The Environment Forum now decidedly one sided!!

Which satellite band are you using as a proxy for temperature? ... here's a list you can choose from ...





Ask NBC, but nobody disputes the truth that in 2005, highly correlated satellite and balloon data had shown NO ATMOSPHERIC WARMING AT ALL for more than 3 decades, and that is why you and CO2 FRAUD FUDGED the data...
 
Do you have a citation? ... the reference you provided disputes your claims ...

If you don't know what I mean by wasted food ... then your information is very limited it appears ...

Syngas is made from coal ... period ... here let me throw your link back into your face:


"In principle, but rarely in practice, biomass and related hydrocarbon feedstocks could be used to generate biogas and biochar in waste-to-energy gasification facilities.[7] The gas generated (mostly methane and carbon dioxide) is sometimes described as syngas but its composition differs from syngas.

[emphasis mine]

Syngas, or synthesis gas, is a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide,[1] in various ratios.

That is the first statement in the link.
I don't even know what you are arguing anymore.

I work in the process industries. Hydrogen is made in a process called Steam-Methane Reforming. It is the same principle.

You said:

Syngas is made from coal ... period ... here let me throw your link back into your face:

Here is what my link says:

Syngas is produced by steam reforming or partial oxidation of natural gas or liquid hydrocarbons, or coal gasification.

So....no it does not only come from coal.

And I am not talking about biogas...that comes from an anerobic digestor. That is what they are referencing. Not me.

I am talking about gassification. Just like coal can be gasiffied, so can other hydrocarbons (as the article states). Wood can be gassified and it makes true syngas.

From another wiki link on wood gasification:

A wood gas generator is a gasification unit which converts timber or charcoal into wood gas, a producer gas consisting of atmospheric nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, traces of methane, and other gases, which – after cooling and filtering – can then be used to power an internal combustion engine or for other purposes. Historically wood gas generators were often mounted on vehicles, but present studies and developments concentrate mostly on stationary plants.

See those products.......CO and H2......syngas.

Wood is cellulose: Plants are celluslose: Anything that is a hydrocarbon or a carbohydrate can be gasified to syngas.

And syngas can then be catalytically turned into liquid fuels.

There are technologies out there to convert what is called "stranded gas" (gas that is way to far away from a user to be economincal to recover and transport) into transportation fuels. Gas to liquids - Wikipedia

It's not very cost effective, but some places are trying to be better environmental stewards by doing it with garbage:


You'll see that the products are syngas and I can tell you they are NOT talking about biogas.

CO and H2 are building blocks in Fischer Tropsch which is still the model reaction for recombination.


The Fischer–Tropsch process (FT) is a collection of chemical reactions that converts a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, known as syngas, into liquid hydrocarbons. These reactions occur in the presence of metal catalysts, typically at temperatures of 150–300 °C (302–572 °F) and pressures of one to several tens of atmospheres. The Fischer–Tropsch process is an important reaction in both coal liquefaction and gas to liquids technology for producing liquid hydrocarbons.[1]
 
Syngas, or synthesis gas, is a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide,[1] in various ratios.

That is the first statement in the link.
I don't even know what you are arguing anymore.

I work in the process industries. Hydrogen is made in a process called Steam-Methane Reforming. It is the same principle.

You said:

Syngas is made from coal ... period ... here let me throw your link back into your face:

Here is what my link says:

Syngas is produced by steam reforming or partial oxidation of natural gas or liquid hydrocarbons, or coal gasification.

So....no it does not only come from coal.

And I am not talking about biogas...that comes from an anerobic digestor. That is what they are referencing. Not me.

I am talking about gassification. Just like coal can be gasiffied, so can other hydrocarbons (as the article states). Wood can be gassified and it makes true syngas.

From another wiki link on wood gasification:

A wood gas generator is a gasification unit which converts timber or charcoal into wood gas, a producer gas consisting of atmospheric nitrogen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, traces of methane, and other gases, which – after cooling and filtering – can then be used to power an internal combustion engine or for other purposes. Historically wood gas generators were often mounted on vehicles, but present studies and developments concentrate mostly on stationary plants.

See those products.......CO and H2......syngas.

Wood is cellulose: Plants are celluslose: Anything that is a hydrocarbon or a carbohydrate can be gasified to syngas.

And syngas can then be catalytically turned into liquid fuels.

There are technologies out there to convert what is called "stranded gas" (gas that is way to far away from a user to be economincal to recover and transport) into transportation fuels. Gas to liquids - Wikipedia

It's not very cost effective, but some places are trying to be better environmental stewards by doing it with garbage:


You'll see that the products are syngas and I can tell you they are NOT talking about biogas.

CO and H2 are building blocks in Fischer Tropsch which is still the model reaction for recombination.


The Fischer–Tropsch process (FT) is a collection of chemical reactions that converts a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, known as syngas, into liquid hydrocarbons. These reactions occur in the presence of metal catalysts, typically at temperatures of 150–300 °C (302–572 °F) and pressures of one to several tens of atmospheres. The Fischer–Tropsch process is an important reaction in both coal liquefaction and gas to liquids technology for producing liquid hydrocarbons.[1]

Both your citations in this post state that these companies ended up in bankruptcy court ... just burning the natural gas for electricity is still far cheaper ...

I understand the FT process worked well for Nazi Germany when they lost their oil supplies ...

But you don't understand "wasted food" ... while millions starve, you'd make fuel for your F-350 ... sad ...
 
