If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
On 2006-07-03, Matt Barrow wrote:
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message ... On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow wrote: 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what portion is natural? Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production. Very good!! Follow-up: What is the most common greeenhouse gas and what is the breakdown on human vs. natural sources? Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas. In fact, the greenhouse effect is necessary for life as we know it in the first place. Without solar energy being retained by H2O, CO2 and other gases, the Earth would quite probably be rather frigid (although, if there was no water, it wouldn't be icy of course!) The human effect in the grand picture isn't that big (the Earth won't turn into another Venus) but that's not to say that it won't be significant. It's not necessary to "destroy civilization" either to have less effect on the atmosphere. However, there's very strong evidence (overwhelmingly strong) that the current increase in CO2 concentrations is caused by us. Yes, with a rather large delay; IOW, warming CAUSES CO2. Cite? -- Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid. Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message ... On 2006-07-03, Matt Barrow wrote: "Dylan Smith" wrote in message ... On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow wrote: 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what portion is natural? Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production. Very good!! Follow-up: What is the most common greeenhouse gas and what is the breakdown on human vs. natural sources? Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas. In fact, the greenhouse effect is necessary for life as we know it in the first place. Without solar energy being retained by H2O, CO2 and other gases, the Earth would quite probably be rather frigid (although, if there was no water, it wouldn't be icy of course!) The human effect in the grand picture isn't that big (the Earth won't turn into another Venus) but that's not to say that it won't be significant. How much is "significant? The IPCC has (IIUC) estimated human influence to be 0.07C over the next 50 years. During the last 100 years, temps have increased 0.25F. It's not necessary to "destroy civilization" either to have less effect on the atmosphere. However, there's very strong evidence (overwhelmingly strong) that the current increase in CO2 concentrations is caused by us. Cite? And if your statement is correct, why did we have significant COOLING from 1940 to 1975? "Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm And "We are told, however that man-made carbon dioxide is the source of the global warming problem. As Professor Essenhigh (Robert Essenhigh, Professor of energy conservation at Ohio State University-MB) asks, "what has carbon dioxide to do with this"? He explains, "the two principled thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide. However – and this point is continually missed – the ratio of water to carbon dioxide is something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top it is something like 100-to-1. This means that the carbon dioxide is simply ‘noise’ in the water concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has already done." "So," he asks, "if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it the carbon dioxide driving the temperature or is the rising temperature driving up the carbon dioxide"? In other words, the carbon dioxide issue is irrelevant to the debate over global warming. " Yes, with a rather large delay; IOW, warming CAUSES CO2. Cite? http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/pr...k-ice-core.jpg Also: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/see...ecoregraph.jpg |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
Those graphs don't support your claim that increasing temperature causes
increasing C02. They only show correleation between C02 levels and temperature. -- Best Regards, Mike http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... "Dylan Smith" wrote in message ... On 2006-07-03, Matt Barrow wrote: "Dylan Smith" wrote in message ... On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow wrote: 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what portion is natural? Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production. Very good!! Follow-up: What is the most common greeenhouse gas and what is the breakdown on human vs. natural sources? Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas. In fact, the greenhouse effect is necessary for life as we know it in the first place. Without solar energy being retained by H2O, CO2 and other gases, the Earth would quite probably be rather frigid (although, if there was no water, it wouldn't be icy of course!) The human effect in the grand picture isn't that big (the Earth won't turn into another Venus) but that's not to say that it won't be significant. How much is "significant? The IPCC has (IIUC) estimated human influence to be 0.07C over the next 50 years. During the last 100 years, temps have increased 0.25F. It's not necessary to "destroy civilization" either to have less effect on the atmosphere. However, there's very strong evidence (overwhelmingly strong) that the current increase in CO2 concentrations is caused by us. Cite? And if your statement is correct, why did we have significant COOLING from 1940 to 1975? "Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm And "We are told, however that man-made carbon dioxide is the source of the global warming problem. As Professor Essenhigh (Robert Essenhigh, Professor of energy conservation at Ohio State University-MB) asks, "what has carbon dioxide to do with this"? He explains, "the two principled thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide. However - and this point is continually missed - the ratio of water to carbon dioxide is something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top it is something like 100-to-1. This means that the carbon dioxide is simply 'noise' in the water concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has already done." "So," he asks, "if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it the carbon dioxide driving the temperature or is the rising temperature driving up the carbon dioxide"? In other words, the carbon dioxide issue is irrelevant to the debate over global warming. " Yes, with a rather large delay; IOW, warming CAUSES CO2. Cite? http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/pr...k-ice-core.jpg Also: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/see...ecoregraph.jpg |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
Think about what causes natural increases in CO2 (evaporation, etc).
"Mike Noel" wrote in message ... Those graphs don't support your claim that increasing temperature causes increasing C02. They only show correleation between C02 levels and temperature. -- Best Regards, Mike http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel "Matt Barrow" wrote in message ... "Dylan Smith" wrote in message ... On 2006-07-03, Matt Barrow wrote: "Dylan Smith" wrote in message ... On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow wrote: 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what portion is natural? Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production. Very good!! Follow-up: What is the most common greeenhouse gas and what is the breakdown on human vs. natural sources? Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas. In fact, the greenhouse effect is necessary for life as we know it in the first place. Without solar energy being retained by H2O, CO2 and other gases, the Earth would quite probably be rather frigid (although, if there was no water, it wouldn't be icy of course!) The human effect in the grand picture isn't that big (the Earth won't turn into another Venus) but that's not to say that it won't be significant. How much is "significant? The IPCC has (IIUC) estimated human influence to be 0.07C over the next 50 years. During the last 100 years, temps have increased 0.25F. It's not necessary to "destroy civilization" either to have less effect on the atmosphere. However, there's very strong evidence (overwhelmingly strong) that the current increase in CO2 concentrations is caused by us. Cite? And if your statement is correct, why did we have significant COOLING from 1940 to 1975? "Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm And "We are told, however that man-made carbon dioxide is the source of the global warming problem. As Professor Essenhigh (Robert Essenhigh, Professor of energy conservation at Ohio State University-MB) asks, "what has carbon dioxide to do with this"? He explains, "the two principled thermal-absorbing and thermal-emitting compounds in the atmosphere are water and carbon dioxide. However - and this point is continually missed - the ratio of water to carbon dioxide is something like 30-to-1 as an average value. At the top it is something like 100-to-1. This means that the carbon dioxide is simply 'noise' in the water concentration, and anything carbon dioxide could do, water has already done." "So," he asks, "if the carbon dioxide is increasing, is it the carbon dioxide driving the temperature or is the rising temperature driving up the carbon dioxide"? In other words, the carbon dioxide issue is irrelevant to the debate over global warming. " Yes, with a rather large delay; IOW, warming CAUSES CO2. Cite? http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/pr...k-ice-core.jpg Also: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/see...ecoregraph.jpg |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:18:11 -0000, Dylan Smith
wrote: On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow wrote: 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what portion is natural? Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production. Mt St Helens produced about 10 Million tons of CO2 Annual production from fossil fuel is about 26 Billion tons. (Figures from National Geographic) 2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations? It's difficult to separate out long and short term until you define them. In this case we can now navigate open water across the north polar cap in the summer. They figure within several decades there will be no north polar ice cap at mid summer. This has the possibility of opening up access to even more oil reserves. Currently many glaciers in Greenland are receding at over a Kilometer per year. Although the global average is up only about one degree F over the last 100 years when you get to more northerly latitudes such as Alaska and Siberia the change has been more dramatic with 5 to 6 degrees being the norm. That has lead to buildings sinking that were built on the permafrost and bugs that were never a problem destroying large tracts of forest. Short term (likely less than a century and possibly a few decades) we are looking at ocean levels rising 3 to 5 feet with 20 feet not out of the question. If all the polar ice caps and glaciers were to melt (which probably won't happen even long term) we'd be looking at roughly 200 feet. We are also looking at storms becoming more violent and with greater frequency. Long term we are looking at unpredictable weather shifts at the local level. As the permafrost melts and the peat decomposes there will be even more CO2 released. Currently the oceans are absorbing (serving as a sink) for far more CO2 than expected. Long term if the waters rise about 8 to 10 degrees (takes a long time) the frozen methane under the ocean floors near the continental shelves will be released as it was in the Permian extinction which was far greater than the one around the time of the dinosaur extinction. AT some point enough fresh water will be released to stop the Gulf Stream conveyor belt. When that happens NW Europe including the UK will become much colder. On the positive side growing green matter is a good sink for CO2 as are new forests, BUT the forests are a temporary measure. Ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years plus other evidence show that global temperature closely correlates with CO2 levels. And show CO2 levels to be well above the highest found in the cores. What has this got to do with aviation? Well, most of us GA people make SUV drivers look like fuel misers. With our old technology engines the level per engine is high, but when the total is taken into account it's a tiny drop in the bucket compared to cars and trucks. Most airplanes are not fuel economical per distance. The newer ones and quite a few home builts are although the engines of most would still be considered polluting. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 08:41:27 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote: "Dylan Smith" wrote in message ... On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow wrote: 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what portion is natural? Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production. 2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations? Ice core records going back hundreds of thousands of years plus other evidence show that global temperature closely correlates with CO2 levels. NOTE: The warming PRECEDES the CO2 increases by about 800 years. Under normal circumstances. So if this is the case already that means things are already headed down hill. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com What has this got to do with aviation? Well, most of us GA people make SUV drivers look like fuel misers. "Everyone" is in a panic and that will redound to pilots. What's worse, the questions being asked as wrong if not backasswards. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
"Roger" wrote in message ... On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:18:11 -0000, Dylan Smith wrote: On 2006-07-01, Matt Barrow wrote: 1) What percentage of annual CO2 production is human caused and what portion is natural? Human production is around 3% of annual planetary CO2 production. Mt St Helens produced about 10 Million tons of CO2 Annual production from fossil fuel is about 26 Billion tons. (Figures from National Geographic) 2) What are the short-term and long-term effect of CO2 concentrations? It's difficult to separate out long and short term until you define them. In this case we can now navigate open water across the north polar cap in the summer. They figure within several decades there will be no north polar ice cap at mid summer. And I guess that's why Antartica's and Greenland icepacks are INCREASING. This has the possibility of opening up access to even more oil reserves. Currently many glaciers in Greenland are receding at over a Kilometer per year. Although the global average is up only about one degree F over the last 100 years when you get to more northerly latitudes such as Alaska and Siberia the change has been more dramatic with 5 to 6 degrees being the norm. That has lead to buildings sinking that were built on the permafrost and bugs that were never a problem destroying large tracts of forest. What, you just come from watch Algores movie? Short term (likely less than a century and possibly a few decades) we are looking at ocean levels rising 3 to 5 feet with 20 feet not out of the question. If all the polar ice caps and glaciers were to melt (which probably won't happen even long term) we'd be looking at roughly 200 feet. We are also looking at storms becoming more violent and with greater frequency. Long term we are looking at unpredictable weather shifts at the local level. As the permafrost melts and the peat decomposes there will be even more CO2 released. Currently the oceans are absorbing (serving as a sink) for far more CO2 than expected. Long term if the waters rise about 8 to 10 degrees (takes a long time) the frozen methane under the ocean floors near the continental shelves will be released as it was in the Permian extinction which was far greater than the one around the time of the dinosaur extinction. AT some point enough fresh water will be released to stop the Gulf Stream conveyor belt. When that happens NW Europe including the UK will become much colder. On the positive side growing green matter is a good sink for CO2 as are new forests, BUT the forests are a temporary measure. Geezlouise!!! Diversify your inputs man!! |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing good about Ethanol
"Matt Barrow" wrote in
: What, you just come from watch Algores movie? Awww, come on. After inventing the Internet, Al went on to conduct this massive study on Global Warming. -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Any good aviation clip-art? | zingzang | Piloting | 2 | August 11th 05 01:32 AM |
We lost a good one.... | [email protected] | Piloting | 10 | May 28th 05 05:21 AM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Excelsior | Home Built | 0 | April 22nd 05 01:11 AM |
HAVE YOU HEARD THE GOOD NEWS! | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | January 26th 05 07:08 PM |
Commander gives Navy airframe plan good review | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | July 8th 03 09:10 PM |