Global warming - greenhouse gases

[mtcookson]

Sitting around bored today I started thinking about the whole "OMGHI2U CO2 IS GOING TO KILL US!!!111ONEONEONEoneoneone" deal and started looking at some numbers as far as the potency of various greenhouse gases. I'm mostly looking at water vapor, methane, CO2, and nitrous oxide as they are listed as the top 4 green house gases. Now, here's what is interesting about them... the specific heat capacity. From what I understand of specific heat capacity, it is basically the substance's ability to hold heat. The specific heat capacity of water is 4.19 kJ/kg °C meaning it is very good at carrying heat.

Starting with methane.... it has the highest specific heat capacity of the four gases (and since we already know its more potent than CO2) this should mean it is the most powerful greenhouse gas of the four. At 300 Kelvin, or 80.33° Fahrenheit, methane is 2.226 kJ/kgK.

Next up is water vapor. It has more than double the specific heat capacity of CO2 coming in at 1.864 kJ/kgK at 300° K.

CO2 is the third highest of this group coming in at .846 kJ/kgK at 300° K.

Lastly is nitrous oxide coming in at .69 kJ/kgK (unsure of at what temperature but it should always be lower than the others).

Anyway, what this basically tells me is that these alternatives that various people want us to use like hydrogen and natural gas... will actually put out more potent greenhouse gases than what we are putting out now. Hydrogen cars putting out water vapor (second strongest) and, the most powerful, natural gas (methane) potentially being put out in greater quantities due to greater use (i.e. from collisions, disasters, whatever the case may be there will be more of it released into the air if it were to be used as a gasoline alternative).

If the numbers are correct and my speculation is correct... all of this info just begs me to question... what exactly IS the REASON to try decreasing CO2 when it clearly is not that big of an issue, especially when the popular alternatives are going to put the more potent gases into the air. There is CLEARLY a hidden agenda that has NOTHING to do with global warming when you look at info like this. So... anyone know the reason?

[C-Kwik]

Good point, but I think to be objective, you do have to determine the amount of each gas would be emitted based upon the amount of usable energy each altrernative source of energy provides given current technology.

Secondly, I'm thinking that the gasses with higher specific heats would lower temperature if those were increased as they would absorb more heat for a given volume. Then again, if the gas is initially emitted at a higher temperature than ambient, then it might add more heat. This equation is probably much more complicated than your model or even anything I've added.

But it is a good stepping stone for additional thought on this topic.

[smockers83]

Because you're missing a few points here. With methane aka natural gas, when burned as a fuel it is much cleaner than gasoline and most forms of coal, if not all forms. Any form of fossil fuel has a carbon content and when burned, it will release CO2. All fossil fuels do and the carbon content of each one is known. This is why people advocate switching fuels to cleaner fuels such as natural gas and clean coal as a way to reduce greenhouse gases when they really mean just CO2.

[mtcookson]

Burning methane is cleaner, but it still does release CO2. That's not the problem though... if it became a direct replacement for gasoline, more of it would be released into the atmosphere than is currently being released.

Now, mixing that with what Chano mentioned (how much would be emitted)... if I'm thinking it through correctly, it wouldn't matter exactly how much is emitted. By emitting any more than there is now and cutting back the amount of CO2 in the air, I would think that would basically be putting greater quantities of more potent greenhouse gas in the air. Think of it as trading less potent gas with more potent gas. That's at least the way I'm picturing and I could be wrong.

[C-Kwik]

All this of course depends heavily on whether or not CO2 is actually having as big an effect on global warming as they say it does. I haven't found a definitive answer one way or another anywhere...

[mtcookson]

Well... yes and no. No in that more potent gases would be put into the atmosphere regardless. Yes in that the more potent ones might have a slightly bigger affect but still not big enough to change temps that much.

Either way though... it pretty much just blows some big holes in the whole CO2 deal, supporting alternatives that could be even worse when it comes to global warming.... unless they're wanting to a pull a stunt like "we removed the CO2 but we just found out that natural gas and water vapor are worse so uh... you're going to quit driving and live like the Amish... minus the emergency car and the generators."

[C-Kwik]

That's really just speculative. I think there is a whole lot more to climate science than you describe here. Otherwise, we'd probably have a pretty definitive answer about it already.

[audtatious]

Well, the climate scientists are still learning about the climate. Impacts of sun spots and solar winds, etc. If you go back to the "OMG" reports back a few years ago, then see what really has happened, then look at current reports coming out you will see a trend. That trend is to forcast something horrific and when it does not happen then reforcast and deflect the reasoning. So, IPCC hockey stick shows a warming trend that goes up, up, up. Altho the truth with the hockey stick graph is that they don't show the little ice age nor midievil warming cycle, which I find comical. Anyway, this year we are seeing a cooling trend instead of the upward line as they stated would happen. In fact, we have not had a upward temperature trend in 10 years now. Regardless, now all you hear is that in 2010 to 2015 the temperature is going to skyrocket. In 2010 it will be 2015-2020 and they will constantly deflect instead of admitting they have no idea.

Do you ever wonder why you never hear these forcasters use their computers to back-forcast? In that I mean instead of forcasting from present day to the future, take their models and have it forcast from 1990 to the future to see how it really corresponds to what really happened. They don't because the output would not match up. It's bogus.

[srellim234]

climate scientist- (n.) an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday did not happen today.

[smockers83]

On top of that, the hottest year on record was not in the late 90s like they claimed (97 or 98 I think), but 1939. And temperatures today are on par with the 1940s.

If methane were converted to a fuel for cars or other sources, more of it would probably not go into the atmosphere. A lot of methane seeps from the ground from various sources that have yet to be tapped. The carbon trade system the EU has in place, companies in the EU can gain more carbon credits in exchange for another company elsewhere, say China, capturing methane that it otherwise wouldn't be. But that's my opinion and you have yours. The fact that methane would be released into the atmosphere at a faster rate in the future than now is impossible to know now. Until it happens we won't know, but I highly doubt you would find your results.

[audtatious]

climate scientist- (n.) an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday did not happen today.

[audtatious]

On top of that, the hottest year on record was not in the late 90s like they claimed (97 or 98 I think), but 1939. And temperatures today are on par with the 1940s.

If methane were converted to a fuel for cars or other sources, more of it would probably not go into the atmosphere. A lot of methane seeps from the ground from various sources that have yet to be tapped. The carbon trade system the EU has in place, companies in the EU can gain more carbon credits in exchange for another company elsewhere, say China, capturing methane that it otherwise wouldn't be. But that's my opinion and you have yours. The fact that methane would be released into the atmosphere at a faster rate in the future than now is impossible to know now. Until it happens we won't know, but I highly doubt you would find your results.

I believe Mark is trying to say that converting to full methane use would increase the amount of methane in the atmosphere due to spills, accidents, etc. Obviously that amount is an unknown. You are correct that methane seeps from the ground and bubbles up in lakes, etc. Similar to oil and the tarballs they find around Santa Monica and other areas which are a result of seepage and not spillage.

[mtcookson]

Exactly. Just like R12 that is supposed to be in a sealed system, there are now small amounts in the air due to the various circumstances like above. Basically by using it the rate at which it would be released into the atmosphere would likely increase.

[audtatious]

Realize we need to stop eating cows too and lower their population

[mtcookson]

And fat people... like me... who fart a lot.

[smockers83]

Yeah, I understand the concern about spills. Definitely something that concerns me but I don't think its a major issue. R12 got into the atmosphere due to the mishandling during its disposure and its unknown consequences at the time.

Stop eating cows? The day I stop eating cows will be the day that global warming as it is portrayed is actually real.