Global Warming

[7DSUSYstrings]

not really; but it's something. i made light of that aspect of your earlier reply simply because of the miniscule contribution it has in contrast to the major CO2 contributor of burning fossil fuels. moreover, what makes me most unhappy is your suggesting there is some mistake about the fossil fuel contribution - let alone deforestation- and that instead all the climate scientists are somehow idiots or deceivers about not considering the sun's role. i'd be less unhappy if you would acknowledge that you're mistaken in that position. :smilingsun:

 

You'd possibly be less unhappy if you took a pack of phags and took measurements of the gas volume after 20 are sucked and blown out and multiplied it by 1.7 billion. I actually doubt if you found it matched the numbers in that link, assuming you weighed the exhaled gas. If you simply burn the phags and collect the gas, weigh the gas and weight the ashes you could establish the weight, but I'd guess the total destructive distillate (do I need to provide a link for that process? :rolleyes: ) is going to be at least .2 gm per pack. even at .02 gm per pack we're talking 30 million grams every day, not a ridiculous 5.8 Kg every year. Most studies I've seen measure greenhouse gases in cu ft or cu m.

Edited April 18, 2012 by 7DSUSYstrings

[Turtle]

You'd possibly be less unhappy if you took a pack of phags and took measurements of the gas volume after 20 are sucked and blown out and multiplied it by 1.7 billion. I actually doubt if you found it matched the numbers in that link, assuming you weighed the exhaled gas. If you simply burn the phags and collect the gas, weigh the gas and weight the ashes you could establish the weight, but I'd guess the total destructive distillate (do I need to provide a link for that process? :rolleyes: ) is going to be at least .2 gm per pack. even at .02 gm per pack we're talking 30 million grams every day, not a ridiculous 5.8 Kg every year. Most studies I've seen measure greenhouse gases in cu ft or cu m.

 

that's not what i asked for & you know it. i won't hold my breath. :esmoking:

[7DSUSYstrings]

http://www.inforesearchlab.com/internationalsmokingfacts.chtml

 

 

6.6 billion people are on this planet and 1.3 billion are smokers, the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union) and the World Lung Foundation (WLF) told the 38th Union World Conference on Lung Health.

66 percent of all smokers live in just 15 countries, according to The Union and the WLF.

1.8 billion young people aged of 10 to 24 smoke cigarettes, according to the World Health Organization.

* More than 85 percent of these young smokers live in developing countries (WHO).

 

Turtle,

 

Maybe I should just be part of the audience. I really don't appreciate being treated as though I'm a liar.

[7DSUSYstrings]

http://www.inforesearchlab.com/internationalsmokingfacts.chtml

 

 

6.6 billion people are on this planet and 1.3 billion are smokers, the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union) and the World Lung Foundation (WLF) told the 38th Union World Conference on Lung Health.

66 percent of all smokers live in just 15 countries, according to The Union and the WLF.

1.8 billion young people aged of 10 to 24 smoke cigarettes, according to the World Health Organization.

* More than 85 percent of these young smokers live in developing countries (WHO).

 

Turtle,

 

Maybe I should just be part of the audience. I really don't appreciate being treated as though I'm a liar.

 

 

(FWIW... I tried the alt + keypad trick suggested in another thread here and lost all I was typing.)

 

http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/whatsinit.htm

 

http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-average-lung-capacity-in-cubic-feet

 

 

The first link tells you what is produced in the tobacco when it is burned.

 

 

You DO undertand destructive distillation...?

 

 

 

The second tells us the human lung capacity. Do the math. 1.7 packs sold each day is not unreasonable. The only flaw in my original guestimate (not here but real world just watching a smoker or ten) was the lung capacity. 20 cigarettes aprox.= 20 cu ft of greenhouse gases. About 30 billion cu ft each day. That first cited article is grossly underestimated

[7DSUSYstrings]

Addendum: All quantities are nominal and somewhat reduced to actually weigh AGAINST my argument. Doesn't matter, even if only 10% of that makes its way into the atmosphere, it is a significant daily/yearly amount.

[Turtle]

that's not what i asked for & you know it. i won't hold my breath. :esmoking:

 

 

...

 

Turtle,

 

Maybe I should just be part of the audience. I really don't appreciate being treated as though I'm a liar.

 

i'm not treating you like a liar; i'm treating you like a pseudo-scientific babbler. let me clarify what i was asking by repeating it.

 

you said:

What if it becomes evident that GW is caused by changes in the solar wind and our magnetic fields, not from pollution, of which the cheeseburger is a byproduct of bovine/porcine generated methane, or perhaps it's the other way around. The point is we still can't say for certain, but every phag sucked or cheeseburger stuffed (in our faces) can't be helping.

 

then i said:

not really; but it's something. i made light of that aspect of your earlier reply simply because of the miniscule contribution it has in contrast to the major CO2 contributor of burning fossil fuels. moreover, what makes me most unhappy is your suggesting there is some mistake about the fossil fuel contribution - let alone deforestation- and that instead all the climate scientists are somehow idiots or deceivers about not considering the sun's role. i'd be less unhappy if you would acknowledge that you're mistaken in that position. :smilingsun:

 

capire?

Edited April 19, 2012 by Turtle

[7DSUSYstrings]

i'm not treating you like a liar; i'm treating you like a pseudo-scientific babbler.

 

Unfortunately you're wrong as sin on that. I gave you what you asked for. That wasn't enough. That's one of the definitions of a troll.

 

You say you're a mathematician but you didn't even recognize the Liar's Paradox when I used it another thread. I guess that means I should treat you as a pseudo-mathematical babbler and a narcissist. From now on I'll stick to conversations with people instead of those I can call trolls. You disgust me.

