Posted on 05/10/2017 11:23:56 PM PDT by GraceG
I shared these on another site, and by the time i did i typed out basically a mini-thesis so i want to share with all the freeples!
[ Concerning CO2 levels and heating on Venus, Mars and Earth ]
CO2 has it's limits as a green house gas and it is a very low pressure, compared to Venus which is a very large pressure of CO2. Of course on earth CO2 was at over 1900 PPM during the Jurassic period but somehow dinosaurs were not running around on fire for some reason, of course plants loved that environment, which is why the eco sphere was able to support giant land dinosaurs like apatosaurus.... but if we go above 400 PPM today our modern plants will die and earth will turn into a flaming fire ball orbiting the sun because.... um.. science???? Go look it up on wikipedia, the CO2 levels during the era of dinosaurs was much much higher than today by over 7-10 TIMES! I guess dinosaurs and plants back then were fire-retardant....
Also H2O is a a more powerful green house gas than CO2 and it fluctuates from 0% to 4% and swings wildly every day, compared to CO2 which stays at roughly ~0.0360%. How we have survived such giant variations daily on this powerful greenhouse gas is beyond me at this time...
To answer your question on Mars it is the greater distance from the sun combines with the very low pressure of the atmosphere. Everyone these days thinks CO2 is a "Magic Greenhouse Gas" , it is not, it is like any other gas and follows the same laws any other gas does. The function of saturation vs. green house effect does have a saturation limit which means it's green house effect doesn't rise proportionally like line drawn at a 45 degree angle instead it more of a curve that after a point has diminishing returns.
Venus is hot as hell for 2 reasons, lack of plate tectonics, which causes heat to build up from the planet's molten core causing it to resurface itself ever 100 million years or so, and the sheer thickness of the atmosphere. Interestingly the planet Venus reflects a whole lot more energy from the sun due to it's high white sulfur dioxide clouds , the CO2 on Venus does act as a heat blanket, but at the pressures and densities any gas stable at the high temperatures would have nearly the same effect.
[ Concerning human impact on the environment vs. climate Change ]
Human's actions may or may not have a impact and there are many over looked areas of impact that no one seems to consider, instead, they all go after the CO2 boogieman.
Case in point, Urban Heat islands. After it snows wait a few days and drive tot he countryside, there will be more snow left in the country, due to the heat island effect, in cities you have direct heating from homes and cars ( this is the heat energy coming from heaters, people, car engines etc) , you have a asphalt, shingles and other dark structures which absorb IR heat, you have green lawns and trees too ( depending on the area more in the city per acre than in the countryside ). Heat rises, so imagine these giant columns of hot air over cities rising up and affecting the weather/jet stream. Probably does affect climate a lot more than most climate scientist realize.
Farming can also change the heat pattern of earth, a grassland has a heat potential for absorption which is less than a field of corn, crops are irrigated which cause large amounts of H20 to evaporate and H20 is ALSO a greenhouse gas. Also keep in mind that in America before the 1900s every decade or so you would have giant prairie fires that would burn across entire states releasing god knows how much soot and ash into the air. since we started farming, fencing and building roads ( roads act as fire breaks on the plains) there have been very few giant fires like there were over 150 years ago as well.
Yes, Humans DO affect the climate, we DO need stop dumping bad chemicals like Sulfur Gasses into the environment and dumping bad chemicals into rivers etc.... But CO2 is getting a undue bad rap, did you know that the higher the CO2 levels the less water a plant will need, it's true! Greenhouses sometimes utilize CO2 generators to make the plants grow faster. Earth's history the CO2 levels have been significantly higher and these high levels during the dinosaur era was what led to increased plant growth where the environment could support giant plant eating monsters like apatosaurus. Historically the earth is in a period where the CO2 levels are at some of the lowest they have been for the last 200 million years. Check Wikipedia, check the CO2 levels for the Jurassic, Triassic, and Cretaceous if you don't believe me.
Also they don't take into effect variables such as solar activity as much as they should as well. When either global warming / cooling is happening on both earth and mars at the same time , then either our CO2 is being blown off the earth by solar wind and drifting to mars ( this is obviously false as any amount would be entire negligible ) or increased solar output is the cause. Also the suns magnetosphere can affect climate as when the solar cycle weakens it allows more cosmic rays to make it to earth which act like nucleation centers for water droplets ( the reason cloud chambers work to track particles in old rime particle accelerators ) .that can also have an effect on climate.
Yes we need to recycle, yes we need to limit pollutants, but we shouldn't follow a "zero tolerance policy" on relatively harmless gasses such as CO2, we should however follow zero tolerance environmental policies on nasty carcinogens, gasses that can create acid rain, and biological impact chemicals like phytoestrogens and herbicide/ pesticides that have broad spectrum impacts on plants and animals.
I thought “climate change” was a dead horse, why keep beating it?
Apparently that dead horse still emits CO2 according to liberals.
To support volcano hypothesis, one must show why volanic activity started up around 1850-1950, why it is much higher today than in the past, why it was not happening in the last 20k years for which we have good data (annual resolution ice cores).
It's a real stretch to say the CO2 is natural from volcanoes and basically impossible to be from warming. That leaves fossil and biosphere, and that is the current consensus.
They all wore Nomex suits like race car drivers.
LOL!
no it isn’t palmer- man’s respionsibility amounts to 3.8% of the TOTAL amount of all greenhosue gases and CO2- naqtural and manmade- that amount is 0.04%
3.8% of 0.04% = 0.00136% of the atmosphere
sorry- that should have read 3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00136%
Some have the estimate of man’s release of CO2 up to 3.8- but most sites state it’s around 3.4%
[[EPA document supports ~3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources]]
[[Carbon dioxide consists of a carbon atom covalently double bonded to two oxygen atoms. It occurs naturally in Earth’s atmosphere as a trace gas at a concentration of about 0.04 percent (400 ppm) by volume.]]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
There are several sites that give very similar numbers- even the IPCC statements are close to these figure I believe- No matter which figures you use- the Bottom line is that man’s release of CO2 is so ridiculously small that there is no way it can affect global climate- There is no thick blanket of CO2 covering the earth preventing CO2 from leaving and ca causing catastrophic warming
What little does get absorbed by CO2 released by man is such a small figure that it almost instantly reaches equilibrium the moment it gets radiated out- it is so small that it is instantly overwhelmed by the massive amount of cooler atmosphere- Very much like dumping 4 5 gallon pails of water of 100degree water into an olympic sized pool of 95 degree water would instantly nearly reach equilibrium because it is overwhelmed by the massive volume of cooler pool water
mans respionsibility amounts to 3.4% (Being generous) of the TOTAL amount of all greenhosue gases and CO2- naqtural and manmade- that amount is 0.04%
3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00136% of the atmosphere is CO2 due to man
But we need to take "carbon" pollution down to zero....
even if we end all life on the planet... for the planet....
[ Geo-Engineering (from space) can reduce or increase the Earth’s temperatures using a mylar net, mylar particles, or a “Space Mirror”. So, can we all agree as to what temperature would we like Earth to be?
I doubt it. :-/ ]
You see once we build such a system, we would NEED world government because then we would all be fighting over the thermostat!
[ I just expelled some greenhouse gases from my posterior. Does that make me an enemy of the state? ]
Yus, and ze vill hunt yus down like the kapitalist pig dog yus are!
[ I remember the words of Hillary when this Climate Change cr** started. Gore became the designated hitter.
Hillary said this Climate Cr** was to engage younger future voters and they sure have marketed it to them from the Penguin walk to Green shirts at school.
Gonna write a children’s book....Facts and Farts!! ]
I wanna write a children’s book too, “Og and the burning dinosaurs”, damned them cavemen and their CO2 producing campfires!
Chapter Sample:
Og used the deadly white male oppression tool known as fire to cook the critter meat he viciously killed because he is a member of the patriarchy.
Later that day the CO2 level in earths atmosphere went from 300PPM to 301PPM and the dinosaurs immediately burst into flames due to the catastrophic climate change.... THE END
palmer- you’re the math science guy- and I’ve been meanign to ask you the following:
What volumep0- weight of heated air molecules is produced by 0.00136% of the atmosphere?
The atmosphere weighs roughly 6 quadrillion tons- what is hte actual weight of heated molecules created by man’s CO2?
This is pretty important to know- also improtant ot know- is how much of the heat actually remains in the atmosphere OR gets radiated back to earth? As you know, the heat gets radiated out in all directions- most of it away from the extremely thin ‘belt of CO2’ where it won’t get recaptured continually- only a fraction of the captured IR remains in the ‘critical zone’
But i would like ot know, if possible, what the weight of that heated molecules in the ‘correct zones’ (assuming ‘correct’ means zones where they cause warming) would be-
IF science can’t answer this- then they have no right claiming that man’s released CO2 is causing warming- because they don’t know how much weight is actually heated with which to compare it to the total weight of atmosphere- IF they do know, then they can calculate how much warming is actually a direct result of that volume of heated molecules
Am I wording this ok? My thoughts sometimes don’t translate to writing well- but my basic premise is (I’ll attempt to simplify it) is that a certain amount of molecules need to be warmed in order to overpower the massive cooler molecules in atmosphere and back on earth, in order for there to be enough heated volume to raise the temperature-
like the pool example in my previous post- the pool water would not change UNTIL enough 5 gallon pails of 100 degree water were added to actually start raising the pool’s 95 degree temperature- it woudl certainly take a LOT more than 0.00136% of the pool’s volume to affect change-
NOTE- someone figured out that 4 5 gallon pails would be the equivalent of 0.00136% of the Olympic sized pool- Can’t remember now who it was- but it was someone here on FR responding to one of my posts awhile back- they did the calculations and figured it out to 4 five gallon pails I believe - but you can picture what I’m talking about in regards to mass/volume by this analogy- The heat produced by just 0.00136% of the atmosphere simply can not be a large enough volume to affect the temp of the atmosphere- there simply isn’t enough CO2 to do so-
[[we would all be fighting over the thermostat!]]
LOL- you women (I assume your handle means you are female?) would be constantly turning it up, and we men would be sneakily turning it back down when you weren’t looking :)
[[we would all be fighting over the thermostat!]]
LOL- you women (I assume your handle means you are female?) would be constantly turning it up, and we men would be sneakily turning it back down when you werent looking :)
Does this mean Al Gore is a Misogynist?
Yes I am of the female freeper variety, a spicy one at that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.