Ask NBC, but nobody disputes the truth that in 2005, highly correlated satellite and balloon data had shown NO ATMOSPHERIC WARMING AT ALL for more than 3 decades, and that is why you and CO2 FRAUD FUDGED the data...

I did ...they said you were nuts ... oh look .. the sun came up ... now the atmosphere is warming ...

Which satellite band are you using as a proxy for temperature ... YOU ask NBCNews ... or admit you're too stupid to even guess ...
 
Do you think this is a good thing? ...

Scientific method thrives on civil debate ... and it is a confrontational process not unlike courts-of-law ... when Cornell produced a video of the extinct Ivory-billed Woodpecker, half the ornithologists in the world said is wasn't, go get more evidence ... Cornell scientists went back to that swamp because, well, science !!! ... no other reason needed ...

If we silence the opposition, then we're no better than the IPCC ... just political hacks ...
Who said anything about silencing anyone but leftists?

They try to silence any who are not of the faith...
 
wouldn't that pollute the atmosphere Reiny?

~S~

Dumping our trash at sea pollutes the oceans ... burying it on land pollutes the soil and ground water ... burning it pollutes the atmosphere ... yes ... we should stop producing so much waste ... it's a sad commentary on our wasteful society that we can make electricity from our wasted food ... using the atmosphere as a sewer seems the least of our problems ...

So much for pie-in-the-sky-go-to-heaven-when-you-die solutions ...

Right now we're running out of landfill space ... and torching the stuff at high temperatures mitigates some of the worst pollutants ... efficiencies crash but even if it costs a little bit, we're saving landfill space ... today ... we'll need that space in the next ten years because ...

We're only getting more wasteful ... when our poorest citizens are producing trash, you know things are bad ...
 
Both your citations in this post state that these companies ended up in bankruptcy court ... just burning the natural gas for electricity is still far cheaper ...

I understand the FT process worked well for Nazi Germany when they lost their oil supplies ...

But you don't understand "wasted food" ... while millions starve, you'd make fuel for your F-350 ... sad ...
I have no idea of what it is that you are talking about or the point you are trying to make.

I said it was not economical. You said syngas was made from coal....period. IT ISN'T. Do we agree on that ?

What argument are you making.

You can do what I said.....you probably won't make any money doing it.
 
I did ...they said you were nuts ... oh look .. the sun came up ... now the atmosphere is warming ...

Which satellite band are you using as a proxy for temperature ... YOU ask NBCNews ... or admit you're too stupid to even guess ...


I was not there. It was reported everywhere in 2004 that there was no warming in the atmosphere.

That's why you and CO2 FRAUD fudged the data....
 
Shut up, assface.

You'll come to accept MAGA and learn to like it btw... :deal:

-1x-1.webp
 
I have no idea of what it is that you are talking about or the point you are trying to make.

I said it was not economical. You said syngas was made from coal....period. IT ISN'T. Do we agree on that ?

What argument are you making.

You can do what I said.....you probably won't make any money doing it.

I made my point clear in post #48 ... are you withdrawing you reference to Wikipedia in post #27 ... otherwise I'll stand on your references ... "The gas generated (mostly methane and carbon dioxide) is sometimes described as syngas but its composition differs from syngas." ...

Your idea is energy intensive ... why it hasn't been used industrially since WWII ...
 
I made my point clear in post #48 ... are you withdrawing you reference to Wikipedia in post #27 ... otherwise I'll stand on your references ... "The gas generated (mostly methane and carbon dioxide) is sometimes described as syngas but its composition differs from syngas." ...

Your idea is energy intensive ... why it hasn't been used industrially since WWII ...
Post 48 was a word salad.

I am not withdrawing anything because I have no idea what the hell you are talking about or what point you are trying to make.

It isn't my idea.

I know the energy balance in an SMR and it is energy intensive. That is why hydrogen is so expensive. But lots of people make it. There are hundred of SMR plants running on a dialy basis. They take steam and methane and make syngas in a reformer.

Syngas is CO and H2, not biogas.

You can gasify anything that has carbon, hydrogen (and oxygen but it isn't needed). Just because you can, does not mean you should (based on economics).

That is all I've ever said.
 
 
Dang... anybody else noticing?:ack-1:

The last couple of weeks in here, a massive drop off in AGW pom-pom wavers spirit.

Sure as hell appears to me like November 5th crushed the true believers....so obvious.

I warned those meatheads like Abu and Crick et. al. to best butter up leading up to the election.:fingerscrossed::fingerscrossed:. Nobody was caring about AGW before and now it's a total train wreck.

The big bumpy has arrived for the climate crusaders...the sceptics reveling in the hot and stingy being endured by these droids....

View attachment 1051078

It is foolish to not care about AGW, since clearly the oceans are rising, weather has more energy and moves faster and further, etc.
 
Ask NBC, but nobody disputes the truth that in 2005, highly correlated satellite and balloon data had shown NO ATMOSPHERIC WARMING AT ALL for more than 3 decades, and that is why you and CO2 FRAUD FUDGED the data...

Wrong.
Atmosphere is so thin is never can hold much heat, and there is no satellite means by which to track atmospheric heat.
You always check temperature on the ground, not in the air.
And all temperature recording station since 1880 when they were started, show AGW.

We nearly doubled the atmospheric CO2, so then how could there not be more heat retention and global warming?
 
It is foolish to not care about AGW, since clearly the oceans are rising, weather has more energy and moves faster and further, etc.
It is NOT clear. The fact is that photographs taken over 100 years apart, in multiple locations around the globe, at similar tide levels, show no rise at all.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom