70
   

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

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 10:33 am
@gungasnake,
I don't know much about them gunga. I've heard they are sometimes looked at in a certain way to which they are not used to and which belies their accreditations.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 07:01 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
How many times does that make that Russia has saved us?? I mean, imagine a world in which Sweden was a major power..... Tsar Peter saved us from that.


Whoa!! I mean, this is what we'd be driving:

http://z.about.com/w/experts/Volvo-Repair-834/2008/09/Volvo.gif

And this is what'd we'd be seeing on television:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vUPhPSbAb0o/Rq4i1P43YgI/AAAAAAAAATk/80VmKm5AmcE/s400/septimo.jpg

And this is what we'd be listening to on AM radio:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSJrkKiG4gd5eChq9r-4OO_OI_t3dYl7p0GaxYh95CgSzAJy1Fm

I mean, you'd go out to a Mexican or Indian restaurant for meatballs and noodles; every other kind of food would be blander than that.....
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 07:09 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

And where the hops are grown would be jungle if there was no demand for hops, heaven forbid, and each square kilometre would naturally produce more carbon stuff that a hop orchard does. So drinking beer can save the earth as well.



How much co2 is released in the fermentation process, though? As much as in the production of ethanol?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 May, 2011 07:13 pm
@roger,
roger, What are you trying to do? Ruin our enjoyment of beer? LOL
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 01:17 pm
@MontereyJack,
IT'S NOT FALSE! LOOK AGAIN AT THE TREND IN YEARLY AVERAGES.
Quote:

1997 0.352

1998 0.548

1999 0.297

2000 0.271

2001 0.408

2002 0.465

2003 0.475

2004 0.447

2005 0.482

2006 0.425

2007 0.402

2008 0.325

2009 0.443

2010 0.477

2011 0.263 (average for January, February, and March)
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 01:46 am
Yes, ican, it is FALSE. Since you seem to have forgotten, let me remind you what you posted;
Quote:
@ican711nm,

It is a fact that during the specific 90 year period, 1910 to 2000, CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increased, SOLAR IRRADIANCE increased, and ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increased.

It is also a fact that during the specific 10 year period, 2000 to 2010, CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increased, SOLAR IRRADIANCE decreased, and ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE decreased.

These facts logically imply, SOLAR IRRADIANCE increases and decreases are PROBABLY the major causes of ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increases and decreases, and CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increases are likely to be minor causes, if not negligible causes, of ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increases and decreases.


This is the same format you always post, and you always make the same mistakes. You post SPECIFIC periods for SPECIFIC years. You never deal with trends, nor with reasons things vary within those periods. You ALWAYS use periods with SPECIFIC start and end dates to try to make your point. Andf for the SPECIFIC period 2000-2010, which you are contrasting with the period 1910-2000, you are WRONG that the temperature decreased. Take a look at YOUR temp post above, which you are apparently drawing from Hadcrut data rather than the more accurate NASA-Giss analysis. THE TEMPERATURE FOR 2000 IS LOWER THAN THE TEMPERATURE FOR 2010, in your own data. Which means your contrast doesn't work. Irradiance goes down, CO2 concentration and Temp go up for your SPECIFIC period. So the sun ain't causing it. Or you need to stop using your doofus method.
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 01:49 am
And do I really need to remind you that the trend (the red line in the graphs you post over and over again) is UP, a direction you seem to be incapable of grasping. Look at the difference between say 1900 or 1910, if you insist on centuries, and today. Is that down?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2011 03:44 am
@roger,
Quote:
How much co2 is released in the fermentation process, though? As much as in the production of ethanol?
The process is the same...I stole the following from wikipedia...at a quick read it seems right...

Quote:
Ethanol fermentation (performed by yeast and some types of bacteria) breaks the pyruvate down into ethanol and carbon dioxide. It is important in bread-making, brewing, and wine-making. Usually only one of the products is desired; in bread-making, the alcohol is baked out, and, in alcohol production, the carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere or used for carbonating the beverage. When the ferment has a high concentration of pectin, minute quantities of methanol can be produced. (Before fermentation takes place, one glucose molecule is broken down into two pyruvate molecules. This is known as glycolysis.)

The chemical equation below summarizes the fermentation of glucose.
C6H12O6 is the chemical formula for glucose.
C2H5OH is the chemical formula for ethanol.
CO2 is the chemical formula for carbon dioxide Very Happy

One glucose molecule is converted into two ethanol molecules and two carbon dioxide molecules:
C6H12O6 → 2 C2H5OH + 2 CO2


Quote:
Lactic acid fermentation is the simplest type of fermentation. In essence, it is a redox reaction. In anaerobic conditions, the cell’s primary mechanism of ATP production is glycolysis. Glycolysis reduces – transfers electrons to – NAD+, forming NADH. However, there is only a limited supply of NAD+ available in a cell. For glycolysis to continue, NADH must be oxidized – have electrons taken away – to regenerate the NAD+. This is usually done through an electron transport chain in a process called oxidative phosphorylation; however, this mechanism is not available without oxygen.

Instead, the NADH donates its extra electrons to the pyruvate molecules formed during glycolysis. Since the NADH has lost electrons, NAD+ regenerates and is again available for glycolysis. Lactic acid, for which this process is named, is formed by the reduction of pyruvate. The process of lactic acid fermentation using glucose is summarized below. In homolactic fermentation, one molecule of glucose is converted to two molecules of lactic acid:

C6H12O6 → 2 CH3CHOHCOOH.

or one molecule of lactose and one molecule of water make four molecules of lactate (as in some yogurts and cheeses):

C12H22O11 + H2O → 4 CH3CHOHCOOH.


Quote:
In heterolactic acid fermentation, one molecule of pyruvate is converted to lactate; the other is converted to ethanol and carbon dioxide. In homolactic acid fermentation, both molecules of pyruvate are converted to lactate. Homolactic acid fermentation is unique because it is one of the only respiration processes to not produce a gas as a byproduct. In heterolactic fermentation, the reaction proceeds as follows, with one molecule of glucose being converted to one molecule of lactic acid, one molecule of ethanol, and one molecule of carbon dioxide:

C6H12O6 → CH3CHOHCOOH + C2H5OH + CO2


0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2011 09:38 am
@MontereyJack,
IT'S NOT FALSE! LOOK AGAIN AT THE TREND IN YEARLY AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES IN DEGREES CELSIUS.
Quote:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

1997 0.352

1998 0.548

1999 0.297

2000 0.271

2001 0.408

2002 0.465

2003 0.475

2004 0.447

2005 0.482

2006 0.425

2007 0.402

2008 0.325

2009 0.443

2010 0.477

2011 0.263 (average for January, February, and March)


It is a fact that during the specific 88 year period, 1910 to 1998, CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increased, SOLAR IRRADIANCE increased, and ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increased.

It is also a fact that during the specific 12 year period, 1998 to 2010, CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increased, SOLAR IRRADIANCE decreased, and ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE decreased.

These facts logically imply, SOLAR IRRADIANCE increases and decreases are PROBABLY the major causes of ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increases and decreases, and CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increases are likely to be minor causes, if not negligible causes, of ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increases and decreases.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 May, 2011 09:28 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
These facts logically imply, SOLAR IRRADIANCE increases and decreases are PROBABLY the major causes of ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increases and decreases, and CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increases are likely to be minor causes, if not negligible causes, of ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increases and decreases.
Logic is not allowed when talking about global warming, ican. The very idea that the sun might have something to do with global temperature is just too logical to be a possibility. Laughing
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2011 12:23 am
Don't be stupid, okie. We/ve been over this probably a dozen times by now. Maybe if you made some flash cards for yourself you could retain the data a little better. Variations in the sun's output (or the earth's relation to the sun, as in ice ages) correlate well with changes in temperature/climate BUT ONLY THRU THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY.. Statistical analyses of the data show that after that changing concentrations of greenhouse gases became more important.
MontereyJack
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2011 12:40 am
Way to go, ican. Your kick misses the goal completely, so you want to move the goalposts. Doesn't work this time either. NOAA says 2010 was the warmest year on record, which means it was warmer than 1998, so the specific 12 year period 1998-2010 saw the temperature rise, CO2 increase, and solar irradiance decrease. The sun didn't cause it. So far your 10 year ccyles haven't worked, the 11 year cycles you first used when you came up with your loopy math didn't work, and your 12 year cycle (what's your rationale for continuing changing periods?) doesn't work either. And if you use any starting year other than 1998 and do the calculations, they don't work either. If you can only make it work for one specific year, you're certainly no procuing something with general applicability. And NASA/NOAA say that 1998 was NOT the hottest year in recent history. It was warmer than the (rising) temperature mean because it was the strongest el Nino year on record, but it has beeen dethroned as the hottest year. You will also note ican, if you look at the graphs you keep posting, el Nino years correspond with TEMPORARY bumps upward in the global ave temp, la Nina years correspond with TMPORARY small dips in temp. Remember how in 2008 you were making a big deal of what you saw as a downward trendin temp, and you and the other deniers were making predictions aboutits being the start of a continued downward trend? Remember how I told you repeatedly it was due to la Nina and would not continue downward once la Nina conditions returned to ENSO normal? I was right. You were wrong. Last year set a record high.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2011 12:44 am
And you will also note, ican, that the last several months of 2010 saw la Nina (but not strong enough to counter the high temps of the rest of the year) which persisted into 2011. It's now returning to ENSO neutral conditions. Look to see the global average climb again the rest of the year.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2011 09:13 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

Don't be stupid, okie. We/ve been over this probably a dozen times by now. Maybe if you made some flash cards for yourself you could retain the data a little better. Variations in the sun's output (or the earth's relation to the sun, as in ice ages) correlate well with changes in temperature/climate BUT ONLY THRU THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY.. Statistical analyses of the data show that after that changing concentrations of greenhouse gases became more important.
Is that so? Well well, lets see now. Since water vapor is by far the most dominant or abundant greenhouse gas, do the experts have any data on how water vapor concentrations have varied during the last half of the 20th century? After all, since you are so certain that greenhouse gases are dictating the temperature and since water vapor is by far the most dominant, there should be abundant atmospheric water vapor concentrations data collected by the global warming experts, right, MJ
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 May, 2011 09:17 pm
@okie,
It's called RAINFALL okie. We have lots of data on it.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2011 05:13 pm
@parados,
Quote:
It's called RAINFALL okie. We have lots of data on it.
And do we have enough to make a factual statement on it or are we guessing again ?
Walter Hinteler
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2011 09:18 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
Since water vapor is by far the most dominant or abundant greenhouse gas, do the experts have any data on how water vapor concentrations have varied during the last half of the 20th century?


Those data aren't very simple and easy to get, since the average residence time of a water molecule in the atmosphere is only about nine days (years or centuries for other greenhouse gases).

My great uncle started in in the earl 20th century researching such (published e.g. Hinteler/Schmidt in J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1927, 49 (3), pp 708–72) but unfortunately died before he could finish his works (actually, long before his researches were published in English).
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2011 09:20 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
Quote:
It's called RAINFALL okie. We have lots of data on it.
And do we have enough to make a factual statement on it or are we guessing again ?
Good question that I was thinking of asking too. I would love to see good data on rainfall figures for the last century world wide. Can parados produce it? He says that "we have lots of data on it."
Walter Hinteler
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2011 09:25 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
I would love to see good data on rainfall figures for the last century world wide.


You've quoted so often the data from Central England here, okie.

Don't you consider those for a good source any more?
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 13 May, 2011 11:05 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
You've quoted so often the data from Central England here, okie. Don't you consider those for a good source any more?
A god source for what ? They are a good source for Central England.....What was the world wide rainfall in 1800 or is that a guess ? What was the world wide rainfall for 2000 or was that a guess ?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 09:50:41