Why No Pressure Increase With More CO2

Besoeker · 08-01-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Oh I don't know. I think your problem is that I just don't accept half of the c*** you come out with. I don't subscribe to you being the centre of the universe and in your own funny little way, that means I don't get it.

You continue to believe that if it makes you happy.

You think the idea of global warming is a load od cr*p.
You may choose to believe that.

But when I see 928 peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject, not one of which refutes that there is a human influence, should I give them credence - or you?

Besoeker · 08-01-2007, 08:28 PM

[quote="mkpdavies"]Exactly. It's all so miniscule, you would hardly notice it is happening.quote]
I'd like to try to keep this to a mature and civilised conversation without the usual pejorative terms like envirofascist .

It seems to me that your chief objection to human influence is the minute contribution to the global atmosphere that results from CO2 produced by human activities. P1ssing in the sea is an analogy you have used*.
But, just because something exists in relatively small quantities, doesn't mean its influence can be discounted.

Atmospheric CO2 is about 0.04%. Human contribution is about one thirtieth of that. Say 0.0013%. Negligible? One might imagine so.
There again, an injection of 0.0013% arsenic is a lethal dose.
My point is that you can't discount very small quantities just because they are very small quantities.

g hall · 08-01-2007, 09:08 PM

Quote:

The present rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is nearly two orders of magnitude higher than known at any other time .

How long are you measuring for for any other time
We get the "Since records began" rubbish all the time
age of the earth 4 billion years
dinosaurs 65 million years ago
recorded history a very generous 4000 years ago
since records began 100 years ago

woe woe and thrice woe - masochists

Besoeker · 08-01-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g hall

Quote:

The present rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is nearly two orders of magnitude higher than known at any other time .

How long are you measuring for for any other time

Based on all the known information.
That's why I used the word "known".
At least 800,000 years.

David Holland · 09-01-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimlet

I had a look at some graphs showing atmospheric pressure for the last 200 years. What I find surprising is there appears to be no dramatic trend of pressure increase. If every gallon (6.5 lbs) of burnt fuel produces 20 lbs of CO2 then the average pressure should be increasing by the carbon addition.

Any thoughts?

When you burn carbon you use up oxgyen therefore the pressure should remain the same.
eg C + O2 = CO2
However of course we burn hydrocarbons (which also contain hydrogen)
which complicates it a bit because water vapour is produced which is a gas but which eventually condenses. I am not sure if should increase pressure or not.

David Holland · 09-01-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Exactly. It's all so miniscule, you would hardly notice it is happening.

Unless you are an envirofascist of course, then you are probably getting mega headaches from the huge increase in pressure.

Do you really thinking calling people fascists will convince them you have a rational objection to the science behind global warming ?

mkpdavies · 09-01-2007, 03:29 PM

No, they will stay fascist no matter what I say.

David Holland · 09-01-2007, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

No, they will stay fascist no matter what I say.

Do you understand the word fascist ?

mkpdavies · 09-01-2007, 04:27 PM

Yep. Wants to force their view on others, no matter what.

David Holland · 09-01-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Yep. Wants to force their view on others, no matter what.

Many people who believe in the greenhouse effect try to persuade others.

By using the emotive word fascist you make the debate into an arguement and give the (probably correct) impression your views are fixed and will not be changed by the facts.

09-01-2007, 03:29 PM	#17 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	No, they will stay fascist no matter what I say. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

09-01-2007, 04:27 PM	#19 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	Yep. Wants to force their view on others, no matter what. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-01-2007, 08:28 PM	#12 (permalink)
Besoeker Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 4,734	[quote="mkpdavies"]Exactly. It's all so miniscule, you would hardly notice it is happening.quote] I'd like to try to keep this to a mature and civilised conversation without the usual pejorative terms like envirofascist . It seems to me that your chief objection to human influence is the minute contribution to the global atmosphere that results from CO2 produced by human activities. P1ssing in the sea is an analogy you have used*. But, just because something exists in relatively small quantities, doesn't mean its influence can be discounted. Atmospheric CO2 is about 0.04%. Human contribution is about one thirtieth of that. Say 0.0013%. Negligible? One might imagine so. There again, an injection of 0.0013% arsenic is a lethal dose. My point is that you can't discount very small quantities just because they are very small quantities.