# OT: Climate sensibility

Page 2 of 5
• posted on December 15, 2009, 8:02 pm
On 12/15/2009 2:57 PM, Swingman wrote:

activity which contributes a small part of the atmospheric CO2, and the cyclic phenomena of climate change.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 15, 2009, 8:34 pm

ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
Tons of a GAS. Billions.
According to some sources: "It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller than the sources from human activity."
So we are pumping 13 - 23 BILLION TONS of co2 into the atmosphere on an annual basis, in addition to that naturally produced. Huh. That's an excess of the naturally occurring amount by about 10%. Annually and rising. Frightened yet? Let's do the math and figure out what that volume of co2 is.
Let's see, at 1.977 g/L at 1 atm and 0 degrees C (let's call that 0.5 atm as most of it is not at the surface of the planet), the human contribution works out to: round up to 2 g/l, 221 liters/lb X 2000 lb/ ton X 18,000,000,000 tons (average of 13 and 23) =
<drumroll>
7,956,000,000,000,000 liters of co2. Every freakin' year. And increasing.
Before I go further into discussing what this volume of gas means to our globe, I want everyone to think about that number. Try to wrap your head around it, kay?
I will be back with more.
D'ohBoy
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 15, 2009, 8:44 pm

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 15, 2009, 8:55 pm

But please, just because the number is small (or large, for that matter) it really doesn't mean anything until you understand what the baseline is, how the system reacts, etc...
For instance, I could introduce any numbers of substances into your bloodstream at that concentrations and you would drop dead instantly.
D'ohBoy
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 15, 2009, 9:00 pm

into by bloodstream, yeah, I wouldn't be in such good shape. Your point is pointless.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 15, 2009, 9:06 pm
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

ROTFLMAO and spewed all over my monitor. Sorry, "I don't care what they say, that there is funny." :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 15, 2009, 10:12 pm
D'ohBoy wrote:

That's nice. What of it?
If you're going to argue for anthropogenic global warming, you need to do more than throw a few numbers around and shout that the sky is falling.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 15, 2009, 8:46 pm

Whoops! pv= nrt. Forgot to factor in the 0.5 atm. Double that number to:
15,912,000,000,000,000 liters.
Really, when you are talking numbers this large, is a doubling really noticeable?
Ummm.... yes.
D'ohBoy
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 17, 2009, 9:22 pm
Whoops! pv= nrt. Forgot to factor in the 0.5 atm. Double that number to:
15,912,000,000,000,000 liters.
Really, when you are talking numbers this large, is a doubling really noticeable?
Ummm.... yes.
D'ohBoy
Cool! How many oz. is that??? I bet that is a big number...
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 18, 2009, 4:14 pm
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:22:49 -0600, the infamous "Leon"

I'll bet it's an even -larger- number in milliliters! C'mon, give us all those zeroes, Doughy!
-- Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's "global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change" when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming. Am I missing something here? --Brett Stephens, WSJ Opinion 12/09/09
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 20, 2009, 7:03 pm
Who says "spin" doesn't exist in the media. Heaven forbid that the AP would actually more than barely allude that <gasp> "freezing" cold temperatures in Europe as the reason for the trains not running:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091220/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_train_breakdowns
... and from the trenches:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6963158.ece
Looks like Bastardi called another one right a few weeks back when predicting that parts of the US, England and Europe would have a "December to remember":
<quote>.
"I have been telling people in the States now for a couple of weeks that a "December to remember" is on the way, and over here we have the best setup for a widespread white Christmas in many a year. Well, today I will try, on our free site at accuweather.com, to cut a video showing what is the most widespread snowcover I have ever seen a model forecast as fully all of Europe is forecasted to be covered in snow by the 23rd!"
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp
</quote>
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 21, 2009, 1:12 am
You know, if this global warming gets much worse, people are going to start freezing to death.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 15, 2009, 9:06 pm
D'ohBoy wrote:

Sounds like a lot - but it isn't really. First, of this seemingly enormous amount, most (if not all) is being converted to Oxygen by the earth's plant life. Then, too, do you know how much CO2 there actually IS in the atmosphere? I don't either, but the value is 0.038% of the total atmospheric gas.
If the atmosphere could be represented by your dining room table, the space taken up by CO2 would be less than that occupied by the salt shaker. If the atmosphere could be represented by the life-time consumption of beer by your typical trailer-park bubba (6 x 360 x 40 = 108,000), then his total consumption of CO2 would be about a week's worth of the good stuff (41 bottles).
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 16, 2009, 4:53 am
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:06:06 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen in the presence of sunlight - or a good facsimile thereof. In the absence of light they absorb oxygen and emit CO2.
See: <http://www.vtaide.com/png/photosynthesis.htm
or google photosynthesis and respiration for other articles.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 16, 2009, 5:07 am
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Not sure what your point is--there's a net gain of oxygen and loss of CO2.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 16, 2009, 9:27 pm
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:53:45 -0600, the infamous Larry Blanchard

What? You mean that plants secretly conspire at night to emit CO2? that's ghastly! That was never covered in my Master Gardener class, either. Oh My Buddha! What're we going to do? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
Oh, wait a minute. I thought that when plants, when deprived of light, _DIED_. ;)

Further reading showed that plants do consume a small amount of oxygen. Note the quentity.
-- Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm). -----------
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 17, 2009, 3:50 am
I recall a newspaper story on Atlanta. It was during the Olympics there - and they (city fathers & Mothers) had a beauty program - green program. They planted trees and bushes all over town in a massive 'rebirth' and Greening.
It was found out that the air quality had fallen after the trees were planted. There were plenty of trees between buildings in roads and sidewalks.
Shade had done them in. The trees in crowded streets gave off oxygen only when the sun was overhead or in line with the road.
Many turned out and the city became beautiful - new rail way and airport and many trees that are nice sized by now.
Martin
Larry Blanchard wrote:

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 15, 2009, 9:33 pm

So. Have you calculated how much CO2 6 billion souls exhale each year?

Could you be a bit more precise? What sources?

No, not frightened in the least. CO2 is a trace gas amounting to less than one tenth of one percent of the atmosphere.

Meaningless, unless you also count the amount of CO2 which is absorbed by the oceans, photosynthesized into C and O, and otherwise sequestered or lost to space.
scott
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 15, 2009, 11:13 pm
Scott Lurndal wrote:

In the early 1980's, I worked upon the development of an infrared spectrophotometer. I was doing work on the servo systems controlling the alignment and movement of mirrors in the instrument. As part of this work I did thousands of measurement runs. Since I was primarily concerned with how the electronics of the instrument were operating, most of the measurements involved taking spectra of air. (Air is free and easy to obtain.) There were two things that were extremely obvious when one looked at the spectra. There was a huge wide absorption band due to CO2 and many absorption lines from water vapor. My memory after 25 years is a little shaky about the exact numbers but the CO2 absorption was in the 95 to 98 percent range. Since the sample only involved a few inches of air, one can calculate the effects of a few miles of air. As you said, CO2 is only a trace amount of that air, then the conclusion is that CO2 is a very effective blocker of infrared in certain bands.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on December 15, 2009, 11:44 pm
Dan Coby wrote:

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/Misc/Solar_Spectrum.JPG
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar