Bush Administration Wants To Add CO2 To Oceans

[leftovers]

hitler

(just had to....figured this thread had long since died anyways.... so i just fullfilled the 3rd law (i cannot recall which one of news threads....))

 

[Kalkbreath]

remember how long it took us to get into ww2? we let lots of innocents die before joining, also, why havent we done anything about the corrupt african leader who has families murdered all the time? saddaam was a bad guy, but there are many other bad guys, either you are ignorant or just a blatent bush supporter or both? why did we choose to go after sadaam only and not one of the other many corrupt leaders which there most definitley were? why did we single out sadaam and the taliban if you dig deep im sure youll see the one thing they both had in common, plus bush had a vendetta..... you can bury your head in the sand all you want and try to make us out the good guys if that makes you sleep well at night, i guess ignorance is bliss.

Only one of the current problem countries ..........actually had the balls to invade another country............That event showed the world that Sadaam is by far the most dangerous........of the current "loose cannons".....and it put him in a class all by himself......and by removing him we showed the world that the USA is still very much the worlds police.........hopefully this message will curb further wild ambitions .............or at least postpone them ?

 

[leftovers]

...............................................................................
..............................................................................
...............................................................................
...................................................................
...................................................................
...............................................................................

i just figured i could spare a few for kalk

 

[reefann]

after reading chuckers post in the sump I am stepping down from this crapola thread.
JJ
_________________
BMW K100
_________________
Mercedes C111

 

[Dante]

I have read that the last 100,000 years has been the most temperature stable period in the earth's history

Who wrote what you read? Everything that you see or hear regarding the ecology/economy/sociology/etc of this planet will, necessarily, be prejudiced, intentionally or unintentionally, by the source. The government/environerds/big business/liberals/conservatives will all have us believe their point of view. Junk science abounds. I would not believe a report that debunks the original Kyoto accord documents. I also may not believe the original Kyoto accord documents. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Way to take a stance, Scott

 

[Cabreradavid]

It seems an unfortunate reality that politicians/pundits seem to have more sway over public opinion on global warming than the scientists doing the research themselves. To those in this thread that question whether global warming is happening, I refer you to the report (Climate Change Science. An Analysis of Some Key Questions)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html#known released by the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Academy of Sciences (at the behest of the White House). This report, taking into account previous and current research on climate modeling and climate change, very clearly concludes anthropogenic global warming is real. To those that claim "there is no evidence CO2 is building up" I refer you to page 2 in the body of the text. It states that CO2 levels (taken from ice cores in Greenland) were at 315ppmv in 1958 and are now 370ppmv (parts per million by volume) and increasing by 1.5ppmv yearly. These levels exceed those that were present in ice age periods (190ppmv) and the interglacial periods prior to the industrial revolution (280ppmv).
I read several scientific journals regularly. From a sampling of papers on climate change/modeling from the Journals Science and Nature that I have in front of me now, I see that ALL include greenhouse warming as factors in their analyses. What IS in question is the nature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming. Climate modeling is complex and there is debate on how global warming should be factored into climate models. However, whether global warming is real or not is no longer in question. It is happening.
Last, I also refer you to an Editorial in the journal Science (Vol 299:1813 (2003)), which conveys distress over the administration policies on global warming given the strength of science on global warming. Scientific opinion results from a compilation of many studies and not simply one study or the opinion of an "expert". And there is now a very large and still growing body of evidence that global warming is a problem we sorely need to address.

 

[zahner1]

I think the rational approach to the CO2 problem is to stop emissions at the smokestack, not "sequester" them in the ocean. This kind of nonsense is what happens when the poeple at the agencies charged with protecting our environment are in bed with the oil industry.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Its not that simple.....Did you know that a natural gas burning city buse releases almost the same amount of co2 as that of a gasoline burning bus? Cleaner fuels does not mean less co2....output. Collecting co2 at the tailpipe or smokestack is about as difficult as filtering out oxygen from the air ............Co2 is tiny ... colorless and it takes quite a filter to remove it .......The ocean on the otherhand does the job quite nicely :wink:

 

[hillbilly]

The whole idea is BS. It would never happen. No
worries!

 

[Anonymous]

Its not that simple.....Did you know that a natural gas burning city buse releases almost the same amount of co2 as that of a gasoline burning bus? Cleaner fuels does not mean less co2....output.

Some stoichiometry for you with formula weights at 2 significant figures:

Gasoline combustion for 10 grams of pure octane:

25 O(sub)2 + 2 C(sub)8H(sub)18 -> 18 H(sub)2O + 16 CO(sub)2

10 g C(sub)8H(sub)18 x (1 mol C(sub)8H(sub)18 / 114 g C(sub)8H(sub)18) x (8 mol CO(sub)2 / 1 mol C(sub)8H(sub)18) x (44 g CO(sub)2 / 1 mol CO(sub)2) = 31 g theoretical yield of CO(sub)2

Combustion for 10 grams of natural gas:

2 O(sub)2 + CH(sub)4 -> 2 H(sub)2O + CO(sub)2

10 g CH(sub)4 x (1 mol CH(sub)4 / 16 g CH(sub)4 x (1 mol CO(sub)2 / 1 mol CH(sub)4) x (44 g CO(sub)2 / 1 mol CO(sub)2) = 27 g theoretical yield of CO(sub)2

That's a 4 gram difference in the amount of carbon dioxide produced during combustion. With a formula weight of about 44 g/mol, that means there are 0.091 fewer moles of carbon dioxide produced by the 10 grams of natural gas being combusted. 0.091 moles is about the same as 5.5 x 10^22 molecules of carbon dioxide. That's 55,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 fewer molecules of carbon dioxide being generated by the natural gas combustion.

