CO2 Did not end the Ice Age
chemist
CO2 is soluble in sea water.
It's solubility reduces as the sea temperature increases.
It is probable that the depths of the Oceans contain more
CO2 than the surface due to volcanic action.
Deep ocean water is continuously being brought to the
surface by the Ocean Gyre where it can lose CO2 due to ocean
circulation.
If the oceans are cool they do not lose CO2 to the atmosphere
but if the are warm they do.
These considerations explain the fact that CO2 lags
behind the temperature by 800 years or more.
Ouroboros_Rex
Poor tommy just keeps posting the same fantasies. The oceans are
currently GAINING CO2 from human activities. lol
chemist
SO WHAT there was no human activity during the ice ages.
sock puppet.
Ouroboros_Rex
Then why do we care about your post, again? Help me out with that. ;)
Earl Evleth
22d817e1-e740-4b6e...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, "chemist"
<tom-b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> These considerations explain the fact that CO2 lags
> behind the temperature by 800 years or more.
It should be pointed out that the error bar in combining
the CO2 and temperature data is about 1000 years. Statistically
the temperature and CO2 variations march side by side.
What is certain that unless the CO2 atmospheric concentration
increases, warming can not continue.
Poetic Justice
Or that continued heating and Co2 reach a level that indicates the
commonly changing temperature has reached it's ceiling and they level
off due to forces unseen in this data. At which tiem the cycle starts
over once again.
Ouroboros_Rex
However, at no time will any proof of this made-up fantasy you have
concocted be presented. Right?
Earl Evleth
"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
>> It should be pointed out that the error bar in combining
>> the CO2 and temperature data is about 1000 years. Statistically
>> the temperature and CO2 variations march side by side.
>>
>> What is certain that unless the CO2 atmospheric concentration
>> increases, warming can not continue.
>
> Or that continued heating and Co2 reach a level that indicates the
> commonly changing temperature has reached it's ceiling and they level
> off due to forces unseen in this data. At which tiem the cycle starts
> over once again.
The CO2 levels (in the absence of man) vary between 200-300 ppm, which
are low, so low that the earth will go into the glacial-continental
ice cap mode at times. Combined with long term weathering
the level can not rise above 300 ppm unless volcanic releases
are large enough to drive it higher. But this has not occurred
in the last few million years.
What man has demonstrated is that he can influence the climate
or even local weather. The drainage of Florida's swamps
lead to the decrease in rainfall in that state. Deforestation
has been found to effect the climate$
"Researchers found during the Amazon dry season last August, there was a
distinct pattern of higher rainfall and warmer temperatures over deforested
regions."
The idea that the climate is just too big a thing for man to have an
effect on is false;
Paul E. Lehmann
Cite please.
What has been the effect of digging into the
groundwater aquifer to build up land high enough
to build on? What has been the result of all the
man made canals and lakes that were not there
originally?
Did you enjoy your trip to Florida and smelling
the exhaust of all the SUVs and enjoy the
degraded environment so you and the wealthy could
have a nice place to stay?
You know Earl, you act as if you are concerned
about environmental degradation but you sure seem
to enjoy it when it benefits you, don't you.
James
"Earl Evleth" <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:C453830B.123113%evl...@wanadoo.fr...
> On 16/05/08 18:09, in article
> OkiXj.5699$255....@bignews8.bellsouth.net,
> "Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
>
>>> It should be pointed out that the error bar in combining
>>> the CO2 and temperature data is about 1000 years. Statistically
>>> the temperature and CO2 variations march side by side.
>>>
>>> What is certain that unless the CO2 atmospheric concentration
>>> increases, warming can not continue.
>>
>> Or that continued heating and Co2 reach a level that indicates the
>> commonly changing temperature has reached it's ceiling and they level
>> off due to forces unseen in this data. At which tiem the cycle
>> starts
>> over once again.
>
> The CO2 levels (in the absence of man) vary between 200-300 ppm, which
> are low, so low that the earth will go into the glacial-continental
> ice cap mode at times. Combined with long term weathering
> the level can not rise above 300 ppm unless volcanic releases
> are large enough to drive it higher. But this has not occurred
> in the last few million years.
>
> What man has demonstrated is that he can influence the climate
> or even local weather. The drainage of Florida's swamps
> lead to the decrease in rainfall in that state. Deforestation
> has been found to effect the climate$
Seems a weather pattern may change somewhat when changing the
topography, depending on what the change is. Technically I suppose that
is a climate change. For that particular area anyway.
Earl Evleth
"Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>
>>
>> What man has demonstrated is that he can
>> influence the climate
>> or even local weather. The drainage of
>> Florida's swamps lead to the decrease in
>> rainfall in that state. Deforestation has been
>> found to effect the climate
>
> Cite please.
http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/circular/1134/esns/clim.html
Rain formation in south Florida is "catalyzed" by the rising
moisture from the swampy areas, a feed back mechanism.
> Did you enjoy your trip to Florida and smelling
> the exhaust of all the SUVs and enjoy the
> degraded environment so you and the wealthy could
> have a nice place to stay?
We where at Sanibel, a goodly portion of the local
transportation is on bicycle! We drove over from
Miami airport but otherwise walked a lot.
`
> You know Earl, you act as if you are concerned
> about environmental degradation but you sure seem
> to enjoy it when it benefits you, don't you.
I did not run the air conditioning!
The visit allowed me to develop some ideas on
economics and non-sustainable exploitation of
natural resources.
One item I noticed, drivers in Florida still
max their speeds on the highways. And American
TV news seemed focalized on 1) the elections
and 2) gasoline prices.
Paul E. Lehmann
> On 16/05/08 19:03, in article
> 47CdnTF9Q9X1I7DV...@comcast.com,
> "Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Earl Evleth wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> What man has demonstrated is that he can
>>> influence the climate
>>> or even local weather. The drainage of
>>> Florida's swamps lead to the decrease in
>>> rainfall in that state. Deforestation has been
>>> found to effect the climate
>>
>> Cite please.
>
>
http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/circular/1134/esns/clim.html
>
> Rain formation in south Florida is "catalyzed"
> by the rising moisture from the swampy areas, a
> feed back mechanism.
Earl, the point I am making is that it is true
swamps are being drained, wet areas are also
being CREATED by digging up the thin layer of
soil on top of the ground water aquifer and
creating canals and lakes. Was this taken into
account?
>
>> Did you enjoy your trip to Florida and smelling
>> the exhaust of all the SUVs and enjoy the
>> degraded environment so you and the wealthy
>> could have a nice place to stay?
>
> We where at Sanibel, a goodly portion of the
> local
> transportation is on bicycle! We drove over
> from Miami airport but otherwise walked a lot.
Did you get to Sanibel by sail boat or did you fly
in one of those air polluting flying machines?
> `
>> You know Earl, you act as if you are concerned
>> about environmental degradation but you sure
>> seem to enjoy it when it benefits you, don't
>> you.
>
> I did not run the air conditioning!
And George Bush gave up the game of Golf because
of the Iraq war. Both statements have about the
same amount of meaningless nonsense.
>
> The visit allowed me to develop some ideas on
> economics and non-sustainable exploitation of
> natural resources.
Did you try to reinvent the wheel also? Did you
visit the nearby State Park I told you about?
That would have given you some clues on how it
was tried in South Florida during the time of
Thomas Edison et al by a bunch of Religious
Utopian nuts. Some of their ideas were not bad
and well suited to the South Florida environment
but in the end were not practical either.
>
> One item I noticed, drivers in Florida still
> max their speeds on the highways. And American
> TV news seemed focalized on 1) the elections
> and 2) gasoline prices.
One thing the news media fails to cover adequately
is that gasoline prices are not so much affected
by supply and demand as they are the futures
dealers on Wall Street and around the world. The
Saudis for example are saying - why should we
pump more oil and have it sit on tanker ships off
shore because the supply is already meeting
demand.
Earl Evleth
"Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>
>
> Earl, the point I am making is that it is true
> swamps are being drained, wet areas are also
> being CREATED by digging up the thin layer of
> soil on top of the ground water aquifer and
> creating canals and lakes. Was this taken into
> account?
Cite!
Is the total amount of water being put back into
the atmosphere the same or more than that lost?
>>> Did you enjoy your trip to Florida and smelling
>>> the exhaust of all the SUVs and enjoy the
>>> degraded environment so you and the wealthy
>>> could have a nice place to stay?
>>
>> We where at Sanibel, a goodly portion of the
>> local
>> transportation is on bicycle! We drove over
>> from Miami airport but otherwise walked a lot.
>
> Did you get to Sanibel by sail boat or did you fly
> in one of those air polluting flying machines?
So fuel consumed by ocean going vessels exceed that
by air traveL.
>>
>> I did not run the air conditioning!
>
> And George Bush gave up the game of Golf because
> of the Iraq war.
He gave up his golf cart?
>>
>> The visit allowed me to develop some ideas on
>> economics and non-sustainable exploitation of
>> natural resources.
>
> Did you try to reinvent the wheel also?
That is an ongoing process. Non-sustainable exploitation
lead eventually to the exhaustion of the resource exploited.
So the curve of exploitation, like oil, starts off at zero
and finishes up as zero, a fact that most people would not
like to worry about. But intellectually they realize it
except for some deniers who think the hydrocarbons are
being constantly created in the total system at a rate
sufficient to keep man kind supplied.
However, what I would like to point out it is that some
resources, like the forests, are viewed as being sustainably
exploitable. But are they? Even theoretically there is doubt.
In removing biomass from a system which is in equilibrium
we introduce a population change forcing. We don't just remove
transformed CO2 but inorganic matter. The supply curve will
drop as we clear cut a forest to zero and then if the land is
let alone but the population of the trees exploited will not
return with time to the prior level but a lower level. If
repetitively harvested after many years of growth again and again,
the biomass will and inorganic material continually exported
the eventual curve will reach a near zero or zero supply of new trees.
Man has practiced this on Easter Island, for instance, Iceland had
trees before man arrived but in those cases the trees were not harvested
in a steady-state manner. I claim that even if that was attempted
the long range result would be deforestation.
In this sense, man is a disease carry organism, like some forest
destroying insect but in this case worse since it carries its
prey away to consume else where. We do the same with the fish in
the ocean.
Paul E. Lehmann
> On 17/05/08 14:11, in article
> ceqdnS_8CNbLVrPV...@comcast.com,
> "Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Earl Evleth wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Earl, the point I am making is that it is true
>> swamps are being drained, wet areas are also
>> being CREATED by digging up the thin layer of
>> soil on top of the ground water aquifer and
>> creating canals and lakes. Was this taken into
>> account?
>
> Cite!
Your trip to Florida should have given you ample
time for basic observation. Did you look at
anything besides the ocean?
>
> Is the total amount of water being put back into
> the atmosphere the same or more than that lost?
Don't know and at this point don't care. All I am
saying is that it needs to be taken into account.
I am not the one who loves to go to Florida. To
me it is a terribly depressing state and my trip
there this last year was my last.
>
>>>> Did you enjoy your trip to Florida and
>>>> smelling the exhaust of all the SUVs and
>>>> enjoy the degraded environment so you and the
>>>> wealthy could have a nice place to stay?
>>>
>>> We where at Sanibel, a goodly portion of the
>>> local
>>> transportation is on bicycle! We drove over
>>> from Miami airport but otherwise walked a lot.
>>
>> Did you get to Sanibel by sail boat or did you
>> fly in one of those air polluting flying
>> machines?
>
> So fuel consumed by ocean going vessels exceed
> that by air traveL.
I am talking sailing ships here, Earl. You know,
the ones powered by the wind. You are retired
now and must have ample time. It seems that if
you were really environmentally conscious you
might be able to find one or join a crew to sail
across the Atlantic. Hey, put that in your plan;
wind powered transportation just like the good
ole days - balloons, ships, hell maybe even a
real "Prairie Schooner" with sails instead of
horses.
>
>
>>>
>>> I did not run the air conditioning!
