Could Al Gore be telling the Truth and does he kNWO the difference?

 

Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:04:43 -0500

R271739
3 years ago

GWHunta

 
R271740
3 years ago

GWHunta

Do the math.

Post Modified: 03/28/07 07:12:23
 
R271741
3 years ago

GWHunta

.007(%)?

Post Modified: 03/28/07 07:10:40
 
R271790
3 years ago

GWHunta

Scientists estimate that simply to keep greenhouse gases at their current levels, we would need to slash carbon-dioxide emissions by 60 percent. Given current and foreseeable technology, that would require cutting back on industrial activity across the globe on a scale that would make the Great Depression look very small.

In fact, the future will almost certainly involve substantially greater emissions of CO2. Most studies predict that the world will double its consumption of energy by 2050. Since much of that growth in consumption will take place in China and India, it will involve the burning of fossil fuels.

Between them, these two countries are currently building 650 coal-fired power plants. The combined CO2 emissions of these new plants is five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords—that is, if the Kyoto targets were being adhered to by Western countries, which they are not. Even under the most optimistic scenarios the industrialized world will continue to burn substantial amounts of coal and oil.

 
R271825
3 years ago

Chickenma1

GW, I hope you’re right, as your projections that there will be continued increases in CO2 is obviously correct. Water vapor has more of a possibility of self-correcting and of leaving habitable pockets than does the CO2 scenario. So far your arguments for water vapor being the primary cause of global warming make much more sense than CO2. I have found many papers that claim “surface restructuring” as the basic cause, which in essence means alteration of waterways, runoff, and aquifers and hence evaporation rates.

 
R271844
3 years ago

GWHunta

I have found many papers that claim “surface restructuring” as the basic cause, which in essence means alteration of waterways, runoff, and aquifers and hence evaporation rates.

That’s where we’re making a critical difference in the hydrological cycle. These changes are infrastructure intensive and the economy now depends upon them.

They will be difficult and expensive to mitigate and rectify, but the impacts of mitigation will be almost immediate and much of the warming can be reversed by changing the way we use the land and the water that was used to run off it.

Though this will not be cheap or easy, it is can be done and far more easily than trying to cut our CO2 emissions with an ever increasing population.

Peace,

 
R271847
3 years ago

a_pretty_rainbow

So far your arguments for water vapor being the primary cause of global warming make much more sense than CO2

lol.

 
R271906
3 years ago

GWHunta

“Recent studies have suggested that land use/cover change is a first-order climate effect at the global scale [Feddema et al., 2005].”

 
R302153
2 years ago

GWHunta

 
R338256
2 years ago

GWHunta

Could Al Gore be telling the Truth and do you kNWO the difference?

Sometimes no Peace

 
R393968
5 months ago

GWHunta

Most of the earth’s radiation that escapes the atmosphere is in the infrared band between 8 microns and 11 microns.

Source: Earth’s Energy Budget

The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs IR strongly in the wavelength range from 10 to 12 microns is true but misleading. Water vapor also absorbs in the same wavelength range. The absorption coefficient for water vapor appears to be about half of the carbon dioxide coefficient.

However, the concentration of water vapor at 70 degrees F and 50% relative humidity is approximately 12,300 parts per million. Therefore, even though carbon dioxide absorbs in that waveband, it can only increase the absorption provided by water vapor by about 3%.

That said, 70 degrees F with 50% relative humidity isn’t the global average (not yet anyway) so 3% of the GHG effect doesn’t stand in the real world.

Best guesstimate I’ve seen is 6.5% of the GHG effect, but CO2 doesn’t change phases and release latent heat into sensible heat as does anthropogenic water vapor, which is at the heart of the climate change issue.

Carbon dioxide does have an absorption band at about 4.2 micrometers (where water does not absorb), but objects whose temperature is about 500 degrees F emit that wavelength. The surface of the earth rarely, if ever gets that high. (Forest fires)

This data on water vapor concentration and black body emission temperature came from the “Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 70 ed., Chemical Rubber Company, 1999-1990.

Post Modified: 07/29/09 19:53:40
 
R394006
5 months ago

COS

Fuck al gore. HE should have challenged the results of his fraud unelection. Hes a puppet whose mouth is on lease. Fuck him and anything he has to say.

 
R394083
5 months ago

GWHunta

Social-Darwinism is such a lame game.

Peace,

 
R404588
1 month ago

GWHunta

According to Wiki about 28 gigatons of CO2 is released into the atmosphere annually due to anthropogenic sources. Roughly half is absorbed, the other half becomes a part of the annual incremental increase in atmospheric CO2.

So anthropogenic CO2 emissions add about 14 gigatons of CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere each year.

Anthropogenic water vapor emissions exceed 13 gigatons per day on a mean global average.

In reality anthropogenic water vapor emissions peak during the summer months (growing season) in the northern hemisphere and are much reduced during the winter months.

Water vapor is a far more effective GHG than is CO2 and humanity adds roughly 350 times more water vapor to the atmosphere than it does CO2.

How, or better, why are we going to try to mitigate the AGW “problem” by reducing our CO2 emissions?

(Peak Oil)

Peace,

Post Modified: 11/05/09 05:58:21
 
R404642
1 month ago

GWHunta

Mizimi at 06:00 AM on 3 November, 2008

some errant thoughts…..

Burn methane (CH4) and you get CO2 + 2H2O

Ethanol (C2H5) gives 4CO2 + 5H2O

Propane (C3H8) gives 3CO2 + 4H2O

Benzene (C6H6) gives 6CO2 + 3H2O.

Alkane hydrocarbons follow the formula C(n) H (2n+2)

Heavy oils, for example, C18H34 give 18CO2 + 17H2O

Since water vapor is around 10x more powerful a GG than CO2, it follows that the WV produced by burning gas and oils has a greater immediate warming effect than the CO2.

Whilst generally it is held that the WV condenses out within a period of 14days, it is of course being continuously replaced so that its effect is more or less continuous.

As the usage of oil and gas increase so the amount of water vapor added to the atmosphere also increases, as does the overall warming effect.

According to WorldWatch, in 2005 we burnt some 3800M tons of oil and 2200M tons (oil equivalent) of gas, making a total of 6000M tons of FF excluding coal.

Crudely speaking, we put as much WV into the air as we did CO2 ……but since it is 10x more effective a GG most of the warming actually must be coming from WV, not CO2.????

In addition, we are pumping lots of WV into the atmosphere through other activities..

Drax power station (UK) is a coal fired station that uses evaporative condensers..cooling towers…which take water from a local river.

Of 59M tons of water taken annually, only 29M tons are returned to the river, the rest goes into the atmosphere…..the equivalent of 310M tons of CO2 or 0.01% of the 27,000M tons of CO2 emitted globally.

From ONE power station.

http://www.draxgroup.plc.uk/files/page/916/Drax_environmental_performance_review_2003.pdf

Comments please???

Post Modified: 11/05/09 07:00:39
 
R404643
1 month ago

GWHunta

All told, the combustion of fossil fuels does put roughly as much water vapor into the troposphere as it does CO2. The main difference is in the amount of thermal energy these two combustion byproducts carry into the atmosphere with them.

Water vapor (steam) has a much higher specific heat capacity than does CO2, but it is the latent heat of vaporization that really adds up the tally overwhelmingly towards the water vapor column.

As significant as the water vapor factor of the fossil fuel combustion is, the volumes of water vapor and total thermal energy pale in comparison to the additional water vapor that is added to the atmosphere by increased evapotranspiration attributable to agricultural irrigation.

Peace,

 
R404646
1 month ago

GWHunta

NWO

Post Modified: 11/05/09 08:24:05
Advertisements

2 Responses to Could Al Gore be telling the Truth and does he kNWO the difference?

  1. gwhunta says:

    So is the war in Libya a back door war to fight “global warming.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s