Where Is the CO2 Coming From?

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Mianeye


Another Technology in the works is converting carbon dioxide itself into fuel:

www.technologyreview.com...

cleantechnica.com...

The Navy has plans to use that process to provide fuel for its aircraft useing aging ships with Nuclear reactors to convert it. Taking into consideration the cost for fuel delivery at sea being able to produce fuel while traveling with a fleet it would be the cheaper route.

They have refined the process to work with nickel instead of silver which has become more economical and the same process can be done to produce fuel for cars, but for it to be economical and carbon neutral it would need to be powered by renewable energy. Either PV or Geothermal. The west coast has plenty of available Geothermal potential to fill all needs.

The unfortunate truth is we just are not evolved enough to care about anything but our own comfort. We still use a market that is completely made up nonesense for the elite. We still develop weopons that can alter the course of planets evolution. We still purposely keep people down and in their place.

Bucky Fuller started adressing these problems in the 40's because he could already see the writing on the wall. By the 50's and 60's he had begun solving problems by creating artifacts to help humanity. He had students make global resource maps and worked out how to create internation renewable energy grids using all the forms known at the time.

He lectured nonstop wrote many books (owners manual to spaceship earth)
and showed the world through math and engineering that everybody here could have a much higher standard of living if we made the changes to get off carbon and war. He also said by the 90's it would be too late that we had a choice to make.

We made it alright. To increase our production and reduce our chances of avoiding disaster.
What people need to undestand with the climate rapid manmade change will come the collapse of ecosystems. Fish kills, bird migratory patterns, habitat destruction, etc. They also work together. As the biomechanical functions die off so does the atmosphere change and as the atmosphere changes so does all the life living within it. In biology we are observing a lot of effects from pollution and climate change that are very disturbing.

Hey keep buying maybe we will eventually put some scrubbers on those ipod factories in china. My guess though is prob not. Nor will we mobilize to make any significant changes. Not unless some major event or disaster changes peoples sense of comfort.

We cant even manage our political systems and have lwt them get out of control. Something as complex as reorganizing our entire economy just wont happen.

Good news earth will prob recover after it wipes us out.

originally posted by: luthier
We made it alright. To increase our production and reduce our chances of avoiding disaster.
What people need to undestand with the climate rapid manmade change will come the collapse of ecosystems. Fish kills, bird migratory patterns, habitat destruction, etc. They also work together. As the biomechanical functions die off so does the atmosphere change and as the atmosphere changes so does all the life living within it. In biology we are observing a lot of effects from pollution and climate change that are very disturbing.

Quite. I would love to know from the deniers how they account for the fact that biologists and botanists are in agreement with climate change based on the changes they are seeing? What weird and contrived conspiracy do they invent for them.......or maybe the same old tired ridiculous one : "they are paid by government to present human climate change".

a reply to: Phage

I wish you'd put that little snippet back under your username. You know the one, from Peter Pan I think, 'and straight on til morning'. I really miss that.

With the seeming positive feedback loop going on with warming, I think methane should also be included in the increase of Co2 in the atmosphere. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, and around ~7 years (to my knowledge) it breaks down into Co2 and H2o.

With increases in Co2 and H2o, the warming should theoretically reinforce itself over time bringing more extremes with the seasons. Extreme hot meeting extreme cold causes some interesting weather.

I am concerned for the long term, and potential flooding should there be runaway global warming.

originally posted by: Philippines
With the seeming positive feedback loop going on with warming, I think methane should also be included in the increase of Co2 in the atmosphere. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, and around ~7 years (to my knowledge) it breaks down into Co2 and H2o.

The professionals have been looking at non-CO2 greenhouse forcing for many years now. There's some significant concern about methane releases from fracking operations.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

He's completely wrong. Preindustrial ppm = 280. Now = 400 and rising without stop.

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: infolurker

Ya we really should do nothing and just keep things the way they are.
That doesn't put money in any ones pockets, cause that is why any change is bad right?

Cause the only reason it is happening is to get people rich?

No, we should do the right things and not implement a freeking money scam for wall street and for government controls and taxation which does nothing to solve the problem.

How hard is that to understand?

www.redd-monitor.org...

It's very easy to understand when the result of that is to actually accomplish NOTHING which is what the fossil fuelists want.

Taxing greenhouse emissions sure does work---obviously, why does Europe have much more efficient vehicles than USA?

Cap-and-trade worked, and still works, excellently for reducing acid rain---remember it was set up as a Repubilcan free-market based program to offset the environmental harm in the most economically efficient way. But that was back when even conservatives debated regulatory approaches and didn't deny the most obvious facts and harm.

What's your alternative that will actually reduce the number of molecules of greenhouse forcers introduced into the atmosphere by humans?

[Just as the denialists don't have any consistent physical theory to explain known observations, there's no consistent economic or political plan to deal with the consequences]

Learning as I read this thread, I have no science background but I will add this observation to the thread if I may.
About the late 70's mid 80's they started ripping up railroads left and right In Ontario anyways. They are all nature trails as I type this and that is a good thing. But at the very same time all, and I mean all the major manufactures were swinging on to the "Just in time" delivery system supposedly to save costs of warehousing goods.
www.toyota-global.com...
What I am getting at is now there are no or very few trains running for freight anymore, what was once a 300 car train with three diesel electric engines is now a bazillion Diesel trucks all running at the same time hauling one trailer load of goods each.

Next time your on the freeway/ highway/ take a good look at how many trucks you actually see on the road. Could this be a factor? I have no idea but thought I would put it out there for kicking around.

S&F for a really interesting read.
Regards, Iwinder

We could burn all the fossil fuels we wanted if we would just stop cutting down all the trees. Trees are the absolute best form of carbon sequestration. Plus they give us oxygen as a byproduct.

If we replaced half of the forests that we have cleared, we would eliminate this problem.

CO2 rises as humans have advanced. Yes, we burn more fuel, but we have also deforested this planet at a pace that the Earth just can't keep up.

I remember learning is school, that when Europeans arrived in the new world, a squirrel could have crossed from the east coast to the Mississippi River, without ever touching the ground.

Think about that for a minute or two.

Carbon is actually easy to rid from the atmosphere, trees were born to do it. Some varieties do it more efficiently too.

Plants may absorb more carbon that previuosly thought

Trees improve our air quality

My house has trees planted everywhere I can. My 45 acres of land in West Virginia is covered in trees ans will remain so. (Well, a couple will be sacrificed for my cabin)

Tree hugging....who knew!? LOL

originally posted by: Iwinder
Learning as I read this thread, I have no science background but I will add this observation to the thread if I may.
About the late 70's mid 80's they started ripping up railroads left and right In Ontario anyways. They are all nature trails as I type this and that is a good thing. But at the very same time all, and I mean all the major manufactures were swinging on to the "Just in time" delivery system supposedly to save costs of warehousing goods.
www.toyota-global.com...
What I am getting at is now there are no or very few trains running for freight anymore, what was once a 300 car train with three diesel electric engines is now a bazillion Diesel trucks all running at the same time hauling one trailer load of goods each.

Next time your on the freeway/ highway/ take a good look at how many trucks you actually see on the road. Could this be a factor? I have no idea but thought I would put it out there for kicking around.

S&F for a really interesting read.
Regards, Iwinder

Diesel rigs are some soot spewing machines. "rolling coal" as they call it.

I always thought the roofs of semi trailers are a huge surface area for solar panels and electric propulsion. Hmmmm....

Now that scientists have come up with a way to make carbon neutral fuels for our cars that are very close to the same price as what we pay now we should stop subsidising the fossil fuel industry in the multi-billions.

If we subsidised the carbon neutral fuel it would cost us less and as more green power sources become available as a result we would pay far less for our fuel and could start removing all the subsidies.

It will be hard to defeat the fossil fuel lobbyists though. They like the market they have.

originally posted by: poncho1982
We could burn all the fossil fuels we wanted if we would just stop cutting down all the trees. Trees are the absolute best form of carbon sequestration. Plus they give us oxygen as a byproduct.

This false. The amount of CO2 released by fossil fuel burning is much more than can be sequestered quickly by biology.

If we replaced half of the forests that we have cleared, we would eliminate this problem.

CO2 rises as humans have advanced. Yes, we burn more fuel, but we have also deforested this planet at a pace that the Earth just can't keep up.

Forest cover has actually increased vs a few hundred years ago, since people started using fossil fuels instead of wood as primary energy source. And yet CO2 is barreling so much higher.

Look at he Keeling curve, compare the seasonal fluctuations which are the growing cycle of the ENTIRE planet. That size of CO2 fluctuation can be taken over by emissions in under a decade.

Forestation certainly helps but the quantitative magnitude isn't nearly enough.

In any case, it only works a little bit. Eventually trees die and then fungus and bacteria eat them and re-release the CO2 into the atmosphere.

