Nuclear Polyticks

[Freenhult]

Who cares about the ocean floor? Ever hear of plankton? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
(Though, I really should put a citation needed tag right by the statement "oceans constitute the largest (active) pool of carbon on Earth." )

That being said, we should really watch our industrial runoff carefully. We kill that stuff off, and we would find ourselves without a fish as a viable food source.

Plankton aren't plants. And even so, I can't be sure thats true. Last I heard that forests were the current biggest sink. However, plankton and such don't eat enough, and increasing their numbers would be bad for the water ecosystem.

Higher Temperature => Greater Volume.
Okay, assuming the mass of the air remains the same, this would mean a lower density. Which I would think would LOWER the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere. Thus, the same energy would result in a greater increase in temperature.... Was this your point?

Slightly, but I think you're starting to understand. The volume of the Earth does have room to grow. So, as your adding more volume, your increasing the pressure on the bottom layer, which is where all the water vapor is. Thus also increasing the heat of the layer, while adding a substance which can store a very large amount of energy. Its literally a double kill.

But I thought that CO2 lagged behind temperature, which would suggest it is a trailing indicator not a cause of global warming.
An interesting, and relatively neutral article on the issue (which in part disagrees with me on this issue): http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Thats because CO2 doesn't really warm the air that much. It helps processes that do increase the global temp. We have an ass ton of CO2 that isn't even being used I guess. AND we're adding more. The problem is that not only will that get "used" but the unused is getting larger. So we have more warming even if we stopped CO2 emissions right now. We're looking at at least 50 years of increased temperature increase.

  Freenhault simply dismisses the opinion of a number of highly educated folks in the film "Treat Global Warming Swindle" (link previous in this thread) as lies, while only addressing one of their arguments. There are plenty of highly educated folks in the field who doubt the human released Carbon Dioxide directly causes global warming.

If you need to, please post the other issues. I'd love to hear them.

[Gen. Volkov]

Plankton aren't plants. wink.gif And even so, I can't be sure thats true. Last I heard that forests were the current biggest sink. However, plankton and such don't eat enough, and increasing their numbers would be bad for the water ecosystem

True, but there are marine plants. Anyway, oceanic plankton are both the main source of oxygen and main carbon sink in the world. All land plant life accounts for abuot 20% of global carbon uptake, whereas marine phytoplankton account for about 80% of global carbon uptake. If the phytoplankton die off, we're screwed.

BTW bjorn, temp lags behind CO2 variations. You had made that point before, and I corrected you, apparently it didn't stick.

[bjornredtail]

BTW bjorn, temp lags behind CO2 variations. You had made that point before, and I corrected you, apparently it didn't stick.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to source this...

I've got my sources, see the global warming swindle and the link I posted earlier. I'm working on tracking down something a bit more authoritative.

Slightly, but I think you're starting to understand. The volume of the Earth does have room to grow. So, as your adding more volume, your increasing the pressure on the bottom layer, which is where all the water vapor is. Thus also increasing the heat of the layer, while adding a substance which can store a very large amount of energy. Its literally a double kill.

Pressure goes up... Density remains the same (volume and mass remaining roughly equal), so... No change in specific heat capacity. Unless the point is that evaporation rates increase, thus increasing the amount of water vapor (another greenhouse gas), which in turn increases specific heat... Meaning that... Hummm. Higher specific heat means for the same energy, less temperature change, but the increased greenhouse effect due to the water vapor would mean more energy being captured. And this whole thing begins to sound like a giant related rates problem...

More to come later: Symphony and Homework now

[Freenhult]

Incorrect, density does not remain the same. It would increase further. Once that happens you get a lower specific heat needed (If I'm thinking right) and a greater rise in the gases temperature over time. Thus leading to warming.

[bjornredtail]

Volume remains the same, mass remains the same. How does density change again?

Additionally, a higher volume density would mean more mass per given unit volume, which would mean higher specific heat capacity. Correct... Higher heat capacity means more energy, not less, is needed to increase the temperature.

I should also take the time to point out that higher pressure doesn't equal higher density. If I were to take a sealed chamber and heat it, the gas inside would exert a higher pressure, but it could not expand or leak out. So, you still have the same amount of mass in the same volume.

[Freenhult]

No. Mass AND Density increase. Lower mass particles are forced upwards as heavier ones are introduced back in. The atmosphere will get more dense from water vapor and CO2 and thus increase the overall density of the atmosphere because more particles are in the air. The rest of the stuff isn't flying off into space. Its getting bigger but expanding some. Not enough to compensate though.

[bjornredtail]

"Lower mass particles are forced upwards as heavier ones are introduced back in." Heavy stuff is already as low as lowest levels it can reach. Gravity has a tendency to do that.

I'll go ahead and give you water vapor as a result of increased rate of evaporation. So, by higher water content (water has a high specific heat) and greater density (higher specific heat per volume) would mean a higher overall specific heat, which means that all other factors remaining the same (such the net rate energy is added to the system), the rate that the temperature is increasing will gradually decrease. Of course, I somehow think that this factor is almost trivial... Even scaled to the entire planet.

[Freenhult]

I'm giving up because your failing to understand. I can't explain it any more simpler than I already have.

""Lower mass particles are forced upwards as heavier ones are introduced back in." Heavy stuff is already as low as lowest levels it can reach. Gravity has a tendency to do that."

Yes, but not IF your throwing stuff in the air that wasn't there before. Now you have heavy stuff all over thats unsorted. And really though, the air mixes. There isn't a density situation. Water vapor is very light, but it won't go up past the tropopause. There are reasons for this, not atmospheric mixing, but other reasons. Ozone is considerably heavier yet its found in the Stratosphere, 8-12km up. Technically, it should be alot lower. Why not? Because gravity is too weak to really sort the stuff out, compared to updrafts and other thermophysics.

[bjornredtail]

I still think you have your specific heat capacities backwards... But the whole argument is somewhat unrelated to the main points of discussion.

[Gen. Volkov]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to source this...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

Relevant quote:

"First of all, saying "historically" is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature."

Glacial and interglacial periods are caused by much bigger and longer term processes than CO2 variations. In between those bigger changes though, CO2 variations lead temperature fluctuations.

[The Beatles]

Bjorn, you cheerfully ignored my call for you to back up your data on nuclear reprocessing and storage with scientific results. I now repeat that call.

[bjornredtail]

Such data cannot exist... We have not been messing around with this material long enough to see the full effects of a nuclear storage facility, or to see how easily it will fail. Remember that this stuff is extremely dangerous for many lifetimes, and I know of no example of human engineering to date capable of fulfilling this role for this long.

Source for 10,000 years storage time:
http://www.nea.fr/html/brief/brief-03.html

Another Interesting link on the topic of Yucca Mountain:
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/plut01.htm

[The Beatles]

Oh yes it can. We haven't been around to observe evolution yet we know it to be true from dating techniques etc. Stop beating about the bush. Competent people have looked at this and devised sound solutions. You can bring no more weighty argument than "this stuff is extremely dangerous"and "I know of no example".

[bjornredtail]

You think it is possible to keep a structure watertight for 10,000 years? See the link I edited in:
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/plut01.htm
"In assessing the Yucca Mountain site's ability to safety and adequately isolate radionuclides from the environment, DOE must assume that the canisters holding the spent fuel and HLW will deteriorate and release their contents before the longer lived isotopes (like plutonium) have decayed to anywhere near safe levels."

[The Beatles]

All things considered, you have to notice that the link critical of it is from the state of Nevada, which has a lot at stake politically in this issue. The French article doesn't seem pessimistic.