Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Whoops! It just occurred to me that the earth's oceans have been absorbing and evaporating CO2 for quite a while more than the last 250,000 years, much less 100 years.

In other words, CO2 has been accumulating in the earth's oceans for a very long time.

ican711nm wrote:

Whoops! It just occurred to me that the earth's oceans have been absorbing and evaporating CO2 for quite a while more than the last 250,000 years, much less 100 years.

In other words, CO2 has been accumulating in the earth's oceans for a very long time.

Just keep repeating...

There is no carbon cycle..
There is no carbon cycle..
There is no carbon cycle...

And don't forget to click your heels three times while you are at it.

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Whoops! It just occurred to me that the earth's oceans have been absorbing and evaporating CO2 for quite a while more than the last 250,000 years, much less 100 years.

In other words, CO2 has been accumulating in the earth's oceans for a very long time.

Just keep repeating...

There is no carbon cycle..
There is no carbon cycle..
There is no carbon cycle...

And don't forget to click your heels three times while you are at it.

Alas, parados, there is a carbon cycle. However, there is little if any scientific evidence that carbon cycle was started and/or accelerated by humans. In fact, the bulk of the current scientific evidence is that the carbon cycle is at a lower peak now than in previous millennia.

But parados, to avoid having to admit to yourself you've been duped, click your heels and salute 13 times--once for each stripe in the American flag--all the while repeating:

Humans are causing global warming.
Humans are causing global warming.
Humans are causing global warming.
Humans are causing global warming.
Humans are causing global warming.
Humans are causing global warming.
Humans are causing global warming.
Humans are causing global warming.
Humans are causing global warming.
Humans are causing global warming.
Humans are causing global warming.
Humans are causing global warming.
Humans are causing global warming.

When the earth begins again to cool--like it did in the 1970s--then repeat 13 times:

Humans are causing global cooling.
Humans are causing global cooling.
Humans are causing global cooling.
Humans are causing global cooling.
Humans are causing global cooling.
Humans are causing global cooling.
Humans are causing global cooling.
Humans are causing global cooling.
Humans are causing global cooling.
Humans are causing global cooling.
Humans are causing global cooling.
Humans are causing global cooling.
Humans are causing global cooling.

And don't forget to click your heals and salute each time.

The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It shows that natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during this century.

Do you know what the carbon cycle is? Your statement about a peak in the cycle shows you don't.
I see science has no meaning for you. But that is obvious with your explanations of how the atmosphere "works."

Parados, your opinion about what I know or don't know is worthless without specific valid examples to support it.

Please feel free to show where these calculations are wrong ican, since you don't believe that CO2 is coming from human activity...

You are wrong again, Parados. I know CO2 is also generated by human activity. However, I think the amount generated by human activity is trivial compared to the other sources I described.

By the way.. your silly explanation of how water vapor reduces the ability of your plane's engine to work efficiently was quite entertaining. You seem to forget that air pressure and temperature affect it far more than the moisture in the air. It looks like in completely dry air, the change in temperature from 70f to 90f will reduce the oxygen per square inch by more than going from completely dry air at 70f to 100% humidity at 70f. Of course I don't know of anywhere that the relative humidity ever reaches zero so the change can't even begin to match what it is from just temperature alone.

parados wrote:

Do you know what the carbon cycle is? Your statement about a peak in the cycle shows you don't.
I see science has no meaning for you. But that is obvious with your explanations of how the atmosphere "works."

Parados, your opinion about what I know or don't know is worthless without specific valid examples to support it.

Please feel free to show where these calculations are wrong ican, since you don't believe that CO2 is coming from human activity...

You are wrong again, Parados. I know CO2 is also generated by human activity. However, I think the amount generated by human activity is trivial compared to the other sources I described.

So, you are going to point out the errors in the math of the site I posted a link for? Or are you going to ignore the math and just claim you know something in spite of the science?

Quote:

Quote:

By the way.. your silly explanation of how water vapor reduces the ability of your plane's engine to work efficiently was quite entertaining. You seem to forget that air pressure and temperature affect it far more than the moisture in the air. It looks like in completely dry air, the change in temperature from 70f to 90f will reduce the oxygen per square inch by more than going from completely dry air at 70f to 100% humidity at 70f. Of course I don't know of anywhere that the relative humidity ever reaches zero so the change can't even begin to match what it is from just temperature alone.

You are wrong again, parados.

For example, in the following, the phrase effective O2 density altitude refers to the equivalent altitude of that specific O2 density in a standard atmosphere:

(1) At any airport, regardless of its actual elevation (Leadville Colorado or Mustang Beach Texas), at a standard barometric pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury, a temperature of 40C, and a relative humidity of 0%, the effective O2 density altitude is about 3,000 feet.

(2) At any airport regardless of its actual elevation (Leadville Colorado or Mustang Beach Texas), at a standard barometric pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury, a temperature of 40C, and a relative humidity of 50%, the effective O2 density altitude is about 9,000 feet.

(3) At any airport regardless of its actual elevation (Leadville Colorado or Mustang Beach Texas), at a standard barometric pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury, a temperature of 40C, and a relative humidity of 100%, the effective O2 density altitude is about 15,000 feet.

At any airport, when the barometric pressure is 28.92 or 30.92 inches, the temperature is 40C., and the relative humidity is 100%, the effective O2 density altitude is about, respectively, 16,000 or 14,000 feet.

In general, for every barometric inch less than 29.92, add about a thousand feet to the effective O2 density altitude numbers in (1), (2), and (3); for every barometric inch more than 29.92, subtract about a thousand feet from the effective O2 density altitude numbers in (1), (2), and (3); .

I and many of my fellow aviators have directly experienced increases in effective density altitutde of O2 several times in hot humid conditions between 30C and 40C, and between 90% and 100% humidity--some of those times turned out to be disasters, when the airplane the pilot was attempting to take off, failed to clear ground effect and climb above 25 foot obstacles, such as trees off the end of their runway, like it did in less humid conditions at 40C.

I see you left out barametric pressure in your figures this time. Barametric pressure would affect lift which would have a greater effect on the plane clearing trees than the amount of oxygen per square inch would.

I particularly like the way you added "O2" to your statements to make it appear that it is only the density of the oxygen that affects a plane. It's a wonder you ever got your pilot's license if you think air density is based on O2 alone.

http://www.safetydata.com/manual/ap.htm

Quote:

5. How does air density affect takeoff and landing performance?



An increase in density altitude (decrease in air density) can produce a fourfold effect on takeoff performance:



a. Greater takeoff speed required

b. Decreased thrust and reduced acceleration

c. Longer takeoff ground roll

d. Decreased climb rate

An increase in density altitude (decrease in air density) will increase the landing speed but will not alter the net retarding force. Tbus, the airplane will land at the same indicated airspeed as normal, but because of reduced air density, the true airspeed will be greater. This will result in a longer minimum landing distance.



6. How does air density affect aircraft performance?



The density of the air has a direct affect on:



a. Lift produced by the wings.

b. Power output of the engine.

c. Propeller efficiency.





7. What factors affect air density?



a. Temperature

b. Altitude

c. Humidity

d. Barometric pressure



8. How do temperature, altitude, humidity and barometric pressure affect density altitude?



Density altitude will increase (low air density) when one or more of the following occur:



a. High air temperature

b. High altitude

c. High humidity

d. Low barometric pressure



Density altitude will decrease (high air density) when one or more of the following occur:



a. Low air temperature

b. Low altitude

c. Low humidity

d. High barometric pressure

None of your claims dispute my statement of air pressure and temperature having FAR more effect than humidity. Humidity has some effect but air pressure and temperature effect it more.
Here is a lovely little calculator that I bet even you can use ican
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_hp.htm At most temperatures an increase or decrease of 20 degrees will have a greater effect than going from 0% to 100% humidity. At most temperatures an increase or decrease of barometric pressure of 1 inch will have a greater effect than going from 0% to 100% humidity. And you still haven't shown me where you fly out of that ever has a humidity if 0%. Plus, I don't think you understand how your argument of 0% humidity is defeating your argument that more humidity is what is heating the earth up rather than CO2.

(3) At any airport regardless of its actual elevation (Leadville Colorado or Mustang Beach Texas), at a standard barometric pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury, a temperature of 40C, and a relative humidity of 100%, the effective O2 density altitude is about 15,000 feet.

Quote:

(3) At any airport regardless of its actual elevation (Leadville Colorado or Mustang Beach Texas), at a standard barometric pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury, a temperature of 40C, and a relative humidity of 100%, the effective O2 density altitude is about 15,000 feet.

I still can't get over this one ican.. What is your source?

Oxygen is required by the US airforce for flying above 10,000 feet because it is at that height that hypoxia begins to set in. If your source is correct, everyone that lives in the tropics would probably be passed out from lack of oxygen.

parados wrote:

Quote:

(3) At any airport regardless of its actual elevation (Leadville Colorado or Mustang Beach Texas), at a standard barometric pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury, a temperature of 40C, and a relative humidity of 100%, the effective O2 density altitude is about 15,000 feet.

I still can't get over this one ican.. What is your source?

Oxygen is required by the US airforce for flying above 10,000 feet because it is at that height that hypoxia begins to set in. If your source is correct, everyone that lives in the tropics would probably be passed out from lack of oxygen.

Parados - if the FAA hears of this, and if you ever contemplated getting a pilot's license, you wish to hide inside a deep cave and stay there pretty indefinitely.

Ican is a fellow pilot (mine, not yours) and he knows whereof he speaks.

CORRECTION

I wrote:

PERFORMANCE NUMBERS
Performance numbers for operation at various altitudes above sea level, at various barometric pressures, at 10% and 100% relative humidity, at a temperature of 100C, and with various airplanes and airplane engine horsepowers, will differ significantly from those in the example I provided. However, one thing is inescapable. High humidity reduces airplane lift and engine performance from what it is at low humidity.

I should have written...

High Seas wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:

(3) At any airport regardless of its actual elevation (Leadville Colorado or Mustang Beach Texas), at a standard barometric pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury, a temperature of 40C, and a relative humidity of 100%, the effective O2 density altitude is about 15,000 feet.

I still can't get over this one ican.. What is your source?

Oxygen is required by the US airforce for flying above 10,000 feet because it is at that height that hypoxia begins to set in. If your source is correct, everyone that lives in the tropics would probably be passed out from lack of oxygen.

The FAA generally allows civil pilots to fly at altitudes up to 12,500 above sea level without supplemental Oxygen. The FAA further allows civil pilots to fly above 12,500 up to 14,000 for no more than 30 minutes without supplemental Oxygen.

Parados - if the FAA hears of this, and if you ever contemplated getting a pilot's license, you wish to hide inside a deep cave and stay there pretty indefinitely.

Ican is a fellow pilot (mine, not yours) and he knows whereof he speaks.

So you are claiming the FAA is the source?

ican711nm wrote:

CORRECTION

I wrote:

PERFORMANCE NUMBERS
Performance numbers for operation at various altitudes above sea level, at various barometric pressures, at 10% and 100% relative humidity, at a temperature of 100C, and with various airplanes and airplane engine horsepowers, will differ significantly from those in the example I provided. However, one thing is inescapable. High humidity reduces airplane lift and engine performance from what it is at low humidity.

I should have written...

that I dont really know what I'm talking about on this or lots of other topics.

['''''''''''''''''''
I think High Seas was referring to your false statement: "If your source is correct, everyone that lives in the tropics would probably be passed out from lack of oxygen."

.....................]

Density altitude is a measure of air density. It is not to be confused with pressure altitude, true altitude or absolute altitude. It is not to be used as a height reference, but as a determining criteria in the performance capability of an aircraft. Air density decreases with altitude. As air density decreases, density altitude increases. The further effects of high temperature and high humidity are cumulative, resulting in an increasing high density altitude condition. High density altitude reduces all aircraft performance parameters. To the pilot, this means that the normal horsepower output is reduced, propeller efficiency is reduced and a higher true airspeed is required to sustain the aircraft throughout its operating parameters. It means an increase in runway length requirements for takeoff and landings, and decreased rate of climb. An average small airplane, for example, requiring 1,000 feet for takeoff at sea level under standard atmospheric conditions will require a takeoff run of approximately 2,000 feet at an operational altitude of 5,000 feet.

KAMPALA, Uganda -- Canada has successfully blocked more than 50 Commonwealth countries that were seeking a climate change resolution that would force developed countries to adopt a binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

How about this, Canada blocks part of a global warming binding commitment for developed countries.

I thought only the US did this!!

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=41eb27d5-b0d8-4688-b5e2-ee31b09a2812&k=42149

Quote:

KAMPALA, Uganda -- Canada has successfully blocked more than 50 Commonwealth countries that were seeking a climate change resolution that would force developed countries to adopt a binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

So, does that make them as evil as the US now about global warming?