We need to stop.

a reply to: swanne

We need to stop.

Absolutely. You most certainly do.

Just take a closer look at your post? A pic and a highly opinionated wall of text (aka the customary mud pit content) is what you came up with in the education and media section. This is pre-infotainment level entertainment, and I don't think calling out your lack of skill would be me sharing an opinion right now.

Then there's CO2 measument. Did you know that one agency singlehandedly decides how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere? Since CO2 and water vapour share dangerously similar signatures, this agency is responsible for the worryingly complex task of making a "correct" estimate.

Ya know the saying - put up or shut up?

When you have some trouble finding the 800.000 years of ice core data in support of this body of work from our scientific community - go ahead and ask? CO2 levels are off the charts, literally breaking the framework. And then there is you, perpetuating the good old myths as if Al Gore licked every single ice core to fck with all the raw data we could possibly look at.

It's a good thing that Big Oil would never use PR idiots to manage public opinion with threads like this, right? Appealing to emotion with all that good old shallow stuff. Right? ... Right?

Wait! is this an Easter egg of a thread? And did I break it already?

a reply to: strongfp

Burning fossil fuels does have an immediate affect on where we use it, I need to wipe my windows clean once a month because of the two large steel mills running 24 / 7 in a neighbouring city.

That's a great example of how Global Warming has become a perversion of science rather than an actual, legitimate theory.

The soot you are describing does not come from burning fossil fuels, nor does it have anything to do with carbon dioxide. It is the result of the removal of carbon from high-carbon steel pellets into lower-carbon steel product. The process takes place at extremely high temperatures using extremely volatile chemical processes, and that all adds up to certain carbon-containing particles and gases, plus a substantial amount of pure carbon, being released. Among the waste that gets released is C6 (pure carbon, aka graphite, the black stuff) and C3O2 (carbon suboxide, the source of much of the odor). Ironically, the fact that you have to wipe that stuff off in the morning means a lot less CO2 (carbon dioxide) is released. CO2 is clear and odorless... if that soot were combusted into CO2, you would never notice it.

Carbon exists, whether anyone likes it or not. It is extremely abundant on earth... thankfully, because we are made of primarily carbon. All life is, from the mushrooms growing out of the rotten tree stumps to the vegetables we eat, to every animal that walks, runs, crawls, slithers, flies, or buzzes. It's all carbon compounds. Even the dirt under our feet has a lot of carbon in it. So does concrete... and asphalt... heck, I don't think it is possible to go anywhere on the planet and not be surrounded by carbon compounds.

What Global Warming has done is to de-educate the public. You are far from alone complaining about the soot, and soot (in excess) is actually quite harmful to the environment. Carbon suboxide in particular is pretty noxious, which is why we sense it as a bad odor. But scientifically, according to Global Warming anyway, it's not a concern because at least it wasn't combusted completely into carbon dioxide. Among the population, it is still seen as some type of perversion of carbon dioxide, because it contains carbon.

It's almost like carbon itself, the primary building block of life itself, has become demonized along with carbon dioxide. We have demonized life. That's pretty impressive a feat for the political side of the equation. All animals are bad, plants are bad, fertilizer (even natural, organic fertilizer) is bad, anything organic is bad... how did we get to that point? It's simple. Politics married science and as already stated, the bastard offspring is a self-contradicting fantasy that works tirelessly to destroy the environment through ignorance.

All of this so Al Gore can hoard a few more million pieces of green paper.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well, I was using the immediate consequences of burning coal to make steel. These are two large facilities one with three coke ovens. Coal is a fossil fuel. And is burned in the process. The build up is the immediate danger, or visible result, the c02 emissions are still there tho.
Either way, its pollution.

So we are battling the consequences of coming out of a mini ice age and the effects of CO2 on the Atmosphere. The earth went into a mini ice age around 1200 AD due to a massive solar minimum and 3 large volcano eruptions, and this lasted until around 1850. When we look back at the 1600 and 1700 it was a rather devastating time with extreme cold temperatures to the point the Thames (England) and Hudson (New York) rivers would freeze over and was commonly used as transportation in the winter. The revolutionary war had crazy cold winters and much of this harsh environment really inhibit early colonization of America.

As we move forward we really do not know what normal is and add to all this there is the political side of Carbon Tax and narratives to control the population when that narrative suggests humans are 90% the cause of what is going on. I say this with the understand that humans are part of the problem with our massive CO2 admissions but I don't think we have a clue to what percentage of our current climate change is actually human created or is just the normal departure from a very cold climate period.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I remember reading an article during the winter how the UK isles will be seeing Victorian winters, and mild hot summers within' the next 20 years or so. So far it seems that way.

It seems like the climate change alarmists have never picked up a farmers almanac.

a reply to: strongfp

I was using the immediate consequences of burning coal to make steel. These are two large facilities one with three coke ovens.

The point I was making, though, is that you equate the soot to carbon dioxide through the idea of pollution. The two substances are not at all similar.

Coal is a fossil fuel. And is burned in the process. The build up is the immediate danger, or visible result, the c02 emissions are still there tho.

