Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

Full story: Hartford Courant

Scientists studying the changing nature of the Earth's climate say they have completed one crucial task - proving beyond a doubt that global warming is real.

Comments (Page 392)

Showing posts 7,821 - 7,840 of7,946
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8174
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>"Butanol's advantages over ethanol arise from its gasoline-like properties. A criticism of ethanol is the reduction in mileage per gallon because it has 1/5 the energy density of gasoline. Butanol, on the other hand, has more than 80% energy density of gasoline. Also, traditional fuel pipelines can not be used with ethanol since water mixes into it, but Butanol does this to a lesser extent and so could be used with more existing infrastructure. Best of all, butanol can be made from the same feedstocks as ethanol: corn starch, sugar beets, and other sugar starches."
Adding ANYTHING to gasoline dilutes it and makes it less efficient, causing more to be consumed which adds to "greenhouse" gases over undiluted gasoline.
I said that it is not a replacement for gasoline and now I'm saying it is not a good additive even over ethanol.
First, gasoline is a mixture of many products. For example, butane is added to gasoline to make it more volatile in winter months so engines start better. Butane has an energy density of 102,00 BTU per gal. Ethanol has an energy density of 76,100 while gasoline has about 112,500 BTU per gal. So we see that ethanol has much more than the 1/5 energy density that you quote.

Would you not add butane because it is an additive? While I do not believe that ethanol from corn is a good alternative to gasoline, it does have some properties that are positive. First, it helps raise the octane number of gasoline. When added to gasoline, it prevents gas line freeze in winter. It helps clean the fuel system, especially dissolving varnishes that plug injectors. Because it absorbs water, it prevents water from collecting in the gas tank.

The main reason that butanol (110,000) has not been more prevalent is because of the low yields from the fermentation process. There are new processes that may promise much better results.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8175
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
Ad hominem argument is a fallacy. Childish insults might appeal to other children but have no place in reasoned arguments.

>>Brian, you're so stupid that you don't know the difference between an ad hominem and a simple insult. And your arguments and repetitious trolling are so lacking in credibility that you don't understand why you're being insulted in the first place. How sad is that?

<quoted text>The basic formula, that it takes a doubling of CO2 to increase warming between 2° and 4.5° means each molecule of CO2 emitted has less effect than the previous molecule emitted. Nature seems to adapt to our carbon dioxide emissions just as we adapt to nature. Climate change mitigation has never been demonstrated, tested, tried or experimentally verified but climate change adaptation is well known. That's why man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience and climate change mitigation is a hoax.

>>You've said that before and I've shown that you're wrong. You simply repeat the same nonsense ad nauseam and ad infinitum. That's why I laugh in your face and mock you. Do you understand that yet? Or do you just not care?:)

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8176
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>"Butanol's advantages over ethanol arise from its gasoline-like properties. A criticism of ethanol is the reduction in mileage per gallon because it has 1/5 the energy density of gasoline. Butanol, on the other hand, has more than 80% energy density of gasoline. Also, traditional fuel pipelines can not be used with ethanol since water mixes into it, but Butanol does this to a lesser extent and so could be used with more existing infrastructure. Best of all, butanol can be made from the same feedstocks as ethanol: corn starch, sugar beets, and other sugar starches."
Adding ANYTHING to gasoline dilutes it and makes it less efficient, causing more to be consumed which adds to "greenhouse" gases over undiluted gasoline.
I said that it is not a replacement for gasoline and now I'm saying it is not a good additive even over ethanol.
Five worthless, meaningless, and whiny posts in a row just to get you to this final series of distortions, spin, and lies.

You claimed you'd shut up a bunch of scientists with the claim that this algal-derived fuel is "1/5 the energy density of gasoline," and I've proven you wrong. So now you're talking about "additives" and how they somehow "dilute gasoline" and make it "less efficient."

You can't even decide what you're arguing, and basically got caught making a false statement and are trying to wriggle out of it.

You're worthless and a liar. Dismissed!

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8177
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

mememine69 wrote:
<quoted text>They won't say a climate change crisis is as real and eventual as a comet hit crisis is.
Help the planet could be on fire maybe?
But it WAS fun watching you doomers try so hard and be so determined to believe in your Reefer Madness of climate blame. Your grand kids will have to explain the CO2 death threats you used them like fear mongering neocons.
27 years of maybe means it won't be or did you want this misery to have been true?
*Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets ruled by corporations and trustworthy politicians.
It's sad watching you, like Brian, recite the same idiotic nonsense over and over and over again and pretend that you're making a point of some kind.

With him it's "warming mitigation" and with you it's "C02 death threats." NEITHER of you knows your arse from a hole in the ground.

I don't want the Earth to get into a cyle of human-caused runaway warming. I think we should act to ameliorate that. We could and should take steps to do so, NOW.

Is that clear enough?

“Drink up! Summer's comin'”

Since: Jul 10

Norfolk, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8178
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
First, gasoline is a mixture of many products. For example, butane is added to gasoline to make it more volatile in winter months so engines start better. Butane has an energy density of 102,00 BTU per gal. Ethanol has an energy density of 76,100 while gasoline has about 112,500 BTU per gal. So we see that ethanol has much more than the 1/5 energy density that you quote.
Would you not add butane because it is an additive? While I do not believe that ethanol from corn is a good alternative to gasoline, it does have some properties that are positive. First, it helps raise the octane number of gasoline. When added to gasoline, it prevents gas line freeze in winter. It helps clean the fuel system, especially dissolving varnishes that plug injectors. Because it absorbs water, it prevents water from collecting in the gas tank.
The main reason that butanol (110,000) has not been more prevalent is because of the low yields from the fermentation process. There are new processes that may promise much better results.
The proper measurement of Energy Density is Joules per kilogram. Not the BTU. This is where physics comes in.
For example, I shall list the energy densities of common fuels used for vehicular propulsion:

Methane 55 MJ/Kg
Aviation Fuel 50 MJ/Kg
Gas 44 MJ/Kg
Natural Gas 38 MJ/Kg
Butane 27 MJ/Kg
and our envirnmental hero Ethanol 26.8 MJ/Kg

What is surprising is the lack of pushing Hydrogen with an energy desity of 142 MJ/Kg!! Over 2-1/2 times that of gasoline.

Anything added to gas with a lower energy density dilutes it and thus reduces its efficiency.(This may be too complicated for professor to understand, however.)

My 12 year old son won a Physics award in the regional Science Fair last year based on this information while showing off his simple water fuel cell. There were judges from NASA present and were highly impressed and thus the award.

I know he can't hold a candle to professor since the professor claims to be the brightest bulb ever created. We can only hope...
The Iron Dictator

Podgorica, Montenegro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8179
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>The proper measurement of Energy Density is Joules per kilogram. Not the BTU. This is where physics comes in.
For example, I shall list the energy densities of common fuels used for vehicular propulsion:
Methane 55 MJ/Kg
Aviation Fuel 50 MJ/Kg
Gas 44 MJ/Kg
Natural Gas 38 MJ/Kg
Butane 27 MJ/Kg
and our envirnmental hero Ethanol 26.8 MJ/Kg
What is surprising is the lack of pushing Hydrogen with an energy desity of 142 MJ/Kg!! Over 2-1/2 times that of gasoline.
Anything added to gas with a lower energy density dilutes it and thus reduces its efficiency.(This may be too complicated for professor to understand, however.)
My 12 year old son won a Physics award in the regional Science Fair last year based on this information while showing off his simple water fuel cell. There were judges from NASA present and were highly impressed and thus the award.
I know he can't hold a candle to professor since the professor claims to be the brightest bulb ever created. We can only hope...
Socialism is for Sissyes?
But what about Hitler, Mao Zedung, Pol Pot, Stalin,....they are Socialists as well...

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8180
Mar 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>The proper measurement of Energy Density is Joules per kilogram. Not the BTU. This is where physics comes in.
For example, I shall list the energy densities of common fuels used for vehicular propulsion:
Methane 55 MJ/Kg
Aviation Fuel 50 MJ/Kg
Gas 44 MJ/Kg
Natural Gas 38 MJ/Kg
Butane 27 MJ/Kg
and our envirnmental hero Ethanol 26.8 MJ/Kg
What is surprising is the lack of pushing Hydrogen with an energy desity of 142 MJ/Kg!! Over 2-1/2 times that of gasoline.
Anything added to gas with a lower energy density dilutes it and thus reduces its efficiency.(This may be too complicated for professor to understand, however.)
My 12 year old son won a Physics award in the regional Science Fair last year based on this information while showing off his simple water fuel cell. There were judges from NASA present and were highly impressed and thus the award.
I know he can't hold a candle to professor since the professor claims to be the brightest bulb ever created. We can only hope...
You persist in pretending that the product of algal energy creation is "1/5 the energy density of gasoline," which I've already PROVEN to be a LIE. When are you going to apologize for that?

Your story about "confounding a roomful of scientists" is an OBVIOUS lie, when are you going to apologize for that?

Your kid made a fuel cell....that's great. He's obviously smarter than you, which is progress.

Isn't it about time YOU progressed towards becoming an honest man, though?:)
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8181
Mar 26, 2013
 
tha Professor wrote:
It's sad watching you, like Brian, recite the same idiotic nonsense over and over and over again and pretend that you're making a point of some kind.
Truly,'me me me getting mine in the 69 position' earns its name.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8182
Mar 26, 2013
 
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>The proper measurement of Energy Density is Joules per kilogram. Not the BTU. This is where physics comes in.
For example, I shall list the energy densities of common fuels used for vehicular propulsion:
Methane 55 MJ/Kg
Aviation Fuel 50 MJ/Kg
Gas 44 MJ/Kg
Natural Gas 38 MJ/Kg
Butane 27 MJ/Kg
and our envirnmental hero Ethanol 26.8 MJ/Kg
What is surprising is the lack of pushing Hydrogen with an energy desity of 142 MJ/Kg!! Over 2-1/2 times that of gasoline.
Anything added to gas with a lower energy density dilutes it and thus reduces its efficiency.(This may be too complicated for professor to understand, however.)
My 12 year old son won a Physics award in the regional Science Fair last year based on this information while showing off his simple water fuel cell. There were judges from NASA present and were highly impressed and thus the award.
I know he can't hold a candle to professor since the professor claims to be the brightest bulb ever created. We can only hope...
We are not concerned with the energy density per weight unit. Ethanol has a higher specific gravity than gasoline for example. The compelling factor is energy density per unit volume since that is the limiting factor in liquid holding tanks in vehicles. For example Gasoline contains about 35 MJ/L,Ethanol 21.2 JM/L, Methanol 17.9 MJ/L

Whether the comparison is in Joules or BTU the ratio is numerically the same. Ethanol certainly has more than 1/5 the energy content per L, or gallon, of gasoline.

The problem with H2 is that the energy to dissociate H2 from compounds is at least equivalent to the energy available for work. Not only that, but the vessels necessary to contain enough hydrogen for the expected range of travel by automobile is problematic.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8183
Mar 27, 2013
 
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Truly,'me me me getting mine in the 69 position' earns its name.
More and More diarrheas from the "pinheadliteout".

“Drink up! Summer's comin'”

Since: Jul 10

Norfolk, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8184
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
You persist in pretending that the product of algal energy creation is "1/5 the energy density of gasoline," which I've already PROVEN to be a LIE. When are you going to apologize for that?
Your story about "confounding a roomful of scientists" is an OBVIOUS lie, when are you going to apologize for that?
Your kid made a fuel cell....that's great. He's obviously smarter than you, which is progress.
Isn't it about time YOU progressed towards becoming an honest man, though?:)
I owe YOU of all people nothing except toilet paper to wipe your mouth with.

