User Tag List

First 6789 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 83

  1. #71
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Actually I'm fairly certain the oceans absorb more CO2 than the trees do. Recently read an article with concerns for ocean acidity. To be honest I'm not really concerned. The idea that the earth should always stay exactly the same is ridiculous.
    They do, it was just to illustrate the scope of what is being talked about.

    In reality, we are only about 5-10% of the world's co2 production, but the problem is that it is being brought out of the normal sinking mechanisms, meaning we are simply adding it. There is a rather large buffer zone in oceans and the like, but the additive effect of generating that amount of co2 is a lot larger than it seems.

    IOW, airborne ppm has gone from 200-300 during as far back as we can go. We now sit at about 380. This is with the natural sinks removing over 50%.

    (Some of this is IIRC, so isn't exact. The jist will be right, however.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Both of those sound like wonderful ideas...
    We are already geo-engineering extracting and burning oil, and if that's not causing problems, why not go for more?

  2. #72
    Just a statistic rhinosaur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Both of those sound like wonderful ideas...
    I'm pretty sure Michael Crichton has written a novel about it.

  3. #73
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rhinosaur View Post
    Yes, the oceans have historically absorbed a lot more than trees, but there's a problem. The upper layers of the ocean are nearly saturated. And when the temperature rises, the oceans will expel the CO2, just as a bottle of coke will go flat more quickly when it gets hot. The solubility of gases like CO2 decreases when temperature rises. As you can imagine, this could be a huge problem, because it causes a positive feedback loop in the carbon cycle.

    There are a couple potential solutions being researched to combat this:
    - Populate the oceans with a biological organism that absorbs CO2 and then sinks after it dies.
    - Mechanically cycle the unsaturated deep waters of the ocean to the surface, using pumps that operate by harnessing the power of ocean waves.

    I personally think that as human society gets bigger and more complex, we are forced to take on more environmental responsibility if we want to maintain growth. In other words, the more resources we use, the more we are forced to micro-manage the natural processes that would otherwise be in equilibrium.
    I understand this, however I doubt our abilities to interject ourselves into the environment and try to "stabilize" everything. Just look at the US Yellowstone National Park, and the laundry list of tragedies we have been responsbile for just trying to "keep everything the same." And the earth already has a built in mechanism for extra CO2 in water, the earth heats up, melts some ice, and BAM more water to absorb CO2. Once again, the idea that the earth should never change is something I've never understood.

    Our understanding of climate science and environmental preservation is so limited.



  4. #74
    Just a statistic rhinosaur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    Well, if we end up destroying all life on the planet, at least there won't be anything else to worry about.

    I envision a future where the entirety of North America looks like the jungle in Honduras.

  5. #75
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    We are already geo-engineering extracting and burning oil, and if that's not causing problems, why not go for more?
    That's unintentional. You're talking about intentionally engineering microorganisms to remove carbon dioxide. The potential unintended consequences are immense.

    Remember Tris?
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #76
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rhinosaur View Post
    Well, if we end up destroying all life on the planet, at least there won't be anything else to worry about.
    Very true. But that's another thing I don't get. The idea that a warming period is bad for life on this planet. Life has ALWAYS prospered and expanded in warmer climates. If anything, a good couple thousand years of warming is a net benefit to biological diversity. We shouldn't be so selfish just because we might have to say goodbye to New Orleans and parts of Cali



  7. #77
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    The idea that the earth should always stay exactly the same is ridiculous.
    Time for me to come out of "global warming extermination" retirement.

    No, it's absurd and moronic. We were all taught that the earth was much warmer when the dinosaurs were around, got cooler during the ice age, and WAS warming because we were coming out of an ice age. But boy did it all change when we started driving and environmentalists started spewing fecal matter all over the place with their anti-human ideologies. It's something the left has latched onto and exploited to the marrow. I cannot begin to explain why idiots believe in man made global warming, but I can explain why it's an idiotic idea.

    *Oh yea, YOU STILL HAVEN'T TOLD ME WHY THE EARTH IS COOLING gatsby.*

    So, lets do some math. First of all let us consider that in the ice core data we have, WARMING PRECEEDS rises in CO2. Warming is first caused by a factor other then CO2. Some scientists then argue that the warming creates a cascade effect where CO2 is released out of the oceans and other sources by the already present warming. The Rising CO2 levels then create a feedback effect that drives the temperatures up and up. That would perhaps be plausible, if the math held up (and it doesn't). We'll get to that in a minute. What is truly amazing is that some 30~40 years ago, the same oh-so-scientific leftists were pushing the scary idea of "global cooling" and a coming ice age. Certainly not far beyond what we are actually seeing today with the FALLING temperatures.

    But damnit, aren't the SUV's and our God awful cows supposed to be pumping CO2 into the air uncontrollably!? Why is it cooling!?!?! Well Johny, it's because there's a difference between cause and effect and CORRELATION when we actually adhere to something called SCIENCE. Just because two factors change in similar ways doesn't mean one causes changes in the other. Unfortunately, most people are either not educated enough to realize this or are just as religious in their beliefs as those evil Jesus lovers. Scientists cannot say that CO2 ever causes temperatures to BEGIN rising. They can THEORIZE that it may help temperatures go up even more if CO2 rises as well, but they have no testable proof of this. As it stands, CO2 and temps are two variable with nothing more than a positive correlation.

    So, lets dive right into the math, shall we?

