New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post Reply
Raphael
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 am

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by Raphael »

NO WARMING DUE TO CO2 -- not that there has been any .

SPECIES EXTINCTION OVER

SEND GRETA BACK TO SCHOOL .

A new way of removing carbon dioxide from a stream of air could provide a significant tool in the battle against climate change. The new system can work on the gas at virtually any concentration level, even down to the roughly 400 parts per million currently found in the atmosphere.

Air entering the system passes to one of two chambers containing battery electrodes that attract the carbon dioxide. Then the airflow is switched to the other chamber, while the accumulated carbon dioxide in the first chamber is flushed into a separate storage tank . These alternating flows allow for continuous operation of the two-step process.

Most methods of removing carbon dioxide from a stream of gas require higher concentrations, such as those found in the flue emissions from fossil fuel-based power plants. A few variations have been developed that can work with the low concentrations found in air, but the new method is significantly less energy-intensive and expensive, the researchers say.

The technique, based on passing air through a stack of charged electrochemical plates, is described in a new paper in the journal Energy and Environmental Science, by MIT postdoc Sahag Voskian, who developed the work during his PhD, and T. Alan Hatton, the Ralph Landau Professor of Chemical Engineering.

The device is essentially a large, specialized battery that absorbs carbon dioxide from the air (or other gas stream) passing over its electrodes as it is being charged up, and then releases the gas as it is being discharged. In operation, the device would simply alternate between charging and discharging, with fresh air or feed gas being blown through the system during the charging cycle, and then the pure, concentrated carbon dioxide being blown out during the discharging.

As the battery charges, an electrochemical reaction takes place at the surface of each of a stack of electrodes. These are coated with a compound called polyanthraquinone, which is composited with carbon nanotubes. The electrodes have a natural affinity for carbon dioxide and readily react with its molecules in the airstream or feed gas, even when it is present at very low concentrations. The reverse reaction takes place when the battery is discharged — during which the device can provide part of the power needed for the whole system — and in the process ejects a stream of pure carbon dioxide. The whole system operates at room temperature and normal air pressure.

“The greatest advantage of this technology over most other carbon capture or carbon absorbing technologies is the binary nature of the adsorbent’s affinity to carbon dioxide,” explains Voskian. In other words, the electrode material, by its nature, “has either a high affinity or no affinity whatsoever,” depending on the battery’s state of charging or discharging. Other reactions used for carbon capture require intermediate chemical processing steps or the input of significant energy such as heat, or pressure differences.

“This binary affinity allows capture of carbon dioxide from any concentration, including 400 parts per million, and allows its release into any carrier stream, including 100 percent CO2,” Voskian says. That is, as any gas flows through the stack of these flat electrochemical cells, during the release step the captured carbon dioxide will be carried along with it. For example, if the desired end-product is pure carbon dioxide to be used in the carbonation of beverages, then a stream of the pure gas can be blown through the plates. The captured gas is then released from the plates and joins the stream.

In some soft-drink bottling plants, fossil fuel is burned to generate the carbon dioxide needed to give the drinks their fizz. Similarly, some farmers burn natural gas to produce carbon dioxide to feed their plants in greenhouses. The new system could eliminate that need for fossil fuels in these applications, and in the process actually be taking the greenhouse gas right out of the air, Voskian says. Alternatively, the pure carbon dioxide stream could be compressed and injected underground for long-term disposal, or even made into fuel through a series of chemical and electrochemical processes.

A flow of air or flue gas (blue) containing carbon dioxide (red) enters the system from the left. As it passes between the thin battery electrode plates, carbon dioxide attaches to the charged plates while the cleaned airstream passes on through and exits at right.

A flow of air or flue gas (blue) containing carbon dioxide (red) enters the system from the left. As it passes between the thin battery electrode plates, carbon dioxide attaches to the charged plates while the cleaned airstream passes on through and exits at right.

Image courtesy of the researchers

The process this system uses for capturing and releasing carbon dioxide “is revolutionary” he says. “All of this is at ambient conditions — there’s no need for thermal, pressure, or chemical input. It’s just these very thin sheets, with both surfaces active, that can be stacked in a box and connected to a source of electricity.”



“In my laboratories, we have been striving to develop new technologies to tackle a range of environmental issues that avoid the need for thermal energy sources, changes in system pressure, or addition of chemicals to complete the separation and release cycles,” Hatton says. “This carbon dioxide capture technology is a clear demonstration of the power of electrochemical approaches that require only small swings in voltage to drive the separations.”​

In a working plant — for example, in a power plant where exhaust gas is being produced continuously — two sets of such stacks of the electrochemical cells could be set up side by side to operate in parallel, with flue gas being directed first at one set for carbon capture, then diverted to the second set while the first set goes into its discharge cycle. By alternating back and forth, the system could always be both capturing and discharging the gas. In the lab, the team has proven the system can withstand at least 7,000 charging-discharging cycles, with a 30 percent loss in efficiency over that time. The researchers estimate that they can readily improve that to 20,000 to 50,000 cycles.

The electrodes themselves can be manufactured by standard chemical processing methods. While today this is done in a laboratory setting, it can be adapted so that ultimately they could be made in large quantities through a roll-to-roll manufacturing process similar to a newspaper printing press, Voskian says. “We have developed very cost-effective techniques,” he says, estimating that it could be produced for something like tens of dollars per square meter of electrode.

Compared to other existing carbon capture technologies, this system is quite energy efficient, using about one gigajoule of energy per ton of carbon dioxide captured, consistently. Other existing methods have energy consumption which vary between 1 to 10 gigajoules per ton, depending on the inlet carbon dioxide concentration, Voskian says.

The researchers have set up a company called Verdox to commercialize the process, and hope to develop a pilot-scale plant within the next few years, he says. And the system is very easy to scale up, he says: “If you want more capacity, you just need to make more electrodes.”



Contacts and sources:

David Chandler

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Raphael
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 am

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by Raphael »

Deep State will soon put an end to this brilliant invention .

There are trillions to be made from a Carbon Tax .

No way that it will be allowed to be developed .
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 11712
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man
Contact:

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by LarsMac »

It really is a great idea.

So we can develop a technology that can do what the normal cooling of the Arctic and Antarctic used to do for us until we turned up the heat.

Of course the Trumpers, who claim no Global warming has actually taken place will object. I mean it would be a admission that they were wrong to start with.

Trump will never go for this idea. He doesn't believe in Climate Change
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
― Mark Twain
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15685
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by Bryn Mawr »

LarsMac;1527642 wrote: It really is a great idea.

So we can develop a technology that can do what the normal cooling of the Arctic and Antarctic used to do for us until we turned up the heat.

Of course the Trumpers, who claim no Global warming has actually taken place will object. I mean it would be a admission that they were wrong to start with.

Trump will never go for this idea. He doesn't believe in Climate Change



It might be interesting to calculate out the billions of cubic miles of air that would have to be processed and the millions of cubic kilometres of carbon that would have to be stored in order to bring the carbon dioxide levels back to pre-industrialisation values.

A nice lab demonstration maybe but a significant tool, no.
Raphael
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 am

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by Raphael »

Mister Trump does believe in Climate change .

As do all people who have eyes and a sense of feeling .

What he questions --- as do so many others -- is the unproven assertion that there is Warming and that a substantial part of this warming is man produced .

I think the Warming hoax has essentially been abandoned as the support wheels have come off , and the thrust has now switched to controlling climate change .What a joke that is !

This represents monumental intellectual illness because climate change is most influenced by the type of space the sun moves through , the intensity of galaxy centre cosmic rays and the amount of sun activity measured in the number of sun spots and coronal ejections .

Which of these and other related matters will Greta and her batty friends and supporters set about changing first ?

Good luck with the hyper drive and anti gravity ships , weapons and other equipment , Greta !!!!!!!!!

To further complicate matters Dr Zakharova has recently ( 2015 ?) shown that the sun is powered by four and not two interacting electro magnetic centres and that these are right now at a phase which will guarantee this planet a temperature level equivalent to a mini ice age .

We will see the first evidence for this hypothesis now . This winter .

In fact the US eastern seaboard may provide a clear cut signal in the next few days ( should have started ) .

What do I see ?

A lot of people covered in egg and a band of pseudo scientists whom , at minimum , should be publicly flogged .
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 11712
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man
Contact:

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by LarsMac »

Bryn Mawr;1527649 wrote: It might be interesting to calculate out the billions of cubic miles of air that would have to be processed and the millions of cubic kilometres of carbon that would have to be stored in order to bring the carbon dioxide levels back to pre-industrialisation values.

A nice lab demonstration maybe but a significant tool, no.



I spent a good couple of sleepless hours last night contemplating the task.

considering the centuries it took to store up all that CO2 to begin with, and the one for us to release it all into the atmosphere, I do not think that Human civilization is quite up to the task.
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
― Mark Twain
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 11712
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man
Contact:

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by LarsMac »

Raphael;1527651 wrote: Mister Trump does believe in Climate change .

As do all people who have eyes and a sense of feeling .

What he questions --- as do so many others -- is the unproven assertion that there is Warming and that a substantial part of this warming is man produced .

I think the Warming hoax has essentially been abandoned as the support wheels have come off , and the thrust has now switched to controlling climate change .What a joke that is !

This represents monumental intellectual illness because climate change is most influenced by the type of space the sun moves through , the intensity of galaxy centre cosmic rays and the amount of sun activity measured in the number of sun spots and coronal ejections .

Which of these and other related matters will Greta and her batty friends and supporters set about changing first ?

Good luck with the hyper drive and anti gravity ships , weapons and other equipment , Greta !!!!!!!!!

To further complicate matters Dr Zakharova has recently ( 2015 ?) shown that the sun is powered by four and not two interacting electro magnetic centres and that these are right now at a phase which will guarantee this planet a temperature level equivalent to a mini ice age .

We will see the first evidence for this hypothesis now . This winter .

In fact the US eastern seaboard may provide a clear cut signal in the next few days ( should have started ) .

What do I see ?

A lot of people covered in egg and a band of pseudo scientists whom , at minimum , should be publicly flogged .



Please do share the good Doctors research.
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
― Mark Twain
Raphael
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 am

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by Raphael »

https://youtu.be/M_yqIj38UmY

Why not watch our Ukey lady lecture live .

Valentina does her research here at the University of Newcastle .

The video lasts about 90 minutes but you can easily divide it into man size chunks and V's English is excellent .

Send a copy to Greta Thunder Bird and her mad cohorts .

P.S. If you want to increase the planet temperature , simply put more thermometers into towns and away from the colder countryside .

That's what they did and several other scum bag tricks .
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 11712
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man
Contact:

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by LarsMac »

So, I assume that somewhere along this line of discussion you will find a way to connect Solar Magnetic fluctuation to the increase in CO2 concentrations in the Earth atmosphere, and therefore produce reasoning why the latter has nothing at all to do with Human consumption of Hydrocarbons.
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
― Mark Twain
Raphael
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 am

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by Raphael »

LarsMac;1527721 wrote: So, I assume that somewhere along this line of discussion you will find a way to connect Solar Magnetic fluctuation to the increase in CO2 concentrations in the Earth atmosphere, and therefore produce reasoning why the latter has nothing at all to do with Human consumption of Hydrocarbons.



How many times have I told you never to make guesses about anything ?

Just come to Raffy ( Ra) and I will point you in the right direction .

Your so called CO2 concentration has been at the present level and higher many times in the past .No human activity then, apart from dinosaur farting as a result of diet imbalances .

It has no connection with temperature , despite the crooked IPCC attempts to convince otherwise.Now conceded .

In fact the only correlation between Temperature and CO2 levels is at a time gap of

800 years . And correlations are not causes.



CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere .



It is accepted that only 3% of CO2 is from human activities

What is 3% of 0.04% ?

Answer : Effing small . Incredibly small .

Latest research both from Sweden and Japan shows that there is no statistically significant link between Climate (Change ) and human activities .

The CO2 saga is literally a pseudo science hoax .That you have fallen for it hook , line and stinker is no surprise .

( Have a break here )

The other half of the master canvass in simple terms is about what comes to earth , as distinct from what leaves earth .

Here I am leaving it to you to learn about Cosmic rays from the Galaxy centre , their number and intensity and how too many hitting our planet core eventually leads to earthquakes and volcanos -- a simple matter of increased pressure requiring a release valve .

I am also telling you to find out about how the Sun's cyclical nature affects the scale of cosmic rays hitting earth rather than being captured and/or deflected by Mr Sun .And presently we have had no sun spots in the last 18 months which , with a reduction in coronal ejections , means Mr Sun is not capturing and deflecting the Cosmic Rays rushing to Earth . At Earth . And sticking in Earth full of energy .

It is even more complex and worse for us because the type of space we are all rushing through changes ( gas and particles ), and causes friction coefficients to change planet rotation axes etc

Unfortunately all of this bad news is here again and as it has happened many times before in the last 100, 000 , 000 years .



The conclusion -- in simple terms --- is that CO2 as a cause of real Climate change is an absurd proposition .

AND

whatever you assign to human activities , the magnitude of difference of matters over which we have no control is measured in BILLIONS .

And just to bring a smile to your worried and creased brow , this is one possible reason why 'they' are using Chem Trails .

Spraying the atmosphere to make it more like a soup and capture and/or deflect those naughty Cosmics which are hell bent on an extinction event for dear old Homo Sapiens.

Please do not worry about Cosmics and if headaches begin, refuse to be involved in

Captain Ra's mission to save planet Earth .

P.S. Your next step is to discover the truth about the underground cities and connecting tunnels already constructed and functional . Not just in north America .

Then you need to make sure you have a job or qualification which gives you an official entry pass. OR. You start writing to demand inclusion because of your human rights or whatever other absurd defence you elect to use .

But make sure you pass your annual mental health check first .
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15685
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by Bryn Mawr »

OK, I’ll bite – because all you are spouting here is the petrochemical industries distortions of the truth and they are so distorting the truth that they are lying.

Let’s go through your points one by one :-

Raphael;1527791 wrote:

How many times have I told you never to make guesses about anything ?

Just come to Raffy ( Ra) and I will point you in the right direction .




OK, maybe not all – let’s ignore your arrogant bull****, or, as you call it, banter.

Raphael;1527791 wrote:

Your so called CO2 concentration has been at the present level and higher many times in the past .No human activity then, apart from dinosaur farting as a result of diet imbalances .




Yes, the CO2 level has been this high and higher before (but not in the past eight hundred thousand years, see chart) – it has even moved this quickly before. Where the CO2 level moves high slowly it is not a problem but each time it has moved this high this quickly it has been known as an extinction event and upwards of 90% of the then current species have died out (Including 100% of the species with an adult weight of 25kg or higher). This extinction event is what we are trying to avoid.

Past causes of rapid hikes in CO2 level have included extreme volcanic events (not just a single super-volcano going off but many simultaneously and the so called “nuclear winter” resulting from massive meteor strikes, that is the level of effect that human activity is having.

Raphael;1527791 wrote:

It has no connection with temperature , despite the crooked IPCC attempts to convince otherwise.Now conceded .

In fact the only correlation between Temperature and CO2 levels is at a time gap of

800 years . And correlations are not causes.




You are going to have to provide a link to the IPCC conceding that there is no link between CO2 levels and global temperature.

If your lag of eight hundred years holds then why have the nineteen hottest years on record occurred in the past twenty one years? By your logic they should not occur for another seven hundred and fifty years.

Raphael;1527791 wrote:

CO2 accounts for 0.04% of the atmosphere .



It is accepted that only 3% of CO2 is from human activities

What is 3% of 0.04% ?

Answer : Effing small . Incredibly small .




It’s the 0.04% that’s small and shows the sensitivity of the system, the 3% represents billions of tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere and even more billions of tonnes absorbed by the sink we call the oceans. Where a stable system (as or ecosystem generally is) relies on negative feedback loops for its stability then even small changes in the conditions can have catastrophic repercussions.



Raphael;1527791 wrote:

Latest research both from Sweden and Japan shows that there is no statistically significant link between Climate (Change ) and human activities .




You really are going to have to provide a link to that – which of the petrochemical companies funded it I wonder :-)

Raphael;1527791 wrote:

The CO2 saga is literally a pseudo science hoax .That you have fallen for it hook , line and stinker is no surprise .

( Have a break here )




Thank you, I will but before I do consider a system where the vast majority of energy entering the system comes in the form of solar radiation and all of the energy leaving the system goes in the form of black body radiation in the infra-red or reflected radiation from the Earth itself.

Now consider a mechanism whereby the infra-red radiation leaving the Earth can be blocked and retained – do you not consider that that would have an effect on the total energy within the system?

If it an incontrovertible fact that CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses adsorb energy at the frequencies of the Earth’s black body radiation, that’s what defines them as greenhouse gasses.

Also, by warming the oceans and atmosphere we are eroding the polar ice caps, these are white shiny things that reflect lots of sunlight whereas the underlying rock / sea is a lot darker and adsorbs the energy rather than reflecting it thus reducing the other mechanism whereby the Earth can loose energy.

How then do you deny that human activities, having a significant effect on the greenhouse gas levels (and 3% is statistically significant) has an effect of global average temperature?

Link for chart :-

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Attached files
Raphael
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 am

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by Raphael »

Busy for 24-36 hours but this will interest you , if you are open minded .

I would prefer if you forgot Petrochemical findings in discussion with me .

I do not know what they are , nor do I wish to .

I work to the best available standards from Scientific process .As I trust you endeavour to also do .

SHOWING CO2 IS INNOCENT Of CLIMATE CHANGE , published August 2019 in Principia Scientific International

Independent British climate researcher, Geraint Hughes, author of ‘Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of THE BIG LIE of Climate,’ has developed yet another experiment to prove CO2 is innocent of climate change.



For those who haven’t yet seen Geraint’s impressive initial experiment, which successfully demonstrated that CO2 does not induce back radiant heating, take a few minutes to view two Youtube videos here and here.



Above, two photographs demonstrating the effects of an exposed light filament where exposed to a vacuum( left) and in a pure CO2 environment (right). As can be seen, the filament exposed only to CO2 is dimmer and cooler.

Speaking to Principia Scientific International, Geraint Hughes explained some of the feedback he has gotten since publicizing his results.

He reveals that some scientists, including professors, have made asinine comments, such as “The filament isn’t emitting IR, that’s why you can put your hand on the bulb in your video,” also, “the base is shiny this is distorting what’s happening.”

Among the worst responses was that the tungsten filament wasn’t emitting infrared radiation!

Hughes laments:

“He must be the only person on the planet who thinks that, but he has PhD so he must be ‘right’. People really are willing to come out with any old clap trap to try and silence the truth.”

The intelligent comments will be addressed in a follow up with modifications to the experiment. These included:

Height of the Chamber

A great number of comments came back saying that the chamber wasn’t tall enough for the back irradiance of CO2 to be induced and that the full height of the atmosphere cannot be represented with these chambers. Such comments are superficial and biased, insofar as the ‘standard experiment’ that ‘proves’ CO2 ‘traps’ heat is merely conducted in small, glass jars. In such a confined experiment (for or against the proposition) it cannot be claimed the results are truly representational of a mechanism occurring in the whole atmosphere.

But this is the point, the entire premise of CO2-driven radiative climate forcing is an unrepresentational demonstration in a lab environment. Thus, the entire narrative of the greenhouse gas effect relies on a claim that applies only to an artificially closed system, not the open-to-space reality of earth’s atmosphere.

Sticking strictly to the parameters of the closed system, laboratory environment, we see that back radiance from the CO2 gas isn’t causing a rise in temperature of the filament because such a thing doesn’t happen, not because of the height of the tower is insufficient.

Hughes told PSI:

“So in an attempt to address this, I will construct a tower which is twice as high as the current chambers, which are 200mm high. My new tower will be 400mm high.”

As any rational skeptic would expect, the result is unsurprising.

“The convective currents will increase, because there is now more space for gas to rise and move and so therefore, the rate of heat loss from the filament will rise, causing lower temperatures.”

This is the same effect of increasing the height of a greenhouse. The taller we make a greenhouse, the cooler it will be inside, as the restriction to convective cooling lessons as air is able to rise higher before coming back down again.

Hughes reports that his endeavors to substantiate his original findings are ongoing:

“Once in possession of a higher chamber I will, of course, record and publish the results and likely as not, the climate cultists will be disappointed. I predict, the taller I make this chamber, the cooler it will be. “

Flippantly, Hughes argues that a 20km high chamber will never be able to reverse what is happening.

Length of Test

Geraint Hughes reports that since posting his initial findings online he has been bombarded from both alarmists and lukewarmists that the time length of the test was too short.

The reasoning seems to be that because the CO2 being used in the experiment comes from a bottle, it is thus cooler than air temperature and so Hughes needs to wait for it to “Warm up.”

“Apparently, if I left the light on all day with the CO2 inside, I will at some point witness the sudden reversal in cooling to warming as back radiance “takes time” to get going before the tipping point suddenly gets reached and “flips” it to warming, ” comes a sarcastic Hughes reply.

For those firmly wedded to their alarmist position, Hughes holds little hope that any modification in his experiment will satisfy their unwillingness to alter their view.

