Science News - 106 years ago

[wonderdog]

 

[Stripe]

Warkworth!!??

Been there.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

the article sez we have a few centuries to go

 

[exminister]

How much hotter is your hometown than when you were born?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

 

[Stripe]

How much hotter is your hometown than when you were born?

"The Auckland area is not prone to 90-degree days. Please try another city or town, like New York or New Delhi."

Does this calculator take into account increased heat trap effects due to the expansion of urban areas?

 

[rexlunae]

the article sez we have a few centuries to go

True. At the rates of CO2 emission in 1912, that might still be true. But the dirty energy economy didn't stand still for the past century.

https://goo.gl/images/dDivXs

 

[Stripe]

Dirty energy

Speaking in pejoratives is no way to foster understanding.

 

[Right Divider]

The article claims that the amount of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere is 3.5 TIMES the weight of the coal burned. That's a miracle.

 

[Jonahdog]

The article claims that the amount of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere is 3.5 TIMES the weight of the coal burned. That's a miracle.

Actually the weight of a molecule of CO2 is 3.66 times the weight of a carbon atom so perhaps not that miraculous

 

[Foxfire]

The article claims that the amount of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere is 3.5 TIMES the weight of the coal burned. That's a miracle.

The science hasn't changed all that much in the intervening years. Including the atomic weight of the 2 oxygen molecules that combine with the carbon molecule to create CO2.

If you combusted all of the octane to carbon dioxide, each of the eight carbon atoms would become part of a CO2 molecule. Thus, you would have eight CO2 molecules per octane molecule burned--or eight moles of CO2 per mole of octane burned.

They did seem to be a bit more conservative with their calculations back then though.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-weight-ratio-co2-fuel/

 

[Right Divider]

Actually the weight of a molecule of CO2 is 3.66 times the weight of a carbon atom so perhaps not that miraculous

Thanks for the info, I was kidding about the miracle.

So the added oxygen is where the weight is gained?

 

[ok doser]

... the dirty energy ...

there's no such thing as clean energy

 

[Stripe]

The article claims that the amount of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere is 3.5 TIMES the weight of the coal burned. That's a miracle.

:rotfl:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jonahdog]

Thanks for the info, I was kidding about the miracle.

So the added oxygen is where the weight is gained?

Yes, but actually that number is based on the molecular weights of C and O. But in real life the CO2 would be somewhat less per ton of coal. Coal, in the real world, contains more than just carbon. And the additional elements in coal (impurities) depend on the type of coal. Coal has sulfur, mercury etc. in it. Anthracite coal--from Pennsylvania for example, has a higher C content. Coal burned in most power plants has a lower C %.