Official Global Warming thread (merged)

Or a vehicle that gets roughly 19.5 mpg. I'd bet that many trucks and SUVs around around that number (or worse).



Oxygen is required to burn gas--that's why you have intake valves on your car. CO2 has oxygen in it, hence the "O2" part. Gas plus oxygen yields CO2 and water when burned.
Old bump. But the 21.2 or whatever they used was some cross average they used. Not the relative worst.

And the O2 doesnt come from the gas. My stoichometery is rusty as all get out, but I remember having to include everything if you were going to make statements about what is produced.

Again it strikes me as bad science. And bad in the way to push one way of thinking over another.
 
Old bump. But the 21.2 or whatever they used was some cross average they used. Not the relative worst.

And the O2 doesnt come from the gas. My stoichometery is rusty as all get out, but I remember having to include everything if you were going to make statements about what is produced.

Again it strikes me as bad science. And bad in the way to push one way of thinking over another.

Yeah, the oxygen comes from the air. I'm not sure that I'm following what your problem with that is.
 
Old bump. But the 21.2 or whatever they used was some cross average they used. Not the relative worst.

And the O2 doesnt come from the gas. My stoichometery is rusty as all get out, but I remember having to include everything if you were going to make statements about what is produced.

Again it strikes me as bad science. And bad in the way to push one way of thinking over another.
The stoichiometry is based on making both CO2 and H2O when combusting hydrocarbons. For example, starting with the smallest molecules: one mole of methane (CH4) makes one mole of CO2 and 2 moles of water, taking 2 moles of O2 from the air; one mole of ethane (C2H6) makes 2 moles of CO2 and 3 moles of water, taking... let's see... 3.5 moles of O2 from the air... and so on.
 
At this point and for the last 70years or more...nuclear power is by far the best way to generate power anywhere that nature cannot be used to do it free through geothermal heat, dam water falling, etc...

The same type clowns who fearmonger about the weather today did the same thing to slow and stop the construction of more reactors in the late 20th century...to the worlds detriment. Modern reactors produce very little nuclear waste, which can be stored permanently very safely deep under the same ground that it came from. Technology has come a very long way in safety and efficiency in western reactor plant designs. There are very few places on Earth where nuclear isnt the best way to make power.

...until we conquer cold fusion. There are billions being spent on it right now. Many programs in the US, at least 3 separate 100mm projects in UK, the EU is building the largest tokamak ever built...it is the "holy grail" of energy because if/when we figure it out, energy is limitless and dirt cheap. So far about 70% efficiency is the best achieved in a "mini sun"...the day we figure out fusion or gravity is the day we can begin planning travel to other stars. Hope we never stop trying on either front.
 
^^^ any pets killed by that fire? Cruelty to animals. Any property damages? Arson and repay the debt. Any loss of life? Manslaughter at least for every count.

Throw the stinkin book at these scumbags to try and deter any future attacks. Let's not be deceived....when its 120 degrees and dry as a bone. .lighting a fire IS. A terrorist attack....it should be treated as such.
 
^^^ any pets killed by that fire? Cruelty to animals. Any property damages? Arson and repay the debt. Any loss of life? Manslaughter at least for every count.

Throw the stinkin book at these scumbags to try and deter any future attacks. Let's not be deceived....when its 120 degrees and dry as a bone. .lighting a fire IS. A terrorist attack....it should be treated as such.

I saw article ( I think it was ) where they are estimating over a billion wildlife deaths .
 

VN Store



Back
Top