| Hvad er ikke sagt16-12-2023 23:07 |
James_☆☆☆☆☆
(20) |
Mængden af O2 i troposfæren er faldende. Skovrydning, kemiske processer og afbrænding af brændstoffer reducerer O2-niveauet.
The amount of O2 in the troposphere is decreasing. Deforestation, chemical processes and burning fuels decreases O2 levels.
Hvorfor betyder det noget? Mindre O2 (ilt) i troposfæren reducerer mængden af atmosfærisk forcering kan bevæge sig ind i stratosfæren.
Why does this matter? Less O2 (oxygen) in the troposphere decreases the amount that atmospheric forcing could move into the stratosphere.
Forskning, jeg vil forfølge, vil afgøre, om CO2 i regnskyer genererer den CO2, CH4 og O2, som atmosfærisk forcering bevæger sig ind i stratosfæren, så ozonlaget kan genoprette.
Research I will be pursuing will determine if CO2 in rain clouds are generating the CO2, CH4 and O2 that atmospheric forcing moves into the stratosphere so the ozone layer can recover.
Mange stormfronter følger jetstrømmen. Det er jetstrømmen, der er ansvarlig for det meste af den atmosfæriske forcering mellem troposfæren og stratosfæren.
Many storm fronts follow the jet stream. It is the jet stream that is responsible for most of the atmospheric forcing between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
UV-stråling, der er elektromagnetisk stråling, er en energikilde fra Solen. Når det er sagt, er skovrydning og nedbrydning af ozonlaget begge parallelt med den globale opvarmning.
UV radiation being electromagnetic radiation is a source of energy from the Sun. With that said, deforestation and the depletion of the ozone layer both parallel global warming. |
| 17-12-2023 21:20 |
Robert Wagner★★★★★
(3568) |
James_ skrev:
UV-stråling, der er elektromagnetisk stråling, er en energikilde fra Solen. Når det er sagt, er skovrydning og nedbrydning af ozonlaget begge parallelt med den globale opvarmning.
UV radiation being electromagnetic radiation is a source of energy from the Sun. With that said, deforestation and the depletion of the ozone layer both parallel global warming.
Ozon layer depletion did not cause global warming, since the oxon layer has been recovering after the ban of CFCs.
Global warming has accelerated, while the ozon layer has recovered even better than hoped.
Blaming global warming on ozon layer depletion is fossile fuel propaganda misinformation or plain and simply speaking, just a lie.
Live long and prosper.
errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum
Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens.
Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming.
Redigeret d. 17-12-2023 21:22 |
| 19-12-2023 15:27 |
James_☆☆☆☆☆
(20) |
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
UV-stråling, der er elektromagnetisk stråling, er en energikilde fra Solen. Når det er sagt, er skovrydning og nedbrydning af ozonlaget begge parallelt med den globale opvarmning.
UV radiation being electromagnetic radiation is a source of energy from the Sun. With that said, deforestation and the depletion of the ozone layer both parallel global warming.
Ozon layer depletion did not cause global warming, since the oxon layer has been recovering after the ban of CFCs.
Global warming has accelerated, while the ozon layer has recovered even better than hoped.
Blaming global warming on ozon layer depletion is fossile fuel propaganda misinformation or plain and simply speaking, just a lie.
I took the time to do the math. CO2 and CH4 are helping the ozone layer to recover. Lowering CO2 emissions might cause ozone levels to decrease.
To the right of the red is now and that is a deficit. It's projecting for the ozone layer to recover in 2060. If you consider the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, that will help to bring warm water up towards Norway.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall16/atmo336s2/lectures/sec3/ozone.html
Tilknyttet billede:
 |
| 19-12-2023 15:41 |
Robert Wagner★★★★★
(3568) |
James_ skrev:
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
UV-stråling, der er elektromagnetisk stråling, er en energikilde fra Solen. Når det er sagt, er skovrydning og nedbrydning af ozonlaget begge parallelt med den globale opvarmning.
UV radiation being electromagnetic radiation is a source of energy from the Sun. With that said, deforestation and the depletion of the ozone layer both parallel global warming.
