Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#4,978
#4,978
Sandvol said:
So they break down and release a chlorine atom? Isn't chlorine all in the atmosphere naturally anyway?
Click to expand...

Not in the stratosphere. The principle natural source of chlorine is sea salt, which means the sodium is bound to the chlorine atom and is readily soluble in water, which helps it "rain out" of the air long before reaching the stratosphere and makes the chlorine atom inert anyway. When atoms are bonded their properties change. Chlorine is poisonous to humans, but salt is not. Similarly, the free chlorine from CFC's and other synthetic gasses in the stratosphere is a problem, even though it isn't when it is still attached to the CFC's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,979
#4,979
Sandvol said:
I do know about GISS data. It is crap data.
Click to expand...

Then you don't know about GISS data. Or maybe you don't know about data. Or maybe you don't know about crap. No matter how one slices it, you clearly do not have all of the information or you wouldn't be drawing nonsensical conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,980
#4,980
Mtntrout said:
Not in the stratosphere. The principle natural source of chlorine is sea salt, which means the sodium is bound to the chlorine atom and is readily soluble in water, which helps it "rain out" of the air long before reaching the stratosphere and makes the chlorine atom inert anyway. When atoms are bonded their properties change. Chlorine is poisonous to humans, but salt is not. Similarly, the free chlorine from CFC's and other synthetic gasses in the stratosphere is a problem, even though it isn't when it is still attached to the CFC's.
Click to expand...

You are kind of mixing up chlorine and chloride. When the UV breaks down the CFC's does it create chlorine or chloride?
 
#4,982
#4,982
Mtntrout said:
I have no idea why I am even engaging in this. Folks seriously think the ozone hole is a hoax? Seriously? Moon landings next?
Click to expand...

I really don't know if it was a hoax because I wasn't really paying attention back then and have never studied it. But, if the ozone problem was championed by the same crowd as the global warming crowd then yes I'm skeptical.
 
#4,983
#4,983
Sandvol said:
You are kind of mixing up chlorine and chloride. When the UV breaks down the CFC's does it create chlorine or chloride?
Click to expand...

I'm not mixing them up. Chloride is a negatively charged chlorine atom. An anion. How the hell do you even think there is something to mix up? The chlorine atom that comes off a CFC is a free radical chloride. There is no mix-up occurring here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,984
#4,984
Mtntrout said:
I'm not mixing them up. Chloride is a negatively charged chlorine atom. An anion. How the hell do you even think there is something to mix up? The chlorine atom that comes off a CFC is a free radical chloride. There is no mix-up occurring here.
Click to expand...

Because you said free chlorine from CFC's. Chlorine is a gas. It is very reactive. Chloride is a salt. It is not very reactive.
 
#4,985
#4,985
Sandvol said:
I really don't know if it was a hoax because I wasn't really paying attention back then and have never studied it. But, if the ozone problem was championed by the same crowd as the global warming crowd then yes I'm skeptical.
Click to expand...

That just makes you ignorant twice. There is nothing hand-wavy about this stuff. It is verifiable chemistry and physics. We can talk consequences and scenarios all day, but for one to say these phenomena aren't happening is just ignorant.

It is akin to arguing against some human reproductive disorder, calling human eggs a myth, because you've never seen one and humans don't lay eggs. "If human eggs existed, then how do you explain all these births!" The logical starting point for evaluating an idea isn't at the end or in the middle. One can't show up to a climate or atmospheric discussion only when something they don't like or is problematic comes up, and expect to have any sort of objectivity-- let alone a full view of the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,986
#4,986
Sandvol said:
Because you said free chlorine from CFC's. Chlorine is a gas. It is very reactive. Chloride is a salt. It is not very reactive.
Click to expand...

Chlorine gas is two chlorine molecules, CL2. This is an individual Chlorine molecule. An individual is very reactive-- which is why you don't find chlorine gas in nature, and why natural chloride tends to be bonded (already reacted) with something else, like sodium.

I get that I am just some dude on a forum, but you can easily look this stuff up. This is verifiable chemistry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,987
#4,987
Mtntrout said:
That just makes you ignorant twice. There is nothing hand-wavy about this stuff. It is verifiable chemistry and physics. We can talk consequences and scenarios all day, but for one to say these phenomena aren't happening is just ignorant.

It is akin to arguing against some human reproductive disorder, calling human eggs a myth, because you've never seen one and humans don't lay eggs. "If human eggs existed, then how do you explain all these births!" The logical starting point for evaluating an idea isn't at the end or in the middle. One can't show up to a climate or atmospheric discussion only when something they don't like or is problematic comes up, and expect to have any sort of objectivity-- let alone a full view of the field.
Click to expand...

I was just asking since you believe it and therefore have studied it thoroughly. You don't strike me as someone who would believe something without researching it yourself. I was just trying to understand how the chlorine gas got up there to react.
 
#4,988
#4,988
Mtntrout said:
Chlorine gas is two chlorine molecules, CL2. This is an individual Chlorine molecule. An individual is very reactive-- which is why you don't find chlorine gas in nature, and why natural chloride tends to be bonded (already reacted) with something else, like sodium.

I get that I am just some dude on a forum, but you can easily look this stuff up. This is verifiable chemistry.
Click to expand...

Yes, so is it a chloride molecule or chlorine in some other reacted form and how does it get 50 miles up or however high it is?
 
#4,989
#4,989
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,990
#4,990
Mtntrout said:
I have no idea why I am even engaging in this. Folks seriously think the ozone hole is a hoax? Seriously? Moon landings next?
Click to expand...
Helmets?

Fox News Guest Columnist: 'Concussions Have Become The New Global Warming'
Don’t look now, but concussions have become the new global warming: a debate where “consensus” trumps evidence, and heroes and villains are determined by their stances on an issue where the science is bogus at worst and murky at best.

...

What we know for sure is that, as with the climate-change debate, the media will feed us nothing but a steady diet of fear and angst. And the facts that show football isn’t killing people will be an inconvenient truth.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,991
#4,991
Sandvol said:
Yes, so is it a chloride molecule or chlorine in some other reacted form and how does it get 50 miles up or however high it is?
Click to expand...

It gets there by being part of a CFC molecule, which is inert until reacting with UV rays in the stratosphere.

It is a single Cl atom, atomic number 17. The valence shell can hold 10 electrons, on top of the previous shells' 8 (2, 6). This means Cl with a full valence shell has a negative charge (-1, 17 protons minus 18 electrons) and thus wants to get with other atoms/molecules once separated from CFC's (or anything really).

CFC's are/were useful in part because they were inert in the troposphere where they are mostly unexposed to UV rays. When they escape, they are not soluble in water or react to any other substance found in the troposphere, and thus eventually get circulated by global wind patterns into the stratosphere at the poles. Boom, the CFC molecules are bombarded with UV rays as they are now at the level of the ozone layer that does the filtering for the troposphere, and they get stripped of the Cl molecule.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,993
#4,993
Mtntrout said:
It gets there by being part of a CFC molecule, which is inert until reacting with UV rays in the stratosphere.

It is a single Cl atom, atomic number 17. The valence shell can hold 10 electrons, on top of the previous shells' 8 (2, 6). This means Cl with a full valence shell has a negative charge (-1, 17 protons minus 18 electrons) and thus wants to get with other atoms/molecules once separated from CFC's (or anything really).

CFC's are/were useful in part because they were inert in the troposphere where they are mostly unexposed to UV rays. When they escape, they are not soluble in water or react to any other substance found in the troposphere, and thus eventually get circulated by global wind patterns into the stratosphere at the poles. Boom, the CFC molecules are bombarded with UV rays as they are now at the level of the ozone layer that does the filtering for the troposphere, and they get stripped of the Cl molecule.
Click to expand...

Chlorine with a full valence shell is very unreactive. That is why sodium chloride is very inert and unreactive. Sodium gives up it's outer shell electron to chlorine so that both have full outer shells and are very unreactive.
 
#4,994
#4,994
mrorange211 said:
On a yearly basis, how much oil (by liters) do you dump into the ground around your property? That's what you sound like.
Click to expand...

A. I don't do no stinkin Yankee metric system
B. it's damn good weed control
C. I don't have well water


But seriously, not saying the hole isn't there, just that it was extremely overplayed as the doomsday scenario much like global warming is currently.
 
#4,995
#4,995
Sandvol said:
Chlorine with a full valence shell is very unreactive. That is why sodium chloride is very inert and unreactive. Sodium gives up it's outer shell electron to chlorine so that both have full outer shells and are very unreactive.
Click to expand...
Don't pour salt in his wound. It's cruel.
 
#4,997
#4,997
More fear mongering

After a long career as a car dealer, lieutenant governor and ambassador, Democrat Don Beyer was elected to the U.S. of House Representatives last year with a focus on protecting the planet against climate change.

Beyer, D-8th, reiterated his goal in a March 4 column for the Falls Church News-Press, calling global warming the "existential crisis of our generation, and of course the preeminent environmental issue."

"More than 7,000 Americans lost their lives to climate change-fueled events last year," he wrote.

Beyer posted a similar statement on his congressional website on Feb. 4, saying climate change caused "almost 7,000" U.S. deaths last year.
Click to expand...

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/mar/23/don-beyer/beyer-says-7000-americans-died-climate-change-even/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,998
#4,998
volinbham said:
More fear mongering



Don Beyer says 7,000 Americans died from climate change events in 2014 | PolitiFact Virginia
Click to expand...
Oh lord, a politician said something dumb. I thought someone would've posted this lulzier example:

Dem resolution warns global warming could force women into prostitution

Once again, I must point out that these are politicians and not scientists. The fearmongering from the right is at least equally horrible. And I'm being very generous to the right in that comparison.

"Acting on [environmental issue] will cost trillions and destroy the economy forever! Environmentalists are communists in disguise who want to control every aspect of your life!"

:dry:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,999
#4,999
Climate denial is immoral, says head of US Episcopal church

The highest ranking woman in the Anglican communion has said climate denial is a “blind” and immoral position which rejects God’s gift of knowledge.

“Episcopalians understand the life of the mind is a gift of God and to deny the best of current knowledge is not using the gifts God has given you,” she said. “In that sense, yes, it could be understood as a moral issue.”

She went on: “I think it is a very blind position. I think it is a refusal to use the best of human knowledge, which is ultimately a gift of God.”
Click to expand...
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top