Climate continues to change.

[Que]

You should have saved the "idiot" remark for yourself, Queef.

There most certainly is a difference in the probable environmental impact between burning coal and burning biofuel. Learn the difference, and you'll learn what phrodeau is referring to.

Protip: stay away from lecturing about anything pertaining to science. When you do, you always end up looking foolish.

Is RobDownSouth you have your handy-dandy cheat sheet that you've always quoted (but never understood) on "climate change". Since you can't use that without giving yourself away as RDS, your FreudianSlit family of alts simply tells everyone else they don't know anything about science but just as you just now did you won't add anything to the discussion. You just tell everyone else they're wrong.

You did nothing to refute my irrefutable contention that an atom of carbon, once released as CO2 is just as fungible as any other atom, irrespective of it's recent form prior to burning.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Is RobDownSouth you have your handy-dandy cheat sheet that you've always quoted (but never understood) on "climate change". Since you can't use that without giving yourself away as RDS, your FreudianSlit family of alts simply tells everyone else they don't know anything about science but just as you just now did you won't add anything to the discussion. You just tell everyone else they're wrong.

You did nothing to refute my irrefutable contention that an atom of carbon, once released as CO2 is just as fungible as any other atom, irrespective of it's recent form prior to burning.

Whenever you're presented with contradictory information you either pretend it doesn't exist, or pretend the exchange doesn't exist. So why would anyone bother?

 

[Dribble]

I can't speak for Rob, but those on my ignore list I can't see unless someone quotes them.

Chemistry 101. Carbon is held to Oxygen by a double bond. Fucking hard to break those double bonds.

As to answer your question...no atoms are not interchangeable. My suggestion, download a you-tube video describing the periodic chart and try to get your head around the number of valence electrons each element has, and what it seeks to become a stable molecule.

 

[Que]

I can't speak for Rob, but those on my ignore list I can't see unless someone quotes them.

Chemistry 101. Carbon is held to Oxygen by a double bond. Fucking hard to break those double bonds.

As to answer your question...no atoms are not interchangeable. My suggestion, download a you-tube video describing the periodic chart and try to get your head around the number of valence electrons each element has, and what it seeks to become a stable molecule.

Which magical carbon atoms end up in TREES? How do the magical carbon atoms (that are bonded to 02...I am aware that is how they become ATMOSPHERE) that come from trees decide to become trees again? How do the magical carbon atoms that come from coal, cleverly avoid becoming trees?

By the way... at the moment I'm breaking off CO2 from C6H10O5 as easily as breathing. That CO2 is also available to any nearby seedlings that want to grow trees out of it.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Which magical carbon atoms end up in TREES? How do the magical carbon atoms (that are bonded to 02...I am aware that is how they become ATMOSPHERE) that come from trees decide to become trees again? How do the magical carbon atoms that come from coal, cleverly avoid becoming trees?

LMAO. Are you having a stroke?

 

[Que]

LMAO. Are you having a stroke?

Do you STILL have nothing to contribute with all of your veiled references to your mastery of science?

There's not a single instance of you explaining anything in this entire thread and you've become a rather prolific poster here.

Sad!

 

[von_Bismarck]

Do you STILL have nothing to contribute with all of your veiled references to your mastery of science?

There's not a single instance of you explaining anything in this entire thread and you've become a rather prolific poster here.

Sad!

On the offhand chance you'll read the article and absorb the reasoning, here you go.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880/

Notice the reason why wood biofuel is considered potentially carbon neutral and coal is not. Forests can be replanted and grown on human timescales. Coal deposits form on geological timescales. On the relevant timescales, carbon released from e.g. coal is considered surplus carbon. Of course, the carbon neutral status of wood biofuel depends on a commitment to regrowing the source.

 

[Dribble]

LMAO. Are you having a stroke?

Honestly...I have no clue how to respond to this. I think BotanyBoy has been sharing his dope again.

 

[mAnn_Tagonist]

LMAO. Are you having a stroke?

Something is up with him, he is dumber than usual.

 

[Dribble]

Something is up with him, he is dumber than usual.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/methamphetamine

It is the "magical" carbon again

 

[Que]

Honestly...I have no clue how to respond to this. I think BotanyBoy has been sharing his dope again.

Less complicated: Us the carbon dioxide that is released when you burn a cord of wood different in how it is absorbed by trees than the carbon dioxide released when you burn a load of coal?

I won't ask you to define how that is different since they're not at all different but here Is a pretty simple yes or no question:

Does the tree know where the carbon dioxide came from?

Yes?

Or no?

 

[LupusDei]

Less complicated: Us the carbon dioxide that is released when you burn a cord of wood different in how it is absorbed by trees than the carbon dioxide released when you burn a load of coal?

I won't ask you to define how that is different since they're not at all different but here Is a pretty simple yes or no question:

Does the tree know where the carbon dioxide came from?

Yes?

Or no?

Answer to your question is, of course no. But that's not the problem. It doesn't matter with exact atoms get absorbed. What does matter, is how many are released. Burning wood we can argue with acceptable assumption that that amount can be absorbed in new biomass again in foreseeable future. Burning coal we can't make that assumption, we are releasing extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

On geological timescale, sure, coal is nothing more than stored off biomass, so yes, it too will return to solid state eventually, and it is not said entirely that it isn't somewhat beneficial in the big order of things we are releasing it, but the problem is, we are doing it damn well too fast.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Clearly carbon is the problem here.

