Mythbusters CO2 Scam Busted!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would glaciers on top of Chicago be a dent?

But, you won't have glaciers on top of Chicago for hundreds of centuries at least.

If you think nuke technology needs to be improved before expanding its use

I wasn't making a comment on nuclear power - I support nuclear power and you were the one who asked for improved safety. I was making the comment that fracking - a much newer technology, with a large number of problems and issues reported - needs some improvement as well before being widely used.





Are you kidding me? Do you actually think a wind or solar farm at Fukushima would have done more harm to life than the meltdown? Please... get real.





I understand the average payback period for the new lower cost, home PV systems is on the order of four years. And this persistent claim that that power companies will be forced to maintain the same capacity they have now is hogwash. Power companies are profit making entities. They will not build or retain unneeded capacity. If a portion of a community's power needs are being supplied by other sources, the power company's can cut their capacity. They will NOT maintain current levels out of distrust or animosity. They will not spend money they don't have to spend. They're not stupid.

AND their are other technologies coming on line. Homes may be the biggest market for hydrogen fuel cells. Several researchers have been working towards that target. You've got more room and you can use compressed gas storage. That'd give you power 24/7.

but I think the future of transportation is in electric vehicles with hydrogen fuel cell sources.

H2 generated how? Stored where? Compressed? Liquified?

Electrolyzed from water by all that nuke electricity. But, as I just found out from looking it up, most hydrogen is produced by the steam reforming process on hydrocarbons such as methane, natural gas and the like Steam reforming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Tanks of compressed gas are not a workable solution, the weight and the risk factors (in case of accident or fire) are both high and the range is low. Several chemical storage schemes have been explored. One of the more interesting (IMHO) was borax (Boraxo) a relatively common mineral currently mined in Death Valley and transported by large teams of mules (;-)). It's chemical formula is Na2B4O7·10H2O or Na2[B4O5(OH)4]·8H2O. 20 hydrogen atoms in each. Not bad. And the stuff is cheap and noncombustible.

Do you actually think a wind or solar farm at Fukushima would have done more harm to life than the meltdown?

Is that what I said? Where?

Try again, a wind farm or solar farm big enough to replace Fukushima's output would not have been harmless to wildlife. Clear?

But, you won't have glaciers on top of Chicago for hundreds of centuries at least.

But, that would put a dent in AGW?

I was making the comment that fracking - a much newer technology, with a large number of problems and issues reported - needs some improvement as well before being widely used.

But the health of the planet is at stake. Ignore the fake problems and fake issues and save the planet already.

Electrolyzed from water by all that nuke electricity.

Your green buddies won't like that.

I understand the average payback period for the new lower cost, home PV systems is on the order of four years.

How long without ridiculous taxpayer subsidies?

And this persistent claim that that power companies will be forced to maintain the same capacity they have now is hogwash.

So they can reduce capacity by how much this year? How much next year?

They will not build or retain unneeded capacity.

They will because the government will force them to.

They will not spend money they don't have to spend. They're not stupid.

They aren't, but the regulators are.

most hydrogen is produced by the steam reforming process

Yeah, kinda stupid to waste energy to make H2 and release more total CO2 in the process.

Tanks of compressed gas are not a workable solution

No kidding.

It's chemical formula is Na2B4O7·10H2O or Na2[B4O5(OH)4]·8H2O. 20 hydrogen atoms in each.

Ummmm....looks like 4 useful ones, max.

 

[Crick]

Do you actually think a wind or solar farm at Fukushima would have done more harm to life than the meltdown?

Is that what I said? Where?

You said wind or solar at Fukushima would be harmful to wildlife. If you didn't think it would have been worse than the nuke plant, why would you have made the point?

Try again, a wind farm or solar farm big enough to replace Fukushima's output would not have been harmless to wildlife. Clear?

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

But, you won't have glaciers on top of Chicago for hundreds of centuries at least.

But, that would put a dent in AGW?

No. AGW is a theory which states that human produced greenhouse gases have, can and will cause global warming. Another glaciation is not going to happen for many millenia. The occurrence of a glaciation doesn't falsify AGW. It is simply the consequence of other processes taking place. Don't take this as an insult, but your view on these issues is too simple-minded. You seem to think the Earth is either a snow ball or a fire ball and nothing in between. The state of the Earth is the end result of many different components of many different processes; all acting simultaneously and each pushing different parameters in different directions.

I was making the comment that fracking - a much newer technology, with a large number of problems and issues reported - needs some improvement as well before being widely used.

But the health of the planet is at stake. Ignore the fake problems and fake issues and save the planet already.

Global warming is quite obviously not fake. There are other problems of course. To which do you refer?

Electrolyzed from water by all that nuke electricity.

Your green buddies won't like that.

My smart green buddies will.

I understand the average payback period for the new lower cost, home PV systems is on the order of four years.

How long without ridiculous taxpayer subsidies?

Take your pick. You can pay subsidies to American homeowners or to American utility companies.

And this persistent claim that that power companies will be forced to maintain the same capacity they have now is hogwash.

So they can reduce capacity by how much this year? How much next year?

How many angels can fit on the head of a pin Todd? They'll be able to reduce capacity as other sources come online. And, of course, given current trends, it won't be a reduction in capacity, it will be a reduction in the amount of additional capacity required. But the effect will be the same and somewhere down the road, they WILL be able to start shutting down plants, cause everyone will me making their own electricity. They can make money servicing everyone's fuel cell stacks, maintaining whatever's left of the grid, maybe producing and selling fuel cell stacks to new homeowners.

They will not build or retain unneeded capacity.

They will because the government will force them to.

No they won't. The government cannot FORCE a utility company to build a power plant.

They will not spend money they don't have to spend. They're not stupid.

They aren't, but the regulators are.

Whether or not that's true, the government cannot force a private company to build a power plant. They can certainly ask. They can put out an RFP and wait for the quotes to roll in, but they cannot tell them what to do like that.

most hydrogen is produced by the steam reforming process

Yeah, kinda stupid to waste energy to make H2 and release more total CO2 in the process.

Which is why my first suggestion was to electrolyze it from water with power from a nuke plant.

Tanks of compressed gas are not a workable solution

No kidding.

Nope.

It's chemical formula is Na2B4O7·10H2O or Na2[B4O5(OH)4]·8H2O. 20 hydrogen atoms in each.

Ummmm....looks like 4 useful ones, max.

A company called Millenium Cell Inc has developed a catalytic reactor that takes in sodium borohydride (stable, non-combustible) and passes it over a catalytic bed. The result is hydrogen gas and liquid borax. The hydrogen can be burned directly and the borax can be reused by adding hydrogen back to it. No CO2 emitted there but there are some serious bugs to work out before that becomes a viable solution. I just said I thought it was interesting. I didn't say I thought it was the final answer to hydrogen storage in vehicles. And generating hydrogen by steam reformation doesn't have to be a CO2 producer. We're talking about an industrial facility where every step of the process is under control. No CO2 need be released. It could all be sequestered on site or used in other industrial processes that would end with it fixed in some other, non-volatile product or compound, where it will not get in to the atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

Do you actually think a wind or solar farm at Fukushima would have done more harm to life than the meltdown?

Is that what I said? Where?

You said wind or solar at Fukushima would be harmful to wildlife. If you didn't think it would have been worse than the nuke plant, why would you have made the point?

Try again, a wind farm or solar farm big enough to replace Fukushima's output would not have been harmless to wildlife. Clear?

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

But, you won't have glaciers on top of Chicago for hundreds of centuries at least.

But, that would put a dent in AGW?

No. AGW is a theory which states that human produced greenhouse gases have, can and will cause global warming. Another glaciation is not going to happen for many millenia. The occurrence of a glaciation doesn't falsify AGW. It is simply the consequence of other processes taking place. Don't take this as an insult, but your view on these issues is too simple-minded. You seem to think the Earth is either a snow ball or a fire ball and nothing in between. The state of the Earth is the end result of many different components of many different processes; all acting simultaneously and each pushing different parameters in different directions.

I was making the comment that fracking - a much newer technology, with a large number of problems and issues reported - needs some improvement as well before being widely used.

But the health of the planet is at stake. Ignore the fake problems and fake issues and save the planet already.

