Modern Scrubbing Technology - Why fossil fuels are not extinct..

[Rigby5]

Well let's take a look at the roll CO2 palys in our atmosphere...

I was debating a Tony Heller article in another forum, and it highlighted why CO2 drives nothing and is irrelevant in our atmosphere.

Keep Burning Fossil Fuels, Says Wyoming Climate Change Skeptic | Cowboy State Daily

Anthony is not known for being either "all in" or "all out" in regard to CAGW. Anthony is a very smart man and one I would consider a friend. He, like me, is a realist. So, let's do a realist point of view on CO2.

The CO2 effect is less than half of the expected log warming. This means the atmosphere is dampening the potential warming. This means the Climate Sensitivity equation is roughly 0.3 to 1 (observed rise in temp vs expected rise from CO2 alone). We expected 1.8-2.1 deg C from CO2 alone and we have seen just 0.6 deg C.

The atmosphere is dampening the potential warming. When we add in the natural variation components, it drops to less than 0.07/1. This places it in the Margin of Error and insignificance. Dr Heller is correct, CO2's influence is near zero and cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

We should be focusing on particulates and getting them out of our emissions not CO2, as it is incapable of driving anything.

Below is the LOG of CO2, a gas in our atmosphere.

View attachment 741895

When you look at this graph there is a temperature axis and a PPM axis for CO2. When you look at 280ppm and then to 410ppm you can determine, from the two points, the expected temperature rise from the gas itself without any other forcing applied. One must remember, when doing climatic forecasting, that there are other drivers which do not stop functioning.

When we look at the global rise as a whole, we must then reduce the potential from CO2 by the other known drivers.

---

The expected temperature rise, from CO2 alone, is 2.1 deg Celsius. (280ppm to 410ppm)

To date we have seen just a 1.1 deg Fahrenheit rise in average temperatures or 0.6 deg C.

The resulting Climate sensitivity equation is then 0.3 for each 1.0 deg Celsius (expected rise) written as 0.3/1.0. Remember, we must now reduce this number by the known other drivers. 96% of all warming is not from CO2 emissions.

.3/.04 = 0.012 The Margin of error in this is +/ - 0.07. This means that the potential of CO2 emissions to warm, is well below the MOE for this trace gas in our water driven atmosphere. When we look at the overall atmospheric warming the action potential of CO2 is dampened, by empirically observed evidence.

Dr Heller is correct in his assumptions that CO2 has no ability to adversely impact our atmosphere given its current makeup. That is CO2, by the numbers.
The end result is 0.024/1. This represents CO2's portion of the warming given the expected log value.

0.024 deg C is the warming contribution to our atmosphere when the expected from CO2 alone was 2.1 deg C. When we place these numbers into context and account for other active drivers in our climatic system, CO2's ability to warm is exposed.

CO2 is not the boogie man the alarmists want you to believe it is. This is why it cannot be discerned from noise in our climatic system. The moment we learned that CO2 was being dampened and that there was no enhancement driving water vapor temperatures, the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis died a sordid death and was falsified by empirically observed evidence.

Originally posted here: CO2 - By The Numbers, Why it is Statistically Irrelevant in our Atmosphere.

Sorry. but this is entirely wrong.
The whole discussion about "greenhouse gases", is actually incorrect use of the terms.
Global warming is NOT the result of "greenhouse gas" effects.
Greenhouse gas effects are about the heat retained by individual molecules in the atmosphere.
That is not what is causing global warming.
What causes global warming is the carbon in the very upper atmosphere boundary layer to space, where the carbon converts photonic energy that could leave the planet, into vibratory heat, that can not leave the planet.

The amount of heat that CO2 can hold at sea level is totally irrelevant, since water vapor holds about 20 times more heat. But water vapor is totally irrelevant to global warming, because it can't get to the upper atmosphere boundary to space, since it condenses out at those cold temperatures.

 

[Rigby5]

CO2 scrubbing, whether using monoethanolamine (MEA, which is used on submarines) or aqueous ammonia, removes 80-90 percent of the original CO2 in flue gases. Since that level started at roughly 15% of the flue gas volume, the final exhaust is still 1.5 to 3% CO2 (15,000 to 30,000 ppm). The claim that scrubbed oil, gas and coal exhaust is as clean as the output of a nuclear plant's cooling towers is beyond hyperbole; it's simply pure bullshit.

While you are correct, the reality is that since plants use CO2, you do not have to get rid of all the carbon emissions, but just the excess that plants can't handle.
Cutting carbon by about a third is all that is needed.
And that could easily be done just by using bio fuel for all jet planes.

 

[Rigby5]

The claim that CO2 makes exhaust "dirty" is bullshit.

CO2 is the main culprit.
If in excess of what plants can absorb, carbon prevent excess solar heat from radiating out into space, thus turning the earth into a crock pot soon to boil over.

The part the EPA is totally wrong and corrupt about is their claim NOx is a serious problem, when in reality NOx almost immediately decomposes into N2 and O2, and is not at all harmful.

 

[Rigby5]

SO much you think you know, but do not.

These plants at TAD-CMDS removed everything. had they not, they would have triggered alarms and shut down total systems. This tech is very good at removing all harmful particulates.

Everything you just posted is fantasy Crick. CO2 is not a pollutant... get over yourself.
I even posted an example of how they clean up stack emissions. Yet you bloviate on...Empirical evidence is lacking proving your point of view.

It is essentially impossible to scrub CO2 without planting a whole lot more trees.
The processes that try to scrub CO2 end up creating more CO2 along the way.
And CO2 is about the only culprit of global warming, because it is about the only gas that converts photonic radiation back into vibratory heat, but yet does not condense out at the cold of high altitudes.

 

[Rigby5]

Says the guy who admittedly learned everything he knows about scrubbers in 5 minutes. My God! You must be an expert!

Scrubbers require energy to create and restore the media used to attach to the CO2, and that produces more CO2 again. It is not a solution. Only something like photosynthesis is a solution for excess CO2 production.

 

[Rigby5]

The cost of socialization. And take note that the people there aren't complaining. The populations of virtually every (perhaps just "every") democratic socialist state on the planet are measurably happier with their governments than Americans are with theirs.

Probably because of size.
The larger governments become, the less accountability.

 

[Rigby5]

As much as your battery will hold.

Batteries are awful.
They are dirty to make, large, heavy, expensive, inefficient, and short lived.
Makes more sense to do what Iceland does, and make hydrogen instead.
Or if you want less pressurization, make methane.

 

[Rigby5]

"And then there'll be various ways to use hydrogen"

Another expensive waste of time. Not a source of energy, a non-solution looking for a problem.

Hydrogen works very well in Iceland, where they produce the hydrogen with geothermal.
It is not a source of energy, but essentially is a very light battery that disappears as you discharge it.

 

[Rigby5]

Hydrogen is not a source of energy? Do tell.

Coal is a source of energy. You dig it out of the ground and you burn it.
Oil and natural gas come out of the ground.....loaded with energy.

Where are you getting the green hydrogen?

Wrong.
Coal is not a source of energy really.
Fossil fuels are just the result of photosynthesis storing solar energy.
So in effect, fossil fuels are more like a charged battery than a source of energy.
The source of the energy is old sunlight.

To avoid the carbon increase, we could just increase planting of crops that produce bio diesel oil.
That would be carbon neutral.

 

[Rigby5]

Is anyone doing this commercially now?

Lots of people are doing this now,
For example, Switzerland and England do this for their buses that run on hydrogen.

How do Hydrogen Buses Work? Are They Fuel Efficient? - Green Car Future

Back in June 2021, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, introduced the newest additions to the London bus fleet. A total of 20 new double-decker units have been

www.greencarfuture.com

 

[Rigby5]

Yep. Now you hit me up over the poor efficiency and I come back and talk about zero fuel costs.

Not zero fuel costs, since you need the source of electrical power, and then you have to compress the hydrogen.

 

[ding]

Lots of people are doing this now,
For example, Switzerland and England do this for their buses that run on hydrogen.

How do Hydrogen Buses Work? Are They Fuel Efficient? - Green Car Future

Back in June 2021, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, introduced the newest additions to the London bus fleet. A total of 20 new double-decker units have been

www.greencarfuture.com

Great article but he failed to say where the hydrogen came from. I'm guessing steam-methane reforming

 

[Crick]

Not zero fuel costs, since you need the source of electrical power, and then you have to compress the hydrogen.

True, but I hope the audience knows what I mean. No one is charging $100/bbl or $4/gal for the water used to make electricity. And if the power to do so comes from solar PV or wind, the same is true at that step as well.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry. but this is entirely wrong.
The whole discussion about "greenhouse gases", is actually incorrect use of the terms.
Global warming is NOT the result of "greenhouse gas" effects.
Greenhouse gas effects are about the heat retained by individual molecules in the atmosphere.
That is not what is causing global warming.
What causes global warming is the carbon in the very upper atmosphere boundary layer to space, where the carbon converts photonic energy that could leave the planet, into vibratory heat, that can not leave the planet.

The amount of heat that CO2 can hold at sea level is totally irrelevant, since water vapor holds about 20 times more heat. But water vapor is totally irrelevant to global warming, because it can't get to the upper atmosphere boundary to space, since it condenses out at those cold temperatures.

What causes global warming is the carbon in the very upper atmosphere boundary layer to space, where the carbon converts photonic energy that could leave the planet, into vibratory heat, that can not leave the planet.

What happens to "vibratory heat"?
Is it trapped here forever?

 

[Crick]

What causes global warming is the carbon in the very upper atmosphere boundary layer to space, where the carbon converts photonic energy that could leave the planet, into vibratory heat, that can not leave the planet.

What happens to "vibratory heat"?
Is it trapped here forever?

To an extent sufficient to have led to the rise of Rock-n-Roll.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To an extent sufficient to have led to the rise of Rock-n-Roll.

I blame Marty McFly.

 

[Crick]

I blame Marty McFly.

That butterfly caused a LOT of trouble. I know for a fact his irresponsible actions led to the rise of otherwise attractive women with derrieres the size of wrecking balls

 

[Billy_Bob]

Sorry. but this is entirely wrong.
The whole discussion about "greenhouse gases", is actually incorrect use of the terms.
Global warming is NOT the result of "greenhouse gas" effects.
Greenhouse gas effects are about the heat retained by individual molecules in the atmosphere.
That is not what is causing global warming.
What causes global warming is the carbon in the very upper atmosphere boundary layer to space, where the carbon converts photonic energy that could leave the planet, into vibratory heat, that can not leave the planet.

The amount of heat that CO2 can hold at sea level is totally irrelevant, since water vapor holds about 20 times more heat. But water vapor is totally irrelevant to global warming, because it can't get to the upper atmosphere boundary to space, since it condenses out at those cold temperatures.

No...

Satellite measurements say this isn't true. There is no atmospheric hot spot. Only failed models show a hot spot. Reality does not.

Your "vibratory heat" doesn't exist by empirical observation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wrong.
Coal is not a source of energy really.
Fossil fuels are just the result of photosynthesis storing solar energy.
So in effect, fossil fuels are more like a charged battery than a source of energy.
The source of the energy is old sunlight.

To avoid the carbon increase, we could just increase planting of crops that produce bio diesel oil.
That would be carbon neutral.

Again, carbon, otherwise known as soot, does not remain in the atmosphere.

You folks keep moving the goal posts. first it was CO2, now it is soot. Where will you go next. You claimed vibratory heat in a previous post now your whole premise has changed again. You are all over the place on this and not one item you claim can do what you are purporting.

 

[Billy_Bob]

While you are correct, the reality is that since plants use CO2, you do not have to get rid of all the carbon emissions, but just the excess that plants can't handle.
Cutting carbon by about a third is all that is needed.
And that could easily be done just by using bio fuel for all jet planes.

Define "excess" carbon emissions. The earth has had 7000ppm for millions of years and we have never left the long-term, 15 deg C, range of earth's climate.