More Fossil Fuel Being Created In Hawaii

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
703
On the original topic, it looks like the lava flow from that run away volcano ran out of thermal energy and couldn't make it any further.


The end of the flow approaching the town of Pahoa is about 11 miles from its source (the Pu-OO crater) and the temperature has dropped below the solidification point for the Hawaiian "Pahoe Pahoe" lava.

However for those living in a volcanic zone, this is a prime example of a "Really Close Shave"!!! :eek:
 

alfacliff

Joined Dec 13, 2013
2,458
I watched a talk on the local "educational channel" where a guy standing behind a podium with an insignia of the US House of Representatives said that putting 100 pounds of gas in your car generated 100 pounds of carbon dioxide. concidering that when gasoline burns in a car, the main product is water, from combining eht hydrogen and oxygen, where do his figures come from? and how does carbon dioxide manage to trap heat in one direction and let it through in he other? the majority of out heat comes from the sun, through the "carbon dioxide blanket", but cant get back, out?
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,045
concidering that when gasoline burns in a car, the main product is water, from combining eht hydrogen and oxygen.the majority of out heat comes from the sun, through the "carbon dioxide blanket", but cant get back, out?
This is a question that I have asked a few times, and was told to basically "shut up, you don't know what your talking about". So since the big climate change war over a ETO a few years ago, I try to keep out of this stuff. Engines and all types of fossil fuel burning put out way more water vapor than CO2. Then look at all the water vapor that is released in industrial processes and power generation and air conditioning, etc, etc. Water vapor is much more heat absorbing than CO2.

I used to be concerned about GW - CC, but now I'm thinking it might be wiser to wait until Jenny McCarthy decides to weigh in on it before making up my mind on it.
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
5,237
I watched a talk on the local "educational channel" where a guy standing behind a podium with an insignia of the US House of Representatives said that putting 100 pounds of gas in your car generated 100 pounds of carbon dioxide. concidering that when gasoline burns in a car, the main product is water, from combining eht hydrogen and oxygen, where do his figures come from? and how does carbon dioxide manage to trap heat in one direction and let it through in he other? the majority of out heat comes from the sun, through the "carbon dioxide blanket", but cant get back, out?
Not sure of your numbers, but you can look at this:

Exhaust Gas

Carbon dioxide, as well as water vapor, methane, and just about every gas in our atmosphere "captures" IR energy from the sun (wavelength dependent on molecular structure) and stores it in vibrations within the bonds that hold the atoms of the molecules together. This energy causes the molecules to have a "temperature". IR energy is re-radiated (depending on temperature) from the molecules such that, over all, the energy absorbed is in equilibrium with the energy released.

Note that things would be *very* uncomfortable here on Earth if that weren't so. We'd be very hot on the sun side, and very cold on the dark side. Think of the atmosphere as a huge capacitor moderating rapid changes in the earths surface temperature.

Regardless of the "97%", the jury is still out as to whether increasing CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased "average" global temperature. CO2 levels have steadily increased for the past 18 years with exactly 0 degrees increase in temperature. A good scientist will accept such data as refutation of that part of the AGW hypothesis.

And, keep in mind: CO2 is good! It is plant food, and it makes things grow. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, we would not be here to debate the issue.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
CO2 levels have steadily increased for the past 18 years with exactly 0 degrees increase in temperature. A good scientist will accept such data as refutation of that part of the AGW hypothesis.
Since 2014 is the hottest year on record, I'd say the above is proven false. To break it down, new hottest records require that the temperature increase by a positive quantity. A good scientist will accept such data as a refutation of that part of AGW skepticism.

And to be clear, 97% of the jury is in:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
5,237
Since 2014 is the hottest year on record, I'd say the above is proven false. To break it down, new hottest records require that the temperature increase by a positive quantity. A good scientist will accept such data as a refutation of that part of AGW skepticism.

And to be clear, 97% of the jury is in:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
You'd be wrong on both counts:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

I will not debate this further, as it will get the thread closed.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
concidering that when gasoline burns in a car, the main product is water, from combining eht hydrogen and oxygen, where do his figures come from
To be more accurate, H2O and CO2 are produced in roughly the same proportions, about 13% of each chemical. Most of the rest of exhaust is nitrogen and nitrogen compounds, as you might expect form considering the composition of air.

and how does carbon dioxide manage to trap heat in one direction and let it through in he other? the majority of out heat comes from the sun, through the "carbon dioxide blanket", but cant get back, out?
As with all greenhouse gases, CO2 traps long wavelength infrared waves to a greater degree than ultraviolet and visible light, which accounts for the majority of radiative warming. Heat absorbed by the earth gets re-radiated as infrared energy. This is what gets trapped by greenhouse gases.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
Au contraire, Pierre:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/2014/12

And since you like to quote NASA:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

But even if the confidence was 38%, how does that compare to confidence of the previously measured high temperature, which you calim happened > 18 years ago? Also, if you were to read the article you linked:

‘Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year…
All of these years occurred within the past 18.

Also, from your article:

Bob Ward, of the Grantham Institute on Climate Change, said the new figures showed the notion that global warming had ‘stopped’ was a ‘myth’, although it had ‘temporarily slowed’. Since 1951, he added, the long-term trend was for warming of 0.12C per decade, and in his view, it would ‘pick up again unabated’ if emissions continued to rise.
 

alfacliff

Joined Dec 13, 2013
2,458
I have heard about the radiation from the sun, but if you even check on high school phyusic books, infrared is the heat portion of sunlight. how much green does it take to heat anything? how much yellow? the heat in light comes from rhe lower red spectrum, the ionizing radiation from the ultraviolet. in between there is not much heat energy.
 

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
...said that putting 100 pounds of gas in your car generated 100 pounds of carbon dioxide...
That's not right. Burning a gallon of gas, which weighs about 6 lbs, results in about 20lbs of CO2. So it's more like 3:1 CO2 to gasoline on a weight basis.

You can see this must be true with a back-of the napkin analysis. One mole of carbon in gas is 12g. Add 2g for~2 hydrogens per carbon in any hydrocarbon, and you have 14g total. In the exhaust, that 12g of carbon is attached to two moles of oxygen, or 32g for a total of 44g. That's a weight gain of ~3X from replacing the light hydrogens with heavier oxygens. It's possible that bureaucrat meant 100lbs of carbon for every 100lbs of gasoline. That's closer.

As an aside, recent NASA satellite data has put the nail in the coffin of anthropogenic GW. The big sources of atmospheric CO2 are not human. The fudged temperature histories and climate models that were used to flame the AGW hysteria have all been invalidated. I'm surprised AGW is still an issue. It's like talking about over-unity after the laws of thermodynamics have been established. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
703
On the subject of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, here's a story about a Russian natural gas well that got out of control:


After the drilling site collapsed and was leaking gas, they decided to burn it off. The burn off was supposed to last only a few months, however it has gone on over 40 years!!!
 
Last edited:

lendo1

Joined Apr 24, 2010
34
Jumping in late here -- there's really no denying that human-caused CO2 emissions are noteworthy. I see a lot of scientific-minded people stubbornly deny it just out of politics, but it's pointless. That being said, you're right to think that most of the popular liberal regulations are futile and harmful. The real issue is how to counter-act the two main issues associated with rising CO2 levels, as opposed to trying to slow them down (waste of time, not gonna happen until most of Earth's fossil fuel reserves are exhausted): ocean acidification and global warming (which would leave to sea-level change, rendering numerous major cities like New York, New Orleans, etc. uninhabitable). There are some interesting propositions for cooling the earth such as sunlight reflectors in areas of low biological productivity like deserts and polar regions in the winter, as well as thermal radiators that look like lightning rods. Reducing ocean acidification is the more difficult issue, with theoretically possible genetically engineered algae being the best chance at reduction.

There's plenty of other major environmental [man-made] issues -- to name a few: deforestation, pollution, radioactivity, mass extinctions, super-resistant diseases, unsustainable farming, natural resource exhaustion, the list goes on...

That being said, most of them can be solved by human ingenuity. Consider genetically engineering the recently discovered plastic-eating bacteria -- such a thing could be done for all sorts of types of pollution, perhaps someday even heavy metals. Brazil's Tijuaca Forest is a great example of how artificial ecosystems can benefit humans and the environment. Iron fertilization has increased biological productivity in the oceans, projects have been proposed for atmospheric filter farms, and many more. We need a change of attitude -- quit denying humanity's effect on the planet -- the planet really isn't that big compared to civilization anymore. We have the power to change it in both positive and negative ways. GreenPeace won't like it, but we should start considering some positive geo-engineering projects.
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
703
"That being said, most of them can be solved by human ingenuity."

That is dangerous thinking. The nuclear industry thought its problems could have been solved. Then Chernobyl and Fukashima and came along.

In the animal community, any one species cannot dominate and overpopulate and its lunacy to believe that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. Right now, California is experiencing a severe water shortage -largely because business and government have promoted an economy based on open ended population growth and development. Their objective is to cover more land with streets. cars, and buildings and it's all just to keep the real estate and construction industry in business.

Furthermore, the world economy is based on the increasing throughput of more resources and it's a model for a cancer cell.
 
Watch out now......that carbon is potentially highly toxic and a environmental menace to this planet.

According to some scientists and politicians, when this toxin combines with oxygen or nitrogen, it becomes the most imminent danger to mankind.

But be assured......with the right kind of education and regulation, we can convince the masses not to combine these materials.

So with a little effort and sacrifice, we can save the planet for future generations. For the children.

But the true miracle is that for the first time ever.....we and our children will live guilt free lives forever.

This is our gift to the world.

Only in this way can we really achieve true freedom and justice and equality for all.
I get what you are saying. From one 'carbon unit' to another! ;)
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
703
Heard it all before, @Glenn Holland. I'm proud to say I've never fallen for any of the doomsayer's predictions.
Just as a point of info, California now has a severe water shortage.

The original supply was built for 12 million, but the state now has almost 40 million and the real estate and construction industry cheers at the prospect of even more growth.

A prime example of how open ended population growth is unsustainable.
 
Top