Global warming is quite obviously not fake. There are other problems of course. To which do you refer?

Electrolyzed from water by all that nuke electricity.

Your green buddies won't like that.

My smart green buddies will.

I understand the average payback period for the new lower cost, home PV systems is on the order of four years.

How long without ridiculous taxpayer subsidies?

Take your pick. You can pay subsidies to American homeowners or to American utility companies.

And this persistent claim that that power companies will be forced to maintain the same capacity they have now is hogwash.

So they can reduce capacity by how much this year? How much next year?

How many angels can fit on the head of a pin Todd? They'll be able to reduce capacity as other sources come online. And, of course, given current trends, it won't be a reduction in capacity, it will be a reduction in the amount of additional capacity required. But the effect will be the same and somewhere down the road, they WILL be able to start shutting down plants, cause everyone will me making their own electricity. They can make money servicing everyone's fuel cell stacks, maintaining whatever's left of the grid, maybe producing and selling fuel cell stacks to new homeowners.

They will not build or retain unneeded capacity.

They will because the government will force them to.

No they won't. The government cannot FORCE a utility company to build a power plant.

They will not spend money they don't have to spend. They're not stupid.

They aren't, but the regulators are.

Whether or not that's true, the government cannot force a private company to build a power plant. They can certainly ask. They can put out an RFP and wait for the quotes to roll in, but they cannot tell them what to do like that.

most hydrogen is produced by the steam reforming process

Yeah, kinda stupid to waste energy to make H2 and release more total CO2 in the process.

Which is why my first suggestion was to electrolyze it from water with power from a nuke plant.

Tanks of compressed gas are not a workable solution

No kidding.

Nope.

It's chemical formula is Na2B4O7·10H2O or Na2[B4O5(OH)4]·8H2O. 20 hydrogen atoms in each.

Ummmm....looks like 4 useful ones, max.[/QUOTE]

A company called Millenium Cell Inc has developed a catalytic reactor that takes in sodium borohydride (stable, non-combustible) and passes it over a catalytic bed. The result is hydrogen gas and liquid borax. The hydrogen can be burned directly and the borax can be reused by adding hydrogen back to it. No CO2 emitted there but there are some serious bugs to work out before that becomes a viable solution. I just said I thought it was interesting. I didn't say I thought it was the final answer to hydrogen storage in vehicles. And generating hydrogen by steam reformation doesn't have to be a CO2 producer. We're talking about an industrial facility where every step of the process is under control. No CO2 need be released. It could all be sequestered on site or used in other industrial processes that would end with it fixed in some other, non-volatile product or compound, where it will not get in to the atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you actually think a wind or solar farm at Fukushima would have done more harm to life than the meltdown?

Is that what I said? Where?

You said wind or solar at Fukushima would be harmful to wildlife. If you didn't think it would have been worse than the nuke plant, why would you have made the point?



There's no such thing as a free lunch.





No. AGW is a theory which states that human produced greenhouse gases have, can and will cause global warming. Another glaciation is not going to happen for many millenia. The occurrence of a glaciation doesn't falsify AGW. It is simply the consequence of other processes taking place. Don't take this as an insult, but your view on these issues is too simple-minded. You seem to think the Earth is either a snow ball or a fire ball and nothing in between. The state of the Earth is the end result of many different components of many different processes; all acting simultaneously and each pushing different parameters in different directions.





Global warming is quite obviously not fake. There are other problems of course. To which do you refer?





My smart green buddies will.





Take your pick. You can pay subsidies to American homeowners or to American utility companies.





How many angels can fit on the head of a pin Todd? They'll be able to reduce capacity as other sources come online. And, of course, given current trends, it won't be a reduction in capacity, it will be a reduction in the amount of additional capacity required. But the effect will be the same and somewhere down the road, they WILL be able to start shutting down plants, cause everyone will me making their own electricity. They can make money servicing everyone's fuel cell stacks, maintaining whatever's left of the grid, maybe producing and selling fuel cell stacks to new homeowners.





No they won't. The government cannot FORCE a utility company to build a power plant.





Whether or not that's true, the government cannot force a private company to build a power plant. They can certainly ask. They can put out an RFP and wait for the quotes to roll in, but they cannot tell them what to do like that.





