If someone had a LOT of money and we asked them to build a factory to
do nothing but pump out extremely gigantic amounts of CO2, would this
"speed up" or have any measurable effect on Global Warming ??

Note:I'm speaking of a factory that could produce a daily amount of
CO2 in nearly unimaginable amounts 24 hours a day non-stop.

I'd be delighted with a sincere and honest answer to this scenario.

And yes I am being sincere and serious with this question.
I am NOT trying to trip anyone up and have not Biased my question as I
am willing to accept any thoughtful answer.

It might actually help some of us understand this topic more, might
make one side or the other be more solid in their belief.

Thank You so much,

Crackles McFarly, German-Irish-American

Crackles McFarly wrote:

If someone had a LOT of money and we asked them to build a factory to
do nothing but pump out extremely gigantic amounts of CO2, would this
"speed up" or have any measurable effect on Global Warming ??

Note:I'm speaking of a factory that could produce a daily amount of
CO2 in nearly unimaginable amounts 24 hours a day non-stop.

I'd be delighted with a sincere and honest answer to this scenario.

And yes I am being sincere and serious with this question.
I am NOT trying to trip anyone up and have not Biased my question as I
am willing to accept any thoughtful answer.

It might actually help some of us understand this topic more, might
make one side or the other be more solid in their belief.

The factory would have to use unimaginable amounts of energy to make the
CO2. By making all the CO2, you would suck so much heat out of the
atmosphere, the planet would freeze solid all the way down to the core.
Were this to happen, the expanding cold front from Earth would likely
freeze the solar system, stopping planetary motion, causing Mercury, Venus,
Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus all to plummet into the sun, causing it
to go supernova, which would upset the Milky Way, who would then expel the
Solar System into the intergalatic void for causing trouble, and when the
Earth crossed the galactic boundary we would all be changed into evil
supermen intent on destroying the Enterprise except first we would nail the
hot chick with weird eyes before dying because a big rock fell on us.

If you're going to come up with stupid ideas, at least learn a little
thermodynamics first to make them practical.

--
Bill Asher

On Jul 15, 6:57 pm, William Asher wrote:
Crackles McFarly wrote:
If someone had a LOT of money and we asked them to build a factory to
do nothing but pump out extremely gigantic amounts of CO2, would this
"speed up" or have any measurable effect on Global Warming ??

Note:I'm speaking of a factory that could produce a daily amount of
CO2 in nearly unimaginable amounts 24 hours a day non-stop.

I'd be delighted with a sincere and honest answer to this scenario.

And yes I am being sincere and serious with this question.
I am NOT trying to trip anyone up and have not Biased my question as I
am willing to accept any thoughtful answer.

It might actually help some of us understand this topic more, might
make one side or the other be more solid in their belief.

The factory would have to use unimaginable amounts of energy to make the
CO2. By making all the CO2, you would suck so much heat out of the
atmosphere, the planet would freeze solid all the way down to the core.
Were this to happen, the expanding cold front from Earth would likely
freeze the solar system, stopping planetary motion, causing Mercury, Venus,
Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus all to plummet into the sun, causing it
to go supernova, which would upset the Milky Way, who would then expel the
Solar System into the intergalatic void for causing trouble, and when the
Earth crossed the galactic boundary we would all be changed into evil
supermen intent on destroying the Enterprise except first we would nail the
hot chick with weird eyes before dying because a big rock fell on us.

Actually there is a way to measure the energy requirement. Just
substitute a week's volcanic output for a time there should have been
a large magnitude quake or a super tropical storm:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...7e55c054c1b1/#

And you can do it with simple substitution and a lot less vitriol.

When the North Atlantic Oscillation and I presume something similar
for other large ocean basins, is negative, we tend to get high
volcanic activity at the expense of severe quakes or super-cyclones:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...1b3239dd5a5c28

My definition of a negative oscillation is an earlier rendition of the
phenomenon than that which is accepted these days. I require a longish
period where cyclones and anticyclones have core pressures not that
dissimilar to each other.

Weatherlawyer wrote:


And you can do it with simple substitution and a lot less vitriol.

I never said to use vitriol, I was assuming the factory would convert
energy into matter. If you want to start with vitriol, then you would
release energy, at least to make carbon out of the hydrogen in vitriol.
You would also have to use energy to make the electrons to turn one of the
protons in the chlorine in vitriol into a neutron so the chlorine became
oxygen (you could use the extra neutrons to add mass to the hydrogens
making up the carbon, but then you would have an excess of oxygen since you
need six neutrons per six hydrogens to make one carbon and you only need
two oxygens per carbon to make a CO2 so you would have 4 extra oxygens
kicking around (I suppose you could make an ozone give the remaining oxygen
to some homeless guy on the corner (I see no need to make two oxygen
molecules and give both to a homeless guy, because I am totally against
providing a useful handout to people who for whatever reason, won't do an
honest day's work to earn their oxygen))). It's possible that you would
release energy by making CO2 from vitriol since generating electrons
probably doesn't take much energy compared to the energy released from
fusing protons, which is why I didn't propose it, since, in my scenario,
with a freezing solar system, we get to nail the hot chick with the weird
glowing eyes (unless you aren't into nailing hot chicks with weird glowing
eyes).

Let me know if you need me to post this explanation as an interpretive
dance for you.

--
Bill Asher

In article , Rodney Blackall wrote:
In article ,
William Asher wrote:
Crackles McFarly wrote:
If someone had a LOT of money and we asked them to build a factory to
do nothing but pump out extremely gigantic amounts of CO2, would this
"speed up" or have any measurable effect on Global Warming ??
Note:I'm speaking of a factory that could produce a daily amount of
CO2 in nearly unimaginable amounts 24 hours a day non-stop.
[snip]
It would have an interesting, unexplored, side effect. To make all that CO2
would mean taking lots of O2 out of the atmosphere while putting lots of CO2
in; result=general suffocation and problem solved for humanity!

G'day Rodney,

Your comment got me wondering about "toxic" CO2 levels. A quick
google revealed the following recommendations from a lovely lot of
undefined acronyms -- whether they are authoritative or not, I don't
know. (Maybe one of the yanks reading this could translate please?)

quoting from http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm
CO2 EXPOSURE LIMITS - Carbon dioxide exposure limits PEL and TLV set
by OSHA and NIOSH:

The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2
of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure.

ASHRAE standard 62-1989 recommends an indoor air ventilation standard
of 20 cfm per person of outdoor air or a CO2 level which is below
1000ppm.

NIOSH recommends a maximum concentration of carbon dioxide of 10,000
ppm or 1% (for the workplace, for a 10-hr work shift with a ceiling of
3.0% or 30,000 ppm for any 10-minute period). These are the highest
threshold limit value (TLV) and permissible exposure limit (PEL)
assigned to any material.

OSHA permits a lowest oxygen concentration of 19.5% in the work place
for a full work-shift exposure. For the indoor workplace oxygen level
to reach this level (down from its normal 20.9% oxygen level in
outdoor air) by displacement of oxygen by CO2, the CO2 or carbon
dioxide level would have to reach 6.0% or 60,000 ppm.

It's worth understanding that a high CO2 problem in most circumstances
is most likely to be the corresponding reduction in available oxygen
in air rather than toxicity of CO2. As carbon dioxide levels climb
above a few percent, the concentration of oxygen in the air inhaled
begins to be affected. At 6% carbon dioxide, as we cited above, the
concentration of oxygen in air has decreased from 20.96 to 19.9%.
/quoting

At very least, there's clearly a problem with the copy editor at the
site -- "normal 20.9% oxygen" later down has become "20.96", which I
would have rounded to 21.0 rather than 20.9. Then there's that 19.5%
which seems to have become 19.9% in the end.

But I guess I'm just nitpicking trivia here and I assume the gross
recommendations are reliable, or at least numerically accurate.
So it looks like one would need three times the current level of CO2
in the atmosphere before even the EPA would perceive a problem from
this point of view, and that's a bloody lot!

Though, as you say, converting C to CO2 will actually extract O2 as
well as simply dilute it, so that would reduce the production target
for Cracker's factory to wipe us all out. Still a bloody lot though.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:57:31 +0000 (UTC), William Asher
sayd the following:

Crackles McFarly wrote:

If someone had a LOT of money and we asked them to build a factory to
do nothing but pump out extremely gigantic amounts of CO2, would this
"speed up" or have any measurable effect on Global Warming ??

Note:I'm speaking of a factory that could produce a daily amount of
CO2 in nearly unimaginable amounts 24 hours a day non-stop.

I'd be delighted with a sincere and honest answer to this scenario.

And yes I am being sincere and serious with this question.
I am NOT trying to trip anyone up and have not Biased my question as I
am willing to accept any thoughtful answer.

It might actually help some of us understand this topic more, might
make one side or the other be more solid in their belief.

The factory would have to use unimaginable amounts of energy to make the
CO2. By making all the CO2, you would suck so much heat out of the
atmosphere, the planet would freeze solid all the way down to the core.
Were this to happen, the expanding cold front from Earth would likely
freeze the solar system, stopping planetary motion, causing Mercury, Venus,
Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus all to plummet into the sun, causing it
to go supernova, which would upset the Milky Way, who would then expel the
Solar System into the intergalatic void for causing trouble, and when the
Earth crossed the galactic boundary we would all be changed into evil
supermen intent on destroying the Enterprise except first we would nail the
hot chick with weird eyes before dying because a big rock fell on us.

If you're going to come up with stupid ideas, at least learn a little
thermodynamics first to make them practical.

Well gee thanks.

The whole point behind a question is that you're not sure about the
answer.

I guess you live on Mars part time.

Yours Truly,
Crackles R. McFarly
It's a silly website but aren't they all?
http://cracklesmcfarly.blogspot.com/