Hughes has even had his filament experiment running all day and no change is detected:

“I can leave it on all day and it NEVER changes. Cynics are kidding themselves if they think this is the “key trick” to this experiment. There is no trick, this is real science, this is real engineering. Stop believing in stupid things, you need to understand that the BBC is full of rubbish.”

Hughes has run his tests for months and the magic “Tipping point” never gets reached, it never warms, it never gets brighter the light filament exposed to a CO2 only atmosphere stays dim (cool).

Pertinently, Hughes suggests that his critics take note that radiation moves at the speed of light – hundreds of thousands of miles per second. Radiation effects are instant. Radiation isn’t something that takes all day to get going, its effects are felt straight away, especially in such a small container. Just imagine on a sunny day walking under a umbrella then back out again, you notice the difference on your skin, straight away. There is no lag.

It was even suggested by an unmoved critic that Hughes should set his experiment as a live feed for at least 24 hours on Youtube. It would possibly count as the most boring video of all time but such is the extent some will go for the cause of empirical science.

Different Gases

Hughes reveals,

“I get this one a lot. Apparently I am being unfair on CO2 by showing that its back irradiant powers don’t exist and that Climate Fraudster are lying. Showing things how they are just isn’t allowed. I need to show other gases too. Ok that’s easy so that is what I will do.”

IA new set of tests will be performed adding the gases, Argon, Nitrogen, Helium and simply with each one see what happens. He will also add thermometers to read temperatures of gases and then repeat the CO2 test with the thermometers also.

Some bright sparks have suggested me that if Hughes adds Argon, the filament will cool and this is the same as adding CO2 and therefore doesn’t show that CO2 doesn’t have back radiant powers. In other words, some people are sure CO2 is the same as Argon, Argon has no IR absorption but CO2 does, so shouldn’t CO2 be different?

Hughes believes others should follow his lead and perform this obvious experiment themselves.

He expects they will learn that adding CO2 cools the filament, adding Argon cools the filament, adding any gas cools the filament.

As a confirmed skeptic of the CO2-radiative greenhouse gas theory Hughes wishes others to realize that CO2 does not have any special back radiant heat inducing powers at all.

“Argon and CO2 have similar properties and so therefore will result in similar temperatures. Argon has no IR powers, yet CO2 does and both will be approximately similar. This will show that CO2 back irradiance as a theory of heat and weather control is obsolete.

I will show which gas results in the warmest temperatures and I will post videos of each, tabulate the data, produce graphs and do several repeat tests of each showing room temperature also.

I am going to swap the tungsten filaments for 1mm thick, instead of normal hairline filaments, because all these different tests will burn out loads of bulbs. I haven’t done that before so it may take me a while to get it all to work. Hopefully I will have all these done within 3 months or so.”

What will the point of all these be, the point is that CO2 does not induce back radiant heating and all the “pathological reasoning” which people put forth as to why back radiant heating didn’t occur is false.

It didn’t occur because the chamber “was too small” it didn’t occur because “It wasn’t given enough time” and it didn’t occur “because you didn’t compare it with other gases”.

The reason it didn’t occur, is because gases just can’t do that. They aren’t real reasons as to why back heating didn’t occur.

As he also shows in his new book, we are being constantly bombarded by the fake news media and twisted education system. “It’s time for the fraud to stop and all those fraudsters to be bought to task.”

As for the book, Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of THE BIG LIE of Climate, it includes:

A full and comprehensive summary of the main reasons as to why the human-caused Global Warming theory is false.

Global warming science is taught falsely, right from the start. This false teaching is to convince people to believe in science which isn’t true, so that they willingly make expensive and unnecessary life changes, submit themselves to restrictions on their energy usage and happy to pay extra taxes. Extra taxes to people whom offer nothing in return for the extra expense but hardship.
Raphael
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:10 am

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by Raphael »

Will respond to the points you raised later but I have a feeling that you might wish to

drop your concerns after enjoying the scientific results obtained by Mr Hughes after

you have treated yourself and read his book .



And this review of Black Dragon as shown in Amazon might entice you to buy this five star rated book .