“Drink up! Summer's comin'”

Since: Jul 10

Norfolk, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8185
Mar 27, 2013
 
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not concerned with the energy density per weight unit. Ethanol has a higher specific gravity than gasoline for example. The compelling factor is energy density per unit volume since that is the limiting factor in liquid holding tanks in vehicles. For example Gasoline contains about 35 MJ/L,Ethanol 21.2 JM/L, Methanol 17.9 MJ/L
Whether the comparison is in Joules or BTU the ratio is numerically the same. Ethanol certainly has more than 1/5 the energy content per L, or gallon, of gasoline.
The problem with H2 is that the energy to dissociate H2 from compounds is at least equivalent to the energy available for work. Not only that, but the vessels necessary to contain enough hydrogen for the expected range of travel by automobile is problematic.
H2 can easily be produce via solar power extraction as has been proven. Because the energy density is so much higher, the work performed is much greater (horsepower for the mental giant professor) and thus engine design must be rethought as well as transmission torque and thus it would require such a large capacity tank to go the same distance. Propane might be the better transition.

“Drink up! Summer's comin'”

Since: Jul 10

Norfolk, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8186
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not concerned with the energy density per weight unit. Ethanol has a higher specific gravity than gasoline for example. The compelling factor is energy density per unit volume since that is the limiting factor in liquid holding tanks in vehicles. For example Gasoline contains about 35 MJ/L,Ethanol 21.2 JM/L, Methanol 17.9 MJ/L
You're right about the specific gravity which is why ethanol is a very BAD idea as a gas additive. Besides diluting the gas.
It settles out at the bottom of the tank , turns rancid and destrys/gums up carburators. Thats why you can't let it sit throught the winter in mowers, weedeaters, boats, etc.
Pop open a gas can right now a take a wiff. It probably smells bad and if you swish it around you can see what looks like water on the bottom of the container. Adding Seafoam to the container seems to help somewhat.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8187
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>You're right about the specific gravity which is why ethanol is a very BAD idea as a gas additive. Besides diluting the gas.
It settles out at the bottom of the tank , turns rancid and destrys/gums up carburators. Thats why you can't let it sit throught the winter in mowers, weedeaters, boats, etc.
Pop open a gas can right now a take a wiff. It probably smells bad and if you swish it around you can see what looks like water on the bottom of the container. Adding Seafoam to the container seems to help somewhat.
Good guess, but incorrect. Ethanol aids in more complete combustion and is less toxic than MTBE. It is a fair solvent for removing gasoline varnish (it is old gasoline that causes gumming), so when "fresh" it actually cleans fuel systems. The drawback in this is that it also eats some kinds of rubber and plastics. It is hygroscopic, the clear layer you see in the bottom of a tank is mostly water, since it's about 50x more absorbent of humidity and condensation than straight gasoline. Instead of Seafoam, use Marine Sta-Bil (blue) in your gas can or even better, just empty the gas can into your car. When storing your engine(s) for the winter, pump out or drain the gas tank and run the engine until the carburetor runs completely out of fuel.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8188
Mar 27, 2013
 
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>You're right about the specific gravity which is why ethanol is a very BAD idea as a gas additive. Besides diluting the gas.
It settles out at the bottom of the tank , turns rancid and destrys/gums up carburators. Thats why you can't let it sit throught the winter in mowers, weedeaters, boats, etc.
Pop open a gas can right now a take a wiff. It probably smells bad and if you swish it around you can see what looks like water on the bottom of the container. Adding Seafoam to the container seems to help somewhat.
It is water. Ethanol does not separate from gasoline unless it is absorbed by water. If there is water in the container, it is because the gasoline was already contaminated with water or condensation occurred because of improper storage. Second, it does not gum up carburetors, it is actually a gum solvent. Of course you shouldn't let any gasoline sit through a long period of time in any fuel system because it does oxidize and form gum.

It takes at least as much energy to produce hydrogen gas as it produces when burned, actually more because of efficiencies. It is not a fuel source, but a simply an energy transfer medium. Also, even though the energy density per Kg is quite high, it is very difficult to store. Hydrogen is not practical to liquify for private automobiles and high pressure devices do not provide the densities per volume desired anywhere nearly equivalent to the energy stored by liquids such as gasoline or even ethanol.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8189
Mar 27, 2013
 
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>I owe YOU of all people nothing except toilet paper to wipe your mouth with.
LOL...now we're getting to your REAL arguments, huh?:)

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8190
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Good guess, but incorrect. Ethanol aids in more complete combustion and is less toxic than MTBE. It is a fair solvent for removing gasoline varnish (it is old gasoline that causes gumming), so when "fresh" it actually cleans fuel systems. The drawback in this is that it also eats some kinds of rubber and plastics. It is hygroscopic, the clear layer you see in the bottom of a tank is mostly water, since it's about 50x more absorbent of humidity and condensation than straight gasoline. Instead of Seafoam, use Marine Sta-Bil (blue) in your gas can or even better, just empty the gas can into your car. When storing your engine(s) for the winter, pump out or drain the gas tank and run the engine until the carburetor runs completely out of fuel.
That was my understanding as well, that ethanol was too much of a solvent and not something which would "gum up" anything. Good post.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8191
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
That was my understanding as well, that ethanol was too much of a solvent and not something which would "gum up" anything. Good post.
I see from the "clueless nuts disagree" on my post that that someone agrees to disagree. I wonder which it might it be? SifS, Tina, Phd or Brain_D? Pretty much sums up how much value some idjits place on reality.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8192
Mar 27, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I see from the "clueless nuts disagree" on my post that that someone agrees to disagree. I wonder which it might it be? SifS, Tina, Phd or Brain_D? Pretty much sums up how much value some idjits place on reality.
It's all the rebuttal most of them are capable of...:)

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8193
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

tha Professor wrote:
Ad hominem argument is a fallacy. Childish insults might appeal to other children but have no place in reasoned arguments.
>>Brian, you're so stupid that you don't know the difference between an ad hominem and a simple insult. And your arguments and repetitious trolling are so lacking in credibility that you don't understand why you're being insulted in the first place. How sad is that?
I don't call my opponents trolls, this is where we differ.

.
tha Professor wrote:
The basic formula, that it takes a doubling of CO2 to increase warming between 2° and 4.5° means each molecule of CO2 emitted has less effect than the previous molecule emitted. Nature seems to adapt to our carbon dioxide emissions just as we adapt to nature. Climate change mitigation has never been demonstrated, tested, tried or experimentally verified but climate change adaptation is well known. That's why man made catastrophic global warming alarmism is pseudoscience and climate change mitigation is a hoax.
>>You've said that before and I've shown that you're wrong. You simply repeat the same nonsense ad nauseam and ad infinitum. That's why I laugh in your face and mock you. Do you understand that yet? Or do you just not care?:)
Since it takes geometric increase in CO2 to increase warming arithmetically, each molecule of CO2 you emit has less effect than the previous CO2 molecule you emitted. Isn't it nice, that nature has already mitigated our carbon emissions?

Climate always changes; don't panic. Wait for experimental tests, demonstrations and trials before implementing a new technology. Don't buy a pig in a poke.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 7,821 - 7,840 of7,946
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

29 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min mdbuilder 1,072,709
easter house adoptions (Jan '11) 3 min meme 16
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 min Lord Hater 45,535
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 19 min edogxxx 97,451
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Grand Birther 173,710
Review: Napa Auto Parts 2 hr TJSR 1
Feds Investigate “Racist” Depiction of Obama as... 3 hr Zombie Bama 1
•••

Flash Flood Watch for Cook County was issued at July 12 at 3:21PM CDT

•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••