Great lunch. 2 cans of bushes baked beans, full pack of garlic sausage cut up in it, lots of mustard, black pepper and hot sauce...
<cue the Vincent Price voice-over>
Woe to you oh earth and sea, for the devil sends the beast with gas. Let him who hath understanding reckon the odor of the beast For it is a human odor. It's odor is fart hundred and farty fart.
Cow farts, huh ? Amatures.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 02-07-2023).]
the brothers K who's dad founded and funded the JOHN BIRCH society
the guys who said IKE was a commie and civil rights would destroy the nation
are very glad you support the pollution of the oil industry [ that the bro's K own a big chunk of]
and want you to hate greta even harder while never noticing the warming and oceans becoming acid
just so the bro's K can add more billions to their bank roll
btw the same K boys are reported to be ANTI-TRUMP now and they spend big to contribute [bribe] their faves a big bit of the harder NUT-CON multi-million bribers and dis-info spewing funders
Not even MidEngineManiac can hope to release (via flatulence) an amount of methane or hydrogen sulfide or other greenhouse gases to have even a fraction of the impact of a single head of cattle.
The more significant methane emissions from cattle are actually from their mouths, not from their anal openings. It's belching.
I think the containment devices are silly (if any of them are even intended to be serious) but there is scope for reducing the methane emissions from cattle by adding something to their feed or by injecting them with something that would reduce the methane emissions without harming them or devaluing their worth for the dairy, beef (and leather) industries.
Any climate mitigation or cattle ranching maven could search online and find the reports.
Not even MidEngineManiac can hope to release (via flatulence) an amount of methane or hydrogen sulfide or other greenhouse gases to have even a fraction of the impact of a single head of cattle.
Uh... There you go, making all that noise, making a difference in the world. Converting simple legumes into life sustaining gas, and thunder. Byproducts of a healthy appetite. ' Whadda you mean you don't like beans ? You're a real cowboy, aren't you ? '
Thick and Flavorful No-Bean Chili INGREDIENTS Seasoning mix: ▢1 teaspoon ground cumin ▢1 teaspoon smoked paprika ▢1 teaspoon dried oregano ▢2 tablespoons chili powder ▢⅛ teaspoon cayenne pepper ▢½ (6 oz can) tomato paste ▢2 tablespoons minced fresh garlic Chili: ▢2 tablespoons olive oil ▢1 onion, chopped (6 oz) ▢1 lb. 93% lean ground beef ▢1 ½ teaspoons Diamond Crystal kosher salt divided ▢1 cup beef stock ▢1 (15 oz) can diced tomatoes, no salt added, undrained ▢1 bay leaf ▢¼ teaspoon black pepper INSTRUCTIONS In a small bowl, with a fork, mix together the seasoning ingredients to create a thick paste. Heat the oil in a large, heavy-bottomed skillet over medium-high heat, about 3 minutes. Add the onion, beef and ½ teaspoon kosher salt and cook, stirring to break up the meat, about 7 minutes, or until the vegetables are soft and the meat is browned. Add the seasoning mixture (use a small spatula to scrape it off the bowl) and cook, stirring to mix it into the beef and vegetables, one more minute. Add the beef stock, tomatoes, bay leaf, the remaining salt and the black pepper. Lightly mash the diced tomatoes while stirring them into the mixture. Bring to a boil. Reduce the heat to medium-low and simmer, uncovered, for 20 minutes, stirring occasionally. Garnish the chili with your favorite toppings, such as diced red onions, chopped scallions, sour cream, shredded cheddar, and guacamole.
Variations: You can use ground turkey or ground chicken in this recipe instead of ground beef. Just make sure to use ground dark meat. It's juicier and more flavorful than white meat. If you don't have fresh garlic, simply use a teaspoon of garlic powder instead. It won't be the same, but it's still pretty good. It's fine to use regular paprika instead of smoked paprika. You can also replace the dried oregano with dried thyme.
No, as R- said it is collecting burps (before they make it out.) I meant we could adapt this to fart collection And yes, devices like this are under study and receiving your tax dollars (or in this case, I think UK tax dollars.)
Originally posted by rinselberg: Not even MidEngineManiac can hope to release (via flatulence) an amount of methane or hydrogen sulfide or other greenhouse gases[/b] to have even a fraction of the impact of a single head of cattle.
I have asked you before and not even maven rinselberg could answer about what instrument reports C02 levels. What other color gasses are there ? CO2 is not the largest quantity of gasses. We hear of various level of allergies there are and the quantities. Why is that not true of all the gasses (which are lighter than air) in the atmosphere ?
Climate mitigation is wearing more clothes, less clothes, using a heater / building a fire, running the A/C.
I have asked you before and not even maven rinselberg could answer about what instrument reports [carbon dioxide or CO2] levels. What other color gasses are there? [CO2] is not the largest quantity of gasses. We hear of various level of allergies there are and the quantities. Why is that not true of all the gasses (which are lighter than air) in the atmosphere?
Climate mitigation is wearing more clothes, less clothes, using a heater [or] building a fire, running the A/C.
Great questions, as always, from forum member "cliffw".
Let's start with the monitoring of CO2 and other greenhouse gases by direct measurements of air samples:
quote
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Global Monitoring Laboratory has measured carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for several decades through a globally distributed network of about 70 air sampling sites, including the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawai’i. The data for this indicator come from a subset of about 40 of these sites located in isolated regions of the ocean.
The "indicator" is a reference to the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) data that NOAA maintains.
Data from air samples has been augmented by data from earth orbiting satellites; this was published in October 2008:
quote
NASA is getting ready to launch a first-of-its-kind satellite that can measure the sources and sinks for carbon dioxide around the planet, in January 2009.
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory is an incredible new tool in the global effort to understand climate change that will fill in the gaps left by ground measuring stations in parts of North America, Europe and Asia. The new satellite mission dovetails with a newly-announced plan by Virgin Galactic and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to measure carbon dioxide concentrations in the upper stratosphere, mesosphere and lower thermosphere with Virgin's high altitude carrier aircraft, White Knight Two, and its spacefaring companion, SpaceShipTwo.
The Economist just published a great article on the two new systems that explains how together they might finally offer us the high resolution map of carbon sources and sinks that scientists need to more accurately understand how, where and why carbon dioxide is entering and exiting the atmosphere.
The NASA satellite will measure sunlight reflecting off the planet and calculate what gases are present in a 6-mile-wide column of gas to an accuracy of one part per million. Inserted into a polar orbit, the satellite will fly over the polar cap every 16 days, like a string being wrapped around the planet in 6-mile swaths.
The European Space Agency has satellite launches planned for 2026:
quote
ESA, the European Commission, Eumetsat and industrial partners are therefore working extremely hard to get the Copernicus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Monitoring (CO2M) mission ready for liftoff. . . .
The two CO2M satellites will each carry a near-infrared and shortwave-infrared spectrometer to measure atmospheric carbon dioxide at high spatial resolution. These measurements will be used by the new CO2M Monitoring and Verification Support Capacity, which the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts is developing, and which will eventually reduce uncertainties in estimates of emissions of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuel at local, national and regional scales.
The two CO2M satellites are scheduled to be launched sequentially in 2026 and are qualified to operate as a constellation for 7.5 years in orbit, with fuel to extend their life to 12 years.
It's all based on the "fingerprints" of carbon dioxide; more technically, the Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide. (Other greenhouse gases, such as methane, have their own uniquely distinctive IR absorption spectrums.)
Air samples are analyzed for these fingerprints in a laboratory using an Infrared Spectrometer.
An earth-orbiting satellite can measure the IR fingerprints of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases with sensors onboard the satellite that capture the infrared sunlight that's being reflected to the satellite from the earth's atmosphere and land and ocean surfaces.
Or going one better (so to speak), an earth-orbiting satellite can be equipped with a "sounder" which uses the LIDAR technique to transmit IR pulses downwards from orbit towards the earth and capture the returns that come back to the satellite as IR reflections from the earth's atmosphere and land and ocean surfaces. The fingerprints of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the IR absorption lines, and their frequencies and intensities are recovered by computer analysis of the IR reflection data. This is how the European Space Agency's Carbon Dioxide Monitoring Mission or CO2M will be doing it, after the satellites are launched in 2026.
Measuring carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from a satellite in polar orbit.
"cliffw", if you're listening...
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-11-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Global Monitoring Laboratory has measured carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for several decades through a globally distributed network of about 70 air sampling sites, including the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawai’i. The data for this indicator come from a subset of about 40 of these sites located in isolated regions of the ocean.
I knew it. Your the kind-a guy who will hire a wolf to guard a chicken house.
Has the NOAA data, umm, claim been corroborated ? Are we to trust one administration's partisan opinion ? Or Government at all ?
Do you not remember the deceptive placement of the sampling sites of the initial Global Warming fear mongering ? The e-mail scandal Global Warming debacle ? Among the UN's international Global Warming scientist.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: It's all based on the "fingerprints" of carbon dioxide; more technically, the Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide. (Other greenhouse gases, such as methane, have their own uniquely distinctive IR absorption spectrums.)The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide ?
The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide ? Please do elaborate. Why can't I have a crystal bowl ? The absorption of light can only be detected in Space ? How convenient.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Air samples are analyzed for these fingerprints in a laboratory using an Infrared Spectrometer.
Do you have one ? Where can I get one ? What's that phrase ? Your second favorite President coined it. Ah yes. "Trust but verify".
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: An earth-orbiting satellite can measure the IR fingerprints of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases with sensors onboard the satellite that capture the infrared sunlight that's being reflected to the satellite from the earth's atmosphere and land and ocean surfaces.
So, are you are saying that all CO2 can change the speed of light ? What kind of bullzhit is that ? Do you even investigate the bullzhit you are eating ? Have you ever beat a speeding ticket generated from RADAR ? I have, a couple of times.Many electronics have to be regularly calibrated. As do musical instruments need to be regularly tuned. In fact, NORAD had to change the calibration on their equipment to detect balloons.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Or going one better (so to speak), an earth-orbiting satellite can be equipped with a "sounder" which uses the LIDAR technique to transmit IR pulses downwards from orbit towards the earth and capture the returns that come back to the satellite as IR reflections from the earth's atmosphere and land and ocean surfaces. The fingerprints of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the IR absorption lines, and their frequencies and intensities are recovered by computer analysis of the IR reflection data. This is how the [color=green]European Space Agency's Carbon Dioxide Monitoring Mission [/green] or CO2M will be doing it, after the satellites are launched in 2026.
Ah, yes. The ESACDMM . The same theory as sonar and radar. Why don't they uses sonar or radar to measure CO2 ? LIDAR
The mechanism by which a light wave is transported through a medium occurs in a manner that is similar to the way that any other wave is transported - by particle-to-particle interaction.
It even includes a tool to calculate the Refraction Index of various media.
Originally posted by williegoat: The mechanism by which a light wave is transported through a medium occurs in a manner that is similar to the way that any other wave is transported - by particle-to-particle interaction.
I looked at your article. Interesting. I will look at it more later.
It already made me think of what a prism does to light.
I am also pondering what the effects of a warming Earth passing through an "increase" in CO2 would be.
rinsleberg said the LIDAR would measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Heat is still a factor. Does that slow down the speed of particle-to-particle light ?
Not that I care if the temperature of the Earth is gonna' go up one degree in the next 100 years.
As someone said in another thread, adapt, or die. If they can't adapt, I hope they are as miserable as I have been listening to their preaching.
As I understand it, these satellites that measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere using LIDAR are not measuring refraction. They are measuring absorption.
To be clear, these satellites are not measuring the refraction of the infrared light or IR energy as it is beamed into the atmosphere and reflected back to the satellite. What they are measuring is how much of the energy at specific wavelengths is absorbed by the atmosphere, by comparing the amount of energy that is transmitted by the satellite at that wavelength, against the amount of energy that is reflected back to the satellite at that wavelength. The difference is the measure of how much of the energy is absorbed by the atmosphere.
They use one (perhaps more than just one) of the IR absorption wavelengths for CO2 to measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Calibration (as "cliffw" pointed out) is a MUST. It's not an afterthought with these projects, or anything that's being overlooked.
The oil and gas industry uses Infrared Absorption Spectroscopy. I'm sure of it. To measure how much of a particular chemical is showing up in a sample of something or other. They use it seven days a week, and everywhere from here to Kalamazoo. It's a no-brainer.
The substance or chemical absorbs, but the process is absorption. So it's important to mind your "b's" and "p's".
The instrument is sometimes referred to as a LIDAR sounder, but it is actually a "lighter". Because it's using light energy, not sound energy. The "sounder" nomenclature is being carried over from the acoustic sounders that you may well be familiar with, having worked in the oil and gas industry.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-19-2023).]
As I understand it, these satellites that measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere using LIDAR "sounders" (actually, they are "lighters", or IR or infrared "lighters") are not measuring refraction. They are measuring absorption.
My reply was only an answer to cliffw's question. Nothing more, nothing less. In order to calculate the speed of light through a specific medium, it is necessary to know the refraction index (i.e. the optical density) of that specific medium.
In general, when someone quotes the speed of light, he is providing the speed through a vacuum and the figure is rounded. I always quote the figure of 186,000 miles per second, however I expect others to understand that that number isn't exact and is through a vacuum.
At some point, I have to assume that others have a certain level of experience and knowledge. If someone doesn't know, he may ask. This is why I often pose questions that are designed to make people think, to explore their world from other perspectives.
"I meant what I said and I said what I meant." ~ Horton
Originally posted by ray b: ... and want you to hate greta even harder while never noticing the warming and oceans becoming acid
So now the oceans are "becoming acid"? Instead of rising? (Where the hell did that come from?) I suppose they needed a new boogeyman, since elites seem to be grabbing up beachfront property with impunity. Be a shame if the ocean swallowed up Obama's beach house.
Jeez... I wish it was like when I was ten, and all the crybabies were fretting about a "new ice age". Yeah... this bullsh!t has been going on for over 50 years. Modified occasionally to suit the "crisis du jour". And the oceans are still pretty much where I remember them being. More importantly, they're not where I don't remember them being.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 02-18-2023).]
Originally posted by Raydar: So now the oceans are "becoming acid"? Instead of rising? <SNIP>
If you're interested in what's online, use an online search engine (Google, or whatever) and search for the two-word phrase "ocean acidification".
You can't do better than starting with this. It opens with two paragraphs and a diagram that will have you almost up to full speed in the proverbial blink of an eye.
Originally posted by rinselberg: The oil and gas industry uses Infrared Absorption Spectroscopy. I'm sure of it. To measure how much of a particular chemical is showing up in a sample of something or other. They use it seven days a week, and everywhere from here to Kalamazoo. It's a no-brainer.
The substance or chemical absorbs, but the process is absorption. So it's important to mind your "b's" and "p's".
The instrument is sometimes referred to as a LIDAR sounder, but it is actually a "lighter". Because it's using light energy, not sound energy. The "sounder" nomenclature is being carried over from the acoustic sounders that you may well be familiar with, having worked in the oil and gas industry.
You may know that the oil and gas industry has been my life long vocation. I don't know about the complete oil and gas industry but I do know about drilling wells and more. We have never used light energy LIDAR.
You mention "samples". Everytime I have drilled a well, we had "Mud Loggers", who analyze samples. They work under / for geologists. I have known many of them while on the job, asking questions. Watching the complete analysis of said samples. My brother in law is a mud logger. Never have I seen or heard of LIDAR.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The oil and gas industry uses Infrared Absorption Spectroscopy. I'm sure of it. To measure how much of a particular chemical is showing up in a sample of something or other. They use it seven days a week, and everywhere from here to Kalamazoo. It's a no-brainer.
What branch of the oil / gas industry is LIDAR used ?
So now the oceans are "becoming acid"? Instead of rising? (Where the hell did that come from?) I suppose they needed a new boogeyman, since elites seem to be grabbing up beachfront property with impunity. Be a shame if the ocean swallowed up Obama's beach house.
Jeez... I wish it was like when I was ten, and all the crybabies were fretting about a "new ice age". Yeah... this bullsh!t has been going on for over 50 years. Modified occasionally to suit the "crisis du jour". And the oceans are still pretty much where I remember them being. More importantly, they're not where I don't remember them being.
came from the early where is the CO2 problem about 1/2 went missing as it was not staying in the air one reason the con's LOL at gore all the CO2 was not where they thought it was
it was dissolving in the oceans good that it was not in the air BUT is raises the Ph values a bit that effects animals that have shells by messing with their ability to fix the lime into their shell lots of the little cridders need their shells or they die off
and other animals need to eat the smaller guys we eat clams 0sters scallops mussels also lobster crabs and fish that eat them
will this happen quickly no it is a slow long process but is very hard to stop or reverse and something they did no know could happen
are there other effects of extra CO2 we do not know YET ? maybe
And yes, devices like this are under study and receiving your tax dollars (or in this case, I think UK tax dollars.)