The coal is not burnt... it is heated in the absence of air, so the process produces no carbon dioxide at that stage. The result is almost pure carbon, commonly known as coke.

Now, the coke, when used in the smelting process, does produce carbon dioxide... but actually not nearly as much as open burning. I mentioned the carbon suboxide; that's only one of several chemicals produced, and all of them are more hazardous that plant food.

Either way, its pollution.

No, carbon dioxide is not pollution. Soot is. Carbon suboxide is. Sulfur dioxide is. Carbon monoxide is.

Each of these chemicals have a different set of effects. Lumping them together is not conducive to cleaning anything. It is a distraction, and a dangerous one at that. We can clean every molecule of carbon monoxide or carbon suboxide or sulfur dioxide out of the air tomorrow, remove every particulate of soot, and nature would be just tickled pink over it. Do that to carbon dioxide and all life on earth will die within a couple of years. Carbon dioxide is essential for the oxygen and food cycles.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think you're getting a little to technical here.

At the end of the day C02 is emitted from steel making (and much more), and it has direct negative affects on the environment around it. You are viewing carbon in it's element state, whereas carbon dioxide is a chemical process.

Also, coal is not replacing the air to make steel, it's a fuel you mix with the oxygen in the air to 'super' heat the process. Much like adding pure oxygen to a fuel source like propane or acetylene.
The thing about using coal is that it's extremely high in carbon based elements, and protects the raw metals from outside airborn impurities.
Welding for example is the same process. A flux is added to the rod or filler metal to protect the molten state of metal alloy being placed into the parent metal.

As a result C02 is created, just in a very small amount. Or in the coking process a, very, very large amount.

The process after the coal or flux technically doesn't add burned fossil fuels to the atmosphere, but the over all from steel making does.

a reply to: strongfp

I think you're getting a little to technical here.

That's like "too much money" or "too much fun." Technical is a good thing; it allows us to understand what is happening so we can figure out how to accomplish things better.

At the end of the day C02 is emitted from steel making (and much more), and it has direct negative affects on the environment around it. You are viewing carbon in it's element state, whereas carbon dioxide is a chemical process.

Yes, carbon dioxide is emitted from the steelmaking process. I never said otherwise; I only pointed out the inaccuracies in your statement. I am also viewing carbon and carbon dioxide as two separate materials, which they are. That is my point. You are lumping them together under the single label "pollutant."

Also, coal is not replacing the air to make steel, it's a fuel you mix with the oxygen in the air to 'super' heat the process. Much like adding pure oxygen to a fuel source like propane or acetylene.

No. Coke is added to the steel and then superheated by the addition of high-pressure oxygen. Coke is not coal. Coke is manufactured from coal, by superheating it in the absence of air.

Pure carbon burns intensely hot; that is why it is used instead of coal. Coal is not pure carbon, but rather contains many impurities. The coking process serves to remove these impurities, which is actually a beneficial aspect of the steelmaking process. A lot of sulfur is in coal, and sulfur dioxide is quite harmful to the environment. It is the beginning compound that eventually becomes acid rain. Were coal used instead of coke, the rain would contain sulfuric acid and become quite toxic to plant life.

Using coal instead of coke would also harm the chemistry of the actual process. Coke is used to actually reduce the amount of carbon in the steel by superheating it so it can bubble off as carbon dioxide. Without that process, we would likely be building car bodies and blades out of something like tin, because low-carbon steel would be too expensive to use. The drawback is that the carbon dioxide comes out of the mixture so fast that it also carries away some of the carbon with it (and some of the other noxious chemicals).

While there are similarities between coking steel and welding flux, welding flux does more than simply shield the material... it also is intended to oxidize surface contaminants to expose the steel underneath. Soldering flux does this as well, but needs not shield the material since the temperatures are much lower.

These nasty little details are necessary to understand before we start trying to figure out how to fix a problem. The Law of Unintended Consequences relies on the lack of understanding of the nasty little details.

I notice you didn't answer the part of my post that said carbon dioxide is not a pollutant because it is actually beneficial to and necessary for natural processes... that is my main point. Carbon dioxide is not like the soot or the noxious results of steelmaking. Carbon dioxide is harmless in quantities anywhere near the levels in our atmosphere. Soot is not.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Coke is a byproduct of coal tho...

a reply to: strongfp

Coke is a product of coal.

Carbon dioxide is a product of oxygen. Is oxygen bad now?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What happens when you make coke? Does it give off carbon dioxide?

Steel making creates c02, its a green house gas. It also creates carbon waste. Which, I get it, isnt really harmful for the environment, but it's not good to be breathing it in.

I dont get what your argument against my initial comment was. At the end of the day, making steel relies on burning coal.

a reply to: strongfp

What happens when you make coke? Does it give off carbon dioxide?

No. Making coke gives off no carbon dioxide.

Steel making creates c02, its a green house gas.

Yes, steel making creates carbon dioxide. Yes, all gases are greenhouse gases, as they all have absorption spectra. That would include carbon dioxide. Most greenhouse gases are much more potent however, having wider/more absorption bands. Also, most gases are much more harmful than carbon dioxide to the environment, as they do not exist in the atmosphere without man putting them there.

Are you aware that oxygen is an extreme corrosive and accelerant? Oxygen is responsible for untold disintegration of materials on the environment, as it reacts easily with them. Oxygen is also responsible for fires. Maybe we should get rid of oxygen?

It also creates carbon waste. Which, I get it, isnt really harmful for the environment, but it's not good to be breathing it in.

The particulate waste can actually be controlled, scrubbed from the air before it escapes. If you want to complain about that, I'm right there with you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I know all of this. I still don't understand what your argument is?

And yes, making Coke does produce c02, you are burning coal:

ietd.iipnetwork.org...

Do you agree or disagree that c02 plays a role in 'global warming'? The oxygen argument isn't fair, it's a greenhouse gas, yes. But it doesn't play a role in trapping in heat as much as the less abundant, no FAR less abundant c02. When you raise the levels of a gas that shouldn't be that high, is it good or bad?

a reply to: strongfp

making Coke does produce c02, you are burning coal

If you burn coal, you get ash and carbon dioxide, not coke. One does not make coke by burning coal. Coke is made by superheating coal without oxygen present. Without oxygen, coal does not burn. Without oxygen, carbon cannot become carbon dioxide. Your link never says coal is burnt; it says it is heated.

That is my argument. One cannot speak intelligently on a subject, particularly one as complex as planetary climate, without understanding the reasons things happen the way they do. And yet, here we are... with me trying to explain where all the carbon dioxide is coming from, and you trying to convince me that coke is burnt coal. As long as people continue to believe the absolute garbage that flows from the mouths of the IPCC and compromised 'scientists,' nothing will ever happen to help the pollution problem. It can't. The politicians don't know what they are talking about, the news media doesn't know what they are talking about, the compromised 'scientists' are saying what they are paid to say, and the IPCC is sitting back laughing at the people eagerly lapping up their fantasies.

And the whole time, forests are clear-cut, plastic islands continue to float in our oceans, the water is becoming hazardous and unsafe to drink, rain is becoming toxic to life, and landfills are spreading... because no one cares how it works, they just want someone else to act like they are fixing it and tell them what they want to hear.

You yourself complained about the crud that falls on your car, crud which is mostly carbon but also contains toxins... but your major complaint is the stuff that you can't see or smell, but which makes plants grow. Do you not see the problem?

Do you agree or disagree that c02 plays a role in 'global warming'? The oxygen argument isn't fair, it's a greenhouse gas, yes. But it doesn't play a role in trapping in heat as much as the less abundant, no FAR less abundant c02. When you raise the levels of a gas that shouldn't be that high, is it good or bad?

To be honest, I don't know if it is making a difference or not; I suspect not, but it could be. I do know that a control system like the planetary climate will not suddenly become unstable over a gas that exists in quantities that have previously existed while the climate was stable.

All gases have absorption spectra, and that does include oxygen.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

That graph shows a small absorption band in the IR region that would act exactly like carbon dioxide. Now, consider that the atmosphere is about 20% oxygen and about 0.04% carbon dioxide. That's a ratio of 500 to 1. 500 times as much oxygen, and yet no one seems concerned about that absorption band that oxygen has. No, no, that's "not fair"... although the only unfair thing I can see is that it does not meet the preferred narrative. Water vapor is much more common than carbon dioxide as well, and look at the absorption it has!

As to the good or bad, that depends on the gas, the amounts being raised, and the feedback mechanisms in place. With carbon dioxide at present levels, no, we are not damaging the environment or the climate by increasing it. I actually believe there is a good chance the change will be beneficial instead of harmful... with a small increase in temperature and carbon dioxide levels, plant life will flourish, and that means more food. The growing season will lengthen, allowing more land to be used for crops. What part of more food is bad, exactly?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

plant life will flourish, and that means more food. The growing season will lengthen, allowing more land to be used for crops. What part of more food is bad, exactly?

The part where the flourishing plant gets flushed away, burnt to a crisp or blown away by the weather extremes.

a reply to: Jubei42

What evidence do you have that such weather extremes will occur? Thus far, none have... despite predictions they would.

TheRedneck

a reply to: swanne

it doesn't matter anymore.

Politicians say we only have 12 years left to live.



Because;Climate

originally posted by: blueman12
How does anyone know who is right if they are not a scientist who has reviewed countless studies?

In any case, shouldn't we focus on reducing pollution as much as possible? Global warming or not?

Interesting opinion though OP.

Actually, and you're more than welcome to research this, cleaning up pollution would heat the planet faster. All these AGW believers want to fix climate change by stopping anything that pollutes the air but don't realize that what they're doing is making the planet hotter faster. I think it's funny as hell. Not to mention, our bodies are designed to adapt to our environment so either way, we'll survive.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: swanne

I think burning fossil fuel is causing a lot of soot to go into the air which is causing global warming. Just my hunch.

Just the opposite. Reevaluate your hunch.