We need to find a way to get rid of it.

I suggest (since it's winter time on this end of the earth anyway) we burn it.

 

[Dribble]

Que...you simply are missing the whole point of the carbon cycle. I suggest getting a 3rd Grade science book and catching up.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Something is up with him, he is dumber than usual.

Nothing unusual for Que.

His annual Shitpisting Marathon begins today (Thanksgiving holiday) and runs essentially until New Years.

We'll see his usual cherry-picked science, misdirection ploys, goalpist moving, non-sequiturs and the usual myriad of personal attacks as the #AspieBrain tries in vain to come to grips with the fact that he's spending yet another holiday season far from his estranged older children.

 

[Que]

Answer to your question is, of course no. But that's not the problem. It doesn't matter with exact atoms get absorbed. What does matter, is how many are released. Burning wood we can argue with acceptable assumption that that amount can be absorbed in new biomass again in foreseeable future. Burning coal we can't make that assumption, we are releasing extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

On geological timescale, sure, coal is nothing more than stored off biomass, so yes, it too will return to solid state eventually, and it is not said entirely that it isn't somewhat beneficial in the big order of things we are releasing it, but the problem is, we are doing it damn well too fast.

And it's a dumb assumption because if we didn't cut drown trees and we burn the exact same amount of coal as we would if we cut down the trees then the trees are available to absorb carbon dioxide right now not as seedlings.

There is no free lunch. This exact same argument is made for why it's wonderful to use ethanol because of course you can replace the ethanol with corn stalks. Never mind how much petroleum you have to use to create the ethanol in the first place.

 

[phrodeau]

Coal would only be carbon neutral if it was being created as fast as it’s being burned.

And it's a dumb assumption because if we didn't cut drown trees and we burn the exact same amount of coal as we would if we cut down the trees then the trees are available to absorb carbon dioxide right now not as seedlings.

There is no free lunch. This exact same argument is made for why it's wonderful to use ethanol because of course you can replace the ethanol with corn stalks. Never mind how much petroleum you have to use to create the ethanol in the first place.

Seems like you're trying to say the same thing I did. But you must know that the ongoing increase of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't because of deforestation; it's because of burning fossil fuels. That's easily demonstrated by measuring carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.

And you don't have to use petroleum to create ethanol. You can use ethanol to create ethanol. See, here's where it helps to understand the carbon cycle. Plants (not only trees) absorb CO2 and grow, then the carbon they absorbed is released again, whether they are burned or eaten or left to rot. Next year's crop absorbs the same amount as last year's, and the cycle continues. Use some of last year's ethanol to run the machines to make this year's ethanol, and you'll end up adding no CO2 to the atmosphere.

All plants absorb CO2, so adding more trees doesn't solve anything, because they'll only take up the space where other plants had been growing.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Plants (not only trees) absorb CO2 and grow, then the carbon they absorbed is released again, whether they are burned or eaten or left to rot.

Technically, if you eat them you get methane, not ethanol. Especially beans.

My wife HATES our texmex dinner nights.

 

[phrodeau]

Technically, if you eat them you get methane, not ethanol. Especially beans.

My wife HATES our texmex dinner nights.

Turn them into vodka before consuming, and you'll have ethanol.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Turn them into vodka before consuming, and you'll have ethanol.

I though vodka was made from potatoes or something?

Enough tequila and she doesn't mind as much, for what it's worth.

One tequila...
Two tequila...
Three tequila...
Floor...

 

[trysail]

"...It’s already happening, so be afraid … be very, very afraid …

After reading all of that, I got to wondering about the recent temperature history of the US. I went to NOAA’s Climate At A Glance, got their recent monthly data, and graphed it up, along with the dates of the four US National Climate Assessments. Here’s that result:

https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/us-national-climate-assessments-and-us-temperature.png​

Figure 1. Recent US temperatures, most recent (October 2018) temperature, and dates of the US National Climate Assessments.​

As you can see, since the First US National Climate Assessment some 18 years ago, the US average temperature has gone up by … well … about zero degrees Celsius. Or for Americans, it’s gone up by … well … about zero degrees Fahrenheit.

I can see why the hype in the Climate Assessments has had to keep increasing in order to keep the alarmism alive …

… it’s to distract us from the most embarrassing fact that the US temperature hasn’t increased in the slightest in the 18 years since the first US National Climate Assessment.

Oops …"

​

-Willis Eschenbach​

​

 

[Rightguide]

Yeah, it's cloudy here now.

 

[someoneyouknow]

https://66.media.tumblr.com/ebc002fd1964b74dc18856b0159712df/tumblr_pinpp8n2511shiv3ro1_500.png

 

[Que]

https://66.media.tumblr.com/ebc002fd1964b74dc18856b0159712df/tumblr_pinpp8n2511shiv3ro1_500.png

Maybe she can explain the difference between climate and weather to Frodo. He sure seems to get exercised whenever a record heat temperature is achieved.

 

[thør]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/46928428_2182515891986981_2652575912293302272_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=c6d73454ff4ad5f2bc1c7e0460b03b9a&oe=5C6F30C2

Looks to be warming up! I see some bare skin at the annual gathering of climate scientists at McMurdo on the Saturday after T-giving.