1751
Jerome Tang Coaches Kansas State Basketball / Re: 2016 Recruiting Thread
« on: September 28, 2015, 02:46:24 PM »
Xavier Sneed - where's he going?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I'm glad you brought that up Trey. It would seem that the dude is playing extremely fast and loose with many things. It's been discussed by many that we don't really know how much CO2 that volcanoes are producing and that the producing of CO2 by volcanoes has a degree of variance does it not? Read like a lot of firing from the hip to me.
Thank you for your speculation. Would it be plausible that we have not discovered all of the natural occurring CO2 venting in the Ocean?
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.
Commercial buildings are so much worse. They are far and away worse than cars.
Yes, concrete is a TERRIBLE carbon dioxide emitter.
So we have to knock those down too?
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.
Commercial buildings are so much worse. They are far and away worse than cars.
I wish I was as optomistic about solar as trey.
We [humans] are now producing more CO2 than all volcanoes on Earth," van der Meer added. "We will affect climate in ways that are unprecedented and unnatural. The question is how much climate will change. We can now answer this for the past and apply [it] to the future by extrapolation.
Here we are with more people then ever and multiple highly industrialized nations that are doing nothing to curb carbon emissions.
Yet we are at less than 30% of the researched all time CO2 highs for the earth which is believed to have exceeded 1000 ppm or higher.
Yet there are those who want to impose draconian measures while allowing countries like China to continue their emissions ramp up. It's even been found that CO2 PPM spikes when certain highly valued consumer goods production ramps up in China. But you Americans are gonna pay!
Always cite your sources, dax, it's the hallmark of a good scientist.
When I can afford a Tesla or similar EV, I'm totally going to slap a bumper sticker on it that says "this car powered by coal."
Can't wait for the day when were totally powered by wind and solar. As for which states we'll need to condemn for all the necessary space for those solar panels and windmills, I think New Mexico should hopefully do it. Might need Arizona too.
did you know that the light energy from the sun that hits the surface of earth in a single day is enough to power all human activity on the planet for more than 1 year?!? WOW!
Wow! That is really neato!! It's also totally irrelevant. I bet cold fusion power would be super powerful too!!! Let us know when you invent a technology that can efficiently harness the sun or wind that can power the US without sprawling over an area the size of New Mexico.
Trey are you Bill Nye in real life? Oh wait, he's a mechanical engineer.
If the science is settled, go ahead and put your marker down. How much warmer is the earth going to be in 10 years? 20? 30?
Here we are with more people then ever and multiple highly industrialized nations that are doing nothing to curb carbon emissions.
Yet we are at less than 30% of the researched all time CO2 highs for the earth which is believed to have exceeded 1000 ppm or higher.
Yet there are those who want to impose draconian measures while allowing countries like China to continue their emissions ramp up. It's even been found that CO2 PPM spikes when certain highly valued consumer goods production ramps up in China. But you Americans are gonna pay!
What if underwater volcanoes were not a constant and emit more CO2 than is emitted by the ocean into the atmosphere?
Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).
In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is K?lauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 K?lauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).
There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.
Nice shot Trey, I don't know where that came from.
Wasn't there a Physicist from Princeton who testified in front of Congress a few years ago that said Earth is actually in CO2 deficit?? Nobel winner to boot.
Excellent points on technology Trey and how it wasn't until recently that the technology even existed to even study many of these complex systems.
This also comes into play when warmest propagandists become weather scare mongers.
I find it a bit fascinating that warmest propagandist scientists nearly stampeded each other trying to disprove the impact of volcanos on global warming. While understanding that volcanos emissions impact both heating and cooling of the earth.
For example the relatively recent Icelandic major eruption was estimated to have emitted Co2 at a rate equal to a midsize Eurozone economy/country. They concluded that these emissions were "insignificant" in the context of global warming. While there are no major eruptions occurring now, there are still 40 something volcanos erupting right now and many more that are very active. It seems interesting that natural events that emit warming gasses equal to entire modern economies in a relatively short period are so easily dismissed.
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.
For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.
I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?
I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.
As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)
Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.
I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.
The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:Quote"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.Source
So, is it possible that the earth is actually warming from the interior rather than from the air, thus releasing more carbon dioxide into the air?
Entropy dictates that the core of the earth is cooling over time. So...no. Also, there are no stores of carbon dioxide in the earth. It is produced mainly through 1 of 2 ways: respiration and the combustion of hydrocarbons.
So, is it possible that if there is increased volcanic activity in the depths of the oceans, would it have a warming effect with the warmer water rising to the top? When it warms, doesn't the ocean release CO2 into the air?
just by itself, that explanation is scientifically plausible...but it doesn't agree with the rest of the data. If all the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was coming from ancient oceanic stores that are being heated by volcanic activity, one would expect the pH of the ocean to rise (become less acidic). This is because when carbon dioxide is dissolved in water, a small amount of it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which makes the water more acidic. Now, carbonic acid is a very unstable acid that breaks back down into water and carbon dioxide quite easily, and thus, when the carbon dioxide leaves the water, the acid leaves with it.
But this is not what we are seeing the pH level of the ocean do:
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/
and hence, we deduce that the carbon dioxide is coming from some other source. good question, though.
Since the atmosphere is only about 3% CO2, and human output is only about 4-5% of that small amount, it would seem more plausible that the spike in atmospheric CO2 would more likely come from a natural source. What if they recently found, like, in the last 15 years, giant undersea volcanoes all over the world that ebb and flow in cycles along tectonic rifts?
We have never explained things like the medieval warming period, or the little ice age, yet now when we have a little warming period of our own, we instantly blame ourselves for suddenly being able to control the climate, and in turn, give governments a free pass to increase taxes and regulations to "fix what we have done". What if the majority of major media thought that it was a good idea to go along with the idea that humans are responsible and report stories that support that idea and ignore discoveries that don't? (preemptive for lib media )
One thing that all scientist do agree on, is that the driving force of climate is the oceans, not the air.QuoteHydrothermal "Megaplume" Found in Indian Ocean
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
December 12, 2005
An enormous hydrothermal "megaplume" found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth's ocean systems, scientists report.
The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale.
"In a nutshell, this thing is at least 10 times—or possibly 20 times—bigger than anything of its kind that's been seen before," said Bramley Murton of the British National Oceanography Centre.
Scientists reported the finding last week at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco. Researchers also announced newly discovered deep-sea hydrothermal fields in the Arctic Ocean and the south Atlantic.
The appearance of hydrothermal vents around the world suggests that they are a far more common part of the ocean system than once believed and could be a major influence on circulation patterns and ocean chemistry.
"A normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts, while this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there."
Recent studies have attempted to factor the heat from the world's known hydrothermal ridges into ocean circulation models.
"Some studies estimate that for the Pacific, background thermal heating might increase ocean circulation by up to 50 percent," Murton said.
Regular hydrothermal fields stir the water for only a few hundred meters (about a thousand feet) above the ocean floor. "But these megaplumes can reach a column of 1,000 to 1,500 meters [3,280 to 4,920 feet], so it reaches right up into the midwater," he said.
But even the Indian Ocean megaplume may be small compared to larger underwater eruptions that have as yet gone undetected.
"At the moment those that we've seen have come from small eruptions in the larger scheme of things," he said.
"But we know when we look at the ocean floor that there have been much larger eruptions, so we can only speculate about what magnitude of event plumes would come from those."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_megaplume.html
Even in the Arctic Ocean:QuoteHydrothermal Vents Found in Arctic Ocean
John Roach
for National Geographic News
January 23, 2003
Marine scientists surveying an unexplored mountain range deep beneath the Arctic Ocean have discovered at least nine hydrothermal vents on the Gakkel Ridge, a mid-ocean mountain range that snakes for 1,100 miles (1,770 kilometers) from high above Greenland to Siberia.
Scientists say the underwater hotspots may potentially host unique forms of life previously unknown to science.
"To find as many [hydrothermal vents] as we did was completely unexpected and incredibly exciting," said Henrietta Edmonds, a marine scientist at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the lead researchers that made the discovery. "At first it was difficult to believe, but I soon managed to convince my colleagues."
Scientists have long theorized that only a few vents existed on the ridge and would be difficult to locate.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0123_030123_hotspring.html
I don't think they're evil and my post farther up the thread wasn't really scientific in nature. Plants need CO2, warmer climates have longer growing seasons1, 3rd world countries will get no where on the back of alternative energy.
I've also never been a denier2 I am just smart enough to understand that the science is not settled3, and that politcal agendas are driving warmest propagandist science, thus rendering it in need of questioning every step of the way.
Modern agriculture of the kind needed to feed the world is not sustainable without fossil fuels.
Undeveloped countries will not be able to move forward without fossil fuels. This isn't oversimplification, it's reality.
I'll just mark Trey down on the side of massive depopulation.
The U.S. and other developed countries, besides China and India are making massive moves via the market systems in place to reduce emissions. But the simple facts remain that it will have to be a gradual process otherwise the economy will be destroyed and people across the world will be much worse off. But that's what some people want, which is sad.
Alternative energy is no where close to meeting the energy demands of our economy and fossil fuels will drive the growth of alternative energy systems manufacturing.
When I can afford a Tesla or similar EV, I'm totally going to slap a bumper sticker on it that says "this car powered by coal."
Can't wait for the day when were totally powered by wind and solar. As for which states we'll need to condemn for all the necessary space for those solar panels and windmills, I think New Mexico should hopefully do it. Might need Arizona too.
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.
For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.
I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?
I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.
As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)
Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.
I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.
The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:Quote"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.Source
So, is it possible that the earth is actually warming from the interior rather than from the air, thus releasing more carbon dioxide into the air?
Entropy dictates that the core of the earth is cooling over time. So...no. Also, there are no stores of carbon dioxide in the earth. It is produced mainly through 1 of 2 ways: respiration and the combustion of hydrocarbons.
So, is it possible that if there is increased volcanic activity in the depths of the oceans, would it have a warming effect with the warmer water rising to the top? When it warms, doesn't the ocean release CO2 into the air?
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.
Or we could not be idiots about our cars...
and power them with renewable resources off a smart grid that works to protect humanity instead of lining the pockets of a small group of people.
How much does that car cost?
So plants don't need co2? Plants do well in the cold? Underdeveloped countries are going to dig their way out on the back of alternative energy?
LOL. okay.
Treysolid what is causing global warming, is it cars?
Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for co2. It's how we survive. False
Warm, much easily adapted to, cold means almost certain death. False
Fossil fuels: The only way underdeveloped nations can escape their plight. False
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.
For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.
I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?
I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.
As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)
Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.
I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.
The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:Quote"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.Source
So, is it possible that the earth is actually warming from the interior rather than from the air, thus releasing more carbon dioxide into the air?