Remember me
▼ Content

Uses for solid carbon


Uses for solid carbon16-09-2018 04:30
Kirkieb
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Looking for ideas on the uses of solidified carbon. Is it only good for land fill?.
16-09-2018 19:04
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Kirkieb wrote:
Looking for ideas on the uses of solidified carbon. Is it only good for land fill?.


Solidified carbon? Do you mean elemental carbon, C? Or perhaps you mean carbon dioxide, CO2 Or maybe calcium carbonate CaCO3 as found in limestone. Some other compound?

When you read or hear in the mass media (or anywhere else) of carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning, the compound carbon dioxide is being referred to, not elemental carbon.

Anyway, elemental carbon is a solid at temperatures below 3000 C. Diamonds are a form of elemental carbon. So is graphite. Buckyballs and graphene and carbon fibers too. Charcoal is mostly "amorphous" carbon and has many uses. And of course elemental carbon makes an excellent solid fuel.

Solid carbon dioxide? That is usually called "dry ice." Turns to gas at about minus 75 degrees C (at atmospheric pressure.)

Question: What is your knowledge of chemistry?
Many of the answers to your questions in this and other threads would have been touched on in a high-school chemistry course. Or are easily looked up online.
16-09-2018 19:13
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
Diamonds are a girls best friend and graphite is good in pencils.

Is that helpful?
16-09-2018 20:01
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Life. It is all based on the stuff.

The more CO2 there is around the more plants grow.

I cannot see any real bad thing about having more of it in the air.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346

Science & Environment
Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

Edited on 16-09-2018 20:01
16-09-2018 21:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Kirkieb wrote:
Looking for ideas on the uses of solidified carbon. Is it only good for land fill?.


It's fuel.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2018 21:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
still learning wrote:
Kirkieb wrote:
Looking for ideas on the uses of solidified carbon. Is it only good for land fill?.


Solidified carbon? Do you mean elemental carbon, C? Or perhaps you mean carbon dioxide, CO2 Or maybe calcium carbonate CaCO3 as found in limestone. Some other compound?

When you read or hear in the mass media (or anywhere else) of carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning, the compound carbon dioxide is being referred to, not elemental carbon.

Anyway, elemental carbon is a solid at temperatures below 3000 C. Diamonds are a form of elemental carbon. So is graphite. Buckyballs and graphene and carbon fibers too. Charcoal is mostly "amorphous" carbon and has many uses. And of course elemental carbon makes an excellent solid fuel.

Solid carbon dioxide? That is usually called "dry ice." Turns to gas at about minus 75 degrees C (at atmospheric pressure.)

Question: What is your knowledge of chemistry?
Many of the answers to your questions in this and other threads would have been touched on in a high-school chemistry course. Or are easily looked up online.


I think he means elemental carbon and that he has no idea of chemistry at all.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-09-2018 21:22
17-09-2018 04:08
Kirkieb
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Ok so CO2 is the stuff we are talking about. Why cant we capture the stuff and make diamonds No that wont work the rich people wont like that. From the forum so far I get the feeling most don't oppose the CO2 from Coal power. If so why are we calling for all to be closed. Maybe its just the Muppet Governments like Australia's that has a shock reaction as to how bad it is and we have our heads in the sand.
17-09-2018 04:33
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
Kirkieb wrote:
Ok so CO2 is the stuff we are talking about. Why cant we capture the stuff and make diamonds No that wont work the rich people wont like that. From the forum so far I get the feeling most don't oppose the CO2 from Coal power. If so why are we calling for all to be closed. Maybe its just the Muppet Governments like Australia's that has a shock reaction as to how bad it is and we have our heads in the sand.



...At the moment there are claims by 2 different companies that they can remove carbon dioxide out of the air for $200 and $600 a metric tonne. In order for it to be commercially feasible the cost needs to be about $100 a metric tonne.
..You might find this an interesting read;
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/14/17445622/direct-air-capture-air-to-fuels-carbon-dioxide-engineering
17-09-2018 06:30
Kirkieb
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Thanks James was an interesting read. The more I read the more I think we should be focusing at Geosphere Level. Some of the Air Extraction devices maybe the short term band aid solution but we need a massive global effort and lets face it we cant even agree on politics how will we ever resolve Greenhouse Emissions? Living in Asia I see every day pollution on a scale the west just don't understand. China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan and many more are spewing out air pollution you can see visually its that bad.
17-09-2018 06:44
Kirkieb
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Into the Night wrote:
still learning wrote:
Kirkieb wrote:
Looking for ideas on the uses of solidified carbon. Is it only good for land fill?.


Solidified carbon? Do you mean elemental carbon, C? Or perhaps you mean carbon dioxide, CO2 Or maybe calcium carbonate CaCO3 as found in limestone. Some other compound?

When you read or hear in the mass media (or anywhere else) of carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning, the compound carbon dioxide is being referred to, not elemental carbon.

Anyway, elemental carbon is a solid at temperatures below 3000 C. Diamonds are a form of elemental carbon. So is graphite. Buckyballs and graphene and carbon fibers too. Charcoal is mostly "amorphous" carbon and has many uses. And of course elemental carbon makes an excellent solid fuel.

Solid carbon dioxide? That is usually called "dry ice." Turns to gas at about minus 75 degrees C (at atmospheric pressure.)

Question: What is your knowledge of chemistry?
Many of the answers to your questions in this and other threads would have been touched on in a high-school chemistry course. Or are easily looked up online.


I think he means elemental carbon and that he has no idea of chemistry at all.

So asking a question about something that I learnt more than 40 years ago is saying nothing has changed. Hmm beg to differ. Too many Pre-Madonna's in Education claiming to be scholars and wonder why they are disregarded by the populist. To share your knowledge and open a discussion on a subject your claiming hasn't changed only proved your bias in the subject. If your so brilliant why haven't you solved the problem?
Oh maybe because your a protagonist and not a problem solver.
17-09-2018 06:50
Kirkieb
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
"The basic problem of climate change is that we are removing too much carbon from the geosphere (below ground) and putting it into the active biosphere (above ground), where it serves to raise surface temperatures".
17-09-2018 09:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Kirkieb wrote:
Ok so CO2 is the stuff we are talking about.
Okay.
Kirkieb wrote:
Why cant we capture the stuff and make diamonds

Diamonds are made from carbon, not carbon dioxide. There is no need to capture CO2.
Kirkieb wrote:
No that wont work the rich people wont like that. From the forum so far I get the feeling most don't oppose the CO2 from Coal power.

Actually, a lot of people fear CO2 just like you do. There really is nothing to fear. CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. It is a useful gas, and life on Earth would not be possible without it. Plants are able to use CO2, sunlight, and water to make carbohydrates and sugars; which is food.
Kirkieb wrote:
If so why are we calling for all to be closed.
Marxism is alive and well in the world. Coal represents a successful industry that Marxists want to destroy. It also feeds other successful industries that Marxists want to destroy.
Kirkieb wrote:
Maybe its just the Muppet Governments like Australia's that has a shock reaction as to how bad it is and we have our heads in the sand.

Yeah...I hear ya. Australia's government has been pretty stupid falling for this Marxist eco-crap.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2018 09:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
James___ wrote:
Kirkieb wrote:
Ok so CO2 is the stuff we are talking about. Why cant we capture the stuff and make diamonds No that wont work the rich people wont like that. From the forum so far I get the feeling most don't oppose the CO2 from Coal power. If so why are we calling for all to be closed. Maybe its just the Muppet Governments like Australia's that has a shock reaction as to how bad it is and we have our heads in the sand.



...At the moment there are claims by 2 different companies that they can remove carbon dioxide out of the air for $200 and $600 a metric tonne. In order for it to be commercially feasible the cost needs to be about $100 a metric tonne.
..You might find this an interesting read;
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/14/17445622/direct-air-capture-air-to-fuels-carbon-dioxide-engineering



There is no need to remove carbon dioxide from coal plants.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2018 09:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Kirkieb wrote:
Thanks James was an interesting read. The more I read the more I think we should be focusing at Geosphere Level. Some of the Air Extraction devices maybe the short term band aid solution but we need a massive global effort and lets face it we cant even agree on politics how will we ever resolve Greenhouse Emissions? Living in Asia I see every day pollution on a scale the west just don't understand. China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan and many more are spewing out air pollution you can see visually its that bad.


China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan all use inefficient methods of burning coal, producing a lot of soot. Yes, soot in the air is bad. It's also a waste of good fuel.

We don't need to 'solve' greenhouse emissions. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas' in the first place. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2018 09:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Kirkieb wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
still learning wrote:
Kirkieb wrote:
Looking for ideas on the uses of solidified carbon. Is it only good for land fill?.


Solidified carbon? Do you mean elemental carbon, C? Or perhaps you mean carbon dioxide, CO2 Or maybe calcium carbonate CaCO3 as found in limestone. Some other compound?

When you read or hear in the mass media (or anywhere else) of carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning, the compound carbon dioxide is being referred to, not elemental carbon.

Anyway, elemental carbon is a solid at temperatures below 3000 C. Diamonds are a form of elemental carbon. So is graphite. Buckyballs and graphene and carbon fibers too. Charcoal is mostly "amorphous" carbon and has many uses. And of course elemental carbon makes an excellent solid fuel.

Solid carbon dioxide? That is usually called "dry ice." Turns to gas at about minus 75 degrees C (at atmospheric pressure.)

Question: What is your knowledge of chemistry?
Many of the answers to your questions in this and other threads would have been touched on in a high-school chemistry course. Or are easily looked up online.


I think he means elemental carbon and that he has no idea of chemistry at all.

So asking a question about something that I learnt more than 40 years ago is saying nothing has changed. Hmm beg to differ. Too many Pre-Madonna's in Education claiming to be scholars and wonder why they are disregarded by the populist. To share your knowledge and open a discussion on a subject your claiming hasn't changed only proved your bias in the subject. If your so brilliant why haven't you solved the problem?
Oh maybe because your a protagonist and not a problem solver.


I do not own any coal plants. I have no jurisdiction in places like China. What do you expect me to solve?


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2018 09:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
Kirkieb wrote:
"The basic problem of climate change is that we are removing too much carbon from the geosphere (below ground) and putting it into the active biosphere (above ground), where it serves to raise surface temperatures".


There is no such thing as 'climate change' either. There is no such thing as a global climate, for there is no such thing as a global weather.

Burning coal does not raise surface temperatures. Surface temperatures have only one major factor: the Sun.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2018 21:33
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
Kirkieb wrote:

.....So asking a question about something that I learnt more than 40 years ago is saying nothing has changed. Hmm beg to differ. Too many Pre-Madonna's in Education claiming to be scholars and wonder why they are disregarded by the populist. To share your knowledge and open a discussion on a subject your claiming hasn't changed only proved your bias in the subject. If your so brilliant why haven't you solved the problem?
Oh maybe because your a protagonist and not a problem solver.



This thread and others are a good example of why I think that the media and politicians and activists (of any persuasion) using phrases like "carbon emissions" or "carbon pollution" when referring to carbon dioxide are doing a disservice.

Not everybody remembers stuff they might have learned about forty years ago, can't be expected to.

If one asks about removing carbon from the exhaust stream from an electric powerplant are they referring to the soot (mostly solid carbon) or carbon dioxide or something else? Soot is filtered out of modern powerplants (they have something called a "baghouse"). Air quality regulations require it in most of the US. Has not always been the case though.

Carbon dioxide could be absorbed and the stuff pumped underground. The process has been demonstrated. It isn't cheap though. Would add significantly to the cost of electricity if implemented. No regulations require it, so no implementation.

Regarding "saying nothing has changed," the basic understanding of combustion has not changed since about the year 1800. Oxygen had been discovered and had been found to a necessary part of combustion, it had been found that the total of mass of the combustion products a fuel like coal is more than the mass of the fuel itself. The phlogistion theory of combustion was discarded. Lots of details have been added since then, but the basics remain.

"If your so brilliant why haven't you solved the problem?" I don't have an answer for that.
RE: Solid Carbon Users13-08-2019 01:29
dgarf
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Uses for solid carbon:
perhaps the use with the largest potential (in terms of gigaton) is carbon fiber, or alternatively plastic. carbon fiber reinforcing resin or ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene could be used as structural materials for buildings or transport vehicles (cars, trucks, planes). IF you could substitute cement and steel in buildings and transport with carbon-based materials, you could have about 3 Gt/annum of market potential.

For the climate skeptics:
Climate change is very real and caused by increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels. Pre-industrial rev. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were roughly 280 parts per million (ppm). The current level is about 410ppm. While a miniscule amount compared to the major gases in the atmosphere (N2, O2, H2O), CO2 absorbs infrared radiation from the sun in a spectrum that the other gases do not. This increases the solar radiation held onto by the Earth system, thus increasing global mean temperatures. The reason this is a problem is because since humankind invented agriculture (roughly 10,000 yrs ago) the climate system has been extremely stable, allowing us to build civilizations along dependable sources of water in temperate zones with predictable growing periods and yields. As the climate system shifts to a new equilibrium, these dependable systems will be disrupted, which will in turn destabilize civilization, forcing mass migrations caused by local food and water shortages.
13-08-2019 02:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
dgarf wrote:For the climate skeptics:
Climate change is very real and caused by increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels.

For warmizombies and climate lemmings: Climate Change is a WACKY religion based on hatred of, and intolerance to, anyone who understands physics, including people who realize that fossils don't burn.

dgarf wrote: Pre-industrial rev. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were roughly 280 parts per million (ppm).

You don't know that, nor does it seem relevant.

dgarf wrote: The current level is about 410ppm.

You don't know that, nor does it seem relevant.

dgarf wrote: While a miniscule amount compared to the major gases in the atmosphere (N2, O2, H2O), CO2 absorbs infrared radiation from the sun in a spectrum that the other gases do not. This increases the solar radiation held onto by the Earth system, thus increasing global mean temperatures.

tmiddles, did you want to address this?

dgarf wrote: The reason this is a problem is because since humankind invented agriculture (roughly 10,000 yrs ago) the climate system has been extremely stable, allowing us to build civilizations along dependable sources of water in temperate zones with predictable growing periods and yields. As the climate system shifts to a new equilibrium, these dependable systems will be disrupted, which will in turn destabilize civilization, forcing mass migrations caused by local food and water shortages.

Wow, it sounds like total doom and gloom are headed our way ... or were you talking about Europe? ... or maybe Africa? I don't think this will affect the U.S. because we were smart enough to pull out of the Climate Accord.

What the hail is this "climate system" you like to mention?


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
13-08-2019 02:46
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1012)
dgarf wrote:
Uses for solid carbon:
perhaps the use with the largest potential (in terms of gigaton) is carbon fiber, or alternatively plastic. carbon fiber reinforcing resin or ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene could be used as structural materials for buildings or transport vehicles (cars, trucks, planes). IF you could substitute cement and steel in buildings and transport with carbon-based materials, you could have about 3 Gt/annum of market potential.

For the climate skeptics:
Climate change is very real and caused by increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels. Pre-industrial rev. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were roughly 280 parts per million (ppm). The current level is about 410ppm. While a miniscule amount compared to the major gases in the atmosphere (N2, O2, H2O), CO2 absorbs infrared radiation from the sun in a spectrum that the other gases do not. This increases the solar radiation held onto by the Earth system, thus increasing global mean temperatures. The reason this is a problem is because since humankind invented agriculture (roughly 10,000 yrs ago) the climate system has been extremely stable, allowing us to build civilizations along dependable sources of water in temperate zones with predictable growing periods and yields. As the climate system shifts to a new equilibrium, these dependable systems will be disrupted, which will in turn destabilize civilization, forcing mass migrations caused by local food and water shortages.


How do we know the pre-industrial temperature and CO2 measurements? Neither were being monitored on a global scale at the time. Thermometers with the precision to measure temperature to a usable level, for the 1 degree Celsius per century estimate rise, weren't available for a couple hundred years later. CO2 was monitored until 1958, hardly on a global scale, on the side of an active volcano to boot, Mauna Loa. Basically, global warming was declared, before measurements and data to support it even existed, everything is based on proxies, analogs, and computer simulations. It's science fiction, and a video game.

Uses for carbon... How about a live solution? All life on this planet is based on carbon molecules. That carbon comes exclusively from CO2. Nothing digests or metabolizes solid carbon. Plants are the only living thing that pulls CO2 from the atmosphere, everything else gets carbon from the plants, one way or another. Look up CO2 augmentation for greenhouses, to see the real life effect of CO2 on plant growth and development. No need to take my word for it, a common practice for decades. Your 410 ppm is about 20% of the ideal CO2 level. Oddly enough, adding 1000 ppm to a greenhouse, doesn't raise the temperature either, no cooling required...
13-08-2019 04:35
James___
★★★★☆
(1465)
HarveyH55 wrote:
dgarf wrote:
Uses for solid carbon:
perhaps the use with the largest potential (in terms of gigaton) is carbon fiber, or alternatively plastic. carbon fiber reinforcing resin or ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene could be used as structural materials for buildings or transport vehicles (cars, trucks, planes). IF you could substitute cement and steel in buildings and transport with carbon-based materials, you could have about 3 Gt/annum of market potential.

For the climate skeptics:
Climate change is very real and caused by increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels. Pre-industrial rev. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were roughly 280 parts per million (ppm). The current level is about 410ppm. While a miniscule amount compared to the major gases in the atmosphere (N2, O2, H2O), CO2 absorbs infrared radiation from the sun in a spectrum that the other gases do not. This increases the solar radiation held onto by the Earth system, thus increasing global mean temperatures. The reason this is a problem is because since humankind invented agriculture (roughly 10,000 yrs ago) the climate system has been extremely stable, allowing us to build civilizations along dependable sources of water in temperate zones with predictable growing periods and yields. As the climate system shifts to a new equilibrium, these dependable systems will be disrupted, which will in turn destabilize civilization, forcing mass migrations caused by local food and water shortages.


How do we know the pre-industrial temperature and CO2 measurements? Neither were being monitored on a global scale at the time. Thermometers with the precision to measure temperature to a usable level, for the 1 degree Celsius per century estimate rise, weren't available for a couple hundred years later. CO2 was monitored until 1958, hardly on a global scale, on the side of an active volcano to boot, Mauna Loa. Basically, global warming was declared, before measurements and data to support it even existed, everything is based on proxies, analogs, and computer simulations. It's science fiction, and a video game.

Uses for carbon... How about a live solution? All life on this planet is based on carbon molecules. That carbon comes exclusively from CO2. Nothing digests or metabolizes solid carbon. Plants are the only living thing that pulls CO2 from the atmosphere, everything else gets carbon from the plants, one way or another. Look up CO2 augmentation for greenhouses, to see the real life effect of CO2 on plant growth and development. No need to take my word for it, a common practice for decades. Your 410 ppm is about 20% of the ideal CO2 level. Oddly enough, adding 1000 ppm to a greenhouse, doesn't raise the temperature either, no cooling required...


And yet you support people owning automatic rifles. We can't suppress peoples rights. I can show your posts. You are right. People should have access to assault rifles. I am wrong. I admit it.
Edited on 13-08-2019 04:36
13-08-2019 05:14
dgarf
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Look, the chemistry and physics behind climate change are so fundamental you could teach them in a high school chemistry class. I'm not going to debate this. We know CO2 levels before humans were measuring them in real time because we can look at air bubbles trapped in really old ice cores from Antartica. This takes us back around 800,000 years. For more recent records, we can just look at tree ring data from around the world, which is directly tied to yearly CO2 and temperature levels.

Its astound that you could doubt the science of climate change while debating about it on an internet forum. The technology, and science underpinning the technology, of your computer, the internet, etc. is far more advanced than anything you need to measure or predict climate change.

But look, I hope all you skeptics are right. I hope there is nothing to worry about, and all these people including myself are completely wrong. But I am nearly certain you are not wrong, and anyone born in the 21st century will have to face unprecedented natural and civil unrest.
13-08-2019 05:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
dgarf wrote:Look, the chemistry and physics behind climate change are so fundamental you could teach them in a high school chemistry class.

I know that I can certainly teach it. I doubt you could. Prove me wrong.

dgarf wrote:I'm not going to debate this.

I know you're not because you can't.

dgarf wrote:We know CO2 levels before humans were measuring them in real time because we can look at air bubbles trapped in really old ice cores from Antartica.

You clearly have no idea how much error enters such measurements.

dgarf wrote:This takes us back around 800,000 years.

... far too inaccurately to provide any useful information.

dgarf wrote:For more recent records, we can just look at tree ring data from around the world, which is directly tied to yearly CO2 and temperature levels.

There are too many factors in tree rings and we have no ability to isolate them.

dgarf wrote:Its astound that you could doubt the science of climate change while debating about it on an internet forum.

It's normal for a warmizombie like yourself to be so scientifically illiterate that any Marxist that walks by can bend you over furniture and ream you into regurgitating the most extreme physics violations.

Give it up, you're not fooling anyone here.


dgarf wrote: The technology, and science underpinning the technology, of your computer, the internet, etc. is far more advanced than anything you need to measure or predict climate change.

One thing that will never happen: you unambiguously defining Climate Change without violating physics.

dgarf wrote:But look, I hope all you skeptics are right. I hope there is nothing to worry about, and all these people including myself are completely wrong.

Then I have great news! Your bonehead religion is egregiously in error. You have absolutely nothing about which to worry. None of the crap that was reamed into you is even possible.

You are out of the woods. You can breathe a sigh of relief. You can rest assured that all is well.

dgarf wrote:, and anyone born in the 21st century will have to face unprecedented natural and civil unrest.

... if Democrats take control.

.


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
13-08-2019 13:40
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
dgarf wrote:
Look, the chemistry and physics behind climate change are so fundamental you could teach them in a high school chemistry class.


Theory goes that CO2 up temp up right?

What about if CO2 doesn't go up? Could/would the temp go up? Have you EVER heard that discussed? Don't you think it would be important to parse out CO2's impact form other factors?

The data you're referencing I think is reflected below right?:


And now here:


I would argue that U.S. temperature readings are more accurate than global temp readings because it was more actively recorded since 1880 than other locations. Let's assume that the temp readings are accurate enough to be of some use.

The US had very warm weather in the 1930s and you can see the evidence here from the EPA:


But as the CO2 history shows CO2 levels didn't really increase up to 1930. They did increase after that but temperatures fell. In fact in the 1970s there were articles written about a coming ice age.

So being critical of an exclusive focus on CO2 is useful because we need to have perspective on what's really going on IF that's within our ability.

I hope you'll at least agree it's not a simple cause/effect story in the data that is presented. A high school class would be pretty confused hearing the theory and then looking at these charts (which are Nasa, EPA, standard data thrown around).
13-08-2019 18:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
dgarf wrote:
Look, the chemistry and physics behind climate change are so fundamental you could teach them in a high school chemistry class.


Theory goes that CO2 up temp up right?

What about if CO2 doesn't go up? Could/would the temp go up? Have you EVER heard that discussed? Don't you think it would be important to parse out CO2's impact form other factors?

The data you're referencing I think is reflected below right?:


And now here:


I would argue that U.S. temperature readings are more accurate than global temp readings because it was more actively recorded since 1880 than other locations. Let's assume that the temp readings are accurate enough to be of some use.

The US had very warm weather in the 1930s and you can see the evidence here from the EPA:


But as the CO2 history shows CO2 levels didn't really increase up to 1930. They did increase after that but temperatures fell. In fact in the 1970s there were articles written about a coming ice age.

So being critical of an exclusive focus on CO2 is useful because we need to have perspective on what's really going on IF that's within our ability.

I hope you'll at least agree it's not a simple cause/effect story in the data that is presented. A high school class would be pretty confused hearing the theory and then looking at these charts (which are Nasa, EPA, standard data thrown around).


Yes. I abhor teaching fundamentalist religions in schools as 'science'.

Anyone flying an aircraft knows about thermals. They tend to form over areas of higher emissivity for a reason.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Uses for solid carbon:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
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
California's Carbon-Tax?117-05-2019 10:16
▲ 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