Re: Time to talk about Global Warming [was Re: Maccies aren't fanatical? (by the way, what is a "Maccie?)]

On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:38:46 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:

In article <qnnm729so02ipb9rcp7g7jk5j8jurqu5eq@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 29 May 2006 12:52:00 -0700, "Dave Fritzinger"
<dfritzin@xxxxxxxxxxx> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:


George Graves wrote:
In article <alangbaker-B6EA5E.23465928052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <575l72tae233s0gf7s5thrmjnl90m810om@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 28 May 2006 18:09:08 -0700, "Dave Fritzinger"
<dfritzin@xxxxxxxxxxx> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:


Wegie wrote:
In article <a13k72p1cn0n05hng56lmutaigmso4a053@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://snipurl.com/p0sr

<http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount_classics/aninconvenientt
ruth/
tr
a
iler/>

fixing it is a win / win for everyone.

The earth's climate is far more complex that a bubble of water.
That's
a large part of the envirowhackos problems. They want to make
everything as simple as can be and then declare it accurate.
That's
why their computer models pretend that that the atmosphere has no
clouds and the oceans have no currents.
No responsible adult even thinks that simplistic thinking even
comes
close to reflecting reality.

why so clueless on this subject Mayor? could this be the reason you
don't even understand clouds are just condensed water?

Also one earth fart (aka volcano eruption) spews more crap into
the
air than all of manking has throughout history. Somehow the
planet is
capable of handling this. Am I really supposed to take seriously
the
notion that letting my Chevy idle too long is going to turn the
earth
into a charcoal briquet? No one with any brains would even
consider
such an idiotic notion worthwhile.

what??? a volcano, even the huge ones that occur every decade or so
are
a tiny hit to the atmosphere compared to the ongoing day, to day
expulsion of "man-made" fossil fuel burning.

You know, this sort of thing is really easy to figure out. About 30
seconds of googling gave me this site:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.htm
l

From the site:

The question was "How much CO2 did Mt. St. Helens spew into the
atmosphere during the 1980 eruption? The answer is as follows:
"

I don't have an exact number. At Mount St Helens the maximum measured
emission rate was 2.2X10^7 kg per day. The total amount of gas
released
during non-eruptive periods from the beginning of July to the end of
October was 9.1X10^8 kg . I do not have an estimate for the volume of
CO2 released during the Plinian eruptions. As a long-term average,
volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production,
along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a
carbon
dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current
fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net)
17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a
progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of
CO2.
Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other
97%
coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and
Mackenzie,
1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates.
Scott Rowland, University of Hawaii Steve Mattox, University of North
Dakota

Source of Information:
Harris, D.M., Sato, M., Casadevall, T.J., Rose, Jr., W.I., and
Bornhorst, T.J., 1981, Emission rates of CO2 from plume measurements,
in Lipman, P.W., and Mullineaux, D.R., (eds.), The 1980 eruptions of
Mount St. Helens, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper
1250, p. 3-15."

So, as usual, when it comes to talking about science, it really is
best
to ignore what the Mayor says.
[snip]

LOL! Says the guy who chery picks his data. You are aware that a
helluva lot more than CO2 comes out of a volcano aren't you? Its kinda
like the way you 'proved' cancer rates had fallen by selecting one
type of cancer in one small country and waving that around as if it
were typical.

Quick: what else -- other than carbon dioxide -- comes out of a volcano
that acts as a greenhouse gas?

Sulphur dioxide? Nitrous oxide? Water vapor?
See: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html

Sulphur dioxide actually causes more sunlight to be reflected from the
earth, so it isn't a greenhouse gas (according to this article-again,
this isn't my area of expertise). I don't think water vapor is a
greenhouse gas, but I could be wrong. Not sure about nitrous oxide...

Not only is water vapor a greenhouse gas its THE greenhouse gas. It
has about ten times the effect that CO2 does.

But unlike CO2, it condenses out of the atmosphere in fairly short
order, so it doesn't have the potential to lead to a runaway greenhouse
effect.

Since humans don't, in fact, have control over the vast majority water
vapor production, there's not really much point in making it part of the
greenhouse debate. "Well, there's already a lot of water vapor, so
adding a lot more CO2 won't make any difference!" is not a logical
argument

Which is why no one is making it.


So much for you being knowledgeable on the topic. No wonder you were
so easily taken in by the ninnies.

--
"We believe Internet Explorer is a really good browser.
Internet Explorer is my browser of choice."

Steve Jobs
.

Relevant Pages