How It All Ends: Mechanics of GCC (pt 2 of 3)

[gopc32]

Now that's just ridiculous, he's wearing a clown hat!

[lars008]

eat well excersize,,, die anyway,,,

spend tons of money on idiotic social issues,,, die anyway,,,

Sun remains a main sequence star, continually growing warmer and brighter by ~10% every 1 billion years.

no matter what you do,,, the sun will GET you in the end,,,

unless you LEAVE,,, that is where mankind needs to spend its money,,,

on LEAVING,,,

[skaruts]

@wonderingmind42

About the missing sink, I believe you forgot to assign some of it to the plants, as I believe it would be, according to the rest.

Also, could it be possible that the remaining CO2 from the missing sink could join up with the amount of energy that goes out of the atmosphere?

[PUFFTHEMAGICMARMOT]

Ice core samples would suggest a rythmic fluctuation of CO2, and we are not near the high end. We are about due for a heavier concentration, so you may need a sillier hat soon.

Furthermore, we have the technology to limit carbon release, but our corporo-fascist republicrat grease stains keep us on a high oil diet, and we are constantly bombarded by propaganda suggesting nothing is wrong with our way of life. Yeah. Your gonna need a way sillier hat...

[lin545]

WTF GCC=Gnu Compiler Collection. Its cross-platform compiler, for christs sake...

[hopteavy]

I was wondering if the conversion of biomass into human population (exponential growth) was already accounted for in this model?

[WharfRat0A54]

Regarding the mystery 2 gtc , 1 gtc to terrestrial sink, leaving 1 gtc unknown. Dalton's law of partial pressure suggests the oceanic sink rate will increase as atmosheric CO2 increases. This may account for some, or all of the mystery 1 gtc. But, as mentioned, the equilibrium point in this cycle is unkown as yet.

[PharmGateway]

I have created a simple, but useful page, which has all the links to this series of videos listed in the correct order.

The site name is of the standard format with the usual (US) extension after the dot. The site name is then followed by a forward slash and the name of the page, so the first word is my site name and the second bit is the page name (but you need to put D O T h t m on the end).

pharmgateway howitallends

[adamx20]

The ocean has it's own plant life, so I would assume that it will continue to act like a sponge for as long as the plant life continues to absorb carbon.

[sloth0306]

ok maybe i am just being stupid, but you said carbon is sequestered at the rate of 0.2 Gt C per year (i assume this is current rate). Then the nasa figures for total amount of Carbon in oil and coal comes to 3300.

However if you divide 3300 by 0.2, thereby finding the number of years it took for fossil fuels to form, you only get a measly 16,500 years. this obviously doesn't add up with estimates that it takes millions of years to form fossil fuels, i just wondered if anyone can explain this?

[tempo3rd]

No, man, wondering the same thing... maybe sequestering rates have varied?

[sloth0306]

i think i may have figured it out. the 0.2 GtC is not literally the carbon turning to oil and coal. just the intial start of the process. i.e trees and dead animal matter being buried under sediment.

[MaximumDARTH]

I know this is obvious, but one of those two GTC might go to the plants which let off one less GTC/yr than they absorb

[sniped101]

maybe the plants in the seas take up the 2G of carbon thats why we cant account for it?

[lilcricket1]

I am not a critic to global warming and in fact I commend anyone who steps up and talks about it. I would like to make a small point. If humans are producing 7 GT C and the oceans are taking in 2 GT C and the trees are taking 1 GT C and 3 GT C goes into the atmosphere I count 6 GT C.

[lilcricket1]

You did say that the math does not add up so I will stick with the 2 GT C unexplained. I also want to point out that 3 GT C is very significant.

Let me ask this question and see what you all think.

[lilcricket1]

The human race is carbon based, we take in O2 and expel CO2 that carbon for this comes from somewhere. The plants and animals we consume to perpetuate our life are all carbon based. So if the oceans and the trees take in more than what they produce wouldn't it be logical that humans take in more carbon to sustain our lives than we produce also? (I am not referring to the carbon we spew out in our industrialized life.)

Could these numbers be added into the equation?

[lilcricket1]

I am one of the lay people that is talked about in the videos, and I am not 100% convinced that we are the cause, (maybe 95%) I also am not convinced we can have a impact on the outcome of the road we are on. Let me say this I try to do my part, I turn off lights when were not in the room. I buy energy efficient light bulbs I got rid of my SUV and purchased a Prius and I vote for people and taxes that support global warming. (I too say better safe than sorry)

[lilcricket1]

The last thing I would like to say is regarding the economy. When oil and coal were first being used as a fuel source for electricity for the industrialization of the world and to power the automobile. the world economy had grown in leaps and bounds, and so has technology. ( You know the old saying "Necessity is the mother of invention"). I believe this will also be true with the next step of our revolutionizing the technology for electricity.

[lilcricket1]

This is not to say that we have not made a lot of mistake over the last 2 centuries, and in the next two centuries we will continue to make mistake. I believe we will again grow in leaps and bounds.

