If this is global warming...

Page 3 of 16  
"Bob Schmall" wrote in message

Along with the stink of gullibility.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hell I can do that!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:29:11 -0700, "DouginUtah"

Which amounts to about 1 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, the remainder of which is put there by natural processes that are dynamic in nature.

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

Actually, you *over*stated that by an order of magnitude.
Consider:
Surface area of the planet is approximately 200 million square miles. That's 5.6 quadrillion square feet, or about 800 quadrillion square inches. Atmospheric pressure is 14.7 pounds per square inch, giving a total atmospheric mass of approximately 12 quintillion pounds, or 6 quadrillion tons. Four tenths of one percent, approximately, of that is CO2; thus the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 24 trillion tons.
20 GT is less than one *tenth* of one percent of total atmospheric CO2.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

OOPS! My mistake, not yours. Disregard -- I blew it. See below.

Sorry -- it's actually four *hundredths* of one percent, and your figure of one percent of total is correct.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If, as you suggest, we are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere that the total increases by 1% per year that adds up pretty fast, doesn't it?
Screw historical correlation, model the effect.
--
FF



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

Um, he said, 1% of the total. Not 1% per year extra.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. He said humans were dumping some amount of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
The next poster said that was 1% of the total in the atmosphere.
If both statements are true, the implication is a 1% increase per annum, don't you agree?
--
FF


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

And adding 1% of the total, every year, is different from 1% per year extra, exactly how?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:12:48 -0700, Doug Miller wrote

Ummm, and lets not loose sight of the Vostock ice core data (the stuff used to show CO2 levels over the past few 100k years). The temperature changes _preceeded_ CO2 changes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:12:48 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Let's not lose site of the fact that the earth is not an open-cycle system. CO2 is added and subtracted due to photosynthesis and other mechanisms. Those processes themselves are complex, closed-loop systems, thus making a purely "addition-driven" computation show only part of the equation.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The biggest uncertainty seems to be in the ocean's capacity to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_idR85590
Here's an interesting discussion of why that matters:
http://sedac.ciesin.org/mva/TW1993/TW1993.html
And here is something else to worry about:
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
--
FF


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

There's also considerable uncertainty regarding the ability of the biosphere to remove CO2 as well. It's been suggested that increased CO2 levels will spur an increase in plant growth as well, and this may be a good thing.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
DouginUtah wrote:

between correlation and cause. The street lights reliably are correlated to come on when the sun sets. But the sun does not set BECAUSE the street lights come on. In scientific research, correlation is relatively easy to establish and can even hint at causal relationships. But actually demonstrating causality is MUCH harder.
That why your statement above is "wrong". Increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not "known" be causal for global warming. The macro trend for warming has been positive since the last ice age - well before industrial CO2 production amplified the rate of injection into the carbon cycle. Is it worth studying? Sure. But it's also worth noting that the geophysical history of the planet suggest far HIGHER CO2 maximums in geologic history than we see today - and correspondingly good environmental health at the same time.
THIS IS AN OPINION NOT FACT: My guess is that the reason the models are so wildly wrong today is twofold:
1) Climate modeling is more-or-less a "complex system" mathematically. Such systems show wildly changing outputs with very small changes in input - the so-called Lorentz Butterfly Effect. The number of precision of variables you have to consider and, more importantly, their degree of precision, is far outside our present understanding of climate. Our guesses are thus too coarse to be of much use.
2) We do not have enough long-term reliable planetary climate data to build upon. Climate fluctuates over geologic time, not 50 years. For models to make any real sense, we need way, way, way more data than what we have today. Worrying about GW because there was few degree fluctuation in the last couple of decades is like worrying about urinating in the ocean - it's a real, but insignificant, factor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

Gotta love the echo in here! ;)
Well said, Tim ...
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/07/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That statement is wrong. The spectral characteristics of CO2 and other atmospheric gases are well understood.
OTHER factors that affect climate change are not as well understood. It is whence the uncertainties exist.
The macro trend

While I don;t argue against studying those correlations, doing so is no substitute for understanding causality.
--
FF


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

Most people have no concept of conservation of energy. Many of those who do, can't seem to grasp its application.
Some from each of those groups may read this and claim conservation of energy is irrelevant. They probably also don't understand albedo.
--
FF




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:29:11 -0700, "DouginUtah"

You know, there may very well be global warming- I'm not a climate scientist, and I can't make the assertion that there is not.
*But* there is absolutely nothing at all that we are going to be able to do about it. If every man, woman and child in the US, Canada and Europe do everything that is being suggested to remedy the situation, China will continue to have it's industrial revolution. And we are not going to war to stop them- we depend on them too heavily, and they hold far too much of our outstanding debt. Even if that were not the case, there is no moral grounds for holding them back from doing what our own country has already done and largely passed through.
I've got a fuel-efficient car. It was to save money at the gas pump, and not to placate eco-nuts. But that's about the extent of what I'm willing to do before the Orient decides they're going to stop burning coal like it's going out of style and erecting cities the size of Detroit every week. I'm not willing to freeze to death in the dark so that I can wear a green t-shirt and hang out with hippies.
Whether the whole deal is true or not, the US is not the major culprit in this- if you're talking about emmissions from the early 1900's, then yes, mea culpa. But we've already cleaned up our acts, despite the attempts to make everyone feel guilty about using lights at night and having the audacity to drive a car to work every day.
So cross your fingers and hope for the best. That's what you can do about it, just like most of the things in the world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
*snip*

Like most things, it's something we can't prove for sure until someone comes up with a reliable way to test it. Perhaps the solution is to teach two (a master and apprentice) people how to take proper weather measurements and go back in time so we've got all the proper data we need for several thousand years, not just the 100 or so we've got now. (Then, this would upset the timeline and we'd skew from this 1985 into an alternate 1985.) *snip: Paragraph I'm not interested in commenting on besides to comment that I'm not interested in commenting on the paragraph that I refused to comment on except for this comment and lengthy sentence.)

I'm all for "Goin' green" (no "greenage" here... sorry Dusty,) but I don't want to give up anything for it. My primary light sources at home happen to be flourescent. I'm getting more light at less wattage, it's a winning situation.
I'm looking into buying a Prius now, the main selling points being gas mileage and design (it looks like a very well designed car). The environmental aspects just a minor selling point. It's kinda a "eh, that's nice" rather than a "got to get into the Nexus ribbon" feeling. *snip*

Oh, and movie references. Be sure to reference movies.
Can you tell I haven't been to bed yet? It's 20 minutes to 7:00 where I live...
Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
  Click to see the full signature.
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.