Where is all the carbon coming from

[nickso]

flawed logic there.

not really when you actually think about it as its been proven by the person who started adding ice cubes to soft drinks many years ago. It makes no odds whether 10 ice cubes float in the liquid individually or if 8 of them are above the drinks level but attached to the other 2 that are floating in the liquid, they are still exerting the same pressure on the liquid so therefore displacing the same amount of liquid.

the majority of the threatened melt is not currently below water level like your ice in a glass scenario.

for your statement to work the ice would have to be suspended from air.

ok lets assume you are correct in your first statement as i dont have the knowledge to say its not correct.

my point was that all of the expected melt is not currently suspended by water, a lot of it is on land mass.

 

[Inky Pete]

If ocean temperatures rise, the water which is already liquid will expand slightly. Not by much as a percentage, but there is one hell of a lot of the stuff.

This expansion will be a bigger contributor to sea levels rising than the melting of the icecaps will - although, glaciers the size of Europe and 500 ft thick melting into the sea is not to be sneezed at!

 

[Goldberg]

The statement is absolutely true.

It isn't true, and the whole premise of your topic is deluded.

Ask anyone who has studied physics

I've asked myself, and you're still wrong. This "first rule of science" is particularly bizarre, since you seem to think that there's a constant mass of each element in the universe, in it's empirical form, despite any chemical reaction that takes place.

I think you're confusing science with Science Club, whose first rule is 'You do not talk about Science Club'.

and stop continually rubbishing every one elses posts

No need to - your posts are rubbishing themselves.

You seem to be reasoning that, because there aren't stock piles of the saved "carbon" littering every street corner, we're being told lies.

Which do you think is the more likely proposition:- (a) we're all being lied to by everyone who claims that CO2 emmissions are both harmful and excessive, or (b) that you've misunderstood?

 

[EddieM]

since you seem to think that there's a constant mass of each element in the universe, in it's empirical form, despite any chemical reaction that takes place.

Don't you?? who's deluded? In what way does an elements mass change when it reacts??

 

[Goldberg]

since you seem to think that there's a constant mass of each element in the universe, in it's empirical form, despite any chemical reaction that takes place.

Don't you?

No.

who's deluded?

maltaron is.

In what way does an elements mass change when it reacts??

When it starts, or stops, being a compound.

Did you miss the words "in it's empirical form", above?

Do you think that maltaron understands that carbon emissions are about gaseous CO2, and not about depositing massive slag heaps of solid Carbon 12?

 

[empip]

...2C8H18 +25O2-----16CO2+18H20

Viz 16C atoms atomic mass 16 x 12 = 192 combusts to 704 CO2.

Again I've probably missed the point.

Archie down the Plough Inn reckons CO2 tonnage divided by 3.66 = near enough tonnage of carbon... So that ties up pretty much...

He pointed this out too...

...It takes ~14,138mmt of CO2 emissions to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentration by ~1 ppm and it takes ~125 ppm to raise the global temperature ~1ºC. So multiplying ~14,138mmt/pmm by ~125ppm/ºC gives us ~1,767,250mmt/ºC.

That’s our magic number—1,767,250....
now, whenever you are presented with an emissions savings that some action to save the planet from global warming is supposed to produce, you can actually see how much of a difference it will really make. Just take the emissions savings (in units of mmt of CO2) and divide it by 1,767,250.

Just for fun, let’s see what we get when we apply this to a few save-the-world suggestions.

According to NativeEnergy.com (in association with Al Gore's ClimateCrisis.net), if you stopped driving your average mid-sized car for a year, you'd save about 5.5 metric tons (or 0.0000055 million metric tons, mmt) of CO2 emissions per year. Divide 0.0000055mmtCO2 by 1,767,250 mmt/ºC and you get a number too small to display on my 8-digit calculator (OK, Excel tells me the answer is 0.00000000000311ºC). And, if you send in $84, NativeEnergy will invest in wind and methane power to offset that amount in case you actually don't want to give up your car for the year. We'll let you decide if you think that is worth it.

How about something bigger like not only giving up your mid-sized car, but also your SUV and everything else your typical household does that results in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Again, according to NativeEnergy.com, that would save about 24 metric tons of CO2 (or 0.000024 mmt) per year. Dividing this emissions savings by our handy-dandy converter yields 0.0000000000136ºC/yr. If you lack the fortitude to actually make these sacrifices to prevent one hundred billionth of a degree of warming, for $364 each year, NativeEnergy.com will offset your guilt...

Dontcha just love it ??

 

[EddieM]

since you seem to think that there's a constant mass of each element in the universe, in it's empirical form, despite any chemical reaction that takes place.

Don't you?

No.

who's deluded?

maltaron is.

In what way does an elements mass change when it reacts??

When it starts, or stops, being a compound.

Did you miss the words "in it's empirical form", above?

Do you think that maltaron understands that carbon emissions are about gaseous CO2, and not about depositing massive slag heaps of solid Carbon 12?

no, but empricial has nothing to do whether it is combined or not.

 

[Goldberg]

empricial has nothing to do whether it is combined or not.

You're right - I stand corrected.

The word I should have used is "elemental".

 

[EddieM]

empricial has nothing to do whether it is combined or not.

You're right - I stand corrected.

The word I should have used is "elemental".

nope, it's still nonsense.

 

[Goldberg]

nope, it's still nonsense.

Your failure to understand something is, sadly, not the same as that thing being nonsense.

 

[WDIK]

this whole thread is fallacious.

carbon is an element, very black and dirty.

it doesnt float around in the atmosphere because its very heavy.

this is complete bollux.

another example of ill informed trivia

 

[Homesafe]

we are carbon based, and were gonna die

 

[dextrous]

this whole thread is fallacious.

you mean it doesn't exist Then what am I looking at?

carbon is an element, very black and dirty.

diamonds are carbon

it doesnt float around in the atmosphere because its very heavy.

So do birds and planes, and they're heavier

this is complete bollux.

I think it isn't quite complete - there's some empty spaces which need filling

another example of ill informed trivia

Bit like Big Brother then

 

[Homesafe]

diamonds are carbon, WOW!!

 

[dextrous]

diamonds are carbon, WOW!!

'Tis true http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamonds

If you compress ordinary carbon enough, you get industrial grade diamonds, which we use on angle grinding disks for example