I would like to paraphrase The Day The Earth Stood Still, "It is only at our precipice that we are willing to change."

[wafflecopter08]

the ocean is a sink capable of absorbing 2 extra Gigatons, so human emissions go from 7Gt to 5. but if the terrestrial biosphere is also capable of absorbing 1 extra Gt, wouldnt human emissions then be lowered to 4Gt?

[phlexonance]

yeah I noticed that too

and -2gt from the mystery sink -> that's "only" 2Gt of human emission which stays in the atmosphere

so we would only need to reduce our emissions by 28,7% to have a 0Gt human caused atmospheric input of C

of course we would need to leave that brasilian forest alone, or else we would need to reduce by another 15%

[DonQuixotedeKaw]

The unaccounted for CO2;

is it not reacting with everything it contacts that it CAN react with? Has ordinary rainwater for instance been monitered for increased CO2 saturation?

[DonQuixotedeKaw]

Is there any data on the differences in the refractive values of sea water, that is growing in saturation of CO2?

Doesn't it follow that if CO2 slows infrared waves in one translucent medium, it would in another?

And since the seas are a faster/more effective CO2 sink than anything else, would this help to explain why overall ocean temperatures are rising faster than atmospheric temperatures?

If this is true, how about methane saturation?

Hope these are not stupid questions.

[fireofenergy]

Dont kill a watt, Megawatt !

(clean ones that is)

[effisense]

Entropy,ya just never know when its gonna pop the balloon I mean

[mjk4523]

since were carbon based wouldnt the 2.???% get ebsorbed by us?

[T3ZaNg]

We absorb oxygen, then breathe carbon dioxide.

[barbarossa0067]

I am a chemical engineer who also minored in environmental studies who believes in human induced climate change. I would say that it is a bit misleading to say "all of the carbon is released" in 200 years. Maybe A LOT would be a better way of saying it. However you put it, it is a significant percentage of this carbon we have released in the last 200 years. I would personally guess no more than 30% of total carbon stocks stored in the last 300 million years. But this is just a guess.

[WAKeele]

I miss MST3K!

[ilikeneurons]

I'm sure this is negligible, but carbon is released into the atmosphere by plants and animals... Cows, and humans, release a good amount of CH4 every time they fart.

[LilBola1]

Nope, not negligible 19% of all CH4 released is from cattle. So think twice when you decide between the fish or the steak.

[cattlewrangler]

Bullshit if that's the case global warming should have happened years ago.

[mdiem]

um... it did.

And it's still happening.

Look at the temperature trend over time compared to the increased CO2 output over time...

[Skjoldemand]

I find both the subtitles and the "blahblah" very exiting... Don't worry about that!

[greyflcn]

"Number I got here are from Nasa"

So where specifically can I get these numbers used?

Are these the numbers used?

nasa. gov/ centers/langley/news/researche­rnews/rn_carboncycle.html

[wonderingmind42]

Yeah. That's the graph I pulled the numbers from. If anybody has a better source for me, please send me a message directly to my YouTube account, letting me know.

[ExtremeMorphs]

I have to say its funny that anyone who posts a refute, can not justify, or prove with any facts. And the only people that have had valid problems with your video chastised minor discrepancies rather than your factual information. I have to say, I was a fence sitter until yesterday about global warming. This Video series is really important, and should get on Teli!

[wonderingmind42]

Please see the video description for a summary of a couple errors that commentors have caught.

[DavidSChandler]

The ratio of 300 million years to 200 years is 1.5 million. Let's say your line thickness representing 200 years is 1/2 cm (i.e. 0.005 m). 1.5 million of these is 7500 m, or 7.5 km, about 5 miles.

[hexusziggurat]

uh...your statement creates NO LESS concern for the issue

[DavidSChandler]

I agree. I am not disagreeing with the central thrust of your argument. I was just pointing out a problem in a detail so you would give a better example in the future.

[guffpot]

We are in basic agreement on experimentation and hypotheisis testing.

It's true in ideal laboratory conditions where we have devised an experiment to isolate the phenomenon we want to observe (like the famous Michaelson Morley test).

We don't have that for AGW. The best we can hope for is good quality empirical data. But good, consistent data is in short supply.

Is it not jumping the gun to act on (what is  essentially) a bunch of theoretical propositions? Could do more harm than good.

[raminile]

have you seen the Risk Management series he did?

[guffpot]

Something not quite right about emissions from volocanoes (I might have missed something, so please kleep me right).

0.2 Gte goes to sedimentation and I suppose on to subduction. (You have not shown a release from sedimentation).

Emissions from volcanoes would need to balance this with 0.2 Gte from year. If not, the Earth would be a net consumer of C and the C cycle would eventually fizzle out.

[wonderingmind42]

(1/2) guffpot: Yes, good point. Really I guess we should be contrasting the 200 years it takes to REALESE all that carbon to the time period it took to SEQUESTER them, which--as you point out--must be less than 300 million years. But I would wager is still much longer than 200 years, preserving the contrast I was ineptly trying to make. But then, I would simply be guessing. As would you, I suppose. This is why my main point is. . . (cont)

[wonderingmind42]

(2 of 2) guffpot: Why do we trust the scientists when they tell us that lead might be bad for us, or mercury, or MTBE, or saccharin, but not when they tell us carbon emissions might be bad for us? Where is the wisdom in ignoring the very clear warnings of AAAS, NAS, the Royal Society, USCAP, and even Royal Dutch Shell? To give your (or my) analysis of the science more weight than theirs is an extraordinary claim, and I think requires a better answer than some form of conspiracy theory.

[guffpot]

There is a difference - the things you mention can be verified by experiment.

Also, UK regulations make it difficult for untested remedies and unqualified practitioners to get through to the patient.

AGW is not testable. Even if there is a lot of expert opinion in support of it, I make some room for my own opinion. Part of that is (as you say) looking at both sides of the argument. Gets me to "undecided".

I'm not into conspiracy theories. I do suspect groupthink is at work.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Einstein was dismissed as a "patent Clerk" for a lot of years and in return Einstein thought George Lemaitre's "Big Bang" Theory was silly and to linked to his Creationist Ideals(Big Bang Theory's creator was a Catholic Priest).

And is Eggs good for you or bad? Seems the Scientist change there opinion on that every couple of years.

There is enough Real problems with Fossil Fuel Emmisions to reduce,clean,& even replace the technology from Acid Rain,Poisoning of wildlife,to mutations in our kids

[wonderingmind42]

guffpot: Again, I defer to the scientists. I tried to make the point in "The Nature of Science" that even whether an experiment "verifies" a hypothesis is subjective (criteria such as reproducibility, which statistical methods and metrics you use, alternate hypothesis, causation vs. correlation). So again, I don't trust your judgment as to what is valid science and what is not more than the judgment of the scientific community. Doesn't mean they're right. But it doesn't seem prudent to ignore.

[guffpot]

Taking your numbers:

0.2 Gte C goes to sediment each year.

That would be 60,000,000 Gte over 300 million years.

You estimate FF reserves at 3,300 Gte.

That's 0.0055% of 300 million years' carbon and should help my point that conditions for FF are relatively rare.

Again - presentation too alarmist

contd.

[guffpot]

See first couple of seconds of the vid:

"300 million years ... 1 thousand miles that way .. building up, building up, then phuff, it all comes out in one go ... all of it ... all of it ..."

That's Nonsense. FF reserves come from millions of years AGO - not the entire 300 million years.

They reflect fairly rare conditions  and a tiny portion of the C ordinarily within the C cycle.

contd.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Actually, Oil and Coal are carbon rich rock from deep earth that has been liquified by preasure and methane like 22 miles below the suface then seeps up to 1-5 miles below the surface near volcanos or where continents collide or part. Fossils from 300 million years ago can be found with minimum digging if not are just lying around from weather damage to the surface while Oil is 1 to 5 miles deep,though Dinosaurs to seem to get trapped in Tar pits (wait,aren't they the tar by consensus logic?)

[guffpot]

Swindle admitted errors in the original transmission and corrected them.

For the second time (so far as I have got) WM42 is being inconsistent with his "smiley face" for those prepared to change their mind.

Is that dogmatic? Or hypocritical? Or both!

[TempestStormwind]

Swindle left in a huge number of blatant errors even in later ones.

The discussion I linked (youtube com/watch?v=ZYlbvJEZA_4) is based off of the "international" version of the film, which is the fourth and most recent. The problems they raise are all ones that have remained.

Furthermore, Durkin (himself, in later parts of that interview) still maintains that the Swindle has "no flaws, no flaws, no flaws".

[guffpot]

That's fine Tempest. Let's move on from Swindle and focus on what we can and cannot prove.

To sum up so far, I see very little in the way of verifiable fact, proof or causality here. Pretty much what I expected - plenty of assertion, judgement, emotion and appeal to faceless expert opinion.

I come here armed with nothing more. The difference is that I retain the ability recognise the grounding of my belief.

This matters to me because I hate to see science being abused.

[TempestStormwind]

Wait, are you honestly saying we have no causal evidence for the greenhouse effect?

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from here.

[guffpot]

"are you honestly saying we have no causal evidence for the greenhouse effect?"

Nope.

[guffpot]

Problem I have here is same old tendency to inflate the issue and to make it alarmist.

NO - we're not about to release 300 M years' C in 200 years.

Can anybody else spot the flaw in what WM42 is trying to imply?

[TheRealArchAngel]

**Can anybody else spot the flaw in what WM42 is trying to imply?** To bend over to "Big Brother" and let him fuck us in the ass cause a bunch of Smart people told us to?....No, I truely think He believes the Democrat controlled Government can save us from Global Warming (though they can't even get us out of Iraq like they promised they would if we voted them in...lol). This boils down to the enviromentals trying to manipulate the masses with politics. Won't matter in 30 years.

[DeCapitator7]

People... don't listen to TheRealArchAngel. He is a climate skeptic who is trying to deceive you.

Just ignore him, arguing wont work because he avoids your opinion. He just uses irrelevant arguments. Of course you can easily defeat him in an argument, though he'll never admit defeat.

Remember what Wonderingmind42 says in "Your Mission". He thoroughly explains how to deal with these kinds of people.

[TheRealArchAngel]

I'm not a Climate Change Skeptic, in fact I hugged a tree not even a minute ago..lol. I do agree with fosil fuel combustion emmision regulation,control,and elimination because it causes poisoning,mutation,and diseases. I don't agree that Carbon Dioxide can absorb/reflect/irradiate more heat that the ground gives it (in any volume) as I actually wasn't snoozing in Science Class and learned that Carbon Dioxide is classified as a "refrigerant" cause it rapidly expands cooling the area when heated

[Cketzalcoatl]

damn those subtitles were distracting!

entertaining though...

[TheRealArchAngel]

"Don't know where 2 gigatons of Co2 goes" FYI There is "boon consumption" by plants and the earth regulates temperature and gasses by reabsorbing them via it's plates motions dragging them back deep into the earth. On the bad side the boon includes plankton in the Ocean which darkens it, which makes it asorb more heat to radiate back into the Atmosphere

[TheRealArchAngel]

Want to note that that There is way more Oil and Coal then there was life on earth and "spent wells" are slowly refilling and Oil and Coal are usually related to areas with Diamonds,gems,and Volcanic activity making modern scientist suspect that Oil and Coal is "lava rock" and not "Fossils"

[TheRealArchAngel]

Also, in the Cycle of Life Trees that Hibernate release all their CO2 adding to the circulating Co2, then recapture them when and if they Come Back and Fallen and dead trees release Co2 into the atmosphere on death.

[TheRealArchAngel]

The CO2 Cycle, Where Inert Co2 rides up with water vaopr during cloud formation is about 1% to 3% worldwide depending where and tempature blah,blah and is what rains on plants to feed them. the .036 and .04 is a little dubious difference as measurement tools vary, and inert CO2 never mixes with GHG in Air.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Permafrost,soil and just volume disputation also accounts for free CO2 not in the Oceans or mid circulation. Numbers don't add up because of that and the fact that Plants of all types will gorge on the "boon"

[greyflcn]

Says who?

greyfalcon. net/ fossilenergy.png

greyfalcon. net/ greenenergy.png

greyfalcon. net/ greenenergy

[TheRealArchAngel]

It's what I observed in the field in my years of data collection for creating experimental biospheres and "tera-forming" research. If we are going to "shake and Bake" a colony on another world we do need to know how this one works first,yes?...lol. Don't get me wrong, wonderingmind42 is fun to watch, and we need to look for cleaner technology if just to preserve what little oil we have left considering how much products from plastics to drugs are made from it and would be hard to replace.

[greyflcn]

Well then let me be more specific.

What makes you think that plant growth is linearly related to increasing CO2?

Since I'm pretty certain it's not.

Infact that it's actually an R curve, which we've already passed the inflection point.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Any Ecology,Meteorology or Botanist book. (You know actual scientific books and not the Environut "Bible")

[greyflcn]

Actually, text books rarely cut it when it comes to cutting edge science.

I prefer peer reviewed physical science journals, rather than "Books"

news-service. stanford. edu/ pr/02/jasperplots124.html

news. ucdavis. edu/ search/news_detail.lasso?id=59­94

news-service. stanford. edu/ news/2006/september13/pheno-09­1306.html

[TheRealArchAngel]

Like "Googling" on the Internet, you have to be wary of the information you get. Funniest thing that ever happened during a Environment Simulation was the "Climatologist" had almost a pure oxygen Atmosphere running and was wondering why his Forests and dry lands where keep on catching fire....lol. Just because you have a Degree in a field doesn't mean you "know everything" about it. Also beware of "confused science" and "junk Science" such as this Air heating via vibrating CO2"Microwave style"

[greyflcn]

Which is why it's nice when those are

1. Featured on University Websites

2. Backed up by published documents in peer reviewed physical science journals

"Junk Science" is the crap that isn't published in peer reviewed physical science journals.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Okay. please point me to a Scientific Journal that explains how total Carbon Dioxide which occupies .69 grams of 1300 grams of Air per cubic meter at Sea Level and .06 grams per cubic meter at the tippy top of of the troposphere around the Equator create a "even heat traping surplus" of 1.5f degree? CO2 has a "specific heat" of.846 Dry air is 1.005. Water vapor is 2.08 Explain why Deserts get so cold so quickly at night if CO2 is such a "good trapper of heat"? (Dry air with CO2,no water vapor)

[greyflcn]

==Explain why Deserts get so cold so quickly at night if CO2 is such a "good trapper of heat"? (Dry air with CO2,no water vapor)==

Well that part is easy.

