Remember me
▼ Content

Can petrochemicals exist in a carbon-neutral world?


Can petrochemicals exist in a carbon-neutral world?18-10-2015 03:34
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Most M2C2 (man-made climate change) deniers I've known seem to share one thing in common: they like petrochemicals. They enjoy their cars, they like to fly on airplanes, and their homes and offices are filled with every imaginable piece of plastic that you can possibly find. So, it's quite natural that when a bunch of M2C2 fanatics start bandying about the concept of a carbon-neutral world (CNW) that these deniers might get a bit itchy. After all, isn't a CNW the same as a petrochemical free world. To give you the short answer, no.

A CNW is not the same thing as a no-carbon world. Instead, the goal of a CNW is to be sure that for every pound of CO2 that we put into the atmosphere, that we remove at least one pound of CO2 from the atmosphere. Currently, atmospheric CO2 is floating right around the 400 ppm level, with most M2C2 believers believing it should be around 350 ppm or slightly less. This would mean that to reach a CNW, you would start out by removing slightly more than a pound per each pound of new CO2 we placed into the atmosphere, until the desired level is attained (i.e. - about 350 ppm). After that, it would just be a matter of maintaining that target level by removing a pound per pound released.

So what does that mean for all you M2C2 deniers? You can continue to drive away, fly away, and plasticize your world away as much as you like, as long as we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere. But is that possible? The short answer here is yes, and here is one company that is all ready to do it called Carbon Engineering (CE). But now you ask, "Okay, so the deniers get to keep their piece of the pie, but what do we do with all that CO2 which companies like CE remove from the atmosphere?" Well, the simple answer here is lots!

You see, one of the misconceptions about captured CO2 is that you should sequester it under ground. But why? After all, we spent lots of time, energy and money getting the darn stuff out of the ground. Why are we gonna just pump it back down where it will only end up causing fracking-like earthquakes, anyways? Think about it. CO2 has lots of uses, like making carbonated beverages to name just one. But unless we're all gonna drink eighty liters of cola each day, there probably isn't going to be that much of a demand to use up all the CO2 that we'll be capturing from the air. "So, what do we do with it then?" you wonder. I'll tell you in one word: graphene!

Here for the first time, we may have the opportunity to create a man-made carbon cycle which actually keeps CO2 at safe levels in the atmosphere, even while we're consuming petrochemicals in the same ways we always have. For example, let's say you drive around spewing lots of CO2 into the air. No problem! The CO2 police will just come and extract it from the air using technology from companies like CE. Then, they'll sell that raw CO2 to companies which make graphene, which can then be used to make things like... like... well, like more cars. "But wait, where's the cycle in all of this?" you ask. Well, to tell the truth, there isn't one, but it sure sounded good when you first read it, didn't it? And even if it's not a cycle, at least it's a process which allows all you M2C2 deniers to keep your gas guzzling cars, and all us OCD-ADHD type M2C2 believers to sleep well at night.

So there you have it: gasoline to trapping to graphene. Yeah, Jimmi, maybe we will find a way outta here after all.




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 18-10-2015 03:36
18-10-2015 04:12
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Even better:

A novel electrochemical process sequesters carbon in the form of a versatile building material

-MIT Technology Review

"A new method for taking carbon dioxide directly from the air and converting it to oxygen and nanoscale fibers made of carbon could lead to an inexpensive way to make a valuable building material—and may even serve as a weapon against climate change.

Carbon fibers are increasingly being used as a structural material on the aerospace, automotive, and other industries, which value its strength and light weight. The useful attributes of carbon fibers, which also include electrical conductivity, are enhanced at the nanoscale, says Stuart Licht, a professor of chemistry at George Washington University. The problem is that it's very expensive to make carbon fibers, much less nanofibers. Licht says his group's newly demonstrated technology, which both captures the carbon dioxide from the air and employs an electrochemical process to convert it to carbon nanofibers and oxygen, is more efficient and potentially a lot cheaper than existing methods.

But it's more than just a simpler, less expensive way of making a high-value product. It's also a "means of storing and sequestering carbon dioxide in a useful manner, a stable manner, and in a compact manner," says Licht. He points out that if the process is powered by renewable energy, the result is a net removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In a recent demonstration, his group used a unique concentrated solar power system, which makes use of infrared sunlight as well as visible light to generate the large amount of heat needed to run the desired reaction."

read more...
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540706/researcher-demonstrates-how-to-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/?con=&dom=pscau&src=syndication



Edited on 18-10-2015 04:14
18-10-2015 04:16
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - now that's amazing! It will likely end up that all that atmospheric CO2 is actually nothing more than a reservoir of raw material for an endless amount of manufacturing processes. It might also give us, to some degree, the capacity to actually influence climate (i.e. - let more CO2 remain in the atmosphere to warm things up, or take more out to cool things down).


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
18-10-2015 05:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
trafn wrote: This would mean that to reach a CNW, you would start out by removing slightly more than a pound per each pound of new CO2 we placed into the atmosphere, until the desired level is attained (i.e. - about 350 ppm). After that, it would just be a matter of maintaining that target level by removing a pound per pound released.

So what does that mean for all you M2C2 deniers? You can continue to drive away, fly away, and plasticize your world away as much as you like, as long as we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere.


Totototo, this is an example of the very real danger posed by the warmazombie crowd. We are at critically low levels of atmospheric CO2 in this particular point of earth's history. Increasing the current levels would be great for plant life all around the planet which would then benefit all life on the planet.

CO2 is not a pollutant. There is no danger in having more of it in the atmosphere.

CO2 does not create heat, so there's no need to take any CO2 out of the atmosphere.

...but here we have someone proposing, in all seriousness, a radically expensive, cumbersome and completely unnecessary process that would only serve to prevent our global environment from improving.

* . . D . . A . . N . . G . . E . . R . . O . . U . . S . . *




Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-10-2015 05:49
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo via IBdaMann - actually Totototo, he'd be right if CO2 weren't the primer for nithane! (cue dramatic music: bom-bom-bom-baaaaaah)


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
18-10-2015 06:59
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
trafn wrote:
@Ceist - now that's amazing! It will likely end up that all that atmospheric CO2 is actually nothing more than a reservoir of raw material for an endless amount of manufacturing processes. It might also give us, to some degree, the capacity to actually influence climate (i.e. - let more CO2 remain in the atmosphere to warm things up, or take more out to cool things down).

I'm very curious to see where the research on this leads. While companies like Exxon were spending millions every year on dishonest propaganda creating doubt about climate science (even though their own research from as early as the 1970s showed there was a problem with continuing to pump so much CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere), researchers like this were getting on with finding innovative and cost effective ways to tackle the problem.



Edited on 18-10-2015 07:04
18-10-2015 07:24
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Oh I didn't see this comment.


Totototo, this is an example of the very real danger posed by the warmazombie crowd. We are at critically low levels of atmospheric CO2 in this particular point of earth's history. Increasing the current levels would be great for plant life all around the planet which would then benefit all life on the planet.

I didn't know that IB, so I will dig a bit more about it before discussing since it's very interesting. I don't have much time now to do some research so if you clear this doubts for me it could be great. How can we measure what the optimal amount of atmospheric CO2 is? If there is an established optimal amount, what was it based on?

@Totototo via IBdaMann - actually Totototo, he'd be right if CO2 weren't the primer for nithane!

I'll do more research regarding the other gases you mentioned. Interesting nonetheless, but I don't know what AROSE stands for.
18-10-2015 07:34
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
totototo, if you are interested in learning about the role (and levels) of CO2 in earth's climate history, try watching this brief lecture by Professor Richard Alley from the National Academy of Sciences 2015 Symposium:

Richard Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of Earth's Climate History: The Role of CO2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg

There is an earlier longer lecture from him from the 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference.

https://vimeo.com/34099316

Here's Professor Alley's CV:
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Alley_vita_long_aug13.pdf

I daresay, it's better to get this info from experts in the field who know what they are talking about, rather than anonymous posters on forums.



Edited on 18-10-2015 07:38
18-10-2015 17:34
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Ceist - yes, the Exxon revelation is truly amazing (does anyone else smell tobacco?)



