Experts Say Carbon Dioxide Is “Highly Combustible”

8:19 PM · May 28, 2021

Someone better tell the fire extinguisher industry, which uses CO2 to put out fires.

Carbon Dioxide Fire Extinguisher – Co2 Fire Extinguishers

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Experts Say Carbon Dioxide Is “Highly Combustible”

  1. Conrad Ziefle says:

    It reminds me of a person who supposedly was highly intelligent. She believed that there was an engine that burned water. A first semester high school chemistry student knows that H2O is fully combusted H2. And CO2 is fully combusted carbon. However I know an engineer who designed a power plant at a refinery which combusted CO into CO2, and he received an advancement and a bonus for doing that. It gave the refinery a bunch of free energy.

  2. The report says it is the methane that is highly combustible, not the CO2 (that’s just “deadly” as a cloud)…but their even mentioning CO2 in the same phrase just shows they had to demonize CO2, even though it is irrelevant to their report.

    • Conrad Ziefle says:

      Yeah, well as Kerry said, “We need to get all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere.” Can anyone dig up his recorded IQ? It must be extremely low. He is absolutely a mindless drone, a perfect pick for the Biden administration.
      The goal is ridiculous because plants require CO2 to grow, so let’s remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere so all life can die.
      The goal is also impossible, which makes it a perfect goal for Marxist because their fantasy world is build around impossible goals. But I think my high school chemistry said that there would be an equilibrium between the CO2 in the oceans and the atmosphere. Hence, if you could meaningfully remove CO2 from the atmosphere, more CO2 would flow from the oceans to reestablish equilibrium.
      And we thought the Egyptians were wacky for wasting all those resources to build the pyramids. At least, there was a foreseeable end to that project.

  3. D. Boss says:

    We are indeed doomed…. people have been so incredibly dumbed down regards basic facts about reality it has become really scary. (because it means the masses can be duped into believing all manner of bad or evil doctrines if they are so stupid)

    Methane is a LOT lighter than air, so if released from the lake, it rises rapidly. It cannot “explode” as such – some may burn if it achieves the correct fuel/air proportions. Methane’s flammability range is from 5% to 15% in air. Below or above this concentration range it will not combust!

    And if CO2 is simultaneously released from the lake, it does not support combustion, as such would prevent ignition. As Tony points out CO2 fire extinguishers are ubiquitous and very effective at snuffing out fires.

    There is no danger of explosion from methane release from a lake. If the release is ongoing and of high volume, then at the margins where enough air mixes with it, it can burn – but to explode it needs to be confined AND have the correct ratio with air and have a source of ignition.

    More dangerous is the CO2 release from the lake, as it is heavier than air, and will not support life. So if any animals or humans are nearby – say in a hollow or depression in the ground, they could be asphyxiated. (which has happened)(in 1986 over 3,000 people were suffocated by a massive CO2 release from some volcanic lake in Africa)

  4. dearieme says:

    Long, long ago I had the vast pleasure of undergoing some fire-fighting training.

    If you’ve never done it, and are young enough to have a go, I recommend it unreservedly.

  5. Stuart Nachman says:

    What evidence is there that carbon dioxide is deadly in an atmosphere where it is 4 parts per 10,000?

  6. arn says:

    Since Co2 went AGW its negative potential is rising every single day.
    I guess the molecule was so pissed that it played absolutely no rule during
    the global cooling scare((the increase of co2 was not even able to slow down the coming ice age by 0.01% during the 70ies))
    that it went full rogue since the 80ies as result of being ignored.
    Pollutant,Climate Disruptor,Heat Trap
    and now this non binary,trinary,cis gender,bi racial able bodied molecule self identifies as highly combustible,
    unwilling to let methan take all the apocalyptic glory.

    (but i think in this case it is just poor sentence structure.)

  7. Terry Shipman says:

    Combustible CO2. Thanks Tony for a good laugh in the morning. Here it is almost the first of June and it’s cold this morning here in Arkansas. The low temperature was in the low 50’s this morning. It was forecasted to be in the upper 40’s. I had to light the pilot light in my gas heat stove this morning since the temperature in the room where my TV and recliner are was in the mid 60’s. I had also stored my long sleeve shirts for the season. Wow, that demon gas CO2 is so unpredictable. The cold couldn’t possibly be caused by a jet stream dip as a result of low solar activity. No, no, it must be demon CO2. You know, warm causes cold. I’m glad to see your site has returned. I was afraid you were the victim of a cyber attack or deplatforming and would be gone for a while.

  8. Ben Vorlich says:

    I would say first and foremost that’s poor use of the English language. I’m not sure that the writer thinks CO2 is combustible but neither do they realise that is how what they’ve written says. I’m guessing that they are a young performing arts graduate currently out their depth with the job.

  9. Barry Malcolm says:

    Tony, I think it was just an example of poor grammar. At least I hope so, they can’t be that uniformed! Can they?

    • Jake Sinclair says:

      They don’t need to be uninformed to demonize CO2. Their highly educated scientists do it for a living.

  10. Robert B says:

    I think that they must have read about a possible limnic eruption. They are deadly but more like a chinked beer glass rather than combustion.

  11. Peter Carroll says:

    I don’t think they writer meant to suggest that CO2 was highly combustible, it was just poor reporting.
    The reporter was more than likely thinking of Lake Nyos, which in August 1986, experienced a limnic eruption releasing a cloud of CO2, which killed over 1,700 people.

    • Disillusioned says:

      “I don’t think they writer meant to suggest that CO2 was highly combustible, it was just poor reporting.”

      Perhaps. Maybe it was innocent. Or, she could have meant for it to be blurry and ambiguous. Whenever CO2 is involved, alarmist* authors have been known to conflate facts and blur lines. That, in addition to the pandemic of outright false reporting on climate and the supposed magical powers of CO2.

      “The reporter was more than likely thinking of Lake Nyos….”

      Yes. The author wrote of it (not about it) immediately below her confusing sentence in the article. She never explained that Nyos was a deep lake eruption of dissolved CO2 quickly rising to the surface, never caught on fire, nor explained how the people were killed. People, like you, familiar with limnic eruptions know that a large enough concentration of non-toxic, life-giving CO2 can and will suffocate animal life – by displacing the surrounding oxygen. And you know that CO2 cannot possibly cause fire. But, the majority of her readership would have no clue.

      It seems, the message to the unsuspecting was: the combination of methane (which is combustible) and – if present – that [“deadly”] CO2, would make the situation even more dangerous. But, in reality, if there were a deep lake CO2 eruption going on at the same time, it would have worked to put out the methane fires. It wasn’t enough that Mt. Nyiragongo erupted and communities are buried under lava – and then hundreds of earthquakes followed and caused even more devastation. The old “CO2 could cause X” message was unnecessarily woven into the story.

      *I don’t know the author, and also not knowing anything about the publication, I made a quick perusal of titles of articles under Politics and Science. It seems to be one more in the long list of corporatist, consensus media. JMHO

    • Dave N says:

      I agree: a comma is missing between “methane” and “and”. Also missing is the reporters brain when they claimed that CO2 is deadly

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *