Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

page: 2
279
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Star'ed, flagged, and applauded.


This is a prime example of why I enjoy ATS so much. The thinkers seem to be spread to thin these days. These are the numbers I have been looking for. This with the release of the hacked emails from CRU have made my day.

Let the fun begin.




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Didn't understand a number ..... lol.... but it sounded good to me and all I want to add is Plant a Tree.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Nobody read the IPCC UN climate reports... of course it was a few thousands pages... but eh... Even THEY reported that humans only account for a maximum of 7-8% (if i remember correctly) of ALL CO2 produced every year...

So all the CO2 nazis can come and >SNIP



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteDevil013
 


Lmfao!

Mod note: One line warning please review

[edit on 12/2/2009 by yeahright]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
TheRedneck, you should have included the specific heat capacity of carbon dioxide in your calculations. It requires less energy to increase in temperature. If you include it, the conclusion might be different.

I didn't calculate it myself though so I don't know what effect it would have upon the final conclusion.

Numbers don't lie, but reality is more complex than theory.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Deran]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Nobody read the IPCC UN climate reports... of course it was a few thousands pages... but eh... Even THEY reported that humans only account for a maximum of 7-8% (if i remember correctly) of ALL CO2 produced every year...

So all the CO2 nazis can come and lick my balls.


I know a few folk who are deeply concerned about the environment.
I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige if that's your thing.





posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by anubis9311

The specific heat capacity of air is based on the proportions of the gasses that make it up. The specific heat capacity of air is primarily based upon the largest components of air:
  • Nitrogen, about 78%, specific heat capacity of 1.040 J/g·°K
  • Oxygen, 21%, specific heat capacity of 0.918 J/g·°K
  • Carbon dioxide, 0.038%, specific heat capacity of 0.837 J/g·°K
  • Water vapor, percentage varies, specific heat capacity of 4.183 J/g·°K

Compared to the specific heat capacity of air (average specific heat capacity of 1.012 J/g·°K), it is easy to see that the result is an average of the components. Oxygen and carbon dioxide, while they do vary from each other in terms of specific heat capacity, are both lower than average air components in that respect.

But, just for laughs, let's calculate the effect that the 100 ppmv rise has had on the specific heat capacity of air, assuming that the entire increase is associated with a corresponding decrease in oxygen:
At 380 ppmv CO2, 209460 ppmv oxygen (present):

X(CO2) = 0.000380, Cp(CO2) = 0.839 J/g·°K

0.000380 · 0.839 = 0.00031882 J/°K

X(O2) = 0.209460, Cp(O2) = 0.918 J/g·°K

0.209460 · 0.918 = 0.19228428 J/°K

0.00031882 J/°K + 0.19228428 J/°K = 0.1926031 J/°K
contributed to the specific heat capacity of air



At 280 ppmv CO2, 209560 ppmv O2 (pre-industrial):

X(CO2) = 0.000280, Cp(CO2) = 0.839 J/g·°K

0.000280 · 0.839 = 0.00023436 J/°K

X(O2) = 0.209560, Cp(O2) = 0.918 J/g·°K

0.209560 · 0.918 = 0.19237608 J/°K

0.00023436 J/°K + 0.19237608 J/°K = 0.19261044 J/°K
contributed to the specific heat capacity of air

Present contribution - Pre-industrial contribution = difference

0.1926031 J/°K - 0.19261044 J/°K = -0.00000734 J/°K



From these calculations it is clear that while it does make a difference how much of air is oxygen and how much is carbon dioxide, that difference between now and pre-industrial levels is so minimal as to be insignificant.

Remember, the calculations in my OP show that 100 times as much CO2 increase as has been seen would still be only enough to produce a single degree of warming globally. When we get close to 10,280 ppmv carbon dioxide (100 times the increase seen), then I will join the move to artificially control it.


TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Deran
 


Interesting point.

CO2 Specific Heat Capacity


Changes in phase of water, from ice to liquid to water vapor, affect the storage of heat. However, even ignoring these complexities, many facets of the climate can be deduced simply by considering the heat capacity of the different components of the climate system. The total heat capacity depends on the mass of the substance involved as well as its capacity for holding heat, as measured by the specific heat (the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance by 1°C), of each substance...

The atmosphere does not have much capability to store heat.
link


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Remember, the calculations in my OP show that 100 times as much CO2 increase as has been seen would still be only enough to produce a single degree of warming globally. When we get close to 10,280 ppmv carbon dioxide (100 times the increase seen), then I will join the move to artificially control it.


TheRedneck


Which still ignores the 75% increase in your calculations when you include ALL green house gasses.


[edit on 1-12-2009 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 

I notice energy produced on Earth is not included in anyone's calculations here.
Is the amount of heat produced by warm-blooded animals, by burning fuels, and by heat vents too small to bother including, or are those amounts not known? Does the geology of the Earth itself cause it to radiate heat?

I'm wondering if pollution is also affecting climate by reflecting back heat produced on or by the Earth which would otherwise be dissipated.



[edit on 1/12/09 by Kailassa]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Good post!

Also scientists have predicted there is a coming ice age which fits the pole shift theory....there are a lot of similarities to increasingly revealed data from previous geological evidence of similar events.

Perhaps you know some data on these theories as well?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

That's your rebuttal?


"They've got bigger computers and they're smarter"?

Come on, at least try to rebut the calcs. Just saying "I don't believe it" isn't much of a rebuttal...

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by ZombieOctopus

That's your rebuttal?


"They've got bigger computers and they're smarter"?

Come on, at least try to rebut the calcs. Just saying "I don't believe it" isn't much of a rebuttal...

TheRedneck


I did call you out on your calculations and you simply passed it off as irrelevant because you couldn't be bothered to include ALL green house gasses.

And yes I will keep calling you on it because you presented your equations in the OP as the proof to end all debate yet you purposefully left out 75% of all green house gasses.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Hey nice tread dude! star and flagged!

I just don't know why peoples are not understanding the numbers, its just basic volume calculation vs energy required to heat that volume... its just that the numbers a big, just take the time to read...

And while were at it... i just personally don't understand that they are or they will make us pay taxes, or they want us to buy a car that consume like 3 or 4 liter per 100km less than another one (same with the hybrids) while, as a construction worker, i was working on a big construction site in James-Bay (nortern Québec) and the contractor we were working for was using like 6000 liters of fuel in a single day just to power all the machines. I'm a driller...my drill uses 350L a day' a big Shovel like a Caterpillar 385...600 or 700L a day...

And after seeing that, you see peoples trying to make others buy hybrids or cheapo Chevy Aveo kinda like cars... that are cheap on gaz but u put them in the scrapyard 5 year laters. cmon



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Quick, someone hack his computer and swipe his emails. Take his data and shred it. Better yet, let's make threats against the OP and boycott any publication or journals that publish his papers. And let's get every Tom, Dick and Harry (and you know who you are) politician out there to discredit him.

Boy, you're screwed now. I bet you're shaking in yer boots, huh?



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Nobody read the IPCC UN climate reports... of course it was a few thousands pages... but eh... Even THEY reported that humans only account for a maximum of 7-8% (if i remember correctly) of ALL CO2 produced every year...

So all the CO2 nazis can come and lick my balls.


I know a few folk who are deeply concerned about the environment.
I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige if that's your thing.




Seems like there are far too many ridiculously power hungry 'everything' nazis around these days....schoolbag nazis, as in ''your kid isn't using a regulation shape schoolbag even though it falls off so we're going to make you fell really bad about it'' type nazi's to electoral register nazi's, such as ''even if you choose not to vote for a bunch of ludicrous self obsessed losers if you don't add your name to the publically available list (which is a privacy and human rights breach) we're gonna come round your house and sue you'' type nazi's.

Looks like some devil somewhere decided to base fear creation on the hitler model, including 'world ending unless you do as we say' fear as a means of fragmenting society so all people are wary of all and minimal societal adhesion.

There should be anti nazi police. This whole things has to be overturned and sanity restored to the world.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Here are my questions red:

1. Why are you including water when we're talking about CO2? After around 500ft, temperature drops by 20C within 500ft in the thermocline. Water below that level are permeated with an extremely small amount of light.

If you're going to talk about water, you might as well just talk about methane, water vapor, OZONE, and other gases.

2.


Now we must calculate exactly how much of that energy will be affected by the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the troposphere. Remembering that the increase from pre-industrial levels is 0.01% of total atmospheric volume, we multiple this total energy by 0.0001:
552,629,869,311,558,240,000,000 kJ/100yr • 0.0001 =
55,262,986,931,155,824,000 kJ/100yr intercepted by anthropogenic CO2



0.01%? Why did you multiply that value by 0.0001?



3.


Now we can calculate how much energy it would require to raise the temperature of the troposphere by a single degree Kelvin:
1.012 J/g•°K = 1.012 kJ/kg•°K

1.012 kJ/kg•°K • 1.2 kg/m³ = 1.2144 kJ/m³•°K

1.2144 kJ/m³•°K = 1,214,400,000 kJ/km³•°K

Since our calculations are based on a single degree Kelvin temperature rise, we can write this as
1,214,400,000 kJ/km³

1,214,400,000 kJ/km³ • 8,694,154 km³ = 10,558,180,617,600,000 kJ



Why did you multiply 1.2144 kJ/m³•°K by 1,000,000? What is this 1,000,000






Your method seems to be faulty.

Truth is, people, look at how the sun can warm the desert by 80C in less than 24 hours. If CO2 is only 0.00001% responsible for that, over 100 years, the temperature rise will still be 0.8k



[edit on 12/1/2009 by die_another_day]

[edit on 12/1/2009 by die_another_day]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
You also need to keep in mind that the ocean absorbs solar energy, directly from light. In your calculations you assumed that it only gets heated by the energy that the CO2 absorbs, which is not the whole truth.

Plus, the ENTIRE ocean does not have to increase in temperature for the atmosphere to increase in temperature, since it is kept warm at the surface by the sunlight.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Animal

This statement is only true if the only source of human produced contributing factor were CO2 when in fact it is not.

My calculations, as stated, do not include other gases. My complaint with the environmental movements is pretty much restricted to their position on CO2. Other gases, which are indeed toxic at low concentrations, do not occur naturally (at least above trace levels), and do not contribute to the life cycle on the planet should be tightly regulated to the fullest possible extent that can be achieved with present technology. This regulation would have an impact on industrialization, but nowhere near as significant an impact as CO2 regulation, and it would actually help the ecology of the planet.

You are arguing outside the scope of the calculations shown.

TheRedneck


As an observer of this conversation I think it is important to consider what Animal is bringing to the table. Your point is, is that man is not responsible for global warming, which imho is only a symptom of the real problem. If you are going to argue that man's industrialization has not contributed to the warming of the planet then you cannot just omit part of the data or fix the numbers to support your theory. Climategate? Would Animal's numbers on the other contributing factors alone prove that man is responsible for the warming of the planet? No.

It is possible that the driving of cars and the manufacturing of goods has caused our planet to warm. It is definite that the combustion engine and the manufacturing of goods has polluted our environment.

If you remove Animal's pollution from your pollution then the world is safe. Animal provides multiple contributors to the problem. You provide one CO2. Is it easier to remove multiple contributors instead of just one?

I will still sleep easy although we are heading towards the abyss and GW is not something that needs to be fixed or debunked. The ignorance of man is what needs to be fixed.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
So I'm confused (not hard to do, I assure you). Let's say that this does prove that the human production of CO2 has no affect on the environment; does that give us free reign to just completely waste to our heart's content?? I mean if our presence has no affect on the environment, what's to stop us from just consuming every bit of all the resources that this planet has to offer? Let's just party like it's 1999 and burn this mother to the ground!

I agree that there has been some shady stuff going on as far as cap and trade and all that jazz, but I fear that people are going to view this argument, and others like it, as a green light to consume and subsequently waste everything in sight. Regardless of our affect on the environment, that probably wouldn't be the most responsible thing to do.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal

The conclusion to your math is:
5.52629869 × 10 to the 19th power
...

Which increased by 75% is:
9.67102271 × 10 to the 19th power
...

What does this then do to the prediction that it would require 102 times the energy? Would that then become 27 times the energy?

If you want to increase the amount of intercepted energy by 75%, then those calculations would be correct. That's still about 0.25°K per century temperature rise, and still conservative based on the assumptions... far below the cries of doom and gloom that are perpetuated in the media.

I will not dispute that part of the ecological pressure is toward greenhouse gases other than CO2, at least in word. Intent seems to disagree with you, however. The major political football is indeed CO2 Cap & Trade, not SO2 Cap & Trade, nor methane Cap & Trade. And, as stated before, my only concern over present environmental theories is the CO2 component. We agree on all of the other emissions; why would I take time to disprove something I agree with as to current outlooks?

This thread concerns carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide only. It finishes the debate on CO2 contributions to Global Warming, as stated, and nothing else. I stand with you on the other emissions you have mentioned.

TheRedneck





top topics
 
279
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join