Climate Change

[jlindgaard]

Not sure if this is known but CO2 in levels up to 330 ppm allow for an Ice Age every 40,000 years. Below 300 ppm, once every 100,000 years.

What is not known is how much a planet warms before an Ice Age starts.

 

edited to add; Claude Lorius used ice core samples going back 400,000 years when he became concerned about CO2 levels in the 1960's.

I am pursuing a project which if successful, I may have the opportunity to have tests done that will either support what I believe or will show that I am wrong.

@swansont,

I did mention in my thread CO2 that it may be possible for fluctuating vacuum to allow CO2 to be converted.

Can you show me the forum rule that states that proof has to be offered before a hypothesis is posted ? I doubt you can.

Have to wonder why you discourage pursuing a possible solution to rising CO2 levels. I know, you're a moderator. LMAO !

Edited June 13, 2015 by jlindgaard

[Harold Squared]

Commendable. I look forward with great interest to your findings. It would bolster your credibility with all of us if you could provide your sources.

 

Swanson is a straight shooter and does not have any interest in leading you astray, if you make any errors he will advise you and you would be better off knowing. All the mods on the board are volunteers and it is no benefit to any of us to waste their time, voice of experience here. If you feel singled out unfairly take your lumps and amend your behavior, you can do nothing about what is literally none of your business. Do not post unless you are in a thoughtful and calm frame of mind, and be willing to accept criticism, iron sharpens iron.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Harold Squared

[jlindgaard]

swnason,

Why you bother me is that Phi is also a moderator and did seem interested in why I disagree with mainstream thought on atmospheric and organic chemistry when it comes to CO2. All you have done is throw your weight around as moderator for what reason I don't know.

And I did say how my speculation could be tested, fluctuating vacuum. That does meet rule number 1 of the requirements of the rules of testing that this forum puts forth. With me, the testing doesn't matter if the principle behind it isn't understood.

And since you are a physicist, are you familiar with Einstein's or Planck's work ? I have a video demonstrating the black body radiation that Planck wanted to see. He did his experiment wrong. He did come up with his constant as a result. Doesn't matter though, it seems history has been rewritten.

[Harold Squared]

If the experiment is correctly designed and disagrees with the theory the theory must be amended. So make each of them as good as humanly possible, and be receptive to errors others can see and which you may have overlooked. They are helping you and the greater good.

[studiot]

Huffing and puffing creates hot air, not vacuum.

 

I don't need paragraphs of introduction I just need you to state your case, coldy and clinically, in three lines or less.

Edited June 13, 2015 by studiot

[jlindgaard]

Studiot,

Fluctuating vacuum. 2 words.

Why do I like this idea ? If 2 opposing cylinder open and close, they require less energy to generate vacuum.

With vacuum, I do believe that the carbon element can be moved from the CO2 molecule. As to what works financially and environmentally, that would remain to be seen. Can't prove something like this until the basic principle is given a chance to be demonstrated. And since I am not a physicist living in Washington D.C. like Sen. Mitch McConnell from my state of Kentucky who opposes

and regulation of CO2 emissions, I am a problem child.

By the way, I live in Kentucky. Sen. McConnell does not like me. Could be something about being responsible and a good citizen.

And with vacuum, it does require one movement which creates expansion. It might be possible that such a reciprocating action causes molecules to become denser using less energy.

And as I mentioned, and I do like this part, Sen. McConnell is against any means which could reduce CO2 emissions and does not support any research which could lead to it.

I think that is my position but as one moderator let me know, he has warned me against promoting any idea which might lead to a way to reduce CO2 emissions. Considering that he lives in Washington D.C. , I do have to wonder about loyalties.

@All,

Research and development takes time. With me, I am a mechanical engineer and have been working towards a system that can reduce CO2 emissions from power plants. This is not a need of the coal or natural gas plant operators. America needs energy at any expense.

If you doubt this, turn off your I Pads and computers for a day or 2. Still, do like Einstein and Planck. They did revolutionize physics.

After all, without Planck's Constant, Einstein's work would not have happened. And with CO2 emissions. am I blowing hot air ? I'm not. When research is ridiculed in such a fashion or becomes undesirable because it is not what main stream science allows for, that is when we will have problems. I think we have problems. After all, google has been cited quite often. This tells me that time has not been spent considering something or someone having spent time studying.

It is almost funny in that sense, America's intelligence today is the result of a google search. Am glad to know that.

@Phi,

I do think gravity has more to do with CO2 than valence electrons. Want another way to consider this ? Find out why your skin wrinkles in the bathtub if you soak too long. It's an odd way of thinking about things but there is a reason why your skin wrinkles.

Edited June 13, 2015 by jlindgaard

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Once again, your unwillingness believe something does not make it untrue. For instance, here is a link to the rules for the Speculation forum: http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

Rule 1 is particularly relevant:

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

!

Moderator Note

You have one more chance to clearly state your hypothesis and to back that up with evidence. If you cannot do that, this will be closed and you will not be permitted to reintroduce the topic.

[jlindgaard]

I did say fluctuating vacuum allows for matter to increase it's mass. As a side effect, it's gravitational effect on it's environment increases.

This would be the difference between CH2O occurring in the upper troposphere and a plant releasing CH2O into our atmosphere or converting it into glucose.

@moderator,

I do have a project that I am working on as I have mentioned. If successful, then a scientist who is concerned with reducing CO2 emissions will hopefully agree to work with me.

The basic test is quite simple but from what I have seen in forums, a demonstration will be laughed at. After all, I am only one person, what would keep me from falsifying results to support my position ?

And with me, I think this is why I find it important that other people understand the premise behind any experiment.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

You have been given every opportunity to explain the premise behind your ideas and you refused. Since you still will not do this, I am closing the thread.