User Tag List

First 5131415161725 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 263

  1. #141
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    Oh if you did then I apologize.. it might have been a language barrier. Sorry about that, I must have misunderstood you.
    Well I didn't put it that/your way. But that was my point. So I agree with your logic in general. Since carbon atoms can't be destroyed or created.
    So having more of them around is a "premanent" curse. (wahat was the main point of my post)




    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    Are you serious? I know plants convert CO2 to oxygen, but what plant based machine can take the amount of CO2 we have and convert it to oxygen in a meaningful way? How many plants will we need to convert the current amount of excess CO2 we have into something useful... at what point will the excess oxygen in the atmosphere begin to ignite? What percentage of our current CO2 will be converted before we hit that critical oxygen level where fires start every time there is a lightening storm and what will we do with the rest of the CO2 after that...

    However I have to disagree with this.

    I think you have a hole here and here is why I think that.
    So lets make it simple.


    Oxygen 210000 PPM
    CO2 now = 390 PPM
    CO2 at 1750 = 270 PPM

    PPM= parts per million.


    In other words if we can transform all that CO2 that we have pumped out (even the one that got dissolved in oceans) already and all the fossile fueles that we will burn in the next 100 years we wouln't change the oxygen levels significantly. At best we could add a few more thousands of PPMs of oxygen but that would not be enough to get us to the treshold when things become dangerous which is at 230000 PPMs (23%).
    Actually at the carboniferous period the oxygen level was even above that treshold as far as I know. However plants have developed mechanisms to cope with high oxigen levels at that time. However todays plants don't have such mechanisms so I am saying this just as a interesting fact.

  2. #142
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post

    However I have to disagree with this.

    I think you have a hole here and here is why I think that.
    So lets make it simple.


    Oxygen 210000 PPM
    CO2 now = 390 PPM
    CO2 at 1750 = 270 PPM

    PPM= parts per million.


    In other words if we can transform all that CO2 that we have pumped out (even the one that got dissolved in oceans) already and all the fossile fueles that we will burn in the next 100 years we wouln't change the oxygen levels significantly. At best we could add a few more thousands of PPMs of oxygen but that would not be enough to get us to the treshold when things become dangerous which is at 230000 PPMs (23%).
    Actually at the carboniferous period the oxygen level was even above that treshold as far as I know. However plants have developed mechanisms to cope with high oxigen levels at that time. However todays plants don't have such mechanisms so I am saying this just as a interesting fact.
    I'm sorry but that's just wrong.. One class in general chemistry does not a scientist make...

    You are vastly underestimating the amount of excess CO2... The CO2 in our atmosphere is only 7% of the excess CO2... Once we pull the CO2 out of the atmosphere an equivalent amount will equilibrate out of the ocean, and then the problem starts again.. and again... and again...

    I don't want to be mean to you either but you really shouldn't talk about things you do not understand... Why people feel compelled to do this I won't ever know.. I'm basing my statements on actual expertise and research...

    If we were to convert all of our excess CO2 to air the oxygen content in our atmosphere would not be ideal, you are aware of the carboniferous period, right?

    Why do you think scientist are working so hard on finding technologies to sequester CO2? Or do you view this as a waste of time, and if so based on what expertise and training? Do you understand basic stoichiometry?

    Moreover I would really appreciate it if you would stop adding time frames to my statements that I never intended.. if we do not remove and sequester the CO2 immediately or in the very near future we will have to stop all emissions of CO2 in order to have an effect - thus we must get the CO2 out in a time frame much shorter than 100 years... If it was as simple as planting a bunch of trees nobody would be wasting the money or the research time on other methods of sequestering and converting CO2...

    "In short, to extract enough CO2 from the atmosphere to begin to lower temperatures would require decades of building millions of air-capture devices that have been refined to minimize their environmental impact. Political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado-Boulder estimates that 650 billion tons of carbon will need to be disposed of by 2100 to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 around 450 parts per million, a level that could easily lead to temperature rises of 2 degrees C (3.6 F) or higher.

    “You need 30 years of development time and 100 years of deployment before you start to see the effect you’re looking for,” says oceanographer John Shepherd, who led the Royal Society study of air capture and other geoengineering technologies." -

    Pulling CO2 from the Air: Promising Idea, Big Price Tag by David Biello: Yale Environment 360
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  3. #143
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert View Post
    Wow for a person who knows about numbers you don't really know much about debate Antisocial one between the two of you my money is on you
    Knowledge about numbers and science is all that is required to solve the problem of global warming etc... Since I don't spend my days trying to pass of ignorance for knowledge I don't have to worry if my arguments are presented nicely only that they are presented accurately... and they always are because I don't talk about things I don't understand. It's not my job to connect the dots for you... go get a formal education as I did. Understanding complex issues takes time. It really is that simple...
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  4. #144
    Hate
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Desert View Post
    Wow for a person who knows about numbers you don't really know much about debate Antisocial one between the two of you my money is on you
    I would gladly take that bet Desert.... My money rests on Ms. Nuclei..


  5. #145
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    I'm sorry but that's just wrong.. One class in general chemistry does not a scientist make...

    You are vastly underestimating the amount of excess CO2... The CO2 in our atmosphere is only 7% of the excess CO2... Once we pull the CO2 out of the atmosphere an equivalent amount will equilibrate out of the ocean, and then the problem starts again.. and again... and again...

    I don't want to be mean to you either but you really shouldn't talk about things you do not understand... Why people feel compelled to do this I won't ever know.. I'm basing my statements on actual expertise and research...

