Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
AkhiraisReal

Greta Thunberg hype, why?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Just now, hasanhh said:

l began a "Pollution Numbers" on the Science forum.

Your gov't has a competent presentation. The gas you use produces a (rounded) 2.3kg CO2 per Litre used. The paper also says the avg vehice produces 4,600 kg per year.

 

What does 2.3kg of CO2 look like? Can't possibly be kg. A liter of petrol doesn't weigh that much. How they measure is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Son of Placid said:

What does 2.3kg of CO2 look like? Can't possibly be kg. A liter of petrol doesn't weigh that much. How they measure is beyond me.

That is explained in the Canadian gov't paper. hydrocarbon + O2 --> H2O + CO2 + other. The oxygen added makes it heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

That is explained in the Canadian gov't paper. hydrocarbon + O2 --> H2O + CO2 + other. The oxygen added makes it heavy.

So it's CO2 plus additives. Not an actual pure CO2 weight. Like buying a bag of potatoes with rocks in the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Son of Placid said:

So it's CO2 plus additives. Not an actual pure CO2 weight. Like buying a bag of potatoes with rocks in the bottom.

No. Your exhaust is not "pure" anything, but it does produce 2.3kg/L of CO2.

You had the by products of burning in elementary school and chemistry, correct?

lf you really want to read really skewed up stuff, try researching volcanic emissions. The comments and all contradict the Kyoto Treaty and so proclaim false conclusions --so they can say human activity is the real threat.

Remember what l wrote a while back about the 11 TTTRillion tons of ice from Greenland? l wrote out the calculations on  how that would cover my home county with 1.3 inches of rain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

No. Your exhaust is not "pure" anything, but it does produce 2.3kg/L of CO2.

You had the by products of burning in elementary school and chemistry, correct?

lf you really want to read really skewed up stuff, try researching volcanic emissions. The comments and all contradict the Kyoto Treaty and so proclaim false conclusions --so they can say human activity is the real threat.

Remember what l wrote a while back about the 11 TTTRillion tons of ice from Greenland? l wrote out the calculations on  how that would cover my home county with 1.3 inches of rain.

No, exhaust is not pure CO2. Exhaust is "cleaner" than it used to be. Leaded gas was supposed to be a major pollutant. On the other hand, it was a buffer. An engine could last forever. Really hard on repeat business. Unleaded was better for... the environment?, but still needed to be cleaned, so catalytic converters helped, but at the same time created more back pressure, less power, less efficient.

Show me a new car that gets 30 mpg at 80mph.  They are just tooting them now with their 1.8L engines and nowhere for groceries.

I had a 75 Camaro, 350 ci, straight pipes, turbo mufflers, 2.73 diff. made 30 mpg at 80 mph. I could do 140 mph, which meant I had more power than a vehicle needed, but why can't half the vehicle make twice the mileage?

We traded efficiency for 2.3kg/L of CO2.

I blame the gas gods and auto manufactures. They hid every measure to reduce consumption. Regardless fuel injection, only vapour explodes. Any gas in liquid state at the time becomes carbon, is useless to the cause, and is expelled as such. There have been many ways to reduce consumption over the last 50 years, none have been implemented. One guy made an engine ran on water separated into it's elements. Swore to reveal it all to the world free of charge, died a strange death before he could, no idea where his notes went. Money is worth more than life.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Son of Placid said:

Leaded gas was supposed to be a major pollutant.

lt was. The reason it was used starting in the 30s was it is a cheap way to boost the octane rating. The big, humane advantage in eliminating tetraethallead was the mental retardation rate collapsed in congested urban areas. Especially the inner cities.

Back in the 70s l had a 1964 Galaxy 500 with a 240 straight six with an oil circulation problem so even after repaired a couple of times, l had 5 cylinders for power and one dragged along. Once l moved someone, and with a heavily loaded car, drove 1201 miles in 24 hours and one minute at 75mph (the other guy kept stopping) and l got 26+ mpg. On the way back, l got 28 mpg and ran 80mph for a few hours (a lot of semis were passing me still).

This was back in 76. l had to make a stop an was talking to the garage mechanic. He was telling me that he and his son (also a mechanic) rebuilt and tuned up his son's Tornado and it still only got 8.5 mpg. So yes, the accusations that the oil companies used their stock holdings to pressure the auto companies are not accusations at all, but quite accurate. [Ford went public in 1956, well before the Nat'l Defense Highway Act.]

One comparison l make/made is that an M60A3 tank gets 4mpg.

Another is a quote from an automotive engineer, who said in a TV interview, "lf you want to know how much power is in a drop of gasoline, try pushing your car up a hill."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Can you attribute any of this to human emissions, aka, my truck? 

No, the overpopulation of clams was because they were an invasive species brought from Asia as food in the late 1800s. 

But that has nothing to do with sea level rise, droughts, wildfires, increasing severity of storms, and increased average temperature. 

The fact that one problem exists doesn't disprove the existence of another. 

Your truck makes such a small impact, it's nearly negligible. What needs to change is consumerism and industrial processes. If people would stop buying garbage that they don't need, a lot of the environmental damage would be eliminated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...