|
|
|
|
andersjr
Jul 29, 2009, 9:01 PM
Post #226 of 271
(2389 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2005
Posts: 141
|
veganclimber wrote: I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. CO2 level are up 35%. There is absolutely no doubt that they will continue to rise.
Oh, but there is a doubt. Follow me:
Sun rays come in as long wave radiation. These waves hit the earth's surface and are reflected back as short wave radiation.
CO2 blocks short wave radiation, but lets long wave radiation through.
H2O(g) blocks long wave radiation, but allows shortwave radiation through.
As CO2 increases, our globe heats up because this short wave radiation is trapped.
As temperatures increase, the amount of H2O(g) molecules in the atmosphere also increases. They do this because with increased temperature they become easily excitable and are more likely to become a gas.
When temperature increases, the amount of water the atmosphere can hold increases. This leads to less precipitation, as the water molecules aren't allowed to condensate.
But, with the increased amount of H2O in the atmosphere, long wave radiation is rejected before it hits earth. Now temperatures start to decrease.
As temperatures decrease, these H2O molecules start to condensate. With condensation comes rain. With rain through CO2 comes HCO3-.
End of story, CO2 numbers equalized. There has been this much CO2 in our atmosphere before, and this is how earth has responded.
All the projections for global warming to this point have been wrong. That is because they don't figure in all the variables.
Don't just give me a graph, I will prove all your graphs inconclusive. I for one will not believe any graph/data that is put in front of my face. I investigate, try to get to the bottom of things. The University I graduated from, with an Environmental Engineering Degree no less, has one of the top atmospheric scientists on staff. He gave a lecture on global warming, and how we just shouldn't believe what we are being told.
Check.
|
|
|
|
|
agdavis
Jul 29, 2009, 9:53 PM
Post #227 of 271
(2376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2009
Posts: 310
|
andersjr wrote: veganclimber wrote: I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. CO2 level are up 35%. There is absolutely no doubt that they will continue to rise. Oh, but there is a doubt. Follow me: Sun rays come in as long wave radiation. These waves hit the earth's surface and are reflected back as short wave radiation. CO2 blocks short wave radiation, but lets long wave radiation through. H2O(g) blocks long wave radiation, but allows shortwave radiation through. As CO2 increases, our globe heats up because this short wave radiation is trapped. As temperatures increase, the amount of H2O(g) molecules in the atmosphere also increases. They do this because with increased temperature they become easily excitable and are more likely to become a gas. When temperature increases, the amount of water the atmosphere can hold increases. This leads to less precipitation, as the water molecules aren't allowed to condensate. But, with the increased amount of H2O in the atmosphere, long wave radiation is rejected before it hits earth. Now temperatures start to decrease. As temperatures decrease, these H2O molecules start to condensate. With condensation comes rain. With rain through CO2 comes HCO3-. End of story, CO2 numbers equalized. There has been this much CO2 in our atmosphere before, and this is how earth has responded. All the projections for global warming to this point have been wrong. That is because they don't figure in all the variables. Don't just give me a graph, I will prove all your graphs inconclusive. I for one will not believe any graph/data that is put in front of my face. I investigate, try to get to the bottom of things. The University I graduated from, with an Environmental Engineering Degree no less, has one of the top atmospheric scientists on staff. He gave a lecture on global warming, and how we just shouldn't believe what we are being told. Check.
I understand that there has been an excess of carbon in our atmosphere at different periods of time, and that Earth has found a way to deal with it. I know things like volcanic eruptions have emitted billions of tons of carbon, but you are missing a key distinction here-
the main issue with global warming is that humans are contributing to the buildup of greenhouse gases. The Earth is a closed system, and we are throwing off it's balance by digging deep into the earth and breaking down things that are essentially inert and then releasing them into our atmosphere in a gaseous state.
Also, when I said saturation, I was referring to the point at which more carbon cannot be absorbed by water. Rain passing through CO2 will only pull out as much carbon as it takes for saturation to occur. It's like dumping a pound of salt into a glass of water -- a certain amount of the salt will enter solution, but a large majority of it will remain as NaCl. Ergo, if we keep adding more carbon to the atmosphere via a human process, a time will come where it will not come out of solution.
What University did you attend, and what is the name of this top atmospheric scientist?
|
|
|
|
|
andersjr
Jul 29, 2009, 11:46 PM
Post #228 of 271
(2361 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2005
Posts: 141
|
lets stop quoting each other. we know who we are talking to. i am actually enjoying this, and if anyone wants us to take this off rc.com, i will gladly make this private.
to address the rapid rise in CO2, and the reason why it is increasing so quickly:
you bring up the topic of equilibrium of solutions in your last post. this idea is that a solution will head towards an equilibrium, then slow down and stop.
the earth, as you stated is a closed system. the atmosphere is one big solution of gases.
we just came out of an ice age where the co2 in our atmosphere was at a very low level.
right now we are experiencing co2 growth at a very rapid rate.
there are two reasons why we have experienced this rapid increase in co2:
1. there was a lack of co2 in our atmosphere, the solution (atmosphere) wanted to change this. it changed this in a very rapid way.
2. the population dynamics were just right for a rapid increase in co2. photosynthesizing organisms had became less dependent on co2, and more dependent on other nutrients to foster growth. as the concentration of co2 again goes toward equilibrium, these organisms will start to rely on it more again (i.e. more tropical forests.)
Study about the correlation of co2 with other nutrients:
http://www.co2science.org/...les/V11/N22/EDIT.php
the whole http://www.co2science.org website has a lot of great information about plant interaction & co2.
|
|
|
|
|
cjon3s
Jul 30, 2009, 2:09 AM
Post #229 of 271
(2353 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2009
Posts: 150
|
You do realize that the atmosphere is only a few parts per billion of CO2. So your 35% increase is basically negligent.
To put this into perspective, let's pretend the atmosphere is a football field. Nitrogen will take you to the 78 yard line. Oxygen will get you to the 99 yard line. Miscellaneous other gases will take us to within 3 inches of the end zone. 3 inches on a football field is jack shit. I'd look at some other factors like maybe the Earth really is in a heating trend or the urban heat island effect. Putting so much damn concrete down sure as hell heats up the cities, why not the planet?
This is a problem for us. Maybe not one that needs to be immediately and completely resolved but it will be a long term one. In the mean time, perhaps we should look at how the hell we will feed the worlds population in the coming decades..
|
|
|
|
|
agdavis
Jul 30, 2009, 5:15 AM
Post #230 of 271
(2343 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2009
Posts: 310
|
co2science.org is just about the least credible source for anything global warming related. It is a website for the conservative think tank ‘Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change'. And what do you know, they have received over a million dollars in 'donations' from ExxonMobil, just to name one of their donors. Coincidence? I think not.
You never answered with what University you attended or the name of your top atmospheric scientist. I have a very strong feeling you are getting all of your information from people with financial interests in big oil or the likes.
|
|
|
|
|
veganclimber
Jul 30, 2009, 5:45 AM
Post #231 of 271
(2338 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775
|
andersjr wrote: veganclimber wrote: I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. CO2 level are up 35%. There is absolutely no doubt that they will continue to rise. Oh, but there is a doubt. Follow me: Sun rays come in as long wave radiation. These waves hit the earth's surface and are reflected back as short wave radiation. CO2 blocks short wave radiation, but lets long wave radiation through. H2O(g) blocks long wave radiation, but allows shortwave radiation through. As CO2 increases, our globe heats up because this short wave radiation is trapped. As temperatures increase, the amount of H2O(g) molecules in the atmosphere also increases. They do this because with increased temperature they become easily excitable and are more likely to become a gas. When temperature increases, the amount of water the atmosphere can hold increases. This leads to less precipitation, as the water molecules aren't allowed to condensate. But, with the increased amount of H2O in the atmosphere, long wave radiation is rejected before it hits earth. Now temperatures start to decrease. As temperatures decrease, these H2O molecules start to condensate. With condensation comes rain. With rain through CO2 comes HCO3-. End of story, CO2 numbers equalized.
It's real simple. As long as we are pumping more carbon into the atmosphere than the earth can absorb, the CO2 concentrations will continue to rise.
In reply to: There has been this much CO2 in our atmosphere before, and this is how earth has responded.
And how quickly does that happen?
In reply to: All the projections for global warming to this point have been wrong. That is because they don't figure in all the variables.
It's not a question of "right" or "wrong". It's more a question of how close the projections are. Many are wrong. The melting ice, for example, is happening faster than most scientists expected.
|
|
|
|
|
andersjr
Jul 30, 2009, 11:46 AM
Post #232 of 271
(2321 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2005
Posts: 141
|
Throughout history there is always a rapid rise in the amount of carbon in our atmosphere, then a slow and steady decline.
I may be getting information from a "biased" source, but I am backing all my information up with science.
There are much more pressing issues in this world that need to be dealt with now, but we will continue to pump money into global warming research.
We will continue to do things like cloud seeding and regulating hurricanes. Bill Gates' new plan to regulate hurricanes could prove disasterous. It is like trying to hold in a sneeze, your body wants to remove whats in it. When you hold it back, you hold back massive amounts of pressure, and it hurts like hell.
