Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[Anon136]

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 lbs but emits 21 lbs worth of co2 when burned? Is that real? Man I should study chemistry again if it is.

A genuine skeptic. A pleasure to meet you.

likewise

[1715379075]

1715379075

[1715379075]

1715379075

[1715379075]

1715379075

[Schleicher]

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 lbs but emits 21 lbs worth of co2 when burned? Is that real? Man I should study chemistry again if it is.

Well, for example:
2 C₁₀H₂₂ + 31 O₂ = 20 CO₂ + 22 H₂O
The CO₂ is about 3 times as heavy as the fuel

[Anon136]

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 lbs but emits 21 lbs worth of co2 when burned? Is that real? Man I should study chemistry again if it is.

Well, for example:
2 C₁₀H₂₂ + 31 O₂ = 20 CO₂ + 22 H₂O
The CO₂ is about 3 times as heavy as the fuel

That's god damn amazing. How can you take a molecule and break it into its constituent parts and get something heavier than the input? I wasnt joking. If i ever get the chance i really am going to go back to chemistry.

[Cryddit]

Well, to be fair the issue is that the fuel is combining with twice its weight in oxygen.  You get triple the weight, but you picked up two thirds of it from the air.

[tvbcof]

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 lbs but emits 21 lbs worth of co2 when burned? Is that real? Man I should study chemistry again if it is.

A genuine skeptic. A pleasure to meet you.

The fun part is that the estimation is supposedly made by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Policy is made based on their estimations.

I'm hoping that the reporter made a stupid typing mistake when writing the copy.

My mental calc is  that C and O are about the same mole weight and hydrogen is pretty light.  So, if we forget hydrogen, the weight of the CO2 should be about 3x the amount weight of the carbon or 18 plus a bit.  So the figures seem about right if a little bit high.  If so...

They probably use the same scammery they do here in Oregon for the 'low carbon fuel' bullshit that's going to transfer millions from people filling up their tanks to God only knows where.  They compute the various 'carbon costs' of extracting and transporting various kinds of fuels so some fuels are 'lower carbon' than others.  In reality, it makes such an obscene mess of the books that nobody will be able to track where the fuck the money went (if the figures and studies that produced them are not secrets and I'll bet they will be judging by how this stuff usually works these days.)  It is, however, a good bet that it a fair bit of the money will end up in the pockets of the 'non-profit' groups that lobby our all-to-eager politicians to create such things.

Our governor (Kitzhaber) was recently and unceremoniously run out of office recently for influence peddling and it seems it was one of Tom Steyer's groups specifically which was a driving force doing the influencing that our political leaders were peddling, and for this 'low carbon fuel' thing specifically.  What was the first thing our hard left politicians and new governor (Kate Brown) did?  Rammed the thing through anyway.  Now Brown has made it a 'top priority' to charge even more yet for fuel (this time calling it a tax) in order to have some money for fixing the roads and bridges.

The Right wing (and myself) are pissed at the carbon surcharge scammery and are threatening to resist the road bill.  Seems to me that a savvy politician (who actually wanted to shut down cars and get everyone on bikes and mass-transit) would have done a pretty nice move to do just that since the roads suck while at the same time pretending that she wants better roads but the mean old Republicans are obstructing things.  I'm not sure that she can think that far ahead, but she probably is a fairly sharp cookie so it's possible.

[ABitNut]

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 lbs but emits 21 lbs worth of co2 when burned? Is that real? Man I should study chemistry again if it is.

Well, for example:
2 C₁₀H₂₂ + 31 O₂ = 20 CO₂ + 22 H₂O
The CO₂ is about 3 times as heavy as the fuel

Stupid me, didn't consider the weight that would be picked up by consuming oxygen. That gives me a different angle as well... Not only is the president dumping CO₂ into our atmosphere, he's also depriving us of the O₂ we need! What a monster! 

Thank you, Schleicher, for educating me/us.

[Spendulus]

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 lbs but emits 21 lbs worth of co2 when burned? Is that real? Man I should study chemistry again if it is.

Well, for example:
2 C₁₀H₂₂ + 31 O₂ = 20 CO₂ + 22 H₂O
The CO₂ is about 3 times as heavy as the fuel

Stupid me, didn't consider the weight that would be picked up by consuming oxygen. That gives me a different angle as well... Not only is the president dumping CO₂ into our atmosphere, he's also depriving us of the O₂ we need! What a monster!  

Thank you, Schleicher, for educating me/us.

Better to figure emissions in pounds CO2 per energy out -

Per million BTU - average prices of/2012 $USD

Coal  - 217 pounds - $2.67
Gasoline - 158 pounds $25.58
Natural gas - 117 pounds - $7.09

The chemistry is easy to understand, it is just that hydrogens - weight 1 - are replaced by oxygens - atomic weight 16 - on molecules of the fuel.  Not one to one, example CH4 --> C02.  Beyond that yes look at the chemistry equation.

However these very chemistry equations with energy output show why the politically promoted concept of "Carbon sequestration" is at the best junk science and at the worst, a complete fabrication based on magical thinking.

[Wilikon]

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 lbs but emits 21 lbs worth of co2 when burned? Is that real? Man I should study chemistry again if it is.

Well, for example:
2 C₁₀H₂₂ + 31 O₂ = 20 CO₂ + 22 H₂O
The CO₂ is about 3 times as heavy as the fuel

Stupid me, didn't consider the weight that would be picked up by consuming oxygen. That gives me a different angle as well... Not only is the president dumping CO₂ into our atmosphere, he's also depriving us of the O₂ we need! What a monster!  

Thank you, Schleicher, for educating me/us.

Better to figure emissions in pounds CO2 per energy out -

Per million BTU - average prices of/2012 $USD

Coal  - 217 pounds - $2.67
Gasoline - 158 pounds $25.58
Natural gas - 117 pounds - $7.09

The chemistry is easy to understand, it is just that hydrogens - weight 1 - are replaced by oxygens - atomic weight 16 - on molecules of the fuel.  Not one to one, example CH4 --> C02.  Beyond that yes look at the chemistry equation.

However these very chemistry equations with energy output show why the politically promoted concept of "Carbon sequestration" is at the best junk science and at the worst, a complete fabrication based on magical thinking.

Are you saying if one uses real science like (basic) chemistry equations and stuff, the whole AGW movement is based on cotton candy flavored unicorn farts?

[Spendulus]

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 lbs but emits 21 lbs worth of co2 when burned? Is that real? Man I should study chemistry again if it is.

Well, for example:
2 C₁₀H₂₂ + 31 O₂ = 20 CO₂ + 22 H₂O
The CO₂ is about 3 times as heavy as the fuel

Stupid me, didn't consider the weight that would be picked up by consuming oxygen. That gives me a different angle as well... Not only is the president dumping CO₂ into our atmosphere, he's also depriving us of the O₂ we need! What a monster!  

Thank you, Schleicher, for educating me/us.

Better to figure emissions in pounds CO2 per energy out -

Per million BTU - average prices of/2012 $USD

Coal  - 217 pounds - $2.67
Gasoline - 158 pounds $25.58
Natural gas - 117 pounds - $7.09

The chemistry is easy to understand, it is just that hydrogens - weight 1 - are replaced by oxygens - atomic weight 16 - on molecules of the fuel.  Not one to one, example CH4 --> C02.  Beyond that yes look at the chemistry equation.

However these very chemistry equations with energy output show why the politically promoted concept of "Carbon sequestration" is at the best junk science and at the worst, a complete fabrication based on magical thinking.

Are you saying if one uses real science like (basic) chemistry equations and stuff, the whole AGW movement is based on cotton candy flavored unicorn farts?

No.  Cotton candy flavored unicorn farts are high in methane, so they are high energy compounds.  THis is easy to prove.   Just look at the unicorn.  See?  It's flying.  That is powered by AGW-fartness.

Chemistry says energy production is

High energy fuel + oxidizer ---> low energy compounds + energy

Hence, CO2 is a LOW ENERGY COMPOUND.

That means you have to add energy to it one way or another to "SEQUESTER" it.   Compressing it takes energy, a lot of it.  Making other compounds from it takes a lot of energy.  Guess what?  That extra energy it takes to sequester it?  That'll come from .... burning .... more .... coal .....

LOL...

[Wilikon]

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 lbs but emits 21 lbs worth of co2 when burned? Is that real? Man I should study chemistry again if it is.

Well, for example:
2 C₁₀H₂₂ + 31 O₂ = 20 CO₂ + 22 H₂O
The CO₂ is about 3 times as heavy as the fuel

Stupid me, didn't consider the weight that would be picked up by consuming oxygen. That gives me a different angle as well... Not only is the president dumping CO₂ into our atmosphere, he's also depriving us of the O₂ we need! What a monster!  

Thank you, Schleicher, for educating me/us.

Better to figure emissions in pounds CO2 per energy out -

Per million BTU - average prices of/2012 $USD

Coal  - 217 pounds - $2.67
Gasoline - 158 pounds $25.58
Natural gas - 117 pounds - $7.09

The chemistry is easy to understand, it is just that hydrogens - weight 1 - are replaced by oxygens - atomic weight 16 - on molecules of the fuel.  Not one to one, example CH4 --> C02.  Beyond that yes look at the chemistry equation.

However these very chemistry equations with energy output show why the politically promoted concept of "Carbon sequestration" is at the best junk science and at the worst, a complete fabrication based on magical thinking.

Are you saying if one uses real science like (basic) chemistry equations and stuff, the whole AGW movement is based on cotton candy flavored unicorn farts?

No.  Cotton candy flavored unicorn farts are high in methane, so they are high energy compounds.  THis is easy to prove.   Just look at the unicorn.  See?  It's flying.  That is powered by AGW-fartness.

Chemistry says energy production is

High energy fuel + oxidizer ---> low energy compounds + energy

Hence, CO2 is a LOW ENERGY COMPOUND.

That means you have to add energy to it one way or another to "SEQUESTER" it.   Compressing it takes energy, a lot of it.  Making other compounds from it takes a lot of energy.  Guess what?  That extra energy it takes to sequester it?  That'll come from .... burning .... more .... coal .....

LOL...

Ok... As much energy as to sequester a fart bloated unicorn then...

[Spendulus]

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6 lbs but emits 21 lbs worth of co2 when burned? Is that real? Man I should study chemistry again if it is.

Well, for example:
2 C₁₀H₂₂ + 31 O₂ = 20 CO₂ + 22 H₂O
The CO₂ is about 3 times as heavy as the fuel

Stupid me, didn't consider the weight that would be picked up by consuming oxygen. That gives me a different angle as well... Not only is the president dumping CO₂ into our atmosphere, he's also depriving us of the O₂ we need! What a monster!  

Thank you, Schleicher, for educating me/us.

Better to figure emissions in pounds CO2 per energy out -

Per million BTU - average prices of/2012 $USD

Coal  - 217 pounds - $2.67
Gasoline - 158 pounds $25.58
Natural gas - 117 pounds - $7.09

The chemistry is easy to understand, it is just that hydrogens - weight 1 - are replaced by oxygens - atomic weight 16 - on molecules of the fuel.  Not one to one, example CH4 --> C02.  Beyond that yes look at the chemistry equation.

However these very chemistry equations with energy output show why the politically promoted concept of "Carbon sequestration" is at the best junk science and at the worst, a complete fabrication based on magical thinking.

Are you saying if one uses real science like (basic) chemistry equations and stuff, the whole AGW movement is based on cotton candy flavored unicorn farts?

No.  Cotton candy flavored unicorn farts are high in methane, so they are high energy compounds.  THis is easy to prove.   Just look at the unicorn.  See?  It's flying.  That is powered by AGW-fartness.

Chemistry says energy production is

High energy fuel + oxidizer ---> low energy compounds + energy

Hence, CO2 is a LOW ENERGY COMPOUND.

That means you have to add energy to it one way or another to "SEQUESTER" it.   Compressing it takes energy, a lot of it.  Making other compounds from it takes a lot of energy.  Guess what?  That extra energy it takes to sequester it?  That'll come from .... burning .... more .... coal .....

LOL...

Ok... As much energy as to sequester a fart bloated unicorn then...

OKay, now that's some seriously high ranking weird there. 

LOL....

[Cryddit]

I get weirder stuff than that with my breakfast cereal.



In WWII, the Japanese built war tubas!

And here's something google street view managed to catch wandering the streets in Ottawa!



And I'm not entirely sure what's going on here but it looks like she's into it....



Also, did you know that America has a blue minority?  Swear to god, this guy appeared on the Today show.



This wouldn't be nearly as weird as it is if they didn't look all serious and dignified.  


And here's a cute couple but they have a bit of a problem;  It seems like they can't both get what they want in this relationship.

[Spendulus]

I get weirder stuff than that with my breakfast cereal.
....

And here's a cute couple but they have a bit of a problem;  It seems like they can't both get what they want in this relationship.

They definitely need to consider safe sex.

[Wilikon]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3052926/Our-climate-models-WRONG-Global-warming-slowed-recent-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html

[Wilikon]

Climate Skeptics Descend on Vatican – Seek to Influence Pope on ‘Global Warming’


Stay Tuned for Updates



Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano will join scientific delegation in Rome to Present Skeptics' Case to the Vatican.

Morano: 'Instead of entering into an invalid Marriage with climate fear promoters -- a marriage that is destined for an annulment – Pope Francis should administer last rites to the promotion of man-made climate fears and their so-called solutions. This unholy alliance must be prevented.'

'The Pope has been misled on climate science and his promotion of the UN agenda will only mean the poor will be the biggest victims of Climate Change policies -- just as the global warming narrative has weakened.'

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/04/24/climate-skeptics-descend-on-vatican-will-attempt-to-influence-pope-on-global-warming/

[Spendulus]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/22/greens-extend-point-no-return-25-years/

[Wilikon]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/22/greens-extend-point-no-return-25-years/

[galdur]

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry

Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”. .....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

[Wilikon]

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry

Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”. .....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

\


Yep. Yet the people asking for more data to corroborate are called deniers, true believers in the AGW "science" going for the pope for support...

[Spendulus]

Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry

Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”. .....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html

I heard this is accomplished by fiddling the  numbers for the mid 1930s, making them colder.