    If we were to convert all of our excess CO2 to air the oxygen content in our atmosphere would not be ideal, you are aware of the carboniferous period, right?

    Why do you think scientist are working so hard on finding technologies to sequester CO2? Or do you view this as a waste of time, and if so based on what expertise and training? Do you understand basic stoichiometry?

    Moreover I would really appreciate it if you would stop adding time frames to my statements that I never intended.. if we do not remove and sequester the CO2 immediately or in the very near future we will have to stop all emissions of CO2 in order to have an effect - thus we must get the CO2 out in a time frame much shorter than 100 years... If it was as simple as planting a bunch of trees nobody would be wasting the money or the research time on other methods of sequestering and converting CO2...

    "In short, to extract enough CO2 from the atmosphere to begin to lower temperatures would require decades of building millions of air-capture devices that have been refined to minimize their environmental impact. Political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado-Boulder estimates that 650 billion tons of carbon will need to be disposed of by 2100 to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 around 450 parts per million, a level that could easily lead to temperature rises of 2 degrees C (3.6 F) or higher.

    “You need 30 years of development time and 100 years of deployment before you start to see the effect you’re looking for,” says oceanographer John Shepherd, who led the Royal Society study of air capture and other geoengineering technologies." -

    Pulling CO2 from the Air: Promising Idea, Big Price Tag by David Biello: Yale Environment 360

    No I don't think it is a waste of time at all. (I don't remember ever saying that)
    Actually I am wondering if we are too late already. Since it is possible to argue that position as well.


    The only thing I am questioning was the thesis that we can disrupt the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere greatly. Of curse we will change it but it should not be critical as much as it is with CO2 trend today. Especially since CO2 does not give its full greenhouse effect from start (as far as I know).


    However If we continue to burn fossil fueles for very long periods of time / until we run out of them as we are doing is now, then yes we are probably going to have even larger problem on the long run. (especially becuse of extra oxygen) It is just that in "my calculation" humans have intelligence not to do this so I said that we can't do it. (which is probably where the misunderstanding is, I presume)

    Especially since I am pretty sure that in that case all the plants will dry out and burst into flame, creating even more CO2 if we continue like this. (what means that we would be comminting mass suicide if we continue like this)


    I am sorry if I made a misunderstaning. I mean this is where I actually stand so if you still disagree feel free to say so.

  6. #146
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Juice View Post
    I would gladly take that bet Desert.... My money rests on Ms. Nuclei..

    To bad that me and her are not really on the opposite sides. (as far as I know)

  7. #147
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I am sorry if I made a misunderstaning. I mean this is where I actually stand so if you still disagree feel free to say so.
    Yes I disagree... we cannot convert all of the excess CO2 in the ocean and atmosphere into air and not drastically disrupt the oxygen concentration. Currently about 93% of the excess CO2 is being naturally "sequestered" in our oceans, the other 7% is in the atmosphere... So if we remove the excess 7% currently in the atmosphere another equivalent amount will promptly replace it from the ocean... therefore your math in the previous post was inaccurately describing the problem... thus my follow up post explains why we cannot simply plant some trees to fix this issue... we must sequester the CO2 somewhere and/or convert it into something else... This is a problem because we can't wait 3 or 4 hundred years to convert the current levels into oxygen.. whatever we do we must do quickly and over time span of a few decades if we want to really make an impact....
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

  8. #148
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spin-1/2-nuclei View Post
    Yes I disagree... we cannot convert all of the excess CO2 in the ocean and atmosphere into air and not drastically disrupt the oxygen concentration. Currently about 93% of the excess CO2 is being naturally "sequestered" in our oceans, the other 7% is in the atmosphere... So if we remove the excess 7% currently in the atmosphere another equivalent amount will promptly replace it from the ocean... therefore your math in the previous post was inaccurately describing the problem... thus my follow up post explains why we cannot simply plant some trees to fix this issue... we must sequester the CO2 somewhere and/or convert it into something else... This is a problem because we can't wait 3 or 4 hundred years to convert the current levels into oxygen.. whatever we do we must do quickly and over time span of a few decades if we want to really make an impact....
    Doesn't it seem rather doubtful that, absent obvious changes to quality of life, society would be willing to sacrifice for the sake of stopping global warming? I am not sure whether or not it is actually feasible, even if it is in fact possible.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  9. #149
    Arcesso pulli gingerios! Eldanen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    697

    Default

    To all you climate change ninnies, read this:

    Changing Sun, Changing Climate

    Yes, read the entire damn thing.

  10. #150
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Doesn't it seem rather doubtful that, absent obvious changes to quality of life, society would be willing to sacrifice for the sake of stopping global warming? I am not sure whether or not it is actually feasible, even if it is in fact possible.
    Well sure, especially given the fact that many people don't even believe we are having a negative impact on our environment... But my statements deal solely with the facts of the situation.... there is nothing I can do about the political and social aspects of this...

    If society chooses to ignore this problem and we do not do something to curtail our effects on the environment and reverse the damage then we will all perish... that is a fact (it's not a matter of if but when) - that says nothing about what actions if any society will be willing to take....

    Those things are mutually exclusive... We can debate our "feelings" on the issue the same way a sky diver can debate how he "feels" about deploying his parachute... yet the ground approaches either way.
    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    watch where you're driving f$cktards! I have the right of way!!! :steam:

Similar Threads

  1. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  2. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  3. Heat Wave Blamed On Global Warming
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-05-2012, 04:57 PM
  4. Current update on Global Warming!
    By swordpath in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 12-21-2008, 02:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO