Please do some research and click on my name.

Poptech on July 25, 2008 at 10:48 AM

You have an awesome site Poptech, there is enough information there to debunk global warming about a thousand times over if people would only read it. It’s become my favorite site for rubbing Al Gore’s nose in shi….. well you know what.

I’m a math nerd too, but I prefer the metric system and scientific notation, so here goes:

Earth radius = 6.357*10^6 meters
Area, square that and multiply by 4*pi = 5.078*10^14 m2.
Atmospheric pressure, about 10^5 Newtons per square meter.

Area * pressure = weight = 5.078*10^19 Newtons
Divide by gravity = 9.81 m/s2 = Mass of atmosphere
= 5.177*10^18 kg.

When scientists measure parts per million of gases, it’s by moles = mass / molecular weight. For air, molecular weight is about 29, resulting in 1.785*10^17 kg-moles.

Estimated world-wide man-made emissions of CO2 in 2003 were about 22 gigatonnes/yr, or 2.2*10^13 kg/yr of CO2. Dividing by molecular weight of 44, comes out to 5.0*10^11 kg-moles/yr of CO2.

If all the emitted CO2 remained in the air, the CO2 concentration should be increasing at a rate of

5.0*10^11 kg-moles/yr / 1.785*10^17 kgmoles =
2.8*10-6 mole fraction per year, or 2.8 ppm/yr.

However, the average rate of increase of CO2 at Mauna Loa since 1970 is about 0.7 ppm/yr. Question: where is the other 2.1 ppm/yr of CO2 going? Only 25% of our man-made emissions end up in the atmosphere!

There are many processes on earth that absorb CO2, but green plants (both on land and plankton in the oceans) probably account for most of it.

Many scientific studies have shown that plants grow faster (and increase their CO2 consumption rate) in atmospheres artificially enriched in CO2, above the concentration in normal air.

So, if we do NOTHING and continue emitting CO2 at the current rate, the CO2 concentration will keep increasing until the rate of CO2 removal by plants catches up to the CO2 emission rate, then the CO2 concentration will level off at a higher value.

If we assume that the CO2 absorption rate is proportional to the CO2 concentration in the air (this assumption may be wrong–more research is needed!) the CO2 concentration would level off at about 2.8 / 2.1 times the current concentration, or about 500 ppm.

But we would also have plants growing 33% faster than they do now, with increased crop yields! With an increasing world population needing an increased food production rate, might that be a GOOD thing?

Earth to Al Gore: Maybe the best way to a greener, more fertile Earth is to NOT limit CO2 emissions!

In so many words, it’s simply not a punitive enough solution.

Some won’t be satisfied until we’re all living in yurts and mud huts and operating hand crank generators.

Most scrubbers used to remove real pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, use either water or caustic (sodium hydroxide) solution as an absorbent.

Water will absorb CO2, but it’s very inefficient, and will release CO2 if it’s heated (to demonstrate this, leave a bottle of soda out in the sun, then open it!)

Caustic solution is more expensive, but does a much better job. Maybe these scientists plan to corner the market on baking soda, which is what you get when caustic is reacted with CO2. Beware, Arm & Hammer–which is owned by Armand Hammer, a good friend of Al Gore!

I swear, we don’t need CO2 scrubbers, just a whole mess of duct tape. Apply over the faces of anybody that feels CO2 is a pollutant, and viola! Five minutes later, population and CO2 reduction in one fell swoop.

I’m kidding, btw. Just felt the need to toss that in there.

We want to build “atmosphere processors” to “fix” the atmosphere/environment which allows life the thrive as it does?

Breakthrough? Scientists devise way to pull carbon from the atmosphere

Yeah. They’re called plants.

20/20: Give Me a Break: Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEJ5pHVKjiI

Please do some research and click on my name.

Allahpundit on July 25, 2008 at 9:34 AM

Ok, lets reduce it to the levels present in the Jurassic, that’d be pre-industrial. We’d have to reduce it from roughly 387ppm to about 3000ppm…oh wait.

In the fourth-season episode of (The New) Doctor Who, The Sontaran Stratagem, a young genius named Luke Rattigan, with the help of the alien enemy, developed ATMOS: an emission scrubber that eliminated all pollution from the cars that had them installe…

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Article.

Think of atmospheric CO2 as a 100 story building. Anthropogenic CO2 is the linoleum in the lobby. So, this is all great, but still accepts the lie that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and must be limited.

Remember when catalytic converters were mandated to turn emissions into “harmless CO2″?

I read your piece 3x and still can’t see where your tongue is planted in your cheek.

Do you advocate pulling CO2 from the atmosphere?

All CO2? Which would destroy all vegetation on Earth? Er, no. Some CO2, to return to pre-industrial levels and see if that makes a difference to the climate? Sure, why not?

Coming soon to a liberal bumper sticker near you: We can’t carbon-suck our way out of this problem. Think I’m kidding? Via Conservative Punk again, go see what Greenpeace et al. think of the device. In so many words, it’s simply not a punitive enough solution. — Allahpundit

This device serves no purpose for the Al Gore types, they can’t make any money this way. This idea is NOT to pull CO2 out of the air but to PAY Al Gore for carbon credits.

CO2 has continued to climb for the last ten years, while the earth becomes cooler. Duh… it’s pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that CO2 is NOT the cause of warming.

It’s the sun that drives the small various in average global temperature and nothing else. We are currently in a period of no sun spots, thus the earth is cooling. The global warming crowd of course denies this, they can’t make any money that way either.

CO2 is a beneficial gas in the atmosphere in every respect, we want more CO2 in the air, not less. Global warming is a fraud and Al Gore should be in jail.

I read your piece 3x and still can’t see where your tongue is planted in your cheek.

Do you advocate pulling CO2 from the atmosphere?

Also, we will be more screwed when these things suck out too much of the carbon the atmosphere needs.

Tinfoil hats are more cost-effective.

:-)

hillbillyjim on July 25, 2008 at 8:04 AM

They would only work for reflecting sun light and how would you get your enemy to put them on? If you sent in troops and force them to ware the hats then you might just as well kill them and be over with it. The hats also wouldn’t be effective in causing massive crop failure or melting glaciers. So all in all I really don’t think the tinfoil hats are as effective as sticking a big old shade over the opposition.