Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #530784 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-06 14:17 -0600 |
| Last post | 2015-11-07 14:50 +0000 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 89 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 14:17 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Puppet_Sock <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-06 13:26 -0800
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-06 22:28 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-06 22:31 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 17:55 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-06 23:07 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 18:09 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 18:16 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 00:57 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 19:44 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution "Ringer" <byoung@peoplestel.net> - 2015-11-06 20:02 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 21:37 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-11-06 20:59 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 22:03 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-11-06 23:20 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 00:56 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-11-07 10:46 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 18:17 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com> - 2015-11-08 19:06 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution dvus <dven1@adelphia.net> - 2015-11-07 16:09 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Trawley Trash <trash@invalid.invalid> - 2015-11-07 05:42 -0800
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-06 17:56 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 09:33 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-07 10:22 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 00:58 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 22:27 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-06 23:40 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 00:20 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 01:00 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 07:10 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 08:23 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 10:31 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:00 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:16 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:21 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:29 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 10:35 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 11:48 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:39 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:11 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 20:17 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:42 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 21:17 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:37 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:12 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 20:19 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:43 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 21:18 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:37 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:12 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 20:20 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 14:44 -0600
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 21:18 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 09:43 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 07:08 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-07 14:16 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:42 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> - 2015-11-08 00:50 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 08:45 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 17:56 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-11 23:58 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 08:02 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 16:09 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 19:47 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 19:38 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 19:58 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 20:07 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 21:28 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 21:32 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 22:20 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 23:02 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 21:59 +0100
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Ludwig Böhm <ludwb@widespectrum.com> - 2015-11-12 21:26 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 16:05 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 21:40 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 18:01 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-12 23:29 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 20:20 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 01:49 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-12 22:35 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-13 04:39 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 13:10 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-08 17:30 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-07 09:37 -0800
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-07 12:43 -0500
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-07 18:43 +0000
Re: Technology's role in a climate solution RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-08 16:52 -0800
US climate trolling militants infecting sci.physics 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> - 2015-11-07 14:50 +0000
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 22:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rfma4b1h4uf3tslveanb53ta85epoh1vub@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #532596 |
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 01:49:18 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 23:29:28 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 21:40:20 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:47:01 +0100, Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 11/12/2015 05:09 PM, Ludwig Böhm wrote:
>>>>>>>> Poutnik wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
>>>>>>>>>>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient
>>>>>>>>>>> than 1 person car driving )
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power.
>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere to use litres.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As rate of spent fuel volume is *closely* related to required solar
>>>>>>>>> power.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course not. Same way you may say is *closely* related to cubic meters
>>>>>>>> etc. A solar powered device or machine is NOT using litres anywhere in
>>>>>>>> their particular configuration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What does say the term equivalence to you ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>1 Litre of kerosene contains roughly 40 MJ of chemical energy.
>>>>>>>Spending rate 1 L/s is equivalent to providing power about 40 MW.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Any solar based solution with comparable power and efficiency
>>>>>>>of used engines hasa to provide equivalent power
>>>>>>>comparable to fuel rate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 40 MW is about 50,000 HP,
>>>>>> the most solar an airliner could collect
>>>>>> is about 40 KW.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The power needed has confused
>>>>>> even engineers (I think), the atomic
>>>>>> powered bomber reactors were only
>>>>>> about 2 megawatt, the power of the
>>>>>> gasoline reciprocating engines on
>>>>>> the B-36 were about 3000 HP each,
>>>>>> or more than 2 megawatt, and the
>>>>>> B-36 had 6 or 8 of them, so how
>>>>>> could a B-36 be powered with
>>>>>> 2 megawatt reactors?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The reactor in the NB-36H was 3MW and did not power anything; it was
>>>>>just a test of shielding.
>>>>>
>>>>>The same goes for the Soviet Tu-119 program.
>>>>>
>>>>>No nuclear powered airplane has flown.
>>>>
>>>> My point was that 2 or 3 megawatt is not
>>>> enough power to propel a B-36 size aircraft
>>>> at 200 MPH, nowhere near enough.
>>>
>>>It isn't enough to do much more than taxi.
>>>
>>>> The R-4360 was well over 3000 HP,
>>>> that is 3000 * 746 watts, or 2,238,000 watts,
>>>> (2.238 megawatts each engine), and the
>>>> B-36 had 6 of those engines.
>>>
>>>Actually 3,800 HP.
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgur50yMHwE
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pw.utc.com/R4360_Wasp_Major_Engine
>>>>
>>>> The jet engines probably produced about 4000 HP
>>>> each, so the 10 petroleum engines produced the equivalent
>>>> of about 30 megawatts.
