4 Jan 12, 9:52 AM
Imagination42
UK(BS), 4 yrs
 |
The Technical aspect of this is! For those interested.
Majorly the poster.
When you burn a hydrocarbon such as any fuel, petrol , derv, coal, natural gas, wood.
Solid or gas because that is what a fuel is,a C2 H4 carbon hydrogen molecule you alter it to Water = H2O and Carbon Doxide = CO2 in this chemical reaction giving off energy in the form of heat.
The process adds oxygen from the atmosphere surrounding the fuel.
After splitting the carbon and hydrogen molecule into separate atoms, in fact you add 2 Oxygen atoms to one carbon C1+O2= CO2. Oxygen has weight more weight than hydrogen which is the lightest gas on the plannet.
That is why the bi-product of the hydrocarbon fuel has become heavier than the original fuel, you added heavy oxygen and 2 pieces of it!.
That is why
2.6 T becomes 4.0T after conversion.
Tanos wrote:
SteveDuk wrote:
What I'm disputing is that burning 2.6 tonnes of anything can produce 4 tonnes of something else.
|
Are you trolling?
:T:
|
An interesting mind is an open mind and an honest mind .
Edited 4 Jan 12, 9:53 AM by Imagination42
|
4 Jan 12, 10:02 AM
Imagination42
UK(BS), 4 yrs
|
The other significant part is the amount of availible Oxygen on the plannet, this is not boundless, as you use it up by adding it to carbon making CO2 there is less spare.
The mix of oxygen in air is important and if depleted significantly (1% say) then as this happens also the ambient temperature will rise and a whole lot of things will die plants fish food chain, including a lot of humans !! Not because of heat, although that will become an issue so much as they cant breathe there is not enough Oxygen !! Everything uses and needs Oxygen to live, try breathing CO2 its fairly "terminal" fairly quick like "seconds" a few minutes your comatose even with a mix of CO2.
reservoir_bunny wrote:
SteveDuk wrote:
Having read that patronising bollox I can only suggest you read what I wrote, not what you thought I wrote.
What I'm disputing is that burning 2.6 tonnes of anything can produce 4 tonnes of something else. The scam as I see it is that some other people can then be given credits for not doing something that I can then buy to make up for me producing the Department of Guesswork 4 tonnes in the first place.
|
It can quite simply because every atom of carbon in the hydrocarbon fuel (general formula CH2) has a mass of 12. combustion of that carbon results in the addition of 2 atoms of oxygen which each has a mass of 16, to make CO2. therefore the mass of carbon +mass of O2 = 44. which is 2.5x as it was before. The fact that you cant understand that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The important point is not the amount of carbon dioxide, which is really what they mean when they talk about carbon, but the fact that what was locked up has now been dissipated into the wider environment where it acts as a greenhouse gas and leads to some warming of the planet. Easily demonstrated with a lamp and a thermometer and a jar full of carbon dioxide. Lots of hot air!
rb
|
An interesting mind is an open mind and an honest mind .
Edited 4 Jan 12, 10:09 AM by Imagination42
|
4 Jan 12, 12:40 PM
proccie
UK(HP), 6 yrs
 |
SteveDuk wrote:
What I'm disputing is that burning 2.6 tonnes of anything can produce 4 tonnes of something else. The scam as I see it is that some other people can then be given credits for not doing something that I can then buy to make up for me producing the Department of Guesswork 4 tonnes in the first place.
|
Because you have not taken into account the 1.4 tonnes of Oxygen from the air needed to burn the 2.6 tonnes of fuel.
Really I despair of the state of science education in this country if a grown-up can make such an "elementary" (tee hee) mistake, this is year eight stuff.
And consider that global warming is a political issue, which if it is true, will have a huge negative impact on the economy of the USA and the UK, it is thus very worrying that people with so little science and so little understanding have the right to vote. Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!
|
4 Jan 12, 2:30 PM
rehtael_ni_dal
UK(G), 9 yrs
|
proccie wrote:
. it is thus very worrying that people with so little science and so little understanding have the right to vote.
|
So only people with an understanding of science should have a right to vote and/or a basic test to qualify your right to vote or a university degree or or or......
What you have just said apart from being the most ludicrous statement that I have heard , sets back voting rights a few 100 years. I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet (21 November 1694 – 30 May 1778)
|
4 Jan 12, 4:36 PM
Tanos
UK(M), 14 yrs
  |
rehtael_ni_dal wrote:
proccie wrote:
. it is thus very worrying that people with so little science and so little understanding have the right to vote.
|
So only people with an understanding of science should have a right to vote and/or a basic test to qualify your right to vote or a university degree or or or......
What you have just said apart from being the most ludicrous statement that I have heard , sets back voting rights a few 100 years.
|
I think people who don't understand the issues should have the good sense to avoid trying to take decisions about them.
To be blunt, the people who sat at the back throwing spit balls at the ceiling while combustion was being explained very very early in secondary school, should examine their consciences before voting about climate change.
:T: www.tanos.org.uk
www.bridgewood.org.uk
The Warehouse: pony play etc, Sat 7 Apr 2012, Exodus, Birmingham
|
4 Jan 12, 5:45 PM
rehtael_ni_dal
UK(G), 9 yrs
|
Tanos wrote:
rehtael_ni_dal wrote:
proccie wrote:
. it is thus very worrying that people with so little science and so little understanding have the right to vote.
|
So only people with an understanding of science should have a right to vote and/or a basic test to qualify your right to vote or a university degree or or or......
What you have just said apart from being the most ludicrous statement that I have heard , sets back voting rights a few 100 years.
|
I think people who don't understand the issues should have the good sense to avoid trying to take decisions about them.
To be blunt, the people who sat at the back throwing spit balls at the ceiling while combustion was being explained very very early in secondary school, should examine their consciences before voting about climate change.
:T:
|
To be blunt your statement is balderdash - So when and what is this vote about climate change ? Is there an internet link ? I was not aware that there actually was or is a vote. Certainly I accept that people should not talk about something they know or care little about.
Personaly I cannot remember that I was taught in school about the inner workings of the combustion engine, but I certainly did not throw spit bombs nor sit at the back of the class,I am positive, however, that I did not need any working knowledge of the topic when I went to University. I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet (21 November 1694 – 30 May 1778)
|
4 Jan 12, 6:04 PM
proccie
UK(HP), 6 yrs
|
rehtael_ni_dal wrote:
proccie wrote:
. it is thus very worrying that people with so little science and so little understanding have the right to vote.
|
So only people with an understanding of science should have a right to vote and/or a basic test to qualify your right to vote or a university degree or or or......
What you have just said apart from being the most ludicrous statement that I have heard , sets back voting rights a few 100 years.
|
No, read what I said. I said it was worrying that such people had the vote. I never said that they should be disenfranchised, the solution is better education.
<insert rant about the level of reading and comprehension skills present in the adult population here.>
Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!
|
4 Jan 12, 6:10 PM
proccie
UK(HP), 6 yrs
|
Tanos wrote:
rehtael_ni_dal wrote:
proccie wrote:
. it is thus very worrying that people with so little science and so little understanding have the right to vote.
|
So only people with an understanding of science should have a right to vote and/or a basic test to qualify your right to vote or a university degree or or or......
What you have just said apart from being the most ludicrous statement that I have heard , sets back voting rights a few 100 years.
|
I think people who don't understand the issues should have the good sense to avoid trying to take decisions about them.
To be blunt, the people who sat at the back throwing spit balls at the ceiling while combustion was being explained very very early in secondary school, should examine their consciences before voting about climate change.
:T:
|
This would be ideal if it were not for the Dunning-Kruger effect
Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!
|
4 Jan 12, 6:25 PM
rehtael_ni_dal
UK(G), 9 yrs
|
proccie wrote:
.No, read what I said. I said it was worrying that such people had the vote. I never said that they should be disenfranchised, the solution is better education.
<insert rant about the level of reading and comprehension skills present in the adult population here.>
|
Perhaps you should look at the definition of worrying
ie To feel uneasy or concerned about something; be troubled
Therefore you are uneasy or troubled that people who do not understand a particular situation or process have the vote.
But thankyou for your clarification
<insert rant about the level comprehension skills and clarity present in the adult population here  I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet (21 November 1694 – 30 May 1778)
|
4 Jan 12, 7:40 PM
proccie
UK(HP), 6 yrs
|
rehtael_ni_dal wrote:
proccie wrote:
.No, read what I said. I said it was worrying that such people had the vote. I never said that they should be disenfranchised, the solution is better education.
<insert rant about the level of reading and comprehension skills present in the adult population here.>
|
Perhaps you should look at the definition of worrying
ie To feel uneasy or concerned about something; be troubled
Therefore you are uneasy or troubled that people who do not understand a particular situation or process have the vote.
But thankyou for your clarification
<insert rant about the level comprehension skills and clarity present in the adult population here
|
I fail to see how your interpretation is at odds with what I said. Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!
|
