What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The other green house gases

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,765
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Alaska
hats.BRW.n2o.7.none.monthly.all.png



Hawaii
hats.MLO.n2o.7.none.monthly.all.png



n2o is also a very important green house gas...Here is the map of its rise...It hit 224 ppt

Here is a page of all the goodies for us green house gas trackers!!! Forcing charts too! YAY!!!:eusa_angel:
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)

n2o has .173 of the 2.770 watts/meter^2 as of 2009, while co2 has 1.760 watts/meter^2 as of 2009...I'm sure it is at least 1.79 for 2010 when it is updated or maybe 1.80!:lol::lol::lol:

DAMN I WISH THEY HAD SOMETHING LIKE THIS FOR METHANE! That is what is important right now.
 
Last edited:
OP
ScienceRocks

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,765
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
The new report doesn't just address the issue of carbon dioxide but also nitrous oxide, methane, and all other greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere as well. Climate researchers calculate their warming effects in "CO2 equivalents" so that they are able to operate with a standardized unit. The amount of greenhouse gases are measured in ppm or "parts per million." The concentration of such gases in the atmosphere was over 460 ppm CO2 equivalents in 2007. At 450 ppm, there is only a 50 percent chance that the temperature increase would stay under 2 degrees Celsius, according to the Copenhagen report, citing a recent study.

When you consider the whole number of green house gases!!!
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,922
Reaction score
7,711
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Yep. And rapidly rising. The 15 minor gases are an important factor, also. Note they have risen by a factor of 3 since 1979.

As we observe the warming of the Arctic Ocean, our rapidly increasing additions to the GHGs in the atmosphere, we cannot help but wonder at what point the shallow clathrates in the Arctic are going to show us how to really ramp up the figures. Yet this is supposed to be a political issue. Kind of like politisizing an oncoming freight train.
 

zonly1

Probie still throwin'em
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
152
Points
48
Location
on the map
Nitrogen trifluoride - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NF3 is a greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential (GWP) 17,200 times greater than that of CO2 when compared over a 100 year period.[8][9][10] Its GWP would place it second only to SF6 in the group of Kyoto-recognised greenhouse gases, although NF3 is not currently included in that grouping. It has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 740 years,[8] although other work suggests a slightly shorter lifetime of 550 years (and a corresponding GWP of 16,800)


NF3 is a product of solar panel production. Unintended consequences rear it's ugly head.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,922
Reaction score
7,711
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
That is correct. However, anyone just letting NF3 escape their manufacturing processes is throwing money out the window. And there are many other manufacturing processes that involve the fifteen minor gases that have nothing to do with alternative energy.

People, once again we see an attempt to politisize an issue that is simply one of science. We need to prevent manmade GHGs from getting into the atmosphere, period. Whether they be from the burning of fossil fuels, or from manufacturing processes.
 

zonly1

Probie still throwin'em
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
152
Points
48
Location
on the map
That is correct. However, anyone just letting NF3 escape their manufacturing processes is throwing money out the window. And there are many other manufacturing processes that involve the fifteen minor gases that have nothing to do with alternative energy.

People, once again we see an attempt to politisize an issue that is simply one of science. We need to prevent manmade GHGs from getting into the atmosphere, period. Whether they be from the burning of fossil fuels, or from manufacturing processes.

Has it ever ponder upon you the earth has it's own self correcting feedback mechanism and no matter what we throw at it, it will determine the outcome. It's pretty arrogant to assume humans can over come mother nature; can't stop a tornado, can't stop a hurricane, and can't stop an earthquake.

There's a big yellow thing in the sky from dusk to dawn that has more of an effect on our climate than your self induce paranoia. Peer review after peer review can't quit get those climate models correct, FACT. If they do, it's only for a short while before mother nature throws another monkey wrench into the works and the peer review experts are perplexed as to why...ah what happened?
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,922
Reaction score
7,711
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
OK, so you prefer to be ignorant. You do realize that something as small as bluegreen algea totally changed our atmosphere and ocean, don't you?

We have already increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. That is no small feat. We are changing the Ph level of the very ocean, and you come on and state that we cannot effect the earth? What a dumb ass.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,922
Reaction score
7,711
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
That is correct. However, anyone just letting NF3 escape their manufacturing processes is throwing money out the window. And there are many other manufacturing processes that involve the fifteen minor gases that have nothing to do with alternative energy.

People, once again we see an attempt to politisize an issue that is simply one of science. We need to prevent manmade GHGs from getting into the atmosphere, period. Whether they be from the burning of fossil fuels, or from manufacturing processes.

Has it ever ponder upon you the earth has it's own self correcting feedback mechanism and no matter what we throw at it, it will determine the outcome. It's pretty arrogant to assume humans can over come mother nature; can't stop a tornado, can't stop a hurricane, and can't stop an earthquake.

There's a big yellow thing in the sky from dusk to dawn that has more of an effect on our climate than your self induce paranoia. Peer review after peer review can't quit get those climate models correct, FACT. If they do, it's only for a short while before mother nature throws another monkey wrench into the works and the peer review experts are perplexed as to why...ah what happened?

Demonstration of pure ignorance. You might just check out what happened during the P-T extinction.
 

Cuyo

Training a Guineapig army
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
5,681
Reaction score
992
Points
98
Location
Denver, PA
The only true determining factor for a gas's greenhouse effect is:

Can Al Gore make money off it?

Was that the standard 20 years ago, when I was in grade school and Al Gore was a Representative from Tennessee that nobody had heard of?
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
65,703
Reaction score
16,701
Points
2,180
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
The only true determining factor for a gas's greenhouse effect is:

Can Al Gore make money off it?

Was that the standard 20 years ago, when I was in grade school and Al Gore was a Representative from Tennessee that nobody had heard of?
Yeah, like that matters to the Goracle.

Now, call your congressman and demand Cap & Trade! It's the only thing that can save us!
 
OP
ScienceRocks

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,765
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
2011 9 11 2011.6945 389.14

We reached the minimum of 388.67 on August 28th

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_weekly_mlo.txt

It is still possible it drops again within the next 2-3 weeks, but the last two weeks it has been raising away from the minimum and in the past it has done something close to this too.

We're over 2 ppm above this time in 2010! Should get back into the 390s by late oct into nov this year!
 

zonly1

Probie still throwin'em
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
152
Points
48
Location
on the map
That is correct. However, anyone just letting NF3 escape their manufacturing processes is throwing money out the window. And there are many other manufacturing processes that involve the fifteen minor gases that have nothing to do with alternative energy.

People, once again we see an attempt to politisize an issue that is simply one of science. We need to prevent manmade GHGs from getting into the atmosphere, period. Whether they be from the burning of fossil fuels, or from manufacturing processes.

Has it ever ponder upon you the earth has it's own self correcting feedback mechanism and no matter what we throw at it, it will determine the outcome. It's pretty arrogant to assume humans can over come mother nature; can't stop a tornado, can't stop a hurricane, and can't stop an earthquake.

There's a big yellow thing in the sky from dusk to dawn that has more of an effect on our climate than your self induce paranoia. Peer review after peer review can't quit get those climate models correct, FACT. If they do, it's only for a short while before mother nature throws another monkey wrench into the works and the peer review experts are perplexed as to why...ah what happened?

Demonstration of pure ignorance. You might just check out what happened during the P-T extinction.

All you warmers out thar are the only ones being duped into the falsehoods and lies that merely exhaling C02 causes global whining but last time I checked it was referred to as plant food. So make up your friking mind what story you want to tell.

As I mentioned, mother nature has it's own feed back system whether you like it or not. It will dictate the terms not you. You warmers are just a passenger so get over yourself. Maybe you should be focusing your energy on the earth sun system and realize the sun is 109 times the mass of the earth and the sun has quit a bit of activity in the area of elector-magnetism as compared to earth. It's this magnetism that allows earth 2 sustain an atmosphere conducive/supportive to maintain life on earth. and while your at it look up Milankovitch cycles.
 
OP
ScienceRocks

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,765
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
Yep. And rapidly rising. The 15 minor gases are an important factor, also. Note they have risen by a factor of 3 since 1979.

As we observe the warming of the Arctic Ocean, our rapidly increasing additions to the GHGs in the atmosphere, we cannot help but wonder at what point the shallow clathrates in the Arctic are going to show us how to really ramp up the figures. Yet this is supposed to be a political issue. Kind of like politisizing an oncoming freight train.

Has it ever ponder upon you the earth has it's own self correcting feedback mechanism and no matter what we throw at it, it will determine the outcome. It's pretty arrogant to assume humans can over come mother nature; can't stop a tornado, can't stop a hurricane, and can't stop an earthquake.