Ozon layer depletion did not cause global warming, since the oxon layer has been recovering after the ban of CFCs.
Global warming has accelerated, while the ozon layer has recovered even better than hoped.
Blaming global warming on ozon layer depletion is fossile fuel propaganda misinformation or plain and simply speaking, just a lie.
I took the time to do the math. CO2 and CH4 are helping the ozone layer to recover. Lowering CO2 emissions might cause ozone levels to decrease.
To the right of the red is now and that is a deficit. It's projecting for the ozone layer to recover in 2060. If you consider the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, that will help to bring warm water up towards Norway.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall16/atmo336s2/lectures/sec3/ozone.html
The whole thing with the ozon layer is just another wild goise chase, the fossile industry wants us to waste time on.
The ozon layer has recovered, because of the ban of CFCs and lower CO2 values will not stop the recovery process, since the recovery process started, when CO2 levels where much lower than now.
Live long and prosper.
errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum
Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens.
Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. |
| 19-12-2023 22:34 |
James_☆☆☆☆☆
(20) |
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
UV-stråling, der er elektromagnetisk stråling, er en energikilde fra Solen. Når det er sagt, er skovrydning og nedbrydning af ozonlaget begge parallelt med den globale opvarmning.
UV radiation being electromagnetic radiation is a source of energy from the Sun. With that said, deforestation and the depletion of the ozone layer both parallel global warming.
Ozon layer depletion did not cause global warming, since the oxon layer has been recovering after the ban of CFCs.
Global warming has accelerated, while the ozon layer has recovered even better than hoped.
Blaming global warming on ozon layer depletion is fossile fuel propaganda misinformation or plain and simply speaking, just a lie.
I took the time to do the math. CO2 and CH4 are helping the ozone layer to recover. Lowering CO2 emissions might cause ozone levels to decrease.
To the right of the red is now and that is a deficit. It's projecting for the ozone layer to recover in 2060. If you consider the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, that will help to bring warm water up towards Norway.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall16/atmo336s2/lectures/sec3/ozone.html
The whole thing with the ozon layer is just another wild goise chase, the fossile industry wants us to waste time on.
The ozon layer has recovered, because of the ban of CFCs and lower CO2 values will not stop the recovery process, since the recovery process started, when CO2 levels where much lower than now.
Burning fossil fuels is why the ozone layer is recovering. That is what the IPCC says and not me.
Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.
For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html
My experiment is to show/explain what the IPCC does not understand about its own report. https://climate-cycling.com/cold-fusion |
|
| 20-12-2023 17:08 |
Robert Wagner★★★★★
(3568) |
James_ skrev:
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
UV-stråling, der er elektromagnetisk stråling, er en energikilde fra Solen. Når det er sagt, er skovrydning og nedbrydning af ozonlaget begge parallelt med den globale opvarmning.
UV radiation being electromagnetic radiation is a source of energy from the Sun. With that said, deforestation and the depletion of the ozone layer both parallel global warming.
Ozon layer depletion did not cause global warming, since the oxon layer has been recovering after the ban of CFCs.
Global warming has accelerated, while the ozon layer has recovered even better than hoped.
Blaming global warming on ozon layer depletion is fossile fuel propaganda misinformation or plain and simply speaking, just a lie.
I took the time to do the math. CO2 and CH4 are helping the ozone layer to recover. Lowering CO2 emissions might cause ozone levels to decrease.
To the right of the red is now and that is a deficit. It's projecting for the ozone layer to recover in 2060. If you consider the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, that will help to bring warm water up towards Norway.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall16/atmo336s2/lectures/sec3/ozone.html
The whole thing with the ozon layer is just another wild goise chase, the fossile industry wants us to waste time on.
The ozon layer has recovered, because of the ban of CFCs and lower CO2 values will not stop the recovery process, since the recovery process started, when CO2 levels where much lower than now.
Burning fossil fuels is why the ozone layer is recovering. That is what the IPCC says and not me.
Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.
For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html
My experiment is to show/explain what the IPCC does not understand about its own report. https://climate-cycling.com/cold-fusion
What do you mean the IPCC doesn't understand about their own report?
No, lowering emissions doesn't even reduce atmospheric CO2 at first, it will slow down the increase.
Then, after some more time and more emission reduction, CO2 levels might start to drop, but it will still take a long time for CO2 levels to drop to the level it was at the time CFCs were banned.
Since ozon levels started to recover quite kigely, after CFCs were banned, thrre is enough evidence to conclude that the ozon recovery will vontinue, ecen after CO2 and CH4 levels fall below the values of the 90's.
Why do you mention cold fusion???
Chemical reactions have nothing to do with fusion.
Live long and prosper.
errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum
Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens.
Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. |
| 21-12-2023 16:42 |
James_☆☆☆☆☆
(20) |
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
UV-stråling, der er elektromagnetisk stråling, er en energikilde fra Solen. Når det er sagt, er skovrydning og nedbrydning af ozonlaget begge parallelt med den globale opvarmning.
UV radiation being electromagnetic radiation is a source of energy from the Sun. With that said, deforestation and the depletion of the ozone layer both parallel global warming.
Ozon layer depletion did not cause global warming, since the oxon layer has been recovering after the ban of CFCs.
Global warming has accelerated, while the ozon layer has recovered even better than hoped.
Blaming global warming on ozon layer depletion is fossile fuel propaganda misinformation or plain and simply speaking, just a lie.
I took the time to do the math. CO2 and CH4 are helping the ozone layer to recover. Lowering CO2 emissions might cause ozone levels to decrease.
To the right of the red is now and that is a deficit. It's projecting for the ozone layer to recover in 2060. If you consider the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, that will help to bring warm water up towards Norway.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall16/atmo336s2/lectures/sec3/ozone.html
The whole thing with the ozon layer is just another wild goise chase, the fossile industry wants us to waste time on.
The ozon layer has recovered, because of the ban of CFCs and lower CO2 values will not stop the recovery process, since the recovery process started, when CO2 levels where much lower than now.
Burning fossil fuels is why the ozone layer is recovering. That is what the IPCC says and not me.
Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.
For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html
My experiment is to show/explain what the IPCC does not understand about its own report. https://climate-cycling.com/cold-fusion
What do you mean the IPCC doesn't understand about their own report?
No, lowering emissions doesn't even reduce atmospheric CO2 at first, it will slow down the increase.
Then, after some more time and more emission reduction, CO2 levels might start to drop, but it will still take a long time for CO2 levels to drop to the level it was at the time CFCs were banned.
Since ozon levels started to recover quite kigely, after CFCs were banned, thrre is enough evidence to conclude that the ozon recovery will vontinue, ecen after CO2 and CH4 levels fall below the values of the 90's.
Why do you mention cold fusion???
Chemical reactions have nothing to do with fusion.
Robert, In the middle of the page (watch the side bar moving down on the right of your screen) this link
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html will say
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone.
The experiment on Cold Fusion if successful would demonstrate that H2O and CO2 (the 2 most important greenhouse gasses) are helping the ozone layer to recover.
I think the IPCC is aware that countries like India and China will be building more
coal fired power plants in their countries. While they say CO2 levels need to be lowered they know CO2 emissions will be increasing.
India and coal; https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-scrambles-add-coal-fired-power-capacity-avoid-outages-sources-2023-11-29/
China and coal; https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-new-coal-plants-set-become-costly-second-fiddle-renewables-2023-03-22/
And with Bessler's Wheel, that might encourage alternative thinking into generating hydrogen or methane to use in a system that recycles its emissions. Methane can become CH4 + 3O3 > CO2 + 2H2O, 1 CH4 molecule + 3 oxygen molecules becomes
1 CO2 molecule plus 2H2O molecules.
If something like Bessler's Wheel provides clean energy for converting CO2 and H2O
into methane then the system generating energy would essentially be using the same molecules to produce energy as it emits. |
| 21-12-2023 17:10 |
Robert Wagner★★★★★
(3568) |
James_ skrev:
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
UV-stråling, der er elektromagnetisk stråling, er en energikilde fra Solen. Når det er sagt, er skovrydning og nedbrydning af ozonlaget begge parallelt med den globale opvarmning.
UV radiation being electromagnetic radiation is a source of energy from the Sun. With that said, deforestation and the depletion of the ozone layer both parallel global warming.
Ozon layer depletion did not cause global warming, since the oxon layer has been recovering after the ban of CFCs.
Global warming has accelerated, while the ozon layer has recovered even better than hoped.
Blaming global warming on ozon layer depletion is fossile fuel propaganda misinformation or plain and simply speaking, just a lie.
I took the time to do the math. CO2 and CH4 are helping the ozone layer to recover. Lowering CO2 emissions might cause ozone levels to decrease.
To the right of the red is now and that is a deficit. It's projecting for the ozone layer to recover in 2060. If you consider the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, that will help to bring warm water up towards Norway.
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall16/atmo336s2/lectures/sec3/ozone.html
The whole thing with the ozon layer is just another wild goise chase, the fossile industry wants us to waste time on.
The ozon layer has recovered, because of the ban of CFCs and lower CO2 values will not stop the recovery process, since the recovery process started, when CO2 levels where much lower than now.
Burning fossil fuels is why the ozone layer is recovering. That is what the IPCC says and not me.
Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.
For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases.
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html
My experiment is to show/explain what the IPCC does not understand about its own report. https://climate-cycling.com/cold-fusion
What do you mean the IPCC doesn't understand about their own report?
No, lowering emissions doesn't even reduce atmospheric CO2 at first, it will slow down the increase.
Then, after some more time and more emission reduction, CO2 levels might start to drop, but it will still take a long time for CO2 levels to drop to the level it was at the time CFCs were banned.
Since ozon levels started to recover quite kigely, after CFCs were banned, thrre is enough evidence to conclude that the ozon recovery will vontinue, ecen after CO2 and CH4 levels fall below the values of the 90's.
Why do you mention cold fusion???
Chemical reactions have nothing to do with fusion.
Robert, In the middle of the page (watch the side bar moving down on the right of your screen) this link
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html will say
Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone.
The experiment on Cold Fusion if successful would demonstrate that H2O and CO2 (the 2 most important greenhouse gasses) are helping the ozone layer to recover.
I think the IPCC is aware that countries like India and China will be building more
coal fired power plants in their countries. While they say CO2 levels need to be lowered they know CO2 emissions will be increasing.
India and coal; https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-scrambles-add-coal-fired-power-capacity-avoid-outages-sources-2023-11-29/
China and coal; https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-new-coal-plants-set-become-costly-second-fiddle-renewables-2023-03-22/
And with Bessler's Wheel, that might encourage alternative thinking into generating hydrogen or methane to use in a system that recycles its emissions. Methane can become CH4 + 3O3 > CO2 + 2H2O, 1 CH4 molecule + 3 oxygen molecules becomes
1 CO2 molecule plus 2H2O molecules.
If something like Bessler's Wheel provides clean energy for converting CO2 and H2O
into methane then the system generating energy would essentially be using the same molecules to produce energy as it emits.
Again, chemistry and cold fusion qre two different things.
That and the fact that you enetrtain the idea of perpetuum mobiles tells me you do not know the most vasic stuff about chemistry or physics and you should leave science to scientists.
Live long and prosper.
errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum
Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens.
Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. |
| 25-12-2023 04:21 |
James_☆☆☆☆☆
(20) |
Robert Wagner skrev:
Again, chemistry and cold fusion qre two different things.
That and the fact that you enetrtain the idea of perpetuum mobiles tells me you do not know the most vasic stuff about chemistry or physics and you should leave science to scientists.
The police told me if I rob a store for $1 so I can have surgery, I will be arrested.
I am doing what the law allows for. And what does science allow for? I think they got it wrong. Ozone depletion and deforestation parallels global warming, rising CO2 levels do not.
A Danish scientist has changed an opinion he wrote in response to the question "What ended the last ice age?". What he said was that CO2 levels did not allow for climate ripples; https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097/
That is what scientists know but not why. What is on my website https://climate-cycling.com/ might help to explain why. |
| 25-12-2023 10:40 |
Robert Wagner★★★★★
(3568) |
James_ skrev:
The police told me if I rob a store for $1 so I can have surgery, I will be arrested.
I am doing what the law allows for. And what does science allow for? I think they got it wrong. Ozone depletion and deforestation parallels global warming, rising CO2 levels do not.
A Danish scientist has changed an opinion he wrote in response to the question "What ended the last ice age?". What he said was that CO2 levels did not allow for climate ripples; https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097/
That is what scientists know but not why. What is on my website https://climate-cycling.com/ might help to explain why.
No. Ozon depletion does not follow gloval warming.
What's your cold fusion reaction?
Live long and prosper.
errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum
Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens.
Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. |
| 26-12-2023 09:50 |
Jørgen Petersen★★★★★
(4852) |
Husk at GW er en fordel, og det specielt for os i det kolde nord. |
| 26-12-2023 17:41 |
Peter Villadsen★★★★★
(2686) |
Vi kan ikke huse 10 milliarder i det kolde nord. |
| 26-12-2023 17:58 |
Jørgen Petersen★★★★★
(4852) |
Bullshit
Alle de gamle civilisationer var i nærheden af ækvator hvor det altid er mere eller mindre varmt. Og her har de levet rigtig godt, og det i både kulde- og varmeperioder. |
| 26-12-2023 18:00 |
James_☆☆☆☆☆
(20) |
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
The police told me if I rob a store for $1 so I can have surgery, I will be arrested.
I am doing what the law allows for. And what does science allow for? I think they got it wrong. Ozone depletion and deforestation parallels global warming, rising CO2 levels do not.
A Danish scientist has changed an opinion he wrote in response to the question "What ended the last ice age?". What he said was that CO2 levels did not allow for climate ripples; https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097/
That is what scientists know but not why. What is on my website https://climate-cycling.com/ might help to explain why.
No. Ozon depletion does not follow gloval warming.
What's your cold fusion reaction?
This graph came up with scientists discussing different aspects of climate change. I added GW graph to show the relationship.
Tilknyttet billede:
Redigeret d. 26-12-2023 18:01 |
| 26-12-2023 18:06 |
James_☆☆☆☆☆
(20) |
Jørgen Petersen skrev:
Bullshit
Alle de gamle civilisationer var i nærheden af ækvator hvor det altid er mere eller mindre varmt. Og her har de levet rigtig godt, og det i både kulde- og varmeperioder.
Jeg plejede at bo i Norge, hvorfor jeg er klar over, hvordan klimaforandringerne påvirker det land. Et nyligt afsløret bjergpas var åbent fra 300 til 1.500 f.Kr. så du kan være varm et stykke tid.
https://innlandetfylke.no/_f/p1/i66a24b0c-5ba5-4458-800d-116a82fb723f/crossing_the_ice_final_proof.pdf |
|
| 26-12-2023 18:11 |
James_☆☆☆☆☆
(20) |
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
The police told me if I rob a store for $1 so I can have surgery, I will be arrested.
I am doing what the law allows for. And what does science allow for? I think they got it wrong. Ozone depletion and deforestation parallels global warming, rising CO2 levels do not.
A Danish scientist has changed an opinion he wrote in response to the question "What ended the last ice age?". What he said was that CO2 levels did not allow for climate ripples; https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097/
That is what scientists know but not why. What is on my website https://climate-cycling.com/ might help to explain why.
No. Ozon depletion does not follow gloval warming.
What's your cold fusion reaction?
It already happens in nature. What I'll be suggesting is that a variation of Coulomb's law might be responsible for naturally occurring CH2O and CH4.
That's why an actual experiment will be required. If it is successful then I
might have realized a new process in science.
And then botanists would consider if a similar process is responsible for photosynthesis.
https://www.botanical-online.com/en/botany/photosynthesis
Tilknyttet billede:
 |
| 27-12-2023 12:56 |
Robert Wagner★★★★★
(3568) |
James_ skrev:
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
The police told me if I rob a store for $1 so I can have surgery, I will be arrested.
I am doing what the law allows for. And what does science allow for? I think they got it wrong. Ozone depletion and deforestation parallels global warming, rising CO2 levels do not.
A Danish scientist has changed an opinion he wrote in response to the question "What ended the last ice age?". What he said was that CO2 levels did not allow for climate ripples; https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097/
That is what scientists know but not why. What is on my website https://climate-cycling.com/ might help to explain why.
No. Ozon depletion does not follow gloval warming.
What's your cold fusion reaction?
It already happens in nature. What I'll be suggesting is that a variation of Coulomb's law might be responsible for naturally occurring CH2O and CH4.
That's why an actual experiment will be required. If it is successful then I
might have realized a new process in science.
And then botanists would consider if a similar process is responsible for photosynthesis.
https://www.botanical-online.com/en/botany/photosynthesis
That's not cold fusion, just a normal chemical reaction.
And it has nothing to do with Coulombs law either.
Back to school...
Live long and prosper.
errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum
Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens.
Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. |
| 02-01-2024 05:25 |
James_☆☆☆☆☆
(20) |
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
The police told me if I rob a store for $1 so I can have surgery, I will be arrested.
I am doing what the law allows for. And what does science allow for? I think they got it wrong. Ozone depletion and deforestation parallels global warming, rising CO2 levels do not.
A Danish scientist has changed an opinion he wrote in response to the question "What ended the last ice age?". What he said was that CO2 levels did not allow for climate ripples; https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097/
That is what scientists know but not why. What is on my website https://climate-cycling.com/ might help to explain why.
No. Ozon depletion does not follow gloval warming.
What's your cold fusion reaction?
It already happens in nature. What I'll be suggesting is that a variation of Coulomb's law might be responsible for naturally occurring CH2O and CH4.
That's why an actual experiment will be required. If it is successful then I
might have realized a new process in science.
And then botanists would consider if a similar process is responsible for photosynthesis.
https://www.botanical-online.com/en/botany/photosynthesis
That's not cold fusion, just a normal chemical reaction.
And it has nothing to do with Coulombs law either.
Back to school...
It's not considered to happen. If it were a normal reaction then photolytics would allow for it. A successful experiment means it is a new discovery in science. It would also prove that CO2 directly supports recovery of the ozone layer. That would agree with the IPCC's report. |
| 02-01-2024 07:47 |
Robert Wagner★★★★★
(3568) |
James_ skrev:
It's not considered to happen. If it were a normal reaction then photolytics would allow for it. A successful experiment means it is a new discovery in science. It would also prove that CO2 directly supports recovery of the ozone layer. That would agree with the IPCC's report.
No it's not a fusion reaction. Where is your fusion?
Fo you even know ehat fusion is?
Live long and prosper.
errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum
Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens.
Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. |
| 02-01-2024 19:37 |
James_☆☆☆☆☆
(20) |
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
It's not considered to happen. If it were a normal reaction then photolytics would allow for it. A successful experiment means it is a new discovery in science. It would also prove that CO2 directly supports recovery of the ozone layer. That would agree with the IPCC's report.
No it's not a fusion reaction. Where is your fusion?
Fo you even know ehat fusion is?
They say this is fusion like the Sun only at much higher temperatures; https://www.iter.org/
My issue is if they are generating 2/4He then why are they stripping the shells off of the tritium molecules? |
| 02-01-2024 20:01 |
Robert Wagner★★★★★
(3568) |
James_ skrev:
Robert Wagner skrev:
James_ skrev:
It's not considered to happen. If it were a normal reaction then photolytics would allow for it. A successful experiment means it is a new discovery in science. It would also prove that CO2 directly supports recovery of the ozone layer. That would agree with the IPCC's report.
No it's not a fusion reaction. Where is your fusion?
Fo you even know ehat fusion is?
They say this is fusion like the Sun only at much higher temperatures; https://www.iter.org/
So which nuclei are getting fused in your cold fusion reaction?
My issue is if they are generating 2/4He then why are they stripping the shells off of the tritium molecules?
Live long and prosper.
errare humanum est, in errore perseverare stultum
Hvis det påstås uden evidens, så kan det afvises uden evidens.
Kun fjolser nægter fortsat menneskskabte klimaforandringer/global warming. |