PS - read the little sign on the back wall!
18-10-2015 17:44
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - ARSOE stands for Atmospheric Retention of Solar-Originated Energy. It's a phrase and acronym I created to conceptualize the complex relation between solar radiated energy (energy which comes to us from the sun) and how some of it becomes temporarily retained in GHG molecules in our atmosphere (i.e. - CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.).

Originally, we presumed that the GHG's absorbed the SOE directly as it entered our atmosphere, but now we know it's a much more complicated process in which that energy is first absorbed by the Earth's surface and then re-released upward as IR radiation which gases like CO2 can then absorb. I was looking for a simple way of encompassing this multi-stage process, and that's why I came up with ARSOE, so as to more accurately reflect our current state of knowledge.

By the way, the main reason I'm on this website is to gather information for the 2nd edition of my book about climate change which I'm hoping to publish in 2016, with ARSOE and nithane being two of the updates I'll be including. The book is titled Bursting the Atmosphere: what happens when rain falls up (IBdaMann, stop yawning!) which I originally wrote in 2014. I've attached a free PDF copy of the book's first edition for you if you're interested, and you may share it with others if you like.

Edited on 18-10-2015 17:51
19-10-2015 06:55
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Thanks Ceist. That's a looong CV. I stopped the first video at 8 minutes because I had to go but I will resume it now and tell you my thoughts. That man is excited.
My only question so far is about the changes in the sun (fast and slow?), as I think he never specified what aspect of it changes (unless I missed something).

Congratulations tranf and thanks for the anwser. In your book, do you tackle a specific aspect of Climate Change or is it a general overview and analysis of this as a whole?
Where have you attached the first edition, I am interested in reading it.
19-10-2015 15:22
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - sorry about that, I forgot to attach the PDF. Please go to this post on another thread here and you'll see it attached there:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/bursting-the-atmosphere-what-happens-when-rain-falls-up-d6-e703.php#post_2193

This post also gives a bit more information about the book.
19-10-2015 15:39
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
retained in GHG molecules


What??

Do you mean that these molecules heat up or are chemically changed??

Or that they emitt energy back out??

Or that they reflect the IR back down??

Or have you no clue at all??
19-10-2015 16:01
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the Dumber - please dear, stop babbling. I've noted you prior characterization of much of my content here as being drivel, yet you seem to indulge in my posts in a rather unrestrained manner. Tell us all, dear Timothy, are you a Drivel-Queen?

Do tell, what will you dazzle us with next? All those new social behaviors you acquired since founding the International Copro-Uro-philia Association?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-10-2015 20:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
Totototo wrote: How can we measure what the optimal amount of atmospheric CO2 is?

I don't think we can determine an optimum amount (at least not today), but we can easily see the benefits of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. Any process that would prevent an increase in atmospheric CO2 would prevent global improvement.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-10-2015 00:03
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - you just stated that any process that would prevent an increase in atmospheric CO2 would prevent global improvement.

Would you please be so kind as to provide a falsifiable model which proves your assertion so that we know for sure you're not just spouting Marxist-based religious dogma.

Ahhhhh, the tides turn.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 20-10-2015 00:04
20-10-2015 02:19
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
I don't think we can determine an optimum amount (at least not today)

Bummer. It would've helped a lot.

we can easily see the benefits of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. Any process that would prevent an increase in atmospheric CO2 would prevent global improvement.

I'm curious, what benefits are these? How would CO2 improve the global environment situation?

Ahhhhh, the tides turn.

You've been waiting patienly to say this, don't lie tranf haha.
20-10-2015 03:37
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - yes indeedy! Won't it be interesting to see if the person who's been cramming falsifiable models down everyone else's throats, like it was some kinda god damn holy grail, can actually come up with a falsifiable model for one of his own statements AND explain it in a manner which all participants on this website can understand. On the other hand, if he can't, he'll probably just avoid the question all together. We shall see!

By the way, don't get me wrong. Like I've said many times before, falsifialbe models are useful when you have enough known data to use them properly. We're just not at that point yet.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 05:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
trafn wrote:Would you please be so kind as to provide a falsifiable model which proves your assertion so that we know for sure you're not just spouting Marxist-based religious dogma.

Ahhhhh, the tides turn.

That which "proves" something is called a "proof." You don't need any new falsifiable models to lay out an argument. You need a new falsifiable model if you wish to create new science. I was merely asked my opinion.

I'll certainly give you my reasoning as to why I believe what I believe (short version).

First, some axioms:
1) Biological models show plants need CO2 to live.
2) The earth is at historically low levels of atmospheric CO2.
3) All non-plant life depends on plants for survival.

One could derive from the first two axioms the hypothesis for testing that increased CO2 would be beneficial for plants.

Guess what. Many have. Many have thus performed experiments corroborrating the hypothesis that plants thrive with elevated levels of CO2.

One could thus derive the hypothesis that farming could avail itself of this knowledge and perhaps feed more people. One could derive from this knowledge, combined with the third axiom, the hypothesis that increased atmospheric CO2 would benefit plants all over the surface of the planet which would thus benefit herbivores all over the surface of the planet, which would benefit carnivores all over the planet.

What part would you contend?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-10-2015 05:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
trafn wrote:Won't it be interesting to see if the person who's been cramming falsifiable models down everyone else's throats,


My turn.

Since when is requesting, and never receiving, a falsifiable model somehow cramming falsifiable models down everyone else's throats?

That sure is some tide. It turns on a dime.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-10-2015 05:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
[b]trafn wrote:[/b

I have a question that's right up your alley.

Why are leftists out for blood against successful capitalist tobacco companies...but want drugs legalized?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-10-2015 05:29
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - like I thought. Instead of fulfilling that which you demand of everyone else, you fail.

Ahhhhh the tides have turned as the waves roll over you.

It was a nice try, though, even if you can't substantiate your claim scientifically with a falsifiable model. Looks like there's a little Marxist in all of us.

I will notify the others.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 05:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
trafn wrote: @IBdaMann - like I thought. Instead of fulfilling that which you demand of everyone else, you fail.

I never claimed to have any "Biospheric CO2 Science." Of those who claim to have science, yes, I request the falsifiable model of the science they insist they have.

Again, I have not claimed to have any science. But I gladly offered up my reasoning which you confidently don't dispute. It looks like there's a little denier in all of us.

I will notify the others.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-10-2015 05:40
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - how interesting. First you fail to back you assertions about the benefits of having increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and now you admit you haven't any science.

And this from the one who demanded that everything that's posted here be science.

You are truly the Cheshire Cat of Climate-debate.com

You could still save yourself with a falsifiable model, should you care to try.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 06:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
trafn wrote:You could still save yourself with a falsifiable model, should you care to try.

For what would I make it? Don't I need some new science in order to create a new falsifiable model that predicts nature?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-10-2015 11:52
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Increasing CO2 levels will likely have a short to mid-term positive effect on plant growth, but not uniformly, and not everywhere. This is because many other factors, such as temperature, light, water availability and nitrogen availability affect plant growth. It is often these factors, and not atmospheric CO2 that cause the limitations to plant growth. E.g. increasing CO2 will have no effect on plant growth in the winter, or during the night time, for example.

The effect is called the CO2 fertilisation effect. It is predicted that the fertilisation effect will saturate within the next 100 years or so (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rs4qBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=when+will+the+co2+fertilisation+effect+saturate&source=bl&ots=-3of49Q0kL&sig=UHw7CyoNrprLJmMqdWtMy3OZU2c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBmoVChMIjraLsNLQyAIVhjgaCh3Oww_T#v=onepage&q=when%20will%20the%20co2%20fertilisation%20effect%20saturate&f=false). This is partly because plants respire more at higher temperatures.

Also, the CO2 fertilisation effect will be more pronounced in C3 plants (such as wheat), and will not have such a big effect on C4 plants (such as maize), because C3 plants are currently more inhibited by CO2 than C4 plants.

We are not currently at a low CO2 point in Earth's history. In fact CO2 is higher today (by a long way) than it has been for the last ~ 800,000 years, see this video (watch to the very end):

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

And it would seem that atmospheric CO2 has probably been less than 500 ppm for most of the last 24 million years:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6797/abs/406695a0.html
20-10-2015 17:19
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - ahhh, see how he squirms as he tries to evade his own divisiveness.

So you admit now that you are indeed a Marxist (at least through your recent posted behavior).

Personally, I wouldn't put you up there with Engel or Marx himself. You're more like one of those closet-case Marxist who doesn't want anyone to know, perhaps a bit like more like Hegel who preached all the cut-and-dry foundational substance of Marxism (i.e. - reality sans duality) yet never quite took the full plunge into Marxism itself (i.e. - the self-critical reality).

Anyways, cheers to you for finally coming out of the closet, fellow comrade Marxist,* and letting go of all that falsifiable model silliness.

Pray tell, what shall we talk about next!

* - speaking of coming out, what color do you want your party uniform to be? I know a marvelous tailor on the lower east side who can do wonders with mauve!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 21:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
climate scientist wrote:
Increasing CO2 levels will likely have a short to mid-term positive effect on plant growth, but not uniformly, and not everywhere. This is because many other factors, such as temperature, light, water availability and nitrogen availability affect plant growth. It is often these factors, and not atmospheric CO2 that cause the limitations to plant growth. E.g. increasing CO2 will have no effect on plant growth in the winter, or during the night time, for example.

The effect is called the CO2 fertilisation effect. It is predicted that the fertilisation effect will saturate within the next 100 years or so (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rs4qBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=when+will+the+co2+fertilisation+effect+saturate&source=bl&ots=-3of49Q0kL&sig=UHw7CyoNrprLJmMqdWtMy3OZU2c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBmoVChMIjraLsNLQyAIVhjgaCh3Oww_T#v=onepage&q=when%20will%20the%20co2%20fertilisation%20effect%20saturate&f=false). This is partly because plants respire more at higher temperatures.

Also, the CO2 fertilisation effect will be more pronounced in C3 plants (such as wheat), and will not have such a big effect on C4 plants (such as maize), because C3 plants are currently more inhibited by CO2 than C4 plants.

We are not currently at a low CO2 point in Earth's history. In fact CO2 is higher today (by a long way) than it has been for the last ~ 800,000 years, see this video (watch to the very end):

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

And it would seem that atmospheric CO2 has probably been less than 500 ppm for most of the last 24 million years:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6797/abs/406695a0.html


More random numbers. Can you show how this data was collected and collated? What instrumentation was used, etc?
20-10-2015 21:25
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@climate scientist - watch out there! I think Into the Night is trying to drag you into The Data Mine!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-10-2015 21:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
trafn wrote:
@climate scientist - watch out there! I think Into the Night is trying to drag you into The Data Mine!

He should go gently into that good night.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-10-2015 21:56
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann -


Score one for you!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
22-10-2015 03:22
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@climate scientist, Ceist and Tototo only - like it says in the original post of this thread, can petrochemicals be part of a carbon neutral world (CNW). For example, could carbon capture be paired to something like graphene production to make atmospheric CO2 actually a useful thing?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
22-10-2015 20:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
trafn wrote:
@climate scientist, Ceist and Tototo only - like it says in the original post of this thread, can petrochemicals be part of a carbon neutral world (CNW). For example, could carbon capture be paired to something like graphene production to make atmospheric CO2 actually a useful thing?


Aren't petrochemicals already carbon neutral? They just take longer to cycle. It just gets down to that "how long is long enough" thing again.
23-10-2015 01:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
trafn wrote:For example, could carbon capture be paired to something like graphene production to make atmospheric CO2 actually a useful thing?

Because we all know that helping plants across planet can't be useful if it means CO2 being in the atmosphere.

Atmospheric CO2 has to be bad, ... always, ... at all times.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate Can petrochemicals exist in a carbon-neutral world?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Uses for solid carbon2413-08-2019 18:21
The field of carbon sequestration?706-08-2019 19:17
carbon footprint16309-06-2019 20:27
Alberta throne speech followed by bill to repeal provincial carbon tax023-05-2019 09:20
It will be Very Hot and very Wet--We've exceeded 415ppm of Carbon Dioxide for the first Time since th3118-05-2019 19:28
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact