Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (136344)	4/7/2001 4:31:33 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

re:"Why is CO2 used to make soda pop when nitrogen is order of magnitude more abundant." CO2 use in soda pop has nothing to do with abundance......it is used because CO2 when dissolved in water under pressure forms carbonic acid, ie H2CO3, which produces the fizz when as it decomposes when the pressure is reduced. Nitrogen simply dissolves in H2O as nitrogen, it produces no fizz. Why don't you answer the question of Delbert, vis-a-vis the funding the global warming skeptics. And while you at it why don't you publish your CO2 simulation, Mr. Engineer. You're not too shy to show us everything else you've ever done. Mr. Watson, you epitomize the phrase hanging in many laboratories across this country, ie "Four years ago I couldn't spell inginear, today I are one..."

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (136344)	4/8/2001 12:27:02 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

<< Dear del, who are the thousands of scientists who say global warming is a real threat and correlated to CO2 levels. >> For starters, there is The Union of Concerned Scientists... The Union of Concerned Scientists In fall 1997, the Union of Concerned Scientists initiated the World Scientists' Call for Action at the Kyoto Climate Summit. This statement urged all government leaders to: act immediately to prevent the potentially devastating consequences of human-induced global warming AND demonstrate a new commitment to protecting the global environment At the Climate Summit in Kyoto, Japan, held in December 1997, the nations of the world decided to strengthen the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change by agreeing to effective controls on human practices affecting climate. In advance of the Summit, the Union of Concerned Scientists circulated the Call for Action for endorsement to leading scientists from around the world, including all scientists who had been awarded the Nobel Prize and National Academy-level scientists on all continents. More than 1,500 scientists signed the Call for Action. Their signatures demonstrate that the world's senior scientific community believes that global warming is a serious threat, and that steps to address it must include complying with commitments made in the Kyoto Protocol. This strong climate-change treaty represents a landmark precedent for tackling other grave environmental problems, many of which have worsened in recent years. Total number of signatories as of October 14, 1997: 1,586 Countries represented: 63 Nobel laureates: 110, including 104 of the 178 living Nobel Prize winners in the sciences US National Medal of Science winners: 60 "We, the signers of this declaration, urge all government leaders to demonstrate a new commitment to protecting the global environment for future generations. The important first step is to join in completing a strong and meaningful Climate Treaty at Kyoto. We encourage scientists and citizens around the world to hold their leaders accountable for addressing the global warming threat. Leaders must take this first step to protect future generations from dire prospects that would result from failure to meet our responsibilities toward them." The mainstream scientific consensus on global warming is becoming clearer every day: changes in our climate are real and they are underway. Now. But we can do something about it. The evidence that human-induced global warming is real is increasingly clear and compelling. ucsusa.org Here's another.... The Environmental Protection Agency " EPA's Scientific Advisory Board has consistently ranked the potential consequences of climate change amongst the highest environmental risks facing society today. Studies by scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (convened by the UN and the World Meteorological Society) similarly suggest that there may be potentially serious environmental impacts." << There are thousands of scientists and engineers who say all the data known suggests nothing. >> Show me your sources please. Try not to use too many sources bought and paid for by Exxon. Del

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (136344)	4/8/2001 1:01:03 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

<< The reason C02 is used to carbonate water is that it dissolves well into water in quanitities orders of magnitude greater than nitrogen. Now 75% of the earth is covered with water with wave and we have rain the washes thru the atmosphere and guess what. The proportion of CO2 that dissolves into water is a function of the pressure of CO2. Del you are technically illiterate and don't read scientific studies because you cannot understand them. >> How can you possibly know how technically literate I am from a couple of posts? In fact I spend several hours a day reading and comprehending the various sciences. BTW, the increase in CO2 levels has not noticeably increased the pressure of the atmosphere. The increase in the amount of CO2 dissolved in the water system is a function of it's increased proportion of the atmosphere. Still the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 30% in a century, even with the additional amount taken out by the seas. So, what's your point? << Do you understand the the output of the sun has varied over geologic time order of magnitude more than the change is the adsorbion of the atmosphere due to the parts per million changes is CO2. Why is CO2 used to make soda pop when nitrogen is order of magnitude more abundant. >> I believe that the word that you are trying to use is adsorption, but you would be using it incorrectly in the scientific sense. Adsorption is the collection of molecules on a surface, such as when condensation forms on a cold surface. Where is the surface of the atmosphere? Absorption is when molecules are taken into a substance, as water into a sponge or carbon into iron to make steel. How does the output of the sun make CO2 levels suddenly irrelevant? I see no reports of the recent temperature rises being due to solar output. I hate nitrogen soda pop, and don't see what it has to do with anything. Read your sentence structure above and see if you can improve your grammar. Del