Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
View Entire Thread
Re: Earth core rotation paper purportedly corroborating AGW.


You are correct. It is important to point out that the N2, O2, H2O all contribute to the temperature experienced on the planet. Even though N2 contribution to greenhouse it tiny, it does absorb a little (why is the sky blue?). O2 absorbs a little more. H20 absorbs way more and it has the added ability to act like a refrigerant at earth available temperatures and pressures. CO2 comes along and gets to claim dominance over all the rest? Huh, WTF are they smoking.

There is a thread of discussion out there about adding Acetone to your gas tank making your gas efficiency go up significantly. One gentleman on YouTube/Break/5min did a little demonstration using the OBDII connector. Attaching a device to the OBDII connector he showed significant improvements in the displayed efficiency.

He never showed us his odometer though. How many miles did he get out of the tank. All we saw was the MPG indication on the device.

Re: Earth core rotation paper purportedly corroborating AGW.

Last time I looked, CO2 was not a radioactive substance, although the food we consume is completely dependent on its presence.

Re: Earth core rotation paper purportedly corroborating AGW.

It might behoove one to check out the specific heat capacity of gases, before drawing conclusions.

Re: Earth core rotation paper purportedly corroborating AGW.

...and, perhaps, check the spelling of behove.

Re: the previous post, certainly CO2 made from C14 or C11 and O15 will be radioactive, albeit briefly, but what is the relevance to this thread?

Re: Earth core rotation paper purportedly corroborating AGW.

In reply to Disputin, "behoove" is just the US spelling of "behove". Often US spelling differs from the UK spelling in dropping a letter in a word (like the u in colour), but in this case a letter is actually added.

I think Laurence doesn't like your Polonium 210 analogy as an example where a trace amount of material causes a big effect, presumably because it's a radioactive material.

THe main problem in using the miniscule quantity or trace gas argument for CO2, and not bothering to elaborate the argument any further than that, is that there is obviously a case where the CO2 trace gas does have a very large effect on something, namely that it supports all vegetation on Earth. I remember as a schoolboy being impressed by the efficiency of the plant kingdom, the animal kingdom needed air with a pretty substantial component of oxygen whereas the plant kingdom could get by with almost negligible amounts of CO2 as their equivalent breathing gas.