[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment



charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <4u82ou$lli@sun3.uni-essen.de>,
>   jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote:
>>charliew (charliew@hal-pc.org) wrote:
>>: >charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>>: Whether a system as large as the 
>>: atmosphere can be substantially affected over a 1 year time 
>>: interval is open to debate, and something that I consider to 
>>: be merely a matter of your opinion. 
>>
>>Krakatoa, Pinatubo......
>
>Oh, that "volcanic winter" produced by Pinatubo was a barely 
>surviveable event. 

Note:  even when his quote is visible directly above, Charlie
cannot recall that the criterion was "can be substantially
affected over a 1 year time interval".  The Pinatubo eruption
and the northern hemisphere cooling from the sulfate aerosols
proved that the effect from a very brief event can last at
least as long as the residue remains in the atmosphere, which
in the case of Pintatubo was about 2.5 years.

>>   Large impact craters.....
>
>Yep, that crater 65 million years ago sure messed things up 
>alright.  I bet we're due another one in about 10 or 20 
>million more years!

We could be hit by one next year.  I personally witnessed a
very large meteor some years back, which was brilliantly
visible in broad daylight.  Since then I have viewed comets
which have come very close to earth, the most recent one
being only a few months ago.  It changes one's perspective.


Way back a few days in <4u3op5$6r0_004@pm6-87.hal-pc.org>,
charliew wrote:
>You might want to watch for hidden assumptions here.  It is
>likely that carbon-carbon bonds contain more energy than 
>carbon-hydrogen bonds (in molecules).  Thus, 1 pound of
>gasoline can probably propel an automobile farther than 1
>pound of natural gas, which would partially offset the
>"carbon tax advantage" that methane seems to have.

Tony Tsakiris of Ford promptly published the heating value
of methane and octane, showing that methane contains
substantially more energy/mass than octane.  This
was completely lost on charliew.

Yesterday, in a private communication in response to article 
<4u7g6n$ckj@condor.ic.net>, charliew wrote:
%>Your new homework assignment is to calculate the heat of
%>combusion of methane and iso-octane per unit mass of CARBON,
%>in your choice of consistent units.  Extra credit:  assuming
%>a $50/ton carbon-emission tax and that a car consumes the
%>energy-equivalent of 100 grams of iso-octane per mile,
%>calculate the tax advantage of methane fuel over iso-octane.
%>
%>Maybe you'll learn something this time.
%
%I wasn't so concerned with learning something last time.  
%However, if I take the time to read about the comparison, it 
%would be nice to have physical units that mean something.  
%Comparisons on a molar or volume basis are meaningless.

In other words, you are unable to convert from quantities per
mole to quantities per unit mass.  Dividing by the molecular
weight is too difficult for you.  Determining the energy per
unit mass of one chemical element in a compound is beyond
your abilities.  Finally, you are unwilling to stretch them
to meet the challenge.

I do not often descend to name-calling.  However, I will say
this:  anyone in this forum who is unable to muster the basic
abilities to analyze such a simple issue is an idiot, and
anyone who pretends such an inability to avoid conceding a point
they have lost is a boor and an ass.  Such ignorance, real or
feigned, is unworthy of a discussion in the sci hierarchy.

Goodbye, charliew.  You are a waste of time and bandwidth.


Follow-Ups: References: