This coupled with effusive statements of how amazing Biden is at foreign policy makes me conclude a significant amount of people and press live in a bizarro world.
Good catch. Victims don’t care if Genocide Joe or the TFG is dropping bombs, but our media as you point it sure has it together to let the evil show drag out.
I didn't even know we were in so many places. 😳 I knew he was lying by any common sense definition, but wow. I didn't understand how badly we were manipulated by Bush and I promised myself I would not vote for anyone who isn't interested in stopping all of it. So far, I don't think Harris is going to do that, either.
Bush started the problems in Ukraine/Russia in 2008. Obama and Clinton really lit the fire in 2014. Trump cooled things off. Then Biden really blew it and got Ukraine destroyed, 500,000 people dead or wounded. And to top it off, since Biden became President more Americans overdosed from fentanyl in the US than were killed in WWII.
Bush the Elder started the progression in 1991-92, actually. He famously said "We won. Now, we FINISH THEM" to the (then) leaders of Germany & France when they brought up the idea of a "peace dividend" and looking forward to no longer needing to support NATO in their budgets.
Forgive me, but given the government's lack of transparency and their predilection for lying, you probably don't know half of what's going on. That's the way they like it. As for Biden, he probably doesn't remember.
As for Joe, good riddance. And on that Gallup listing, climate doesn't appear even as drivers are adding to CO2 daily, the increase in CO2 shows no signs of letup and there is no solution to the problem so we keep on keeping on. Fossil fuel company execs are pleased.
Climate change has real risks but the drivers of climate change are beyond human control (variations in earth’s orbit, variations in solar intensity, tectonic plate movements, perhaps massive volcano eruptions). CO2 levels are at epoch lows (0.04%, up from 0.03%, life perishes at <0.02%) beneficial for life on earth, and the small increase we see is a result of warming not a cause of warming.
You can't be serious, Mr. McShane. THE driver of the great increase in CO2 is the extraction of millions of years of accumulated carbon stored in coal and oil and natural gas (methane), burned and releasing that carbon in about 125 years and you say it is beyond human control? To extract it now that we have dumped so much into the air may well be beyond human control but there is no sense in continuing to add more.
Even if the carbon storage were limited to one million years, and it is from many millions of years, the percentage of storage time to release time would be 125/1,000,000 which is a bit over 1/100th of 1%. See "Carboniferous Period" (60 million years) when much but not all of our fossil fuels were created.
See this data from the NOAA observatory at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, with not even a hint of moderation is the CO2 rise. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Science is not divided on our being the cause of global warming. What is truly frightening is the possibility that we are at or approaching a tipping point beyond which there may be a runaway situation. This is the case on Venus where the surface temp is around 900F due to the greenhouse effect there, definitely not manmade, but a warning to us.
You admit the problem is serious, but to dismiss human beings who produce 30 pounds of CO2 with each gallon of gasoline they burn without thinking, and who have been doing this for over a century is a very dangerous refusal of responsibility. Those who lived in the early 20th century can be forgiven their ignorance, we cannot. I beg you to reconsider your view.
A gallon of regular gasoline at around 6.3 lb. releases about 20 lb. of CO2 when burned in a motor vehicle. Plus water vapor, and if exhausts are not run through a well functioning converter, some nitrous oxides and random hydrocarbon derived side reaction products.
Learn enough to verify your chemistry and figures or join the "deniers" in being a scientifically illiterate sheep repeating stuff you've heard but don't know enough to understand. Find a basic chemistry text and look up the term "stoichiometry" for a start.
Thank you for reading my comment. I used to believe that CO2 emissions threatened to cause a climate catastrophe. Not because I studied the data but because I was busy working and raising a family and I trusted what I was being told. I am also trained in physical chemistry and I am familiar with the infrared absorption bands of CO2, so the CO2 causing global temperature rise made a nice story for me. Since I finished raising my family, I had a little time to look at the data and it is clear to me that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels will not lead to a climate catastrophe. As I said in my original comment CO2 follows warming, it is not the cause. The combustion of fossil fuels results in CO2 and H2O in roughly equal amounts. The earth has vast sinks for both molecules. The oceans for H2O and CO2, and photosynthetic organisms (terrestial and ocean) for CO2.
Venus is a bit of a red herring but I address it briefly. The atmospheres are extremely different on Earth and Venus. The atmospheric pressure on Venus is >90X earth and carbon dioxide is ~95% of the atmosphere (this computes to >200,000X CO2 concentration greater than earth). The CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is actually a liquid (or supercritical fluid). On earth it is a measly 0.04% increased from 0.03% just in time because if it went below 0.02% plant life (and therefore all life) would really struggle to survive.
Climate change is real. We had ice two miles thick 11,000 years ago where Chicago is today. For better or for worse, we have been warming ever since. Anyway, I wouldn't take the time to comment on the climate change due to CO2 narrative if it were not so important for the poorest peoples of the world. Poverty is poverty in the availability of usable energy. Poor people of the world are burning wood and dung indoors! The use of fossil fuels has brought about the greatest prosperity humankind has ever known. Fossil fuel use has allowed us to counter the impacts of extreme weather. The narrative that fossil fuel use will cause a climate catastrophe is wrong and very harmful to the poorest of us, therefore, I believe it is immoral.
Here is a nice documentary with some of the brightest scientists alive today interviewed on the topic of CO2 and climate. Keep an open mind.
The ability of the natural world to handle what humanity puts into it is limited and that is shown in so many cases, not just with CO2. We are waste produces such as has never been seen due to our hyper-consumption.
The key to the CO2 problem is the huge quantity stored by natural means over millennia that I mentioned, that we have released in a tiny fraction of that time. It is beyond the ability of vegetation and the oceans to take back. The ocean is acidifying as it does take some back. As for vegetation, over those millions of years of plant death and transfiguration into fossil fuels, a great multiple of all the vegetation we have alive today was transformed and is now being released. Yes, plants take up CO2 but, as with the oceans, can't handle the amount we are releasing.
While it is true that volcanic eruptions can release a great deal of material, the big ones occur rarely. Humanity is burning fossil fuel 24/7 year after year, decade after decade. I used to work on top of Sears Tower (now Willis Tower) in Chicago. Every morning, we could look to the west and watch as a brown cloud of smog was created from the many thousands of vehicles "going to work". That smog was not caused by CO2, but was indicative of the huge cloud of exhaust that included CO2. Humanity is literally going to work on the natural world and has been for some time, with a population far beyond what the planet can handle.
I use a simple thought experiment to illustrate the problem. We are animals who evolved to do what other animals do, forage for food and make homes from what could be found in the environment, simple mud huts or homes made with wood and animal skins. We were just one more animal well within the capacity of nature to provide for.
Now a single person will drive a 3000 pound vehicle burning gasoline to drive to a store or work. We burn natural gas to heat homes that are ten times the size of the huts in which wood was burned. We chill our homes with air conditioning that was unknown to primitive man. We think nothing of taking an airplane to anywhere on the planet just for fun, burning fossil fuel to do it and air travel endlessly increasing. Now we have billionaires hoping to profit from "space tourism" where the rich use lots of fuel simply to go up high and get a kick out of seeing our warming planet.
The idea that the human animal can continue this hyper-consumption while hoping for more is nonsense and the natural world is telling us so in a variety of ways in which global warming is all encompassing.
The reality is actually a lot worse. Relying on the ability of modern plants to re sequester fossil fuel derived carbon is totally hopeless, even if every bit of farm land on earth were used to grow trees. Why? Because conditions for biosequestration have changed dramatically in some areas.
We burned (and continue to burn) COAL. The biomass which became coal was mostly laid down at a time when the first "woody" plants had evolved to make their stems/trunks of cellulose and LIGNIN. For a LONG time, there were no biologicals equipped to degrade and decompose LIGNIN for food, so much of the debris deposited by those Carboniferous era plants/trees built up (and up and up!), until finally a group of decay fungi evolved the enzymes & mechanisms needed to decompose LIGNIN (in an aerobic environment, the stuff is still pretty long term durable if no oxygen is available to decay organisms).
So now, in most environments plants can grow, all of woody plants component molecules can decay and the carbon is freed as CO2 quite quickly in geological terms.
You could try sinking all the trees in the deep ocean or burying them to sequester carbon, but if you use diesel trucks/fuel burning ships to do any of that? Not much gain.
Also, METHANE is about 40X as bad as CO2 in the first 20 years after it is released, everyone seems to leave that out of lay discussions? When the methane frozen in permafrost gets released, it will have a self catalyzing & accelerating impact.
Amen. And the fracking sites are leaking methane to the point that now it is being said that natural gas is as bad as coal for global warming. It would be one thing if serious attempts were underway to deal with CO2 and all agreed action is needed for both reduction and remediation. What makes the situation appear truly hopeless is that Joe and Jane Average not only couldn't care less (as revealed by Ken's graphic), they are making things worse daily. And we boast of our intelligence and reasoning ability. If pride ever went before the fall it sure is applicable to our species...enjoy until we hit the wall. Mother Earth can't handle our billions, each one of us wanting more than what we have and capitalism demanding that we want more without limit. The answer of every politician to every problem is growth. Nice to know you are out there talking sense, Billy.
Thanks Cliff. We do indeed need to be good stewards of the environment. I hope we can focus on doing so and not wasting resources on restricting CO2 under false pretenses, a molecule that is no less vital for life than H2O and O2. Peace.
As far as "ice two miles thick 11,000 years ago where Chicago is today"?!
11,000 years ago, Chicago was under several hundred feet of glacial melt WATER, in fact, the Chicago area had not been under glacial ice for over a thousand years at that time. About 18,000 years ago, at the very peak of the Wisconsin glaciation, Chicago was under about 3,000' of ice max, not "two miles" (or 10,560').
Are you using an AI program to write your posts? They tend to output BS like that. Are you copying someone else's talking points without verifying first? Bad idea where hard numbers matter.
Thank you for the correction and advice. And no I did not use AI, simply going from memory of past readings, which as you point out is bad practice. It was Wisconsin that was under two-miles of ice at the peak of the glaciation.
Guess where I'm from, originally? And listened during my highschool Earth Science classes.
Go take a look at the coulee region of "the driftless area" in SW Wisconsin, which the last (Wisconsin) glaciation went around instead of grinding more or less flat? Pretty place, hard to farm in (or walk in a straight line!).
Clif Brown is wrong, a gallon of gas at around 6.3 lb. produces about TWENTY lb. of CO2. How? Gasoline is mostly composed of carbon and hydrogen. Burned efficiently, every molecule of carbon takes up TWO molecules of oxygen, while every two molecules of hydrogen take up a single molecule of oxygen (disregarding the usual convention of treating oxygen as the diatomic gas (O2, not O is what is in atmosphere at normal temperature & pressure)).
Hydrogen: atomic weight 1, more or less.
Carbon: Atomic weight 12, MOL.
Oxygen: Atomic weight 16 MOL.
A molecule of CO2 = 12 (C) + 16 (O) + 16 (O) = 44.
Look at the first stage of a liquid fueled rocket such as the Saturn V, notice a relatively small tank of kerosene and relatively large tank of liquid oxygen? All that oxygen weighs rather more than the fuel it gets combined with... Works much the same in any other internal combustion heat engine.
Engineers and scientists are in despair at the ignorance on BOTH sides of the political fight over CO2. It's an unfortunate case where natural selection isn't very efficient, your ignorance, stupidity, illogical politics, prejudices and general unfitness to lead can kill off those smarter and more capable of understanding the issues too.
Brevette et al: I follow your equation but it doesn’t adjust to the laws of physics. From how I understood his explanation, it meant that energy was “created/increased” from lesser amounts of potential energy. The release of molecules takes energy to transform potential energy into a kinetic result... there is no allowance for this process.
You are dishonest (or ignorant?) and incorrect in your statements about atmospheric CO2 levels as well as the relative effects of the primary anthropogenic & several non anthropogenic processes involved in the present phase of climate change.
Russian Federation clearly expects to have more financial and political benefits than costs (at least in the short term) from continuing to extract, sell & burn hydrocarbons + the closely related ensuing and accelerating climate change. It's somewhat amusing to see the western energy companies bought & paid for political hacks trying to hold that against them while their owners are simultaneously doing much the same thing, with both talking out of both sides of their asses in related disinformation/propaganda such as you repeated above.
Perhaps your title should have been “Biden reads from teleprompter We’re Not at War Anywhere”. The messaging from whomever is running the government is over-the-top Orwellian. We are practically in a civil war. Jailed political dissenters, assassination attempts of principal rivals, and palace turmoil resulting in changing of the leader/puppet.
You need to go much further back in time if you want to highlight the US government’s lack of transparency regarding national security or DoD activity. This wasn’t just invented. Seems like you just want to keep whining about Biden. The US government, like all governments, does not tell its citizens what it is doing in much of foreign policy or national defense, including these “not a war” examples, and it never will - partly because we don’t demand it but also because the economics that run everything are easily obfuscated. Follow the money, always. This is so much bigger than a president or the MSM.
you're beating a dead gift-horse in the mouth. And you can tell that to barkin arkin. Time to let the losers bury their dead & lick their wounds in peace. The gales of November are your responsibility now. Enjoy it while you can.
This coupled with effusive statements of how amazing Biden is at foreign policy makes me conclude a significant amount of people and press live in a bizarro world.
Good catch. Victims don’t care if Genocide Joe or the TFG is dropping bombs, but our media as you point it sure has it together to let the evil show drag out.
I didn't even know we were in so many places. 😳 I knew he was lying by any common sense definition, but wow. I didn't understand how badly we were manipulated by Bush and I promised myself I would not vote for anyone who isn't interested in stopping all of it. So far, I don't think Harris is going to do that, either.
A lot of work goes into obscuring these things!
Bush started the problems in Ukraine/Russia in 2008. Obama and Clinton really lit the fire in 2014. Trump cooled things off. Then Biden really blew it and got Ukraine destroyed, 500,000 people dead or wounded. And to top it off, since Biden became President more Americans overdosed from fentanyl in the US than were killed in WWII.
What a mess. It's like our entire economy is based on war. It makes me sick.
Bush the Elder started the progression in 1991-92, actually. He famously said "We won. Now, we FINISH THEM" to the (then) leaders of Germany & France when they brought up the idea of a "peace dividend" and looking forward to no longer needing to support NATO in their budgets.
Forgive me, but given the government's lack of transparency and their predilection for lying, you probably don't know half of what's going on. That's the way they like it. As for Biden, he probably doesn't remember.
As for Joe, good riddance. And on that Gallup listing, climate doesn't appear even as drivers are adding to CO2 daily, the increase in CO2 shows no signs of letup and there is no solution to the problem so we keep on keeping on. Fossil fuel company execs are pleased.
Climate change has real risks but the drivers of climate change are beyond human control (variations in earth’s orbit, variations in solar intensity, tectonic plate movements, perhaps massive volcano eruptions). CO2 levels are at epoch lows (0.04%, up from 0.03%, life perishes at <0.02%) beneficial for life on earth, and the small increase we see is a result of warming not a cause of warming.
You can't be serious, Mr. McShane. THE driver of the great increase in CO2 is the extraction of millions of years of accumulated carbon stored in coal and oil and natural gas (methane), burned and releasing that carbon in about 125 years and you say it is beyond human control? To extract it now that we have dumped so much into the air may well be beyond human control but there is no sense in continuing to add more.
Even if the carbon storage were limited to one million years, and it is from many millions of years, the percentage of storage time to release time would be 125/1,000,000 which is a bit over 1/100th of 1%. See "Carboniferous Period" (60 million years) when much but not all of our fossil fuels were created.
See this data from the NOAA observatory at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, with not even a hint of moderation is the CO2 rise. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
See the NASA take on causes: https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes/
Science is not divided on our being the cause of global warming. What is truly frightening is the possibility that we are at or approaching a tipping point beyond which there may be a runaway situation. This is the case on Venus where the surface temp is around 900F due to the greenhouse effect there, definitely not manmade, but a warning to us.
You admit the problem is serious, but to dismiss human beings who produce 30 pounds of CO2 with each gallon of gasoline they burn without thinking, and who have been doing this for over a century is a very dangerous refusal of responsibility. Those who lived in the early 20th century can be forgiven their ignorance, we cannot. I beg you to reconsider your view.
@Clif Brown
Please get your facts straight.
A gallon of regular gasoline at around 6.3 lb. releases about 20 lb. of CO2 when burned in a motor vehicle. Plus water vapor, and if exhausts are not run through a well functioning converter, some nitrous oxides and random hydrocarbon derived side reaction products.
Learn enough to verify your chemistry and figures or join the "deniers" in being a scientifically illiterate sheep repeating stuff you've heard but don't know enough to understand. Find a basic chemistry text and look up the term "stoichiometry" for a start.
I simply made a mistake. I've read the material and, like anyone else, can goof in remembering the number. You are right, it is 20 pounds.
Thank you for reading my comment. I used to believe that CO2 emissions threatened to cause a climate catastrophe. Not because I studied the data but because I was busy working and raising a family and I trusted what I was being told. I am also trained in physical chemistry and I am familiar with the infrared absorption bands of CO2, so the CO2 causing global temperature rise made a nice story for me. Since I finished raising my family, I had a little time to look at the data and it is clear to me that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels will not lead to a climate catastrophe. As I said in my original comment CO2 follows warming, it is not the cause. The combustion of fossil fuels results in CO2 and H2O in roughly equal amounts. The earth has vast sinks for both molecules. The oceans for H2O and CO2, and photosynthetic organisms (terrestial and ocean) for CO2.
Venus is a bit of a red herring but I address it briefly. The atmospheres are extremely different on Earth and Venus. The atmospheric pressure on Venus is >90X earth and carbon dioxide is ~95% of the atmosphere (this computes to >200,000X CO2 concentration greater than earth). The CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is actually a liquid (or supercritical fluid). On earth it is a measly 0.04% increased from 0.03% just in time because if it went below 0.02% plant life (and therefore all life) would really struggle to survive.
Climate change is real. We had ice two miles thick 11,000 years ago where Chicago is today. For better or for worse, we have been warming ever since. Anyway, I wouldn't take the time to comment on the climate change due to CO2 narrative if it were not so important for the poorest peoples of the world. Poverty is poverty in the availability of usable energy. Poor people of the world are burning wood and dung indoors! The use of fossil fuels has brought about the greatest prosperity humankind has ever known. Fossil fuel use has allowed us to counter the impacts of extreme weather. The narrative that fossil fuel use will cause a climate catastrophe is wrong and very harmful to the poorest of us, therefore, I believe it is immoral.
Here is a nice documentary with some of the brightest scientists alive today interviewed on the topic of CO2 and climate. Keep an open mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A24fWmNA6lM
Peace.
Thanks for your reply.
The ability of the natural world to handle what humanity puts into it is limited and that is shown in so many cases, not just with CO2. We are waste produces such as has never been seen due to our hyper-consumption.
The key to the CO2 problem is the huge quantity stored by natural means over millennia that I mentioned, that we have released in a tiny fraction of that time. It is beyond the ability of vegetation and the oceans to take back. The ocean is acidifying as it does take some back. As for vegetation, over those millions of years of plant death and transfiguration into fossil fuels, a great multiple of all the vegetation we have alive today was transformed and is now being released. Yes, plants take up CO2 but, as with the oceans, can't handle the amount we are releasing.
While it is true that volcanic eruptions can release a great deal of material, the big ones occur rarely. Humanity is burning fossil fuel 24/7 year after year, decade after decade. I used to work on top of Sears Tower (now Willis Tower) in Chicago. Every morning, we could look to the west and watch as a brown cloud of smog was created from the many thousands of vehicles "going to work". That smog was not caused by CO2, but was indicative of the huge cloud of exhaust that included CO2. Humanity is literally going to work on the natural world and has been for some time, with a population far beyond what the planet can handle.
I use a simple thought experiment to illustrate the problem. We are animals who evolved to do what other animals do, forage for food and make homes from what could be found in the environment, simple mud huts or homes made with wood and animal skins. We were just one more animal well within the capacity of nature to provide for.
Now a single person will drive a 3000 pound vehicle burning gasoline to drive to a store or work. We burn natural gas to heat homes that are ten times the size of the huts in which wood was burned. We chill our homes with air conditioning that was unknown to primitive man. We think nothing of taking an airplane to anywhere on the planet just for fun, burning fossil fuel to do it and air travel endlessly increasing. Now we have billionaires hoping to profit from "space tourism" where the rich use lots of fuel simply to go up high and get a kick out of seeing our warming planet.
The idea that the human animal can continue this hyper-consumption while hoping for more is nonsense and the natural world is telling us so in a variety of ways in which global warming is all encompassing.
The reality is actually a lot worse. Relying on the ability of modern plants to re sequester fossil fuel derived carbon is totally hopeless, even if every bit of farm land on earth were used to grow trees. Why? Because conditions for biosequestration have changed dramatically in some areas.
We burned (and continue to burn) COAL. The biomass which became coal was mostly laid down at a time when the first "woody" plants had evolved to make their stems/trunks of cellulose and LIGNIN. For a LONG time, there were no biologicals equipped to degrade and decompose LIGNIN for food, so much of the debris deposited by those Carboniferous era plants/trees built up (and up and up!), until finally a group of decay fungi evolved the enzymes & mechanisms needed to decompose LIGNIN (in an aerobic environment, the stuff is still pretty long term durable if no oxygen is available to decay organisms).
So now, in most environments plants can grow, all of woody plants component molecules can decay and the carbon is freed as CO2 quite quickly in geological terms.
You could try sinking all the trees in the deep ocean or burying them to sequester carbon, but if you use diesel trucks/fuel burning ships to do any of that? Not much gain.
Also, METHANE is about 40X as bad as CO2 in the first 20 years after it is released, everyone seems to leave that out of lay discussions? When the methane frozen in permafrost gets released, it will have a self catalyzing & accelerating impact.
Amen. And the fracking sites are leaking methane to the point that now it is being said that natural gas is as bad as coal for global warming. It would be one thing if serious attempts were underway to deal with CO2 and all agreed action is needed for both reduction and remediation. What makes the situation appear truly hopeless is that Joe and Jane Average not only couldn't care less (as revealed by Ken's graphic), they are making things worse daily. And we boast of our intelligence and reasoning ability. If pride ever went before the fall it sure is applicable to our species...enjoy until we hit the wall. Mother Earth can't handle our billions, each one of us wanting more than what we have and capitalism demanding that we want more without limit. The answer of every politician to every problem is growth. Nice to know you are out there talking sense, Billy.
Thanks Cliff. We do indeed need to be good stewards of the environment. I hope we can focus on doing so and not wasting resources on restricting CO2 under false pretenses, a molecule that is no less vital for life than H2O and O2. Peace.
Just remember that water is a necessity but if there is too much one can drown.
As far as "ice two miles thick 11,000 years ago where Chicago is today"?!
11,000 years ago, Chicago was under several hundred feet of glacial melt WATER, in fact, the Chicago area had not been under glacial ice for over a thousand years at that time. About 18,000 years ago, at the very peak of the Wisconsin glaciation, Chicago was under about 3,000' of ice max, not "two miles" (or 10,560').
Are you using an AI program to write your posts? They tend to output BS like that. Are you copying someone else's talking points without verifying first? Bad idea where hard numbers matter.
