Posted on 06/10/2007 8:59:55 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
Thanks for the middle school science lesson, but LOGIC tells us that ordinary diffusion (historicall derived from Browian motion) will accomplish the mixing regardless of whether there happens to be convection or not.
Put it this way; Liberals think we can control the atmosphere but do they have any idea how incredibly large the atmosphere is? Take the entire surface of the earth and then look at the atmosphere. The atmosphere covers the entire surface and extends to about 80 miles up! The average mass of the atmosphere is 5,000 TRILLION metric tons! And liberals think our puny expulsion of CO2 is going to effect THAT? They`re completely insane!
So maybe the word “slightly” is wrong but the fact remains that CO2 is in the atmosphere and the natural turbulence of air is the explanation why it’s not hovering on the ground.
Or are you saying it’s not really there at all?
“..oil to be poured on all lakes..”
You forgot the oceans. The Exxon Valdiz ran aground in Alaska and covered a large area with crude oil and yet, a lot of people were pissed. I guess that you can’t satisfy environmentalists.
The fact that CO2 is mixed in the troposphere does not support the global warming hypothesis. I meant that it is not a crucial matter. Therefore, we don’t have to worry much about it.
There are plenty of other problems with the global warming hypothesis, and they can be classified in various categories. I like to break the ussue into parts.
I. Obviously true: the effect of CO2 as a “greenhouse” gas.
II. Probably true: things have been warming for a few years; humans have been adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
III. Possibly true: we humans may have added to the recent warming trend.
IV. Doubtful: human activity if the “driving process” in the observed climatic change. This is especially doubtful in view of the historical and prehistorical record of the Earth’s climatic changes.
V. Very, very doubtful to totally preposterous: treaties can solve the problem. (Minute diminution of the human output of CO2 will constitute a small fractional change in an effect which is barely detectable, and will be either meaningless, or too little to late.)
VI. Not considered by advocates of the hypothesis: efforts to correct the problem may be medicine worse than the disease. (This is because cutting back on energy consumption means harder lives for humans. Going to a more primitive lifestyle is not without severe cost.)
Give it a real hard problem to work on, and then see how long it takes for it to lose interest in the problem and be distracted by something shiny.
There are just a handful of issues outside of the realm of just hypothesis in the world that could destroy life as we know it that are a concern in real time for us all.
Drink the "drink" and forget these concerns and focus on AlGores fallacy, this will make us all feel good...
Lest we disappoint AlGore with his endeavors to show personal relevance and create a legacy for himself.
Put it into terms they understand (wealth transfer) and they focus to the point of tunnel vision with a relentless fervor.
We are now God's and AlGores true name is Zeus our leader....
Where are the golden icon's so we can go to worship him via proxy?
Has anyone ever seen any data on the actual change in CO2 content of the air?
We should all stop eating leavened bread. Think of the CO2 offsets we could sell to ‘rats!
I once had to swerve my aircraft to avoid a Walmart bag floating around at 3500'.
Thank you. In one post, you've exposed the Big Lie that frames the entire religion the failed preacher Al Gore has founded. All of the other arguments are rendered pointless.
Trouble is, lots of 3rd graders are hearing the Word from their teachers and many teachers, sadly, are Veepalicious disciples. Teach your children well.
More here: http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
The most prevalent "greenhouse gas" is water vapor. Clouds, folks. Man-made compounds are less than three tenths of one percent of the total volume of "greenhouse gas" in the atmosphere. The implications are obvious to the infidel.
When you hear carbon dioxide volumes expressed in tons, rather than percentages, you're hearing a disciple of The Church of the Forgotten Veep preach. Ask them if they know what percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is man-made. You'll be tossed out of the revival tent in seconds.
As an aside, two important pieces of information about carbon dioxide.
The current concern for the tiny amount of CO2 that man is adding to the atmosphere is based on the fact that water vapor only blocks a limited number of radiation bandwidths from radiating off the Earth. But CO2 blocks bandwidths that are complementary to water vapor. So between the two, a lot more heat is kept from leaving.
This means the important question is, is the level of atmospheric CO2 increasing? (It isn’t, though it should be, according to many models.)
The other CO2 fact has to do with plants. The old question of “are plants more soil or air?”, was long ago answered as “air.” That is, most plant mass is made from CO2.
To inhale CO2, plants must open pores in their skin. But when they do so, they also lose water. Importantly, when you raise the CO2 level around plants, they don’t open their pores as wide, and so lose much less water.
This means, if there is more CO2 in the lower atmosphere, then plants will draw less water from the soil. This means that more plants can live on the same amount of soil, which in turn means a lot more plant growth. Even de-desertification.
In turn, more plants need more CO2.
I’m still waiting for the one thing that the global warming crowd has yet to deliver. Undeniable proof that global warming is caused by Humans.
Gravity can act to separate heavier molecules from lighter molecules. So I want to separate Uranium 235 from Uranium 238. Earth’s ordinary gravitational field is far too small to develop a significant concentration differential. Recently super centrifuges generating very high gravitational fields can make measurable differences, and cascades of such can perhaps make enough Uranium 235 for weapons.
They can’t predict the WX four days in advance. Out here in Sacramento, CA, where weather is pretty predictable, I’ve been tracking the Sacramento Bee’s four-day forecast for several weeks.
The result is predictable: their four-day predictions are wrong almost 100 per cent of the time...and in most cases, wrong by a lot.
They can’t predict the WX four days in advance. Out here in Sacramento, CA, where weather is pretty predictable, I’ve been tracking the Sacramento Bee’s four-day forecast for several weeks.
The result is predictable: their four-day predictions are wrong almost 100 per cent of the time...and in most cases, wrong by a lot.
I'm flying a Ximango motorglider, so if you count each prop blade as a "rotor", that requirement is met. Usually only takes about .2/hour on the fossil fueled thermal to get 4-5 hours engine off on a good day. So, I don't think that meets the criteria of having to spew hot gasses to overcome gravity caused by the flatness of the earth. I am using hot gases to stay aloft, though. Maybe that helps? I find that the lift is really, really good up near and around Carthage, TN, too......lots of hot gas being emitted in that area thanks to the Profit Owl Gore....
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.