CO2 doesn't trap heat. It reflects heat. Or more specifically it reirradiates heat.

The ocean on the other hand absorbs heat.

[TheRealArchAngel]

But wonderingmind42 and everyone talking about the "Magic of Green House Gases" say that they TRAP HEAT IN THE AIR and that is why increased Carbon Dioxide is "evil" and responsible for "Human induced Global Warming" at currently 750 billion tons in the air (as aposed to water vapors 13 trillion tons and the ability to make a long warm muggy night stick to your skin and clothes). Carbon Dioxide doesn't reflect heat, it expands which is why it's used as a alternative refrigerant to Freon.

[orphmet]

No, scientists say that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere by reradiating it back in when it is in the process of escaping.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Redirecting heat back to where? Heat always rises and cold always sinks under normal circumstances and now you are telling me that Carbon dioxide atoms act like little Kournikovas deflecting heat like metal deflects a Microwave instead of it's industrial use of rapidly expanding from exposure to heat which causes a refrigerant effect? LOL. By the way, "Environmental Science" is thought in the Philosophy branch of most Universities so "they" aren't "Scientist", they are "Theorist"

[orphmet]

No, heat doesn't always rise. Hot air and hot water rise over cooler air and water due to the density differences caused by the heat, but the heat itself goes in any and all directions when radiated.

And envi sci is not offered as a philosophy degree at any of the schools I've seen.  Heck, the envi. sci. degree I'm seeking is just two classes short of double majoring in envi. sci. and chemistry (and I'll bump it to a double major if it's possible in 4 years). Not a scientist, huh?

[TheRealArchAngel]

Well, just as Astronomy Majors learn a little Cosmology on the Side and Visa Versa, Climatology,Meteorology,Geolog­y,Ecology,and Botany tends to "borrow from each other". But just as I wouldn't call Stephen Hawkings a Astronomer, you can't call a Environmental Sciences Major a "Climatologist". Isn't the problem though. Problem is Carbon Dioxide is only Blames cause that "climatologist" told the Hippies Carbon Dioxide will "save us from Global Cooling" and doesn't cause it, to make them STFU.

[TheRealArchAngel]

And as far as you Hot/cold Air thing you need to recheck your Carbon Dioxide is causing Global Warming "Gospel" because acording to the "All knowing and Autoritive scientist" you are defering your life and wisdom to, Carbon Dioxide mixes with the air and Reflects or asorbs heat(depends which one you ask here) but if this where true wouldn't the Air reflect/asorb heat equally via the Magic of Carbon dioxide heating?

[greyflcn]

Well it doesn't reflect, thats merely just a way to dumb it down.

What it does is reirradiate heat.

Which is similar to reflection, but different.

[TheRealArchAngel]

No, doesn't reflect, reirradiate, or absorb heat. Just as Jesus "walked on water" in the Bible story to "show his power" so to is this Environut Myth giving Carbon Dioxide these "magical powers" to make it "evil"...lol

Carbon Dioxide expands in the presence of heat.rapidly enough out of a spigot of a pressurized tank to turn into "Dry Ice", and rapid enough in piping to be used as a Save Freon alternative in Air conditioning and Refrigeration

[Tastentier]

I recommend watching "How It All Ends: Risk Management", especially part 3, to hear and see what the consensus of the scientific community on this issue is. I thought just like you before I started watching this video series, based on misinformation.

[Tastentier]

I mean, my former opinion was based on misinformation. Not these videos. They even encourage you to do your own research instead of blindly believing one source.

[TheRealArchAngel]

I watched all the Videos,& he is a very good teacher and captivating speaker.Diverting to Authority for facts and thumping on reports made for political reasons,& preaching the Environmental Science Gospel of the "evils" of Carbon Dioxide instead of using "Hard Science" & depending on politicians to pull an answer out of their ass to fix our problems are the only problem I have with the Series,otherwise he did good.Consumer demand determine what kind of Cars Industry builds, not the governments

[Tastentier]

The argument by authority is pretty solid if those authorities are most qualified to judge an issue. The AAAS and the NAS are not just two authorities but a vast number of individual authorities who thoroughly peer-review their work before it gets published. That's what convinced me - I used to think there's no real consensus in the scientific community, but obviously there is. Btw, are you a legitimate authority on the subject?

[Bozeman42]

If "heat always rises" and "cold always sinks" How do we get heat from the sun "way up there"? It has to somehow come "down". You are talking about things that tend to happen with cold AIR and hot AIR. Heat has other forms. Radiation (and I'm not talking about NUCLEAR radiation which some of your comments seem to think we're implying. Radiation in this context only sounds sinister to the naive.)

[greyflcn]

But thats the trick.

The ammount of water vapor in the troposphere is a function of the tropospheric temperature caused by other forcings.

Not the other way around.

_

This is largely because the residency time of water vapor is so short, and because when you cool down water vapor it readily condenses back into a liquid and "rains out".

