67Monaco
Old Man with a Hat
Hell I'd be up for more fission energy for that matter. I'll take a thorium reactor in the backyard please.
Climate change current effects
- Thread starter tbm3fan
- Start date
Mudeblue
Well-Known Member
WHHAAAAT? 18 pounds of CO2 when a gallon of gas weighs 6.3 lbs. Your going to have to explain the physics on that one! That explains the basis of your whole comment! Get off whatever it is you smoking!
67Monaco
Old Man with a Hat
There you go f'in up the algo's again. Now they gotta go back and adjust the models for the corrected numbers....
tbm3fan
Old Man with a Hat
Basic chemistry is behind all this before dismissing arbitrarily. Instead do the research in order to learn. An opinion needs to be backed by peer reviewed research in order for the opinion to have any validity.
It seems impossible that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about 6.3 pounds, could produce 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned. However, most of the weight of the CO2 doesn't come from the gasoline itself, but the oxygen in the air.
When gasoline burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), and carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2).
Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by 44/12 or 3.7.
Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the carbon in a gallon of gasoline weighs 5.5 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .87).
We can then multiply the weight of the carbon (5.5 pounds) by 3.7, which equals 20 pounds of CO2!
Fratzog
Old Man with a Hat
Only took one year of chemistry in high school. The knowledge does come in handy occasionally.
These guys will just say "everyone knows that air ain't that heavy so this is just 'fake science'". They will not believe anything they don't want to. Our "leader" gets away with it on a daily basis, why not them?
300rag
It's Not Going to Shift Itself
Maybe we should ban oxygen, as it is a bigger contributor to CO2
FWIW... the A/F ratio you run is measured by weight... so 14.7:1 is nearly 15 times as much weight in air vs fuel...
Mudeblue
Well-Known Member
Mudeblue
Well-Known Member
Bottom line, the 6.3 lbs did not produce the 18 pounds!11.7 was already there! Great logic given you said it "produced"
tbm3fan
Old Man with a Hat
Obviously chemistry and science are clearly lost on some. I won't waste my time explaining it to you.
MarPar
Meat Man with a Hat
This is kind of mind-boggling. It made me wonder why we don't feel the weight of the atmosphere on us. It seems to be because the pressure applies in all directions and/or we just are used to it. To put it in perspective, you have to go 10 meters underwater to double the pressure we are normally under. I haven't been that deep, but just the pressure at the bottom of a swimming pool feels pretty significant.
Jon O.
Well-Known Member
Most people on this forum get 10 miles per gallon. All of us will be long dead by the time this will matter. Let's just enjoy life while we are here.
Kinda fun to think in volume too... around 9000:1
Just to help you out... CO2 levels are so small in the natural atmosphere that most emission testing equipment won't register any if you haven't been running cars nearby. The combustion process PRODUCES the gas by chemically bonding Carbon with Oxygen... It does not however create new matter...
tbm3fan
Old Man with a Hat
For perspective. At the beginning of the Industrial Age CO2 levels were 280 ppm. In 1958, at the top of Mauna Loa it was 316 ppm. In April 2017 we hit 410 ppm. In 50 years, at current rate, it will bit 500 ppm resulting in 5.4 degrees F which is a big deal for the world wide climate. There apparently is a tipping point where we will be in deep **** and be hard to reverse. Suffice it to say 600 ppm will probably be around 2075 and my son will be 61. Grandsons will be younger obviously so I can't say it doesn't affect me unless I was incredibly self-centered.
Now I know CO2 levels were much higher hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago. Some point to that as proof it isn't bad. Of course, they ignore one huge variable and that is the earth was very different geologically from today. They are saying that the apple and orange are the same and they are not. Just saw some sites ignoring that difference when making their statement. Another typical diversion is to talk about temperatures as they occur. Problem here is that represents weather which is a very short term issue. Can't even predict weather 10 days ahead. Those sites avoid the fact that when researchers are talking temperature they are talking climate which is a very long term issue. Once again trying to say the apple and orange are the same. Loads more examples out there for the masses who don't understand basic science.
tbm3fan
Old Man with a Hat
Now I have been wall diving off the coast of the Philippines down to 120 ft. Total time down was 12 minutes before having to make the ascent back up along with the decompression stops. Tank of air was about 45 minutes.
MarPar
Meat Man with a Hat
Ill just leave this here...
Global Warming: Media Ignore Sharp Drop In Global Temperatures Over Past Two Years
Global Warming: Media Ignore Sharp Drop In Global Temperatures Over Past Two Years
Ha ha I know- we should tax oxygen then the government will make lots of money. we would save money by using less oxygen and the world will last longer !! Eventually there will be more oxygen to overpower all of the greenhouse gasesMaybe we should ban oxygen, as it is a bigger contributor to CO2
Last edited:
Similar threads
