Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And instead of removing CO2 to kill plants, how about just killing trees but adding to the CO2? You didn't respond to my post, so I ask again, in a closed system, does burning carbon (hence produce CO2) generate more O2?
A "closed system" is not applicable to the context of the conversation. The fact that the ecosystem expands and contracts in a symbiotic fashion means that you cannot use a closed system argument to predict result.
Of course ... if you put a human being into an air tight room, with a finite level of oxygen, the oxygen will be depleted and CO2 levels will increase. But that's not the case of the earth's biosphere which has shown that as CO2 levels rise, so too does the life which relies on it ... in this case vegetation. As the vegetation expands, more O2 is subsequently generated.
And that is not the only relationship in play. The oceans play a primary role in atmospheric CO2 levels ... as the climate warms, so too does ocean temperatures (takes hundreds of years). As the oceans warm, they release CO2. The reverse is also true ... during cooling periods, as the oceans cool, they retain more CO2, reducing atmospheric levels.
Don't believe me? Take two bottles of Club Soda ... put one in the fridge, and put one in the sun. Now, after one is quite warm and the other quite cold ... open them, and watch what happens. The warm one will explode, painting you and likely the ceiling with club soda, as the pressure buildup of CO2 desperately seeks to escape. The cold one ... it will fizz slightly.
Now, if you are really paying attention ... you see that I've just explained to you the fraud of man made CO2 global warming .... CO2 levels rise and fall as a RESULT of warming and cooling (regulated by the oceans). CO2 levels DO NOT drive those warming and cooling cycles.
What is really profound with these environmaniacs is they say the following:
fossil fuels (gas/oil/coal) are evil -Oops but they still drive cars & trucks.
logging is terrible and must be stopped - Oops they live in houses derived from tree's.
Coal mining is the most evil thing and must be killed - Oops these enviro's live in houses/apt.'s with electricity from COAL fired power plants.
They say we need to de-populate the Earth by 80% BUT I still have yet to see a enviro off himself to lead by example.
Follow the money and see the huge amounts the enviro groups have, the salaries their CEO's make and also see who funds these greenie meanies - the Gov't via your tax dollars and the Fortune 500 gang.
The environmania movement is like a watermelon - green on the outside and RED in the middle - red as in Commie red for their love of the Commie Manifesto!
Get a clue! Trees DO NOT use up CO2, they convert it to O2.
I'd be interested in your explanation of the practical difference between using up and converting. Your automobile converts gasoline into fire, carbon and other emissions .... are you saying that your car doesn't "use up" gasoline?
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
I'm insinuating nothing, I'm saying flat out you supplied an unattributed chart from who knows where/when and it has little meaning without knowing the time period it represents and knowing the same numbers before and after that time period. And that's assuming it's not from some yahoo let's cut 'em all down logging site
This is what you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell And this is from when? What are the trends? As we continue to clear-cut forests that produce O2 from CO2, how will the trend change? A single snapshot of an unknown point in time carries little meaning. After all, Hiroshima had 'norma'l radiation levels on August 5, 1945.
You were implying the same "closed system" argument previously addressed, so I won't repeat it.
As for the charts, those represent the makeup of the atmosphere TODAY.
Composition of the Atmosphere Composition of Earth's atmosphere The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), and Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%).
Of course, if you were at all interested in facts, it would have taken you all of about 30 seconds to verify what I posted was accurate. But you aren't interested in such things, because facts don't support your position.
Looking at China's current green energy economy is a great example of what one can accomplish if it really wanted something so bad. Put more money into RE research and funding and we'll be able to use solar, along with other renewables, on a wider scale. Let the oil companies start shaking in their knees.
What alternate reality do you live in? China is a cesspool of pollution, and Beijing is LA, California on steroids.
Fossil fuel driven cars – even electric cars are powered by coal derived electricity
"Ax Men" style woods butchering – most disgusting show on television
Generating your own electricity – possible but requires a bunch of money but can be done burning veggie oil
The Four Horseman will set population levels
Many environmental groups are not funded by government but by private sector coal and oil money
I would prefer a socialist system for most of us and unregulated Capitalism for the financiers, bankers and businessmen.
Yeah, I am a left wing environmentalist. Damn proud of it as well.
If you hire a company to do the install the intial investment between $15,000.00-$18,000.00 for 4kW of PVC panels installed on a pole. A 30% tax credit from the federal government. Subtract further any additional cash payments offered by your state, local utility, or SECRs offered. Assuming maximum sunlight at an efficiency of only 17% by the average PVC panels, that would likely power 35% of the average needs of a home approx. 2000 sq. feet, with average usage. Approximate payback period 9-15 yrs. depending upon how many incentives were offered beyond the federal tax credit.
Even in states with comparatively pawltry incentives you can get approx. 55% back on your investment via tax credits and paybacks in the first year.
In some areas you can actually "rent" the PVC panels.
Thus the "rental" market. There is also "green" financing available for those who cannot afford the up front outlay (a.k.a. average consumer).
