Humans are natural. Humans are part of an interacting ecosystem.
What if the ecosystem has natural ways of reacting when there is too much carbon dioxide?
Lots of carbon dioxide means more air for plants to breathe and churn out Oxygen.
What if global warming is real, but the environment will naturally correct for it, it just can't correct that fast so we see temporary effects but the environment(plant life) will catch up and vacuum the CO2 out of the atmosphere by breathing it in.
Might plant life itself evolve to absorb more CO2 when it is plentiful in the atmosphere? It would make sense if not just so the plants could have more energy to increase reproduction.
But then we have to actually allow them to actually reproduce, so you have a point.
In a way Earth as a single ecosystem is becoming like an island where humans dominate. The scary thing is when an island ecosystem reaches about 90% saturation for a species that species runs out of resources and...
...on average the resulting starvation and chaos dwindles its population down to 10%.
But in all those cases studied the animal didn't have the reasoning skills to anticipate that problem. We do, and we are using them, even if it's not as efficiently or as well as we should. Plus we notice the little disasters(which some say are warning signs) and as we get more and more more people are interested in doing something about climate change.
@sicktoaster The largest and quickest carbon "vacuums" are the oceans, not vegetation, and most of the plants that grow quickly or absorb the most carbon in a short time are typically undesirable.
It's also been shown that many plants grown in high CO2 concentrations have lowered resistance to pests and, of course, still need water and soil so it's not like the deserts will suddenly turn green.
@sicktoaster Any mitigation effect that the oceans could have would already be happening so as time goes on their effect would be lessened. A greater concern are the huge stores of clathrates / methane hydrates, much of which is under (melting) permafrost as well as at varying depths in the oceans.
Anything that triggers a rapid and irreversible release of that stored methane would tip us over the edge into runaway warming.
Lol chipster sounded smart until I saw the bit about the blog. If you REALLY want real science, look in scientific archives. The creator has done a great job at presenting information in a non-biased way. It seems as though he disagrees with everyone :p
Potholer's videos are great but needs more discussion on "tipping points" and positive feedback...I predict that slowly stepping on a car's accelerator will yeild a different result than changing a light switch from "off" to "on"...
Either way, the IPCC's equations tells us that an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 7000ppmv above today's 390ppmv yields 15.46W/sq.m. Whatever baseline temperature you choose that's not enough to explain the 22degC surface temperature. The IPCC's own equations refute their own claims. Again, this calculation is not very hard to do. The fact that these 'expert' climatologists are unable to do them, but rely on arcane computer models, leads be to believe they are practicing post-normal science.
Note, the calculation below assumes that the IPCC's equation is correct. It probably isn't, since it's the result of computer-codes surreptitiously hidden within HITRAN. Try to find the derivation for the equation below and you soon hit a brick-wall when you realise that it is contained within the US military's master-discs. The idea that a trace gas comprising 0.038% of the atmosphere (that's about 1 molecule in 2600) is driving global temperature is risible and contradicted by honest science.
Oh dear. That's not nearly enough to boost the average surface temperature up to 22 degC/295K during the Ordovician, is it? It appears that these 'expert' climate scientists are incapable of doing simple, straightforward calculations that a student with a GCSE in physics could quite easily do. It amazses me that people are giving Potholer's videos thumbs up when the science that he is promoting is so obviously pseudoscientific claptrap. If you want real science take a look on Joanne Nova's blog.
@CHIPSTERO7 ...Seriously? "If you want real science, check out a blog."
...NO, because blogs aren't sources for 'real science'. They're sources for bias. Potholer at least gives peer reviewed scientific journals so you can check his sources. A blog may do that, but they aren't peer reviewed, their data is to be given a skeptical view.
Assuming that the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 18 times higher that gives us 7020ppmv. According to the IPCC's logarithmic equation we get Lnx5.35(7020/390) = 15.46W/sq.m. Current baseline temperature is 288K corresponding to 390.11W/sq.m. Assuming TSI was 4% weaker then that reduces the baseline temperature to about 276.5K. According to the Stefann-Boltzmann law a RF of 15.46W/sq.m on a baseline temperature of 276.5K is only enough to increase the global surface temperature by 3 degC/K.
@CHIPSTERO7 You have assumed that reducing by the TSI by 4%, the temperature of the surface will be reduced by 4% (276.5K = 288K*0.96). This is not the case, the relationship between irradiation and surface temperature in non-linear and is usually approximated using the Stefann-Bolzmann law (as you have used in your other calculations). In the future, if you think simple GCSE physics can disprove 'expert' climate scientists, you've probably made a mistake in your calculations.
@beardybear404 I am well aware that the relationship between radiation-intensity and temperature is not linearly proportional and follows the 4th-root power. However that was just an approximation. If we do it properly we find that it doesn't make any difference. Current solar isolation is 1368W/sq.m. Assuming it was 4% weaker that gives us 1313.28.W/sq.m. Applying the IPCC's equation in AR4 and assuming albedo was the same we find that the solar isolation would have been about 226.54W/sq.m.
@Texmurphy51 =Lets look at the Cambrian where the sun was even weaker. Temp remains essentially FLAT while CO2 goes from 4000ppm to 7000ppm & back.= Could you cite your source for this? Thanks.
@Texmurphy51 =See the graph 1:28 into your video of CO2 & temp vs time= This is a graph Carter produced (based on Berne and Scotese), and it does not have a very good resolution. I'll message you with some papers that give more detail.
@potholer54 There are other graphs with bettter detail that give the same result. I simply used our graph so there would be no dispute of its validity.
@Texmurphy51 =I simply used [your] graph= Again, not my graph, Bob Carter's graph. In the video I debunk it. I've sent you a message in response to your other questions.
@potholer54 I sent you a message in response to your message. You say NO graphs are valid so how can you debunk a graph that you dont have data to debunk?
Here, INTERESTING!! --"The effects of particulates is usually short lived"-- hmm, yeah well you should have put emphasis on "usually", because that ozone hole isn't what u can call short-lived (though it's believed to be recovering. . . ) :
tinyurl [DOT] com/4x9bjzo
This needs to be discussed.
anyhow, particulates ALWAYS have had impacts, mostly negative, interfering with a lot things.
Here, INTERESTING!! --"The effects of particulates is usually short lived"-- hmm, yeah well you should have put emphasis on "usually", because that ozone hole isn't what u can call short-lived (though it's believed to be recovering. . . ) : tinyurl [DOT] com/4x9bjzo
This needs to be discussed.
anyhow, particulates ALWAYS have had impacts, mostly negative, interfering with a lot things.
I would like to add that Cigarette companies hired scientists who were paid to say cigarettes were NOT harmful. Oil companies have hired at least 2 of those scientists. I wish I could recall their names, but I don't work too hard for idiots who believe the Earth is flat and man will never fly.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
1150 years? How about going back further! Carbon testing will tell you more than any climate scientist ever could, but carbon scientist aren’t , climate scientist so their research cant be used when predicting the future? How about we take the view of a simple common sense man ME! The world is a living organism, there is no way we as people can change the planet! (other than a nuclear winter) so what the hell is this idiot trying to say?
There are many factors affecting climate. Personally, I believe temperature drives CO2 levels, and not the other way around. If you look at any graph of CO2 and temperature, the CO2 levels always lag behind temperature. Yes, I like how people compare solar activity and CO2 levels combined with temperature; however, they should also keep in mind that these are not the only 2 causes of climate change. Ocean currents and jet streams also play a huge role in climate. Greenhouse gases insulate.
@jbm6362 What you personally believe has no bearing on a scientific topic, here we use evidence. Just by the very fact you have said that "Personally, I believe temperature drives CO2 levels, and not the other way around" Shows me that you have very little idea of what you are talking about and I am willing to bet you don't care to know. Why? because you personally believe something. Well good dee how nice for you, but that means jack shit. Its called evidence not opinion.
If there's one thing both sides of the debate can take from this, it's the clear superiority of proper science (math equations and all) to internet conspiracies and sensationalism. The gulf in class between these internet educated ideologues and actual scientists is chasm-like.
According to Sceptical Science, the Ordovician glaciation was caused by a dimmer sun & drop in CO2 levels. The problem with this is CO2 is proven to lag temperature. If CO2 lags temp how could it have cause glaciation?
Because our samples are only 100yrs it is said modern CO2, Leads temp. Thats the only way to explain CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
@Richard482 I am amazed it took Sinclar so long to come up with this. This is as much of a magic diversion as they claim the "deniers" use. They claim that the 800 yr lag is real, but assists warming because they cant find any other cause.
Claim is made that predictions have been accurate. Untrue, there are over 100 climate models running, that so that any change can be cherry picked from some prediction. You cant be wrong if you cover all bets.
@Richard482 Here is the problem. This video implies that we will not go into an ice age for another 50K yrs which is true. but there are still fluctuations in temp within the interglacial period we are in.
If you look at the last 5 cycles going back 650K yrs, you will see that there is nothing unusual about our current temp or CO2 levels. The claim that CO2 increases warming is invalid cause past cycles show cooling within the interglacial period.
@Texmurphy51 If you could prove that CO2 does not cause warming you would have proven I imagine nearly every climatologist to be wrong and that includes climate 'skeptics' like Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen and John Christy. You would also win a nobel prize and receive a huge cheque from the fossil fuel industry. So knock yourself out.
@Richard482 I never said CO2 does NOT cause warming. I said it does not play a significent enough factor to claim we will have run away warming as claimed by some. I dont think the oceans will rise 20 feet or all the glaciers will melt. We are simply going through a climate cycle just as the thousands that have happend in the past. The earth will stablize as it always does.
If there was definitive proof then the data would not need massaged. The proof would be overwelming.
@Texmurphy51 Excellent reply. What research have you based your hypothesis on? If you could just give me the details of the abstracts that would be great.
@radoa1 "Is the "global warming swindle" inaccurate? yes!"
It probably is in parts but the Gore movie claims to be showing us the consensus of all the majority of Climate Science in the world. All the Government high payed experts in the field with all the equipment at their fingertips.
Gore claims Runaway Warming in his movie. Even if GWS is inacurate in parts it only has to show enought to dispute Gores claims.
@radoa1 "Its a pipe dream" WHY??? What do you propose we do to replace Oil, Coal, Natural Gas & Nuclear??? what " lies" in Gore film?? You have got to be kidding me *sea-level rise of up to 20 fee *Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming *global warming "shutting down the Ocean Conveyor *Hockey stick graph *Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming *drying up of Lake Chad *Hurricane Katrina *polar bears were being found after drowning etc
@Texmurphy51 why they lies?? For example - what time frame was given for 7 metre rise?? The latest draft SCAR report, 6 meters is seen as an upper bound by 2100.
Replacing fossil fuel with renewable energy. What do you have against renewable energy??
BTW - havent you been keeping up - Peak Oil has well and truly arrived.
Do you have a basic understanding of the science in that C02 is a greenhouse gas?? Is this also denied by yourself?
@radoa1 I have nothing against renewable/alternative energy but...
For the 3rd time, show me how we can replace Oil/Coal/Gas with alternatives.
* If peak oil has arrived then why push other energyCarbon Credits? OIl running out will drive people to use other sources.
* Science you understand how CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which scientific experiment convinced you that it is the major control factor in Global Warming & that it is cause by man?
@Texmurphy51 But we wont get anywhere on this if you cant even get off 1st base by denying that C02 is indeed a greenhouse gas. C02 conc has increased from 250 ppm to 390 ppm over the last 200 odd years. Why?
There is a solution to the energy crisis but for political reasons it isn't used.
It can also mitigate GW if there is such a thing. It's called Nuclear power. Instead of wasting money on many issues one should concentrate on this field to improve efficiency and safety of Nuclear power and at the same time direct research into fusion power. This is the only feasible solution for a developed country.
@BeondaPale "GE: Solar Power Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels And Nuclear Within 5 Years"
REALLY?
Look up what it would cost you to fit your home with enough solar cells to go off grid & see if the payback is 5 years. Thats Bullshit.
Also GE is not telling you what the true energy costs are. Solar Panels get Government Subsidies to make them cheaper. It takes energy to mine the material, mfg & ship the cells. How long does the cell have to run to pay that back?
@BeondaPale Lets assume what you say is true. We would still not be able to make a dent in Fossil Fuel useage for many many years. Can you see electic, bulldozers, big rigs, trains.
US electrical usage alone is 40 quads. Do you have any idea how many solar panels that would take?
Plus what about storage?
The only way solar will be cheaper than FF is thru Gov Subsidies & a HUGE tax increase on oil.
GE is an Obama company that payed No Taxes last year.
-- No, but I can see hydrogen run / fuel cell run bulldozers big rigs and trains quite easily
"US electrical usage alone is 40 quads. Do you have any idea how many solar panels that would take?"
- do you have any idea how easy they are beginning to be produced? Nano solar can be EASILY incorporated into everything we build and even everything we wear
World renown biochemist Daniel Nocera puts it quite simply in this video
Nuclear is very expensive up front, takes a long time to build, faces political resistance, is unsustainable, require security regimes, requires a grid infrastructure, can not be insured privately and are too closely tied with government.
Nano Solar can be built almost anywhere, does not require a grid, can be manufactured quickly, is extremely popular, will be cheaper than oil and nuclear in 5 years and cheaper than coal in 7 years
@Texmurphy51 peak oil has arrived numb nuts. Its only the depressed world economies through the crisis in capitalism that it hasnt really bitten yet. It will.
Fusion for nuclear power generation is a pipe dream at this stage. Why would we take all the risks that NE presents when we could have solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro etc with virtually negligible risk.
@Texmurphy51 Nuclear Energy could be a useful energy source but its just waaaaay too dangerous. Sure incidents are rare but when they do happen theyre cataclysmic. Theres just too much risk involved, plus I dont think we have a real good means of disposing nuclear waste.
@Texmurphy51 When I call it dangerous I'm speaking of modern day nuclear reactors and any waste produced by them. Things like the Japan nuclear incident or 3 mile island or chermobyl happen, and sure theyre rare, but when they do holy shit.
If we could prevent these things from happening indefinitely, then yes Nuclear what be a good option.
@zzyzx0788 Japan, 3mile island & Chernobyl are NOT modern day reactors. Especially Chernobyl which was an open reactor. the Japanese Reactors were supposed to be replaced 10 yrs ago.
Modern reactors are designed so they cannot melt down. The use spheres instead of rods.
The faster Ecoweenies get out of the way of progress the faster the Dangerious reactors can be replaced with safe ones.
China is building the Save Thorium reactor for their future power.
@Texmurphy51 "Japan, 3mile island & Chernobyl are NOT modern day reactors." Which is why I'm agreeing with you.
And on the issue of solar, I think we need to pump funding into better technology for it. If memory serves me correct, solar panels can only absorb like 10% of the actual energy. I think its one of the few truly renewable sources. As long as the sun is around we're gonna keep getting pounded with sunrays. Why not take advantage of it.
@zzyzx0788 New type solar panels can absorb 30% energy but getting it higher will be a real challange.
Using this technology it would take about 14 thousand square miles of solar panels to replace our current electric grid in the US. This does not include storage devices for the energy. Nightime? How do you run the entire US on batteries during the night?
The battery charge/discharge loss would require more panels,10-20% more.
It is totally impractical except for stuff like solar heating.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by human increases in fossil fuel CO2 PPM from 300 PPM for the last 800,000 years at least to the industrial revolution, to 390 PPM now.
So, to revisit and put to bed the fallacious argument presented by TRAA:
C8H18 + 12.5O2 ----> 8CO2 + 9H2O
This is the standard combustion reaction of octane, a major component of gasoline.
According to TRAA, "1 pound" of octane produces "8 pounds" of CO2. Because this is obviously impossible, obviously the equation is wrong. That assumes the pound-for-pound reaction. However, the reaction is in MOLES.
So, combustion of 1 mole of octane produces 8 moles of CO2.
"So, combustion of 1 mole of octane produces 8 moles of CO2."
And now make a video with the combustion reaction and a gasometer at the exhaust to show the creation of co2 and shut me the fuck up by actual physical confirmation of a a late 18th century chemical theory
p.s. modern Gasoline is manufactured from cracked derivative feedstock while natural gasoline is refined to propane,butane,natural gas, propylene,sulfur,and other feedstock derivatives..it's to valuable to just burn as "oil of tar"
Oh and you might want to explain how certain parts of the engine gets to thousands of degrees by wasted energy in the form of heat while there is a supposed "equal exchange of mass..or in this claim that Co2 and water is created from oxidation in a small low oxygen eniroment from a spark within a milisecond and the heat must be magically apearing with the 10% Oxygen loss almost no hydrocarbons (3%) CO at ,003% and Co2 at 3.5% AS seen in the Mthbusters video not matching the Physics claim
Combustion is a Exothermic reaction...a Chemical Oxidation where the combustable is turning into heat energy and in response there is less of the combnustable..as seen by lack of oxygen and hydrocarbons in the aftermath of a controled gas mist detonation in the car engine
If the Conversion of the combustable of heat is faster then speed of sound then it is a detonation and has a shockwae which is what drives the piston...not "sudden creation of gas"(which 8 moles couldn't open anyway wink,wink)
You can also "cheat" and google it. Try "molecular weight" and "x", where "x" is the compound you want to know. For the combustion equation, let's use the really simple one, Methane. Equation is: CH4 + 2O2 -----> CO2 + 2H2O Molecular weights (in grams) of the above compounds: CH4 = 16.04 O2 = 32.0 CO2 = 44.01 H2O = 18.02 Run the math and you get: 16.04 + 2(32.0) ---> 44.01 + 2(18.02) 16.04 + 64 ---> 44.01 +36.04 80.04 ----> 80.05 (rounding error in last digit)
If you have that number of molecules of a compound/element, you have a "mole" of that compound. This is important because you CAN do mole to mole equations.
Anyone attempting to equate the coefficients in a chemical equation to pounds of weight, is a total moron and should be ignored.
But to measure a mole of compound for a reaction, you need to know how much a mole of that compound weighs. Easy. Each atom has a weight. You sum the atoms in the molecule.
For those confused by his ramblings, such as "1# of octane makes 10# of CO2", here is the skinny.
Chemical equations work on a molecule by molecule basis. It is not based on weight. This alone shows TRAA is totally clueless. In order for that to make practical sense, you cant do 1 molecule at a time. So, we need to know the weight of a molecule or more to the point, the weight of a given number of molecules of that type. The number used is "Avogadro's Number"
I had $20 in my pocket and was hungry when I was looking over all the fancy pieces of paper I could buy to hang on my wall at $5 a pop while looking over my transcripts to see what I qualified for
I bought the A.S. in Computer information Sciences and A.A. in Liberal Arts and spent the rest on a Plate Lunch,and Drink
If you apply for a job,especially in the Government they want your transcripts not the Degrees which are nothing more then wall decorations(just saying)
"I had $20 in my pocket and was hungry when I was looking over all the fancy pieces of paper I could buy to hang on my wall at $5 a pop while looking over my transcripts to see what I qualified for
I bought the A.S. in Computer information Sciences and A.A. in Liberal Arts and spent the rest on a Plate Lunch,and Drink"
That explains why you do not have the basic knowledge I would expect of a high school student.
"That explains why you do not have the basic knowledge I would expect of a high school student"
It didn't even phase you that I let a academic secret out of the bag (degrees are fancy pieces of paper you can buy based on having enough qualifying classes?)
High School student? YOu mean one properly Ed-u-ma-cated to listen to authority agree with everything they are told without question nowadays?(like you)
Sorry my Teachers actually thought questioning everything and creative thinking back then
Oh and Knowledge is the be beginning of wisdom and understanding not the sole source
As potholder's "Meet the Scientists" video points out there ARE different kind of Scientists
In his Doctor example while a Gynecologist and a Urologist are both doctors you go and see a podiatrist ,not a pediatrician for a sore foot
Likewise a Chemical Theorist like Svante is not a Chemist like Dr Jim and a Atmospheric Physicist is not a Meteorologist&a Ocean Physicist is not a Oceanographer
"You never did answer the question. Since one side of your equation of combustion has only "heat and force", what is transmitting the force?"
sorry,guess didn't see it
As a detonation, or exothermic reaction that moves faster then the speed of sound the part that forces the piston up is the shockwave created from fireball
Again combustion isn't a Isothermic(gas expansion from heat) reaction it's Exothermic(energy release)
"But guess what? Both are doctors and both can balance a basic chemical equation. Unlike you."
Actually my PCP has to look up on a computer what a Pharmacist says a particular drug or chemical does..lol
I can mix up a Mock Moxie and just recently figured out how to simulate hucklberry (the Draw back of living in Hawaii is I can't get a Moxie Cola or Huckleberry jam)
Equations are shit if they don't match real world results
"The equation for combustion is a solid as 1+1=2."
"Because of all it's industrial uses it has to be created at $10 a pound"
If 1 ton of coal magically made 23 tons of co2and 1 gallon of gasoline could make 23 gallons of co2 Industry would have to intentionally make the stuff to meet demand they coul;d just steep it off their factory exhaust or run a few gasoline motors to collect it off of...lol
real world result is about 323 grams of co2 a gallon off a SUV and less then 1/10% off a factory stack volume per ton of coal(oops)
"I never said a ton of coal would produce 23 tons of CO2"
Saying combustion creates any amount of co2 in a low oxygen environment,in a confined space,where the detonation flash that lasts a millisecond just because a chemical theory textbook says so is still luscious
"Again, you show why you are not a scientist."
Maybe if I wasn't targeted in dogeball,chose last for teams,and didn't keep score i'd care ;)
The Fireball moving faster then the speed of sound creates the shockwave
The fireball is heat energy released when the spark oxidates the hydrocarbon and oxygen which is why a exaust meter would show only 3% hydrocarbon and 14% oygen by volume
There is no "creation" of Co2 here, the Oxygen and Hydrocarbon is used up in the conversion to heat energy
combustion is exothermic(energy release) not isothermc(gas expansion)
"I never said "low oxygen". Those are your words."
Yes, the space in the piston is small and the areated gasoline mist is a low oxygen environment in a confined space
"I create CO2 from combustion every day."
If you have a pre-1994 car with a catalyst converter converting CO to CO2...maybe(it's where the misconception that cars STILL exhaust co2 has a grain of truth)
"You are clueles"
Cause yo say so?
"There are entire books written on the subject of combustion."
There are entire books written on the subject of combustion.(Yeah in Mechanical Engineering)
And as a practical science they discuss the oxygen to fuel ration to determine how much "Bang" they get via adjusting fuel to oxygen ratio for optimal performance
It is also the Mechanical engineers that would know that the Emmisions control box catches the caremelized gunk the milisecond it is ejected preventing the gunk smoking and oxidizing into CO that had to be converted into c02 pre-1994
Lol...I am not a University Academic Egghead, I would not volunteer my time to government panels nor waste my time writing articles to university periodicals or politicians for "peer approval"...I am happiest in the field or lab verifying or testing things
"They dont exist. Just like your 'heat propagated shockwave'"
My Shockwave?
guess the kaboom in this video is just my imagination then?
Nothing in that vid claims the shockwave is propagated through heat.
The vid does not support your claim at all.
You have no peer reviewed papers because none of the arguments you have made here would pass peer review.
You are either a complete idiot or a troll. Unfortunately, I think you are the former. But either way, I am done with you. Welcome to my blocked list. Good luck selling this hypothesis to anyone
"Nothing in that vid claims the shockwave is propagated through heat."
Well it isn't your "co2 created expanding spontaneously from the blast to the house" either
"You have no peer reviewed papers "
Academic Eggheads "peer review" to a "consensus" of agreement, the Verification testing of their consensus claims when possible are the next phases of the Scientific method
"You are either a complete idiot or a troll"
lol
"But either way, I am done with you. Welcome to my blocked lis"
"Chemical Theorist like Svante is not a Chemist like Dr Jim and a Atmospheric Physicist is not a Meteorologist&a Ocean Physicist is not a Oceanographer"
My point?
Since you seem to need to be told things and can't figure them out for yourself unless it was learned from a textbook.....you and I are different kinds of Scientist
THose like you say burnning fossil fuels make Co2 and predict with the climate models that co2 originate over cities
Scientist like me are running IBUKI to verify that
But, I am pretty sure I can find articles in peer reviewed journals that support the production of CO2 and H2O from the combustion of alkanes.
The question is, would it make a difference? Probably not. The poorly informed conspiracy/religous fanatics just move to their next counter-hypothesis.
I could spend my entire life proving to you the truth of my argument.
Based on my assessment of your personality, it would be wasted effort.
"Maybe you are actually a 'climate change' proponent and are putting on this ridiculous facade to discredit those that question the data."
oh,crap
The Right Wingers would actually consider me one of the Liberal Elitist....one of your "Masters" (I'm Assuming)
If we stay on Oil I win, if we go Solar I win, if we go nuclear I win, If we are at Peace I win, If we are at war I win, if the Economy is bad I win, if the economy is good I win
"You might want to also explain why someone with knowledge of chemistry 'far exceeding most chemists' is working as a cashier."
I'm retired as a government scientist, retired from the corporate world, lost my investments between the Enron scandal then a bad crop season (was on wrong end of first Natural Gas and then Corn Futures) and honestly need to do something other then watch videos on Youtube all day
I don't need to work,but I like associating with people..and it gives "Vegas money"
"Chemistry is one of the most recession proof fields Even during the Great Depression"
Of course,.
Chemists are the ones that figured out how to make cancer fighting drugs, Synthetic asprin,synthetic rubber,silicone,latex, nylon,plastics and synthetic asprin from oil
"unemployment among chemists was in the low single digits."
Black Market Chemists can synthesize LSD,THC,etc and created Crystal Meth(just saying)
Tinker types made Pepsi,Dr Peper,Moxie,and Pop Rocks...lol
Straight chain alkanes, such as octane, consist of carbon (C) and hydrogen (H).
The general formula for an alkane is CnH(n+2). In the case of octane, this is C8H18. When completely burned in the prescence of adequate oxygen, the products are CO2 and H20.
In the case of octane, this would look something like:
C8H18 + 12.5O2 -----> 8CO2 + 9H2O
If ArchAngel would like to explain how burning an alkane creates NO carbon dioxide, I am all ears.
""When completely burned in the presence of adequate oxygen...
Problem is you aren't burning the gasoline at high temperature in adequate oxygen in an enormous space
The Gasoline mist is aerated then injected into a tiny space and sparked mostly for the KABOOM to drive the piston with the remaining caramelized gunk laded mist ejected a millisecond later into the Emission Control Box that prevents oxidation of the gunk to CO in the case of a car engine
"If ArchAngel would like to explain how burning an alkane creates NO carbon dioxide, I am all ears."
Carbon Monoxide is the direct result of the oxidization of smoldering Carbon,not Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide can't spontaneously turn to Carbon Dioxide by more oxygen just being available,it either needs to be physically forced or Chemically Forced to except the second Oxygen to make it CO2
Combustion doesn't have enough heat nor chemical ability to force an extra O on CO..It "eats" Oxygen
"n the case of octane, this would look something like:
C8H18 + 12.5O2 -----> 8CO2 + 9H2O"
Lol.....
1.Puts bucket on ground to catch water
2)Aerates gasoline into a mist in a balloon .....Lights ballo)
(KABOOM!!!!+HEAT)
3)Breaks out CO2 meter...no change
4) Checks bucket,no water
Again the reason why a Engine gets hot is cause combustion converts the carbon and hydrogen with the oxygen into heat and force when sparked...not your physicists "Co2 and water" nonsence
I have a A.S. in Computer Information Sciences and B.A. in Profesional Studies if you want to flaunt Degrees Thing is a Self thought "alchemist" named Issac Newton is the Father of Modern Physics, a Self Thought "Patent Clerk" made E=mc2 in his off hours from work and upsurped some Netonian principles,and Tesla was a crazy high school drop out
"and patents in high temperature energetic compounds. Do you? "
I was a part of Carl Sagans "Planetary Sociaty" that was pushing for a Manned Mission to Mars with my "expertize" in Artificial Biospheres,Terra-forming (Shake and Baking Mars into a habitable planet) and Weather Manipulation
When they decided to go with probes I went into life globes (shrimp,algae,in glass ball) and tinkering in expanding food crops via Hydroponics
Do you want to know why the piston in a gasoline engine really moves? Probably not. It will ruin your massive misconception of reality. But here goes anyway.
Liquids are more dense than gas. Hot gases are more dense than cold gases.
There is a lot more to it than that, but those are the absolute basics.
The gasoline, a liquid, is combined with oxygen, a gas, to form a LOT of gas. This gas exerts pressure on the piston, moving it, causing WORK.
"The gasoline, a liquid, is combined with oxygen, a gas, to form a LOT of gas. This gas exerts pressure on the piston, moving it, causing WORK.
Basic physics."
Theoretical Physics yes,Chemestry no
Combustion isn't a "Burning" it is a instantaneous exothermic reaction where the spark turns the gas and air into thermal and kinetic energy
If anything you Physicists thinking you know everything about everything got the misconception of reality cause you stick "Chemical" in front of Physicist...lol
Newton, Einstein, and Tesla all had their math and conclusions reviewed by their peers. The math eventually convinced the most staunch opponents.
You are actually the proof you are wrong.
Your initial comment, "NO CO2 is formed in combustion". Now you give California statutes on how much CO2 is produced per mile. The two statements are contradictory.
Since you have a problem with me explaining to you your mistakes, I now include quotes from Solomon's Organic Chemistry textbook.
"We all know that alkanes react vigorously with oxygen when an appropriate mixture is ignited. This combustion occurs in the cylinders of automobiles..."
"We all know that alkanes react vigorously with oxygen when an appropriate mixture is ignited. This combustion occurs in the cylinders of automobiles..."
YOu do know it's a Chemical Theory book thus the "we all know" bit instead of "lets gather around a Engine ,run mit and measure the gases that come out
"So, a definitive text of Organic CHEMISTRY says you are WRONG."
Yeah just like the Physicist and text books of the time said that the "Patent Clerk" was an idiot cause E=MC2 violated Netwons "conservation of energy"....with the Nuclear Bomb verifying the "patent Clerk was right:
YOu Academic Eggheads always crack me up
The Consensus of Agreement on the Hypothesis was done...and now us Grunts have the funding to verify and test the Hypothesis with IBUKI ,Canx-2 and the NGWS
@Leonid3s Oops, I see you caught your density error below, but I have one more for you:
"The gasoline, a liquid, is combined with oxygen, a gas, to form a LOT of gas."
The work done by an engine is mostly caused by increased gas pressure due to heating, less so by the conversion of liquid into gas. From your octane combustion example above: 13.5 moles in, 17 moles out: +26%. Temperature is ~ 300K in, 2500K out: +730%. PV = nRT!
Further, Physics and Chemistry are not really different disciplines. They both look at reality with slightly different emphasis. This is why there are upper level chemistry courses such as PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY. It also has a TON of math, but with your limited ability to apply basic logic, you would do poorly in those required math courses.
An example of the closeness of the two fields is found in the 'bible' of the disciplines, The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
"Further, Physics and Chemistry are not really different disciplines."
Yesw they are
A Physists specializing in Chemical Theory like Svante only thinks,estimates,and predicts with mathamatic and computer simulations how they think chemicals will interact
A Chemist would actually mix the chemicals to make something or to see the result
"with your limited ability to apply basic logic, you would do poorly in those required math courses"
maybe, but I know Co2 can't Break Zeroth law adsorbing heat
Last point, so simple even an elementary student could understand it... so you might have a slim chance of grasping it also:
Take your hand and place it in the path of the exhaust from a gasoline engine. (Be careful, it will be hot if you are too close to the engine.) Your hand will become damp. THAT is the WATER you claim is not produced.
Of all the people I have met who pretend to know something about chemistry, you are the most ignorant of the subject.
"Last point, so simple even an elementary student could understand it... so you might have a slim chance of grasping it also:"
Depends...I was educated before the Liberals took over the Public Education system and barely made it through the Liberatitization of my College during my collge days
America was built by those with "8th grade Education" but back then 8th graders knew trigonometry, algebra,ands Engineering...College Grads like Obama don't even know how many States their are
"Take your hand and place it in the path of the exhaust from a gasoline engine. (Be careful, it will be hot if you are too close to the engine.) Your hand will become damp. THAT is the WATER you claim is not produced."
FUndumental problem with your example is that the air intake of the engine isn't pure air...it more likely then not has an amount of humidity (805 today here in Hawaii) so the water you think was "created" in the exhaust actually was sucked in rode thjough then was exhausted
I am so glad you dont work for NASA. You are an idiot.
Warm air holds more water than cold air.
The air "sucked in" is heated by the engine. IF there were no other source of water, then the air would leave the engine "drier" than it entered, as measured by relative humidity.
