Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

CO 2 Meets Definition Of Air Pollutant - Page 6

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Derek Broughton on April 5, 2007, 5:56 pm
 


Todd wrote:


Bzzt!!!!  No.  If you're talking about an increase of N% in temperature,
you're talking degrees K.  In this case 1/270 * 15% of, say, 270K, would be
15K.


I think _that_ much would be enough to scare even Dubya.
--
derek

Posted by Arnold Walker on April 5, 2007, 7:35 pm
 




You got to also remember the reason nitrogen is used in tires and shocks.
The temperature control.....commerical airliners normally operate at 33000
ft in -60F temperature
while the ground temperature at the airport is usually a lot warmer than
that.
Now for a second consider what would happen if you you used standard air at
automotive service
station in the tire.The water in the air would condense and freeze on the
bottom of the tire.
Then the plane with tire spinning up 132mph  (the blackmarks on the runway
near the touchdown zone)
What would even oz.s of ice do to the tire balance?
Tire pressure does not change with temperature like is the case with
standard air.
Something of the same thing can be applied in decussion of nitrogen charged
shocks.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com  The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Posted by Tony Wesley on April 5, 2007, 10:13 pm
 



No.  There is no increase of 15%.  Much smaller.

This question demonstrates a lack of understanding.

Anyway, the quanities are not relevant to modeling the quanitative
behavior of earth.

What the experiment demonstrates that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation
emitted by the earth, keeping the heat in the atmosphere.


You could look at the first chart at
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
to see a past relationship between CO2 and temperature.



Posted by Todd on April 6, 2007, 1:28 pm
 


That only supports my point. You make a huge increase in CO2
concentration and get a tiny increase in temperature (and correct me
by showing with a different base point the increase is even tinier
than I observe). I then take that same ratio (tiny but as you
illustrate, even tinier than I suggest) and consider a possible
increase in CO2 attributed to man (really tiny when compared to the
increase in the experiment) and you get an infinitesimal increase in
temperature do to man's effect on CO2 concentration in an
atmospher ... and increase that is obviously swamped by things going
on with the sun for instance which all the literature is ignoring
completely!!!

So are you supporting this "man is causing global warming" nonsense or
refuting it?


The reply does nothing to enlighten.


Perhaps ... but does it demonstrate that the magnitude of that effect
could possibly have anything to do with the temperature of the globe?
And by the way, how does one measure the temperature of the globe? And
how was it measured years ago?


athttp://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Ok, I've looked at the chart. There's a correlation between CO2 and
temperature. 1. How does one tell by looking at the chart what is
driving what? They're in sync ... one is not leading or laging the
other. 2. What does the chart tell me about what man's contribution
was to this effect? Looks to me like the chart does what it does
regardless of what man does.

Isn't this whole thing about 1. the globe is warming, 2. man is
causing that, and 3. that is a bad thing?

The experiment I'm commenting on did nothing to show that increasing
CO2 could have a meaningful effect on the retention of heat by the
atmosphere.

The chart I'm now commenting on does nothing to show that man has had
anything to do with the variations of CO2 or temperature over time.

So just what are you trying to say?


Posted by Tony Wesley on April 6, 2007, 10:38 pm
 


Not at all.   The quanities are not relevant to modeling the
quanitative behavior of earth.

The experiment only demonstrates the fact that CO2 retains heat.


Good question!  Correlation is not causation.  But we know from
physical properties of CO2 that increased amounts retains heat.


Well, back then, it because man wasn't contributing to it.  So we have
this band of CO2 levels that has lasted hundred of thousands of
years.  Now CO2 is higher than those previous levels.  And since we
know that CO2 increases retained heat, we could predict the Earth
would get warmer.


It does.  Shows that a tiny amount of CO2 increased the retained
heat.  So an enourmous amount of CO2, miles thick, will retain more.


This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread