Do as I say, not as I do....

[jedstivers]

I have real reasons to burn oil but you don't.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... paign.html

 

[Nesikep]

Has anyone looked at David Suzuki? He is a spitting image..

I actually find it ironic that in the second picture of John Suave, there's the background that says "Rainbow War".... it looks a heck of a lot like a jetliner!

 

[lavacarancher]

Jo, this is a little off topic but do you know how these tree hugger folks calculate how much CO2 (or any other gas) is put into the air? On CO2 I can see that it is 1.67 times heavier than air but on some other gasses, which are lighter than air, how do they determine that "20 tons of xyz gas is emitted …." when the gas that they are measuring is lighter than air? Smoke and mirrors as far as I'm concerned.

 

[ANAZAZI]

Jo, this is a little off topic but do you know how these tree hugger folks calculate how much CO2 (or any other gas) is put into the air? On CO2 I can see that it is 1.67 times heavier than air but on some other gasses, which are lighter than air, how do they determine that "20 tons of xyz gas is emitted …." when the gas that they are measuring is lighter than air? Smoke and mirrors as far as I'm concerned.

You do not need to weigh the emission. The calculation is rather simple: 1 carbon atom (C) + 2 oxygen atoms (O) = one molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2).
One US gallon of diesel fuel emits around 22 lbs of CO2, a gallon of gasoline roughly 19 lbs.

 

[jedstivers]

So something that weight 7.3 lbs can turn into 22lbs after it has preformed considerable work? That's really cool.

 

[Nesikep]

Yep... you have Carbon and Hydrogen (mostly) in the fuel, usually about twice as many hydrogen as carbon atoms.. And in the air you get the Oxygen... so you end up with (for gasoline, or OCTane)

8 C + 16 H + 16 O => 8 H2O + 8 CO2 + energy

Hydrogen weighs 1, Carbon weighs 14, and oxygen weighs 16 IIRC.. so putting the weights in there you get
8x14 +16x1 for the fuel, plus 16x16 from the air...
= 128(fuel) + 256(air) => 144 (water) + 368 (CO2)

Taking the ratio of 368/128 = 2.85:1... 7.2 lbs * 2.85 is 20.7, which is for gasoline... Diesel will be higher, but it's pretty close

One thing I figured out is an engine like a Cummins 5.9 can use over 70 lbs of air a minute... put into perspective, that's more weight in air than what comes out of a garden hose!

 

[Jogeephus]

So something that weight 7.3 lbs can turn into 22lbs after it has preformed considerable work? That's really cool.

What's even cooler is if you were to tarp your cotton and force CO2 into the space your cotton would grow bigger and faster and your cotton would put off more oxygen into the atmosphere. Evil isn't it? We are all going to die.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Pretty dang scary those equilibrium equations and cycles where one product at a higher concentration such as CO2 will drive the reaction back to Oxygen and Carbon even faster.

With as much Carbon as I've produced, I don't know how I haven't killed myself?

And if we're really going to get "smart" (staying consistent with the idiocy) about things, shouldn't exercise be banned or at least taxed? Talk about misuse of food, wonder how much extra a marathon runner eats to maintain body condition or the weight lifters- that protein has to come from somewhere and it takes quite a bit to maintain it due to protein turn over, and the excessive CO2 production from these millions of people.

Wow! I finally understand how it makes sense to some to pay for people to just sit on their arse. It's a CO2 thing.

But sadly the science just doesn't back them up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... -data.html

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard's US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world's most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA's US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been "adjusting" its record by replacing real temperatures with data "fabricated" by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed "Data tampering at USHCN/GISS", Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on "fabricated" data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous "hockey stick" graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013 ... in-the-us/

 

[jedstivers]

Oh yeah I forgot that when you put 70 pounds of air in a tire it weighs 70 pounds more.
I had a guy here once that really thought that.
Yep, why aren't we all dead long ago? Also any gases coming out of a volcano are ok because they are all natural.

 

[lavacarancher]

Yep, I understand the chemical formulas and atomic weight things but there is something fundamentally wrong with the units of measure. The atomic weight of hydrogen is one (1.0067) but it is NOT one pound - it is just ONE. If you want to call it one whatchamacallit then (in this article) the 148 Kgs of CO2 should be called 148 whatchamacallits, not kilograms. Kilograms/pounds is misleading and for the tree huggers it creates a number that is more favorable for their cause and alarming to everyone else.