[Turtle]

i'm not treating you like a liar; i'm treating you like a pseudo-scientific babbler.

Unfortunately you're wrong as sin on that. I gave you what you asked for. That wasn't enough. That's one of the definitions of a troll.

 

You say you're a mathematician but you didn't even recognize the Liar's Paradox when I used it another thread. I guess that means I should treat you as a pseudo-mathematical babbler and a narcissist. From now on I'll stick to conversations with people instead of those I can call trolls. You disgust me.

 

yet again you have failed to address my issue, that of the sun's role in climate change/global warming. that you think/assert that the sun's irradiance is the main player and that human CO2 emissions are not, is by the evidence, pseudo-scientific. what i am asking is for you to acknowledge that you are in error about the sun's role. :smilingsun:

Edited April 19, 2012 by Turtle

[sigurdV]

Unfortunately you're wrong as sin on that. I gave you what you asked for. That wasn't enough. That's one of the definitions of a troll.

 

You say you're a mathematician but you didn't even recognize the Liar's Paradox when I used it another thread. I guess that means I should treat you as a pseudo-mathematical babbler and a narcissist. From now on I'll stick to conversations with people instead of those I can call trolls. You disgust me.

 

Hi DrC

 

What thread might that be? To see is to believe. ;)

 

PS: You know there IS no Liar Paradox dont you?

[7DSUSYstrings]

Hi DrC

 

What thread might that be? To see is to believe. ;)

 

PS: You know there IS no Liar Paradox dont you?

 

I think it was the "Is religion a memetic disease" thread.

 

Yes there is a Liar Paradox. It is as follows:

 

"I am lying."

 

If that statement is true, then it is not true. If it is false, then it is not false.

 

It's an endless "If / then" loop and it will lock up your computer if properly programmed.

 

 

Beyond that... back to GW. LASCO C2 is ablaze today, CME's occurred a couple days ago and now Sr. Popo ( Popocapatella volcano) blew his top.

[sigurdV]

I think it was the "Is religion a memetic disease" thread.

 

Yes there is a Liar Paradox. It is as follows:

 

"I am lying."

 

If that statement is true, then it is not true. If it is false, then it is not false.

 

It's an endless "If / then" loop and it will lock up your computer if properly programmed.

 

 

Beyond that... back to GW. LASCO C2 is ablaze today, CME's occurred a couple days ago and now Sr. Popo ( Popocapatella volcano) blew his top.

 

Aha!

 

Your proof is invalid!

 

Let me give an alternative more precise formulation:

 

1 Sentence 1 is not true

 

2 Sentence 1 = "Sentence 1 is not true"

 

3 Sentence 1 is true

 

 

Sentence 3 follows from sentences 1 and 2 if and only if sentence 2 is true!

 

Right???

 

Do you see how, without contradicting your self, you prove sentence 2 is not true?

[7DSUSYstrings]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

 

 

The assertion was not that the Liar's paradox is or is not a valid paradox. The assertion was that any [well educated] mathematician would recognize it, essentially right off the bat. The point made to the other thread was to compare it to THAT topic as a different variety of meaningless paradoxes, but as soon as I realized that it was not recognized and identified, perhaps with a silly grin, that there were no true math wizards in that thread, only whizzBANGS aka charlatans. Now, of course, I'll be quicker to place such little hidden tests to expose such.

 

I suggest you read posts more thoroughly prior to formulating a contest out of them. The member I originally posted it to no longer has his posts showing up in my browser, lest I choose to override the choice I made to automatically ignore them. I'm happy that function to ignore troll posts is enabled in this forum. :)

 

Back to the topic. Remember the topic is global warming, not the members?

[7DSUSYstrings]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popocatepetl#2012_Eruption

 

Just thought this might be a bit more informative than a simple second hand news statement. :)

[sigurdV]

Hmmm, discussing surely needs some logical ability.

 

And perhaps some honesty and curiosity... Well lets stop there :)

Edited April 21, 2012 by sigurdV

[Lancewen]

Hi Group

 

Are we arguing the main cause of global warming? If so, then we are at least all believers in global warming (right)? Anyway, insulating the snow caps and glaciers seems to be a no win option even if it was possible.

 

I've seen a few programs that talk about ways of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and so far I like the one that freezes it into large cylinders and then sinks them in the deep ocean for safe keeping. It's just a matter of scaling up and being persistent until CO2 levels reach appropriate levels. What could be simpler. The countries can pay for this operation based on how much CO2 pollution they put into the atmosphere. To me that sounds better than buying CO2 credits, which means you really aren't solving the problem.

[7DSUSYstrings]

Hi Group

 

Are we arguing the main cause of global warming? If so, then we are at least all believers in global warming (right)? Anyway, insulating the snow caps and glaciers seems to be a no win option even if it was possible.

 

I've seen a few programs that talk about ways of removing CO2 from the atmosphere and so far I like the one that freezes it into large cylinders and then sinks them in the deep ocean for safe keeping. It's just a matter of scaling up and being persistent until CO2 levels reach appropriate levels. What could be simpler. The countries can pay for this operation based on how much CO2 pollution they put into the atmosphere. To me that sounds better than buying CO2 credits, which means you really aren't solving the problem.

 

Are you referring to atmospheric processors?

[Lancewen]

Are you referring to atmospheric processors?

 

I don't remember what they called the process, but that sounds right. They were pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere, and again I don't remember what the cost was, but I'm sure with the right resources it could be made reasonable.