Black Dragon Review29 September 2019

Title: Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science

Author: Geraint Hughes

Rating: *****

Review: This isn’t the first book I have reviewed on climate science, links to those will be included at the bottom of this review. I had never heard of Geraint Hughes before but upon opening this book for the first time, I know he understands the lies we are being fed and seeks to debunk them one by one. The first myth he debunks is how a greenhouse actually works. For most young people, like myself, we were taught in school that back radiation heats the greenhouse, that the glass of the greenhouse returns the sun’s heat to the ground thus increasing the temperature however, this is a falsehood. A greenhouse actually works due to convection. A strong convection current within the greenhouse creates a cycle of warming and cooling. The sun heats the earth which causes the air close to the ground to heat up and rise, it is trapped by the glass where it cools and falls back to the earth where the cycle repeats. Knowing this is the lynchpin of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, it completely falls apart already, but Hughes continues to pick apart every lie the Alarmists use when confronted with the shocking truth that the GGT (Greenhouse Gas Theory) is absolute BS.

Within the first 25 pages of this book, I learnt more than I ever did in my 5 years studying GCSE Physics. Most books that focus on climate science are difficult to read at the best of times because you need some understanding of physics and thermodynamics in order to understand what we are being told and to be able to distinguish the BS from fact. Hughes makes this easy by completely breaking down the science and equations he is using so that anyone can understand them. He then explains the physical application of this science and how it in no way relates to the Greenhouse gas Theory and repeatedly disproves it. One thing Hughes debunks that actually fascinated me especially since I am currently studying Bioscience – Chemistry, Biology, and Psychology is he debunks the Climate Change in a Bottle experiment. My old teacher actually used this experiment to teach us about Climate Change, but it completely misses out some glaringly obvious things that would affect the results. For example, it completely neglects the fact that the density of both Air and Carbon Dioxide are different and the specific heat capacity of both these gases is different which would affect the rate at which these gases absorb IR. The whole Climate Change myth seems to be a massive case of the more you look, the less you see. What I mean by this is the more you focus on what you are being told, the less you notice that it is completely wrong, but when you take a step back and view it objectively everything becomes a lot clearer.

The whole section on Venus was interesting to read. Those spouting the nonsense would have us believe Venus’ high temperatures are caused by a runaway greenhouse effect, but Venus’ temperature is due to its natural structure and formation, however, the interesting thing about this section isn’t the debunking myth about Venus but what we learn about Venus itself. Throughout the book Hughes makes some interesting point and provides strong evidence to prove why the theories on Greenhouse Gas are incorrect. One of the key things that will stick with me is that difference between Oxy and CO2 gas planets, Oxy or oxygen gas planets and Carbon Dioxide gas planets have very different temperatures for one simple reason how emissive the abundant gas is. Oxygen is far less emissive than CO2, therefore Oxy planets have higher temperatures, because of this it is impossible for CO2 to be the cause of global warming and Climate Change. While this isn’t the most interesting book I have read on the subject, it is one of the most informative. I highly recommend reading it if you have an interest in the subject or even if you are just curious as it is written in a way that people with all levels of scientific knowledge can understand it.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 11712
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man
Contact:

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by LarsMac »

Enough of your tin-foil hat drivel.
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
― Mark Twain
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15685
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

New way to remove CO 2 from the air

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Raphael;1527819 wrote: Busy for 24-36 hours but this will interest you , if you are open minded .

I would prefer if you forgot Petrochemical findings in discussion with me .

I do not know what they are , nor do I wish to .

I work to the best available standards from Scientific process .As I trust you endeavour to also do .

SHOWING CO2 IS INNOCENT Of CLIMATE CHANGE , published August 2019 in Principia Scientific International

Independent British climate researcher, Geraint Hughes, author of ‘Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of THE BIG LIE of Climate,’ has developed yet another experiment to prove CO2 is innocent of climate change.




Firstly you cannot ignore the petrochemical industry findings as they fund almost all of the climate change denial reports.

Secondly, if you want to work to the best available standards then let’s stick to the peer reviewed journals not fringe sites :-

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/

It is very easy to prove whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not, stick it in a spectrograph and map an adsorption spectrum. You then compare the adsorption peaks against the frequencies in the black body radiation for the Earth and you can calculate exactly the percentage of energy adsorbed. An experiment using a light bulb and comparing the visible light output with different gasses tells you nothing.

I have never seen a paper that so obviously puts up nonsense arguments just so that it can knock them down described as best available standard or scientific process before and hope to never see the like again.
Post Reply

Return to “Conservation The Environment”