Jump to content

Some things I didn't know about the atmosphere and climate


iowaboy1965

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

It’s basic physics, chemistry and math. Fuel combusts with oxygen and other elements in the air and the exhaust is the combined weight of the fuel and air. Rule of conservation of mass. There’s the same number of carbon atoms and oxygen atoms in the exhaust as the fuel and air before it’s combusted. They’re just rearranged. And it’s not 20 fold. A gallon of gas is 6ish pounds per gallon.

 

So if the particles are just rearranged, how can it weigh more? You can speak slowly with small words, and then I will understand pictures help a lot for common folk like me.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

It's funny how your solutions always circle back to getting away from the liberty of the improperly named "fossil fuels". Oil and nat gas aren't from fossils because we've been fresh out of dinosaur bones and tar pits for decades but the term sure has been successfully woven into a "truth" by endless Marxist repetition. Somehow the stuff just boils up out of the earth if left unharvested to the extent that the oceans which do happen to occupy most of the space on this planet have oil consuming bacteria to deal with the issue. 

Please quote where I’ve referred to them as “fossil fuels”

I stated earlier that it is up for debate on if carbon based fuels are continually being produced by the earth.  And we don’t know how old the earth is.  Depending upon your beliefs it may only be about 5,000 years old.  Or millions.  Or billions.  

Once again, you need to look up what Marxism actually is. It isn’t math, chemistry and physics. 
You seem quick to label me and think I’ve said things I have not said at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zleinenbach said:

7.4 pounds.

So if the particles are just rearranged, how can it weigh more? You can speak slowly with small words, and then I will understand pictures help a lot for common folk like me.

You have air enter the combustion chamber along with fuel. The oxygen in the air oxidizes (combusts) with the gasoline. Then each carbon atom in the gasoline combines with two oxygen atoms from the air. It’s more complex than that and other reactions occur but the gasoline (hydrocarbon) is hydrogen and carbon for the most part. It is broken up and combined with the air it’s consuming and makes new compounds. The exhaust has all the same atoms that were in both the fuel and air that entered the engine. That’s the law of conservation of matter. 
Pictures of chemistry in action are complicated.

Your cows consume feed, water and air. Everything that goes into the cow is accounted for at them end of the day either in manure and exhaling (exhaust) and cow parts.  Chemical reactions are how cows eat grass and make steak. I’m glad they do. 
Gasoline is generally around 6 pounds per gallon. Diesel is around 7 pounds per gallon. https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/conversions/common/gallons-pounds.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, zleinenbach said:

 

So if the particles are just rearranged, how can it weigh more? You can speak slowly with small words, and then I will understand pictures help a lot for common folk like me.

I'll try with out confirming any numbers. Each carbon atom in gas has to combine with two oxygen atoms from the air to form co2. A quick trip to the periodic table shows me that oxygen actually out weighs carbon. Anyway each pound of carbon burned would produce a little more than 3 pounds of co2. The gallon of gas is by no means all carbon though.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

Please quote where I’ve referred to them as “fossil fuels”

I stated earlier that it is up for debate on if carbon based fuels are continually being produced by the earth.  And we don’t know how old the earth is.  Depending upon your beliefs it may only be about 5,000 years old.  Or millions.  Or billions.  

Once again, you need to look up what Marxism actually is. It isn’t math, chemistry and physics. 
You seem quick to label me and think I’ve said things I have not said at all. 

Marxism uses and distorts all supposed scientific disciplines and invents others (carbon dioxide as a pollutant) to convince the unwary because it's the work of Satan. The fact that you really don't know what you're talking about but yet pretend to demonstrate the inverse is paramount in Marxism, just as it was in The Garden of Eden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

Marxism uses and distorts all supposed scientific disciplines and invents others (carbon dioxide as a pollutant) to convince the unwary because it's the work of Satan. The fact that you really don't know what you're talking about but yet pretend to demonstrate the inverse is paramount in Marxism, just as it was in The Garden of Eden.

Once again, I haven’t said CO2 was a pollutant. 
Examples of distorting science? 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see the worlds finest scientists debate this whole global warming thing.

Scientists from each side showing us the facts and proof.

What do they fear, the truth?

I don't fear the truth.

We have made great strides in this country at cleaning up a lot of problems.

We are way ahead of most third world countries.

I say, "Prove the problem or shut up?" and we need to demand proof.

But they don't want to as to many are sucking on the Global Warming teat.

The old adage fits, "Always follow the money."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Diesel Doctor said:

I would like to see the worlds finest scientists debate this whole global warming thing.

Scientists from each side showing us the facts and proof.

What do they fear, the truth?

I don't fear the truth.

We have made great strides in this country at cleaning up a lot of problems.

We are way ahead of most third world countries.

I say, "Prove the problem or shut up?" and we need to demand proof.

But they don't want to as to many are sucking on the Global Warming teat.

The old adage fits, "Always follow the money."

We CAN prove global warming! We just need more of your tax money and another 12 years. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Binderoid said:

We CAN prove global warming! We just need more of your tax money and another 12 years. 

But we are gonna burn up in 10! Greta said so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2023 at 6:50 AM, JaredT said:

What you talking about Y2K was disastrous. 🙄

You know why that was? It was because people recognized the problem and spent millions of hours proactively working to mitigate it. Don't act as if we had all sat back and done nothing, that nothing would have happened.

In that case it was very easy to prove that it was going to be a problem. Just set the clock to 12/31/99 on a test system and let it run. Let me tell you, I was there, and it wasn't pretty.

Even with all that effort nobody could be 100% sure that something wasn't missed. Fortunately nothing was missed anywhere that really counted, but we knew what would happen if things weren't fixed.

Unfortunately we don't have that luxury with the atmosphere... Hence the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, snoshoe said:

I'll try with out confirming any numbers. Each carbon atom in gas has to combine with two oxygen atoms from the air to form co2. A quick trip to the periodic table shows me that oxygen actually out weighs carbon. Anyway each pound of carbon burned would produce a little more than 3 pounds of co2. The gallon of gas is by no means all carbon though.

 

1 hour ago, zleinenbach said:

 

So if the particles are just rearranged, how can it weigh more? You can speak slowly with small words, and then I will understand pictures help a lot for common folk like me.

OK I had a few minutes to look up an easy explanation of how CO2 weight is calculated. This is pretty well simplified. 98F4F2C3-9A0B-4510-9B4C-EE87AD74412A.thumb.jpeg.f5b6395350bfa5028a110e148246d10b.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matt Kirsch said:

You know why that was? It was because people recognized the problem and spent millions of hours proactively working to mitigate it. Don't act as if we had all sat back and done nothing, that nothing would have happened.

In that case it was very easy to prove that it was going to be a problem. Just set the clock to 12/31/99 on a test system and let it run. Let me tell you, I was there, and it wasn't pretty.

Even with all that effort nobody could be 100% sure that something wasn't missed. Fortunately nothing was missed anywhere that really counted, but we knew what would happen if things weren't fixed.

Unfortunately we don't have that luxury with the atmosphere... Hence the debate.

What did the clock do on the test system?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line is China is behind the Green movement. They want the rest of the world to go away from petroleum so they have it all for themselves to feed their booming economy and military machine. Added bonus for them is they can sell the world their lithium and wind turbine parts.

He who controls the energy, controls the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW

"Will Happer IPA Speech Brisbane – Climate Physics in Understandable Bites"

"

The impact of doubling CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm, according to basic physics, is 0.71C of warming.

How can anyone possibly still think the CO2 greenhouse effect is a problem, after seeing this diagram and calculation?"


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/09/21/will-happer-speech-brisbane-climate-physics-in-understandable-bites/

(That is "Will "Don't Call Me a Climate Scientist" Happer)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, cedar farm said:

Bottom line is China is behind the Green movement. They want the rest of the world to go away from petroleum so they have it all for themselves to feed their booming economy and military machine. Added bonus for them is they can sell the world their lithium and wind turbine parts.

He who controls the energy, controls the world.

And the Marxist uniparty loves the control aspect of de-industrializing America.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MTB98 said:

Once again, I haven’t said CO2 was a pollutant. 
Examples of distorting science? 
 

But you blather on about carbon dioxide overload as if it's a real concern, which it is only in the amazing world of Satanic Marxism where those in control wish to rule over those who aren't.

If it barks like a Marxist, it's not a cat, a duck, or even a dog. It's an elitist control freak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Drysleeves said:

But you blather on about carbon dioxide overload as if it's a real concern, which it is only in the amazing world of Satanic Marxism where those in control wish to rule over those who aren't.

If it barks like a Marxist, it's not a cat, a duck, or even a dog. It's an elitist control freak.

Once again, point out where I said it’s a real concern. The co2 levels are rising, that seems to be fact. Maybe you can point to a post where I said it was a real concern? 
And, to quote Andre the Giant in The Princess Bride, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MTB98 said:


And, to quote Andre the Giant in The Princess Bride, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means” 

That was actually Inigo Montoya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, MTB98 said:

Once again, point out where I said it’s a real concern. The co2 levels are rising, that seems to be fact. Maybe you can point to a post where I said it was a real concern? 
And, to quote Andre the Giant in The Princess Bride, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means” 

Carbon dioxide isn't going to do Jack squat other than grow more plants if it triples from 4 seats in the 100,000 seat stadium to twelve so Jack's argument is moot and he left town. There's no evidence and no argument beyond the Marxist propaganda already spilled out and not only that, you're really a boring Marxist.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

Carbon dioxide isn't going to do Jack squat other than grow more plants if it triples from 4 seats in the 100,000 seat stadium to twelve so Jack's argument is moot and he left town. There's no evidence and no argument beyond the Marxist propaganda already spilled out and not only that, you're really a boring Marxist.....

So you haven’t backed up any of the claims you’ve made, but continue using the Marxist term, which you clearly don’t understand the meaning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...