C02 scare

Page 1 of 2  
Why isn't oxygen levels being depleated from all the fossil fuel burning? Could it be that it is just so vast that we can't make a dent in it? And if that is so, what makes people think that producing C02 from burning can make a dent in the total levels of C02? If there is a rise it's probably other causes.
--
LSMFT


Force shits upon the Back of Reason...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What are you implying? Perhaps that global warming is hoax?
For shame - how could anyone dare not believe Al Gore? (smile)
Bob-tx
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 15:50:26 -0600, "Bob-tx" <No Spam no contact> wrote Re Re: C02 scare:

A complete list of things caused by global warming http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Says it all
dadiOH

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harry wrote:

Yep. It's clear. You failed lunch.
You have confused the carbon-sink of trees with CO2. Trees take in CO2 and release oxygen. They keep the carbon. When a tree burns or rots, the tree itself does not release CO2. It is the combustion or decay processes that generates the CO2 by combining carbon compounds from the tree with oxygen from the air to produce CO2.
The tree itself HAS no CO2 to release.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 20, 5:42pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

The theory that the increased heating of the oceans releases CO2 which then raises the concentration in the atmosphere fits perfectly with the data on CO2 and temperature we now have going back 700,000 years. There have been 3 seperate major cycles of CO2 increase and warming. In EVERY one of them the warming started a few hundred to about 1200 years BEFORE the increase in CO2. In other words, if CO2 causes the warming, then one would expect that CO2 levles should be going up before the temp rises. On the other hand, if the earth warms from other causes, let's say increased solar output, then it takes hundreds of years for it to slowly warm the oceans enough to release more CO2. The latter theory is supported by Prof Richard Lindzen at MIT, but you never hear a peep about it in the press.
I've seen this point raised with some of the big scientists supporting man-made global warming and I have yet to hear any one of them give any explanation at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 06:02:24 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Right. The AlGore crowd has cause and effect exactly backwards. Increased taxes are a harder sell that way, though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There was a thread in sci.electronics.design maybe a year or so ago that brought up this issue, and where I argued against someone doing an appropriate translation by a factor of nearly 5 in the wrong direction (to be off by a factor of about 23).
O2 content in the atmosphere has actually been measured to have decreased in recent decades, by an amount fairly consistent with that needed for combustion of fossil fuels in the same time stretch.
Meanwhile, the O2 needed to double atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial level (if nature does not remove any of the added CO2) is only 280 PPMV, which is about .13-.14 % of current atmospheric O2 content. In terms of what is available for humans and animals to breathe, that is equivalent to moving ~40-44 feet or ~12-13.5 meters uphill in elevation.
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<SNIP to here to edit for line count>

Then why is on-average year-in, year-out volcanic CO2 emissions worldwide only ~1.3-1.4 % of that from fossil fuel burning?
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
If volcanoes have been adding more CO2 to the atmosphere than fossil fuel burning has been, then USA's gubmint needed to lie by a factor of about 70-plus. I seem to think that USA's gubmint lies a lot, but IMHO tends to avoid numerical dishonesty in big ticket issues by a factor of more than 3-4, and in decades-ongoing trends appears to me to have low ability of achieving success with dishonesy more than 1-1.5 % per year (11.46 - 16.5 % per decade).
<SNIP>

Can you cite this?
I have already annoyed a couple warmingists by saying, showing-my-work, how atmospheric CO2 increase achieves 50-60% as much global warming as "IPCC center track" ("my words") predicts. I have "somewhat-determined" that almost half of the global warming from 1973 to 2005 was from upswing of multidecadal oceanic oscillations, and a significant bit of the remainder was from anthropogenic greenhouse gas increase other than CO2 that has majority-leveled-off.
<SNIP mostly carbon-trading bleep>
I seem to think that "denialists" of anthropogenic global warming are easy to shoot down.
Admission that this exists invites debate of how much that exists,
and in the past 1-1.5 years, a debate partner of mine changed from "AGW-denialist" to skeptical-of-everything,
At this rate I insist that AGW is proven and for real, but most likely small enough to accomplish lowish in the lower half of IPCC projections. Also, I like to see global temperature trend stagnating to slightly cooling from 2005 to 2035 due to the expected atmospheric CO2 increase being unable to overcome downstroke of a couple multidecadal oceanic oscillations and a likely-near-repeat of the "Dalton minimum" of solar activity.
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That part is true.

As it turns out, in recent decades the oceans as well as the atmosphere have been gaining CO2. For net effect in recent decades, nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
http://lgmacweb.env.uea.ac.uk/lequere/co2 /
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 22, 2:57am, snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

Dissolving CO2 in H20 yields H2CO3, carbonic acid. So the more CO2 the seas absorb, the more acidic they become. This has a deleterious affect on coral. And coral reefs are important habitats for fish and crustacean and barriers between the ocean waves and the land. Also, scientists figure there is a limit on how much CO2 the oceans can absorb, though opinions seem to differ on how high that limit is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Won't keep you from gasping. Or rather, lack of O2 won't cause the rest of us to gasp. Breathing is controlled based on CO2 in the blood, not O2. This is why people who accidentally enter a pure-N area (such as in volatile environments where the N blanket is used to prevent fire) just keel over and asphyxiate without ever noticing anything wrong -- their lungs can still get rid of the CO2, so the breathing control mechanisms don't notice anything wrong.
In the mean time, welcome to alt.home.repair.in-denial ...
Edward
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/23/2011 8:27 PM, Edward Reid wrote:

Hey, my friend GB just acquired his very own oxygen machine so he will no longer have to pay $30.00 a month rental. He has plastic tubing snaked all over the house along with several reserve bottles of the life saving gas. :-)
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:27:13 -0500, Edward Reid

But without oxygen, the CO2 in the blood stays there.

I know you're jealous, so I understand all this psuedo-science. Tell you what, when you're gasping, you can come over for a half hour every day for the first month or two. After that you're on your own.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sorry about resurrecting this dead thread, but I've been otherwise occupied.
wrote:

Not true. Exhalation of CO2 is independent of inhalation of O2. If your lungs are pulling gas in and out, whether they can get rid of the CO2 depends only on the outside CO2 concentration.

Is that the science of napped leather? And if it's fake science about leather, then is it pseudo-psuedo-science?

OK, thanks. I think I should be able to adapt in a week or so.
Edward
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.gov wrote:

AIDS was not even in the mainstream media until 1981 (when only dozens were ill). Sometime in 1982 the body count reached a dozen, and through much of 1982 the disease was known as GRID ("gay related immune disorder"). It was sometime in 1982 or 1983 when a specific virus became a prime suspect, and that virus was not called HIV back then, but HTLV-3. No earlier than 1983, the virus was renamed HIV.
So, I think your history is a little off.
<SNIP more medical science history and what this leads to>
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

I did say "around" <g>. I'll cede to your superior knowledge of the timing but even if I'm off by a couple of years the point is still valid: Just because a bunch or even a majority of scientists assert something doesn't mean it's true.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 26, 12:41am, snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.gov wrote:

well lots of scientists say pollution cant cause global warming / global change.
but it doesnt take a scientist to look at todays / recent weather to know something is up.....
scientists are human and humans make mistakes.
wouldnt it be something if global warming brought on some sort of ice age?
today the biggest storm on record is approaching california its expected to snow in hollywood....
how wierd is that??
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:
<SNIP some AIDS history and a large bunch of scientists can be wrong>

Although I do believe there is some manmade global warming, most of what happened in terms of extreme weather in recent years and decades looks to me like stuff that weather has always done. Weather normally gets wacky at times. For example, tropical storm Agnes of 1971 did something wierd, and so did hurricane Hazel of 1954. New England's worst hurricane was in 1938. The most intense extratropical cyclone (by barometric pressure) known to have existed with its center on USA soil had its center in Ohio on January 25, 1978. In many locations, the Blizzard of March 1888 has yet to be exceeded in terms of either snowfall or very protracted very strong inland wind.

Can you cite who is saying "the biggest storm on record", and by what measure, and the storm holding the previous record?

--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.gov wrote:

Right. The hierarchy of science goes something like this:
* Observation - a phenomena is observed which causes questions as to the cause and effect. When a probable cause is put forth, the cause is then named as a...
* Hypothesis - one possible explanation for an observed phenomena. After a hypothesis is rigorously tested with replicated results, the Hypothesis is elevated to...
* Theory - when virtually all (not a majority, but ALL) reputable investigators conclude that the cause generates the effect, the condition is elevated to "Theory." A "theory" (in science) is considered an undisputed fact linking cause and effect.
Some examples are: The Theory of Universal Gravitation, the Theory of Electricity, the Theory of Evolution. After a couple of hundred years, a "theory" MAY rise to the level of "Law"
* Law - means there is NO dispute, from ANYBODY, as to the truth of the assertion.
Some examples are: the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Energy (or Momentum), or F=ma.
In my view, Global Warming itself is in the Hypothesis stage, while man-made GW has barely reached the "Observational" level.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.