- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/22/19 at 6:39 am to Doctor Strangelove
quote:
You made these numbers up from whole cloth. Man does not have the capability to make sulfur by products at this capacity and we would be dead long before they could due to the toxicity. Where did come up with this crap?
I didn't say that it would be harmless. I'm talking about mankinds ability to alter the weather/climate.
It's a terrible idea but it would work.
Another terrible idea that would alter weather patterns is converting the US military into a $0.75 trillion dollar logging/vegetation destroying machine. Burn the trees and vegetation when/where convenient and poison trees in wet areas. Log the rest.
This post was edited on 5/22/19 at 7:19 am
Posted on 5/22/19 at 6:48 am to TBoy
quote:
carbon gas
T dumbass doin work
Posted on 5/22/19 at 6:52 am to GumboPot
If you argue that 1 snowstorm is evidence against climate change, you must also side with dems' reason for abortion being legal is due to pregnancy from rape.
Be careful.
Be careful.
Posted on 5/22/19 at 7:03 am to GumboPot
Only 11 years and some change left. Make it count boys.
Posted on 5/22/19 at 7:20 am to bmy
quote:
Humans could easile.. pumping ~$10-20 billion/year of sulfur gas into the atmosphere. Or intentionally releasing loads of PFCs at X unit/year into the atmosphere. Both would have a measurable effect on weather patterns long-term. Study it.. and in the future actively control it
No....no.....just.....just shut the fk up, you're looking stupid.....
Mankind can NOT control the weather/climate on a planetary scale.....
I don't care what sort of theoretical bullzhit climate-religious theories you've been reading, it can't be done.....damn boy.....
Posted on 5/22/19 at 7:23 am to bmy
BMY said:
Folks, if you ever wanted an honest look into the twisted mind of a Lefty, BMY just let his little Anti-fig mask slip....
quote:
It's a terrible idea but it would work.
Folks, if you ever wanted an honest look into the twisted mind of a Lefty, BMY just let his little Anti-fig mask slip....
Posted on 5/22/19 at 7:36 am to oogabooga68
Just dropping in to remind everyone that the "Climate Crisis" is a made up money grab.
Posted on 5/22/19 at 8:52 am to GumboPot
quote:
It is the fact that it's atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 that it has the high pressure.
quote:
Not really/ It’s the mass not the percentage.
For christ's sake, how do you not see them as the same thing?
If you have 2000 times of a more massive gas in your atmosphere than another planet of close to your same mass, it will generate more pressure.
At roughly 10 miles up the earth and venus have the same atmospheric pressure.
What is the difference? CO2
Why CO2? because it has a higher mass and density
This post was edited on 5/22/19 at 8:56 am
Posted on 5/22/19 at 8:58 am to Smeg
quote:
What would be the proportional equivalent pollution to the earth's atmosphere, as compared to one or two drops of oil in a standard 20 gallon home fish tank? Take notes. Report back.
HAHAHAHAHA yes!!! All of THIS
Posted on 5/22/19 at 9:04 am to Loserman
quote:
For christ's sake, how do you not see them as the same thing?
A canister of CO2 at 100% concentration and 100 psi has less mass than a canister of CO2 at 100% concentration and 1000 psi.
ETA: percent concentration and mass are not the same thing.
This post was edited on 5/22/19 at 9:25 am
Posted on 5/22/19 at 11:11 am to GumboPot
quote:
A canister of CO2 at 100% concentration and 100 psi has less mass than a canister of CO2 at 100% concentration and 1000 psi. ETA: percent concentration and mass are not the same thing.
The above is a non sequitur to our argument.
The mass of Venus and Earth are similar, with Venus being less.
Venus's atmosphere is roughly 90+ times more massive than the earth's.
Venus's atmosphere is around 42 miles thick whereas the Earth's is 300 miles thick
So why then does it have so much of a greater mass than the earth's?
Because of it's molecular makeup
Replace the Nitrogen in the Earths atmosphere with CO2 and or turn most of the O2 in to CO2 and the earth would develop similar pressures.
Posted on 5/22/19 at 11:28 am to bmy
Since your numbers are not based in reality and only fantasy then you really contribute nothing to the discussion. A hundred thousand fire breathing dragons could burn the earths forests and cause famine and destruction but the chances of that happening are about as good as the ability of men to produce 10-20 billion tons of sulphur gases.
This post was edited on 5/22/19 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 5/22/19 at 1:49 pm to Loserman
quote:
The mass of Venus and Earth are similar, with Venus being less.
Fine. The parts of Venus and Earth that are in a liquid or solid phase are irrelevant for this discussion. We are comparing atmospheres in the gas phase.
quote:
Venus's atmosphere is roughly 90+ times more massive than the earth's.
And what did I say in response to you?
You said:
quote:
It is the fact that it's atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 that it has the high pressure.
And I responded:
quote:
Not really/ It’s the mass not the percentage.
Then in your quote above you said the Venus' atmosphere is 90 time more massive.
I'm trying to figure out what you are arguing because it appears you are agreeing with me.
You do realize that you can have the same percent concentration per unit volume but varying pressures? That is why I used the example of a CO2 canister at 100 psi and a 1000 psi. Both have the same percent concentration but vary in pressure.
quote:
Venus's atmosphere is around 42 miles thick whereas the Earth's is 300 miles thick
Do you know why there is a difference in thickness?
quote:
So why then does it have so much of a greater mass than the earth's?
Because of it's molecular makeup
I agree.
quote:
Replace the Nitrogen in the Earths atmosphere with CO2 and or turn most of the O2 in to CO2 and the earth would develop similar pressures.
However in climate change modeling and scenarios it is never assumed that CO2 will replace the other air molecules. CO2 is added, it does not replace other air molecules.
Posted on 5/22/19 at 2:23 pm to TBoy
quote:
pollution
CO2 is not pollution asswipe.
Posted on 5/22/19 at 3:54 pm to Doctor Strangelove
quote:
Since your numbers are not based in reality and only fantasy then you really contribute nothing to the discussion. A hundred thousand fire breathing dragons could burn the earths forests and cause famine and destruction but the chances of that happening are about as good as the ability of men to produce 10-20 billion tons of sulphur gases.
I clarified the post. $10-20 billion worth of it. I also gave two other examples of technologically feasible scenarips where humans could alter the weather (and ipso facto.. alter the climate)
This post was edited on 5/22/19 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 5/22/19 at 7:03 pm to TBoy
quote:
I thought right wingers didn't believe in modeling?
Maybe you can just hook an exhaust pipe to vent underwater. After all, carbon gas isn't pollution, right? Or maybe just vent some steam every day. Added heat isn't pollution, right?
Here's the thing. CO2 is a green house gas. CO2 has a log function in it's relationship to it's effect on warming. If you want it down to the point where it is not acting as a green house gas, you will not be happy. All plant life on earth dies at less than about 185 ppM CO2 - and it will be damn cold too. Historically, we know from ice core samples, CO2 has been as high as 1200 ppM, and currently is at 400 something ppM. Plants do much better with about 600 ppM to 800 ppM of CO2. CO2 is not a bad thing. Warming temperatures are not a bad thing either - vast areas of really fertile farm areas open up to longer season crops like corn, wheat, and soy. More people can be fed with less work - giving them more time to ponder the important things in life like gender. I would think that you guys would be all for a little warming.
Posted on 5/22/19 at 7:43 pm to LakeCharles
quote:
Here's the thing. CO2 is a green house gas. CO2 has a log function in it's relationship to it's effect on warming. If you want it down to the point where it is not acting as a green house gas, you will not be happy. All plant life on earth dies at less than about 185 ppM CO2 - and it will be damn cold too. Historically, we know from ice core samples, CO2 has been as high as 1200 ppM, and currently is at 400 something ppM. Plants do much better with about 600 ppM to 800 ppM of CO2. CO2 is not a bad thing. Warming temperatures are not a bad thing either - vast areas of really fertile farm areas open up to longer season crops like corn, wheat, and soy. More people can be fed with less work - giving them more time to ponder the important things in life like gender. I would think that you guys would be all for a little warming.
do you think we know enough about it yet to actively frick around with it?
Posted on 5/22/19 at 7:49 pm to bmy
Jebuzz Christ u were advocating flooding the atmosphere with Sulfur earlier....
Posted on 5/22/19 at 7:57 pm to ApexTiger
quote:
Is the globe really warmer?
You serious......the 0.8 degree rise in the last 100 years isn't noticeable to you????
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News