I am done with this conversation, it has become liberal vs conservative. I am not playing that game.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 30, 2009, 12:14 PM
Post #233 of 271
(2313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
andersjr wrote: Throughout history there is always a rapid rise in the amount of carbon in our atmosphere, then a slow and steady decline. I may be getting information from a "biased" source, but I am backing all my information up with science.
I have no opinion on the reality of global warming. It is neither an idealogical nor a religious issue for me, as it is for most all of you.
But I'm calling bullshit on your 'backed up with science' statement.
You're backed up with internet links mate. You wouldn't know the science of it if you fell in a science ditch.
You're backed up with puff dufferyt internet links and googlle-me-a-winning-argument crap.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
nattfodd
Jul 30, 2009, 1:40 PM
Post #234 of 271
(2294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2009
Posts: 85
|
cjon3s wrote: You do realize that the atmosphere is only a few parts per billion of CO2. So your 35% increase is basically negligent. To put this into perspective, let's pretend the atmosphere is a football field. Nitrogen will take you to the 78 yard line. Oxygen will get you to the 99 yard line. Miscellaneous other gases will take us to within 3 inches of the end zone. 3 inches on a football field is jack shit. I'd look at some other factors like maybe the Earth really is in a heating trend or the urban heat island effect. Putting so much damn concrete down sure as hell heats up the cities, why not the planet? This is a problem for us. Maybe not one that needs to be immediately and completely resolved but it will be a long term one. In the mean time, perhaps we should look at how the hell we will feed the worlds population in the coming decades..
This has to be the stupidest argument against global warming that I have ever read. Why don't you go ingest 1mg of BTX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batrachotoxin), then? It will only represent 0,00125% of your body mass or so, obviously it shouldn't have any effect.
(This post was edited by nattfodd on Jul 30, 2009, 1:41 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
agdavis
Jul 30, 2009, 3:33 PM
Post #235 of 271
(2279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2009
Posts: 310
|
andersjr wrote: Throughout history there is always a rapid rise in the amount of carbon in our atmosphere, then a slow and steady decline. I may be getting information from a "biased" source, but I am backing all my information up with science. There are much more pressing issues in this world that need to be dealt with now, but we will continue to pump money into global warming research. We will continue to do things like cloud seeding and regulating hurricanes. Bill Gates' new plan to regulate hurricanes could prove disasterous. It is like trying to hold in a sneeze, your body wants to remove whats in it. When you hold it back, you hold back massive amounts of pressure, and it hurts like hell. I am done with this conversation, it has become liberal vs conservative. I am not playing that game.
you are just upset that it turned into correct and unbiased vs. wrong and funded.
win.
|
|
|
|
|
cjon3s
Jul 30, 2009, 4:42 PM
Post #236 of 271
(2270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2009
Posts: 150
|
That wasn't my point. My point was the INCREASE from what the levels are at already is basically nothing. Let's pretend my body could handle that amount of this BTX, then why would 35% more of such a ridiculously small amount suddenly cause my body to go crazy.
It just isn't feasible that we increase the amount of CO2 by a bit then suddenly the Earth starts to warm itself a catastrophic amount.
This plus the fact that there are so many other things that are fucking with our planet.
|
|
|
|
|
andersjr
Jul 30, 2009, 5:14 PM
Post #237 of 271
(2262 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2005
Posts: 141
|
agdavis wrote: andersjr wrote: Throughout history there is always a rapid rise in the amount of carbon in our atmosphere, then a slow and steady decline. I may be getting information from a "biased" source, but I am backing all my information up with science. There are much more pressing issues in this world that need to be dealt with now, but we will continue to pump money into global warming research. We will continue to do things like cloud seeding and regulating hurricanes. Bill Gates' new plan to regulate hurricanes could prove disasterous. It is like trying to hold in a sneeze, your body wants to remove whats in it. When you hold it back, you hold back massive amounts of pressure, and it hurts like hell. I am done with this conversation, it has become liberal vs conservative. I am not playing that game. you are just upset that it turned into correct and unbiased vs. wrong and funded. win.
You don't win. Everything you came up with I was able to counter, with solid science. None of my answers were "googled."
There was only one instance that I used a source that was funded, and is considered biased.
If you don't think your side is biased, your dead wrong. Every side to every issue is biased, and if you don't beleive this, then your blind.
You are just upset because you couldn't come up with an argument that I couldn't counter.
|
|
|
|
|
veganclimber
Jul 30, 2009, 7:27 PM
Post #238 of 271
(2251 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775
|
|
|
|
|
|
cjon3s
Jul 30, 2009, 7:52 PM
Post #239 of 271
(2240 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 8, 2009
Posts: 150
|
Yes, I do understand the basic science. It's the greenhouse effect. You learn it in like 4th grade. Jesus Christ. Don't belittle my argument just because you may not agree with me.
I really don't care what Nobel Prize winning scientists think. What makes them any better than me? They may have gotten an award for their accomplishments, big deal. They were just the first, not necessarily the best.
IME, the earth is warming. But not because of CO2. I think it is more the amount of concrete we've dumped on this earth in place of trees.
EITHER WAY. If the planet warms as it is projected to, it won't matter either way. There are theories saying the earth will cool. Some say it will heat up even more, and some say we will just die from the new weather patterns. Since noone has any idea what the hell is going on, then how do we expect to fix this "problem"?
|
|
|
|
|
veganclimber
Jul 30, 2009, 8:03 PM
Post #240 of 271
(2237 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2005
Posts: 2775
|
|
|
|
|
|
andersjr
Jul 30, 2009, 8:40 PM
Post #242 of 271
(2219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2005
Posts: 141
|
veganclimber wrote: In reply to: I really don't care what Nobel Prize winning scientists think. What makes them any better than me? The Nobel Prize.
They won a nobel peace prize. . . Not exactly a scientific achievement. But good try.
|
|
|
|
|
bobbj22
Jul 30, 2009, 9:04 PM
Post #243 of 271
(2214 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2007
Posts: 54
|
Just because ExxonMobil donated money toward testing a forecast guestimate made 100 years in advance found by our very own meteorologist, Al Gore -I keep talking about him, he's just such a doucher.. But seriously, gas has inelastic demand. No one gives a shit what the study says so they will continue to buy gas even if we were on the verge of the apocalypse because people need to get from A to B. ExxonMobil knows that and we know that so I don't think they were pressuring the scientists to favorably skew data on their multi-million dollar investment. A more logical thought would be maybe since it was so easy to disprove each others' arguements and difficult to prove your own, maybe we are stupid for wasting time on proving shit that won't occur in our lifetimes. The "Solution" is to worry more about what is imminent and less about what is probable/improbable.
(This post was edited by bobbj22 on Jul 30, 2009, 9:07 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jul 30, 2009, 9:12 PM
Post #244 of 271
(2206 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
andersjr wrote: veganclimber wrote: In reply to: I really don't care what Nobel Prize winning scientists think. What makes them any better than me? The Nobel Prize. They won a nobel peace prize. . . Not exactly a scientific achievement. But good try.
I don't think that veganclimber was talking about Al Gore.
|
|
|
|
|
bobbj22
Jul 31, 2009, 8:43 PM
Post #245 of 271
(2182 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2007
Posts: 54
|
Gore's achievement does damage the prestige of the peace prize though. Currently he's still trying to get friends and defeat ManBearPig.
|
|
|
|
|
WyoCrackLover
May 19, 2010, 6:48 PM
Post #246 of 271
(2111 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2009
Posts: 8
|
Uh oh. February, March, April & May temps have been substantially lower than the historical average. Is there a T-Rex hiding in the hills somewhere?
|
|
|
|
|
summerprophet
May 19, 2010, 7:29 PM
Post #247 of 271
(2063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2004
Posts: 764
|
josephgdawson wrote: The banner made ZERO impact........
|
|
|
|
|
sknowlton
May 19, 2010, 7:34 PM
Post #248 of 271
(2572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 99
|
Thread revival fail.
|
|
|
|
|
eamurdock
May 22, 2010, 4:55 AM
Post #249 of 271
(2503 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2010
Posts: 8
|
WyoCrackLover wrote: Uh oh. February, March, April & May temps have been substantially lower than the historical average. Is there a T-Rex hiding in the hills somewhere?
Ugh.
You mean to say:
April 2010 was the warmest on record, and the combined January-April was the warmest on record.
"I wore a sweater yesterday" is not data.
ETA: linky:http://www.startribune.com/...DaycUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
(This post was edited by eamurdock on May 22, 2010, 4:58 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
May 22, 2010, 4:55 PM
Post #250 of 271
(2473 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
eamurdock wrote: WyoCrackLover wrote: Uh oh. February, March, April & May temps have been substantially lower than the historical average. Is there a T-Rex hiding in the hills somewhere? Ugh. You mean to say: April 2010 was the warmest on record, and the combined January-April was the warmest on record. "I wore a sweater yesterday" is not data. ETA: linky: http://www.startribune.com/...DaycUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Check the data for the Black Hills and you'll see we were below normal temps for 2010 winter/spring. Minneapolis/St.Paul are 600 miles from us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
