71
   

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

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 04:53 pm
miniTAX wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
And consider what they achieved.
hmmm, a nice trip at taxpayer's expense ?


Well, who pays really from her or his own pocket when attending some conference?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 07:42 pm
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

Global warming increases the temperature of seawater, so the CO2 in seawater escapes faster when the sea water is warmed by global warming.

So then your claim that global warming would decrease CO2 is nothing but BS.. It took you a while to realize it but now it seems even you know you were making claims that violate science.

Laughing

Shocked
I never said that global warming would decrease CO2.

I said that precipitation (e.g., rain) in a particular region of the atmosphere, decreases the amount of CO2 in that region of the atmosphere.


http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2936786#2936786

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2941734#2941734
ican711nm wrote:

I conclude that the higher the humidity in a given region of the atmosphere the lower is the density of O2 molecules in that region. So I further conclude the same is true for the density of CO2 (or any of the other heavier molecules like N2) in such a region.

When the earth warms, more H2O is evaporated from surface water into various regions of the atmosphere, thereby decreasing the density of CO2 and O2 in those regions. Furthermore, the greater the humidity in a given region, the greater is the likelihood of precipitation of that H2O, and the CO2 mixed with it, back to the surface. When the density of CO2 in those regions is reduced, the effect of CO2 in those regions on the average temperature of the earth, is reduced.

So, let me get this straight MORE CO2 will be released when it is warmer but there will be LESS CO2 because of the water vapor in the air? Where did all those CO2 molecules go?

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2940055#2940055
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:


...

If rain takes so much CO2 out of the atmosphere then as we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would there not be more taken out in present rains?

Yes! And even more in subsequent rains.

0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 10:19 pm
Just a note here, November, 2007 Lower Troposphere may turn out to be coldest month since January, 2000, and around 0.01 C lower than historical average for November.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/12/rss-msu-november-2007-was-coldest-month.html

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#RSS
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 01:48 am
parados wrote:
So, let me get this straight MORE CO2 will be released when it is warmer but there will be LESS CO2 because of the water vapor in the air? Where did all those CO2 molecules go?
Nobody knows where all those CO2 molecules go parados, and certainly not you.
Even the Wood Hole, with impeccable GW credentials, is forced to admit the voodoo science notion of "missing sink" for CO2 (translation, a huge chunk of anthropic CO2 is sucked by some supernatural forces and is reported AWOL).
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 01:56 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
And consider what they achieved.
hmmm, a nice trip at taxpayer's expense ?


Well, who pays really from her or his own pocket when attending some conference?
About 8,000 officials if I remember well. I've been visiting Indonesia (have a Chinese-Indonesian friend in Surabaya) and I can tell you that prices in Bali are much higher than in the rest of the archipelago (well still cheap compared to western prices but generally, when a whole resort is devoted to a conference, market laws prevail and prices get sky high).
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 08:03 am
miniTAX wrote:
parados wrote:
So, let me get this straight MORE CO2 will be released when it is warmer but there will be LESS CO2 because of the water vapor in the air? Where did all those CO2 molecules go?
Nobody knows where all those CO2 molecules go parados, and certainly not you.
Even the Wood Hole, with impeccable GW credentials, is forced to admit the voodoo science notion of "missing sink" for CO2 (translation, a huge chunk of anthropic CO2 is sucked by some supernatural forces and is reported AWOL).

Actually, based on what was said, I DO know where those molecules go. When the atmosphere warms it expands. There may be fewer molecules in a square meter but there are not fewer molecules between the earth's surface and the sun. It is a simple matter of physics.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 08:11 am
miniTAX wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
And consider what they achieved.
hmmm, a nice trip at taxpayer's expense ?


Well, who pays really from her or his own pocket when attending some conference?
About 8,000 officials if I remember well. I've been visiting Indonesia (have a Chinese-Indonesian friend in Surabaya) and I can tell you that prices in Bali are much higher than in the rest of the archipelago (well still cheap compared to western prices but generally, when a whole resort is devoted to a conference, market laws prevail and prices get sky high).

Market laws prevail but not the way you think. When planning a conference, bids are taken for the conference space. Prices are lower than the rack rate for rooms because the resort is renting out all rooms rather than the 50% it might without the conference. A good conference planner will get a reduced price on just about everything for the conference.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 08:31 am
Upper midwest - earliest start EVER to the skiing season.

Must be global warming! Laughing
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 08:40 am
cjhsa wrote:
Upper midwest - earliest start EVER to the skiing season.

Must be global warming! Laughing

December is the earliest start EVER for skiing in the Upper Midwest? What is your reference?

I guess you aren't familiar with the Halloween blizzard of 1991.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 08:42 am
Snowfall has almost nothing to do with ski areas opening here. What they ski areas like is COLD. They make 90% of their snow.

http://image.weather.com/images/maps/current/acttemp_600x405.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 08:59 am
miniTAX wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
And consider what they achieved.
hmmm, a nice trip at taxpayer's expense ?


Well, who pays really from her or his own pocket when attending some conference?
About 8,000 officials if I remember well. I've been visiting Indonesia (have a Chinese-Indonesian friend in Surabaya) and I can tell you that prices in Bali are much higher than in the rest of the archipelago (well still cheap compared to western prices but generally, when a whole resort is devoted to a conference, market laws prevail and prices get sky high).


The economics of 'going green' is one of those things that keeps eyebrows raised for some of us. It has become big business, and, as in all massive economic trends, there are winners and losers.

For instance, here's one of the really BIG winners though it looks as if the luster may be a bit dulled lately:

Quote:
Al Gore has come under fire for making personal gain from his mission to save the planet -- after charging ££3,300 a minute to deliver a poorly received speech.

The former American Vice-President was also accused of being "precious" at the London event, demanding his own VIP room and ejecting journalists, despite hopes the star-studded gathering would generate publicity for the fight against global warming.

Many of the audience at last month's Fortune Forum summit were restless as Mr Gore, who has won both a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his campaigning work this year, delivered the half-hour speech that netted him ££100,000.
More HERE
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 09:03 am
And is this a weird anomaly or an indicator of things to come?

Quote:
A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.

Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 09:19 am
Nah, cj, you young whippersnappers don't know nothin' about REAL cold. Your time frame's too short. The last winter my family lived in Michigan, there was six inches of ice on the ground and the roads from Dec. 11 until we moved at the end of February. Which was a hell of a winter for a kid who'd turned 16 in October and just gotten his license--four minor fenderbenders in five months. My dad was not too pleased with me. And that was lower Michigan. They'd sometimes be skiing just after T'giving in upper Michigan. And we had to walk six miles to school and back in the snow, uphill both ways, barefoot. You kids today got it soft (the six inches of ice and the skiing are true; the school, well.....).
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 09:27 am
Foxfyre wrote:
The economics of 'going green' is one of those things that keeps eyebrows raised for some of us. It has become big business, and, as in all massive economic trends, there are winners and losers.


That's true. Here, in Euroep, at first the small companies were the big winners.

Unfortunately now, since the big businesses and companies don't like them to keep these thriving businesses, the small companies are snapped up by them.

But that's how capatalism works.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 10:07 am
cjhsa wrote:
Snowfall has almost nothing to do with ski areas opening here. What they ski areas like is COLD. They make 90% of their snow.

Yeah.. And I ask again.. Ever hear of the 1991 Halloween Blizzard which was followed by arctic cold temperatures across the entire midwest.

This is not the first time that temperatures have made it down this low in December. They were this way for all of November in 1991. "earliest start EVER" seems to have some strange meaning in your world cj.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 10:07 am
parados wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
Upper midwest - earliest start EVER to the skiing season.

Must be global warming! Laughing

December is the earliest start EVER for skiing in the Upper Midwest? What is your reference?

I guess you aren't familiar with the Halloween blizzard of 1991.



He's making **** up again.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 10:13 am
Walt wrote-

Quote:
But that's how capatalism works.


No it isn't Walt. It's consumer driven. Better mousetrap thingy.

You can't keep shifting blame onto "big businesses and companies" while you keep flying around the world, driving out to see the Santa Claus grotto and eating local tomatoes out of season.

You're to blame. Nobody else.

By heck--Mr Gore looked well fed I must say.

One might think that the expression, "She looked like the cat that got the cream" is out of date and inadequate.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 10:31 am
spendius wrote:
You can't keep shifting blame onto "big businesses and companies" while you keep flying around the world, driving out to see the Santa Claus grotto and eating local tomatoes out of season.


Certainly I can be blamed for flying - but sailing to the USA would have been an adventure lasting too long.

Those photos a made of St. Nichalaus are done here in town.

I don't lijke tomatoes - besides that, even in summer ours here come the 100 kilomater .... from the Netherlands, same in winter.

Besides that, I don't 'blame' onto anybody here: I do think economy goes like that. And doesn't change, if I like it or not.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 10:50 am
maporsche wrote:
parados wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
Upper midwest - earliest start EVER to the skiing season.

Must be global warming! Laughing

December is the earliest start EVER for skiing in the Upper Midwest? What is your reference?

I guess you aren't familiar with the Halloween blizzard of 1991.



He's making **** up again.


Big deal. So are all the global warming conspiracists.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 12:36 pm
parados wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

Global warming increases the temperature of seawater, so the CO2 in seawater escapes faster when the sea water is warmed by global warming.

So then your claim that global warming would decrease CO2 is nothing but BS.. It took you a while to realize it but now it seems even you know you were making claims that violate science.

Laughing

Shocked
I never said that global warming would decrease CO2.

I said that precipitation (e.g., rain) in a particular region of the atmosphere, decreases the amount of CO2 in that region of the atmosphere.


http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2936786#2936786

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2941734#2941734
ican711nm wrote:

I conclude that the higher the humidity in a given region of the atmosphere the lower is the density of O2 molecules in that region. So I further conclude the same is true for the density of CO2 (or any of the other heavier molecules like N2) in such a region.

When the earth warms, more H2O is evaporated from surface water into various regions of the atmosphere, thereby decreasing the density of CO2 and O2 in those regions. Furthermore, the greater the humidity in a given region, the greater is the likelihood of precipitation of that H2O, and the CO2 mixed with it, back to the surface. When the density of CO2 in those regions is reduced, the effect of CO2 in those regions on the average temperature of the earth, is reduced.

So, let me get this straight MORE CO2 will be released when it is warmer but there will be LESS CO2 because of the water vapor in the air? Where did all those CO2 molecules go?

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2940055#2940055
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:


...

If rain takes so much CO2 out of the atmosphere then as we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would there not be more taken out in present rains?

Yes! And even more in subsequent rains.


parados wrote:
So, let me get this straight MORE CO2 will be released when it is warmer but there will be LESS CO2 because of the water vapor in the air? Where did all those CO2 molecules go?

You still haven't gotten this straight, because you continue to discuss the individual parts of the whole cycle as if they were independent!

I'll try one more time to communicate with you on this topic.

First, my definition of surface water:
surface water = ocean water (e.g., sea water) and non-ocean water (e.g., lake water) on the surface of the earth.

It is a fact that the CO2 ppm (i.e., parts per million) in surface water is not uniform over the surface of the earth. Generally the CO2 ppm in ocean water is greater than the CO2 ppm in non-ocean water. Also, the CO2 ppm is not uniform throughout the earth's oceans. Also, the CO2 ppm is not uniform throughout the earth's non-ocean water.

When water evaporates from surface water it forms a water vapor mix of H2O, CO2, and other molecules that were originally contained in the surface water. The warmer is a region of surface water, the greater the rate of that evaporation, and therefore the greater is the rate of CO2 ppm increase in the atmosphere over that region of the surface.

Atmospheric winds subsequently spread these vapor mixtures throughout the many regions of the atmosphere. When sufficient relatively cold air blows through a region, the water vapor in that region condenses into clouds and/or rain. When water vapor condenses into rain, H2O and CO2 molecules mixed in that vapor enters surface water.

So on the one hand, earth warming causes more CO2 to be in the atmosphere. On the other hand, earth warming causes more CO2 to be precipitated out of the atmosphere by rains, because there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. Net, if when the earth warms, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere and less CO2 in surface water than when the earth cools.

If no additional CO2 were to be inserted into the atmosphere, almost all of it currently in the atmosphere would eventually mix with water vapor and precipitate into surface water. Furthermore, I think it self-evident that by comparison, the amount of CO2 in surface water caused by human activities over the last hundred years is trivial to that caused by non-human activities over the last million years.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/02/2024 at 06:38:20