Which is why my first suggestion was to electrolyze it from water with power from a nuke plant.

No kidding.

Nope.

It's chemical formula is Na2B4O7·10H2O or Na2[B4O5(OH)4]·8H2O. 20 hydrogen atoms in each.

Ummmm....looks like 4 useful ones, max.

A company called Millenium Cell Inc has developed a catalytic reactor that takes in sodium borohydride (stable, non-combustible) and passes it over a catalytic bed. The result is hydrogen gas and liquid borax. The hydrogen can be burned directly and the borax can be reused by adding hydrogen back to it. No CO2 emitted there but there are some serious bugs to work out before that becomes a viable solution. I just said I thought it was interesting. I didn't say I thought it was the final answer to hydrogen storage in vehicles. And generating hydrogen by steam reformation doesn't have to be a CO2 producer. We're talking about an industrial facility where every step of the process is under control. No CO2 need be released. It could all be sequestered on site or used in other industrial processes that would end with it fixed in some other, non-volatile product or compound, where it will not get in to the atmosphere.[/QUOTE]

You said wind or solar at Fukushima would be harmful to wildlife.

Do you doubt it?

AGW is a theory which states that human produced greenhouse gases have, can and will cause global warming.

Don't you mean horrific warming that requires we spend $10s of trillions to prevent?

The occurrence of a glaciation doesn't falsify AGW.

It might mean that the supposed human caused warming wasn't the worst that could happen.

My smart green buddies will.

Yeah, all 3 of them. The rest will burst a blood vessel.

Take your pick. You can pay subsidies to American homeowners or to American utility companies.

Yeah, I'm against both types of wasteful "green energy" subsidies.

They'll be able to reduce capacity as other sources come online.

Not if those other sources are intermittent and unreliable.

Whether or not that's true, the government cannot force a private company to build a power plant.

When "green energy" flucuations start to cause problems with the grid, they won't allow those pesky old fossil fuel plants to shut down.

Global warming is quite obviously not fake.

Well then we need more fracking, now!!!
So we should ignore the fake fracking issues.

 

[Kosh]

Global warming is quite obviously not fake.

But AGW is fake and not based in science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global warming is quite obviously not fake.

But AGW is fake and not based in science.

Really? So why do 100% of the Scientific Societies in the world state otherwise? Come on, show us just one Scientific Society that challenges AGW.

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar is to the point that with or without government subsidies, it will continue to grow rapidly. You can now get panels for less than $0.35 a watt. If you have an EV and do the installation work yourself, the payback period will be less than 4 years.

 

[SSDD]

Au contraire, Stalinists put you in the dock and you get to listen to the prosecution and are not allowed to mount a defense.

So just like your single-party authoritarian dream state, in other words. Are they any ways at all in which you don't think like a Stalinist?

Your knowledge of world history is just a shitty as your understanding of science. Not surprising in the least. It is you clowns who wish to impoverish the people of the world and it is you assholes who want to murder "deniers".

The only ones dreaming of murder all day long are you and SSDD. Do they bring you comfort, all your dreams of exterminating your political enemies?

Keep dreaming all you want, but we still won't let you and fellow butcher SSDD exterminate millions, nor will we allow your authoritarian dream state to be implemented.

I hate to tell you, silly person, but you idiots have shown beyond doubt your dictatorial inclinations and your intolerance. This pathetic attempt to divert your philosophies over on to us is likewise pathetic. Just like you.....admiral

I don't have to ask if it bothers you, the way the whole planet considers you to be dishonest cultists. It so clearly does. And you know nothing you can do can change that, so you have to vent your frustrations here. Enjoy the life you've chosen, that of being a marginalized kook.

And the projection continues...you really should change your name to simplex...they make a top shelf projector...just like you. It is you and yours who want a single party...or no party at all really...just you and yours in charge...writing the rules and killing anyone who doesn't goose step along with you.

And I can't help but note that you haven't provide any quote by any skeptic calling for warmist wackos to be killed...guess you really are a liar...but then that doesn't surprise anyone does it?

You have proven that you know as little about political history as you do about the science of the climate...always good to know exactly how stupid your opposition is. Thanks.


And do keep looking for any statement by me or any other skeptic calling for the death of anyone who doesn't agree with us...Look below in red...a blatant call for the death of people who don't agree with you and yours.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global warming is quite obviously not fake.

But AGW is fake and not based in science.

Really? So why do 100% of the Scientific Societies in the world state otherwise? Come on, show us just one Scientific Society that challenges AGW.

How much of a temperature decrease can we expect from a 10PPM drop in CO2?

That's a real scientific question

What's the answer?

 

[Kosh]

Global warming is quite obviously not fake.

But AGW is fake and not based in science.

Really? So why do 100% of the Scientific Societies in the world state otherwise? Come on, show us just one Scientific Society that challenges AGW.

And here comes the AGW cult and their propaganda not based on religious dogma.

AGW has never been proven to be accurate on any level it has failed on all counts. Therefore it is not viable. So to continue to push something that is not based in the realities of actual science is a religion.

 

[Kosh]

Solar is to the point that with or without government subsidies, it will continue to grow rapidly. You can now get panels for less than $0.35 a watt. If you have an EV and do the installation work yourself, the payback period will be less than 4 years.

Someone is not connected to reality, but then again what would a AGW cult member know about reality.

 

[Crick]

This thread is shit.

That an unidentified screen displayed "CO2 7.351%" does NOT mean that level was ever used at any point in the experiment. You have no idea what gas was being measured at that moment in time. The audio at that moment on the recording clearly states that gas monitoring expert Gupta set the CO2 level to 400 ppm and the CH4 level to 18 ppb.

You guys blow so much reeking hot air over the least hope that you might have something...

 

[jc456]

This thread is shit.

That an unidentified screen displayed "CO2 7.351%" does NOT mean that level was ever used at any point in the experiment. You have no idea what gas was being measured at that moment in time. The audio at that moment on the recording clearly states that gas monitoring expert Gupta set the CO2 level to 400 ppm and the CH4 level to 18 ppb.

You guys blow so much reeking hot air over the least hope that you might have something...

Stop, you're going to cause my sides to hurt most of the night. Holy crap, did you even read what you just posted? If one doesn't know, and the chart is present one can only conclude it is that. So, you don't know it wasn't, right? hahahaahahahahahahahaa omg

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This thread is shit.

That an unidentified screen displayed "CO2 7.351%" does NOT mean that level was ever used at any point in the experiment. You have no idea what gas was being measured at that moment in time. The audio at that moment on the recording clearly states that gas monitoring expert Gupta set the CO2 level to 400 ppm and the CH4 level to 18 ppb.

You guys blow so much reeking hot air over the least hope that you might have something...

Obviously no one has any idea how they tested for "Global Warming" All we have is a screen shot of Gupta's experiment that shows CO2 at 73,480PPM

 

[Crick]

This thread is shit.

That an unidentified screen displayed "CO2 7.351%" does NOT mean that level was ever used at any point in the experiment. You have no idea what gas was being measured at that moment in time. The audio at that moment on the recording clearly states that gas monitoring expert Gupta set the CO2 level to 400 ppm and the CH4 level to 18 ppb.

You guys blow so much reeking hot air over the least hope that you might have something...

Stop, you're going to cause my sides to hurt most of the night. Holy crap, did you even read what you just posted? If one doesn't know, and the chart is present one can only conclude it is that. So, you don't know it wasn't, right? hahahaahahahahahahahaa omg

Why don't you try to translate that into English.

Then see if you can PROVE to us that value was the level of CO2 present in the test chambers during the experiment. Did you notice that the level of methane displayed didn't match the narrator's statement either? It was LOWER.

 

[Crick]

This thread is shit.

That an unidentified screen displayed "CO2 7.351%" does NOT mean that level was ever used at any point in the experiment. You have no idea what gas was being measured at that moment in time. The audio at that moment on the recording clearly states that gas monitoring expert Gupta set the CO2 level to 400 ppm and the CH4 level to 18 ppb.

You guys blow so much reeking hot air over the least hope that you might have something...

Obviously no one has any idea how they tested for "Global Warming" All we have is a screen shot of Gupta's experiment that shows CO2 at 73,480PPM

\

We have the narration explicitly telling us that CO2 was set to 400 ppm and CH4 to 18 ppb. Or did you have the sound off so your Mom wouldn't hear?

 

[IanC]

This thread is shit.

That an unidentified screen displayed "CO2 7.351%" does NOT mean that level was ever used at any point in the experiment. You have no idea what gas was being measured at that moment in time. The audio at that moment on the recording clearly states that gas monitoring expert Gupta set the CO2 level to 400 ppm and the CH4 level to 18 ppb.

You guys blow so much reeking hot air over the least hope that you might have something...

Obviously no one has any idea how they tested for "Global Warming" All we have is a screen shot of Gupta's experiment that shows CO2 at 73,480PPM

\

We have the narration explicitly telling us that CO2 was set to 400 ppm and CH4 to 18 ppb. Or did you have the sound off so your Mom wouldn't hear?

You are sounding desperately shrill Crick. Have you thought out what you are saying? If CO2 was set to 400 ppm then what was the control's level? Zero?

This experiment is obviously worthless because we don't know the levels in each box. It is very likely that massive additions of CO2 and methane were used otherwise the temperature differential would be exceedingly small.

All of the experiments I have seen so far are either outright fraud (Gore/Nye) or bait-and-switch where huge increases are passed off as comparable to the tiny 120 ppm increase that we are interested in.

 

[jc456]

This thread is shit.

That an unidentified screen displayed "CO2 7.351%" does NOT mean that level was ever used at any point in the experiment. You have no idea what gas was being measured at that moment in time. The audio at that moment on the recording clearly states that gas monitoring expert Gupta set the CO2 level to 400 ppm and the CH4 level to 18 ppb.

You guys blow so much reeking hot air over the least hope that you might have something...

Stop, you're going to cause my sides to hurt most of the night. Holy crap, did you even read what you just posted? If one doesn't know, and the chart is present one can only conclude it is that. So, you don't know it wasn't, right? hahahaahahahahahahahaa omg

Why don't you try to translate that into English.

Then see if you can PROVE to us that value was the level of CO2 present in the test chambers during the experiment. Did you notice that the level of methane displayed didn't match the narrator's statement either? It was LOWER.

Dude, do you know what the rate was in any of the chambers? Can you prove it was 400PPM? Nope, didn't think so, why, because they didn't measure it.................... The experiment is invalid in many ways because of that. But, to be clear, you have no idea what the rate of CO2 was right?

BTW, thanks for playing.

 

[Crick]

Dude, do you know what the rate was in any of the chambers? Can you prove it was 400PPM? Nope, didn't think so, why, because they didn't measure it.................... The experiment is invalid in many ways because of that. But, to be clear, you have no idea what the rate of CO2 was right?

Rate? What rate? It's difficult to have a conversation on topics like these with you. It's like trying to discuss chemical acoustic attenuation with my cat.

They clearly stated that their named gas monitoring expert whose employer was also identified (thus providing a lot of impetus to speak accurately), set the CO2 LEVEL to 400 ppm and the methane LEVEL to 18 ppb. I don't think the man or his employer would have agreed to "We want you to come on the show where we will identify you and your employer and then lie outright about what you're doing here".

What evidence do YOU have that "they didn't measure it"? And if you actually believe "they didn't measure it", what the fuck is all this yelling about 7.351%?

God, are you stupid!

 

[jc456]

Dude, do you know what the rate was in any of the chambers? Can you prove it was 400PPM? Nope, didn't think so, why, because they didn't measure it.................... The experiment is invalid in many ways because of that. But, to be clear, you have no idea what the rate of CO2 was right?

Rate? What rate? It's difficult to have a conversation on topics like these with you. It's like trying to discuss chemical acoustic attenuation with my cat.

They clearly stated that their named gas monitoring expert whose employer was also identified, set the CO2 LEVEL to 400 ppm and the methane LEVEL to 18 ppb. What evidence do YOU have that "they didn't measure it"? And if you actually believe "they didn't measure it", what the fuck is all this yelling about 7.351%?

God, are you stupid!

So again, do you know what the amount of PPM of CO2 was in each chamber before adding any? Seems like a fairly simple question.