A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CO2 and global warming



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #311  
Old October 19th 04, 11:03 AM
Thomas Lee Elifritz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

October 19, 2004

Scott Lowther wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Ah... CO2 *isn't* dirty. It's a vital trace gas. If you really want to
wipe out "greenhosue gasses," do something about all that water vapor.
Far more prevalent than CO2, and a much bigger effect.


CO2 is a *critical* trace gas, it
doesn't usually evaporate, condense or solidify in and out of our
atmosphere.


Correct. It is converted into plants and oxygen.


And too much of it poisons the air, especially when there are not enough
plants to remove it. Even slightly too much of it causes warming of the
Earth, especially if the sinks are saturated and the increase of it continues
unabated. The climate changes from the resulting weather pattern changes. The
weather becomes more unpredictable and weather fluctuations become more
extreme. These changes are well documented, as are a plethora of other bad
side effects of global warming. That is the subject of this thread, if you
haven't noticed.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

  #312  
Old October 19th 04, 11:08 AM
Martin Frey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott Lowther wrote:

And, it appears that if you really want to make the air cleaner, break
out a chainsaw and cut down some trees:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996526
New trees cancel out air pollution cuts

Industry has dramatically cut its emissions of pollutants, called
volatile organic compounds. But those cuts have been more than offset by
the amount of VOCs churned out by trees.


Oh ****. We're all doomed. I'll read the article this evening, but it
does seem odd that trees are now turning lethal when for most of
history there have been so many more of them than there are now.

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http//:www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------
  #313  
Old October 19th 04, 01:45 PM
Scott Lowther
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Martin Frey wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:


And, it appears that if you really want to make the air cleaner, break
out a chainsaw and cut down some trees:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996526
New trees cancel out air pollution cuts

Industry has dramatically cut its emissions of pollutants, called
volatile organic compounds. But those cuts have been more than offset by
the amount of VOCs churned out by trees.


Oh ****. We're all doomed. I'll read the article this evening, but it
does seem odd that trees are now turning lethal when for most of
history there have been so many more of them than there are now.



Actually, the US now has more trees than when Columbus showed up.

  #314  
Old October 19th 04, 01:47 PM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Martin Frey wrote:

Oh ****. We're all doomed. I'll read the article this evening, but it
does seem odd that trees are now turning lethal when for most of
history there have been so many more of them than there are now.


Smog formation requires both VOCs and NOx; NOx ia largely man made.

It's been known since the 1980s (at least) that trees are a significant,
even dominant, source of VOCs (weighted by reactivity) in some
places (around Atlanta, for example).

The implication of this is that pollution control measures should focus
on NOx emissions from powerplants and engines rather than (just)
VOC emissions. Unfortunately NOx is harder to control.

Paul
  #315  
Old October 19th 04, 01:48 PM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott Lowther wrote:

Actually, the US now has more trees than when Columbus showed up.


I don't believe that's the case. The factoid that anti-greens like
to present is that the US has more trees than 100 years ago, but that's
because that was the low point after massive deforestation of the eastern US.

Paul
  #316  
Old October 19th 04, 02:07 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:45:08 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Actually, the US now has more trees than when Columbus showed up.


That seems quite unlikely. New England has more trees than it did
during colonial times, but I'm sure that the US as a whole has been
quite deforested relative to pre-Columbian times (though there is no
shortage of trees here).
  #317  
Old October 19th 04, 04:56 PM
Thomas Lee Elifritz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

October 19, 2004

Scott Lowther wrote:

Actually, the US now has more trees than when Columbus showed up.


It's not the quantity of trees, it's the quality and distribution. Read the
article, it's certain trees and scrub brush which increase the VOCs. It's
also the VOC distribution, I can't imagine that petroleum and solvent VOCs
would be exactly the same as naturally and biologically emitted VOCs, or have
the same physiological effect. Terpenes and isoprenes vs. chlorinated
solvents?

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0502/et0502s10.html
http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/strate...irquality.html

"While it is important to be aware of VOC contributions from trees and
vegetation, the air quality
improvements gained from direct pollutant removal, reduced energy use and
power plant emissions, slower rates of ground-level ozone formation from lower
air temperatures, and other benefits generally outweigh the negative impact of
biogenic emissions."

Plants emit these things for a reason.

You've got a brain, big guy, start using it.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net


  #318  
Old October 19th 04, 08:52 PM
Dick Morris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...


Martin Frey wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:


And, it appears that if you really want to make the air cleaner, break
out a chainsaw and cut down some trees:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996526
New trees cancel out air pollution cuts

Industry has dramatically cut its emissions of pollutants, called
volatile organic compounds. But those cuts have been more than offset by
the amount of VOCs churned out by trees.


Oh ****. We're all doomed. I'll read the article this evening, but it
does seem odd that trees are now turning lethal when for most of
history there have been so many more of them than there are now.



Actually, the US now has more trees than when Columbus showed up.

You need to be more careful who you believe, because that is totally false.
It's one of Rush Limbaugh's more egregious lies. (Almost everything the
right says about environmental issues is a lie.)



  #319  
Old October 20th 04, 09:54 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In sci.space.policy Scott Lowther wrote:

Actually, the US now has more trees than when Columbus showed up.


Its simply the latest installment of your utter bull****.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
  #320  
Old October 20th 04, 09:56 PM
William Clodius
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Scott Lowther wrote in message ...
Martin Frey wrote:


I don't think anybody denied poor=dirty. Scott Lowther was attempting
to deny that rich=dirty by pretending that, in this context, CO2 is
not dirty.



Ah... CO2 *isn't* dirty. It's a vital trace gas. If you really want to
wipe out "greenhosue gasses," do something about all that water vapor.
Far more prevalent than CO2, and a much bigger effect.
snip


Unfortunately fro that argument, water vapor is a source of positive
feedback mechanism for any source of climate change. Anything tha
tends to warm the atmosphere, warms the oceans, which in turn
increases water vapor in the atmosphere, which in turn increases the
grrenhouse effect. (Similarly anythiing that tends to cool the earth
tends to decrease waater vapor which in turn decreases the greenhouse
effect.) Estimates of the isolated effects of doubling CO2 (without
including feedback) are small, 1K, the higher effects, 1K, that are
most often reported are due to models that include feedback
mechanisms. Much of the uncertainty in these estimate is due to the
large uncertainties in some of these feedback mechanism, particularly
clouds and vegetation, but also the detailed changes in water vapor
amounts.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.