Thank you for the correction and advice. And no I did not use AI, simply going from memory of past readings, which as you point out is bad practice. It was Wisconsin that was under two-miles of ice at the peak of the glaciation.
@J McShane
Guess where I'm from, originally? And listened during my highschool Earth Science classes.
Go take a look at the coulee region of "the driftless area" in SW Wisconsin, which the last (Wisconsin) glaciation went around instead of grinding more or less flat? Pretty place, hard to farm in (or walk in a straight line!).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driftless_Area
Gas weighs around 6 pounds a gallon, what chemical reaction occurs to produce 30 pounds of C02?
Inverted Pyramid
Clif Brown is wrong, a gallon of gas at around 6.3 lb. produces about TWENTY lb. of CO2. How? Gasoline is mostly composed of carbon and hydrogen. Burned efficiently, every molecule of carbon takes up TWO molecules of oxygen, while every two molecules of hydrogen take up a single molecule of oxygen (disregarding the usual convention of treating oxygen as the diatomic gas (O2, not O is what is in atmosphere at normal temperature & pressure)).
Hydrogen: atomic weight 1, more or less.
Carbon: Atomic weight 12, MOL.
Oxygen: Atomic weight 16 MOL.
A molecule of CO2 = 12 (C) + 16 (O) + 16 (O) = 44.
Look at the first stage of a liquid fueled rocket such as the Saturn V, notice a relatively small tank of kerosene and relatively large tank of liquid oxygen? All that oxygen weighs rather more than the fuel it gets combined with... Works much the same in any other internal combustion heat engine.
Engineers and scientists are in despair at the ignorance on BOTH sides of the political fight over CO2. It's an unfortunate case where natural selection isn't very efficient, your ignorance, stupidity, illogical politics, prejudices and general unfitness to lead can kill off those smarter and more capable of understanding the issues too.
Brevette et al: I follow your equation but it doesn’t adjust to the laws of physics. From how I understood his explanation, it meant that energy was “created/increased” from lesser amounts of potential energy. The release of molecules takes energy to transform potential energy into a kinetic result... there is no allowance for this process.
@Inverted Pyramid
That was utter gibberish, are you totally ignorant of physics, chemistry and mathematics or just totally full of shit?
@J McShane
You are dishonest (or ignorant?) and incorrect in your statements about atmospheric CO2 levels as well as the relative effects of the primary anthropogenic & several non anthropogenic processes involved in the present phase of climate change.
Russian Federation clearly expects to have more financial and political benefits than costs (at least in the short term) from continuing to extract, sell & burn hydrocarbons + the closely related ensuing and accelerating climate change. It's somewhat amusing to see the western energy companies bought & paid for political hacks trying to hold that against them while their owners are simultaneously doing much the same thing, with both talking out of both sides of their asses in related disinformation/propaganda such as you repeated above.
I am not dishonest. Ignorant and humbly so, for sure. So what are the atm concentrations of CO2, if not 0.04% now up from a recent low of 0.03% ?
It’s just more lies and the MSM won’t call him out because they don’t want to be perceived as helping Trump. Speaking Truth to Power indeed.
Perhaps your title should have been “Biden reads from teleprompter We’re Not at War Anywhere”. The messaging from whomever is running the government is over-the-top Orwellian. We are practically in a civil war. Jailed political dissenters, assassination attempts of principal rivals, and palace turmoil resulting in changing of the leader/puppet.
You need to go much further back in time if you want to highlight the US government’s lack of transparency regarding national security or DoD activity. This wasn’t just invented. Seems like you just want to keep whining about Biden. The US government, like all governments, does not tell its citizens what it is doing in much of foreign policy or national defense, including these “not a war” examples, and it never will - partly because we don’t demand it but also because the economics that run everything are easily obfuscated. Follow the money, always. This is so much bigger than a president or the MSM.
you're beating a dead gift-horse in the mouth. And you can tell that to barkin arkin. Time to let the losers bury their dead & lick their wounds in peace. The gales of November are your responsibility now. Enjoy it while you can.