[TheRealArchAngel]

So you accept that inert water vapor "rains out" but are saying circulatory Caron Dioxide which is inert Carbon dioxide that rides up with preciptation and that every water vapor somehow magically clings to the Air instead falling back down with the rain or by itself once free from water vapor?

[greyflcn]

==So you accept that inert water vapor "rains out" but are saying circulatory Caron Dioxide which is inert Carbon dioxide that rides up with preciptation and that every water vapor somehow magically clings to the Air instead falling back down with the rain or by itself once free from water vapor?==

Saying that CO2 stays up in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, rather than just a few days? Yes.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Okay. How does Carbon Dioxide, a Gas 5x Heavier then the Composite Gas "Air",manage to mix with "Air' and stay up there without going back inert? Also, Why is Carbon dioxide use as a Coolent in industry via it rapidly expanding in heat and when forced through a spigot it turns to "Dry Ice" and not "Lava" from the presured tank to room tempature? (Surely it be better as some sort of reflective insulation if it actually magically "reflected" or "asorbed" Heat like your Gospel teaches)

[greyflcn]

Less pressure + temperature change is required to turn water into a liquid, than carbon dioxide into a liquid.

As for Carbon Dioxide used for cooling. Thats generally called "dry ice". Consider this. When you have water on your hand, and it evaporates. You hand gets cooler. However the surrounding air actually gets warmer, since it's accepting the heat that is no longer on your hand.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Have you seen how dry Ice is made? All it is is a spigot attached to a pressurized Tank of Carbon Dioxide. Rapidly entering "room temperature" from it's pressurized state causes the Carbon Dioxide to Freeze making "dry ice". In Cooling systems Carbon Dioxide in piping rapidly expands when exposed to the heat exchange causing it to COOL. In the Atmosphere Inert Carbon Dioxide COOOLS the Air then drops out when temperatures come down(just as the Environuts originally thought,just not as extreme)

[whoahohoho]

Ocean water Gradully warms up over summer and gradully cools down over winter. That's why the ocean water feels so warm in the winter and cool in the summer. I just learned that in my junior high school a few days ago. and if you want to prove me wrong( which you can't archangle) Go to research websites like wikipedia.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Uhmhuh. The Ocean is a Major "heat sink" and temperature regulator, not Carbon Dioxide which have been given it's "magical properties" of Deflection,reflection,and abortion (and sometimes "irradiation")of heat to prove it's "evil" and must be stopped before it causes the Tree huggers version of "Armageddon"

[TheRealArchAngel]

Carbon Dioxide actually Expands in the presence of heat, and if pressurized and released to room tempature via a spigot, it rapidly expands to "Dry Ice". In alternative cooling systems and Air Conditioners the Carbon dioxide is pressurised and released in succesion to cause a "cooling efect". In the Air Carbon Dioxide, in reality, Expands in heat and helps Cool the Atmosphrere by rapidly expanding then Condenses and drops out of the Atmosphere when tempatures go down (or falls with rain).

[hrdwrkstudent]

Thanks for your hardwork producing these videos dude.

[bruce20705]

I learn in my geology class, that erosion and leaching of rocks absorbs carbon dioxide. Some scientist suggest that the creation of mountains in the past have lead the world to cool, through the absorbtion of Co2.

Thought it was a fun fact, to share.

[aurelia314159]

Here is a quick computation to investigate the question further, using the simple technique of dimensional analysis:

1. According to the Wikipedia article "lung volumes," the average volume of a normal breath, or tidal volume, is about 0.5 L/breath

[aurelia314159]

2. According to the Wiki article "respiratory rates," the average breath rate is 20 breaths per minute for a healthy adult. (It is higher for children, so I chose the highest estimate for adults -- the lowest is 10).

[aurelia314159]

3. Multiply the numbers is (1) and (2). The result is a volumetric breath rate of (0.5 L/breath)(20 breath/min) = 10 L/min for an average adult.

[aurelia314159]

4. The fraction of CO2 by volume in fresh air is about 385 ppm, or 0.0385%, or 3.85e-4. The fraction of CO2 by volume in the air exhaled by a human is 4.5% or 4.5e-2. Both of these figures come from the Wiki article "Carbon dioxide," under the headings "in the Earth's atmosphere" and "animal toxicity," respectively.

[aurelia314159]

5. The total amount of CO2 in the air is about 800 Gt (gigatons), or 8e11 tons. This figure comes from the Wiki article "Carbon dioxide."

6. Multiply the number in (3) by the difference of the numbers in (4) to get the volumetric rate of CO2 emission for one person: (10 L/min)(4.5e-2 -- 3.85e-4) = 0.45 L/min

[aurelia314159]

7. The molecular mass of a CO2 molecule is (using a periodic table): 12 g/mol + 2(16 g/mol) = 44 g/mol.

8. At standard temperature and pressure, CO2 gas has a density of 1.98 kg/m^3 (See Wiki article "Carbon dioxide"). This is equal to 1.98e-3 kg/L because 1 m^3 = 1000 L.

9. Multiply (6) by (8) to get the mass rate of CO2 emission for one person: (0.45 L/min)(1.98e-3 kg/L) = 8.9e-4 kg/min

[aurelia314159]

10. Convert the figure in (9) to kg per year: (8.9e-4 kg/min)(60 min/h)(24 h/d)(365.25 d/yr) = 470 kg/yr per person.

11. Convert the figure in (10) to tons per year: (470 kg/yr)(0.001 t/kg) = 0.47 t/yr.

12. The world population in 2005 (acc. to Wiki article "human population") was about 6.5 billion, so multiply (11) by this number to get: (6.5e9)(0.47 t/yr) = 3.1e9 t/yr, or 3.1 Gt/yr

[aurelia314159]

13. Comparing the figures in (5) and (12), we see that human emission of CO2 due to respiration in 2005 was about 3.9% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course, I did not take the rest of the biosphere or the oceans into account -- this computation followed from some basic research and dimensional analysis.

[aurelia314159]

14. Because this amount is cancelled by plants, it is important to compare this figure with CO2 emission from other human activities. I drive a 1995 Dodge Intrepid 29 miles to work each way according to Mapquest. Multiply 58 miles by 260 workdays in a year to get 15,800 miles, and round up to 20,000 mi/yr to include all my other trips.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Well the real contradiction is that, like wonderingmind42 mentions, the earth's natrual cycle has never put "ghg CO2" above 300parts per million yet the Climate worldwide has swung from 900 degrees F to Absolute Zero in the last 4 billion years yet Envoronuts are saying Man released CO2 passing 300ppm has thrown the tempature off by 1 degree? What the Fuck? Considering any given thermometer has a +/- 5 degree margin of error, and even the best can be 2 degrees off either way, this is just funny

[TempestStormwind]

Okay, this one's just silly.

1) Any given thermometer doesn't have an error that vast. There is experimental error, but from enough sources that impact can be reduced.

2) I'd LOVE to see your evidence for "900 degrees F to Absolute Zero in the last 4 billion years". I presume you have some?

3) There is no difference between CO2 and CO2. No need to denote it as "GHG CO2", as CO2's a greenhouse gas.

4) CO2's radiative forcing is logarithmic, not linear. (I'm out of room, look that point up.)

[TheRealArchAngel]

1) Duh

2) You know, I really think this is along the line of you being a Religious fanatic and no matter how many times I tell you that you been brainwashed, and no matter how much proof I present you are never going to believe me that you have been misinformed...lol

3) It's measured the same on any given CDM unit, so yes, but no on Inert CO2 magically staying up in the Air or changing the properties of Air

4) Point is Inert Co2 can't mix with the Air let alone float above it to "trap" heat.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Okay. How does inert Co2 released by humans magically mix with the composite Gas known as "Air"'s Co2 blended into it? (Been a while since I been in school but this video gave me the giggles, as does any global warming documentry where the "Climatologiist" is obviously a hippy or tree hugger spouting "junk science")

[aurelia314159]

How do gasses mix? Look up "diffusion" on Wikipedia for the answer. This process is the reason you can smell delicious food from across the room.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Inert Co2 is 5x hevier then Air or the "GHG" Co2 blended into it attached to the water vapor suspended in it. it's why there is "Smog" on trade windless days or "vog" here in Hawaii when the trade winds dont counter the volcanoes co2 output. Only way the CO2 gets into the Atmosphere is by raising with water vapor in the parcipitation cycles though a good percentage of excess Co2 raises also giving the .0030% - .0047% Co2 reading depending where and when you take a air Sample with the CDM

[TheRealArchAngel]

**This process is the reason you can smell delicious food from across the room** yes. but is the Air forever more a % Egg fu Young debrie or a % of essence of Cinnibon? No. Problem is the heat from the Sun is "Trapped" in the rocks,earth,and Ocean then warms the Atmosphere via Convection..not that heat bounces off the ground deflects off the top of the atmosphere and Co2 magically traps heat..lol. What Hokey ass "Science" that is. Now there is darker Oceans & more Oceans asorbing more Heat so..

[orphmet]

The heat indeed doesn't bounce. Just as you said, it enters a substance and is reradiated via convection. Now here's the part to pay attention to: Just as the heat may be taken up by a rock and reradiated out, the heat is taken up by CO2 molecules and reradiated out in all directions. So heat travelling out can easily be absorbed and reradiated back to Earth by atmospheric CO2 molecules. In short, the greenhouse effect is nothing more than the convection of heat "trapped" by atmospheric CO2

[orphmet]

That was directed at TheRealArchAngel's comment from 2 weeks ago. I don't know why it wasn't posted as a reply. :-\

[TheRealArchAngel]

It's hit and miss as far as where the post ends up...lol.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Ah, then By the logic of thermal dynamics of the "environmentalist gospel" the Air in a Oven is heated by the Co2 in it and if we grab some air and stick it in any given house oven and set it to,say, 375F to bake cookies a independent thermometer will read 376.5f?

I remember my Comptuer Biosphere Simulation days..you either raise the darkness of the Oceans via a plankton boom to cause Global warming, or stop the Sea currents between the tropics & the Poles with fresh water to cause a Ice Age.

[orphmet]

No, the oven is heated by, surprise, the heating mechanism of the oven.

The earth is heated by the heating mechanism of the Earth (the sun).

Interestingly enough, though, the glass of the oven works exactly like the CO2 in the atmosphere. The glass traps the heat in the oven much like it does in a car on a sunny day. Similarly, GHGs absorb heat (infrared light) as it exits the atmosphere and instead lets it off (reradiates it) in all directions, sending some back to Earth.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Ah. But the Medium in the Oven is the same medium in the Atmosphere..."Air". So by what you have been thought, if I were to release Carbon Dioxide into my oven at home via baking soda mixed with citric acid and water the Oven set at 375f should raise up to at least 376.5f if not more because of the Carbon Dioxide concentration changing the properties of the Air in the Oven?

[orphmet]

CO2 doesn't inject energy into a closed system, succh as your oven would be (for theoretical sake). Instead, it "reflects" a portion of the energy escaping an open system (i.e. the earth's atmosphere) back into the system as it is escaping.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Again, why does the Desert Freezing with no humidity at night if Carbon Dioxide a component of "air" is there to "reflect" the heat. Surely cause it is causing "global warming" of 1.5f degrees according to your "Gospel" that it can "reflect" some of the heat from atom to atom from the other side of the world to equalize the tempatures so everywhere needn't be cold...lol. Likewise, how is wheather generated if Carbon DIoxide, as a "constant reflector" would, according to the "Gospel" heat evenly?

[TheRealArchAngel]

If you pressurize Carbon Dioxide, like in CO2 canisters, it is cool to the touch. If you run it out of a spiget you make "Dry Ice", you drop the "dry ice" into Water and it turns into a "spooky fog" that hugs the ground as Inert CO2 is 5x heavier then "Air" and if you shine a spot light on the fog it doesn't turn into a "inferno" but the "fog" runs away. When expose to heat Co2 rapidly expands like the spiget thing and thus is used as a "Coolant". This "Heat Deflection/asorbtion" thing is Silly

[orphmet]

And at this point I have concluded that you are noting more than a fool with an agenda.

For one thing, no self-respecting scientist would call carbon dioxide "Co2" as you so often do as that would appear more to be cobalt (II) than carbon dioxide.

Secondly, all you do is talk about your "simulations" that never worked out. Of course they never worked out: You never worked on them (or if you did, you just used crappy home brewed ones.)

[orphmet]

So let me just saw my last few words to you:

You are blatantly twisting the facts in order to meet your ends. You are intentionally deceptive and provide nothing but misinformation.

From here on out, I will make sure to negatively rate all of your comments and mark them as spam. I will reply to them directly statiung that they are nothing more than agenda pushing lies that should not be heeded by anyone.

Have a good one, man.

[TheRealArchAngel]

Aw.I feel so "Unwanted" now..not. In 20 years the "collective Consensus" will change,especially when CO2 is "zeroed out" and GW is still "Mysteriously happening". The politicians will tax,fine,and regulate like they always do,but without COnsumers willing to pay for the "Greener option" Gas will make $8 a gallon in the next 10 years & as "greener options" take root Gas cars could be "dumped" which could make choice harder ($40,000 Electric v.s. $2000 gas car with gas now 5 cents a gallon?..hmmm)

[ckottcky]

Why would animals not add to the CO2 emissions? Multi-celled life (or at least most of it) exhales CO2 last I heard; so I am not following.

[ffakr]

They do, but not that much. Plants balance animal output. Consider this: You are in a 15'^2 room [door/win closed] with 20 people.. no CO2 poisoning. You are in same room alone with a running car. 2nd example, you die. It's a matter of scale.

[ckottcky]

Fair enough. But at the same time the results would be very different in an air tight room. Anyway, that is not really important, the point I am getting across is that I find it odd that animal and human exhaling is so small as to not even merit mentioning. (also it is CO poisoning with the car example, but same difference).

[greendracobob]

As ffakr said, CO2 emissions in the natural world are balanced by the O2 emissions of the natural world. They are related to each other. Industry put out a lot more in a very short amount of time.

[exusian]

It's not that they are too small to mention, it's that they cancel out. Exhaled CO2 comes from metabolizing nutrients, which came from plants, or animals that ate plants, which got the CO2 from the atmosphere. Same CO2 in, same Co2 out.

[iiopen]

The problem - like he says - is in the time scale. This is a cancellation in the short term carbon cycle. We've altered the long term carbon cycle by taking carbon that has been sequestered over 300 million years and belched it into the atmosphere in the blink af a geological eye.

[TheBlueStateDOTcom]

VERY well done!!!