- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is there proof that CO2 causes warming?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:19 pm to yatesdog38
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:19 pm to yatesdog38
quote:
wrong!
it is affecting things like plants. more CO2 will effect plant and animal evolution. There was a time on earth when there was a crapload more CO2. The successful species adapted by having bigger stomata and bigger leaves to absorb more CO2. before long there will be gigantic leaved trees everywhere with a bunch of badass gigantic frogs eating gigantic mosquitos. it's only a matter of time.
How much CO2 increase will cause this? How much heating does increasing CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04% cause?
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 8:21 pm
2
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:22 pm to Dday63
quote:We do? How much heat do they emit? Finally, why don’t cykineers of welding gas—pure CO2– not heat up?
We know that our Earth is kept warm by greenhouse gases
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:24 pm to BobBoucher
quote:Really? So CO2 levels have been constant throughout history? Is that your assertion?
Probably never since the biosphere has done a pretty good job keeping up with what is released naturally.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:28 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:
How much heating does increasing CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04% cause?
Like a lot..a lot!!
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:29 pm to Cs
quote:Its also just a single variable in a system with literally thousands of DOF. It sounds all “sciencey” but it’s really sophomoric over simplification.
We can debate the actual degree of anthropgenic climate change all day, but this is basic physics.
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 8:32 pm
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:29 pm to hubertcumberdale
doesn't matter. it all boils down to quantum physics. a particle can exist in 2 places as once. what is observable now on venus may not be there tomorrow and theoretically it could all be on earth tomorrow. That would really warm things up. Personally i think we are in a wormhole. kinda like if you blow quantum theory up on a much more grand scale. we are in a 3 dimensional worm hole with a 2 dimensional plane on the other side when we emerge. kinda like neurons firing in your brain are able to translate information from both eyes and form a 3 dimensional object that you can recognize and observe. It's like schrodinger's dog but on an organic diet of lamb and ducks
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:33 pm to yatesdog38
quote:Busted. It was a cat.
t's like schrodinger's dog but on an organic diet of lamb and ducks
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:37 pm to Diamondawg
no shite. damn there are some gullible idiots around here.
if all ya'll so smart why don't ya'll go work for tesla hustling green credits make a billion dollars and start a website dedicated to proving this wrong. Link all your articles back here for clicks and you'll become uber wealthy.
if all ya'll so smart why don't ya'll go work for tesla hustling green credits make a billion dollars and start a website dedicated to proving this wrong. Link all your articles back here for clicks and you'll become uber wealthy.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:37 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:
isnt this why you introduce z (compressibility factor) into the equation, which becomes the real gas law rather than ideal to account for the changing density at different P&Ts?
Yeah, the comprehensibility factor accounts for deviations from ideal behavior. Like when a gas is close to a phase change or it's critical point, low T or high P conditions. There's still a relationship between density (well volume since we're not altering the mass) and a given T and P. Just a different response than if it was high T, low P settings like the IGL is good for.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:44 pm to yatesdog38
quote:It's y'all.
all ya'll
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:44 pm to Duke
quote:No. if that were the case intercoolers wouldn’t exist
So when you set the density and the pressure, you defined the temperature.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:46 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Hes on the moral high ground. Feelings are good enough.
His case is based on an equation.
Plug the numbers in and disprove it.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:55 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
No. if that were the case intercoolers wouldn’t exist
An intercooler exists to lower the temperature of compressed air to increase the density. Just a heat exchanger.
If you needed the intercooler to get air at the pressure you want to the density you want it, you'd design it to cool the air to the temperature to achieve that density.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:57 pm to PhDoogan
quote:
PhDoogan
Maybe I am a madman. Maybe I’m fricking brilliant. Maybe a little of both.
I’m actually waiting for this to become a liberal talking point. Deep down we know it’s all coming.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 9:00 pm to Duke
quote:Thanks for the tip captain obvious.
An intercooler exists to lower the temperature of compressed air to increase the density. Just a heat exchanger.
quote:Good grief.
If you needed the intercooler to get air at the pressure you want to the density you want it, you'd design it to cool the air to the temperature to achieve that density.
This post was edited on 6/4/19 at 9:01 pm
Posted on 6/4/19 at 9:02 pm to GumboPot
Nope.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 9:09 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Good grief.
What are you even trying to argue?
Give me the density and pressure, the mass isn't changing, and we're assuming ideal behavior. P, V, mass, R all defined. You're telling me the temperature can be different values without changing any of the rest of it, and keep the same density?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 9:13 pm to Duke
quote:Telling.
What are you even trying to argue?
quote:You have one too many constants.
Give me the density and pressure, the mass isn't changing, and we're assuming ideal behavior. P, V, mass, R all defined
quote:Not at all.
You're telling me the temperature can be different values without changing any of the rest of it, and keep the same density?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 9:25 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Telling.
What a surprise, you won't state your point.
quote:
You have one too many constants.
Not for the example of using the IGL for Venus's surface temperature that Gumbo and I were having.
The assumptions are that it's a set amount of gas, with an unchanging composition. We're assuming it follows the IGL assumptions (which, not great for the system). The pressure is given. Then the density is stated, which sets the volume since the mass isn't changing.
What is it that I'm stating as constant that isn't?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 9:31 pm to yatesdog38
quote:
atmospheric and planetary science doesn't care what you learned in Chem E.
Oh really. Shows how much you don't know. Would you like to dive into some deep thermodynamic with me?
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News