or Create a video response There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Carbon Tax. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion".
@mrdaym = who are too suspicious to take you for your word, but too lazy to actually read the scientific papers, do? = First, not taking my word for it doesn't mean you're suspicious, it means you are healthily skeptical. I expect people to check my sources, which is why I list them all. I make it as easy as I possibly can, by giving titles, names, dates, publications and URLs. But if clicking a mouse is too hard, you can follow the science by reading reputable science magazines.
@potholer54 I got several suggestions for proper science magazines now which I'm going to look up that will sum up the conclusions for a layman like me. I humbly thank you for taking out the time to give me a reply.
I like the way Max Keiser put it: in essence, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). What matters is what the insurance companies think. And, when the insurance companies crunch the numbers and see the increase in damages that they have to pay out due to AGW, then perhaps people will act. (Yes, I know Max Keiser is exaggerating. It DOES matter what many others think about AGW, too, not just insurance companies.)
JonThm is about the only AGW denier whom I'd let out of jail for a breath of fresh air once a day, only because at least he is anti-nuclear. Or, more likely, he is pro-nuclear, or probably doesn't care one way or the other, but, at least he is TRYING to appease those of us fighting AGW and the tragedies of human overpopulation and pollution by appealing to many of our concerns about nuclear waste.
(from wikipedia) "For shallow water, with wavelengths longer than 4.6 times the water depth, the nonlinearity parameter к is positive and wave groups with envelope solitons do not exist. Note, that in shallow water surface-elevation solitons or waves of translation do exist, but they are not governed by the nonlinear Schrödinger equation."
Yes! SCORE A VICTORY FOR ME, over ArchAngel!
(end goal dance)
Wow! I didn't know proving AGW was so easy. But jackass deniers make it so!
And now, ladies and gentleman, I present to you the famous denier technique:
"post basic scientific facts in order to demonstrate my amazing knowledge, hoping everyone will ignore the giant non sequitor to my conclusion that AGW isn't real"
"For water waves, the nonlinear Schrödinger equation describes the evolution of the envelope of modulated wave groups. In a paper in 1968, Vladimir E. Zakharov describes the Hamiltonian structure of water waves."
"post basic scientific facts in order to demonstrate my amazing knowledge, hoping everyone will ignore the giant non sequitor to my conclusion that AGW isn't real"
Never said Antropological Global Warthing Hypothesis isn't real...said it isn't verified and tested and falsified yet and is only a consensus of opinion hypothesis that still needs years of data collection to verify,test,and falsify..which is why the consensus was needed to ask governments for funding to do "impact stuidies"
Ah but how is it relative to only 1% of the worlds water being fresh water, the majority of it being locked in the Glaciers and put their by the evaporation/precipitation cycle and therefore melting and rebuilding of glacier ice is ongoiing and een if there was a full melt down (unlikely) 1% of 300 million trillion tons of water couldn't raise the oceans 3feet let alone Al Gore's "20 feet"
That worldwide "20 foot mark" is like the 300 million one on mountains
"That worldwide "20 foot mark" is like the 300 million one on mountains"
as in they are from plate tectonics driving them 20 feet above current sea level
remember the creationist thinks the custation fossils and watermarks and ocean sediments on mountains,also put up there from plate tectonics, "proves" Noah's flood
Just as Ridiculous to think a 20 foot water mark prove "AGW Armageddon" flooding could happen that high unless we raise taxes on oil/gas,use 1 sheet tp,and use mercury filled cfcs
Forget trying to convince AGW-deniers. They are fanatic extremists with a severe sexually-confused homoerotic complex for Al Gore, but they are ashamed to say it. So, in their sexual frustration and confusion, they lash out constantly at Al Gore,
who won't satisfy them, and make homophobic hate-filled outbursts.
They are a political JOKE, because they will spend INFINITELY more money,
desperately correcting the foolishness of their resistance to change now, when AGW gets REALLY bad.
AGW-deniers are so discredited these days. They still think the moon-landing was staged, and that Al Gore either invented or caused the Holocaust.
They think vaccines contain nanobots that control people's minds that turn them gay. AGW-denialism all began with Alex Jones, who thinks 911 was a hologram.
Many AGW-deniers even lie about their USA citizenship, many coming here illegally.
Most AGW-deniers make millions off their oil-coal connections with the Taliban.
@TheRealArchAngel: =120 grams a mile on a 35 mile a gallon car would be 4.2kg a gallon=
Just listen to yourself before rushing ahead with the advanced adding up. This super efficient Jetta diesel you cited 120g CO2 a mile for; do you really believe this car is only returning 35mpg?!!!!
Harvard University don't life. Neither did your high school biology. Free carbon dioxide levels in the air are static. Man made climate change is fiction from the base stooges to nuclear power
High school biology: green plants sink all the available carbon dioxide. The limit to life on earth is free carbon dioxide in the air. There is no extra carbon dioxide to affect the climate. Harvard found that carbon dioxide levels had remained static for 200 years
The limit to life on earth is available carbon dioxide. So green plants have ensured there is only two parts per 1,000,000 in the global air. A level which has not change fall the last 200 years.
"The limit to life on earth is available carbon dioxide. So green plants have ensured there is only two parts per 1,000,000 in the global air. A level which has not change fall the last 200 years."
What
No,no no, real world co2 measurement actually varies depending on wind,temperature,weather, plants in area, time of day and whether it is night or day
Why?
1) Cause some plants actually exhale CO2 at night
2) High plant concentration means more co2 consumed in area
@brokenseeker No. Potholer is saying exactly the opposite. He's saying you have to watch out on both sides of this issue for bad reporting. The reporter in the example (standing in waist deep sea) is conflating climate change with tectonic subduction.
@TheFireHorseUK We're not worthy! We're not worthy! (bow down to Potholer54) :) ;)
Poor Potholer54. Frankly, I don't know how he sorts through all the peer-reviewed journals and reports on them so well WITHOUT being a professional climatologist or oceanographer or geologist himself.
People who accept AGW have science and the facts behind them, but unfortunately there are things like this news story (and things like Katrina) being attributed to GW without a shred of evidence that these particular events are caused by it. Very unfortunate (and still more evidence that journalism isn't about facts or truth).
George Monbiot made some critical remarks about climategate. If I was half witted, I might have believed he was being even handed. Like his family, his friends and mentors George is an extreme right wing ultra conservative. The difference is that George is pretending to be left wing.
Oswald Mosley tried to play the same upper class socialist game, but eventually came out as the fascist he really was.
I love that Greenman is just a willing to bet down unreal global warming myths as he is to "skeptic" myths. When in bout, as what the scientists in the field are says. We do this all the time in most other fields, medical is the best example.
Good research.Reflects my thoughts before I clicked play.I cannot recommend that you read ''The First Global Revolution'' report by the ''Club of Rome'' more strongly.All will make sense.
Thank you again for the clarification of a badly worded media story. Unlike the 'deniers' who will grasp onto ANYTHING that remotely backs up their beliefs, we true skeptics like to know whats REALLY going on.
HAHA ! I laugh at pple who watch the news and expect to actually hear truth and facts :D !
Stop watching the news pple! U are indoctrinated enough as it is. Turn off your TV and read a book, stay in school and do your homework, like that ditzy reporter should have done. The news have become some sort of a circus act...
Peter. Once again. You don't have the knowledge or the intelligence to understand the scientific literature. Having a BBC cultured, public school accent may sound impressive, but it doesn't help.
@eric144144 If you have an issue with any of Peter's facts you should present what you think is in error so he can check it. He's quite open to doing this. BUT if you don't have any facts of your own to back up what you think is an error you should just STFU.
I have a maths/physics degree and a post grad degree in computer science. I have studied climate science by yself. My conclusion is that Dyson and the super intelligent physics colleagues are right and the computer modellers are grant chasing rascals.
These scientists are sceptics
Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize), Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize), Edward Teller, Hal Lewis, James Lovelock, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg
“My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do.
There is no science beyond the models. In fact, there is no science at all, because science is based on repitive prediction. Objects always fall at the same acceleration. That is science. There is no equation that describes the realtionship between CO2 and global temperature. Even if there was, the rascals have fiddled the temperature records. There is no reliable way to determine past temperatures from proxies.
No problem for science, big problem for carbon trading crooks.
They don't take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the responses of the living stuff on the planet. So I don't see how they can accurately predict the climate.
If Arrhenius was right, why don't they employ uneducated dudes like yourself to do the calculations instead of spending billions of dollars on computer hardware and software.
@eric144144 "They don't take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the ...."
And they are well aware of the limitations of the models. So far Hansen's original models from the 1980's are performing well. His estimations for climate sensitivity were 4.2C. When you back that down to the current estimates of 3C then you get a very close match to what has occurred over the past 30 years.
@eric144144 Dyson's specific objections are that he believes dissenting opinions should be listened to more carefully. You should not conflate that with a belief that the current science on climate change is wrong.
The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.
@eric144144 So, again, what I say to all you deniers is... the whole issue is about uncertainties regarding cloud effects. That is the state of climate science today and where a lot of time and energy is being spent. Dessler 2010, the latest publish work on this topic, suggests that cloud feedbacks are positive and very unlikely to be negative.
It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.” –
@eric144144 That would be well and good if that was all the research that was going on. We also have ice cores, satellite data, ground station readings, and a whole host of other proxies. We have people studying glaciers, plant and animal migrations, storm intensities, ocean temps and everything else you can possibly think about. It's all the empirical evidence that is informing the modelers. The uncertainties involved are discussed constantly.
@eric144144 You list James Lovelock as a skeptic. I don't know how you get that. He clearly states that he believes climate change is going to kill billions and reduce the human population to "a few breeding pairs" by the end of the 21st century. I'd say he's in the camp of extreme CAGW believers.
I remember when the Americans sent up a satellite to measure ozone and it started saying that a hole was developing over the South Pole. But the damn fool scientists were so mad on the models that they said the satellite must have a fault. We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they're not complete models. They're based more or less entirely on geophysics.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In the 1970s academic papers forecast the next ice-age. Due to the effect of man is aerosol. Fall last 200 years man is carbon dioxide has been converted by green plants into extra life on earth
No it hasn't. Carbon is only locked up in living and not yet decayed biomass. When it decays, the CO2 is re-released into the atmosphere. So where are all these new living things? And how do you square that with the fact that we are on a rampage of mass deforestation and that massive areas of forests are being killed off by wildfires and the spread of pests like the mountain pine beetle in North America?
@JonThm - =In the 1970s academic papers forecast the next ice-age. = I bust this urban myth in my video "Climate Change -- Anatomy of a Myth." Have you heard of the saying "think first, speak second"? Well, look video first write post with more intelligent thought second.
@potholer54 in the 1970s academics for cancer makes ice-age due to man is aerosols. Since then they has said the increase in carbon dioxide might affect the weather. Only trouble years, green plants had taken in all man is carbon dioxide. So you has increased life on earth by 15%. But not affected the weather.
@potholer54 Don't worry about JonThm. I know this guy quite well from several other comment sections on other videos. He makes a bunch of claims that he has no support for. He's just looking for attention.
@potholer54 Have you heard of a fellow called Piers Corbyn and what are your views on him if you have? By all accounts his predictions are supposedly highly accurate, i have not looked deeply into his claims, though i intend to.
"n the 1970s academic papers forecast the next ice-age. "
Think I was in 4th grade when that Newsweek article and a few other magazines made a story on that bullshit
Remember my Science Teacher first emphasizing the claim then gave us a demonstration on the Heat absorption properties of CO2 at 10 gallons vs 20 gallons from same heat source and bombarded with a infrared light array
not only did the Co2 not adsorb more heat by just being double but co2 did not warm up bombarded by infrared light
Dow Chemical's patent on CFC was running out and they had a replacement product but a lot of chemical company competitors where drooling to make the CFC products without patent infrigement/royaties
DOW pushed to get CFCs banned on the grounds it "Damaged Ozone"
Problem is the "Hole in the Ozone" is in an eara where there is no Electromagnetic field (Absolute Poles) and it's the Solar wind "damaging the Ozone" and CFCs just happening to be there
@TheRealArchAngel As to your comments about CFCs. Whether Dow had an ulterior motive or not is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not CFCs are are responsible for damage to the ozone. Thing is, the ozone layer has replenished since the banning, but that may or may not be because of the banning. The crux of the issue is the method by which CFCs supposedly damage the ozone. To my knowledge, the process described by the researchers has never been replicated by anyone else.
@TheRealArchAngel So yes, you're probably right about the CFCs not damaging the Ozone layer. If they do, it's through some as yet unknown process. All the evidence in support of it is purely circumstantial.
My point about the CFCs is this: Dow having an ulterior motive itself is purely incidental. There are plenty of good, scientific reasons to doubt the effect of CFCs; conspiracy theories are not among them.
"you're probably right about the CFCs not damaging the Ozone layer. If they do, it's through some as yet unknown process"
Where the Ozone is beiung damaged is within the gap in the Earth's Magnetic field at the Extreme north and South pole
Normally the Sun's Solar wind is deflected by earth's Massive magnetic field,but where there is no EM you see the "Aurora BOrles ?" as the Solar wind collide with the Atmosphere and destroys all chemical reactions including the Ozone one
@TheRealArchAngel Ah, but it is a conspiracy theory. It's also a red herring because it has no bearing on the validity of the information they were putting forward. They can have their ulterior motive and still put forward correct information to support it. Infact they'd be more intelligent to do so than to use falsified information.
"Ah, but it is a conspiracy theory. It's also a red herring because it has no bearing on the validity of the information they were putting forward"
I'd always be suspicious when the Scientists from a company find something that is expected to find (Grain Companies finding a high grain diet "healthly", Corn Scientists finding Corn syrup is "safe",Tobacco Scientists finding no link between smoking and cancer,etc)
But CFC hype like AGW hype now and AGC hype in the 76's is mosttly media driven
" but don't discount information on the basis of an ulterior motive."
Of course not, that is why you test claims in the field and in the lab....specifically test to see if cfcs touching ozone magically makes them disappear
Because the Solar wind destroys Ozone where there is no EM and because few people have been absolute north or south where the Ozone holes seasonally expands and shrink and no actual test have been done everything is speculation even today
If I take your attitude of "a company having a vested interest in selling a product makes the information they give about why you should buy that product completely false", one could then apply that to, say, refrigerators. The companies who sell them claim that food that's unrefrigerated spoils more quickly. Yet you'd be a fool to say that food does not spoil quickly, simply because companies spreading the information have a vested interest.
"f I take your attitude of "a company having a vested interest in selling a product makes the information they give about why you should buy that product completely false", one could then apply that to, say, refrigerators."
No, they tend to advertise that they have more room or convenient design..they don't say don't buy their older refrigerators cause it might magically make penguins die somewhere where penguins wouldn't go (to cold) via a event that always happens anyway via Core/EM flux
"Fall last 200 years man is carbon dioxide has been converted by green plants into extra life on earth"
No, burning fossil fuels has yet to be proven as the source of the added Co2...this is what IBUKI and CANX-2 will confirm in the next few years when the Real World Concentration and flow map from the orbiting CO2 satellites measurement of 50,000 points is compared against the Computer simulation of estimated and predicted "creation" over human cities and "flowing to the Ocean"
"Yes, burning fossil fuels HAS been proven as one of the primary sources of added CO2."
And the field or lab measurements in any of the scientific litature that you can point me to that confirms this?
(hint: it doesn't exist...it's prediction,belief and speculation and why Industry dares government to tax co2 emulsions on actual measured results out their exhaust pipes)
correlation of co2 to temperature does not prove where the co2 comes from
"converted by green plants into extra life on earth"
Another problem with this statement is that the supposed creation of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is claimed to be of the "organic variaty" or high c12 count which is suspicious in itself as 1) There are organic compounds in oil but not gasoline and 2) none of them could even come close to making a c12 signature and 3) spontaneous oxidation of Carbon to Co2 isn't possible short of chemical or nuclear fusion forcing..only CO is possible
The major 3 flaws with CO2 from gasoline that is manufactured from inorganic feedstock aside, the rise in the Co2 carbon marker in plants is of the c13 or inorganic variety..as in "inorganic Co2" like that found on Mars,Asteroids,Venus, and in the thousands of trillions of tons of Co2 stored as Co2 hydrate in the Deep oceans and trillions of Trillions of tons of Co2 in the earths crust and core
The Evaporation/precipitation cycle is picking up the co2 coming from deep sea and core from warming
@TheRealArchAngel Wait what? Inorganic CO2? I can't help but feel you've entirely misunderstood the chemistry here. Even if CO2 is made the Carbon-13 isotope, it doesn't make it inorganic. CO2 is an organic compound on the grounds that it contains carbon. The isotope of carbon is irrelevant to the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.
"Life exhales force more c12 isotope on co2 while ,plants eat this c12 isotope"
the c13 isotope is "undidestable" to plants and thus acts like a "marker" in determining if the plant is subjected to more high c13 isotpe co2 (the king in deep sea and deep earth...and supposedly fossil fuels to some scientist) or organic co2(high c12 co2 from life...and supposedly fossil fuels to some scientist)
did you catch my worrd in "( )_"
problem is gasometers on exhaust doesn't find "co2 creation"...ever
@TheRealArchAngel Relative to the climate CO2 is CO2 regardless of the isotope. The C12/13 ratio is used to measure the source of the CO2 that is resident in the atmosphere.
"Relative to the climate CO2 is CO2 regardless of the isotope. The C12/13 ratio is used to measure the source of the CO2 that is resident in the atmosphere"
Right..and neither coal nor oil nor manufactured gasoline from cracked oil derivate has any of the "building blocks" of co2,nor can co2 be spontaniously created by oxidation in combustion which is a exothermic reaction that is consuming the gasoline mist and oxygen to create heat that travels faster then speed of sound that creates"force"
@TheRealArchAngel My grandma has pneumonia. She's a heavy smoker. She didn't get pneumonia from smoking, she got it from contracting the flu. However, smoking before she got it sure as heck didn't help things much and she'd have been better off if she stopped smoking, but she didn't.
My point is this: whether or not you doubt the CO2 is anthropogenic in origin is irrelevant. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere hasn't helped and pumping more into the atmosphere isn't going to solve the problem.
"My point is this: whether or not you doubt the CO2 is anthropogenic in origin is irrelevant. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere hasn't helped and pumping more into the atmosphere isn't going to solve the problem."
you do know the claim is the 500 billion tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere to make it 1.2 trillion is suspended in 5000 trillion tons of air and they are saying that 1.2 trillion tons of co2 in 5000 trillion tons of air can make 300 million trillion tons of water go up 1 degree?
"they are saying that 1.2 trillion tons of co2 in 5000 trillion tons of air can make 300 million trillion tons of water go up 1 degree?"
P.s. this claim is as lubricious as saying a ant fart can make a 10 gallon pot of water boil by heat retention of heat already in air
Besides there is thousands of trillions of tons of Co2 in the ocean water and millions of trillions of tons of co2 in earth's crust,mantle and core...the 1.2 trillion floating around in the air is just the "tip of the Iceberg"
"Relative to the climate CO2 is CO2 regardless of the isotope. The C12/13 ratio is used to measure the source of the CO2 that is resident in the atmosphere."
But where does the CO2 come from...especially since CO2 is naturally 1.5 heavier then air and without a breeze will attempt to sink to the lowest point?
Also Keeling's measuring Co2 at the same time at the same day isn't enough control as Co2 flow in evaporation/precipitation is also effected by temperature,humidity and wind speed
"Also Keeling's measuring Co2 at the same time at the same day isn't enough control as Co2 flow in evaporation/precipitation is also effected by temperature,humidity and wind speed"
The CO2 ,if it came from burning fossil fuels,would pool around cars during traffic hour and cause a Lake Nyos incident daily (Especially at "23 gallons of Co2 from 1 gallon of gas")
Instead of correlating Co2 at Mauna Loa with AGT they should compare with Kileua eruption cycles and co2 from vent above station ;)
"You are so far off base with this entire line of thinking. CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere."
Really?
Then exactly how does it simultaneously "increase with tempature" by Keeling's standardize test of measuring at same time of day when other variables are "just right" (for the "290ppm-390ppm")in air as well as end up in the permafrost,as well as end up in the ocean as well as be eaten by plants?
Plants eat if PPM goes down
If it is buried in ice it fell from the sky and ppm goes down
I specialize in artificial biospheres and "environmental engineering"
I'm among the scientists saying...co2 is a "problem" fine lets capture it and sell it to industry that has to otherwise make it at $10 a pound for decaffeinating coffee,making plastics,making medicine,fizzing soda pop,making co2 cartridges for various pressure powered machines,gas lasers,plasma cutters etc..
The the Political environuts don't want "sequestering" as a "solution" they want us "off oil"...pfft
@TheRealArchAngel If you have a way to sequester carbon from the atmosphere the way you're saying I suggest you patent it quickly and sell the methods. You'll be rich.
"If you have a way to sequester carbon from the atmosphere the way you're saying I suggest you patent it quickly and sell the methods. You'll be rich."
Things like "Artificial Trees" and such are available...but as I said before the Political Activist want us "off Oil", not to "fix" a non-existent problem
Seriously. Please Explain to me how 1.5 trillion tons of Co2 in 5000 trillion tons of air makes it "warmer" let alone makes 300 million trillion tons of ocean water go up 1 degree?
"Seriously. Please Explain to me how 1.5 trillion tons of Co2 in 5000 trillion tons of air makes it "warmer" let alone makes 300 million trillion tons of ocean water go up 1 degree?"
More importantly how does US giving Financial,economic, and energy souvernty to the UN "save the polar bears"?
How does raising the taxes on oil,coal,gasoline,diesel,etc "lower the sea levels"?
How does EPA and like government agencies making more emission regulations and laws "Stop the whacky weather"?
Yes, which is why I scoff at the likes of al Gores 23 gallons of Co2 from 1 gallon of gasoline and 23 tons of co2 from 1 ton of coal along with the fancy chemical theory scribles of how this supposedly happens
Mythbusters measured
watch?v=oQzpsBmGeNs
Their car makes about 68 grams of Co2 a gallon with the high point of 15% by volume being about 323 grams a gallon
So much for me buying that yacht and Leer Jet by simply turning 3.87 a Gallon of Gasoline to $230 of Co2 (sigh)
@TheRealArchAngel =I scoff at Gores 23 gallons of Co2 from 1 gallon of gasoline...Mythbusters measured....about 68 grams of Co2 a gallon=
Er, the clip you're on about claims 63g CO2 per MILE not gallon. Very different.
Combustion of 1 gal of gasoline yields nearly 9kg of CO2 (over 1000 gallons if you must!). As an engine tuner I know that much is fact. My car does 40mpg in the cruise. As a driver I know that much is reality. So that's >25 gallons CO2 per mile. FYI.
"Er, the clip you're on about claims 63g CO2 per MILE not gallon. Very different."
Actually they don't say that either,they just say 3% of Volume and 70% less then regular cars
YOu need to plug in numbers per second and......oh shit 120 grams a mile...my bad
"Combustion of 1 gal of gasoline yields nearly 9kg of CO2"
Unless there is a catalyst converter converting CO into CO2 by chemically forcing the extra oxygen on to otherwise chemically stable CO, no...It's all air intake or contaminates
120 grams a mile on a 35 mile a gallon car would be 4.2kg a gallon while a SUV with 8 miles a gallon putting out 70% more (120 /.30 =400g x 8) would put out 3.2kg co2 a gallon
that.s (0.45359237 x 4.2) 1.9lb a gallon not 23 and (0.45359237 x 3.2) 1.45lb co2 not 23
"ggl: EPA emission facts."
Did you notice "Computer simulation", "Estimates"" and "use of computer models rather then real cars" in the footnotes and disclaimers? (just saying)
Er, schoolboy error right there. Any car that can return 120g per mile on diesel is managing approx 85mpg not 35mpg. There's no getting away from it - unless you've got neat diesel pissing out the fuel pipe [rolls eyes]
The C and H content of fuel is known within limits. Ergo we know how much H2O and CO2 will result from burning a gallon of the stuff with the correct amount of oxygen. Less CO2 = inefficient combustion = less mpg. QED.
"The C and H content of fuel is known within limits. Ergo we know how much H2O and CO2 will result from burning a gallon of the stuff "
YOu aare trying to create mass from something that reduces oxygen ffrom 25$ of volume to 14% and hydrocarbon from 50% of the mist spray in the piston to 3% of the Exhaust with Co2 being 3.5% and CO .003 and OC 0% as sh0own on the emissions screen
Mass is being loss as it is converted to energy in a exothermic reaction in the form of heat (70%)and force(30%)
"Mass is being loss as it is converted to energy in a exothermic reaction in the form of heat (70%)and force(30%)"
It's why the engine gets hot, the milisecond of air rich gasoline being pumpoed into a pistion and then sparked causes a "imperfect combustion" of the detonation(faster then sound) type that flashes only long enough to blast the piston up with remaining gasoline in piston being caremelized into "gunk" that is ejected into ecb nowadays but used to oxidize into CARBON MONOXIDE 1994
Other thing not totally clear is if they did the test Scrubbers on or scrubbers off, ECB on or ECB off, Air filter on or air filter off
Oh and for that other 93% of volume....air at 11kg a second,thats 390.6kg air over 35 miles and if you divide that is 4.2kg co2 / 390.6kg air you get .0107 or roughly 1% of air being exhausted out
Wonder if "Air" was "evil" they be saying fossil fuels "creates" 878 gallons of air per gallon of gas? lol
@TheRealArchAngel =Other thing not totally clear is if they did the test Scrubbers on or scrubbers off, ECB on or ECB off, Air filter on or air filter off=
Right. So it's not terribly relevant because we don't know what we're dealing with. Here's a bit if advice for you - if you're going to cite something to support your 'point', at least try and use a source that you yourself consider to be credible [rolls eyes]
"So it's not terribly relevant because we don't know what we're dealing with."
An Exhaust reading with ECB and Scubbers according to California Standards (one of the strictest in the US) usingi Gasoline cut with 10% menthonal (that has Co2 in it from the fermentation process)
"Here's a bit if advice for you - if you're going to cite something to support your 'point', at least try and use a source that you yourself consider to be credible"
"The the Political environuts don't want "sequestering" as a "solution" they want us "off oil"...pfft"
P.S. The major problem with their narrow minded thinking is Oil/Coal/Natural Gas is used to make the glass and plastic and diodes in solar pannels with greese from oil to move the panels gear, windmillds have carbon fib,plastic and steel bodies formed from,created with or forged with oil diriates,and "biofuels" from corn ,a mutant crop, takes 5 Gallons of Oil to make 1 gallon of "biofuel"..pfft
4) temperature effects how fast co2 falls from evaporation...colder means co2 falls fast,warmer means co2 floats
5) Like on Mauna Loa, Co2 rolls downhill from the vent to the station then to base of mountain then into soil,water,ice
6)Hibernating plants exhale co2
7) Spurting plants eat more co2
8) wind displaces and spreads %
Because of this ,if the Keeling Station didn't "standardize it's tests" CO2 fluctuates between 88ppm and 460pp at any moment in any patch of air on any place on earth
The moral of the story is pretty obvious to me, and it should be to every conspiracy theorist/global warming denier/insert desired group of misinformed individuals:
Don't get your science information from a news program. They're going to get it wrong, and misunderstanding their mistakes because of scientific illiteracy or ideological preferences is only going to compound just how mistaken your positions are.
Or in smaller words for the dumb: News stupid, no listen them, read real book.
@PQRLOVE -- =So how long does glacial rebound last?= I couldn't tell you without checking. But it is still happening in Britain, Canada and other parts of the world 10,000 years after the end of the last glaciation.
Don't get your science from media outlets. Many folks cannot understand this simple rule of thumb. Even science editors or reporters cannot bring the science to the public and should always be referenced so that one can check out the report. Also, so many people do not have a basic understanding of the scientific method, eventhough it is supposed to be learned in High schools around the civilized world. (they must of fogotten most of it)
Because it's not science? I shouldn't have to explain to you, the problem that arises when a non-science poses as science, and then you have educational institutions that should know better.
Yes, Astrology isn't science last I checked... However, if - like you said - it has scientific peer-reviewed journals that publish papers in accordance with scientific methodology... Then, hell yes it is.
You shouldn't let your prejudices get in the way. Science seeks answers, not establishes them like a dogma. Science is the way things *should* be studied.
These explanations will have the average young earth creationist rolling around on the floor, laughing their heads off, as they clutch their inerrant scriptures in a bid to keep a grip on reality.
Rock has viscosity too. If you apply pressure to it, it will bulge with time, in this case a very long time, but it's an option because gravity never ceases to act. Remove a huge chunk of ice from the land and it will take the terrain some time to react to outside pressures it would resist earlier because of added weight.
This has been flagged as spam show
WORLD RECORD: BIGGEST WIND TURBINE
Visit: windturbinecarriedbywheels.weebly.com
ZERO-NOISE from gears and generators since they are sealed underground.
SAVES THE BIRDS AND BATS since slow-moving.
DOES NOT OCCUPY A WIDER LANDSCAPE since the turbine can be very tall.
MAY BE LOWER-COST since it may use timber and other cheaper things.
ELUDES HURRICANE FORCE since the V-type folding blades automatically close.
NO FIRE since well-cooled.
HELPS WIND-ENERGY COMPANIES since it is FREE FOR ALL.
TheServiceWeb 1 month ago
I love you potholer!
soyqueen01 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
or Create a video response There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Carbon Tax. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion".
2110kop 7 months ago
I think its high time a new youtube award was introduced......
"The Golden Monocle"
The inaugural winner..... Potholer!!
scottpastry 7 months ago 2
What should people like me, who are too suspicious to take you for your word, but too lazy to actually read the scientific papers, do?
mrdaym 11 months ago 6
@mrdaym = who are too suspicious to take you for your word, but too lazy to actually read the scientific papers, do? = First, not taking my word for it doesn't mean you're suspicious, it means you are healthily skeptical. I expect people to check my sources, which is why I list them all. I make it as easy as I possibly can, by giving titles, names, dates, publications and URLs. But if clicking a mouse is too hard, you can follow the science by reading reputable science magazines.
potholer54 11 months ago 6
@potholer54 I got several suggestions for proper science magazines now which I'm going to look up that will sum up the conclusions for a layman like me. I humbly thank you for taking out the time to give me a reply.
mrdaym 11 months ago
I like the way Max Keiser put it: in essence, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). What matters is what the insurance companies think. And, when the insurance companies crunch the numbers and see the increase in damages that they have to pay out due to AGW, then perhaps people will act. (Yes, I know Max Keiser is exaggerating. It DOES matter what many others think about AGW, too, not just insurance companies.)
deskset24 1 year ago
JonThm is about the only AGW denier whom I'd let out of jail for a breath of fresh air once a day, only because at least he is anti-nuclear. Or, more likely, he is pro-nuclear, or probably doesn't care one way or the other, but, at least he is TRYING to appease those of us fighting AGW and the tragedies of human overpopulation and pollution by appealing to many of our concerns about nuclear waste.
deskset24 1 year ago
(from wikipedia) "For shallow water, with wavelengths longer than 4.6 times the water depth, the nonlinearity parameter к is positive and wave groups with envelope solitons do not exist. Note, that in shallow water surface-elevation solitons or waves of translation do exist, but they are not governed by the nonlinear Schrödinger equation."
Yes! SCORE A VICTORY FOR ME, over ArchAngel!
(end goal dance)
Wow! I didn't know proving AGW was so easy. But jackass deniers make it so!
deskset24 1 year ago
And now, ladies and gentleman, I present to you the famous denier technique:
"post basic scientific facts in order to demonstrate my amazing knowledge, hoping everyone will ignore the giant non sequitor to my conclusion that AGW isn't real"
"For water waves, the nonlinear Schrödinger equation describes the evolution of the envelope of modulated wave groups. In a paper in 1968, Vladimir E. Zakharov describes the Hamiltonian structure of water waves."
Yes! See? Take THAT, ArchAngel!
deskset24 1 year ago 3
"post basic scientific facts in order to demonstrate my amazing knowledge, hoping everyone will ignore the giant non sequitor to my conclusion that AGW isn't real"
Never said Antropological Global Warthing Hypothesis isn't real...said it isn't verified and tested and falsified yet and is only a consensus of opinion hypothesis that still needs years of data collection to verify,test,and falsify..which is why the consensus was needed to ask governments for funding to do "impact stuidies"
TheRealArchAngel 11 months ago
"For water waves (blah,blah,blah)"
Ah but how is it relative to only 1% of the worlds water being fresh water, the majority of it being locked in the Glaciers and put their by the evaporation/precipitation cycle and therefore melting and rebuilding of glacier ice is ongoiing and een if there was a full melt down (unlikely) 1% of 300 million trillion tons of water couldn't raise the oceans 3feet let alone Al Gore's "20 feet"
That worldwide "20 foot mark" is like the 300 million one on mountains
TheRealArchAngel 11 months ago
"That worldwide "20 foot mark" is like the 300 million one on mountains"
as in they are from plate tectonics driving them 20 feet above current sea level
remember the creationist thinks the custation fossils and watermarks and ocean sediments on mountains,also put up there from plate tectonics, "proves" Noah's flood
Just as Ridiculous to think a 20 foot water mark prove "AGW Armageddon" flooding could happen that high unless we raise taxes on oil/gas,use 1 sheet tp,and use mercury filled cfcs
TheRealArchAngel 11 months ago
Forget trying to convince AGW-deniers. They are fanatic extremists with a severe sexually-confused homoerotic complex for Al Gore, but they are ashamed to say it. So, in their sexual frustration and confusion, they lash out constantly at Al Gore,
who won't satisfy them, and make homophobic hate-filled outbursts.
They are a political JOKE, because they will spend INFINITELY more money,
desperately correcting the foolishness of their resistance to change now, when AGW gets REALLY bad.
deskset24 1 year ago
AGW-deniers are so discredited these days. They still think the moon-landing was staged, and that Al Gore either invented or caused the Holocaust.
They think vaccines contain nanobots that control people's minds that turn them gay. AGW-denialism all began with Alex Jones, who thinks 911 was a hologram.
Many AGW-deniers even lie about their USA citizenship, many coming here illegally.
Most AGW-deniers make millions off their oil-coal connections with the Taliban.
deskset24 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel: =120 grams a mile on a 35 mile a gallon car would be 4.2kg a gallon=
Just listen to yourself before rushing ahead with the advanced adding up. This super efficient Jetta diesel you cited 120g CO2 a mile for; do you really believe this car is only returning 35mpg?!!!!
XPLAlN 1 year ago
"This super efficient Jetta diesel you cited 120g CO2 a mile for; do you really believe this car is only returning 35mpg?!!!!"
How would I know what the milage is , I wouldn't buy the thing....to small for me...besides it was a for example
Besides going 85mpg means it is exhausting less co2 from air intake and contaminants in ethonal not more
and I totally didn't even bother with engine size being a factor in co2 exhaust rate focused on
Part of the efficiency is cutting more air then gas in mix
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel =How would I know what the milage is...besides it was a for example=
Because you said: "120 grams a mile on a 35 mile a gallon car would be 4.2kg [CO2] a gallon"
Enough of this. You're clearly not the full ticket.
XPLAlN 1 year ago
And this is why following the science is important.
NinjaSuneku 1 year ago
Harvard University don't life. Neither did your high school biology. Free carbon dioxide levels in the air are static. Man made climate change is fiction from the base stooges to nuclear power
JonThm 1 year ago
Harvard University don't life. Neither did your high school biology. Free carbon dioxide levels in the air are done it
JonThm 1 year ago
High school biology: green plants sink all the available carbon dioxide. The limit to life on earth is free carbon dioxide in the air. There is no extra carbon dioxide to affect the climate. Harvard found that carbon dioxide levels had remained static for 200 years
JonThm 1 year ago
-1- Christian Creationist watched this video so far ^_^
Unicron4ever 1 year ago
The limit to life on earth is available carbon dioxide. So green plants have ensured there is only two parts per 1,000,000 in the global air. A level which has not change fall the last 200 years.
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm You're lying again, Jon. Try to perform an actual experiment and see if you can prove it.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
"The limit to life on earth is available carbon dioxide. So green plants have ensured there is only two parts per 1,000,000 in the global air. A level which has not change fall the last 200 years."
What
No,no no, real world co2 measurement actually varies depending on wind,temperature,weather, plants in area, time of day and whether it is night or day
Why?
1) Cause some plants actually exhale CO2 at night
2) High plant concentration means more co2 consumed in area
3) no wind means Co2 falls
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
holy cow...
keep up the good work!
Kotszu 1 year ago
The reporter was pretty damn hot with the black pants standing in the water though.
sugmegpls 1 year ago
why does Peter say "known" to sound like "nern"?
PatRibsey 1 year ago
So global warming is causing continents to sink into the earth? RUN FOR YOUR LIVES
brokenseeker 1 year ago
@brokenseeker No. Potholer is saying exactly the opposite. He's saying you have to watch out on both sides of this issue for bad reporting. The reporter in the example (standing in waist deep sea) is conflating climate change with tectonic subduction.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
I think he was being ironic.
DoggySpew 1 year ago
@DoggySpew It's hard to tell on Youtube sometimes. I've seen FAR more outrageous comments repeatedly made that are stated in complete sincerity.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
billygutter01 “Channels like yours are the reason this 'Tube experience is worth having.”
I couldn’t agree with you more on that one....
TheFireHorseUK 1 year ago
@TheFireHorseUK We're not worthy! We're not worthy! (bow down to Potholer54) :) ;)
Poor Potholer54. Frankly, I don't know how he sorts through all the peer-reviewed journals and reports on them so well WITHOUT being a professional climatologist or oceanographer or geologist himself.
deskset24 1 year ago
People who accept AGW have science and the facts behind them, but unfortunately there are things like this news story (and things like Katrina) being attributed to GW without a shred of evidence that these particular events are caused by it. Very unfortunate (and still more evidence that journalism isn't about facts or truth).
jergsden 1 year ago
Potholer, you are the man.
I've enjoyed the informative and entertaining videos of the past year and am eagerly anticipating more of the same through 2011.
Channels like yours are the reason this 'Tube experience is worth having.
Thank you.
billygutter01 1 year ago 33
This has been flagged as spam show
MANBEARPIG IS UPON US, I'M SUPER CEREAL!!!
jorn1233 1 year ago
Peter
George Monbiot made some critical remarks about climategate. If I was half witted, I might have believed he was being even handed. Like his family, his friends and mentors George is an extreme right wing ultra conservative. The difference is that George is pretending to be left wing.
Oswald Mosley tried to play the same upper class socialist game, but eventually came out as the fascist he really was.
eric144144 1 year ago
I love that Greenman is just a willing to bet down unreal global warming myths as he is to "skeptic" myths. When in bout, as what the scientists in the field are says. We do this all the time in most other fields, medical is the best example.
Loathomar 1 year ago
Good research.Reflects my thoughts before I clicked play.I cannot recommend that you read ''The First Global Revolution'' report by the ''Club of Rome'' more strongly.All will make sense.
lipoicacid 1 year ago
Thank you again for the clarification of a badly worded media story. Unlike the 'deniers' who will grasp onto ANYTHING that remotely backs up their beliefs, we true skeptics like to know whats REALLY going on.
68spaceman 1 year ago
HAHA ! I laugh at pple who watch the news and expect to actually hear truth and facts :D !
Stop watching the news pple! U are indoctrinated enough as it is. Turn off your TV and read a book, stay in school and do your homework, like that ditzy reporter should have done. The news have become some sort of a circus act...
mancamiatipoola 1 year ago
Found this very interesting. Gotta love science.
LAnonHubbard 1 year ago
Peter. Once again. You don't have the knowledge or the intelligence to understand the scientific literature. Having a BBC cultured, public school accent may sound impressive, but it doesn't help.
This is simply runaway class hubris.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 If you have an issue with any of Peter's facts you should present what you think is in error so he can check it. He's quite open to doing this. BUT if you don't have any facts of your own to back up what you think is an error you should just STFU.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
You should keep quiet until you get yourself an education in climate science. Don't ask Peter, he is completely clueless.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 And your background in climate science is... what?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
I have a maths/physics degree and a post grad degree in computer science. I have studied climate science by yself. My conclusion is that Dyson and the super intelligent physics colleagues are right and the computer modellers are grant chasing rascals.
These scientists are sceptics
Freeman Dyson, Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize), Robert Laughlin (Nobel Prize), Edward Teller, Hal Lewis, James Lovelock, Robert Jastrow and William Nierenberg
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 And so I'm going to assume that you are reading the papers on climate.
You might want to spend a little more time learning about Dyson's opinions of climate change.
Dyson says, "My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much,..."
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
Freeman Dyson
“My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Still, he readily admits that he is criticizing modeling not AGW.... a subject about which he does not know much.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
There is no science beyond the models. In fact, there is no science at all, because science is based on repitive prediction. Objects always fall at the same acceleration. That is science. There is no equation that describes the realtionship between CO2 and global temperature. Even if there was, the rascals have fiddled the temperature records. There is no reliable way to determine past temperatures from proxies.
No problem for science, big problem for carbon trading crooks.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 "There is no equation that describes the realtionship between CO2 and global temperature. "
I suggest you google Svante Arrhenius.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
Dyson
They don't take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the responses of the living stuff on the planet. So I don't see how they can accurately predict the climate.
re Svante Arrhenius.
I suggest you google yourself an education.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 Obviously your education is not helping you much. I'd ask for my money back if I were you.
re: Arrhenius. So, you know about Arrhenius? You reject his calculations on the climate response to 2xCO2?
Instead of just rejecting everything I say without conversation why don't you present something to back your position?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
If Arrhenius was right, why don't they employ uneducated dudes like yourself to do the calculations instead of spending billions of dollars on computer hardware and software.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 So, ad hom is your response? Really? That's the best you got?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@eric144144 I would suggest you read up a little on modeling. giss. nasa. gov/research/briefs/schmidt_04/
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@eric144144 "They don't take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the ...."
And they are well aware of the limitations of the models. So far Hansen's original models from the 1980's are performing well. His estimations for climate sensitivity were 4.2C. When you back that down to the current estimates of 3C then you get a very close match to what has occurred over the past 30 years.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@eric144144 Dyson's specific objections are that he believes dissenting opinions should be listened to more carefully. You should not conflate that with a belief that the current science on climate change is wrong.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 So, again, what I say to all you deniers is... the whole issue is about uncertainties regarding cloud effects. That is the state of climate science today and where a lot of time and energy is being spent. Dessler 2010, the latest publish work on this topic, suggests that cloud feedbacks are positive and very unlikely to be negative.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
re deniers
Yes, by I am not an uneducated, idiot science geek, you are.
eric144144 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eric144144 "Yes, by I am not an uneducated, idiot science geek, you are."
Ah, your eloquence becomes you.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt
It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.” –
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 That would be well and good if that was all the research that was going on. We also have ice cores, satellite data, ground station readings, and a whole host of other proxies. We have people studying glaciers, plant and animal migrations, storm intensities, ocean temps and everything else you can possibly think about. It's all the empirical evidence that is informing the modelers. The uncertainties involved are discussed constantly.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@eric144144 You list James Lovelock as a skeptic. I don't know how you get that. He clearly states that he believes climate change is going to kill billions and reduce the human population to "a few breeding pairs" by the end of the 21st century. I'd say he's in the camp of extreme CAGW believers.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt Lovelock on models
I remember when the Americans sent up a satellite to measure ozone and it started saying that a hole was developing over the South Pole. But the damn fool scientists were so mad on the models that they said the satellite must have a fault. We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they're not complete models. They're based more or less entirely on geophysics.
eric144144 1 year ago
@eric144144 So, your entire beef with climate science is about models?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Meanwhile, "climategate" still never happened and there is still zero evidence the CRU scientists did anything wrong. FOX "News" made it all up.
Desertphile 1 year ago
Very interesting.
whistlingdust 1 year ago
People don't double check the news, they all just sit there drooling and taking it all in as gospel so they can then parrot it to their friends.
otakujhp 1 year ago
I have been missing your uploads for a while, I liked this one and who is the ONE person that disliked- I am sure they ment to press like.
chezzamd 1 year ago
the bitch is stupid but she got paid for it....
If the job was a job then you would do it too
rochet75 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Man-made global warming and climate change are fiction from nuclear power
JonThm 1 year ago
I can't get enough of this debunking. Thank you and please keep them coming in the future!
kirkey99 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In the 1970s academic papers forecast the next ice-age. Due to the effect of man is aerosol. Fall last 200 years man is carbon dioxide has been converted by green plants into extra life on earth
JonThm 1 year ago
@JonThm
No it hasn't. Carbon is only locked up in living and not yet decayed biomass. When it decays, the CO2 is re-released into the atmosphere. So where are all these new living things? And how do you square that with the fact that we are on a rampage of mass deforestation and that massive areas of forests are being killed off by wildfires and the spread of pests like the mountain pine beetle in North America?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@JonThm - =In the 1970s academic papers forecast the next ice-age. = I bust this urban myth in my video "Climate Change -- Anatomy of a Myth." Have you heard of the saying "think first, speak second"? Well, look video first write post with more intelligent thought second.
potholer54 1 year ago 50
@potholer54 in the 1970s academics for cancer makes ice-age due to man is aerosols. Since then they has said the increase in carbon dioxide might affect the weather. Only trouble years, green plants had taken in all man is carbon dioxide. So you has increased life on earth by 15%. But not affected the weather.
JonThm 1 year ago
@potholer54 Don't worry about JonThm. I know this guy quite well from several other comment sections on other videos. He makes a bunch of claims that he has no support for. He's just looking for attention.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@potholer54 Do you have favorite sites to visit for scientific, peer reviewed papers? Is there some kind of scientific paper I can subscribe to?
Thanks.
MatchCard 1 year ago
@potholer54 Have you heard of a fellow called Piers Corbyn and what are your views on him if you have? By all accounts his predictions are supposedly highly accurate, i have not looked deeply into his claims, though i intend to.
thekwizatshaderach 1 year ago
"n the 1970s academic papers forecast the next ice-age. "
Think I was in 4th grade when that Newsweek article and a few other magazines made a story on that bullshit
Remember my Science Teacher first emphasizing the claim then gave us a demonstration on the Heat absorption properties of CO2 at 10 gallons vs 20 gallons from same heat source and bombarded with a infrared light array
not only did the Co2 not adsorb more heat by just being double but co2 did not warm up bombarded by infrared light
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Due to the effect of man is aerosol."
Dow Chemical's patent on CFC was running out and they had a replacement product but a lot of chemical company competitors where drooling to make the CFC products without patent infrigement/royaties
DOW pushed to get CFCs banned on the grounds it "Damaged Ozone"
Problem is the "Hole in the Ozone" is in an eara where there is no Electromagnetic field (Absolute Poles) and it's the Solar wind "damaging the Ozone" and CFCs just happening to be there
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel As to your comments about CFCs. Whether Dow had an ulterior motive or not is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not CFCs are are responsible for damage to the ozone. Thing is, the ozone layer has replenished since the banning, but that may or may not be because of the banning. The crux of the issue is the method by which CFCs supposedly damage the ozone. To my knowledge, the process described by the researchers has never been replicated by anyone else.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel So yes, you're probably right about the CFCs not damaging the Ozone layer. If they do, it's through some as yet unknown process. All the evidence in support of it is purely circumstantial.
My point about the CFCs is this: Dow having an ulterior motive itself is purely incidental. There are plenty of good, scientific reasons to doubt the effect of CFCs; conspiracy theories are not among them.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
"you're probably right about the CFCs not damaging the Ozone layer. If they do, it's through some as yet unknown process"
Where the Ozone is beiung damaged is within the gap in the Earth's Magnetic field at the Extreme north and South pole
Normally the Sun's Solar wind is deflected by earth's Massive magnetic field,but where there is no EM you see the "Aurora BOrles ?" as the Solar wind collide with the Atmosphere and destroys all chemical reactions including the Ozone one
It's not "a mystery"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"My point about the CFCs is this: Dow having an ulterior motive itself is purely incidental"
It was just FYI
"here are plenty of good, scientific reasons to doubt the effect of CFCs; "
Yep mixing CFCs with Ozone in a tank and the ozone not disintegrating or damage being but one test of falsification
"conspiracy theories are not among them."
Protecting your Patents from competition by discrediting your soon to be un-patented products is business strategy not conspiracy
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Ah, but it is a conspiracy theory. It's also a red herring because it has no bearing on the validity of the information they were putting forward. They can have their ulterior motive and still put forward correct information to support it. Infact they'd be more intelligent to do so than to use falsified information.
Also, it was DuPont, not Dow.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
"Ah, but it is a conspiracy theory. It's also a red herring because it has no bearing on the validity of the information they were putting forward"
I'd always be suspicious when the Scientists from a company find something that is expected to find (Grain Companies finding a high grain diet "healthly", Corn Scientists finding Corn syrup is "safe",Tobacco Scientists finding no link between smoking and cancer,etc)
But CFC hype like AGW hype now and AGC hype in the 76's is mosttly media driven
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Sure, be suspicious. I'm not saying to not be suspicious, but don't discount information on the basis of an ulterior motive.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
" but don't discount information on the basis of an ulterior motive."
Of course not, that is why you test claims in the field and in the lab....specifically test to see if cfcs touching ozone magically makes them disappear
Because the Solar wind destroys Ozone where there is no EM and because few people have been absolute north or south where the Ozone holes seasonally expands and shrink and no actual test have been done everything is speculation even today
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel yay 400 character limits...
If I take your attitude of "a company having a vested interest in selling a product makes the information they give about why you should buy that product completely false", one could then apply that to, say, refrigerators. The companies who sell them claim that food that's unrefrigerated spoils more quickly. Yet you'd be a fool to say that food does not spoil quickly, simply because companies spreading the information have a vested interest.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
"f I take your attitude of "a company having a vested interest in selling a product makes the information they give about why you should buy that product completely false", one could then apply that to, say, refrigerators."
No, they tend to advertise that they have more room or convenient design..they don't say don't buy their older refrigerators cause it might magically make penguins die somewhere where penguins wouldn't go (to cold) via a event that always happens anyway via Core/EM flux
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Also, it was DuPont, not Dow."
D,D,D,D oh Daddy dear,oh Daddy dear do Dandelions roar do? do Daisies have Feet?
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Fall last 200 years man is carbon dioxide has been converted by green plants into extra life on earth"
No, burning fossil fuels has yet to be proven as the source of the added Co2...this is what IBUKI and CANX-2 will confirm in the next few years when the Real World Concentration and flow map from the orbiting CO2 satellites measurement of 50,000 points is compared against the Computer simulation of estimated and predicted "creation" over human cities and "flowing to the Ocean"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Yes, burning fossil fuels HAS been proven as one of the primary sources of added CO2.
Please read: Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research
Ghosh 2003
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
"Yes, burning fossil fuels HAS been proven as one of the primary sources of added CO2."
And the field or lab measurements in any of the scientific litature that you can point me to that confirms this?
(hint: it doesn't exist...it's prediction,belief and speculation and why Industry dares government to tax co2 emulsions on actual measured results out their exhaust pipes)
correlation of co2 to temperature does not prove where the co2 comes from
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"converted by green plants into extra life on earth"
Another problem with this statement is that the supposed creation of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is claimed to be of the "organic variaty" or high c12 count which is suspicious in itself as 1) There are organic compounds in oil but not gasoline and 2) none of them could even come close to making a c12 signature and 3) spontaneous oxidation of Carbon to Co2 isn't possible short of chemical or nuclear fusion forcing..only CO is possible
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
The major 3 flaws with CO2 from gasoline that is manufactured from inorganic feedstock aside, the rise in the Co2 carbon marker in plants is of the c13 or inorganic variety..as in "inorganic Co2" like that found on Mars,Asteroids,Venus, and in the thousands of trillions of tons of Co2 stored as Co2 hydrate in the Deep oceans and trillions of Trillions of tons of Co2 in the earths crust and core
The Evaporation/precipitation cycle is picking up the co2 coming from deep sea and core from warming
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Wait what? Inorganic CO2? I can't help but feel you've entirely misunderstood the chemistry here. Even if CO2 is made the Carbon-13 isotope, it doesn't make it inorganic. CO2 is an organic compound on the grounds that it contains carbon. The isotope of carbon is irrelevant to the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.
jonnydarkmusic 1 year ago
"I can't help but feel you've entirely misunderstood the chemistry here."
naw, my guess is I'm trying to hard to layman it
CO2 is the most abundant form of free carbon in the universe
And Yes it is considered a "organic Compound" but it doesn't necessarily come from life as the CO2 on Mars,Venus,Asteroids and comets shows
Looking at the he Isotope ratio is an atempt to see which type of CO2 is in the air
Life exhales force more c12 isotope on co2 while ,plants eat this c12 isotope
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Life exhales force more c12 isotope on co2 while ,plants eat this c12 isotope"
the c13 isotope is "undidestable" to plants and thus acts like a "marker" in determining if the plant is subjected to more high c13 isotpe co2 (the king in deep sea and deep earth...and supposedly fossil fuels to some scientist) or organic co2(high c12 co2 from life...and supposedly fossil fuels to some scientist)
did you catch my worrd in "( )_"
problem is gasometers on exhaust doesn't find "co2 creation"...ever
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel Relative to the climate CO2 is CO2 regardless of the isotope. The C12/13 ratio is used to measure the source of the CO2 that is resident in the atmosphere.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
"Relative to the climate CO2 is CO2 regardless of the isotope. The C12/13 ratio is used to measure the source of the CO2 that is resident in the atmosphere"
Right..and neither coal nor oil nor manufactured gasoline from cracked oil derivate has any of the "building blocks" of co2,nor can co2 be spontaniously created by oxidation in combustion which is a exothermic reaction that is consuming the gasoline mist and oxygen to create heat that travels faster then speed of sound that creates"force"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel My grandma has pneumonia. She's a heavy smoker. She didn't get pneumonia from smoking, she got it from contracting the flu. However, smoking before she got it sure as heck didn't help things much and she'd have been better off if she stopped smoking, but she didn't.
My point is this: whether or not you doubt the CO2 is anthropogenic in origin is irrelevant. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere hasn't helped and pumping more into the atmosphere isn't going to solve the problem.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
"My point is this: whether or not you doubt the CO2 is anthropogenic in origin is irrelevant. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere hasn't helped and pumping more into the atmosphere isn't going to solve the problem."
you do know the claim is the 500 billion tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere to make it 1.2 trillion is suspended in 5000 trillion tons of air and they are saying that 1.2 trillion tons of co2 in 5000 trillion tons of air can make 300 million trillion tons of water go up 1 degree?
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"they are saying that 1.2 trillion tons of co2 in 5000 trillion tons of air can make 300 million trillion tons of water go up 1 degree?"
P.s. this claim is as lubricious as saying a ant fart can make a 10 gallon pot of water boil by heat retention of heat already in air
Besides there is thousands of trillions of tons of Co2 in the ocean water and millions of trillions of tons of co2 in earth's crust,mantle and core...the 1.2 trillion floating around in the air is just the "tip of the Iceberg"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Relative to the climate CO2 is CO2 regardless of the isotope. The C12/13 ratio is used to measure the source of the CO2 that is resident in the atmosphere."
But where does the CO2 come from...especially since CO2 is naturally 1.5 heavier then air and without a breeze will attempt to sink to the lowest point?
Also Keeling's measuring Co2 at the same time at the same day isn't enough control as Co2 flow in evaporation/precipitation is also effected by temperature,humidity and wind speed
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Also Keeling's measuring Co2 at the same time at the same day isn't enough control as Co2 flow in evaporation/precipitation is also effected by temperature,humidity and wind speed"
The CO2 ,if it came from burning fossil fuels,would pool around cars during traffic hour and cause a Lake Nyos incident daily (Especially at "23 gallons of Co2 from 1 gallon of gas")
Instead of correlating Co2 at Mauna Loa with AGT they should compare with Kileua eruption cycles and co2 from vent above station ;)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel You are so far off base with this entire line of thinking. CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere. Look it up.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
"You are so far off base with this entire line of thinking. CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere."
Really?
Then exactly how does it simultaneously "increase with tempature" by Keeling's standardize test of measuring at same time of day when other variables are "just right" (for the "290ppm-390ppm")in air as well as end up in the permafrost,as well as end up in the ocean as well as be eaten by plants?
Plants eat if PPM goes down
If it is buried in ice it fell from the sky and ppm goes down
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Look it up"
I specialize in artificial biospheres and "environmental engineering"
I'm among the scientists saying...co2 is a "problem" fine lets capture it and sell it to industry that has to otherwise make it at $10 a pound for decaffeinating coffee,making plastics,making medicine,fizzing soda pop,making co2 cartridges for various pressure powered machines,gas lasers,plasma cutters etc..
The the Political environuts don't want "sequestering" as a "solution" they want us "off oil"...pfft
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel If you have a way to sequester carbon from the atmosphere the way you're saying I suggest you patent it quickly and sell the methods. You'll be rich.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
"If you have a way to sequester carbon from the atmosphere the way you're saying I suggest you patent it quickly and sell the methods. You'll be rich."
Things like "Artificial Trees" and such are available...but as I said before the Political Activist want us "off Oil", not to "fix" a non-existent problem
Seriously. Please Explain to me how 1.5 trillion tons of Co2 in 5000 trillion tons of air makes it "warmer" let alone makes 300 million trillion tons of ocean water go up 1 degree?
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Seriously. Please Explain to me how 1.5 trillion tons of Co2 in 5000 trillion tons of air makes it "warmer" let alone makes 300 million trillion tons of ocean water go up 1 degree?"
More importantly how does US giving Financial,economic, and energy souvernty to the UN "save the polar bears"?
How does raising the taxes on oil,coal,gasoline,diesel,etc "lower the sea levels"?
How does EPA and like government agencies making more emission regulations and laws "Stop the whacky weather"?
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"You'll be rich."
Yes, which is why I scoff at the likes of al Gores 23 gallons of Co2 from 1 gallon of gasoline and 23 tons of co2 from 1 ton of coal along with the fancy chemical theory scribles of how this supposedly happens
Mythbusters measured
watch?v=oQzpsBmGeNs
Their car makes about 68 grams of Co2 a gallon with the high point of 15% by volume being about 323 grams a gallon
So much for me buying that yacht and Leer Jet by simply turning 3.87 a Gallon of Gasoline to $230 of Co2 (sigh)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel =I scoff at Gores 23 gallons of Co2 from 1 gallon of gasoline...Mythbusters measured....about 68 grams of Co2 a gallon=
Er, the clip you're on about claims 63g CO2 per MILE not gallon. Very different.
Combustion of 1 gal of gasoline yields nearly 9kg of CO2 (over 1000 gallons if you must!). As an engine tuner I know that much is fact. My car does 40mpg in the cruise. As a driver I know that much is reality. So that's >25 gallons CO2 per mile. FYI.
ggl: EPA emission facts.
XPLAlN 1 year ago
@XPLAlN Angel doesn't want facts! Who needs facts when you have such a fantastic conspiracy theory going?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
"Angel doesn't want facts! Who needs facts when you have such a fantastic conspiracy theory going?"
Sucking at math has nothing to do with conspiracy theories
Was 120 grams of co2 a mile on the jetta not 68 grams a gallon
I goofed, get over it(I did)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Er, the clip you're on about claims 63g CO2 per MILE not gallon. Very different."
Actually they don't say that either,they just say 3% of Volume and 70% less then regular cars
YOu need to plug in numbers per second and......oh shit 120 grams a mile...my bad
"Combustion of 1 gal of gasoline yields nearly 9kg of CO2"
Unless there is a catalyst converter converting CO into CO2 by chemically forcing the extra oxygen on to otherwise chemically stable CO, no...It's all air intake or contaminates
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"As a driver I know that much is reality."
120 grams a mile on a 35 mile a gallon car would be 4.2kg a gallon while a SUV with 8 miles a gallon putting out 70% more (120 /.30 =400g x 8) would put out 3.2kg co2 a gallon
that.s (0.45359237 x 4.2) 1.9lb a gallon not 23 and (0.45359237 x 3.2) 1.45lb co2 not 23
"ggl: EPA emission facts."
Did you notice "Computer simulation", "Estimates"" and "use of computer models rather then real cars" in the footnotes and disclaimers? (just saying)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel =120 grams a mile on a 35 mile a gallon=
Er, schoolboy error right there. Any car that can return 120g per mile on diesel is managing approx 85mpg not 35mpg. There's no getting away from it - unless you've got neat diesel pissing out the fuel pipe [rolls eyes]
The C and H content of fuel is known within limits. Ergo we know how much H2O and CO2 will result from burning a gallon of the stuff with the correct amount of oxygen. Less CO2 = inefficient combustion = less mpg. QED.
XPLAlN 1 year ago
"The C and H content of fuel is known within limits. Ergo we know how much H2O and CO2 will result from burning a gallon of the stuff "
YOu aare trying to create mass from something that reduces oxygen ffrom 25$ of volume to 14% and hydrocarbon from 50% of the mist spray in the piston to 3% of the Exhaust with Co2 being 3.5% and CO .003 and OC 0% as sh0own on the emissions screen
Mass is being loss as it is converted to energy in a exothermic reaction in the form of heat (70%)and force(30%)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Mass is being loss as it is converted to energy in a exothermic reaction in the form of heat (70%)and force(30%)"
It's why the engine gets hot, the milisecond of air rich gasoline being pumpoed into a pistion and then sparked causes a "imperfect combustion" of the detonation(faster then sound) type that flashes only long enough to blast the piston up with remaining gasoline in piston being caremelized into "gunk" that is ejected into ecb nowadays but used to oxidize into CARBON MONOXIDE 1994
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
".So that's >25 gallons CO2 per mile. FYI."
Other thing not totally clear is if they did the test Scrubbers on or scrubbers off, ECB on or ECB off, Air filter on or air filter off
Oh and for that other 93% of volume....air at 11kg a second,thats 390.6kg air over 35 miles and if you divide that is 4.2kg co2 / 390.6kg air you get .0107 or roughly 1% of air being exhausted out
Wonder if "Air" was "evil" they be saying fossil fuels "creates" 878 gallons of air per gallon of gas? lol
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel =Other thing not totally clear is if they did the test Scrubbers on or scrubbers off, ECB on or ECB off, Air filter on or air filter off=
Right. So it's not terribly relevant because we don't know what we're dealing with. Here's a bit if advice for you - if you're going to cite something to support your 'point', at least try and use a source that you yourself consider to be credible [rolls eyes]
XPLAlN 1 year ago
"So it's not terribly relevant because we don't know what we're dealing with."
An Exhaust reading with ECB and Scubbers according to California Standards (one of the strictest in the US) usingi Gasoline cut with 10% menthonal (that has Co2 in it from the fermentation process)
"Here's a bit if advice for you - if you're going to cite something to support your 'point', at least try and use a source that you yourself consider to be credible"
little vague, yes,but unpoliticaly credible
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel =usingi Gasoline cut with 10% menthonal=
Menthonal? Is that the same stuff as them there menthonal cigarettes?
XPLAlN 1 year ago
"The the Political environuts don't want "sequestering" as a "solution" they want us "off oil"...pfft"
P.S. The major problem with their narrow minded thinking is Oil/Coal/Natural Gas is used to make the glass and plastic and diodes in solar pannels with greese from oil to move the panels gear, windmillds have carbon fib,plastic and steel bodies formed from,created with or forged with oil diriates,and "biofuels" from corn ,a mutant crop, takes 5 Gallons of Oil to make 1 gallon of "biofuel"..pfft
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
4) temperature effects how fast co2 falls from evaporation...colder means co2 falls fast,warmer means co2 floats
5) Like on Mauna Loa, Co2 rolls downhill from the vent to the station then to base of mountain then into soil,water,ice
6)Hibernating plants exhale co2
7) Spurting plants eat more co2
8) wind displaces and spreads %
Because of this ,if the Keeling Station didn't "standardize it's tests" CO2 fluctuates between 88ppm and 460pp at any moment in any patch of air on any place on earth
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
The moral of the story is pretty obvious to me, and it should be to every conspiracy theorist/global warming denier/insert desired group of misinformed individuals:
Don't get your science information from a news program. They're going to get it wrong, and misunderstanding their mistakes because of scientific illiteracy or ideological preferences is only going to compound just how mistaken your positions are.
Or in smaller words for the dumb: News stupid, no listen them, read real book.
EdwardHowton 1 year ago 2
I’m confused about the reference to “secular changes.”
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
@lazyperfectionist1 =I’m confused about the reference to “secular changes.”= It means changes that happen over long periods of time.
potholer54 1 year ago
@potholer54 Ah. Okay. Thank you. That makes much more sense now.
lazyperfectionist1 1 year ago
That was the last useful thing I''ll learn in 2010. Happy New Year bitches, let 's get drunk!
michaelwitbeck 1 year ago
Potholer54 another great video keep up the good work and commitment.
Bhags7 1 year ago
I don't believe you !!!!!!!! You're so stupid................ Wait there, i did what you said and checked and it would appear you're right lol
123columbo123 1 year ago
Good video. Thanks
thesingaporesling 1 year ago
Media people don't know shit. They just report anything they can find.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Oh wow, I learned something really cool in this episode. :) Sinking islands, badass!
puellanivis 1 year ago
Next video? I am guessing you are already doing it... YAY!!! Can't wait.
Happy new year!
motanium 1 year ago
Lol. Scotland FTW
tammyscotland 1 year ago
Complete win!
drchaffee 1 year ago
fantastic
kittyfluffins 1 year ago
840 thumbs up to 1 thumbs down.
From a christian point of view thats about even.
pchtermino1 1 year ago
Nice job guy !! LOL. I hear a lot of cheering over england sinking . OH , the love is gone !!
MrJujitsu62 1 year ago
Englands sinking, hip hip hooray
thekwizatshaderach 1 year ago
booya!
GuppyPal 1 year ago
Dang it. I agree with your later comments and am informed by the earlier part. Nothing to pick on here.
Seriously, clear science reporting. This is the kind of reporting that gets the job done.
So how long does glacial rebound last? I would assume most of it would occur during the first few thousand years? Yes that's a question.
PQRLOVE 1 year ago 4
@PQRLOVE -- =So how long does glacial rebound last?= I couldn't tell you without checking. But it is still happening in Britain, Canada and other parts of the world 10,000 years after the end of the last glaciation.
potholer54 1 year ago 3
Lesson from this;
Don't get your science from media outlets. Many folks cannot understand this simple rule of thumb. Even science editors or reporters cannot bring the science to the public and should always be referenced so that one can check out the report. Also, so many people do not have a basic understanding of the scientific method, eventhough it is supposed to be learned in High schools around the civilized world. (they must of fogotten most of it)
Good vid Potholer.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Because it's not science? I shouldn't have to explain to you, the problem that arises when a non-science poses as science, and then you have educational institutions that should know better.
BioLogicalNerd 1 year ago
Comment removed
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Why are you bringing up geology when I was talking about something else? Please stop wasting my time.
BioLogicalNerd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BioLogicalNerd "Please stop wasting my time."
Way to be a dick. I had you confused for someone else.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@BioLogicalNerd (Ignore last comment.)
Yes, Astrology isn't science last I checked... However, if - like you said - it has scientific peer-reviewed journals that publish papers in accordance with scientific methodology... Then, hell yes it is.
You shouldn't let your prejudices get in the way. Science seeks answers, not establishes them like a dogma. Science is the way things *should* be studied.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Ice sheets 20,000 years ago?
Tectonic plates?
These explanations will have the average young earth creationist rolling around on the floor, laughing their heads off, as they clutch their inerrant scriptures in a bid to keep a grip on reality.
bakedbean37 1 year ago
@bakedbean37 That's terrible of you.
Rock has viscosity too. If you apply pressure to it, it will bulge with time, in this case a very long time, but it's an option because gravity never ceases to act. Remove a huge chunk of ice from the land and it will take the terrain some time to react to outside pressures it would resist earlier because of added weight.
SexyMelon 1 year ago