Monetizing the Atmosphere

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Because it is a popular item to blame.

Interestingly, a study I recently read spoke of the fact that water vapor is a more likely culprit than CO2 as CO2 isn't all that efficient creating a "greenhouse effect".

A study - paid for by oil groups? Most likely. Don't read such rot, it isn't becoming of you.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I could make a "study" the PROVED that all global warming is from ass hairs and that all of the sudden - because of all the people in the world - there are much more ass hairs, and that's the cause of all global warming, and all the people who believe in global warming are just Nazi's that want the Jews to take over the world.

It wouldn't be true. But I could do it.

 

[Damocles]

A study - paid for by oil groups? Most likely. Don't read such rot, it isn't becoming of you.

Nah, it was done by a guy in a university in New Zealand. It's all good. Water vapor does have a better greenhouse effect than CO2.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

I could make a "study" the PROVED that all global warming is from ass hairs and that all of the sudden - because of all the people in the world - there are much more ass hairs, and that's the cause of all global warming, and all the people who believe in global warming are just Nazi's that want the Jews to take over the world.

It wouldn't be true. But I could do it.

You also have earned the moniker "Ignoranus" . wear it proud.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Nah, it was done by a guy in a university in New Zealand. It's all good. Water vapor does have a better greenhouse effect than CO2.

Water vapor has a "better" greenhouse effect? What does that even mean?

Sure, it may. But a constant level of it is pretty much always in the atmosphere at any time. A steady stream of heat is coming to the Earth, and it always heats the evenly distributed water exactly the same and puts as much of it in the atmosphere.

But even small ACTUAL increases in CO2 can have an exponential effect, because the CO2 in the atmosphere traps more and more heat until it reaches a point of equilibrium (and that raises the temperture exponentially compared to the percentage increase of CO2). This also has the side effect that it would cause slightly more water vapor to be released into the air - but it would be like comparing the pacific to lake eerie.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You also have earned the moniker "Ignoranus" . wear it proud.

Why don't you go love you're Jews so more, nazi.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

Why don't you go love you're Jews so more, nazi.

Give coherency a chance, stu-stu-stupido, by Shill Collins.

 

[Damocles]

Water vapor has a "better" greenhouse effect? What does that even mean?

Sure, it may. But a constant level of it is pretty much always in the atmosphere at any time. A steady stream of heat is coming to the Earth, and it always heats the evenly distributed water exactly the same and puts as much of it in the atmosphere.

But even small ACTUAL increases in CO2 can have an exponential effect, because the CO2 in the atmosphere traps more and more heat until it reaches a point of equilibrium (and that raises the temperture exponentially compared to the percentage increase of CO2). This also has the side effect that it would cause slightly more water vapor to be released into the air - but it would be like comparing the pacific to lake eerie.

It means that you need less water vapor to have the same effect as CO2. Why are you being so idiotic about this?

Is it deliberate? It's not like I'm arguing against your precious global warming. It was a study that showed that water vapor would be an even greater threat than CO2.

 

[uscitizen]

How are they supposed to do that?

If they did that, they'd literally have to charge you several billionths of a cent per a breath at the going rate. Also, the trees soak up the CO2 animals naturally put out - net zero effect.

Umm we have lots less trees in the world than we used to...

I think I saw where the Amazon rain forest would pretty much be gone in 20 yrs or so.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Umm we have lots less trees in the world than we used to...

I think I saw where the Amazon rain forest would pretty much be gone in 20 yrs or so.

Maybe we've lost like 5%-20%. Which is humongous. But couldn't account for all of it.

Anyway, you're missing the point. Naturally occurring CO2 sources are currently being dwarfed by the oil we're spewing out.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It means that you need less water vapor to have the same effect as CO2. Why are you being so idiotic about this?

Is it deliberate? It's not like I'm arguing against your precious global warming. It was a study that showed that water vapor would be an even greater threat than CO2.

You're the one being an idiot, Damo. To even quote idiotic shit like that really shows how you've been brainwashed by the oil companies and the religious right.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

By this particular measure, water vapor can be thought of as providing 36% of the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide 12%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

However, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere isn't increasing, because the amount of water on Earth is always about the same. Maybe if the surface area of all the water on the Earth increased, I could see that happening. But there would have to be like an entire new ocean created.

Also, water vapour usually takes up far more of the atmosphere than CO2. Therefore, it could be argued that CO2 per unit has a greater effect - it's just that there's more water vapour. Regardless, CO2 is increasing, water vapour is not. And an increase of volume of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere by, like, 1%, will over time have a much greater effect on temperature on Earth than 1%.

I really couldn't see any university publishing a "study" saying that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. It's well known knowledge.

 

[uscitizen]

Maybe we've lost like 5%-20%. Which is humongous. But couldn't account for all of it.

Anyway, you're missing the point. Naturally occurring CO2 sources are currently being dwarfed by the oil we're spewing out.

Perhaps I did not elaborate on that point, But I agree with you. We are burning tremendous amounts of oil and the demand is still rising...

Perhaps if well killed off more people to offset the amount of oil we are burning....
I wonder what amount that would be ? 1000 people to die to equal the carbon emissions of one SUV ?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

Another math time!

And again, it is closely related to GW area.

Currently (as of year 2007), human population on earth is 6.6 billion (via wikipedia). I went around to look for how much CO2 is exhaled out per person, and 2 claims were found (both via wikipedia):

claim#1: an average person’s respiration generates approximately 450 liters (roughly 900 grams) of carbon dioxide per day (CO2#Human_physiology)

I use the standard chemistry textbook theory (standard molar volume) to check this claim, 450L for 900 grams of CO2, and it is tallied.

Thus, the amount of CO2 released by human per day is 0.9 kg/day

claim#2: In an average resting adult, the lungs take up about 250ml of oxygen every minute while excreting about 200ml of carbon dioxide. (Respiratory_system)

So, 200 ml per minute and thus 200 ml x 60 X 24 = 288L

Or equivalent to 565.36g/per day = 0.565 kg/day (after divide with standard molar volume constant and times with CO2 molar weight).

Apparently claim#2 has lower CO2 emission compared to claim#1, but I will use both anyway to show the comparison.

So, if there is 6.6 billion people out there and excreting CO2 at the rate of 0.9 or 0.565 kg/day, the total CO2 emission by human alone annually is:

claim#1: CO2 emission = 0.90 X 365 x 6 600 000 000

= 2.168 x 10^9 tonnes/year

claim#2: CO2 emission = 0.565 x 365 x 6 600 000 000

= 1.362 x 10^9 tonnes/year

But human activities, through the fossil fuel burning activities, releases 24.136 x 10^9 tonnes per year (via wikipedia).

So, human breathing process contribute to about 8.99% (claim#1) or 5.65% (claim#2) compared to the fuel burning related CO2.

Conclusion? May be stop breathing does not really help in reducing CO2 emission!

 

[uscitizen]

Umm It is late in the night but sounds like we need to kill off over 90% of the people so we can keep our SUV's and such going .

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Umm It is late in the night but sounds like we need to kill off over 90% of the people so we can keep our SUV's and such going .

And doin't you see, US? That's the REAL agenda of the international, jew loving nazi's!

 

[uscitizen]

Absolutely if we just wiped out Aftica, India and China we would have no problems keeping our oil guzzling lifestyle.

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

Another math time!

And again, it is closely related to GW area.

Currently (as of year 2007), human population on earth is 6.6 billion (via wikipedia). I went around to look for how much CO2 is exhaled out per person, and 2 claims were found (both via wikipedia):

claim#1: an average person’s respiration generates approximately 450 liters (roughly 900 grams) of carbon dioxide per day (CO2#Human_physiology)

I use the standard chemistry textbook theory (standard molar volume) to check this claim, 450L for 900 grams of CO2, and it is tallied.

Thus, the amount of CO2 released by human per day is 0.9 kg/day

claim#2: In an average resting adult, the lungs take up about 250ml of oxygen every minute while excreting about 200ml of carbon dioxide. (Respiratory_system)

So, 200 ml per minute and thus 200 ml x 60 X 24 = 288L

Or equivalent to 565.36g/per day = 0.565 kg/day (after divide with standard molar volume constant and times with CO2 molar weight).

Apparently claim#2 has lower CO2 emission compared to claim#1, but I will use both anyway to show the comparison.

So, if there is 6.6 billion people out there and excreting CO2 at the rate of 0.9 or 0.565 kg/day, the total CO2 emission by human alone annually is:

claim#1: CO2 emission = 0.90 X 365 x 6 600 000 000

= 2.168 x 10^9 tonnes/year

claim#2: CO2 emission = 0.565 x 365 x 6 600 000 000

= 1.362 x 10^9 tonnes/year

But human activities, through the fossil fuel burning activities, releases 24.136 x 10^9 tonnes per year (via wikipedia).

So, human breathing process contribute to about 8.99% (claim#1) or 5.65% (claim#2) compared to the fuel burning related CO2.

Conclusion? May be stop breathing does not really help in reducing CO2 emission!

But every little bit helps!

Despite your research, it's still been decreed a pollutant, and it's still a byproduct of our breathing. There are many things about the environmental movement that are nonscientific, nevertheless the lies and plans keep on flowing.

Are you saying pollution law should never apply to individuals or never will apply to individuals?

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

And doin't you see, US? That's the REAL agenda of the international, jew loving nazi's!

They are actually obsessed with population control and how to best kill most of us.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

But every little bit helps!

Despite your research, it's still been decreed a pollutant, and it's still a byproduct of our breathing. There are many things about the environmental movement that are nonscientific, nevertheless the lies and plans keep on flowing.

Are you saying pollution law should never apply to individuals or never will apply to individuals?

Of course it's a big conspiracy AssHat, doncha know. *Pats lunatic on head*