The technology is either not there yet, or not available on the commercial market, for PVC panels exceeding a 19-20% efficiency rate. Improvements in this area would rapidly decrease the payback time on investment as well as generate more power with collection fewer panels. I suspect when I finally decide to invest in PVC panels so that I can be largely independent of the power companies, that is the time just before they will make the break through and my investment will be like that of a 10 yr. old computer.
Take a look at Ja Solar. That company is way ahead of the technology curve.
Their new poly crystallin panels are around 18.9% efficiency. That is for the cheaper poly, not the more expensive mono.
I was once for government intervention in the energy sector. But I have come to realize that the reason we use so many non-renewable resources is because of government intervention in the energy sector, attemping to stabilize prices. This includes everything from energy company regulations, to supply regulations, to foreign wars to protect the resource chain.
The government sees that military intervention in foreign countries to artificially stabilize and lower energy prices is good for economic growth. So energy is really cheaper right now than it should be. Much of the energy costs(such as defense spending) is subsidized through income taxes through other economic activity. And because of this government intervention to stabilize energy prices, you have a continued trend for overconsumption of such energy supplies. And when prices go up, what do people do? They demand the government intervene more to "prevent gas prices from getting too high".
If the energy market was allowed to naturally fluctuate, people would eventually get tired of it, and would be more apt to look for alternatives to oil and gas.
As for renewable energy, much of it is basically economically unfeasible right now. Sad but true. Solar panels only pay for themselves in certain areas of the country and under certain conditions. And only very large wind turbines pay for themselves, but are unreliable and the energy cannot be stored for when there is no wind.
The solution to renewable energy is in better battery technology, especially in regards to "super capacitors". But I guess EESTOR is a failure, and I'm not sure if technology like it is even possible. Nuclear power is too much of an investment because of all the regulations.
You have to understand what is really going on, if you want to understand the solutions ... and you really don't.
"Government Intervention" has NOTHING to do with stabilizing prices, unless you mean keeping them at the highest levels possible, and totally dominating the market worldwide in the same basic formula that the Diamond Market has been controlled. Total, monopolistic control of ANYTHING, means total control of the price of that "anything". Do you realize that it cost less to produce a 1 ct real diamond than it costs to manufacture an artificial diamond? The reason it cost $5,000 for the real diamond and only $100 for the fake one is that the real diamonds are controlled (95%) by one entity ... who only releases a small, controlled quantity annually to maintain those astronomical prices. Anyone that steps out of line with the price is crushed.
The other component of that is the Dollar ... with Crude Oil being the only thing that backs the US Dollar as the world reserve currency, which forces every country on earth that needs to purchase crude oil, needing to hold US Dollars to but it.
Government is run by the corporations, and the corporations have no incentive whatsoever to keep prices low. That government efforts are geared to make energy more affordable is as much a fairytale as is government's claim that they care about your well being.
Fossil fuel driven cars – even electric cars are powered by coal derived electricity
"Ax Men" style woods butchering – most disgusting show on television
Generating your own electricity – possible but requires a bunch of money but can be done burning veggie oil
The Four Horseman will set population levels
Many environmental groups are not funded by government but by private sector coal and oil money
I would prefer a socialist system for most of us and unregulated Capitalism for the financiers, bankers and businessmen.
Yeah, I am a left wing environmentalist. Damn proud of it as well.
Then you should be wetting yourself with tears of joy ... because that is precisely what we have today, as ALL COSTS and LOSSES are socialized, with ALL PROFITS and BENEFITS privatized.
A "closed system" is not applicable to the context of the conversation. The fact that the ecosystem expands and contracts in a symbiotic fashion means that you cannot use a closed system argument to predict result.
Of course ... if you put a human being into an air tight room, with a finite level of oxygen, the oxygen will be depleted and CO2 levels will increase. But that's not the case of the earth's biosphere which has shown that as CO2 levels rise, so too does the life which relies on it ... in this case vegetation. As the vegetation expands, more O2 is subsequently generated.
And that is not the only relationship in play. The oceans play a primary role in atmospheric CO2 levels ... as the climate warms, so too does ocean temperatures (takes hundreds of years). As the oceans warm, they release CO2. The reverse is also true ... during cooling periods, as the oceans cool, they retain more CO2, reducing atmospheric levels.
Don't believe me? Take two bottles of Club Soda ... put one in the fridge, and put one in the sun. Now, after one is quite warm and the other quite cold ... open them, and watch what happens. The warm one will explode, painting you and likely the ceiling with club soda, as the pressure buildup of CO2 desperately seeks to escape. The cold one ... it will fizz slightly.
Now, if you are really paying attention ... you see that I've just explained to you the fraud of man made CO2 global warming .... CO2 levels rise and fall as a RESULT of warming and cooling (regulated by the oceans). CO2 levels DO NOT drive those warming and cooling cycles.
1- Earth is a closed system.
2- You're relying on more trees to balance the O2 whereas I'm also considering deforestation and extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
3- Oceans don't release CO2, plant life in the ocean does.
4- Forget "man-made" aspect of global warming. Do you think there is global warming?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Econuts
Composition of Earth's atmosphere The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), and Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%).