So here's a challenge. What does ALL the earths atmosphere weigh using the atomic weight method and what percentage is 148 Kgs. I think that 148 Kgs will be an insignificant number expressed as a percentage of the earths atmosphere.

First one with a reasonable answer wins a beer on me.

Just for S's and G's here's something I found that actually assigns weight (in Kgs) to atomic weight. You will notice the 1.66xx X10 to the -27. 27 zeros to the right of the decimal point is a lot of zeros.

The unified atomic mass unit (symbol: u) or dalton (symbol: Da) is the standard unit that is used for indicating mass on an atomic or molecular scale (atomic mass). One unified atomic mass unit is approximately the mass of one nucleon (either a single proton or neutron) and is equivalent to 1 g/mol.[1] It is defined as one twelfth of the mass of an unbound neutral atom of carbon-12 in its nuclear and electronic ground state,[2] and has a value of 1.660538921(73)×10−27 kg.[3] The CIPM has categorised it as a non-SI unit accepted for use with the SI, and whose value in SI units must be obtained experimentally.[2]

The amu without the "unified" prefix is technically an obsolete unit based on oxygen, which was replaced in 1961. However, some sources still use the amu but now define it in the same way as u (based on carbon-12). In this sense, most uses of atomic mass units or amu today actually refer to unified atomic mass units or u. For standardization a specific atomic nucleus (carbon-12 vs. oxygen-16) had to be chosen because average mass of a nucleon depends on the count of the nucleons in the atomic nucleus due to mass defect. This is also why the mass of a proton (or neutron) by itself is more than (and not equal to) 1 u.

Atomic mass unit does not stand for the unit of mass in the atomic units system, which is rather me.


As you can probably tell, I'm WAY over my head here.

 

[TexasBred]

Yep, I understand the chemical formulas and atomic weight things but there is something fundamentally wrong with the units of measure. The atomic weight of hydrogen is one (1.0067) but it is NOT one pound - it is just ONE. If you want to call it one whatchamacallit then (in this article) the 148 Kgs of CO2 should be called 148 whatchamacallits, not kilograms. Kilograms/pounds is misleading and for the tree huggers it creates a number that is more favorable for their cause and alarming to everyone else.

So here's a challenge. What does ALL the earths atmosphere weigh using the atomic weight method and what percentage is 148 Kgs. I think that 148 Kgs will be an insignificant number expressed as a percentage of the earths atmosphere.

First one with a reasonable answer wins a beer on me.

Just for S's and G's here's something I found that actually assigns weight (in Kgs) to atomic weight. You will notice the 1.66xx X10 to the -27. 27 zeros to the right of the decimal point is a lot of zeros.

The unified atomic mass unit (symbol: u) or dalton (symbol: Da) is the standard unit that is used for indicating mass on an atomic or molecular scale (atomic mass). One unified atomic mass unit is approximately the mass of one nucleon (either a single proton or neutron) and is equivalent to 1 g/mol.[1] It is defined as one twelfth of the mass of an unbound neutral atom of carbon-12 in its nuclear and electronic ground state,[2] and has a value of 1.660538921(73)×10−27 kg.[3] The CIPM has categorised it as a non-SI unit accepted for use with the SI, and whose value in SI units must be obtained experimentally.[2]

The amu without the "unified" prefix is technically an obsolete unit based on oxygen, which was replaced in 1961. However, some sources still use the amu but now define it in the same way as u (based on carbon-12). In this sense, most uses of atomic mass units or amu today actually refer to unified atomic mass units or u. For standardization a specific atomic nucleus (carbon-12 vs. oxygen-16) had to be chosen because average mass of a nucleon depends on the count of the nucleons in the atomic nucleus due to mass defect. This is also why the mass of a proton (or neutron) by itself is more than (and not equal to) 1 u.

Atomic mass unit does not stand for the unit of mass in the atomic units system, which is rather me.


As you can probably tell, I'm WAY over my head here.

Thanks Lava...I've been sitting here for hours trying to figure out how much my lap weighs what percentage of my entire body weight it represents and where it goes when I stand up.

 

[Jogeephus]

First one with a reasonable answer wins a beer on me.

I'll have to go thirsty I guess. My head hurts.