Global Warming right - I don't geddit?

[Paul Ward]

Despite the facetious title, this is a complex topic that is often misunderstood. So, in a gesture that may well be be ignored or that I may well regret...

Please ask any questions that may come to mind and I will try to explain as best I can.

Whether it be "I breathe out carbon dioxide, am I responsible for global warming?" to anything you may have heard of or considered may be involved.

This is too impotant a topic to be questioned by those with loud voices who don't understand or by those skilled in rhetoric (wordplay) with an alternative agenda.

Well, its been asked by someone before Paul but no-one came up with an answer. So here goes, fizzy drinks! Thats a lot of CO2 released on a daily basis worldwide. Where does the industry get it from? Is the amount released a contributing factor to GW? Could it not be re-cycled out of the air to re-use in drinks?

I have done a little research but the answers elude me!

[Pirates Armada]

Co2 is a fact of life. Controlling it and discovering where it comes from is a wash. Would it not be a better idea to reinvest money in ways to fight global warming with ideas like reforestation, stricter industrial laws, banning coal plants, etc. ? rather then decrease Co2 in pop. Any kinetic energy produced on this planet will raise the temperature. You can argue till your blue in the face if termites or automobiles are the culprit, you can put your own spin on the subject cause you feel global warming is a hoax. One thing you can't argue is that polution is a cause of a wide variety of ailments inluding the quality of life. Decreasing man made polution is a good start. Too much Co2 is polution, maybe not the most polutant but one of the largest none the less. A cleaner, stronger, more viable earth with less polutants including money hungry worms is a healthier life for all. Conservation seems to be a four letter word to some.

[Paul Ward]

Originally Posted by Funky

fizzy drinks! Thats a lot of CO2 released on a daily basis worldwide. Where does the industry get it from? Is the amount released a contributing factor to GW? Could it not be re-cycled out of the air to re-use in drinks?

Well the good news is that nearly all industrial carbon dioxide is reclaimed from processes that release it in the first place. Of course that does mean that it has been released, but it's cutting down on the amount a little at least.

The carbon dioxide that fizzes your drinks up today could have come from burning fuel, yeast that were busy making beer or some chemical process that releases it as a by-product.

http://www.wittemann.com/applications.html

I forgot to say - I'll be taking the questions and answers from this section and build them into one or more webpages on the main part of the site.

But Pirates , the biggest culprit is said by expert climatologists and other scientists to be CO2 as the biggest cause of global warming so anything which can reduce it has got to be a good thing.
I don't buy into it but there you go, the experts say it is!
The planting of more trees is good but that would upset the hunting brigade who want the open moors and mountains leaving open for the hunting of grouse and deer etc. Planting trees is not expensive and they are excellent pollution filters.
Too right other pollutants are to blame too like vehicular ozone trapping heat nearer the ground, and as you mention our health is suffering terribly due to dozens of pollutants but you can't get too tough with big industry, they have too much power to veto any changes we try to make.

This may sound ridiculous but what about all the extra water vapour created by kettles, showers, baths (swimming and bathing types), steam jet cleaning, car washes, cooling towers, industry from the production of tyres to foodstuffs. Now that is a lot of extra water vapour being forced into the atmos' is it not? To condense it back into water it has to lose most of its heat. This heating is going to prevent further condensing so more cloud cover, not necessarily observable cloud but invisible water vapour which probably accounts for most of the water vapour thats up there. This creates the blanket that keeps the earth warm in the first place. It would be a much colder place otherwise. More heat means more evaporated water from the oceans stays up there too!

"But you can't TAX water vapour!"

How much extra water vapour would have to be created to push the total level up from say 93% to 95% and where are the figures to show what the percentage was 100,000 or even 1 million years ago? In fact show me any figures for water vapour that are used in analysis of global warming! Is it not true that high volcanic activity always preceded ice-ages? Would this not be a time of an excessive amount of extra water vapour pouring into the atmosphere, and therefore extra cloud cover, plus massive amounts of pollutants?

Do we really know what we are dealing with? I think not! Take away the tax incentive then we'll talk!

[Pirates Armada]

"but pirates" isn't all that new or funny, plus it's quite acceptable to be gay these days funkster. ....oh oh oh what about the ol' one two with your partner? all that suductive heat has to go somewhere? now multiply that by all those people out there. Crackpot ideas are just that crackpot. im sure albert had a few people tell him he was a crack pot and it probly pushed him to be better and to prove people wrong. or maybe it just produced a mad man with atomics on the mind. don't go starting any naval wars now. i'll agree with you that nuke testing underwater isn't a good thing, nuke testing anywhere isn't a good thing. atomic energy and atomic weapons should be eliminated around the globe completely in my opinion though.

[Paul Ward]

Originally Posted by Funky

This may sound ridiculous but what about all the extra water vapour created by kettles, showers, baths (swimming and bathing types), steam jet cleaning, car washes, cooling towers, industry from the production of tyres to foodstuffs.

Yes, I'm afraid it does sound ridiculous.

The role of carbon dioxide in global warming isn't something to "buy into" any more than the earth going round the sun or gravity is anything to "buy into". This isn't a political choice like what to do with criminals or how to cut road congestion where there are alternative viewpoints equally worth listening to.

Water vapour in the atmosphere is a result of temperature and dewpoint, if I try to kick it out into the atmosphere but the physics doesn't work it condenses out, carbon dioxide doesn't work like that.

If I don't believe in gravity, it doesn't mean I can fly.

"but pirates" isn't all that new or funny, plus it's quite acceptable to be gay these days funkster

You've lost me totally there mate! I haven't a clue what you're talking about!

I'm getting english from, "oh oh oh" onwards?!

Thanks for your answer Paul. Not being a scientist or a climatologist these are questions I need answering. This is a public forum and as such most questions will be asked by people without meteorological diplomas!
Maybe I should just spend the rest of my life researching every question in my head then I will never need to ask a ridiculous question again because I will have all the answers.

[Snowcat Operations]

If I understand this correctly then man puts out the least amount of C02 in the atmosphere. I was under the impression that annually Volcanoes put out 98% of all Co2 released into the atmosphere each year. This is my first post, and I hope I dont ruffle any feathers but the truth is the truth. So how is man at fault with Global Warming if Mother Nature herself puts out 98% of all Co2? I'm a bit confused by all this Global Warming stuff. Please set me straight with real science.

[Paul Ward]

Originally Posted by Snowcat Operations

If I understand this correctly then man puts out the least amount of C02 in the atmosphere. I was under the impression that annually Volcanoes put out 98% of all Co2 released into the atmosphere each year. This is my first post, and I hope I dont ruffle any feathers but the truth is the truth. So how is man at fault with Global Warming if Mother Nature herself puts out 98% of all Co2? I'm a bit confused by all this Global Warming stuff. Please set me straight with real science.

I think you have the figures the wrong way round?

"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"

from: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/Wh...as/volgas.html

where did your 98% figure come from?