>>>
>>>The jets produced about 6,000 lbf of thrust and were used for takeoff.
>>>
>>>> The plane was dog with that power, what would
>>>> it been like with 3 megawatts, which may have been
>>>> 3 megawatt thermal, I'm not sure if that even equates
>>>> to 4000 HP in practice, and it's probably certain the
>>>> plane was not planned to have more than one.
>>>
>>>Again, the reactor was there ONLY to test shielding.
>>
>> Testing to see if feasible as the propulsion power
>> for an unlimited range bomber.
>
>Testing to see if it was feasible to have a reactor in an airplane
>and have the crew survive.
>
>> The reactor itself was tested in Utah;
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6
>>
>> Again, either of those reactors was only about
>> the power of one of the 10 engines of the B-36, and
>> the X-6 was to use a B-36 airframe.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion
>>
>>
>>>> 3 Megawatts sounds like a lot, but many piston
>>>> engine airplanes had more equivalent power than that.
>>>
>>>And still do, but new engines over about 500 HP ( .37 MW) are these
>>>days turbines; the day of the huge radial has pasted.
>>
>> Not relevant to my point, the whole concept
>> was flawed because the plane would have needed
>> at least 20 MW to even get off the ground, the X-6
>> was planned to be heavier than the B-36.
>>
>> I don't know how to account for such a large
>> difference between the test reactors and the power
>> needed to get the plane in the air.
>
>Because you keep overlooking the fact that the tests were to TEST SHIELDING
>and nothing more.
Which would be a pointless waste of money
if it was not part of the development of an unlimited
range atomic powered airplane.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 04:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e46ghc-m96.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #532632 |
In sci.physics kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 01:49:18 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Because you keep overlooking the fact that the tests were to TEST SHIELDING >>and nothing more. > > Which would be a pointless waste of money > if it was not part of the development of an unlimited > range atomic powered airplane. The development of an unlimited range atomic powered airplane would be a pointless waste of money if it killed the crew with radiation, hence the initial testing to see if a reactor in an airplance could be sucessfully shielded. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 13:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kC41y.134928$rR1.74208@fx19.iad> |
| In reply to | #532290 |
On 11/12/2015 02:02 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 12/11/2015 v 00:58 Ludwig Böhm napsal(a):
>> Poutnik wrote:
>>
>>>>> How do you power an airliner with solar power?
>>>>
>>>> Very easy. You just need to present the right attitude.
>>>>
>>> It is not so easy.
>>>
>>> Airliners have fuel efficiency about 2-3 L/seat/100km.
>>> ( Many people are not aware of the flying is more energy efficient than
>>> 1 person car driving )
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Example_Values
>>
>> Has nothing to do with your litres. As I can see is about solar power.
>> Nowhere to use litres.
>>
>
> It seems you were not patient enough to read all the post,
> otherwise you would notice your reply is not relevant,
> as it was addressed there.
>
> As rate of spent fuel volume
> is *closely* related to required solar power.
Come on Pooter, Warmballers aren't interested in any "technological
solution" to climate control. They are only interested in a TAX solution!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-08 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8ed4hc-52p.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #531067 |
In sci.physics Edgardo Alcantara <edgardoalcantara@carosseryrepair.org> wrote: > W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 +0600 (PDT) użytkownik jimp napisał: > >>>> Solar energy isn't going to > power ships, airplanes, trucks, >>>> construction equipment or large farm machinery. And you completely >>>> overlook current nuclear technology. You are a babbling Chicken >>>> Little. >>> >>> You are batshit crazy. Only in rotten poor capitalist countries around >>> the world would believe such that. >> >> How do you power an airliner with solar power? > > Very easy. You just need to present the right attitude. Like, what, closing your eyes and wishing real hard that you could? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 09:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7d3d66a5-1283-4ae8-9d57-7ef325f6c8eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #530862 |
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 6:05:12 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:\ > You are a babbling Chicken Little. Chicken Little only needs to be right once...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 12:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hpds3bl1u6knibt6a0e8871b523vcevsdp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #530930 |
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 09:37:20 -0800 (PST), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: >On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 6:05:12 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:\ > >> You are a babbling Chicken Little. > >Chicken Little only needs to be right once... Chicken Little needs to be right today: "The sky ***is*** falling."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 18:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tat1hc-f7g.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #530930 |
pnalsing@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 6:05:12 AM UTC-8, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:\ > >> You are a babbling Chicken Little. > > Chicken Little only needs to be right once... But Chicken Little is never right. Perhaps you are thinking of the boy that cried wolf? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-08 16:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5438f752-ec1e-4683-9a73-8028acdc1a1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #530833 |
On November 6, Sam Wormley wrote: > For civilization to continue sustainably, human beings must shift > from fossil fuels to solar energy--despite the technical problems. Good thinking there, Sambo, as usual. And if evolution is to continue sustainably, humans must grow wings -- despite the biological problems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5ncRVfJ2y8 -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 7 <email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_com@enemygadgets.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 14:50 +0000 |
| Subject | US climate trolling militants infecting sci.physics |
| Message-ID | <ldo%x.55090$6i2.30784@fx35.am4> |
| In reply to | #530784 |
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Technology's role in a climate solution
>> http://thebulletin.org/technologys-role-climate-solution8815
>
>
>> A different approach. So far, the countries that have experienced the
>> most success in moving away from fossil fuels are Germany and Cuba.
>> Germany guarantees fixed tariffs to producers of renewable energy.
>> Cuba has focused on efficiency and also organic farming, which
>> conserves energy through its lower water requirements, reduced use of
>> farm equipment, and rejection of fertilizers and pesticides. The
>> German model might be replicated in developed countries, but not in
>> developing ones. A large percentage of Germany's renewable-generator
>> owners are individuals, cooperatives, or communities, and such
>> entities in developing nations lack the capital to invest in
>> renewable energy. The Cuban experience is even more difficult to
>> replicate, as organic farming is not as remunerative as commercial
>> cropping.
>>
>> For civilization to continue sustainably, human beings must shift
>> from fossil fuels to solar energy—despite the technical problems.
The problems are not technical - in USA you owe power companies money
if you install solar panels because they can't make a living if
you install solar panels.
Wow. More examples of energy trolls from USA in action.
The pope recently gave up religion and became a climate troll thanks
to USA based state actors interfering in the vatican.
And of course climate trolling militants from USA like you
Sam are at the coal end of selling all this fake crap to the
rest of the world who have no intention of believing in any of
your militant religious crap.
Glow Ball Wumming Militants attack France and a book's author
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11931645/Frances-top-weatherman-sparks-storm-over-book-questioning-climate-change.html
Glow ball wumming militants are their militant activities are
spreading outside of USA and infecting countries like Italy and the
Vatican. The Pope no longer believes in religion and has taken to Climate Trolling
all thanks to State Actors interfering in the Vatican.
NSA trolls from US is also now active in Japan intercepting
communications of anyone opposing Glow Bull Wamming.
In the latest twist of US exporting Glow Ball Wamming Militancy,
a French Author has been sacked from his day job after writing
a book ridiculing Glow Bull Wumming. The French authorities were
powerless to stop it.
So what the Glow Bull Wumming Militants from USA now demand is
that you don't criticise them or ridicule them or they will find
you and get you sacked from your day job.
This includes using resources such as State Actors and NSA trolls.
All Gore is an illiterate US Climate Trolling Fsckwit
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/10/al-gore-optimist-000295
"
The heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases, he explains,
is the equivalent of exploding 400,000 atomic bombs every day.
“The denialists challenge everything I say, but they’ve never
challenged that one—and believe me, they would if they could,” he added.
"
Wheeelll fsckwitted All Gore, all dat hueeat travel in to da space fckwit!
I n t o da space don't you know??
The globe cools average 1 degree PER hour during the night,
and warms 1 degree per hour when the Sun comes back up.
The temperature drop rate is 2 or 3 degrees per hour in desert
because there is no water vapour there to protect against
radiation loss.
Suck on that bit of physics All Gore dick h*ead.
Da 400,000 atomic boooms don't cut no mustard because
da gases are transparent. Their heat capacity is minimal.
As gases are transparent, all heat from your 400,000 atomic poofs
is lost into space in hours.
So All Gore, stop lying to your flock.
You know nothing about Climate science, science in general,
and even less when it comes to conning the public.
NOAA climate trolls tossing out data unfavorable to them
--------------------------------------------------------
It seems NOAA climate trolls are tossing out data that
is selectively and precisely picks apart glow bull wumming trolling.
So what data would you throw out that dismissed glow bull
wumming that NOAA collects at least twice a day, every day????
This is the temperature from weather balloons!!!
Almost everywhere there are balloons being lauched that take
temperature at various altitudes which precisely measures
temperature near the surface and further up where the heat island
effects infected air at ground level is mixed with progressively
higher altitudes and get dissipated. So the average temperatures
like one kilometer up and so on above heat islands would give
you the best measurement of glow bull wumming.
Of course, that data is conveniently ditched by NOAA.
WoW!!!!
There is no glow bull wumming and they known it.
The same applies to CO2.
Don't measure it at ground level where the air hasn't had
a chance to mix, and as CO2 is more dense than air, it will
concentrate in valleys and anywhere there is a farm due to
plants respirating in the night.
So You need to measure it 1km up and average it.
And then you would know the truth.
Of course, that data is conveniently ditched by NOAA.
WoW!!
Another criminal enterprise in the making.
NOAA needs to be disbanded.
At the very least it needs fruit cake science and
policy makers need to be shown the door and replaced with good
scientists being held back due to the unholy
political motivations of its leadership.
Glow bull wumming alarmism is a criminal enterprise
---------------------------------------------------
Glow bull wumming is a criminal enterprise designed soley
around companies and corporations with vested interests
firmly entrenched in criminality and criminal behavior
to promote fake issues to grab money.
Their underlying pseudo science is now baseless.
The effect of 0.04% trace gas CO2 is exactly less than 0.04% on glow bull wumming
Those that thought they found some relation had all retracted it after finding out
the relation is logarithmic againt their hallucinations.
NO SCIENTIST EXISTS TODAY THAT LINKS CO2 TO GLOW BULL WUMMING.
Seriously in all seriousness glu bull wummed trolls are seriously
constipated when it comes to explaining the insignificance of
trace gas 0.04% CO2.
97% of scientists agree there is no climate change, just climate fluctuations
because the climate and weather fluctuates all the time.
But importantly more than 50% agree these temperature drifts are not human induced.
All scientists 100% agree there is no historical correlation between Earth's temperature
and 0.04% trace gas CO2.
So why don't you accept the majority verdict of real scientists?
Here they are in glorious form:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAW7EgVHrDk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCrkqLaYjnc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SOjyMir6Z0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiPIvH49X-E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQpyAY3J55g
Glow bull wummies using 4 thermometers in the antartic and claims it proves
fluctuation of +/-0.1 degree noise as evidence of glu bull wumming.
(For reference the earth warms 1 degree per hour during the day
and cools 1 degree per hour during the night and measurement is riddled
with noise.)
Glue bull wummies put more and more thermometers in industrialized North Amerikkka to
boost glu bull wumming average ratings. Thats like putting more and more thermometers
near a fire to boost the average and make the fake claim "its getting hotter" everywhere!!
Many other countries also on the same unstoppable fiddling train wreck.
Glu bull wummies haven't taken average of land temperature (which is prone to
steam rising from the ground) and 1km up where the air has mixed, to get
average temperature. As more cities and roads are built, all they are measuring
is surface temperature of built up areas and heat islands.
Many other countries also on the same unstoppable data fiddling train wreck.
Glu bull wummies haven't taken average of trace gas 0.04% CO2 at ground level
(which is prone to plant respiration from new farms, build up in valleys because
it is heavier than air, and to forests which respire lots of CO2 for the entire
night) and 1km up where the air has mixed, to get a true estimate of the CO2 level away
from built up areas and CO2 natural concentrating effects.
Many other countries also on the same unstoppable data fiddling train wreck.
Any politician engaged in talking up glu bull wumming don't know the numbers
are is firmly engaged in fraud.
The effect of 0.04% trace gas CO2 is exactly less than 0.04% on glow bull wumming
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All reports by ALL scientists AGREE the effect of 0.04% CO2 trace gas is
exactly less than 0.04% of glow bull wumming.
Because the air is 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen and all the rest 1% which
includes trace gas CO2 which comprise 0.04% of all the gases.
All reports by ALL scientists AGREE the effect of 0.04% CO2 trace gas is
exactly less than 0.04% after including all known sources of "radiative forcing" by
all gases because ALL atmospheric gases are transparent.
All scientists agree there is no historical correlation between Earth's temperature
and 0.04% trace gas CO2.
--
The IPCC is not a scientific organisation but a political
con group. Its made up of a bunch of pseudo scientists with a lot of huffed
and puffed opinions that they dare not publish
under peer review and who have never published
an IPCC peer reviewed paper between them.
All the literature is worth the toilet paper it is written in.
Any libraries or organisations paying for IPCC reports are
paying good money for toilet paper and should be made accountable.
Any governments using IPCC services or buying into
state of California officials employed as glow ball wamming trolls
handing out advise for money are firmly engaged in political fraud.
Glow ball wamming Key
---------------------
"Climate change" is a political statement - not a scientific statement.
Climate hasn't changed in 10,000 years.
"Global warming" is a political statement - not a scientific statement.
"Denier" is a political hate statement - not a scientific statement.
"IPCC" is an institution propagating political fraud.
"State of California" is a US institution propagating political climate
fraud.
"NOAA" is a political fraud entity without records of how policy was made.
The greenhouse gas diagrams produced by NOAA are depicting fake and
a fraud commited against the public.
"NSA" is a state actor furthering global wamming politics through
specfic documented interception of communications with the specific
aim of defeating anyone who opposes the hallucigenated output
of the glow ball wamming trolling movement. So says wikileaks.
"radiative forcing" is a politican term used by illiterates - not a
scientific term. The amount is so miniscule, for trace gas 0.04%, the effect on glow
bull wamming is exactly less than 0.04% and not worth the mention.
"greenhouse gas" is a poltical statement - not a scientific statement
"greenhouse gas emissions" is a poltical statement - not a scientific
statement.
There are no greenhouse gases on planet Earth worth talking about.
Politicians using terms such as greenhouse gas and greenhouse gas
emissions are engaged in fraud.
1. Glow ball wammies including the Pope who has never published a peer
reviewed papwer NEVER KNEW which is the biggest greenhouse gas
on planet Earth. The 0.04% of trace gas CO2 is adds nothing of importance
to glow ball wamming. It contributes exactly less than 0.04% of
the earth's temperature.
Because almost all the air is 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen
and all the rest 1%.
The heat is actually carried by water vapour which is not
labelled as a gas because it doesn't stick around in the
atmosphere in the same way as atmospheric gases.
Look out into the sky and see all those clouds?
That is condensing steam.
Imagine how many millions of kettles need to be boiled
to put all that steam into the air. That energy is provided
by the sun heating up sea water. Two thirds of the planet
is sea water receiving more than 1kW of energy per square
meter during daylight to vaporize the water.
Same with land which can put up water vapour if the land
is not seriously dry.
EVERYONE caught up in glow ball wamming camp don't know the facts.
Stop any greenpeace activist or a glow ball wammied
politician, and NOT ONE person will know the above numbers
because they are gold fish easily preyed on with carefully
crafted dumbo words by greedy corporatons that stand to
benefit ranting their mumbo jumbo they have taught themselves to say.
2. The 10 beeellliooonnn tons of CO2 emitted per year
can grow at best 75 x 75 miles square of forest.
Take account what is below the ground as well,
then may only 50 x 50 miles square of forest.
So the last 100 years of CO2 emissions is not enough
to grow 750 x 750 miles square forest.
These numbers are staggeringly small.
The founder of greenpeace says plant more trees and
use more trees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCrkqLaYjnc - Dr Patrick Moore
His message however has been hijacked by trolls inside
greenpeace who portray man as some kind of enemy of mother
nature instead of following the ideals of green living
which is to live sustainably in harmony with nature.
3. The energy trolls are working closely with glow ball wammies
to hike energy prices.
The robber barrons of yesterday have latched onto to fuel as
the new vehicle of robbing the poor
because it is essential for living and now they have power
to meter and dish it out in smaller portions and charge highest
possible rates, because no one can refuse hiked energy prices.
This makes energy trolls the no.1 public enemy of global
peace.
4. Energy trolls want to hike up solar prices in USA and
are trying to spread their disease to EU and rest of the
world through bribery and state actors.
Energy trolls and enery trolling politician
in USA have pushed through anti-green laws
to tax the poor that fit solar panels.
You now owe power companies money if you fit solar panels to roof tops.
Thats like owing ham burger companies $10 a month for the priviledge
of being able to buy a hamburger in your street because they
got set up costs even if you make your own hamburgers.
You also owe power companies for fossil fuel carbon tax.
So you owe money to these crocporations
no matter which way you leap, and no matter what right
things you try to do.
The trolling polticians are stupid enough to fall for it
and tax the poor for using coal power and
tax them again for NOT using coal power with carbon tax. DOH!!!!
America is stupid. American politician is stupid.
And there is nothing Americans do to repair it while
those politicians and energy trolls are in charge.
It doesn't end there.
For years the energy trolling crocporations in USA have
campaigned to stop solar fencing erected. Solar panels
are now cheaper than the man power needed to put them up.
So they also hike solar panel prices by trolling politician
to impose duties and tarrif hikes.
The US and EU polticians are stupid enough to fall for it
again and imposed duties to tax the poor even further and
put up greater barriers illegally 50% higher
to keep them from their solar panels while market prices
are below $28 per sq meter. DOH!!!!!!!!!!!!
These stupid politicians drunk on tax payer money
need to be criminalised for taking energy trolling crocporation
lobby money and need to be replaced.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web