And for the love of sanity, learn to punctuate a sentence!

 

[investigator1]

galleon is my new hero.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Galleon,........."Diesel". City busses burn Diesel ! and secondly .Thats in a perfect world ..........like a laboratory..........it depends on how efficient the combustion is .......A converted diesel city bus is a horribly inefficient user of natural gas......as compared to a natural gas compact car or light truck........like the gasoline engines of the fiftys and sixties .......gasoline combustion has changed in cars ..but not much has changed in the large buss and truck power plants....Still, It might be more correct for me to have included Nox3 and CO2 in the comparison......between diesel and natural gas burning city busses. .PS. why dont you join us in the industry behind the hobby discussion area............{I am the "behind"there }............... I need you to opine on the coral diseases effecting Diploria Brain corals in Fla! PS I like the rambling effect the periods have :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Thats in a perfect world ..........like a laboratory..........it depends on how efficient the combustion is .......A converted diesel city bus is a horribly inefficient user of natural gas......as compared to a natural gas compact car or light truck........

Show me some sources and data that give the actual yields of greenhouses gases. Your rambling lacks foundation without them.

And take an English class, maybe they'll teach you that a pause in thought (which you seem to have frequently) does not translate to a row of periods when written.

 

[emjs777]

You are forgetting that a city bus carries 50 or more people, all of whom would be driving their own cars and releasing that much more CO2, had they not been riding the bus.

The way to curb our CO2 problem is to encourage mass transit - like city buses and trains - so that we, personally, contribute less CO2 to the atmosphere during our everyday commutes.

 

[Anonymous]

Galleon, kalk has been asked countless times to back up his claims, and every time, he fails to do so. He makes up figures and has brought a new form of math to light, Kalk-u-ass!!

 

[Kalkbreath]

You are forgetting that a city bus carries 50 or more people, all of whom would be driving their own cars and releasing that much more CO2, had they not been riding the bus.

The way to curb our CO2 problem is to encourage mass transit - like city buses and trains - so that we, personally, contribute less CO2 to the atmosphere during our everyday commutes.

Actually I have set this topic up perfectly.... Here in lies the mind set of those that think outside the box .....Myself being from a City which is among the worst cities in America in regards to air quality, During the Summer months, the city Clean Air Board releasees TV and radio ads encouraging commuters to ride the bus........But it seems that some scientists did comparison studies and learned that, a city bus releases the same amount of co2 and nox3 per minute as 150 cars do in the same one minute time span!! And it does so 16+ hours a day......while the average commuter only has his or her engine running for about 20 minutes......whats the average number of people on a city bus ? Even full, the average bus carries about 60 people.. and thats only during rush hour......so the rest of the non peak hours the bus only has a few people riding it. But still belches out Co2 and Nox# for the entire sixteen hours!!!..... Now, keep in mind that one of the reasons for the 150 to one ratio is that new auto emission standards are so tight that today's cars release very little emissions and in contrast bus engines are virtually unchanged ..Even natural gas }. So the final result is that per commuter, more emissions are released per person for those that are riding the mass transit busses then for people riding in their own cars......!!!

 

[Anonymous]

And still no sources I see.

 

[Kalkbreath]

And still no sources I see.

...........Being hand fed is what captive dolphins like ........not wild ones. There is no data supporting the notion that co2 deposited deep in the ocean would do more harm then where we now place it .......{Sky} If you feel , either of these notions are incorrect .....then you bring something new to the table.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Humans living today cannot remember the great abundance of sea life that existed even 500 years ago...but the ocean can. Deep water circulation patterns today bring carbon to the surface in ocean upwelling areas, in the same manner and quantity as they always have. This carbon is “exhaled” to the atmosphere in a process known as “outgassing.” What comes out of the sea is “very old” carbon, the memory of marine primary production that took place centuries ago. The deep water contains a vast pool of carbon, and it circulates only very slowly; the average turnover time may be about 1000 years. For many thousands of years the ocean and atmosphere maintained a carbon balance, and atmospheric levels were steady, but no longer. “New” carbon cycled into the deep water annually balanced the amount that was cycled out...but a rather long lag time exists between the two. Due to the drop in marine primary productivity, todays carbon input to the deep water falls significantly short of what is required to balance the amount that the ocean sends out via “outgassing.” Due to the 1000 year lag time between the input and output ends of the cycle, readjustment will take a while. The ocean and atmosphere are seeking a new state of carbon balance. The amount of CO2 exhaled annually by the ocean today represents the average amount of carbon put into the deep pool on a yearly basis over the last 1000 years. Due to the fishing-induced imbalance, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising. For the past two centuries the sea has “exhaled” larger amounts of CO2 than it has “inhaled.” This is an unrecognized consequence of human fishing, and continued fishing will only exacerbate the situation.

http://www.fisherycrisis.com/strangelove.html
Perhaps Bush Has it right after all?