More Global warming, Lets ask a simple question
quote:Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.
Ok, Co2 it's in a ton of stuff
airguns, paintball markers,carbonated soft drinks, baking powder, welding etc etc. Where is the call by the alarmist to replace some of the supposed Co2 polluting products that we manufacture and replace it with N2 (Nitrogen) that makes up most of our atmosphere?
I haven't seen it you?[;)]
Ok, Co2 it's in a ton of stuff
airguns, paintball markers,carbonated soft drinks, baking powder, welding etc etc. Where is the call by the alarmist to replace some of the supposed Co2 polluting products that we manufacture and replace it with N2 (Nitrogen) that makes up most of our atmosphere?
I haven't seen it you?[;)]
0
-
It's cow POOP[}:)][}:)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by fshfndr
It's cow POOP[}:)][}:)]
I think I am going to open A Co2 laden beer on that note-[:D]
I hate Junk Science and the Idiots like Al gore that back it up.[:(!][:(!][:(!]0 -
The CO2 that powers airguns, carbonates most commercial beer (a few are bottle conditioned, but not many), and so-on is a little different from CO2 derived from fossil fuels because it was taken from the atmosphere recently.
Fossil fuels release CO2 that otherwise would have been sequestered for many thousands more years. Land use change (turning a forest into a grassland) also represents a NET RELEASE of CO2. The cartridge that powers your paintball gun is nearly carbon-neutral (a little energy was used to make it).0 -
Nitrogen has it's own issues, at least as far as air pollution is concerned. Nitrogen itself is inert and harmless...Until it becomes one of several nitrogen oxides, usually refered to as NOx, which are groups of chemicals made up of differing nitrogen and oxygen combinations. When enough NOx is in the air and combined with sunlight it can form an irritating smog when mixed other elements in the air. Nitrogen (N) makes up over 75% of the air we breath and the rest, about 21% is oxygen. At or above one atmosphere of pressure, nitrogen by itelf is very friendly (under pressure it can lead to the bends in humans), at least until it is introduced into an internal combustion engine. This is when things go very wrong because at this point our once inert nitrogen becomes an major factor in smog. NOx is formed when the combustion temperature exceeds about 1500? F, which is pretty typical of most cars and light trucks and since the hotter an engine runs the more power it produces (to a point) the greater the amounts of NOx pour out of the tailpipe. To cut back on hydrocarbon discharge, engines are designed to run very lean and very hot to ensure near total combustion in order to gain lower HC levels. This of course leads to even high NOx levels so a little gizmo called the E.G.R. (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) Valve was designed to lower the combustion temperatures by recirculating exhaust gasses back into the combustion chamber but their are limits to what this little device can do. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by kristov
Nitrogen has it's own issues, at least as far as air pollution is concerned.
Just like semiconductor MFG equipment that I used to build 28 years ago
we had fume scrubbers for H2, N2, SiH4 (Silane), Diborine (B2 H6), Phosphine (PH3), TMT (tetramethyl tin, CH3). etc That made the gases inert and approved by the EPA. and all other air pollution boards
But yet we are still stuck on Co2[:D][;)][:I] WHY?0 -
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
quote:Originally posted by kristov
Nitrogen has it's own issues, at least as far as air pollution is concerned.
Just like semiconductor MFG equipment that I used to build 28 years ago
we had fume scrubbers for H2, N2, SiH4 (Silane), Diborine (B2 H6), Phosphine (PH3), TMT (tetramethyl tin, CH3). etc
But yet we are still stuck on Co2[:D][;)][:I]
Franc, I know that in your trade you work with gases of all types and my intention was to keep my explaination simple for those who do not have the same background as yourself.0 -
quote:Originally posted by kristov
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
quote:Originally posted by kristov
Nitrogen has it's own issues, at least as far as air pollution is concerned.
Just like semiconductor MFG equipment that I used to build 28 years ago
we had fume scrubbers for H2, N2, SiH4 (Silane), Diborine (B2 H6), Phosphine (PH3), TMT (tetramethyl tin, CH3). etc
But yet we are still stuck on Co2[:D][;)][:I]
Franc, I know that in your trade you work with gases of all types and my intention was to keep my explaination simple for those who do not have the same background as yourself.
I know, but heck, Most folks hear of this Mysterious gas Called Co2
and it just tweeks the crap out of me[:D] Peace-[:I]0 -
I guess I didn't make my point.
There's a difference between harvesting short-term-storage carbon (directly from the atmosphere or from readily degradable carbon products like sugar) and packaging it into beer or paintball chargers, and releasing long-term-storage carbon from sources such as fossil fuels or forests. Yes, forests experience a fair amount of carbon turnover, but when you raze one and turn it into a grassland, you've created a system that stores much less carbon both in the plants, and also in the soils.
This is why your CO2 "alarmists" don't worry so much about that paintball gun (CO2 captured from the atmosphere) or that beer (CO2 captured from the atmosphere, stored as a sugar and made into beer....or simply degraded very quickly and returned to the atmosphere).0 -
The usual tactic is depressingly simple
1) Post a "fact" that disputes global warming
2) Celebrate your intelligence as others join in to congratulate you on your achievement
3) Continue celebration until "fact" is debunked
4) Ignore
5) Repeat on new "fact" thread0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
The usual tactic is depressingly simple
1) Post a "fact" that disputes global warming
2) Celebrate your intelligence as others join in to congratulate you on your achievement
3) Continue celebration until "fact" is debunked
4) Ignore
5) Repeat on new "fact" thread
Yuck. But I think you're right.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
The usual tactic is depressingly simple
1) Post a "fact" that disputes global warming
2) Celebrate your intelligence as others join in to congratulate you on your achievement
3) Continue celebration until "fact" is debunked
4) Ignore
5) Repeat on new "fact" thread
Suppose a global warming alarmist posts a FACT that proves that humans cause global warming???0 -
That's simple. FACT:
It took millions of years for Earth to change plants into crude oil.
It took man less than 100 years to burn half of it. Only will take 20 to burn the last half.
There just ain't enough photosynthesis to convert all that tonnage of pollution back into oxygen to keep greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.
Impossible...we've developed about everything. Plus we've paved half the dang planet.
Does anyone fathom the rate at which we are consuming oxygen on this planet? One day we will all just fall dead. Maybe that's what happened to those dinosaurs?0 -
mt: I have yet to see any "global warming alarmist" on GB post a fact that proves humans are causing global warming.
I have, on the other hand, witnessed the scenario I described several times. Some of my favorites:
1) A petition signed by 10,000 scientists disputing global warming
2) A "news" article that stated that the Y2K bug had invalidated all of NASA's climate data
3) A peer-reviewed article stating that most scientists were climate change skeptics0 -
Paved half the planet? Bull. 0 -
should have watched 20/20 last night, its wasn't the best segment but it proved a lot about the so called global warming 0 -
quote:Originally posted by joker5656
should have watched 20/20 last night, its wasn't the best segment but it proved a lot about the so called global warming
can you provide a summary?0 -
The fact is that there are many possible explanations for global warming: the oceans create untold tons and volcanic activity creates as much as all of the worlds vehicles. There is a proven correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. The fact is that higher global temperature LEADS the increase in CO2.
It is indisputable that the globe is warming. it is also indisputable that the globe has done this hundreds of times in the past and that there is NO indisputable evedince that mankind has caused ANY of it. The science being used to 'prove' it's man, is junk and full of supposition and fear mongering. "CAN YOU AFFORD TO TAKE THE CHANCE WE'RE RIGHT???" they ask us. Well, weren't many of these scientists the same ones who, only 30 years ago, predicted an upcoming ice age in areound the millenium? These people can't predict much of anything, with any accuaracy.
Who can say what the 'ideal' temperature IS for the earth? Maybe we just happen to be living in a time that is especially condusive to man's propogation. TODAY could be the anomaly.
I am obviously a skeptic, ESPECIALLY when I see who the proponents of this this belief that it is a "man made disaster" happen to be.
Link to last nights 20-20 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3751219&page=10 -
0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by joker5656
should have watched 20/20 last night, its wasn't the best segment but it proved a lot about the so called global warming
can you provide a summary?
hear is a link to 20/20 on the segment, its 2pgs. its a summary, tried finding a video on it but couldn't.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3751219&page=10 -
CO2 is CO2 period. It's just that some uses/causes are more acceptable than others. But it is all CO2. 0 -
Thanks for posting those links, I'll dig a little deeper into them when I get a chance 0 -
Funny, It seems to me that if nature does something totally out of human control, we need to satisfy the masses with a trumped up theory that humans are to blame and we are in control of the situation.
So now lets explore the sun, Can it change? You bet- haven't you seen one little solar flair knock out your cell service? SAT communications?
Just think for a split second, we are not in control of the sun. It will will have slight changes just as any other star or planet.
Just like the moon, Its moving away from earth.0 -
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
Just think for a split second, we are not in control of the sun. It will will have slight changes just as any other star or planet.
Just like the moon, Its moving away from earth.0 -
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
quote:Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.
Ok, Co2 it's in a ton of stuff
airguns, paintball markers,carbonated soft drinks, baking powder, welding etc etc. Where is the call by the alarmist to replace some of the supposed Co2 polluting products that we manufacture and replace it with N2 (Nitrogen) that makes up most of our atmosphere?
I haven't seen it you?[;)]
Its in Pop Rocks to0 -
As far as I know... one litre of diesel(weight 860gram per litre), will convert into 2600 grams of CO2 plus some other gasses.
One US gallon then releases 9842 grams of CO2 into the athmosphere..
Or one gallon of diesel releases 21,7 lbs of CO2 into the athmosphere.
It's a mindboggling set of numbers.. and that's just the CO2 from one gallon of diesel.
It takes much energy to make the diesel.. and thereby there is an amount of CO2-emission on the production and delivery too.
All of it adds up on a worldwide scale.
Especially when you think about the air that goes through the engine and the Oxygen that is consumed in the process. The athmosphere will offcourse only gain the weight of the diesel - but 21,7 lbs of CO2 is produced from the air/oxygen.
The diesel doesn't vanish - sure there's one gallon less of liquid diesel on the planet, but there's 21,7 lbs more CO2 in the athmosphere - and less oxygen too.
The exhaust gasses are heavier than air = more dense.
They also absorb much more energy than air, hence... greenhouse effect/global warming.0 -
Happy they won't listen to common sense.
It would be simple to calculate the CO2 created by using half the worlds oil supply.
The hard part would be calculating the photosynthesis mankind has removed from earth through development.
There is no other means to clean the atmosphere besides mother nature. Mankind can not fathom that.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ObiWan
The hard part would be calculating the photosynthesis mankind has removed from earth through development.
A group of ecologists made an attempt at this calculation about twenty years ago. So these are old numbers but they'll give you some idea of the magnitude of the thing.
Earth's terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP: carbon gained through photosynthesis each year minus carbon lost by the ecosystem due to respiration)--i.e. the amount of carbon that would be stored in terrestrial ecosystems each year--is estimated to be ~150 petagrams of carbon, of which humans use or disrupt 58 petagrams. So we use about 39% of terrestrial NPP.
If you include aquatic and marine NPP for a global total NPP, humans use or disrupt 160 Pg/242 Pg = 25% of total global NPP.
Note: 1 Pg = 1 petagram = 10^15 grams = one billion metric tons.
Because somebody is bound to ask:
Vitousek, Peter, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich and Pamela Matson. 1986. Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. BioScience, Vol. 36, No. 6.
Republished at http://dieoff.org/page83.htm
Edit: spelling.0 -
I don't deny global warming is happening. However, two points and two questions.
Point: The earth goes through a natural carbon cycle. Ice core samples show that naturally, there was once a lot more CO2 in the air than there is now. We may artificially be doing it, but nature did it a long time before we did.
Point 2: Our contribution pales compared to one volcanic blast.
Question 1: How can we prove that we are doing it and it isn't part of the natural cycle?
Question 2: Who cares? 1-2 degrees in the next 100 years or whatever might raise ocean levels a bit, and so on- but it won't happen overnight, which will allow us to move, build, etc. to avoid cataclysmic consequences. Plus if it gets warm enough, a lot of previously barren land might become usable.
I won't lose sleep over it. Now the ozone hole- that (again if it IS our doing) is more worrisome.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jonk
I don't deny global warming is happening. However, two points and two questions.
Point: The earth goes through a natural carbon cycle. Ice core samples show that naturally, there was once a lot more CO2 in the air than there is now. We may artificially be doing it, but nature did it a long time before we did.
Point 2: Our contribution pales compared to one volcanic blast.
Question 1: How can we prove that we are doing it and it isn't part of the natural cycle?
Question 2: Who cares? 1-2 degrees in the next 100 years or whatever might raise ocean levels a bit, and so on- but it won't happen overnight, which will allow us to move, build, etc. to avoid cataclysmic consequences. Plus if it gets warm enough, a lot of previously barren land might become usable.
I won't lose sleep over it. Now the ozone hole- that (again if it IS our doing) is more worrisome.
About point 2: Reagan made that claim back in the 1980's. It isn't true.
About Q. 1: one way would be to look at the isotopic signature of the carbon in the atmosphere. Fossil carbon tends to be relatively depleted in 13C so if the atmosphere is becoming depleted, that rather suggests fossil carbon is the culprit. This has been done and the suggestion is that it is fossil carbon.
About Q. 2: yes, there should be time for us to move in advance of rising oceans, but can you imagine the cost? yes, some currently barren lands will become useable, but a lot of arable land will become desert. Also, look for less fresh water available to the US west (oops, don't forget the US southeast). And humans can move, but there are a great many species that aren't quite as adaptable as we are.
About the ozone: sleep tight. The ozone hole is finally beginning to repair itself after many years of CFC reductions.0 -
Douglas Adams said in HHGTTG, quote:Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Why do Gore and his lackeys think we and earth matter at all in the context of life, the universe, and everything?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
34 comments