There's a big yellow thing in the sky from dusk to dawn that has more of an effect on our climate than your self induce paranoia. Peer review after peer review can't quit get those climate models correct, FACT. If they do, it's only for a short while before mother nature throws another monkey wrench into the works and the peer review experts are perplexed as to why...ah what happened?

Demonstration of pure ignorance. You might just check out what happened during the P-T extinction.

All you warmers out thar are the only ones being duped into the falsehoods and lies that merely exhaling C02 causes global whining but last time I checked it was referred to as plant food. So make up your friking mind what story you want to tell.

As I mentioned, mother nature has it's own feed back system whether you like it or not. It will dictate the terms not you. You warmers are just a passenger so get over yourself. Maybe you should be focusing your energy on the earth sun system and realize the sun is 109 times the mass of the earth and the sun has quit a bit of activity in the area of elector-magnetism as compared to earth. It's this magnetism that allows earth 2 sustain an atmosphere conducive/supportive to maintain life on earth. and while your at it look up Milankovitch cycles.

Well, if it was up to WATER VAPOR alone,, which is in the atmosphere a avg of 9 days--- we would be living on a ice cube. :lol: While, The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30-95 years.:eusa_whistle:

What does that mean; well lets just say that one molecule remains within the system 30-95 years. The natural co2 is balanced CURRENTLY...IT go into Atmosphere and then of course get locked up in the oceans, plants, ect in away that don't add into the climate system at this moment. Only being released and captured as the oceans warm and cool throughout the past million years from 175-300 ppm. :eusa_pray: This is what the ice sheets in antarctic teaches us.

Lets see
C=natural green house emissions...This is currently in balance(or close to it as some of the sinks are starting to change:lol:)

So C+- warming or cooling that effects it, but no more then 100 ppm over 50-60 thousand years the past 2 million years.

Then we have the human produced emissions...Well lets just say that the system is clogged up with the natural and can't handle more then half of this. This is hC(human co2).

Now I hope you can understand...:eek::eek:

Well, onto more pressing matters. Water vapor has a avg atmospheric life of 9 days and isn't uniformed, while co2 lets say one molecule has a 30 year life and is within 2-3 ppm shown to be pretty uniformed throughout the climate system. Considering without the green house effect the earth would be -30c(59f) colder then now(AKA a ice ball floating through space) you'll have to ask your self what is going to get the climate more stable...

Why do I say that?

Well, lets imagine if water vapor is the only green house that causes warming on this planet for a second. Lets say that 4 whole percent of our atmosphere is water vapor(NOT UNIFORMED in real life), we're peacefully heading around the star with a constant solar output for all of earth's history with a avg global temperature of 58c, which would keep our environment for the time being somewhat liveable. One year the sun drops its tsi by 5 percent on us! What will happen you ask...Well, we will get less energy going into the climate system, which will evaporate less water vapor...In turn cause a super negative feed back of less and less water vapor. This sucker would happen in under a few months to. On and on and on until earth has become a ice ball floating through space!

Co2 stays for at least 30 years as a molecule within the system. Not only that as the system is clogged like a sink it is over throwing on us and history through the ice cores tell us it could take thousands of years worth of rock weathering, ect to remove it out of the climate system. :eusa_whistle:

Yes, if earth just had the non-green house gases with its atmosphere made of them it would be a ice ball floating through space. Yes, the density of the atmosphere would cause warmth at the surface, but not nearly enough to stop it from going ice ball.

Earth is to far away from the sun for its atmospheric density to warm it much with the energy it gets from the sun...We use these tools to estimate all the extrasolar planets out there temperatures. Either it is right and we are going to find a liveable planet out there and go to it or we're wrong and we will find out it is just a rock floating through space.


Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
n2o is also a very important green house gas...Here is the map of its rise...It hit 224 ppt

Matthew, can you show me a single so called greenhouse gase whose emission spectra is not the opposite of its absorption spectra? If the emission spectra is the opposite of its absorption spectra, then you can be quite sure that no energy is being retained by the molecule.

Further, can you show me a single real world experiment performed in the open atmosphere that demonstrates that so called greenhouse gasses can raise the temperature of the planet?

One other thing. Since you can show me neither of those things, nor can you name a physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect or AGW, why do you still believe?
 
OP
ScienceRocks

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,765
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America
n2o is also a very important green house gas...Here is the map of its rise...It hit 224 ppt

Matthew, can you show me a single so called greenhouse gase whose emission spectra is not the opposite of its absorption spectra? If the emission spectra is the opposite of its absorption spectra, then you can be quite sure that no energy is being retained by the molecule.

Further, can you show me a single real world experiment performed in the open atmosphere that demonstrates that so called greenhouse gasses can raise the temperature of the planet?

One other thing. Since you can show me neither of those things, nor can you name a physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect or AGW, why do you still believe?


I can't disprove you myself, but when most of science from Climate, Meteorology, Geology, Physics, Astronomy(extrasolar planets, ect) all say it is so, it's pretty hard not to believe it. You do make a good case, but when all of science believes otherwise lets just say it's not easy for me to throw it all in the trash. The reason I can't throw it away is maybe I'm missing something if the rest of science says it's so. I can't believe that they're all so blind.

I went to believe that they're not all liers in all these fields. My reasoning of what you have given me tells me it maybe all a lie, but maybe I'm missing something. A piece of the data that would show a way.
 
Last edited:

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
Well, if it was up to WATER VAPOR alone,, which is in the atmosphere a avg of 9 days--- we would be living on a ice cube. :lol: While, The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30-95 years.:eusa_whistle:
[/QUOTE]

30 to 95 years? Really? I was under the impression (because of the number of peer reviewed studies) that the residence time of any given CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is considerably shorter than that.

Here is a list of the studies and their findings.

6a0120a4d162dd970b01348031b772970c-800wi


There are 37 studies; 7 of them state that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for more than 10 years. Of those 7, two find that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for more than 20 years.

Tell me Matthew, do you find anything at all even the least bit suspicious about the time that scientists who depend on grant money to study catestrophic anthropogenic global warming say that CO2 resides in the atmosphere?
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
I can't disprove you myself, but when most of science from Climate, Meteorology, Geology, Physics, Astronomy(extrasolar planets, ect) all say it is so, it's pretty hard not to believe it.

The thing is Matthew, is that most of them don't. Those who depend on grant money to study CAGW do, but they are in the vast minority of scientists. The consensus is a proven hoax.

I went to believe that they're not all liers in all these fields. My reasoning of what you have given me tells me it maybe all a lie, but maybe I'm missing something. A piece of the data that would show a way.

They aren't all liars Matthew. A very small, high profile minority are liars and a good number are dupes who simply accept the basic research put forward by the high profile liars. Very few of those who don't depend on grant money are on the AGW wagon and they represent the vast majority of scientists.
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
This whole things sounds like more hedging of bets by the algorians... "Sure CO2 is bad but if you add in these too"

Gimme a break already.

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) that the temperature rise over the 100 year period from 1906–2005 was 0.74 °C [0.56 to 0.92 °C] with a confidence interval of 90%."

So even WITH those other gases the warming has still been less than 1.0 degrees Celsius for the last 100 years... Ya see they measure warming period. They cannot differentiate what caused that warming or what gas made up what amount of the warming. They can only speculate.

You warmers and luke warmers seem to forget something in your desire to push this theory on us... It hasn't even risen by a full degree of Celsius in a hundred years. So all the melting ice talk, and speculations regarding everything from ocean acidification to polar bear extinction and all points in between is plain and simple fear mongering.
 

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
This whole things sounds like more hedging of bets by the algorians... "Sure CO2 is bad but if you add in these too"

Gimme a break already.

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) that the temperature rise over the 100 year period from 1906–2005 was 0.74 °C [0.56 to 0.92 °C] with a confidence interval of 90%."

So even WITH those other gases the warming has still been less than 1.0 degrees Celsius for the last 100 years... Ya see they measure warming period. They cannot differentiate what caused that warming or what gas made up what amount of the warming. They can only speculate.

You warmers and luke warmers seem to forget something in your desire to push this theory on us... It hasn't even risen by a full degree of Celsius in a hundred years. So all the melting ice talk, and speculations regarding everything from ocean acidification to polar bear extinction and all points in between is plain and simple fear mongering.

Not to mention the fact that that 0.56 to 0.92 degrees of warming isn't even large enough to overcome the margin of error and it is so far within the boundries of natural variability so as to not really even warrant notice.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$260.01
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top