|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#231
March 29th 06, 11:35 AM
posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
|
|||
|
|||
Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y
In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: :In article , : Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: : ::In article , :: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: :: :::In article , ::: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: ::: ::::In article , :::: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: :::: :::::In article , ::::: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: ::::: ::::::Then why hasn't the current level caused accelerated plant growth :and ::kept the ::::::level from growing? ::::: :::::Then why doesn't the rate of growth of the 'current level' correlate :::::to human output? ::::: :::::Sinks -- plants, oceans. But they obviously are not absorbing it all. :::: ::::Yep. It's called 'dynamic equilibrium'. You claim to teach ::::chemistry. Go look it up. :::: ::::If we were in equilibrium, CO2 wouldn't be increasing. You look that :up. ::: :::You don't know what the word 'dynamic' means? ::: :::Yes. A is going to B and B is going to A; the overall system isn't :changing :::however. As opposed to 'static' equilibrium, in which neither A nor B is ::doing :::anything. Two rocks are pretty much in static equilibrium; N2 and H2 in :::equilibrium with NH3 is a dynamic equilibrium. :: ::And what happens when you pour in more of one species? OVER TIME the ::other species change and equilibrium recurs. :: ::Yes, but you don't get the original concentrations -- e.g., if you add N2, ::some but not all of it is converted to NH3. Even if you assume CO2 is in ::equilibrium (a dubious assumption), not all of it the added CO2 will get :taken ::up. : :How do you know? : :Because if NH3 increases and N2 comes back to the same, Q is no longer equal :to K -- you're no longer at equilibrium. You're stretching an analogy all out of shape, Lloyd. No, this is the explanation of equilibrium in any freshman text book. :If you're going to discuss equilibrium, pick up a gen chem book and read about :it first. I hardly need to, since I studied all that stuff decades ago, back when I was a chem major. That's why I know you're such a blithering idiot as a chem prof. Yeah, sure. So did you forget all the stuff about equilibrium, or did you never learn it in the first place? ::Even your quite simple ::example should make it plain to you why your silly insistence that "if ::plants could absorb it they already would and we wouldn't see ::anything" is stupid. :: ::Let me try here. :: ::Suppose we have a system that will monitor the pH of a solution and ::add base whenever the solution becomes acidic. The rate at which the ::system can add base is, of course, limited, and let us further suppose ::that the feedback loop of the response system is not instantaneous. :: ::Now start adding acid to the solution. The solution will become ::acidic, even though there is a feedback system in place that will make ::it neutral over time because there is a time lag in the feedback ::mechanism. If you add acid at an increasing rate, the solution will ::stay acidic even though much of the acid is being neutralized and the ::rate at which base is being added will also accelerate. If you slow ::the rate at which acid is being added, the feedback system will 'catch ::up' and perhaps even overshoot, driving the system to be base. :: ::This is what we see with plant growth and atmospheric CO2. Now that's ::a simple enough explanation that I would expect even a high school ::freshman to be able to get it. :: ::I don't expect you to. :: :::::As someone just pointed out, plant growth IS accelerating. Why's :that :::::happening and do you seriously think it has no effect? ::::: :::::Yet plant growth cannot even absorb all the added CO2 humans are  utting:  ut:::::now. :::: ::::How do you arrive at that conclusion? :::: :::  uh, the fact that CO2 is up 30%?::: :::Duh. Meaningless statement. You claim to be a scientist. Tell us :::why it's a meaningless statement. ::: :::Gee, Fred, since you seem to be all-knowing, why don't you tell us. :: ::Obvious to anyone with two brain cells, Lloyd, but you apparently ::don't understand it. CO2 is up 30% OVER WHAT TIME PERIOD? What was ::human CO2 output doing during this same period? :: ::It's well known that there all sinks which are absorbing some of the added ::CO2. But nobody who looks at the science thinks all the added CO2 will ever ::be absorbed (OK, maybe on a million-years time scale). : :Why is that? After all, the CO2 is coming from somewhere, isn't it? : :Yes, from burning fossil fuels. That CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere :millions of years ago, and the atmosphere CO2 reached a new equilibrium. Now :we're adding that CO2 back to it. And where did it come from in the first place and how did it get all tied up in fossil fuels again? Something about uptake and sequestration by plants and animals, perhaps? Yes, millions of years ago, so the atmosphere came to a new equilibrium. It cannot come to one in 100 years. :So far, your case is as weak as the one you argue against. All you :have is your own assertion, which, given your past record, is pretty :questionable as a reliable source. : :No, my case is based on science. I suggest you read about equilibrium in a :good gen chem textbook. Your case is based on having your head firmly up and locked. I'd suggest you read up on equilibrium in that same sort of book. I can suggest a few, if you'd like. Since you don't understand LeChatlier's principle, I doubt you could suggest anything scientific. ::Until you have the details, it's just bumper sticker 'thinking'. ::Unfortunately, that seems to be the level at which you operate, so you ::do more damage to your own causes among people who actually think than ::someone who opposes your positions ever could. :: :::::Why do you think it will in the future? :::: ::::Who said I did? Why do you think it can't or won't? :::: ::::Read up on dynamic equilibria, examine the rate of CO2 output by year, ::::and then try engaging your brain. :::: ::::CO2 is increasing -- fact. Therefore, plants are not absorbing all the ::CO2 :: ::See above. Anyone with any intelligence at all ought to recognize ::just how fallacious your statements are at this point. :: ::You won't. See what I mean? 
|
|
#232
March 29th 06, 06:31 PM
posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y
In sci.space.policy Joe Jared wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:56:09 +0000, Coby Beck wrote: : It is not. Check for your self from Mauna Loa records. : :Yes, do. :http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ : :It is. Looks pretty linear to me. Linear means it goes up by the same amount each year. "Pretty linear" qualifies in this short term case. A simple Least Squares linear regression would plot very close to the center of the black sequence and would likely plot through the center of the red sinusoidal pattern. Not to sound Neanderthal, but just placing a thin straw over the black line proves that. Here's a longer trend. http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.php It's hard to say, there's a slight upward curve.
|
|
#233
March 30th 06, 03:40 PM
posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y
|
|
#234
March 30th 06, 04:33 PM
posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y
In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: :In article , : Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: : ::In article , :: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: :: :::In article , ::: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: ::: ::::In article , :::: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: :::: :::::In article , ::::: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: ::::: ::::::In article , :::::: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: :::::: :::::::Then why hasn't the current level caused accelerated plant growth ::and :::kept the :::::::level from growing? :::::: ::::::Then why doesn't the rate of growth of the 'current level' :correlate ::::::to human output? :::::: ::::::Sinks -- plants, oceans. But they obviously are not absorbing it :all. ::::: :::::Yep. It's called 'dynamic equilibrium'. You claim to teach :::::chemistry. Go look it up. ::::: :::::If we were in equilibrium, CO2 wouldn't be increasing. You look that ::up. :::: ::::You don't know what the word 'dynamic' means? :::: ::::Yes. A is going to B and B is going to A; the overall system isn't ::changing ::::however. As opposed to 'static' equilibrium, in which neither A nor B is :::doing ::::anything. Two rocks are pretty much in static equilibrium; N2 and H2 in ::::equilibrium with NH3 is a dynamic equilibrium. ::: :::And what happens when you pour in more of one species? OVER TIME the :::other species change and equilibrium recurs. ::: :::Yes, but you don't get the original concentrations -- e.g., if you add N2, :::some but not all of it is converted to NH3. Even if you assume CO2 is in :::equilibrium (a dubious assumption), not all of it the added CO2 will get ::taken :::up. :: ::How do you know? :: ::Because if NH3 increases and N2 comes back to the same, Q is no longer equal ::to K -- you're no longer at equilibrium. : :You're stretching an analogy all out of shape, Lloyd. : :No, this is the explanation of equilibrium in any freshman text book. Now add something that forms an insoluble compound with one of the species in solution while increasing another (the way an increase in plants would sequester carbon while adding oxygen). Yes, if I have N2 + 3 H2 = 2 NH3 and I add water, which dissolves NH3, the eq. shifts to the right to make more NH3. But that's not what is happening; we're adding more CO2 (like adding more N2 or H2). That is what is causing the eq. to shift, not something taking up a component. If so, we'd see a lowering of the CO2 and we're seeing an increase. You need to stop thinking like you're a high school kid, Lloyd. ::If you're going to discuss equilibrium, pick up a gen chem book and read about ::it first. : :I hardly need to, since I studied all that stuff decades ago, back :when I was a chem major. That's why I know you're such a blithering :idiot as a chem prof. : :Yeah, sure. So did you forget all the stuff about equilibrium, or did you :never learn it in the first place? Have you stopped raping little boys yet or are you continuing to do so? :::Even your quite simple :::example should make it plain to you why your silly insistence that "if :::plants could absorb it they already would and we wouldn't see :::anything" is stupid. ::: :::Let me try here. ::: :::Suppose we have a system that will monitor the pH of a solution and :::add base whenever the solution becomes acidic. The rate at which the :::system can add base is, of course, limited, and let us further suppose :::that the feedback loop of the response system is not instantaneous. ::: :::Now start adding acid to the solution. The solution will become :::acidic, even though there is a feedback system in place that will make :::it neutral over time because there is a time lag in the feedback :::mechanism. If you add acid at an increasing rate, the solution will :::stay acidic even though much of the acid is being neutralized and the :::rate at which base is being added will also accelerate. If you slow :::the rate at which acid is being added, the feedback system will 'catch :::up' and perhaps even overshoot, driving the system to be base. ::: :::This is what we see with plant growth and atmospheric CO2. Now that's :::a simple enough explanation that I would expect even a high school :::freshman to be able to get it. ::: :::I don't expect you to. ::: ::::::As someone just pointed out, plant growth IS accelerating. Why's that ::::::happening and do you seriously think it has no effect? :::::: ::::::Yet plant growth cannot even absorb all the added CO2 humans are putting out ::::::now. ::::: :::::How do you arrive at that conclusion? ::::: :::: uh, the fact that CO2 is up 30%?:::: ::::Duh. Meaningless statement. You claim to be a scientist. Tell us ::::why it's a meaningless statement. :::: ::::Gee, Fred, since you seem to be all-knowing, why don't you tell us. ::: :::Obvious to anyone with two brain cells, Lloyd, but you apparently :::don't understand it. CO2 is up 30% OVER WHAT TIME PERIOD? What was :::human CO2 output doing during this same period? ::: :::It's well known that there all sinks which are absorbing some of the added :::CO2. But nobody who looks at the science thinks all the added CO2 will ever :::be absorbed (OK, maybe on a million-years time scale). :: ::Why is that? After all, the CO2 is coming from somewhere, isn't it? :: ::Yes, from burning fossil fuels. That CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere ::millions of years ago, and the atmosphere CO2 reached a new equilibrium. Now ::we're adding that CO2 back to it. : :And where did it come from in the first place and how did it get all :tied up in fossil fuels again? Something about uptake and :sequestration by plants and animals, perhaps? : :Yes, millions of years ago, so the atmosphere came to a new equilibrium. It :cannot come to one in 100 years. How do you know? Because it hasn't in 150 years? Why is it that you think the equilibrium can be driven one direction in the short term but not the other? The driving force is the addition of CO2. That's what threw the system out of eq. Nature isn't sensitive to your politics, Lloyd. If it can be moved one direction it can be moved the other. Yes, if the earth encountered something that removed massive amts of CO2, it'd throw us out of eq. in the other direction. But that hasn't happened. ::So far, your case is as weak as the one you argue against. All you ::have is your own assertion, which, given your past record, is pretty ::questionable as a reliable source. :: ::No, my case is based on science. I suggest you read about equilibrium in a ::good gen chem textbook. : :Your case is based on having your head firmly up and locked. I'd :suggest you read up on equilibrium in that same sort of book. I can :suggest a few, if you'd like. : :Since you don't understand LeChatlier's principle, I doubt you could suggest :anything scientific. You seem to be the one who doesn't understand it. I'm the one arguing that it applies IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. Only if you apply a stress on both sides. We've only applied one to one side: CO2(atm) = CO2(sinks) We've added CO2 to the atm. :::Until you have the details, it's just bumper sticker 'thinking'. :::Unfortunately, that seems to be the level at which you operate, so you :::do more damage to your own causes among people who actually think than :::someone who opposes your positions ever could. ::: ::::::Why do you think it will in the future? ::::: :::::Who said I did? Why do you think it can't or won't? ::::: :::::Read up on dynamic equilibria, examine the rate of CO2 output by year, :::::and then try engaging your brain. ::::: :::::CO2 is increasing -- fact. Therefore, plants are not absorbing all the :::CO2 ::: :::See above. Anyone with any intelligence at all ought to recognize :::just how fallacious your statements are at this point. ::: :::You won't. : :See what I mean? Again, see what I mean?
|
|
#235
March 31st 06, 05:08 AM
posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y
|
|
#236
March 31st 06, 03:22 PM
posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y
In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: :In article , : Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: : ::In article , :: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: :: :::In article , ::: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: ::: ::::In article , :::: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: :::: :::::In article , ::::: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: ::::: ::::::In article , :::::: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: :::::: :::::::In article , ::::::: Fred J. McCall wrote: (Lloyd Parker) wrote: ::::::: ::::::::Then why hasn't the current level caused accelerated plant growth and kept the ::::::::level from growing? ::::::: :::::::Then why doesn't the rate of growth of the 'current level' correlate :::::::to human output? ::::::: :::::::Sinks -- plants, oceans. But they obviously are not absorbing it all. :::::: ::::::Yep. It's called 'dynamic equilibrium'. You claim to teach ::::::chemistry. Go look it up. :::::: ::::::If we were in equilibrium, CO2 wouldn't be increasing. You look that up. ::::: :::::You don't know what the word 'dynamic' means? ::::: :::::Yes. A is going to B and B is going to A; the overall system isn't changing :::::however. As opposed to 'static' equilibrium, in which neither A nor B is doing :::::anything. Two rocks are pretty much in static equilibrium; N2 and H2 in :::::equilibrium with NH3 is a dynamic equilibrium. :::: ::::And what happens when you pour in more of one species? OVER TIME the ::::other species change and equilibrium recurs. :::: ::::Yes, but you don't get the original concentrations -- e.g., if you add N2, ::::some but not all of it is converted to NH3. Even if you assume CO2 is in ::::equilibrium (a dubious assumption), not all of it the added CO2 will get taken ::::up. ::: :::How do you know? ::: :::Because if NH3 increases and N2 comes back to the same, Q is no longer equal :::to K -- you're no longer at equilibrium. :: ::You're stretching an analogy all out of shape, Lloyd. :: ::No, this is the explanation of equilibrium in any freshman text book. : :Now add something that forms an insoluble compound with one of the :species in solution while increasing another (the way an increase in :plants would sequester carbon while adding oxygen). : :Yes, if I have N2 + 3 H2 = 2 NH3 and I add water, which dissolves NH3, the :eq. shifts to the right to make more NH3. But that's not what is happening; :we're adding more CO2 (like adding more N2 or H2). That is what is causing :the eq. to shift, not something taking up a component. If so, we'd see a :lowering of the CO2 and we're seeing an increase. In plants, too. And plants do what, Lloyd? :You need to stop thinking like you're a high school kid, Lloyd. : :::If you're going to discuss equilibrium, pick up a gen chem book and read about :::it first. :: ::I hardly need to, since I studied all that stuff decades ago, back ::when I was a chem major. That's why I know you're such a blithering ::idiot as a chem prof. :: ::Yeah, sure. So did you forget all the stuff about equilibrium, or did you ::never learn it in the first place? : :Have you stopped raping little boys yet or are you continuing to do :so? : ::::Even your quite simple ::::example should make it plain to you why your silly insistence that "if ::::plants could absorb it they already would and we wouldn't see ::::anything" is stupid. :::: ::::Let me try here. :::: ::::Suppose we have a system that will monitor the pH of a solution and ::::add base whenever the solution becomes acidic. The rate at which the ::::system can add base is, of course, limited, and let us further suppose ::::that the feedback loop of the response system is not instantaneous. :::: ::::Now start adding acid to the solution. The solution will become ::::acidic, even though there is a feedback system in place that will make ::::it neutral over time because there is a time lag in the feedback ::::mechanism. If you add acid at an increasing rate, the solution will ::::stay acidic even though much of the acid is being neutralized and the ::::rate at which base is being added will also accelerate. If you slow ::::the rate at which acid is being added, the feedback system will 'catch ::::up' and perhaps even overshoot, driving the system to be base. :::: ::::This is what we see with plant growth and atmospheric CO2. Now that's ::::a simple enough explanation that I would expect even a high school ::::freshman to be able to get it. :::: ::::I don't expect you to. :::: :::::::As someone just pointed out, plant growth IS accelerating. Why's that :::::::happening and do you seriously think it has no effect? ::::::: :::::::Yet plant growth cannot even absorb all the added CO2 humans are putting out :::::::now. :::::: ::::::How do you arrive at that conclusion? :::::: ::::: uh, the fact that CO2 is up 30%?::::: :::::Duh. Meaningless statement. You claim to be a scientist. Tell us :::::why it's a meaningless statement. ::::: :::::Gee, Fred, since you seem to be all-knowing, why don't you tell us. :::: ::::Obvious to anyone with two brain cells, Lloyd, but you apparently ::::don't understand it. CO2 is up 30% OVER WHAT TIME PERIOD? What was ::::human CO2 output doing during this same period? :::: ::::It's well known that there all sinks which are absorbing some of the added ::::CO2. But nobody who looks at the science thinks all the added CO2 will ever ::::be absorbed (OK, maybe on a million-years time scale). ::: :::Why is that? After all, the CO2 is coming from somewhere, isn't it? ::: :::Yes, from burning fossil fuels. That CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere :::millions of years ago, and the atmosphere CO2 reached a new equilibrium. Now :::we're adding that CO2 back to it. :: ::And where did it come from in the first place and how did it get all ::tied up in fossil fuels again? Something about uptake and ::sequestration by plants and animals, perhaps? :: ::Yes, millions of years ago, so the atmosphere came to a new equilibrium. It ::cannot come to one in 100 years. : :How do you know? : :Because it hasn't in 150 years? So presumably I can never die, since I haven't yet? Not quite bright reasoning yet again, Lloyd. :Why is it that you think the equilibrium can be :driven one direction in the short term but not the other? : :The driving force is the addition of CO2. That's what threw the system out of :eq. And there are OTHER 'driving forces', which is the part you keep ignoring. :Nature :isn't sensitive to your politics, Lloyd. If it can be moved one :direction it can be moved the other. : :Yes, if the earth encountered something that removed massive amts of CO2, it'd :throw us out of eq. in the other direction. But that hasn't happened. Never heard of plants, Lloyd? Plants are increasing, remember? Or maybe they don't have plants on Planet Lloyd... I see. We just got plants on earth 150 years ago, and their absorbing CO2 is why the CO2 is up. Great logic there. :::So far, your case is as weak as the one you argue against. All you :::have is your own assertion, which, given your past record, is pretty :::questionable as a reliable source. ::: :::No, my case is based on science. I suggest you read about equilibrium in a :::good gen chem textbook. :: ::Your case is based on having your head firmly up and locked. I'd ::suggest you read up on equilibrium in that same sort of book. I can ::suggest a few, if you'd like. :: ::Since you don't understand LeChatlier's principle, I doubt you could suggest ::anything scientific. : :You seem to be the one who doesn't understand it. I'm the one arguing :that it applies IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.
|
|
#237
April 1st 06, 06:01 AM
posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Scientist warns that public knowledge of space engineering fixes for global warming may be undesirable, But never mentions the benefits of H2-PV | H2-PV | Policy | 0 | March 6th 06 11:04 AM |
| Oxygen and Carbon Discovered in Exoplanet Atmosphere 'Blow Off' | Ron | Misc | 3 | February 16th 04 08:27 PM |
| Hydrogen Sulfide, Not Carbon Dioxide, May Have Caused Largest Mass Extinction | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 11th 03 08:15 AM |
| Hydrogen Sulfide, Not Carbon Dioxide, May Have Caused Largest Mass Extinction | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 3rd 03 05:14 PM |
| What to do with Carbon Dioxide? | hanson | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 10th 03 01:01 AM |
Linear Mode