Please, take some advanced science courses. Your ignorance is staggering.
"I am so glad you dont work for NASA. You are an idiot."
Actually that is where the Eggheads go, Besides Military Research Funding is more generous..especially if what you develop has even a hint of "weapon potential"
"IF there were no other source of water, then the air would leave the engine "drier" than it entered, as measured by relative humidity."
Only reason it would be drier is if you where intentionally cutting water vapor into the fuel injection to reduce fuel use(Military does that)
"Please, take some advanced science courses. Your ignorance is staggering."
It is a rare opportunity to learn something
Even rarer to actually Understand it and not just re-babble it
Even rarer when you can innovate pass what is thought/understood, correct the errors, and pave a new path
This guy re-babbling Zeroth law(You cant double mass or volume to increase heat absorption potential from same heat source) after the Conflicting "AGW:" nonsense without a eyebat is amusing
I have quoted an authoritative text on the issue of combustion of an alkane. IF it were not the case, there are scientists all over the world that would love to 'make their bones' proving this equation is in error.
That is how science works. Someone presents a hypothesis and defends it against all comers until either the data proves he is correct, or his errors become another tombstone along the road of progress.
When a new hypothesis comes along, the burden of proof is on the person presenting the new hypothesis.
You have proven nothing.
Instead, you continue to spout nonsense and claim it fact.
Where are your peer reviewed articles published in field recognized authoritative journals? Where are the honors and fame presented the developer of your hypothesis, presented by international Chemistry organizations?
You keep babbling about how the concensus is wrong. I admit it is possible. People once thought Newtonian physics held at all speeds, since you like quoting Einstein's humble roots.
Difference between Einstein and you? Einstein was able to mathematically support his hypothesis. He could take the current theory and show how his theory was not an invalidation but a logical and mathematical extension of current Newtonian physics.
"ou keep babbling about how the concensus is wrong."
I didn't say the Consensus is wrong....but what the Enironuts/media think the "Consensus" means is wrong
iI isn't a conclusion but a majority vote on the Hypothesis that now needs to be verifying and tested
Withoiut this majority vote the governments would not have released funding for projects like IBUKI and the Next generation weather Satellites in the "A-Train" that is collecting the data needed to have a better understanding of "AGW"
" Einstein was able to mathematically support his hypothesis. He could take the current theory and show how his theory was not an invalidation but a logical and mathematical extension of current Newtonian physics"
Actually a Solar eclipse with a displaced star field prove that Gravity bends light
A Sattilite's clock being 1/10 of a second slower at 17,000mph proves speed slows time
the Nuclear bomb converting little matter to a lot of Energy prove E=mc2
"All of which was predicted mathematically prior to the proof."
And it took 20 years for the "consensus" of the other Physicists to not treat him or his theories as a joke mostly as he was proved right and they were proved wrong test after test and verification after verification
And then there is the whole "Spooky Physics" he often liked to hack out of his equations cause he didn't believe in anti-time,anti-space,anti-matter and anti-energy...which later was verified and tested in atom smashers
Wow. The whole series is good but this one was particularly so.
1noen1 1 day ago in playlist Climate Change
Humans are natural. Humans are part of an interacting ecosystem.
What if the ecosystem has natural ways of reacting when there is too much carbon dioxide?
Lots of carbon dioxide means more air for plants to breathe and churn out Oxygen.
What if global warming is real, but the environment will naturally correct for it, it just can't correct that fast so we see temporary effects but the environment(plant life) will catch up and vacuum the CO2 out of the atmosphere by breathing it in.
sicktoaster 2 weeks ago
@sicktoaster Deforestation may retard this "catch-up". Admittedly, I don't have any data, but it is a factor to consider.
dwkjo 1 week ago
@dwkjo
Might plant life itself evolve to absorb more CO2 when it is plentiful in the atmosphere? It would make sense if not just so the plants could have more energy to increase reproduction.
But then we have to actually allow them to actually reproduce, so you have a point.
In a way Earth as a single ecosystem is becoming like an island where humans dominate. The scary thing is when an island ecosystem reaches about 90% saturation for a species that species runs out of resources and...
sicktoaster 1 week ago
@dwkjo
...on average the resulting starvation and chaos dwindles its population down to 10%.
But in all those cases studied the animal didn't have the reasoning skills to anticipate that problem. We do, and we are using them, even if it's not as efficiently or as well as we should. Plus we notice the little disasters(which some say are warning signs) and as we get more and more more people are interested in doing something about climate change.
sicktoaster 1 week ago
@sicktoaster The largest and quickest carbon "vacuums" are the oceans, not vegetation, and most of the plants that grow quickly or absorb the most carbon in a short time are typically undesirable.
It's also been shown that many plants grown in high CO2 concentrations have lowered resistance to pests and, of course, still need water and soil so it's not like the deserts will suddenly turn green.
bannor99 1 week ago
@bannor99
Doesn't that mean as the sea level rises the greater volume of ocean will slow down global warming?
sicktoaster 6 days ago
@sicktoaster Any mitigation effect that the oceans could have would already be happening so as time goes on their effect would be lessened. A greater concern are the huge stores of clathrates / methane hydrates, much of which is under (melting) permafrost as well as at varying depths in the oceans.
Anything that triggers a rapid and irreversible release of that stored methane would tip us over the edge into runaway warming.
bannor99 6 days ago
Lol chipster sounded smart until I saw the bit about the blog. If you REALLY want real science, look in scientific archives. The creator has done a great job at presenting information in a non-biased way. It seems as though he disagrees with everyone :p
ffletcherr 1 month ago
Great series so far.
devildogmre 1 month ago
Potholer's videos are great but needs more discussion on "tipping points" and positive feedback...I predict that slowly stepping on a car's accelerator will yeild a different result than changing a light switch from "off" to "on"...
poosta7 4 months ago
Note the figure of 226.54W/sq.m is how much is absorbed by the earth.
CHIPSTERO7 4 months ago
Either way, the IPCC's equations tells us that an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 7000ppmv above today's 390ppmv yields 15.46W/sq.m. Whatever baseline temperature you choose that's not enough to explain the 22degC surface temperature. The IPCC's own equations refute their own claims. Again, this calculation is not very hard to do. The fact that these 'expert' climatologists are unable to do them, but rely on arcane computer models, leads be to believe they are practicing post-normal science.
CHIPSTERO7 4 months ago
Note, the calculation below assumes that the IPCC's equation is correct. It probably isn't, since it's the result of computer-codes surreptitiously hidden within HITRAN. Try to find the derivation for the equation below and you soon hit a brick-wall when you realise that it is contained within the US military's master-discs. The idea that a trace gas comprising 0.038% of the atmosphere (that's about 1 molecule in 2600) is driving global temperature is risible and contradicted by honest science.
CHIPSTERO7 4 months ago
Oh dear. That's not nearly enough to boost the average surface temperature up to 22 degC/295K during the Ordovician, is it? It appears that these 'expert' climate scientists are incapable of doing simple, straightforward calculations that a student with a GCSE in physics could quite easily do. It amazses me that people are giving Potholer's videos thumbs up when the science that he is promoting is so obviously pseudoscientific claptrap. If you want real science take a look on Joanne Nova's blog.
CHIPSTERO7 4 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 ...Seriously? "If you want real science, check out a blog."
...NO, because blogs aren't sources for 'real science'. They're sources for bias. Potholer at least gives peer reviewed scientific journals so you can check his sources. A blog may do that, but they aren't peer reviewed, their data is to be given a skeptical view.
BigLundi 3 months ago
Assuming that the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 18 times higher that gives us 7020ppmv. According to the IPCC's logarithmic equation we get Lnx5.35(7020/390) = 15.46W/sq.m. Current baseline temperature is 288K corresponding to 390.11W/sq.m. Assuming TSI was 4% weaker then that reduces the baseline temperature to about 276.5K. According to the Stefann-Boltzmann law a RF of 15.46W/sq.m on a baseline temperature of 276.5K is only enough to increase the global surface temperature by 3 degC/K.
CHIPSTERO7 4 months ago in playlist Climate Change
@CHIPSTERO7 You have assumed that reducing by the TSI by 4%, the temperature of the surface will be reduced by 4% (276.5K = 288K*0.96). This is not the case, the relationship between irradiation and surface temperature in non-linear and is usually approximated using the Stefann-Bolzmann law (as you have used in your other calculations). In the future, if you think simple GCSE physics can disprove 'expert' climate scientists, you've probably made a mistake in your calculations.
beardybear404 4 months ago
@beardybear404 I am well aware that the relationship between radiation-intensity and temperature is not linearly proportional and follows the 4th-root power. However that was just an approximation. If we do it properly we find that it doesn't make any difference. Current solar isolation is 1368W/sq.m. Assuming it was 4% weaker that gives us 1313.28.W/sq.m. Applying the IPCC's equation in AR4 and assuming albedo was the same we find that the solar isolation would have been about 226.54W/sq.m.
CHIPSTERO7 4 months ago
Awesome job, best on the web on the subject for the non-specialist.
MauroRincon 5 months ago
The idea that the sun had 4.5% less output in the Ordovician period is not from measurement but calculated from observation of other stars in space.
He implies the HI CO2 kept temp up dispite low solar output.
Lets look at the Cambrian where the sun was even weaker. Temp remains essentially FLAT while CO2 goes from 4000ppm to 7000ppm & back.
Plus if it took a combined effort of all forces to cause an ice age, HUGE CO2 change, why are we concerned with our small one?
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 =Lets look at the Cambrian where the sun was even weaker. Temp remains essentially FLAT while CO2 goes from 4000ppm to 7000ppm & back.= Could you cite your source for this? Thanks.
potholer54 5 months ago
@potholer54
See the graph 1:28 into your video of CO2 & temp vs time
450 to 500 million years ago.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 =See the graph 1:28 into your video of CO2 & temp vs time= This is a graph Carter produced (based on Berne and Scotese), and it does not have a very good resolution. I'll message you with some papers that give more detail.
potholer54 5 months ago
@potholer54 There are other graphs with bettter detail that give the same result. I simply used our graph so there would be no dispute of its validity.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 =I simply used [your] graph= Again, not my graph, Bob Carter's graph. In the video I debunk it. I've sent you a message in response to your other questions.
potholer54 5 months ago
@potholer54 I sent you a message in response to your message. You say NO graphs are valid so how can you debunk a graph that you dont have data to debunk?
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 =You say NO graphs are valid= No. Please read the message I sent you. Sorry, it's rather long!
potholer54 5 months ago
@potholer54 Ok our discussion will continue in the longer format.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here, INTERESTING!! --"The effects of particulates is usually short lived"-- hmm, yeah well you should have put emphasis on "usually", because that ozone hole isn't what u can call short-lived (though it's believed to be recovering. . . ) :
tinyurl [DOT] com/4x9bjzo
This needs to be discussed.
anyhow, particulates ALWAYS have had impacts, mostly negative, interfering with a lot things.
philacoudre 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here, INTERESTING!! --"The effects of particulates is usually short lived"-- hmm, yeah well you should have put emphasis on "usually", because that ozone hole isn't what u can call short-lived (though it's believed to be recovering. . . ) : tinyurl [DOT] com/4x9bjzo
This needs to be discussed.
anyhow, particulates ALWAYS have had impacts, mostly negative, interfering with a lot things.
philacoudre 5 months ago
I would like to add that Cigarette companies hired scientists who were paid to say cigarettes were NOT harmful. Oil companies have hired at least 2 of those scientists. I wish I could recall their names, but I don't work too hard for idiots who believe the Earth is flat and man will never fly.
CI9TK 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 6 months ago
1150 years? How about going back further! Carbon testing will tell you more than any climate scientist ever could, but carbon scientist aren’t , climate scientist so their research cant be used when predicting the future? How about we take the view of a simple common sense man ME! The world is a living organism, there is no way we as people can change the planet! (other than a nuclear winter) so what the hell is this idiot trying to say?
Shit happens, learn to live with it!
WrathZorn 7 months ago
There are many factors affecting climate. Personally, I believe temperature drives CO2 levels, and not the other way around. If you look at any graph of CO2 and temperature, the CO2 levels always lag behind temperature. Yes, I like how people compare solar activity and CO2 levels combined with temperature; however, they should also keep in mind that these are not the only 2 causes of climate change. Ocean currents and jet streams also play a huge role in climate. Greenhouse gases insulate.
jbm6362 7 months ago
@jbm6362 This video should explain the lag time between CO2 and temperature
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24&feature=channel_video_title
Richard482 7 months ago
@jbm6362 This video should explain the lag time between CO2 and temperature
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24&feature=channel_video_title
Richard482 7 months ago
@jbm6362 that's not what the experts are saying JB. `why dont you do you thesis on this and prove them wrong
radoa1 7 months ago in playlist Climate Change
@jbm6362 What you personally believe has no bearing on a scientific topic, here we use evidence. Just by the very fact you have said that "Personally, I believe temperature drives CO2 levels, and not the other way around" Shows me that you have very little idea of what you are talking about and I am willing to bet you don't care to know. Why? because you personally believe something. Well good dee how nice for you, but that means jack shit. Its called evidence not opinion.
thesparitan 7 months ago
If there's one thing both sides of the debate can take from this, it's the clear superiority of proper science (math equations and all) to internet conspiracies and sensationalism. The gulf in class between these internet educated ideologues and actual scientists is chasm-like.
kolomgorov 8 months ago
So, are you completely unable to give us a bottom line?
nealart 8 months ago
So c02 is the biggest driving factor for climate change?
TearsOfWar1 9 months ago
According to Sceptical Science, the Ordovician glaciation was caused by a dimmer sun & drop in CO2 levels. The problem with this is CO2 is proven to lag temperature. If CO2 lags temp how could it have cause glaciation?
Because our samples are only 100yrs it is said modern CO2, Leads temp. Thats the only way to explain CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Texmurphy51 9 months ago
@Texmurphy51 CO2 has not been proven to lag temperature. Quite the reverse.
watch?v=8nrvrkVBt24&feature=channel_video_title
Richard482 8 months ago
@Richard482 I am amazed it took Sinclar so long to come up with this. This is as much of a magic diversion as they claim the "deniers" use. They claim that the 800 yr lag is real, but assists warming because they cant find any other cause.
Claim is made that predictions have been accurate. Untrue, there are over 100 climate models running, that so that any change can be cherry picked from some prediction. You cant be wrong if you cover all bets.
Is the Gore movie accurate????
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Actually Sinclair made a video on this subject a couple of years ago. This one was just an upate.
"Is the Gore movie accurate????" Yes and no.
watch?v=LhuxXkONmgY&feature=channel_video_title
Richard482 8 months ago
@Richard482 Here is the problem. This video implies that we will not go into an ice age for another 50K yrs which is true. but there are still fluctuations in temp within the interglacial period we are in.
If you look at the last 5 cycles going back 650K yrs, you will see that there is nothing unusual about our current temp or CO2 levels. The claim that CO2 increases warming is invalid cause past cycles show cooling within the interglacial period.
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 If you could prove that CO2 does not cause warming you would have proven I imagine nearly every climatologist to be wrong and that includes climate 'skeptics' like Patrick Michaels, Richard Lindzen and John Christy. You would also win a nobel prize and receive a huge cheque from the fossil fuel industry. So knock yourself out.
Richard482 8 months ago
@Richard482 I never said CO2 does NOT cause warming. I said it does not play a significent enough factor to claim we will have run away warming as claimed by some. I dont think the oceans will rise 20 feet or all the glaciers will melt. We are simply going through a climate cycle just as the thousands that have happend in the past. The earth will stablize as it always does.
If there was definitive proof then the data would not need massaged. The proof would be overwelming.
Texmurphy51 8 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Excellent reply. What research have you based your hypothesis on? If you could just give me the details of the abstracts that would be great.
Huttate1 7 months ago
@Huttate1 There is too much to list here. If you want to chat send me a personal message.
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 yes. Is the "global warming swindle" inaccurate? yes!
radoa1 7 months ago
@radoa1 "Is the "global warming swindle" inaccurate? yes!"
It probably is in parts but the Gore movie claims to be showing us the consensus of all the majority of Climate Science in the world. All the Government high payed experts in the field with all the equipment at their fingertips.
Gore claims Runaway Warming in his movie. Even if GWS is inacurate in parts it only has to show enought to dispute Gores claims.
Are we going to DIE or is it natural warming?
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51
"t probably is in parts" - Only in parts?? Really??
what parts TEX? What parts were accurate?
The warmer it gets the probability of dangerous climate change increase reducing our chances for long term survival.
Are we going to DIE if we were to transition to a carbon free economy?
radoa1 7 months ago
@radoa1
So if the Gore movie was inaccurate that does not matter but it ANY piece of the gws is then it proves Catastrophic Global Warming, Really??
I am just saying there are inaccuracies in ANY film or paper. Those in the Gore movie are outright LIES, later admitted to drive home a point.
"Are we going to DIE if we were to transition to a carbon free economy"
You tell me how that is even possible to do. Its a pipe dream.
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Its a pipe dream" WHY???
what " lies" in Gore film?? What "truths" in GWS??
radoa1 7 months ago
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 why they lies?? For example - what time frame was given for 7 metre rise?? The latest draft SCAR report, 6 meters is seen as an upper bound by 2100.
Replacing fossil fuel with renewable energy. What do you have against renewable energy??
BTW - havent you been keeping up - Peak Oil has well and truly arrived.
Do you have a basic understanding of the science in that C02 is a greenhouse gas?? Is this also denied by yourself?
radoa1 7 months ago
@radoa1 I have nothing against renewable/alternative energy but...
For the 3rd time, show me how we can replace Oil/Coal/Gas with alternatives.
* If peak oil has arrived then why push other energyCarbon Credits? OIl running out will drive people to use other sources.
* Science you understand how CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which scientific experiment convinced you that it is the major control factor in Global Warming & that it is cause by man?
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 - which govt is pushing alt energy?? As far as I see its business as usual ie carbon credits a capitalist tool to profit from misery.
"show me how we can replace Oil/Coal/Gas with alternatives"
wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, photo voltaic, hydro. A transition to mix of alternatives. But this must be coupled with a new economic model.
radoa1 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 But we wont get anywhere on this if you cant even get off 1st base by denying that C02 is indeed a greenhouse gas. C02 conc has increased from 250 ppm to 390 ppm over the last 200 odd years. Why?
radoa1 7 months ago
@radoa1 CO2 IS a greenhouse gas but not the one that controls climate. That would be Water Vapor.
If you only looked back 200 yrs you would also deny Dinosaurs exist.
If you look over the last 400k yrs you will find CO2 has gone from less than 200ppm to 270 to 300ppm several times WHY?
If you look at a graph of Glacial cycles, CO2 builds to high levels after each, just like ours since 12,500 yrs ago.
Nothing special here
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Texmurphy51
"CO2 IS a greenhouse gas but not the one that controls climate. That would be Water Vapor"
where is the evidence for this.??
"If you only looked back 200 yrs you would also deny Dinosaurs exist"
a WTF comment.
"If you look over the last 400k yrs you will find CO2 has gone from less than 200ppm to 270 to 300ppm several times WHY?"
so what?? Who claims there arent naturally occuring forces influencing CO2 conc. The question is what is the cause now for this massive increase.
radoa1 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 lets try again - what "truths" are given in GWS??? Also have we conceded on peak oil and renewable energies??
radoa1 7 months ago
@radoa1 Peak oil might have happened but new energy sources are being discovered every day.
AGAIN if there is Peak Oil why worry, Renewable will happen on its own.
We are far from finished with renewable energies.
Do you even understand or realize how much energy is used by the US?
I ask you again, how do you propose to even make a dent in this energy usage?
Give me a plan with numbers, NOT just say "do it"
I can give you numbers so .... You first.
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51
There is a solution to the energy crisis but for political reasons it isn't used.
It can also mitigate GW if there is such a thing. It's called Nuclear power. Instead of wasting money on many issues one should concentrate on this field to improve efficiency and safety of Nuclear power and at the same time direct research into fusion power. This is the only feasible solution for a developed country.
I don't understand why the "greens" oppose it.
comnenus42 7 months ago
@comnenus42 Greens oppose EVERY kind of power, even windmills. They are Anti Mankind.
Nuclear power was on its way until 3mile island & Chernoble happend. Now Japan makes it worse.
There are new generation Safe reactors but the ultimate safe reactor is the Thorium Reaction.
When Nuke Power was developed both reaction were experimented on.
The reason Thorium lost is that it had NO WEAPONS GRADE MATERIAL as a byproduct.
The military went or the plutonium.
Fusion is ultimate but in the future
Texmurphy51 7 months ago
@Texmurphy51 polywell fusion is near fruition, so do not fear.
fpsBeaTt 5 months ago
@fpsBeaTt When I was a kid in the 60s Fusion was 20 years away.
Last time I checked it was still 20 years away.
I hope you are correct but I am not going to hold my breath.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
Comment removed
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51
Google "GE: Solar Power Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels And Nuclear Within 5 Years"
Good luck
BeondaPale 5 months ago
@BeondaPale "GE: Solar Power Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels And Nuclear Within 5 Years"
REALLY?
Look up what it would cost you to fit your home with enough solar cells to go off grid & see if the payback is 5 years. Thats Bullshit.
Also GE is not telling you what the true energy costs are. Solar Panels get Government Subsidies to make them cheaper. It takes energy to mine the material, mfg & ship the cells. How long does the cell have to run to pay that back?
Polysilicon is toxic also
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51
"Look up what it would cost you to fit your home with enough solar cells to go off grid & see if the payback is 5 years"
True, if you did it now, but grid parity IS coming. Did you actually read the article or just react to it?
Nano solar is vastly different from older solar tech and is making technological strides almost daily
Ultra thin nano solar can be PRINTED and the cost of solar cells has fallen 21 percent so far THIS YEAR.
Please read a little before you react
BeondaPale 5 months ago
@BeondaPale Lets assume what you say is true. We would still not be able to make a dent in Fossil Fuel useage for many many years. Can you see electic, bulldozers, big rigs, trains.
US electrical usage alone is 40 quads. Do you have any idea how many solar panels that would take?
Plus what about storage?
The only way solar will be cheaper than FF is thru Gov Subsidies & a HUGE tax increase on oil.
GE is an Obama company that payed No Taxes last year.
That tells the story right there.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51
"Can you see electic, bulldozers"
-- No, but I can see hydrogen run / fuel cell run bulldozers big rigs and trains quite easily
"US electrical usage alone is 40 quads. Do you have any idea how many solar panels that would take?"
- do you have any idea how easy they are beginning to be produced? Nano solar can be EASILY incorporated into everything we build and even everything we wear
World renown biochemist Daniel Nocera puts it quite simply in this video
watch?v=KTtmU2lD97o
BeondaPale 5 months ago
@BeondaPale What kind of storage will your H2 be on the big rig?
Solar Panels = 1kwh/m/day= 34kw/sqft/year
40 quads = 120 x 10E11 kwh/year
That means it would take 3.6 x 10E11 sqft = 12900 square miles of solar panels.
Plus Storage Devices.
Now thats JUST to replace our current electric grid. All US power usage is 100 Quads.
How long do you think it would take to produce 13K Square Miles of solar panels?
Your living in a dream world if you think it will happen.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Texmurphy51
"What kind of storage will your H2 be on the big rig?"
Less than the size of a current gas tank. Know your chemistry. Where does diesel fuel gets it's main power?
"3.6 x 10E11 sqft = 12900 square miles of solar panels."
What kind of solar panel? The kind they were building in 1976 or Nano solar? Please tell me where you are getting all these numbers
You are ignoring what I'm saying. PLEASE watch this video of Dr Daniel Nocera's MAJOR breakthrough
watch?v=k7ok8cOJbmo
BeondaPale 5 months ago
@comnenus42
Nuclear is very expensive up front, takes a long time to build, faces political resistance, is unsustainable, require security regimes, requires a grid infrastructure, can not be insured privately and are too closely tied with government.
Nano Solar can be built almost anywhere, does not require a grid, can be manufactured quickly, is extremely popular, will be cheaper than oil and nuclear in 5 years and cheaper than coal in 7 years
....See you in the marketplace
BeondaPale 5 months ago
@radoa1 "Are we going to DIE if we were to transition to a carbon free economy?"
YES
Do you have any idea what you are suggesting?
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 I see you are being a touch alarmit Tex? There is no need to do the deed when peak oil really kicks in. Turn it up big Tex
radoa1 5 months ago
@radoa1 It will be a bit before peak oil does kick in but the solution will not be solar panels.
It is Nuclear Energy, hopefully Fission but Fusion will work.
The Reactor could be located anywhere & produce synthetic gasoline of some other stable fuel for vehicles.
Electricity can be generated locally in small reactors, Thorium would be nice, just like the Chinese are building.
You see China is way ahead of us on this because they look at Reality, not what some Ecofreaks want.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 peak oil has arrived numb nuts. Its only the depressed world economies through the crisis in capitalism that it hasnt really bitten yet. It will.
Fusion for nuclear power generation is a pipe dream at this stage. Why would we take all the risks that NE presents when we could have solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro etc with virtually negligible risk.
How's Japan looking these days???
radoa1 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 Nuclear Energy could be a useful energy source but its just waaaaay too dangerous. Sure incidents are rare but when they do happen theyre cataclysmic. Theres just too much risk involved, plus I dont think we have a real good means of disposing nuclear waste.
zzyzx0788 5 months ago
@zzyzx0788 "Nuclear Energy could be a useful energy source but its just waaaaay too dangerous"
Check out the Thorium Reaction for an immediate energy source. It is clean, see Google Tech Talks.
If and when the Fusion reaction is developed it will use water. Both are clean and produce little waste product.
Matter of fact the idea was to use the Fusion reactor to get rid of the present day nuclear waste lying around.
Your dead wrong on it being dangerous.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 When I call it dangerous I'm speaking of modern day nuclear reactors and any waste produced by them. Things like the Japan nuclear incident or 3 mile island or chermobyl happen, and sure theyre rare, but when they do holy shit.
If we could prevent these things from happening indefinitely, then yes Nuclear what be a good option.
Although personally I'm in favor of solar still
zzyzx0788 5 months ago
@zzyzx0788 Japan, 3mile island & Chernobyl are NOT modern day reactors. Especially Chernobyl which was an open reactor. the Japanese Reactors were supposed to be replaced 10 yrs ago.
Modern reactors are designed so they cannot melt down. The use spheres instead of rods.
The faster Ecoweenies get out of the way of progress the faster the Dangerious reactors can be replaced with safe ones.
China is building the Save Thorium reactor for their future power.
Solar cannot provide enough power
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
@Texmurphy51 "Japan, 3mile island & Chernobyl are NOT modern day reactors." Which is why I'm agreeing with you.
And on the issue of solar, I think we need to pump funding into better technology for it. If memory serves me correct, solar panels can only absorb like 10% of the actual energy. I think its one of the few truly renewable sources. As long as the sun is around we're gonna keep getting pounded with sunrays. Why not take advantage of it.
zzyzx0788 5 months ago
@zzyzx0788 New type solar panels can absorb 30% energy but getting it higher will be a real challange.
Using this technology it would take about 14 thousand square miles of solar panels to replace our current electric grid in the US. This does not include storage devices for the energy. Nightime? How do you run the entire US on batteries during the night?
The battery charge/discharge loss would require more panels,10-20% more.
It is totally impractical except for stuff like solar heating.
Texmurphy51 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by human increases in fossil fuel CO2 PPM from 300 PPM for the last 800,000 years at least to the industrial revolution, to 390 PPM now.
qwertypoiu4321 11 months ago
So, to revisit and put to bed the fallacious argument presented by TRAA:
C8H18 + 12.5O2 ----> 8CO2 + 9H2O
This is the standard combustion reaction of octane, a major component of gasoline.
According to TRAA, "1 pound" of octane produces "8 pounds" of CO2. Because this is obviously impossible, obviously the equation is wrong. That assumes the pound-for-pound reaction. However, the reaction is in MOLES.
So, combustion of 1 mole of octane produces 8 moles of CO2.
Perfectly rational
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"So, combustion of 1 mole of octane produces 8 moles of CO2."
And now make a video with the combustion reaction and a gasometer at the exhaust to show the creation of co2 and shut me the fuck up by actual physical confirmation of a a late 18th century chemical theory
p.s. modern Gasoline is manufactured from cracked derivative feedstock while natural gasoline is refined to propane,butane,natural gas, propylene,sulfur,and other feedstock derivatives..it's to valuable to just burn as "oil of tar"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Oh and you might want to explain how certain parts of the engine gets to thousands of degrees by wasted energy in the form of heat while there is a supposed "equal exchange of mass..or in this claim that Co2 and water is created from oxidation in a small low oxygen eniroment from a spark within a milisecond and the heat must be magically apearing with the 10% Oxygen loss almost no hydrocarbons (3%) CO at ,003% and Co2 at 3.5% AS seen in the Mthbusters video not matching the Physics claim
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Combustion is a Exothermic reaction...a Chemical Oxidation where the combustable is turning into heat energy and in response there is less of the combnustable..as seen by lack of oxygen and hydrocarbons in the aftermath of a controled gas mist detonation in the car engine
If the Conversion of the combustable of heat is faster then speed of sound then it is a detonation and has a shockwae which is what drives the piston...not "sudden creation of gas"(which 8 moles couldn't open anyway wink,wink)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Leonid3s 1 year ago
Avagadro's Number is 6.022X10^23
If you have that number of molecules of a compound/element, you have a "mole" of that compound. This is important because you CAN do mole to mole equations.
Anyone attempting to equate the coefficients in a chemical equation to pounds of weight, is a total moron and should be ignored.
But to measure a mole of compound for a reaction, you need to know how much a mole of that compound weighs. Easy. Each atom has a weight. You sum the atoms in the molecule.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
Cared enough to respond.
For those confused by his ramblings, such as "1# of octane makes 10# of CO2", here is the skinny.
Chemical equations work on a molecule by molecule basis. It is not based on weight. This alone shows TRAA is totally clueless. In order for that to make practical sense, you cant do 1 molecule at a time. So, we need to know the weight of a molecule or more to the point, the weight of a given number of molecules of that type. The number used is "Avogadro's Number"
Leonid3s 1 year ago
McExperts. I love it. XD
autumnsylver 1 year ago
btw...
"burning" IS combustion. Dont take my word for it. Look it up in the dictionary.
It can also be described as rapid oxidation.
If it is rapid enough, it can be described as a deflagration.
More rapid still, it can be described as a detonation.
But they are all oxidation reactions.
Get a B.S. in Chemistry. You will then know how wrong you have been.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
""burning" IS combustion. Dont take my word for it. Look it up in the dictionary."
Combustion is rapid exothermic reaction,a detonation(faster then sound thus shockwave)
"It can also be described as rapid oxidation."
not so much the result as cause
"If it is rapid enough, it can be described as a deflagration."
yep,slower then sound explosion
"More rapid still, it can be described as a detonation"
Uh,huh, you can recite it but do you understand it? Can you apply it to real world situations?
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Get a B.S. in Chemistry."
I had $20 in my pocket and was hungry when I was looking over all the fancy pieces of paper I could buy to hang on my wall at $5 a pop while looking over my transcripts to see what I qualified for
I bought the A.S. in Computer information Sciences and A.A. in Liberal Arts and spent the rest on a Plate Lunch,and Drink
If you apply for a job,especially in the Government they want your transcripts not the Degrees which are nothing more then wall decorations(just saying)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
"I had $20 in my pocket and was hungry when I was looking over all the fancy pieces of paper I could buy to hang on my wall at $5 a pop while looking over my transcripts to see what I qualified for
I bought the A.S. in Computer information Sciences and A.A. in Liberal Arts and spent the rest on a Plate Lunch,and Drink"
That explains why you do not have the basic knowledge I would expect of a high school student.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"That explains why you do not have the basic knowledge I would expect of a high school student"
It didn't even phase you that I let a academic secret out of the bag (degrees are fancy pieces of paper you can buy based on having enough qualifying classes?)
High School student? YOu mean one properly Ed-u-ma-cated to listen to authority agree with everything they are told without question nowadays?(like you)
Sorry my Teachers actually thought questioning everything and creative thinking back then
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"basic knowledge"
Oh and Knowledge is the be beginning of wisdom and understanding not the sole source
As potholder's "Meet the Scientists" video points out there ARE different kind of Scientists
In his Doctor example while a Gynecologist and a Urologist are both doctors you go and see a podiatrist ,not a pediatrician for a sore foot
Likewise a Chemical Theorist like Svante is not a Chemist like Dr Jim and a Atmospheric Physicist is not a Meteorologist&a Ocean Physicist is not a Oceanographer
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
You go to a GYN for gyn issues and a you go to a nephrologist for kidney issues. True.
But guess what? Both are doctors and both can balance a basic chemical equation. Unlike you.
You are not a scientist at all on any level.
You never did answer the question. Since one side of your equation of combustion has only "heat and force", what is transmitting the force?
The equation for combustion is a solid as 1+1=2.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"You are not a scientist at all on any level"
Lol...because you say so?
"You never did answer the question. Since one side of your equation of combustion has only "heat and force", what is transmitting the force?"
sorry,guess didn't see it
As a detonation, or exothermic reaction that moves faster then the speed of sound the part that forces the piston up is the shockwave created from fireball
Again combustion isn't a Isothermic(gas expansion from heat) reaction it's Exothermic(energy release)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
Because you fail to demonstrate sufficient competence.
So, since your answer was incomplete, as expected, what transmits the shockwave?
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"But guess what? Both are doctors and both can balance a basic chemical equation. Unlike you."
Actually my PCP has to look up on a computer what a Pharmacist says a particular drug or chemical does..lol
I can mix up a Mock Moxie and just recently figured out how to simulate hucklberry (the Draw back of living in Hawaii is I can't get a Moxie Cola or Huckleberry jam)
Equations are shit if they don't match real world results
"The equation for combustion is a solid as 1+1=2."
I wish, CO2 is $10lb
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"I wish, CO2 is $10lb"
Besides being used to make Soda Pop, it is also the medium of choice for plasma cutters and gass lasers
It also can be mixed with a diacid to make a biodegradable plastic
It is used under pressure to blast freeze food and dryclean sensitive materials like artwork
it is used to decaffinate coffee and process food as a antibaterial agent and used to process medicine
at 2500f it burns as a clean fuel
Because of all it's industrial uses it has to be created at $10 a pound
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Because of all it's industrial uses it has to be created at $10 a pound"
If 1 ton of coal magically made 23 tons of co2and 1 gallon of gasoline could make 23 gallons of co2 Industry would have to intentionally make the stuff to meet demand they coul;d just steep it off their factory exhaust or run a few gasoline motors to collect it off of...lol
real world result is about 323 grams of co2 a gallon off a SUV and less then 1/10% off a factory stack volume per ton of coal(oops)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
Again, you show your monumental ignorance.
I never said a ton of coal would produce 23 tons of CO2.
Again, you show why you are not a scientist.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"Again, you show your monumental ignorance"
more like condescending arrogance,but whatever
"I never said a ton of coal would produce 23 tons of CO2"
Saying combustion creates any amount of co2 in a low oxygen environment,in a confined space,where the detonation flash that lasts a millisecond just because a chemical theory textbook says so is still luscious
"Again, you show why you are not a scientist."
Maybe if I wasn't targeted in dogeball,chose last for teams,and didn't keep score i'd care ;)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
You neglected to answer the question:
What transmits the shockwave?
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"You neglected to answer the question:
What transmits the shockwave?"
The Fireball moving faster then the speed of sound creates the shockwave
The fireball is heat energy released when the spark oxidates the hydrocarbon and oxygen which is why a exaust meter would show only 3% hydrocarbon and 14% oygen by volume
There is no "creation" of Co2 here, the Oxygen and Hydrocarbon is used up in the conversion to heat energy
combustion is exothermic(energy release) not isothermc(gas expansion)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
So your contention is the shockwave is transmitted by heat?
LOL!
You are an idiot.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"So your contention is the shockwave is transmitted by heat? LOL!"
The flash firebal from the spontanious release of heat
"You are an idiot"
I'm not the one thumping on the Chemical theorist Bible as "Abosulute and Infallible fact"
YOu's sooner turn lead to gold then create Co2 from combustion...lol
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
I never said "low oxygen". Those are your words.
I create CO2 from combustion every day.
You are clueless. There are entire books written on the subject of combustion.
How many are written that support your argument? Where are the peer-reviewed articles?
Where are YOUR peer reviewed articles on this?
They dont exist. Just like your 'heat propagated shockwave'.
Just like your scientific credentials.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"I never said "low oxygen". Those are your words."
Yes, the space in the piston is small and the areated gasoline mist is a low oxygen environment in a confined space
"I create CO2 from combustion every day."
If you have a pre-1994 car with a catalyst converter converting CO to CO2...maybe(it's where the misconception that cars STILL exhaust co2 has a grain of truth)
"You are clueles"
Cause yo say so?
"There are entire books written on the subject of combustion."
Yeah in mechanical engineering
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
There are entire books written on the subject of combustion.(Yeah in Mechanical Engineering)
And as a practical science they discuss the oxygen to fuel ration to determine how much "Bang" they get via adjusting fuel to oxygen ratio for optimal performance
It is also the Mechanical engineers that would know that the Emmisions control box catches the caremelized gunk the milisecond it is ejected preventing the gunk smoking and oxidizing into CO that had to be converted into c02 pre-1994
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Where are YOUR peer reviewed articles on this"
Lol...I am not a University Academic Egghead, I would not volunteer my time to government panels nor waste my time writing articles to university periodicals or politicians for "peer approval"...I am happiest in the field or lab verifying or testing things
"They dont exist. Just like your 'heat propagated shockwave'"
My Shockwave?
guess the kaboom in this video is just my imagination then?
watch?v=3EnWazrSQgQ
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
Nothing in that vid claims the shockwave is propagated through heat.
The vid does not support your claim at all.
You have no peer reviewed papers because none of the arguments you have made here would pass peer review.
You are either a complete idiot or a troll. Unfortunately, I think you are the former. But either way, I am done with you. Welcome to my blocked list. Good luck selling this hypothesis to anyone
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"Nothing in that vid claims the shockwave is propagated through heat."
Well it isn't your "co2 created expanding spontaneously from the blast to the house" either
"You have no peer reviewed papers "
Academic Eggheads "peer review" to a "consensus" of agreement, the Verification testing of their consensus claims when possible are the next phases of the Scientific method
"You are either a complete idiot or a troll"
lol
"But either way, I am done with you. Welcome to my blocked lis"
Like I care
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Chemical Theorist like Svante is not a Chemist like Dr Jim and a Atmospheric Physicist is not a Meteorologist&a Ocean Physicist is not a Oceanographer"
My point?
Since you seem to need to be told things and can't figure them out for yourself unless it was learned from a textbook.....you and I are different kinds of Scientist
THose like you say burnning fossil fuels make Co2 and predict with the climate models that co2 originate over cities
Scientist like me are running IBUKI to verify that
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
But, I am pretty sure I can find articles in peer reviewed journals that support the production of CO2 and H2O from the combustion of alkanes.
The question is, would it make a difference? Probably not. The poorly informed conspiracy/religous fanatics just move to their next counter-hypothesis.
I could spend my entire life proving to you the truth of my argument.
Based on my assessment of your personality, it would be wasted effort.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
Then again, maybe that is what you have done?
Maybe you are actually a 'climate change' proponent and are putting on this ridiculous facade to discredit those that question the data.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"Maybe you are actually a 'climate change' proponent and are putting on this ridiculous facade to discredit those that question the data."
oh,crap
The Right Wingers would actually consider me one of the Liberal Elitist....one of your "Masters" (I'm Assuming)
If we stay on Oil I win, if we go Solar I win, if we go nuclear I win, If we are at Peace I win, If we are at war I win, if the Economy is bad I win, if the economy is good I win
I am the Pacific Reagent...nice to meet you
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@ 1:00 You forgot to mention chemtrails, haha :P Thats a whole other story.....
seanturpin01 1 year ago
You might want to also explain why someone with knowledge of chemistry 'far exceeding most chemists' is working as a cashier.
Chemistry is one of the most recession proof fields. Even during the Great Depression, unemployment among chemists was in the low single digits.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"You might want to also explain why someone with knowledge of chemistry 'far exceeding most chemists' is working as a cashier."
I'm retired as a government scientist, retired from the corporate world, lost my investments between the Enron scandal then a bad crop season (was on wrong end of first Natural Gas and then Corn Futures) and honestly need to do something other then watch videos on Youtube all day
I don't need to work,but I like associating with people..and it gives "Vegas money"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Chemistry is one of the most recession proof fields Even during the Great Depression"
Of course,.
Chemists are the ones that figured out how to make cancer fighting drugs, Synthetic asprin,synthetic rubber,silicone,latex, nylon,plastics and synthetic asprin from oil
"unemployment among chemists was in the low single digits."
Black Market Chemists can synthesize LSD,THC,etc and created Crystal Meth(just saying)
Tinker types made Pepsi,Dr Peper,Moxie,and Pop Rocks...lol
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
For those wondering:
Straight chain alkanes, such as octane, consist of carbon (C) and hydrogen (H).
The general formula for an alkane is CnH(n+2). In the case of octane, this is C8H18. When completely burned in the prescence of adequate oxygen, the products are CO2 and H20.
In the case of octane, this would look something like:
C8H18 + 12.5O2 -----> 8CO2 + 9H2O
If ArchAngel would like to explain how burning an alkane creates NO carbon dioxide, I am all ears.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
""When completely burned in the presence of adequate oxygen...
Problem is you aren't burning the gasoline at high temperature in adequate oxygen in an enormous space
The Gasoline mist is aerated then injected into a tiny space and sparked mostly for the KABOOM to drive the piston with the remaining caramelized gunk laded mist ejected a millisecond later into the Emission Control Box that prevents oxidation of the gunk to CO in the case of a car engine
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"If ArchAngel would like to explain how burning an alkane creates NO carbon dioxide, I am all ears."
Carbon Monoxide is the direct result of the oxidization of smoldering Carbon,not Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide can't spontaneously turn to Carbon Dioxide by more oxygen just being available,it either needs to be physically forced or Chemically Forced to except the second Oxygen to make it CO2
Combustion doesn't have enough heat nor chemical ability to force an extra O on CO..It "eats" Oxygen
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"n the case of octane, this would look something like:
C8H18 + 12.5O2 -----> 8CO2 + 9H2O"
Lol.....
1.Puts bucket on ground to catch water
2)Aerates gasoline into a mist in a balloon .....Lights ballo)
(KABOOM!!!!+HEAT)
3)Breaks out CO2 meter...no change
4) Checks bucket,no water
Again the reason why a Engine gets hot is cause combustion converts the carbon and hydrogen with the oxygen into heat and force when sparked...not your physicists "Co2 and water" nonsence
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
You really are totally clueless, arent you?
Btw, I have a degree in chemistry and patents in high temperature energetic compounds. Do you? Yeah, didnt think so.
Burning an alkane in oxygen will ALWAYS produce CO2. ALWAYS. NO EXCEPTIONS. It will also ALWAYS produce water. ALWAYS. NO EXCEPTIONS.
If there is not enough oxygen for complete combustion, then you will get side products. Carbon monoxide is just one of many.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"You really are totally clueless, arent you?"
Depends,what are we speaking of?
"Btw, I have a degree in chemistry"
I have a A.S. in Computer Information Sciences and B.A. in Profesional Studies if you want to flaunt Degrees Thing is a Self thought "alchemist" named Issac Newton is the Father of Modern Physics, a Self Thought "Patent Clerk" made E=mc2 in his off hours from work and upsurped some Netonian principles,and Tesla was a crazy high school drop out
Degrees mean nothing but passed tests
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"and patents in high temperature energetic compounds. Do you? "
I was a part of Carl Sagans "Planetary Sociaty" that was pushing for a Manned Mission to Mars with my "expertize" in Artificial Biospheres,Terra-forming (Shake and Baking Mars into a habitable planet) and Weather Manipulation
When they decided to go with probes I went into life globes (shrimp,algae,in glass ball) and tinkering in expanding food crops via Hydroponics
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
Do you want to know why the piston in a gasoline engine really moves? Probably not. It will ruin your massive misconception of reality. But here goes anyway.
Liquids are more dense than gas. Hot gases are more dense than cold gases.
There is a lot more to it than that, but those are the absolute basics.
The gasoline, a liquid, is combined with oxygen, a gas, to form a LOT of gas. This gas exerts pressure on the piston, moving it, causing WORK.
Basic physics.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
@Leonid3s Correction of error:
It should read:
Liquids are more dense than gas. Hot gases are LESS dense than cold gases.
My apologies. I should have proofed it before posting. I dont delete comments, but always attempt to correct major errors when noticed.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"The gasoline, a liquid, is combined with oxygen, a gas, to form a LOT of gas. This gas exerts pressure on the piston, moving it, causing WORK.
Basic physics."
Theoretical Physics yes,Chemestry no
Combustion isn't a "Burning" it is a instantaneous exothermic reaction where the spark turns the gas and air into thermal and kinetic energy
If anything you Physicists thinking you know everything about everything got the misconception of reality cause you stick "Chemical" in front of Physicist...lol
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
You are an idiot. Sorry to inform you.
Newton, Einstein, and Tesla all had their math and conclusions reviewed by their peers. The math eventually convinced the most staunch opponents.
You are actually the proof you are wrong.
Your initial comment, "NO CO2 is formed in combustion". Now you give California statutes on how much CO2 is produced per mile. The two statements are contradictory.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
"Combustion isnt a burning... kinetic energy"
Really? What is the method of transmitting that "kinetic energy"?
It is the EXPANSION OF GASES created during the combustion of the fuel/air mixture.
The gases expand, pushing against the piston, causing movement, creating WORK.
Your degree is in "professional studies"? LOL! Yeah. And a BA at that.
That may impress your significant other, but not someone with a solid science background.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
Since you have a problem with me explaining to you your mistakes, I now include quotes from Solomon's Organic Chemistry textbook.
"We all know that alkanes react vigorously with oxygen when an appropriate mixture is ignited. This combustion occurs in the cylinders of automobiles..."
Also:
Fig 4.9) CH3CH2CH2CH3 + 6.5O2 ----> 4CO2 + 5H2O + heat.
enthalpy of combustion = -687.5kcal/mol
So, a definitive text of Organic CHEMISTRY says you are WRONG.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"We all know that alkanes react vigorously with oxygen when an appropriate mixture is ignited. This combustion occurs in the cylinders of automobiles..."
YOu do know it's a Chemical Theory book thus the "we all know" bit instead of "lets gather around a Engine ,run mit and measure the gases that come out
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Fig 4.9) CH3CH2CH2CH3 + 6.5O2 ----> 4CO2 + 5H2O + heat."
Cute now
Mythbusters Disel Diaries 2
watch?v=oQzpsBmGeNs
at 38 seconds Oxegen has droped from 23% to 15% as it was consumed by the Exothermic reaction
Hydro carbons is 3%, CO is .03%, co2 is 3.5% and VOC is Zero (Al;so known as "California Standard)
The Rest of that is Air plus the Humidity that came in with the Air
There is no magical creation of 20 gallons of co2 from gallon of gas
Hydrocarbon and Oxygen turned into heat and force
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"So, a definitive text of Organic CHEMISTRY says you are WRONG."
Yeah just like the Physicist and text books of the time said that the "Patent Clerk" was an idiot cause E=MC2 violated Netwons "conservation of energy"....with the Nuclear Bomb verifying the "patent Clerk was right:
YOu Academic Eggheads always crack me up
The Consensus of Agreement on the Hypothesis was done...and now us Grunts have the funding to verify and test the Hypothesis with IBUKI ,Canx-2 and the NGWS
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"CH3CH2CH2CH3 + 6.5O2 ----> 4CO2 + 5H2O + heat.
enthalpy of combustion"
nice now Mythbusters Disel Diary to look at a Exhause monitored at 38 seconds
watch?v=oQzpsBmGeNs
CO2 is 3 and a half percent, CO is less then a percent, VOCs are zero and hydrocarbons is 3 percent,and oxygen is 14 percent
Oh My...
Why isn't there your "20 gallons of CO2 from 1 gallon of Gas"?
Why is there missing Oxygen and Hydrocarbon?
(Hint: the rest of the output is Air usually with humidity from intake)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
Oh and we have a "resident Chemist on Youtube by the name of Dr Jim
watch?v=3Lwdm1Dlw2Y
2:00 - 4:10 and
6:30-6:50
for description and demonstration of Combustion
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Leonid3s Oops, I see you caught your density error below, but I have one more for you:
"The gasoline, a liquid, is combined with oxygen, a gas, to form a LOT of gas."
The work done by an engine is mostly caused by increased gas pressure due to heating, less so by the conversion of liquid into gas. From your octane combustion example above: 13.5 moles in, 17 moles out: +26%. Temperature is ~ 300K in, 2500K out: +730%. PV = nRT!
terrymorse 11 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel
Further, Physics and Chemistry are not really different disciplines. They both look at reality with slightly different emphasis. This is why there are upper level chemistry courses such as PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY. It also has a TON of math, but with your limited ability to apply basic logic, you would do poorly in those required math courses.
An example of the closeness of the two fields is found in the 'bible' of the disciplines, The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"Further, Physics and Chemistry are not really different disciplines."
Yesw they are
A Physists specializing in Chemical Theory like Svante only thinks,estimates,and predicts with mathamatic and computer simulations how they think chemicals will interact
A Chemist would actually mix the chemicals to make something or to see the result
"with your limited ability to apply basic logic, you would do poorly in those required math courses"
maybe, but I know Co2 can't Break Zeroth law adsorbing heat
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
Last point, so simple even an elementary student could understand it... so you might have a slim chance of grasping it also:
Take your hand and place it in the path of the exhaust from a gasoline engine. (Be careful, it will be hot if you are too close to the engine.) Your hand will become damp. THAT is the WATER you claim is not produced.
Of all the people I have met who pretend to know something about chemistry, you are the most ignorant of the subject.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"Last point, so simple even an elementary student could understand it... so you might have a slim chance of grasping it also:"
Depends...I was educated before the Liberals took over the Public Education system and barely made it through the Liberatitization of my College during my collge days
America was built by those with "8th grade Education" but back then 8th graders knew trigonometry, algebra,ands Engineering...College Grads like Obama don't even know how many States their are
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Take your hand and place it in the path of the exhaust from a gasoline engine. (Be careful, it will be hot if you are too close to the engine.) Your hand will become damp. THAT is the WATER you claim is not produced."
FUndumental problem with your example is that the air intake of the engine isn't pure air...it more likely then not has an amount of humidity (805 today here in Hawaii) so the water you think was "created" in the exhaust actually was sucked in rode thjough then was exhausted
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
"fundamental problem...then exhausted"
I am so glad you dont work for NASA. You are an idiot.
Warm air holds more water than cold air.
The air "sucked in" is heated by the engine. IF there were no other source of water, then the air would leave the engine "drier" than it entered, as measured by relative humidity.
Please, take some advanced science courses. Your ignorance is staggering.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"I am so glad you dont work for NASA. You are an idiot."
Actually that is where the Eggheads go, Besides Military Research Funding is more generous..especially if what you develop has even a hint of "weapon potential"
"IF there were no other source of water, then the air would leave the engine "drier" than it entered, as measured by relative humidity."
Only reason it would be drier is if you where intentionally cutting water vapor into the fuel injection to reduce fuel use(Military does that)
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
"Please, take some advanced science courses. Your ignorance is staggering."
It is a rare opportunity to learn something
Even rarer to actually Understand it and not just re-babble it
Even rarer when you can innovate pass what is thought/understood, correct the errors, and pave a new path
This guy re-babbling Zeroth law(You cant double mass or volume to increase heat absorption potential from same heat source) after the Conflicting "AGW:" nonsense without a eyebat is amusing
watch?v=kLqduWF6GXE
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
I have quoted an authoritative text on the issue of combustion of an alkane. IF it were not the case, there are scientists all over the world that would love to 'make their bones' proving this equation is in error.
That is how science works. Someone presents a hypothesis and defends it against all comers until either the data proves he is correct, or his errors become another tombstone along the road of progress.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
When a new hypothesis comes along, the burden of proof is on the person presenting the new hypothesis.
You have proven nothing.
Instead, you continue to spout nonsense and claim it fact.
Where are your peer reviewed articles published in field recognized authoritative journals? Where are the honors and fame presented the developer of your hypothesis, presented by international Chemistry organizations?
You babble on, but say... nothing.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
You keep babbling about how the concensus is wrong. I admit it is possible. People once thought Newtonian physics held at all speeds, since you like quoting Einstein's humble roots.
Difference between Einstein and you? Einstein was able to mathematically support his hypothesis. He could take the current theory and show how his theory was not an invalidation but a logical and mathematical extension of current Newtonian physics.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"ou keep babbling about how the concensus is wrong."
I didn't say the Consensus is wrong....but what the Enironuts/media think the "Consensus" means is wrong
iI isn't a conclusion but a majority vote on the Hypothesis that now needs to be verifying and tested
Withoiut this majority vote the governments would not have released funding for projects like IBUKI and the Next generation weather Satellites in the "A-Train" that is collecting the data needed to have a better understanding of "AGW"
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
" Einstein was able to mathematically support his hypothesis. He could take the current theory and show how his theory was not an invalidation but a logical and mathematical extension of current Newtonian physics"
Actually a Solar eclipse with a displaced star field prove that Gravity bends light
A Sattilite's clock being 1/10 of a second slower at 17,000mph proves speed slows time
the Nuclear bomb converting little matter to a lot of Energy prove E=mc2
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
All of which was predicted mathematically prior to the proof.
You should have taken more science and less 'arts'. Then again, even a gifted highschool student should know this.
Leonid3s 1 year ago
"All of which was predicted mathematically prior to the proof."
And it took 20 years for the "consensus" of the other Physicists to not treat him or his theories as a joke mostly as he was proved right and they were proved wrong test after test and verification after verification
And then there is the whole "Spooky Physics" he often liked to hack out of his equations cause he didn't believe in anti-time,anti-space,anti-matter and anti-energy...which later was verified and tested in atom smashers
TheRealArchAngel 1 year ago
@TheRealArchAngel
None of which comes remotely close to you stating a basic chemical equation is just plain wrong.
Again, any gifted high school science student would know about Einstein and his history. They write books about it.
That sa