WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] 5 pts 2y

You dumb fuckers do know that oil came from the ground in the first fucking place?

Therefore, it's about as "organic" as you can get.

[–] 6 pts 2y

It still makes sense to waste less of it moving it around.

[–] 1 pt 2y

A less-cynical first approximation would be that the envirocucks can't do a thing about Russia and Saudi pumping oil, whereas they can get pipelines shut down in the USA and Canada. I think they have been trying to create an oil crisis for various reasons.

[–] [deleted] 3 pts 2y

The gist is that the greentards think CO2- a byproduct of refining and burning- is a "greenhouse gas" that somehow rises above the stratosphere and fucks up the ozone layer. Something I find absurd as CO2 is denser than regular surface-level dry air, and certainly far more dense than any gases in the upper atmosphere. CO2 doesn't warm the planet; but it does make trees greener.

[–] 8 pts 2y

Exactly.

That's why they want to stop it, so nobody can grow their own food and will have to go crawling to the fucking government to get their rations.

CO2 is NOT NOW or EVER WAS a "greenhouse gas".

The whole "green" movement is COMPLETE BULLSHIT, always has been. The ONLY thing "green" about the "green" movement is MONEY.

[–] 1 pt 2y

Exactly, CO2 is NOT a "greenhouse gas"

wrong

stop reading political headlines telling you what to think, go read a chemistry book and work out what is happening

The ONLY thing "green" about the "green" movement is MONEY.

Do you know why the people on Easter Island died out? A useful corollary

[–] 1 pt 2y

CO2- [...] somehow rises above the stratosphere. Something I find absurd as CO2 is denser than regular surface-level dry air, and certainly far more dense than any gases in the upper atmosphere.

gas expands to fill the entire volume of a container, yes, cool that down to 0degK and add gravity and you might see some stratification. but in a system where CO2 is heated by the sun so it collides with other gas molecules and subject it to 140mph jetstreams, then no, it's going to mingle with every other gas up to around 80km high.

CO2 doesn't warm the planet;

correct, the sun does that. CO2 insulates the planet by blocking the reflected IR from flying off into space. That's why the moon is cold and the earth is hot, despite both being heated by the sun from the same distance.

greentards

if you don't know something, it's a bad look to call everyone else stupid

it does make trees greener

correct, and if we could recover all the wasted space that niggers take up we could probably grow lots more of them. But we don't. also adding half a trillion trees won't actually solve the problem https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-of-planting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/

[–] 1 pt 2y

but in a system where CO2 is heated by the sun so it collides with other gas molecules and subject it to 140mph jetstreams, then no, it's going to mingle with every other gas up to around 80km high.

Air has greater heat capacity than CO2, air density changes with conditions(temp/pressure) to a much greater extent than CO2, so it's unlikely to rise in the same manner that air does as it's density doesn't change much with temp/atmospheric pressure, neither will its buoyancy.

CO2 insulates the planet by blocking the reflected IR from flying off into space.

I'd argue that water vapor is just as insulating as CO2 if not more so, but no one bothers to curb humidity do they....

[–] 0 pt 2y

No one claims co2 insulates and warms the planet.

Don't act smart then say something dumb.

The gas that primarily insulates the planet. The actual greenhouse gas. Is water vapor.

No, they claim that co2 acts more like (sorry this subject is too technical for me so suck my interpretation) a catalyst that increases the impact of each solar ray.

And they replicated this in small scale experiments and extropulated the finding to the scale of a planet and left out other variables like feed back mechanism from co2 being so damned useful to life on earth.

Which is why global warming alarmism has always failed to become scientific theory (it ain't science without predictions becoming true).

Leave out variables and your equation is useless

[–] 0 pt 2y

There is so much of it there are areas of Louisiana and Texas land on the Gulf of Mexico where it seeps to the surface, and has done since forever. Ancient natives mixed it with mud and rubbed it on their bodies to guard against mosquitos.

[–] 0 pt 2y

You dumb fuckers do know that oil came from the ground in the first fucking place? Therefore, it's about as "organic" as you can get.

would you drink it then? ricin is organic too, made from beans

[–] 0 pt 2y

What does being organic have to do with nutritious?

[–] 0 pt 2y

What does being organic have to do with nutritious?

I'm kinda wondering why you were talking about organic in the first place? nobody else mentioned it. Isn't referring to oil as organic kinda odd?

[–] 0 pt 2y

You're an idiot.

[–] 1 pt 2y

You're an idiot.

at least you added an apostrophe, so here's a star

[–] 0 pt 2y

And the co2 released came from the atmosphere in the first place. And the energy stored in oil came from the sun..

Oil is green renewable. Yes renewable, hydrocarbons are made by photosynthesis. Solar energy

[–] [deleted] 4 pts 2y (edited 2y)

I have a question for you petrochemists: Diesel liquid has a density of 0.85kg/l, while C02 gas has a density of 0.001836kg/l. Now a standard US gallon of diesel weighs roughly 7lbs, so what kind of alchemical witchcraft takes place in the engines to turn that dense-as-fuck liquid into 22.38lbs of CO2 gas, which is roughly 483x less dense?

Seriously, what the hell? The closing argument is logically sound, but the math, chemistry, and physics of those numbers feel like bullshit!

[–] [deleted] 13 pts 2y (edited 2y)

carbon 12.0107 g/mol oxygen 15.9994 g/mol

Lets just do a gut check here without getting into the full math of the problem. CO2 will have one atom of carbon and 2 atoms of oxygen.

Oxygen is slightly heavier than carbon CO would be a slightly more than doubling of the weight of carbon put in. CO2 a bit more than trippling.

You said you had 1 gallon of diesel at 7lb. Diesel = C12H23 H = 1.00794 g/mol

We see that the weight of the diesel is primarily made of carbon because the Hydrogen is so light H23 not even equal to the weight of 2 carbon atoms. If we assume it burns completely and turns entirely into CO2 you are looking at a little under 7lbs tripled because every carbon atom will combine with two oxygen atoms from the atmosphere that's roughly equal to 21 lbs so I feel like their answer is reasonable. The other by product is water H20 and it will have weight made of mostly of Oxygen it binds from the atmosphere. Not a chemical engineer but i figured this is a good example of a gut check using ratios and an understanding of molecular weights.

[–] [deleted] 7 pts 2y

Reminds me of the old chemistry experiment where you burn steel wool. You first measure the mass of a piece of steel wool, then after you burn it and it is just ashes, you weight it again, the mass is higher. It’s the same concept because the reaction combines with oxygen to form a new molecule.

[–] 4 pts 2y

Even with perfect combustion to 100% CO2 from every carbon atom in the entire fuel mass, there is no way the trip could emit 27.67 million tons of CO2. I looked up the largest oil tanker to take to the waters (Seawise Giant) and it has a deadweight tonnage of 564,763, a gross tonnage of 260,851 and when fully laden, it had a displacement of 657,019 tonnes. That means the entire ship, its fuel and its cargo all weigh less than 1 million tons. There is no way to get 27 million tons of CO2 out of a total mass that is 27 times less and not even entirely fuel mass. I think this whole thing is grossly inaccurate, inflated and just plain lying.

I agree we should do our own oil production at home, but this whole post is just bad math and data.

[–] [deleted] 3 pts 2y (edited 2y)

Yeah that part is wrong even if you using their own number of 23lb per 7lb of diesel. Don't know why they bother to inflate it shipping the stuff doesn't make sense even without the exaggeration. Only thing id add is maybe the fucked up ships use bunker c which is not diesel. Also co2 is good for the planet.

[–] [deleted] 0 pt 2y

As part of the combustion process air is brought in and combined with fuel. The mass of the combustion product is fuel + O2. That's how you get 22.4 lbs of CO2 from 8 lbs of fuel.

I had to check because I thought the same thing you did.

[–] 3 pts 2y

Chemistry and biology used to be required in high school. Now they have no standards.

[–] 0 pt 2y

When I was in school you had the choice of physics and calculus or advanced biology and chemistry. I went the physics route. I've repeatedly admitted here I suck at chemistry.

[–] [deleted] 2 pts 2y

Thanks! I'm no chemist and was going on just a fundamental understanding of the Conservation of Mass.

[–] 3 pts 2y

I just asked the black guy who works at Chevron about this and he said banana muh dik.

I’m not a scientist. No idea if that’s correct.

[–] 2 pts 2y

From a slightly different angle, they're releasing energy by burning it. Burning isn't a reaction of the diesel with itself, it's combining with something else (air). So you'll have some extra mass coming from the environment.

Reminds me of when I learned that most of a tree's dry mass is from the air. Wood is literally made from air. Blows my mind.

[–] 0 pt 2y

Full marks to you both. Great stuff.

[–] 0 pt 2y

While I don't have the numbers on hand, I do know that several things will throw your calculations off by some amount.

  1. Diesel fuel is not pure C 12 H 23 . There are lots of chemicals added for various purposes.
  2. No engine will perfectly burn the fuel even if the fuel is perfectly pure and feed pure oxygen.

Combustion is a messy process and when you throw in the fact that diesel naturally has impurities, and that additives are mixed in, and then that it is burned in air which is composed of many elements and chemicals you get a veritable soup that only gets even more complicated when the actual combustion starts.

These factors may throw off the real world numbers by a significant amount.

[–] [deleted] 1 pt 2y

Oh yes it can get much more complicated. This was a gut check and just to check if their number of 23lb per gallon of diesel is in the right ball park.

[–] 3 pts 2y

There's more to it. You're skipping all the intermediate steps in combustion, and are ignoring changes in temperature and how they affect fluid density and viscosity. Don't forget the NOx, CO, particulates, with their own densities, along with transient radicals that make up the combustion process. Finally some mass is converted to energy and lost as entropy.

[–] 1 pt 2y

Some extra mass could come from the oxygen in the air, not sure if that adds up though. A 3x increase does sound fishy.

[–] 2 pts 2y

They are the same people who think importing "food" grown in 3rd world monocrop farms by slave labour is saving the planet

[–] 0 pt 2y

They are the same people who think importing "food" grown in 3rd world monocrop farms by slave labour is saving the planet

source?

also stop dissing slave labour, look what happens when you start giving them clothes

[–] 2 pts 2y

It's not that they're bad at it, they're not trying to use logic in the first place. Everything leftists do is motivated by emotion.

[+] [deleted] 1 pt 2y
[–] 0 pt 2y

They don't want you to use foreign oil. They want you to stop using oil.

[–] 0 pt 2y

Uhhhh... I think they burn that much fuel while they're traveling. I doubt they burn much while stopped at a port.

[–] 0 pt 2y

Because then we can't be scammed out of money.

[–] 0 pt 2y

Im not a scientist, do you weigh CO2 by the pound?

[–] [deleted] 0 pt 2y

Apparently Conservatives are too. Because all they do is compromise with the mentally ill.

Load more (1 reply)