Author Topic: Not So Healthy Living  (Read 1348 times)

Offline Solars Toy

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2605
  • Gender: Female
  • Proud Conservative Woman
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2019, 07:16:00 AM »
If you make your bed, you have to sleep in it. Nobody forced them to commit those crimes. They have to be punished. And, the are only doing certain things. They are not war prisoners building a bridge like in the movie "Bridge Over The River Kwai". Other then that, most of them have more perks than most people have. Some people don't have three meals a day, gym privileges, or cable TV.

They forcing those kids to eat what they say they should eat. They are forcing people to do something. There is no comparison of the two.

I worked in a County jail environment.  Nobody was forced to do any labor.  If you wanted to sit on your ass all day that was your choice.  If you wanted extra perks or were bored then you could apply to work some jobs.  Kitchen worker, clean the module etc.  My brother worked he was in charge of building maintenance,  in the Kansas prison system.  Same idea except they could work actual blue collar jobs if they passed the clearances.

Toy
« Last Edit: October 29, 2019, 07:27:46 AM by Solars Toy »
“It’s comes down to a simple choice really, get busy living or get busy dying.”

Offline TheFlemishDuck

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Gender: Male
  • not strictly a conservative
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2019, 09:10:18 AM »

But to address your BS about Co2 being a heat trapping gas? I know this will probably go right over your head, but you are more than welcome to disprove his math.

First of all, this publication doesn't even claim that Co2 is not a greenhouse gas.

What the publication claims is that the molecular density of C02 in the troposphere is too small to do sufficient refraction. Aka he argues that Co2 fails to act as greenhouse gas in his randomly selected part of the troposphere because of the local conditions.

I know enough of thermodynamics to see that his research is incomplete and has various uncertainty's. He used a average molecular density of Co2 in the troposphere as basis, he also used an average value of the density of water vapor, however the atmosphere is not solely made of troposphere afcourse and the heat and pressure difference's between various atmospheric layers affects the molecular density of Co2 and H20 graduatly rather than having atmospheric layers of a given temperature. To quote his conclusion:

At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 s, i.e. 2.45 cs (centiseconds). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.

Average density ... the extremes are huge especially knowing that water can exist in all 3 "aggregate conditions" (translation from dutch i dunno) within the atmosphere. Basicly liquid (water) solid (ice, or hail more specificly) and gas (water vapor) all exist in the atmosphere and the difference between these states is the molecular density. The % of praticles that will have this "average density" will be minute because these parts will exist at various density's trough the athomspheric layers depending on the (variable) local pressure and temperature conditions. Average density is a silly value imho to use here, or atleast he cannot definitivly conclude that Co2 cannot act as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere if he doesn't look at all the potential extreme values, perfecly logical argument right?

It shows it's issue already in the first equation:

ρCO2 = (12.187 * Molar mass of CO2 * volumetric fraction of CO2) / (276.69 K) = 756 mg/m^3.  (Ref. 7)

Where 12.187 is the molar mass of elemental carbon, 44.01 is the molar mass of carbon dioxide, 390 ppmV is the volumetric fraction of CO2 and 276.69 K is its temperature.


I mean, can you show me why we should take a random 276.69 Kalvin for the temperature of "the atmosphere"??




« Last Edit: October 29, 2019, 09:21:29 AM by TheFlemishDuck »
“It is always sound business to take any obtainable net gain, at any cost and at any risk to the rest of the community”
--Thorstein Veblen

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 68421
  • Gender: Male
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2019, 09:19:51 AM »
First of all, this publication doesn't even claim that Co2 is not a greenhouse gas.
Strawman.

Quote
What the publication claims is that the molecular density of C02 in the troposphere is too small to do sufficient refraction

I know enough of thermodynamics to see that his research is incomplete and has various uncertainty's. He used a average molecular density of Co2 in the troposphere as basis, he also used an average value of the density of water vapor, however the atmosphere is not solely made of troposphere afcourse and the heat and pressure difference's between various atmospheric layers affects the molecular density of Co2 and H20 graduatly rather than having atmospheric layers of a given temperature. To quote his conclusion:

At an average density, the atmospheric water vapor allows quantum/waves to cross the troposphere to the tropopause in 0.0245 s, i.e. 2.45 cs (centiseconds). By comparing the ability of water vapor to avoid that quantum/waves escape towards the outer space (0.5831 s) with the ability of CO2 (0.0049 s), I can affirm that the role of CO2 on warming the atmosphere or the surface is not possible according to Physics Laws.

Average density ... the extremes are huge especially knowing that water can exist in all 3 "aggregate conditions" (translation from dutch i dunno) within the atmosphere. Basicly liquid (water) solid (ice, or hail more specificly) and gas (water vapor) all exist in the atmosphere and the difference between these states is the molecular density.

It shows already i the first equation:

ρCO2 = (12.187 * Molar mass of CO2 * volumetric fraction of CO2) / (276.69 K) = 756 mg/m^3.  (Ref. 7)

Where 12.187 is the molar mass of elemental carbon, 44.01 is the molar mass of carbon dioxide, 390 ppmV is the volumetric fraction of CO2 and 276.69 K is its temperature.


I mean, can you show me why we should take a random 276.69 Kalvin for the temperature of "the atmosphere"??

Yet you know next to nothing.
Historical evidence displays more often than not, that Co2 increases followed warming than preceded it. Like I said, you are more than welcome to challenge the math.
By the way, despite all the bogus claims over warming, we're heading into a Maunder Minimum, which begs the question, What is the optimal temperature of the planet?
Personally, I prefer a warmer climate as opposed to what we can expect over the next 50 years.
#WWG1WGA

Offline TheFlemishDuck

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 70
  • Gender: Male
  • not strictly a conservative
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2019, 09:29:26 AM »
Strawman.


Wut? He argues that Co2 fails to act as greenhouse gas in his randomly selected part of the troposphere because of the local conditions, not that Co2 on itself is not a greenhouse gas. Feel free to quote the publication if you can prve otherwise.

Yet you know next to nothing.
Historical evidence displays more often than not, that Co2 increases followed warming than preceded it. Like I said, you are more than welcome to challenge the math.

I checked his math, he used random constant values that make no sense given the dynamic differences in termperature and pressure all along the troposphere.

Do you even understand what his publication is about???? how is it not obvious that using such constants simply cannot rationally end in the conclusion he made because if you make a excluding claim on the lines of "can not" then you must consider every potential condition rather than some selectivly chosen one.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2019, 09:36:59 AM by TheFlemishDuck »
“It is always sound business to take any obtainable net gain, at any cost and at any risk to the rest of the community”
--Thorstein Veblen

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 68421
  • Gender: Male
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2019, 11:59:15 AM »

Wut? He argues that Co2 fails to act as greenhouse gas in his randomly selected part of the troposphere because of the local conditions, not that Co2 on itself is not a greenhouse gas. Feel free to quote the publication if you can prve otherwise.

I checked his math, he used random constant values that make no sense given the dynamic differences in termperature and pressure all along the troposphere.

Do you even understand what his publication is about???? how is it not obvious that using such constants simply cannot rationally end in the conclusion he made because if you make a excluding claim on the lines of "can not" then you must consider every potential condition rather than some selectivly chosen one.
The big picture escapes you I see. His point is to show that Co2 is not the reactive gas the warmies claim it is.
There are other examples that show we are actually in a Co2 drought, that the planet needs more to improve life on the planet, which again begs the question, what is the nominal temperature of the planet?
How is it, with all the evidence to the contrary, you've bought the big lie? Look at the kids in this article. They're being indoctrinated into believing they are destroying the planet by eating meat, something man has done since his inception.
How is it you ignore the reality of the Carbon Tax scam, or the lying on temp data in an attempt to fool the masses, or the fact that only Western society is to blame, all the while letting the biggest polluter in the world (China) off the hook?
How do you justify all this evidence that it's a scam, and still carry water for the lie?
#WWG1WGA

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24338
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2019, 03:43:50 PM »
That man has inpact on climate change is the broadly accepted and normative scientific position.

No it isn't. You just lied.

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24338
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2019, 03:46:10 PM »

Do you even understand what his publication is about???? how is it not obvious that using such constants simply cannot rationally end in the conclusion he made because if you make a excluding claim on the lines of "can not" then you must consider every potential condition rather than some selectivly chosen one.

Is CO2 a pollutant?

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 68421
  • Gender: Male
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2019, 04:22:05 PM »
Is CO2 a pollutant?
:lol:
Plants love it, fire hates it. Where's the problem? :biggrin:
#WWG1WGA

Offline s3779m

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2871
  • Gender: Male
  • Keep looking, it's there
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2019, 05:59:02 AM »
This is not really part of the "climate warming" argument, but something made me post it here. I'm going to blame "global change" (did I get those reversed) for posting it.  https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-28-climate-alarmists-drop-polar-bear-as-mascot-thriving.html
Has any, even one, of the dire predictions that we have been warned of for the past 50 years come true?

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 68421
  • Gender: Male
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2019, 07:08:09 AM »
This is not really part of the "climate warming" argument, but something made me post it here. I'm going to blame "global change" (did I get those reversed) for posting it.  https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-28-climate-alarmists-drop-polar-bear-as-mascot-thriving.html
Has any, even one, of the dire predictions that we have been warned of for the past 50 years come true?
So leftist, isn't it? When a pawn is no longer feasible, they create a new one, be it the spotted owl, or a Smelt fish, when the public figures out they're being lied to, they find or create a new victim.
Remember the "Vernal Pool" claims a decade ago, where the EPA was fining farmers for plowing over mud puddles? The left claimed a certain kind of clam was being driven to extinction, when in fact it was a total BS lie. When was the last time you heard the term "Vernal Pool"? :lol:
#WWG1WGA

Offline tiny1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2019, 02:08:49 PM »
Usa maintains a system of penal labour that pushes a large amount of prisoners into forced involuntary labor besides having a high incarceration rate. This has been abolished in Europe.

The US 13th amendment allows slavery in the prison system, so this form of penal labor is also looked at as "legalised slavery".
Where in the World did you hear that lie?  C'mon man!  You been watching too much Cool Hand Luke. 
No one Is forced to work in US prisons.  Many earn work release status.  They work a full time job, and return to the facility to bathe, eat, and sleep.
They can exercise, go to college or get their GED, learn a trade, etc.
13th Amendment? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 1865?? :lol: :lol: :lol:
C'mon Man!  Quit believing the Liberal Hype and get real.  We are not a primeval cave dwelling community.  Your Quality of life would not be where it is, if not for the USA.  You'd be speaking either Russian or German, had we not been here.

Offline tiny1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #26 on: November 08, 2019, 02:46:48 PM »

Wut? He argues that Co2 fails to act as greenhouse gas in his randomly selected part of the troposphere because of the local conditions, not that Co2 on itself is not a greenhouse gas. Feel free to quote the publication if you can prve otherwise.

I checked his math, he used random constant values that make no sense given the dynamic differences in termperature and pressure all along the troposphere.

Do you even understand what his publication is about???? how is it not obvious that using such constants simply cannot rationally end in the conclusion he made because if you make a excluding claim on the lines of "can not" then you must consider every potential condition rather than some selectivly chosen one.
How about we stop with the technical Bafflegag, and get down to Common Sense.
CO2 is what plants breathe.  They expel O2 which animals breathe.  Have any of you Chicken Little Warmists ever taken note of what is happening in the Forests?  They grow faster with the increase in CO2.  God, or whatever you substitute for God, must have understood "Stasis" or equilibrium.  When trees lack CO@ they don't grow as well.  When it is cold, growth is limited.
Warm their surroundings, and increase their available Carbon, via CO2, and they grow.  When the trees grow, they give off a great deal of O2.  Animals benefit, and get more active, producing more CO2.  Been going this way for countless eons.  Now, y'all wanna convince us that we'll all be dead, in 12 years.
Oh, just so you know, the hole in the ozone layer that caused the aerosols to be banned, is still there.  Seems it was normal.  Oh and the Ice Age we were supposed to endure in the 1970s, never happened, and neither did Y2K, or the aligning of the planets.
And since much of the rest of the Solar System is experiencing the same rates of Cooling, and warming, I think it is safe to say that Global Warming and Climate Cooling Change is natural and not associated with our existence.  Now I know that must be disconcerting for a lib to try to digest, but just think.  The Scientists do not get a grant unless they have some catastrophe to avoid.  Follow the Money.

Offline cynical1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #27 on: November 09, 2019, 01:55:56 PM »
I have studied nutrition.

vegans never live long. I have studied many cases of people who were long-term vegans and they do not live long. The people who live longest, over 100, are meat eaters and also drink wine or some kind of alcohol regularly (drinking 2 excess also shortens life).

Vegans who push this kind of diet on their children have been convicted of child abuse when the child(ren) fail to thrive..

 

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 68421
  • Gender: Male
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #28 on: November 09, 2019, 02:01:08 PM »
I have studied nutrition.

vegans never live long. I have studied many cases of people who were long-term vegans and they do not live long. The people who live longest, over 100, are meat eaters and also drink wine or some kind of alcohol regularly (drinking 2 excess also shortens life).

Vegans who push this kind of diet on their children have been convicted of child abuse when the child(ren) fail to thrive..
Early man had a name for vegans. They called them bad hunters. :biggrin:
#WWG1WGA

Offline mrgrtt123

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Not So Healthy Living
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2019, 04:14:00 PM »
Anyone should never be forced to eat veggies. They should try to think of new advocacy instead of turning children into vegan.

 

Powered by EzPortal