The Great Global Warming Swindle Options

[Testm0nkey]

instead of posting in this thread myself, when someone says something outrageous thats just flat out isnt how it works or valid ill just post links to sources! that wont get annoying... ever

did you guys even take anything beyond basic chem or basic atmospheric science? and while ME's have a lot of physics that really doesnt play any role in this stuff.



oh techsans how far you have fallen

[Psykopath]

Pretty sure Brandon is just trolling to get a rise out of you, and Dogmeat is...

...well, Dogmeat is just being an internet ass.

This post has been edited by Psykopath: Apr 24 2008, 10:54 PM

[impala454]

ok i have this from my carbon capture notes - a typical 30 mpg (!) car driving 10k miles/year emits a ton of carbon into the air annually. today there are ~ 600 million cars in the world and its predicted that there will be 2 billion passenger cars on the road in 50 years.

side note 30 mpg and 10k a year is like amazing efficiency. virtually NO ONE especially americans get that.

but cars arent the only polluters industrial and commercial buildings are some of the worst, add into that factories, mining, everything else you get astronomical numbers.

well if you get astronomical numbers it shouldn't be difficult to compare them to the overall volume of the earth's atmosphere, and show me that it's significant. If you look at all the cars, then by your numbers that's 600 million tons per year into the atmosphere. So if we wanted to just look at cars lone affect on the atmosphere:
600,000,000 tons CO2 from cars
5,148,000,000,000,000 tons of atmosphere to effect

do a little math, and all 600 million cars on the planet just contributed 1/858,000th of the atmosphere. or, 0.0000011655 % or, roughly one millionth of a percent.

BUT THEN you have to think about the chemistry behind global warming.

every molecule of destructive gas and particles we emit into the atmosphere has exponential negative expansion. thats because a lot of the gas, virtually all of them, that make up our atmosphere serve as a catalyst to produce more negative compounds...

im on the phone so i didnt make that clear. i can write out the formulas if you want
and it was PROVEN that even our use of CFC's affected the atmophere so much it created a massive hole the size of australia. thats huge support for the theory that we can affect the atmosphere. its proof
and i am willing to bet you wont read this like you didnt read my other long post where i explained what global warming was and some of its evidence because its CLEAR not many people actually know much about it

"exponential negative expansion"? come on now. how did they "prove" that there was/is a "hole the size of australia" in the atmosphere, and that it was due to our CFC emissions?

[Dogmeat]

Pretty sure Brandon is just trolling to get a rise out of you, and Dogmeat is...

...well, Dogmeat is just being an internet ass.

Actually no, I just don't buy blindly into political movements that "sound good" like most people do.

[Psykopath]

Actually no, I just don't buy blindly into political movements that "sound good" like most people do.

eh, still being an internet ass about this and every other subject on this message board.

But whatever.

[Dogmeat]

eh, still being an internet ass about this and every other subject on this message board.

But whatever.

I haven't even BEGUN to be an ass yet.

[Testm0nkey]

omg someone is trying to say there wasnt a hole in the ozone layer now! impala man that was PROVEN. every government in the world now has restrictions on CFC's because it was proven they were causing it. fortunately though the ozone layer recovered - thus giving us hope that we CAN do something to improve our atmosphere. thats why this thread is tiring. its like how do people not know this?! the CFC story broke in the 70s. isnt this common knowledge?

come on now Zach i dont take dogmeat and brandon seriously

[Hartmann]

did you guys even take anything beyond basic chem or basic atmospheric science? and while ME's have a lot of physics that really doesnt play any role in this stuff.
oh techsans how far you have fallen

I did... Took two years of Atmo and was required to take two chemical engineering course while at Shell.

[Psykopath]

I did... Took two years of Atmo and was required to take two chemical engineering course while at Shell.

I took 3...nyyyaaaaahhhh

[Testm0nkey]

then i am assuming you know what a catalyst is. hence "negative expansion" the catalyst (like CL in our atmosphere) remains after the initial reaction so net ozone destruction (like the holein the ozone layer) speeds up

O2 + UV --> O + O
O + O2 --> O3 ozone. the UV is strong enough to break that covalent bond

when you get a catalyst into play, which can be regular chemicals found in our atmosphere, of particular interest is Cl. its a 2 step reaction

Cl + O3 --> ClO + O2
ClO + O --> Cl + O2

it uses the oxygen that would be there to start ozone production while still remaining in the products and the cycle starts over again (Cl still there to be "bad" but that new O2 molecule is used up each time. and this is a very fast process)


(in response to impala's earlier post)
and the typical passenger car is not getting 30mpg and only driving 10k miles a year. in addition to the astronomical amounts of pollution and waste thats pumped out/used up by factories, building, farming, trains, refineries, air planes. i mean cars arent the only things causing pollution

[Hartmann]

I took 3...nyyyaaaaahhhh

yeah, I took that and Geology... I learned a lot in Atmo, not so much in Geology.

[Hartmann]

then i am assuming you know what a catalyst is. hence "negative expansion" the catalyst (like CL in our atmosphere) remains after the initial reaction so net ozone destruction (like the holein the ozone layer) speeds up

O2 + UV --> O + O
O + O2 --> O3 ozone. the UV is strong enough to break that covalent bond

when you get a catalyst into play, which can be regular chemicals found in our atmosphere, of particular interest is Cl. its a 2 step reaction

Cl + O3 --> ClO + O2
ClO + O --> Cl + O2

it uses the oxygen that would be there to start ozone production while still remaining in the products and the cycle starts over again (Cl still there to be "bad" but that new O2 molecule is used up each time. and this is a very fast process)

It makes sense, but this doesn't take place in a bubble, and I think there are other things going on during the reaction.

[impala454]

omg someone is trying to say there wasnt a hole in the ozone layer now! impala man that was PROVEN. every government in the world now has restrictions on CFC's because it was proven they were causing it. fortunately though the ozone layer recovered - thus giving us hope that we CAN do something to improve our atmosphere. thats why this thread is tiring. its like how do people not know this?! the CFC story broke in the 70s. isnt this common knowledge?

Cat seriously, if I had a dollar for every word you put in my mouth. I never said there was not a hole. I asked how they proved it. And if the hole went away, why is it being included in your argument?

[Testm0nkey]

whether or not you believe in the science and the decades of research behind this, the fact the ozone layer began repairing itself a few years after CFC's were virtually banned across the world gives pretty good support.

i have the equations and information about CFC's breakdown and further reactions somewhere if you really want them

the hole repaired itself because humans got together to do something good and cut back on CFC's. showing we can do something and we can affect our atmosphere greatly. you laughed and put "hole" in quotations and were snarky thus me thinking you didnt believe it

they proved there was a hole because you could see it. they proved CFCs and pollution were involved because science isnt black magic anymore

[impala454]

(in response to impala's earlier post)
and the typical passenger car is not getting 30mpg and only driving 10k miles a year. in addition to the astronomical amounts of pollution and waste thats pumped out/used up by factories, building, farming, trains, refineries, air planes. i mean cars arent the only things causing pollution

You completely missed the point. You could make it 3mpg if you want. The number is still making an insignificant change.

whether or not you believe in the science and the decades of research behind this, the fact the ozone layer began repairing itself a few years after CFC's were virtually banned across the world gives pretty good support.

i have the equations and information about CFC's breakdown and further reactions somewhere if you really want them

I know about CFCs being banned, so why the hell are you bringing them up in an argument about stuff today??!?