[Jewelry making - Article 00116] - Re: [Orchid] Ozone friendly torches?

[Peter W . Rowe]

========[ Invite a Friend - http://www.ganoksin.com/invite.htm  ]========

>    "What gas is most responsible for the greenhouse effect?" This
>    question was asked of graduate students in physics several years ago
>    and only one in twenty got the answer right. The main greenhouse gas
>    is water vapor. So really, everything you burn becomes a greenhouse
>    gas. The water eventually percipitates out as rain or snow and the
>    carbon compounds eventually are metabolized by plants by
>    photosynthisis.

    True enough, since the most effective "greenhouse" is actually the
    cloud cover formed by the water vapor.  However, when considering
    the polluting effects of human activity, water vapor production
    pretty much must sink totally into the back ground.  Water vapor in
    the earth's atmosphere is part of such a dynamic thermal equalibrium
    cycle (the weather), which rapidly cycles it in and out of the
    atmosphere,  and the vast quantities of water that are naturally
    introduced into the system from normal natural sources mean that the
    small increments introduced from hydrocarbon combustion or other
    human activity is likely an inconsequential tiny drop in the bucket
    that is not likely a cause of significant problems. A few good large
    thunderstorms probably can get rid of a years worth of human
    combustion produced water vapor I'd guess. The hydrocarbons,  and
    CO2, on the other hand, are dealt with by much slower systems, and
    systems which have somewhat more far reaching effects than a few
    thunderstorms with which we are already used to dealing.  Reductions
    in worldwide forest and vegitation cover slow the photosynthetic
    absorption as well,  and once the hydrocarbons reach higher
    altitudes, it may take a long time to get them back down, while water
    vapor, by contrast, tends to automatically drop out if it gets too
    high. With the CO2 in particular, a great deal of it ends up being
    processed, as you note, by photosynthesis.  But some recent research
    has suggested that a very large amount of this is due to algae in the
    oceans, which responds faster to increases in nutrients (like CO2)
    than do land vegitation populations. Small increases in atmospheric
    CO2 (as well as perhaps slight increases in ocean temperatures)  seem
    to be making fundamental changes in the ocean ecosystems, due to the
    increase in algae as a result of the increased CO2.  it's making
    fundamental changes in populations of other plants, planktons, and
    fish all the way up the food chain. Because the algae tend to bloom,
    and then die, producing toxic decomposition products as they die, one
    result seems to be things like fish kills.  Not good for the oceans,
    not good for our own food chain. Already, there is some good evidence
    that a number of the worlds fisheries have already been significantly
    impacted.  If we stop all emmission of water vapor from fuel
    combustion today, the impact humans have had on the water vapor in
    the atmosphere will dissappear likely within a couple years. With the
    other gases,  the effects are likely to recover in time scales
    measured more in hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of years. 

    So all told, while water vapor may in the physics lab be shown to be
    the most significant greenhouse gas, I suggest that it's human
    production is much much less significant in terms of environmental
    changes and climate changes, than are the hydrocarbons and CO2
    productions. 

    Of course, you can always take the policy of our current government
    (unlike previous administrations) which feels that the science is
    not yet absolutely sure. They are right. it is not. But it seems to
    me that if they wait until they have absolutely incontestable
    answers, by then it will be even closer to being way too late to
    avoid the problems. These are not quickly fixed things. It's a little
    bit like smoking and cancer. Nobody can tell a smoker that they are
    absolutely going to get cancer from smoking. Only way to do that is
    to wait until the smoker DOES have cancer, and then say "I told you
    so:". One might hope that we humans will not try the same approach
    with our atmosphere, especially since, as in the case of arguments
    against the Kyoto accords, the main arguments seem to be that, Oh
    Gosh, it might cost americans a few more dollars and jobs than it
    might cost some other less developed nations. 

    Sorry.  I'm starting to get political. Somebody better get me my
    muzzle before I bite something... 

Peter


____________________________________________________________________
T h e   O r c h i d   L i s t
Open Electronic Forum for Jewelry Manufacturing Methods and Procedures
____________________________________________________________________
Orchid FAQ:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/orchid/faq.htm
Orchid Archives:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/orchid/archive
Orchid Galleries:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/orchid/gallery.htm
Invite a Friend:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/invite.htm
____________________________________________________________________
Tips From The Jeweler's Bench - Article Archive
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/borisat/tip_sear.htm
The Jeweler's Selected Bibliography List
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/jewelry-books
Buy Orchid Jewelry:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/shop
____________________________________________________________________
-Unsubscribe:
-Email: orchid-request AT ganoksin.com Body=unsubscribe subject=blank
____________________________________________________________________