The fossil fuels were in hardened rock and totally outside any geological or biological cycle until humans dug them up.


When they were deposited, microbes had not yet evolved the ability to break down certain kinds of plant materials so the plant materials built up geologically and took out carbon from the atmosphere. Now, they have evolved that ability so that sequestration won't ever happen again.

Now do you see how desperately essential limiting fossil fuel use is?

a reply to: mbkennel

Not sure if you watched the whole vid but he shows that proxy ice core samples of co2 are all under estimated .Seeing the vid is a year old I would think that someone will have a follow up to it or as a response .

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: poncho1982
We could burn all the fossil fuels we wanted if we would just stop cutting down all the trees. Trees are the absolute best form of carbon sequestration. Plus they give us oxygen as a byproduct.

This false. The amount of CO2 released by fossil fuel burning is much more than can be sequestered quickly by biology.

If we replaced half of the forests that we have cleared, we would eliminate this problem.

CO2 rises as humans have advanced. Yes, we burn more fuel, but we have also deforested this planet at a pace that the Earth just can't keep up.

Forest cover has actually increased vs a few hundred years ago, since people started using fossil fuels instead of wood as primary energy source. And yet CO2 is barreling so much higher.

Look at he Keeling curve, compare the seasonal fluctuations which are the growing cycle of the ENTIRE planet. That size of CO2 fluctuation can be taken over by emissions in under a decade.

Forestation certainly helps but the quantitative magnitude isn't nearly enough.

In any case, it only works a little bit. Eventually trees die and then fungus and bacteria eat them and re-release the CO2 into the atmosphere.

The fossil fuels were in hardened rock and totally outside any geological or biological cycle until humans dug them up.


When they were deposited, microbes had not yet evolved the ability to break down certain kinds of plant materials so the plant materials built up geologically and took out carbon from the atmosphere. Now, they have evolved that ability so that sequestration won't ever happen again.

Now do you see how desperately essential limiting fossil fuel use is?

As of right now, with current state of vegetation, it sequesters a full 1/4 of the carbon we put out. that's a low estimate, via the links I provided. Now, if we doubled our forest cover on this planet that would go up to 1/2. Again, a low estimate, so I believe that I am not wrong. And that with careful planning, and forest restoration, we would not be in the danger zone anymore.

Those still keeping us in the fight at that point would be China and other countries that burn anything and everything. Not just fossil fuels. China pumps out pollutants a lot more dangerous than carbon.

Just read a report from the university of Alabama, their satellite data shows a lower earth warming trend, I presume that helps the reports from other sources stating that the earth has not had a mean temperature rise for the last 16 years.

a reply to: pikestaff

What is your point?

There is a warming trend going on. Those who run with the claim that there has been no warming in 16 years are grossly misinformed.

You've also got to remember it is the Carbon cycle.
Some is always naturally being drawn from the atmosphere, then locked up in plant material for centuries in regard to trees, and millennia in peat bogs and swamps. And all of this, since the 1960's, would contain 14c, taken from the atmosphere. At the same time, Carbon that had been locked up for centuries in rainforests, all 14c free, has been released. This would also increase the dilution of the 14c presence. There has been a reduction in CO2 in many place around the world, but mainly through cleaning up industries, or more likely, sending them offshore to countries with lax environmental laws. Locally, CO2 levels may fall, but globally, its a disaster.

a reply to: Phage

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Now that scientists have come up with a way to make carbon neutral fuels for our cars that are very close to the same price as what we pay now we should stop subsidising the fossil fuel industry in the multi-billions.

If we subsidised the carbon neutral fuel it would cost us less and as more green power sources become available as a result we would pay far less for our fuel and could start removing all the subsidies.

It will be hard to defeat the fossil fuel lobbyists though. They like the market they have.

Agree 100%


Of issue of course, This (what really needs to be done) would kill their Carbon Credit Scam which of course is the real goal.

CO2 comes from decomposing matter on the forest/jungle floor. the northern hemisphere puts out most of its CO2 in the late spring through early fall and slow dramatically in the winter. Tropical forests and jungles put out the most year round.

Decomposing landfills not only put out methane but large amounts of CO2 but from what I have read not nearly as much as the tropical forest do.

But doesn't fossil fuels put of Carbon monoxide? Which is if I got this right One Carbon Molecule and one Oxygen Molecule CO and carbon Dioxide is one carbon molecule and two oxygen molecules CO2?

Are you saying fossil fuels put out both CO and CO2?