    First, lets look at the components of the atmosphere

    Gas Volume
    Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
    Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
    Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
    Carbon dioxide (CO2) 383 ppmv (0.0383%)
    Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
    Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
    Methane (CH4) 1.745 ppmv (0.0001745%)
    Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
    Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
    Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
    Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9x10-6%)
    Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0%-7x10-6%)
    Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2x10-6%)
    Iodine (I) 0.01 ppmv (1x10-6%)
    Carbon monoxide (CO) trace
    Ammonia (NH3) trace
    Not included in above dry atmosphere:
    Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

    As we see here, CO2 only accounts for .0383% of the atmosphere. That is ONE ONE HUNDREDTH OF A PERCENT my friends. Looking at water vapour, there is a good 10 times as much of it in the atmosphere overall, and as much as 100 times as much as CO2 at the surface (where almost all the temperature readings are obtained).

    Now, lets look at how much we actually contribute to these numbers. The percentage of CO2 that can be considered "man made" from all of our usual activities would account for 3.225% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. You might be motivated to say "Three percent! That's horrible!" But unlike Al Gore, lets put this into scale and perspective. If man only contributes 3.225% of all CO2 in the atmosphere, that means man's contribution to the to atmosphere in the whole is 3.225% OF .0383% (the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere). "But ahhhh uhhh, what does that mean? I don't understand." Let me spell it out for you. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CO2 THAT WE CONTRIBUTE TO THE ATMOSPHERE ACCOUNTS FOR ONLY .001235% OF THE TOTAL ATMOSPHERE!

    One one thousandth of one percent is how much we actually contribute to the atmosphere. "Well gee, that seems like a really small number!" You're damn right it is, and yet idiots still suggest that that would be able to cause ANY of the temperature swings we've seen on this planet, temperature swings which have gone on since the beginning of time! The arrogance and stupidity is staggering.

    Then, lets look at how CO2 actually functionally absorbs energy compared to water vapor which absorbs FAR more energy than CO2 ever could, and as I showed above, is present in the atmosphere far greater amounts. As the data from the following site shows, the total contribution of man made CO2 to the "greenhouse" effect is no more than .28%.

    Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

    Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

    It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

    This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

    Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

    Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

    Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

    ------------------------------

    Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations (368,400 / 370,484 )--(ignoring water vapor).

    Also, from Table 1 (but not shown on graph):

    Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

    Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

    The various greenhouse gases are not equal in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant % concentrations must be changed to % contribution relative to CO2. This is done in Table 2, below, through the use of GWP multipliers for each gas, derived by various researchers.

    -----------------------------

    Converting greenhouse gas concentrations
    to greenhouse effect contribution
    (using global warming potential )



    2. Using appropriate corrections for the Global Warming Potential of the respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse gases, based on the conversion:

    ( concentration ) X ( the appropriate GWP multiplier (2) (3) of each gas relative to CO2 ) = greenhouse contribution.:

    Compared to the concentration statistics in Table 1, the GWP comparison in Table 2 illustrates, among other things:

    Total carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions are reduced to 72.37% of all greenhouse gases (368,400 / 509,056)-- (ignoring water vapor).

    Also, from Table 2 (but not shown on graph):

    Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor).

    Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor).

    Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC's and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases.

    To properly represent the total relative impacts of Earth's greenhouse gases Table 3 (below) factors in the effect of water vapor on the system.

    ----------------------------

    Water vapor overwhelms
    all other natural and man-made
    greenhouse contributions.



    3. Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.



    TABLE 3.

    Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
    (man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
    Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"

    As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!

    Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

    Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

    Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!

    ---------------------

    Putting it all together:
    total human greenhouse gas contributions
    add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.


    The rest can be read on the website.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...reply&p=530481

  8. #78
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    *Oh yea, YOU STILL HAVEN'T TOLD ME WHY THE EARTH IS COOLING gatsby.*
    That's because you introduced a strawman to the argument. This was a conversation about CO2, not temperature. As for the rest, it's so misinterpreted and there are so many false arguments that I won't even bother.

    As far as temperature goes, your timescale is small. Lots of information at Temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia along with lots of ups and down that last over a decade (and it's not a decade, but thank you.)

  9. #79
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    That's because you introduced a strawman to the argument. This was a conversation about CO2, not temperature. As for the rest, it's so misinterpreted and there are so many false arguments that I won't even bother.

    As far as temperature goes, your timescale is small. Lots of information at Temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia along with lots of ups and down that last over a decade (and it's not a decade, but thank you.)
    You'd better bother, because otherwise you don't have a leg to stand on with your unfounded beliefs. There is no such thing as a "straw man" where NOBODY would be talking about CO2 were it not for the environmental global warming BS. Nobody ever gave a damn about the air we exhale every 5 seconds before a bunch of idiots got up on a soap box and started selling their BS to the gullible public. The fact that some out there would sit and claim this religious belief to be scientific disgusts me. People who crap on the name of science for their own horribly misguided purposes and profound ignorance.

    I'm calling you out. If I'm wrong in what i just said, then prove it with something that actually has the strength to pierce my argument.

  10. #80
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    That's because you introduced a strawman to the argument. This was a conversation about CO2, not temperature. As for the rest, it's so misinterpreted and there are so many false arguments that I won't even bother.

    As far as temperature goes, your timescale is small. Lots of information at Temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia along with lots of ups and down that last over a decade (and it's not a decade, but thank you.)
    Carbon dioxide is the straw man.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. How useful are extreme examples in theorising developmental pathways?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2015, 09:23 PM
  2. 40M Rewarded To Men Wrongfully Jailed In Central Park Jogger Case
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-24-2014, 10:45 PM
  3. What does an INFJ look like under extreme stress (in your own words)
    By NK258 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-22-2014, 07:11 PM
  4. Wow Its Cold in the Midwest
    By nomadic in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-14-2010, 07:15 AM
  5. Earthquake in central Italy
    By iwakar in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-06-2009, 04:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO