| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/23/2006 10:33:22 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
What does a fart count as? And if farts count as CO2 do we ban bean eating? |
I wasn't aware it contained any but they do contain methane another greenhouse gas. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 09:57:33 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
So each molecule of CO2 weighs 44 grams (0.097 lbs)? |
Hardly. 44 is the ATOMIC weight of CO2, not the weight in grams. Doing the math means that in any 44 units ( whether grams, kilos, pounds, tons, etc. ) of CO2, 12 of those units would be carbon and 32 would be oxygen. |
DOn't you need to make all of the weights in grams, then, for the weight to come out right? You are multiplying grams with the atomic weight, which just doesn't make REAL sense in the REAL world.
With that kind of math, 1 pound of carbon weighs 12 pounds.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 02:18:48 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
So each molecule of CO2 weighs 44 grams (0.097 lbs)? |
Hardly. 44 is the ATOMIC weight of CO2, not the weight in grams. Doing the math means that in any 44 units ( whether grams, kilos, pounds, tons, etc. ) of CO2, 12 of those units would be carbon and 32 would be oxygen. |
DOn't you need to make all of the weights in grams, then, for the weight to come out right? You are multiplying grams with the atomic weight, which just doesn't make REAL sense in the REAL world.
With that kind of math, 1 pound of carbon weighs 12 pounds. |
The ATOMIC weight of any molecule is the combination of the atomic weights of the individual atoms. The atomic weight of an atom is approximately equal to the number of protons + the number of neutrons + a tiny fraction to account for the electrons. So Carbon-12 ( "basic" carbon ), which has 6 protons, and 6 neutrons has an atomic weight of 12.0107 ( hence is referred to as Carbon-12 ) and Oxygen-16, which has 8 protons and 8 neutrons, has an atomic weight of 15.9994 ( 16, rounded ). Each molecule of CO2 has one atom of Carbon-12, and two atoms of Oxygen-16, giving it an atomic weight of 44. What that means is that in each unit of CO2, 12/44ths of the weight is the Carbon atom, and 32/44ths of the weight is the combined weight of the two oxygen atoms.
Using the "least common denominator" principle to get the Carbon and Oxygen in whole numbers, it makes sense to speak in terms such that the total weight of the CO2 is 44 units. So in 44 grams of CO2, there are 12 grams of carbon and 32 grams of oxygen. In 44 kilograms, it's 12 of carbon and 32 of oxygen. In 44 pounds, it's 12 and 32. In 44 tons, it's 12 and 32. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 02:39:31 PM · #54 |
OMG! This thread has turned into a physics class!! >:/
In the infamous words of Roberto Duran: "No Math! No Math!" :P |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 03:13:17 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
OMG! This thread has turned into a physics class!! >:/
In the infamous words of Roberto Duran: "No Math! No Math!" :P |
That was after he'd had his front teeth knocked out? |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 03:31:12 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
OMG! This thread has turned into a physics class!! >:/
In the infamous words of Roberto Duran: "No Math! No Math!" :P |
That was after he'd had his front teeth knocked out? |
Yeth, that ith right - it wath thad to watch. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 03:59:55 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
OMG! This thread has turned into a physics class!! >:/
In the infamous words of Roberto Duran: "No Math! No Math!" :P |
That was after he'd had his front teeth knocked out? |
Yeth, that ith right - it wath thad to watch. |
Thorry, but they athked, tho I wath compelled to rethpond. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 04:59:06 PM · #58 |
I know physics and I know chemistry...the point is...it is fuzzy math.
It's like a fat man goes and weighs each body part. Each leg is 320 lbs, and each arm is 120 lbs. The rest of his torso is 242.1 kg. So... 242.1 + (320 * 2) + (120 * 2) = 242.1. + 640 + 240 = 1,122.1 lbs. The fat man is happy about his weight, because he is 290.52 lbs lighter than he thought he was.
An atomic mass unit is 1.66053886e-24 grams. So multiplyed by 12 is 1.992646632e-23 grams and by 16 is 2.656862176e-23 grams, so a total of 44 is 7.306370984e-23 grams
So the weight of CO2 produced by a gallon of gasoline is 2,421 * .99 * ( 7.306370984e-23/1.992646632e-23 ), or 1.411758e-21 grams. That makes it 1.411758e-24 Kilograms or 3.1123936234e-27 pounds. Works just as well. :)
Message edited by author 2006-12-24 17:36:59.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 07:27:49 PM · #59 |
I used to know chemistry and arithmetic:
Assuming this stat from the US DOE is correct ...
2,421 grams of carbon in a gallon of gas
divide by 12 (atomic weight of Carbon) = 202 moles* of carbon/gallon of gas
404 = moles of Oxygen required to burn the Carbon to CO2 (two Oxygen's/Carbon)
404 x 16 (atomic weight of Oxygen) = 6464 grams of Oxygen
2421 grams of carbon (1 gallon's worth)
+6464 grams of atmospheric oxygen
=8885 grams (8.885kg) of CO2 at 100% or 8796 grams (19.351 pounds at 2.2lb/kg) at 99% efficiency.
*A mole is the number of atoms required to make up the atomic weight of the element in grams, also known as Avogadro's number; it is equal to 6.02 times 10 to the 23rd power.
It takes two moles of oxygen to burn one mole of carbon to CO2, or 32 grams of oxygen for every 12 grams of carbon. A mole of CO2 weighs (has a mass, actually) of 44 grams.
 RonB's math is correct, but math -- and especially fractions -- do not format well on the net ... |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 07:45:18 PM · #60 |
Ain't very damn much is it?
|
|
|
|
12/24/2006 09:21:13 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Ain't very damn much is it? |
19 pounds/gallon isn't a lot? It takes a person ten days to exhale that much. |
|
|
|
12/24/2006 10:12:58 PM · #62 |
Well, in the beginning there was only one Adam. Then God made Eve outa one of his ribs. I don't recall any mention of a gramsmother but I guess there may have been some. Maybe even 44 as you say there are. Anyway, I see by yall's ciphering there was a bunch of addin and timesin and multi-dividin and so on that I ain't surprized there came along some moles, which is what I was a sayin was little bitty. Now, if you dont like moles they are fairly easy to get rid of as they cant see and neither can they swim. Used to you could buy a mole killer at Monkey Wards but the'r wasnt enough call for them and they went belly up. Now you gotta smoke em out and club em or drown em. Look for a whitish critter. They stays under ground and dont get any suntan and look quite anemick. I werent awaire they produced enough c02 to matter that much. So, fludden there hole will bring em right up and you can whack em. Not much sport but if thats what you like and it'll help somebodies gramsmother loose waite, go to it.
oh yeah, MERRY CHRISTMAS
Message edited by author 2006-12-24 22:29:14.
|
|
|
|
12/25/2006 08:48:20 AM · #63 |
|
|
|
12/26/2006 02:07:16 PM · #64 |
gotta love this post! :D
A rabid winger posts an article from a rabid winger journal by a paid shill from the oil industry, which purports to show that the Laws of the Universe do not apply when Al Gore uses them.
Flash - are you on acid or just neocon Kool-Aid? |
|
|
|
01/04/2007 06:44:18 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Because otherwise, I'd find this very suspect. Their claim is that there is 20 lbs of CO2 per gallon of gas. Well, shiver me timbers, we've found a way to void the three laws of thermodynamics.
However, the avg weight of a gallon of gasoline is approx. 6lbs. So this site is informing people that from 6lbs of total material we result in 20lbs of CO2. Even if we had a solid block of Carbon atoms and added twice that number of Oxygen atoms in order to create CO2 we'd still only end up at 18lbs. And this would assume a 100% conversion and that our hydrocarbon based gasoline molecules were 100% carbon. Which they are not. |
Sorry, but on this one you are wrong. In a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline ( 6 lbs, or 2,721.55 grams ) there are 2,421 grams of carbon ( according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ). 99% of that is turned into Carbon Dioxide during combustion. The atomic weight of carbon is 12, that of oxygen is 16 - hence the atomic weight of CO2 is 44 ( 12 + (16 * 2 )). So the weight of CO2 produced by a gallon of gasoline is 2,421 * .99 * ( 44 / 12 ), or 8,788.23 grams. That makes it 8.788 Kilograms or 19.37 pounds.
Namely, the "extra" weight comes from atmospheric oxygen. Only 27% of the weight of the CO2 ( 12/44ths ) comes from the gasoline itself. |
I am pleased to be able to agree with RonB on this one! Just came across this thread, and was pleased to see RonB demonstrating a keen appreciation of basic chemistry.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 12:24:42 AM · #66 |
I just got my email from Science Magazine and wanted to share. The Highlights of what's in the new edition contains an abstract related to Global Warming - "Greenhouse Gases in an Earlier Ice Age"
To me, the most pertinent line in the abstract is the last:
"These findings suggest that greenhouse gas forcing of climate occurred during remote times in a manner similar to the present era."
Linky
And back then there were no factories or automobiles to blame it on. |
|
|
|
01/05/2007 01:37:01 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I just got my email from Science Magazine and wanted to share. The Highlights of what's in the new edition contains an abstract related to Global Warming - "Greenhouse Gases in an Earlier Ice Age"
To me, the most pertinent line in the abstract is the last:
"These findings suggest that greenhouse gas forcing of climate occurred during remote times in a manner similar to the present era."
Linky
And back then there were no factories or automobiles to blame it on. |
Exactly my point from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2007 01:40:10 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
gotta love this post! :D
A rabid winger posts an article from a rabid winger journal by a paid shill from the oil industry, which purports to show that the Laws of the Universe do not apply when Al Gore uses them.
Flash - are you on acid or just neocon Kool-Aid? |
not a druggie nor do I care for sweet drinks like Kool-aid. However, back when I listened to your namesake banging away on those skins........
ps - do you really think I'm a rabid winger?
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 13:43:03.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 12:17:33 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by RonB:
I just got my email from Science Magazine and wanted to share. The Highlights of what's in the new edition contains an abstract related to Global Warming - "Greenhouse Gases in an Earlier Ice Age"
To me, the most pertinent line in the abstract is the last:
"These findings suggest that greenhouse gas forcing of climate occurred during remote times in a manner similar to the present era."
Linky
And back then there were no factories or automobiles to blame it on. |
Exactly my point from the beginning. |
Greenhouse gases have been around for billions of years - what IS your point?
That you actually concede that greenhouse gases produce the greenhouse effect because the laws of physics dictate that they must?
Or do you concede the fact that man-made greenhouse gases in addition to naturally-produced greenhouse gases is actually worse than man-made greenhouse gases alone?
Or, do you just dismiss the whole concept of the physical impossibility of avoiding the greenhouse effect ( and, therefore, global warming) because any prominent Democrat is your philosophical enemy?
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 12:19:17. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 12:25:05 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Flash:
ps - do you really think I'm a rabid winger? |
I stand corrected. I should have said, "someone who has just posted anti-scientific Republican-endorsed right-wing talking points about Global Warming, with the preface of a needlessly derogatory swipe at Al Gore, who just happens to be a prominent Democrat"
Sorry for the confusion. :D
And yes - I guess this makes me a rabid left-winger. :)
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 12:41:58 PM · #71 |
I believe that humans contribute 1/10 of 1% of the co2 in are atmosphere. At least thats what I read. I think this year has a lot to do with El Nino
Travis
PS. Wasn't it about 20 years ago that scientist thought we were going into another Ice Age?
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 12:44:11.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 01:28:08 PM · #72 |
Radical changes in climate, such as an ice age, are not incompatible with Global Warming, they can be a consequence of it.
The main thing is that there is an enormous body of data to support Global Warming, and there is concensus among the scientific community that it is happening, and that man-made emissions are contributing greatly to the problem.
The sources that deny Global Warming can, almost without exeption, be tied to organizations funded by petroleum companies or right-wing political groups. NOT scientists.
Gobal warming is a theory dependent upon the fact that greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect ( warming of the planet). Unfortunately for the planet, and the nay-sayers, this effect is an irrevokable consequence of the Laws of Physics.
Higher levels of CO2, methane, etc in the atmosphere MUST result in warming. Period.
Earth has had a greenhouse effect for millions of years. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C).
The problem is that weare causing too much of a good thing.
How this effects the Earth is complicated because the Earth has many dynamic physical systems which help to provide stasis. But they are becoming overloaded, and, as some subsystems fail, it (can) cause(s) an acceleration of the problem.
Example - CO2 is taken up and deposited/sequestered by corals on the sea floor. As oceans warm up, however, we see corals are dying and at an alarming rate. Less coral, less sequestration of CO2, more Co2 in the atmosphere, warmer water, less coral, etc.
El Nino is a phenomena caused by ocean warming. As the oceans warm, El Nino can only become more important. We have already seen the devastation caused by very powerful hurricanes. As oceans warm, this will only get worse. Most models now predict that we will see larger, more powerful, more long-lasting hurricanes reaching farthur and farthur north over the next decades. One day, New York is going to get hit. Amazing.
As the oceans warm, the natural currents in the ocen will change ( El Nino is a recent phnomenon). It is predicted that the Gulf Stream will change and no longer keep Europe as temperate as it is now. Europe may go into a mini Ice Age - as a consequence of warmer ocean temperatures.
This is complicated stuff. But the scientists involved are convinced. They do not have a political axe to grind. They are just doing their jobs. And they know a hell of a lot more about it than Rush Limbaugh, any ExxonMobil spokesperson, or myself know about it.
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 13:40:40. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 01:35:10 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Travis99:
I believe that humans contribute 1/10 of 1% of the co2 in are atmosphere. |
Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration). |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 02:54:31 PM · #74 |
Let's see. Several thousand years ago carbon dioxide increased by 80ppm and temperatures rose by 8 degrees virtually simultaneously if we believe what we're told. In the last 200 years carbon dioxide has increased by about 100ppm and temperatures have increased by less than 1 degrees. I'm confused. Can you please explain?
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 07:10:11 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Travis99:
Let's see. Several thousand years ago carbon dioxide increased by 80ppm and temperatures rose by 8 degrees virtually simultaneously if we believe what we're told. In the last 200 years carbon dioxide has increased by about 100ppm and temperatures have increased by less than 1 degrees. I'm confused. Can you please explain? |
Yes. You are confused because you are reading sources that are funded by ExxonMobil corporation? :D |
|
