Oct 2016 01:24 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> >> everyone hates me wrote:
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > On 09 Oct 2016 12:41 PM ,7 <7@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> >> >> DVH wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Speculative.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative
> >> >> > (reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just carbon
> >> >> > neutral (not adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say researchers at
> >> >> > Vanderbilt University and George Washington University (GWU).
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries
> >> >> > (used in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon
> >> >> > nanofibers recovered from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new
> >> >> > technology could also be used in sodium-ion batteries, currently
> >> >> > under development for large-scale applications, such as the electric
> >> >> > grid."
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
> >> >> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Quaaackhhhh!!!
> >> >> 
> >> >> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
> >> >> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
> >> >> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
> >> > 
> >> > Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to measure.
> >> > 
> >> > You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to outgoing
> >> > long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.
> >> 
> >> Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
> >> of this than CO2.
> >>  
> >> > And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a long
> >> > way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.
> >> 
> >> No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
> >> heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.
> >> 
> >> CO2 has no effect on this.
> >> 
> >>  
> >> > The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water
> >> > vapour it can hold.
> >> 
> >> False.
> > 
> > True.
> > 
> > Why do you think clouds form?
> 
> You are distorting the context.

I was actually describing the physics, which are facts. 

If you wish to see facts as distortions then that is your perogative. 

> 
> The globe is not warmied by CO2 as claimed by climate trolls
> to hold more water in the atmosphere.

Warmer seas will evaporate more water into the atmosphere and a warmer atmosphere will be able to hold more water vapour. And so the cycle will continue. 

> 
> The temperature of the earth rises an average 1 degree per hour
> during the day and loses 1 degree per hour in the night.

Do you believe that sea surface temperatures remain static throughout the year? 

And if not, how can that happen under your temperature equilibrium scenario?

> 
> CO2 has no place in there to make the atmosphere warmer
> to hold more water.
> 
> 
> 
> > Because as air rises and cools, the cooler air cannot contain the same
> > amount of water vapour and so the excess condenses into tiny water
> > droplets (ice crystals if the temperature is low enough).
> > 
> > Have you never breathed onto a window pane and wondered why it will mist
> > up on a cold day?
> > 
> > I cannot discuss this with an ignoramus.
> > 
> 


-- 
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#97961

everyone hates me wrote:


>> >> >> > Speculative.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > "The electric vehicle of the future will be carbon negative
>> >> >> > (reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide) not just
>> >> >> > carbon neutral (not adding CO2 to the atmosphere), say
>> >> >> > researchers at Vanderbilt University and George Washington
>> >> >> > University (GWU).
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > The trick: replace graphite electrodes in lithium-ion batteries
>> >> >> > (used in electric vehicles) with carbon nanotubes and carbon
>> >> >> > nanofibers recovered from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The
>> >> >> > new technology could also be used in sodium-ion batteries,
>> >> >> > currently under development for large-scale applications, such as
>> >> >> > the electric grid."
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> The world puffs out 10 beeeelion tons of CO2.
>> >> >> Hardly enough to grow 50 x 50 mile square of forest.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Quaaackhhhh!!!
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Last 100 years of emissions would not grow you
>> >> >> 500 x 500 miles square of forest.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Climate trolls have a lot of explaining to do.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> The net CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04%.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Put that much amount of CO2 in a jar to measure
>> >> >> heat retention, and you got pretty close to zero.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Except of course that heat retention is not the parameter to
>> >> > measure.
>> >> > 
>> >> > You need to measure incoming short wave radiation compared to
>> >> > outgoing long wave radiation as you increase the CO2.
>> >> 
>> >> Measure it all you want - the ground and water does a better job
>> >> of this than CO2.
>> >>  
>> >> > And you have omitted to mention that the biggest contributor (by a
>> >> > long way) towards the greenhouse effect is water vapour.
>> >> 
>> >> No I woudn't. 2/3rd of the globe is water and water vapour
>> >> heat retention is 99.99% of the total heat in the atmosphere.
>> >> 
>> >> CO2 has no effect on this.
>> >> 
>> >>  
>> >> > The warmer the atmosphere becomes, the greater the volume of water
>> >> > vapour it can hold.
>> >> 
>> >> False.
>> > 
>> > True.
>> > 
>> > Why do you think clouds form?
>> 
>> You are distorting the context.
> 
> I was actually describing the physics, which are facts.

You were conflating facts with glow ball wamming

> If you wish to see facts as distortions then that is your perogative.

Conflating glow ball wamming fruit cake pseudo science with
real science will kill you in the end.

I've dealt with green peace trolls out on the streets
who are genuinely in shock when they
realize they have been conned.

>> The globe is not warmied by CO2 as claimed by climate trolls
>> to hold more water in the atmosphere.
> 
> Warmer seas will evaporate more water into the atmosphere and a warmer
> atmosphere will be able to hold more water vapour. And so the cycle will
> continue.
 
Not by a million mile by CO2.

 
>> The temperature of the earth rises an average 1 degree per hour
>> during the day and loses 1 degree per hour in the night.
> 
> Do you believe that sea surface temperatures remain static throughout the
> year?

No it doesn't.

But it must hurt your glow ball wammied psuedo science idiocy
a lot to know the Earth's land temperature drops by average 1 degree
per hour during the night and rises 1 degree per hour during the day.

We seem to have climate change of 1 degree ever hour.

Tut tut. Say it aint so!! :) :) :) 


> And if not, how can that happen under your temperature equilibrium
> scenario?

What?
There is NEVER equilibrium.
What do you think causes currents and storms?

The bulk of the sun is also rotating every 6.5 days.
Its also resurfacing every few days.

So no weather prediction can be more than 6.5 days accurate.
Becaus the bulk of the weather is caused by the Sun
and how Earth receives its energy.
It gains 1 degree per hour durig the day
and loses 1 degree per hour average during night.

If weather can be no more accurate than 6.5 days,
then how are climate trolls going to predict
years in advance without trolling???????


>> CO2 has no place in there to make the atmosphere warmer
>> to hold more water.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > Because as air rises and cools, the cooler air cannot contain the same
>> > amount of water vapour and so the excess condenses into tiny water
>> > droplets (ice crystals if the temperature is low enough).
>> > 
>> > Have you never breathed onto a window pane and wondered why it will
>> > mist up on a cold day?
>> > 
>> > I cannot discuss this with an ignoramus.
>> > 
>> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.environment

csiph-web