>>
>> And George Bush gave up the game of Golf
>> because of the Iraq war.
>
> He gave up his golf cart?
He gave up nothing but implied he gave up the
game. Video tapes show he lied. It coincides
with a muscle problem or some such thing he had
for a time. It may be sort of like you implying
you "give up something" when in actuality is just
a life style preference for you not to use air
conditioning and not the environment you are
trying to protect.
>
> >>
>>> The visit allowed me to develop some ideas on
>>> economics and non-sustainable exploitation of
>>> natural resources.
>>
>> Did you try to reinvent the wheel also?
>
> That is an ongoing process. Non-sustainable
> exploitation lead eventually to the exhaustion
> of the resource exploited.
>
> So the curve of exploitation, like oil, starts
> off at zero and finishes up as zero, a fact that
> most people would not
> like to worry about. But intellectually they
> realize it except for some deniers who think the
> hydrocarbons are being constantly created in the
> total system at a rate sufficient to keep man
> kind supplied.
How much fuel did the jet that carried you across
the Atlantic use?
>
> However, what I would like to point out it is
> that some resources, like the forests, are
> viewed as being sustainably exploitable. But are
> they?
Hell, our mere existence on planet earth upsets
the balance in the non human part of nature in a
LOT of things. BUT, we are part of nature also,
are we not or did the creator screw up when we
were "made"?
John M.
> On 17/05/08 14:11, in article ceqdnS_8CNbLVrPVnZ2dnUVZ_sWdn...@comcast.com,
Absolutely right. The problem is likely going to be with essential
trace minerals that take millenia to re-enter the ecosystem once most
have been transported away by cropping.
> In this sense, man is a disease carry organism, like some forest
> destroying insect but in this case worse since it carries its
> prey away to consume else where. We do the same with the fish in
> the ocean.
Did you see a recent post holding similar thoughts by "z". His notion
was that we can view mankind evolving as a novel form of feedback to
counter the locking away of carbon below the surface. Once enough has
resurfaced and enters the atmosphere, our ecological role will end and
the planet will once more be the way it was before we showed up.
Poetic Justice
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>
>> On 17/05/08 14:11, in article
>> ceqdnS_8CNbLVrPV...@comcast.com,
>> "Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Earl Evleth wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Earl, the point I am making is that it is true
>>> swamps are being drained, wet areas are also
>>> being CREATED by digging up the thin layer of
>>> soil on top of the ground water aquifer and
>>> creating canals and lakes. Was this taken into
>>> account?
>> Cite!
>
> Your trip to Florida should have given you ample
> time for basic observation. Did you look at
> anything besides the ocean?
>
warming?
Earl Evleth
"Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> Your trip to Florida should have given you ample
> time for basic observation. Did you look at
> anything besides the ocean?
Mostly the dry Florida landscape. We had some smoke
from the wild fires.
>> Is the total amount of water being put back into
>> the atmosphere the same or more than that lost?
>
> Don't know and at this point don't care. All I am
> saying is that it needs to be taken into account.
> I am not the one who loves to go to Florida. To
> me it is a terribly depressing state and my trip
> there this last year was my last.
While urban sprawl is depressing, I found the rusty
bridges of NY City evidence that the infrastructure
is suffering. South Florida has a lot of "new" to it
so does not look run down
>
>>
>> So fuel consumed by ocean going vessels exceed
>> that by air traveL.
>
> I am talking sailing ships here, Earl.
You don't see the whole picture then?
> You know, the ones powered by the wind.
When fossil fuels are completely consumed they
will make a come back. In fact one company in
Germany current sells a wind parachute add-on
to freighters which are claimed to cut
fuel expenditures by 30%.
> You are retired now and must have ample time.
There is never enough time.
> It seems that if you were really environmentally
> conscious you might be able to find one or join a crew to sail
> across the Atlantic.
At 76 I will not be chassed after as a crew mate.
But you can see my photo as captain of a sailing vessel
http://homepage.mac.com/evleth/PhotoAlbum7.html
> How much fuel did the jet that carried you across
> the Atlantic use?
None that I can remember.
In fact I did not travel to the US the two previous years.
If the fuel consumption is X per trip, I saved 2X and spent`
1X, with a net savings of 1X in fuel. So I have been saving
fuel not burning it.
My wife also suggests that my hot air helps lift the plane.
Just call me Mister Ecology.
Earl Evleth
"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
> Were the girls pealing off those bikinis due to the heat from Global
> warming?
At 76 I would not notice.
John M.
> On 17/05/08 18:11, in article ZrDXj.47220$3v1.23...@bignews3.bellsouth.net,
>
> "Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
> > Were the girls pealing off those bikinis due to the heat from Global
> > warming?
>
> At 76 I would not notice.
So I don't have a lot to look forward to, 7 years from now, eh!
Earl Evleth
e859bdb5-735d-43a7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com, "John M."
<john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> At 76 I would not notice.
>
> So I don't have a lot to look forward to, 7 years from now, eh!
Be optimistic, you could be dead by then.
John M.
>
> <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> At 76 I would not notice.
>
> > So I don't have a lot to look forward to, 7 years from now, eh!
>
> Be optimistic, you could be dead by then.
Yup. I guess that will stop my urge to always eyeball the totty.
Paul E. Lehmann
If I am as pessimistic and down on the human race
as you at your age, it might be better to be
dead.
Paul E. Lehmann
Venture out to the rural areas that are not
populated by the affluent to get a real view of
Florida.
>>
>>>
>>> So fuel consumed by ocean going vessels exceed
>>> that by air traveL.
>>
>> I am talking sailing ships here, Earl.
>
> You don't see the whole picture then?
>
>> You know, the ones powered by the wind.
>
> When fossil fuels are completely consumed they
> will make a come back. In fact one company in
> Germany current sells a wind parachute add-on
> to freighters which are claimed to cut
> fuel expenditures by 30%.
>
>> You are retired now and must have ample time.
>
> There is never enough time.
>
>> It seems that if you were really
>> environmentally conscious you might be able to
>> find one or join a crew to sail across the
>> Atlantic.
>
> At 76 I will not be chassed after as a crew
> mate.
>
> But you can see my photo as captain of a sailing
> vessel
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/evleth/PhotoAlbum7.html
>
>> How much fuel did the jet that carried you
>> across the Atlantic use?
>
> None that I can remember.
I see, a glider. Must have been a wonderful
experience.
>
> In fact I did not travel to the US the two
> previous years. If the fuel consumption is X per
> trip, I saved 2X and spent` 1X, with a net
> savings of 1X in fuel. So I have been saving
> fuel not burning it.
So you think you are "entitled" to come to the US
at least every year and if you don't you are
"saving fuel". How kind of you. Maybe if you
never came back you could save even more.
>
> My wife also suggests that my hot air helps lift
> the plane.
But carrying around a load of BS in your pants
more than counters that.
>
> Just call me Mister Ecology.
I just call you one of those who talks a good game
but exempts themselves from the behavior and life
style they try to impose on others because they
feel they are entitled to it and others are not.
Earl Evleth
"Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> If I am as pessimistic and down on the human race
> as you at your age, it might be better to be
> dead.
`
Tell us about the optimistic side of the human race,
with regard to other living things and the ecosystem
in general.
Earl Evleth
"Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>> In fact I did not travel to the US the two
>> previous years. If the fuel consumption is X per
>> trip, I saved 2X and spent` 1X, with a net
>> savings of 1X in fuel. So I have been saving
>> fuel not burning it.
>
> So you think you are "entitled" to come to the US
> at least every year and if you don't you are
> "saving fuel". How kind of you. Maybe if you
> never came back you could save even more.
The planes will continue to cross and recross
the Atlantic. So each time I don't take one, I
save on fuel consumption. That is an enormous
about of fuel saving, I am proud to say!
You just have to know how to do the accounting.
Paul E. Lehmann
Nature recycles what is not longer useful or
productive / reproductive :-)
Paul E. Lehmann
Earl, the case is "settled" for you so why should
I bother.
Paul E. Lehmann
I just knew that you and George W. Bush had
something in common.