Remember me
▼ Content

Why cant we suck carbon out of the air?


Why cant we suck carbon out of the air?26-08-2019 03:19
fishfood5266
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Hi, Im new to this site and this topic so excuse my naivete but I understand sucking carbon out of the air and converting it to a solid has been talked about before and the limitations being that it costs a lot of energy. Is there a study about that I can learn about more? Or could someone elaborate on the requirements? Thanks!
26-08-2019 03:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
fishfood5266 wrote:
Hi, Im new to this site and this topic so excuse my naivete but I understand sucking carbon out of the air and converting it to a solid has been talked about before and the limitations being that it costs a lot of energy. Is there a study about that I can learn about more? Or could someone elaborate on the requirements? Thanks!


News to me. Found this:
http://nationswell.com/sucking-carbon-air-help-save-planet/
26-08-2019 03:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
fishfood5266 wrote:
Hi, Im new to this site and this topic so excuse my naivete but I understand sucking carbon out of the air and converting it to a solid has been talked about before and the limitations being that it costs a lot of energy.

Why would you want to do this? Are you trying to kill all life on earth? Do you hate humanity?

What could possibly be going through your head?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
26-08-2019 03:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
Why would you want to do this?


Hey if someone found a way to do it cheaply it would derail the entire issue! Think about that IBdaMann.

When I was a little kid I thought there was a monster under the bed. My parents took to legs off the bed frame and set it on the ground. Game over.
Edited on 26-08-2019 03:34
26-08-2019 03:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Why would you want to do this?


Hey if someone found a way to do it cheaply it would derail the entire issue!

No, it would create the issue. Plants would die. All life would soon follow.

Only a humanity-hating Marxist would find that acceptable.

Wait, you are a Marxist.

This is why we non-Marxists want to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere that we can so when the loony manipulated wingnuts start pulling crap like this, we can save humanity and all life on the planet.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
26-08-2019 04:28
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
You do realize that CO2 is sort of a rare gas? It's only about 0.04% (being generous) of the total atmosphere. You would need a whole lot of these machines, requiring power. You would also need to move a lot of air through them. A very costly proposal, and we'll be needing all that cash, resources, and labor, to convert everything over to greener energy, so eventually, we aren't producing all that CO2, meaning those devices would soon become useless.

Plants already suck CO2 out of the air, and convert it to solids, we, and every other living thing on the plant depend on for food. Every living thing is based on carbon molecules. Plants are the only things the metabolize carbon from atmosphere, CO2. If we artificially remove CO2, plants are going to be deficient, produce less nutritious food. Doesn't matter if you are herbivore, omnivore, or carnivore, plants are the food, of the critters you'll eat. I'd trade a couple degrees warmer, if it means more, and healthier food. What good is going 'green', if we all end up starving, and fighting over Soylent Green?

To bad James hasn't been around, he's got this invention to suck carbon out of the air. Well, more of an idea, really. Since he doesn't have the funds or the skills, and his surgery related disability prevents him from working.

Google 'Greenhouse CO2 Augmentation' sometime, to get a little perspective on how much CO2 plant need, to grow really strong and fast, healthy plants. You'll wonder how they survive on what little they suck out of the air...
26-08-2019 04:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote: Wait, you are a Marxist.
And you are???:

HarveyH55 wrote:how much CO2 plant need,
Yeah it's an interesting "side effect"
From: Venus is hotter than Mercury
tmiddles wrote:
Wow this is really interesting! I had no idea
co2-is-making-earth-greener

In the last 35 year's "The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."
Natural feedback loop.
26-08-2019 13:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote: Wait, you are a Marxist.










.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
26-08-2019 14:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
Karl Marx
.


Oh yeah

You got me good

I'm so Marxist.

I guess that's why you can't explain how a person in a 70F room doesn't freeze to death

Living a lie must be exhausting
Edited on 26-08-2019 15:11
26-08-2019 19:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:
Oh yeah

You got me good

I'm so Marxist.

As long as we got that cleared up, great, however if you prefer "Sandersist" then I suppose we could accomodate. Mox nix.

tmiddles wrote:I guess that's why you can't explain how a person in a 70F room doesn't freeze to death

Don't you recall? I was a heavy participant in that thread. I took the time to clearly and thoroughly explain everything and to exhaustively debunk your bogus "net flow" argument, even to the point of ruining your little parlor trick by pointing out how you swapped equations when you thought no one was looking.

Are you now asking for a "do over"?

Go ahead and start reading here and avoid ignoring what I wrote, but also notice all that you wrote, about how you understood everything, about how it all makes sense, about things being clear all the stuff you then promptly deny starting here and throughout the subsequent posts.

If you want to get back to the point where you understood everything before you began denying everything, review the posts. All the answers are there. By re-reading them you can get familiar with the material to which I will be directing your attention in the future so I don't have to repeat myself.

You really should pay more attention.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
26-08-2019 19:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
fishfood5266 wrote:
Hi, Im new to this site and this topic so excuse my naivete but I understand sucking carbon out of the air and converting it to a solid has been talked about before and the limitations being that it costs a lot of energy. Is there a study about that I can learn about more? Or could someone elaborate on the requirements? Thanks!


We don't need to suck carbon out of the air. Carbon naturally falls out of the air, especially when it rains.

We don't need to build a machine to suck carbon dioxide (a completely different material than carbon) out of the air. Plant some vegetation. Grass, shrubs, trees, anything. Oh by the way, your contribution by doing so will make no significant difference.


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2019 19:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Why would you want to do this?


Hey if someone found a way to do it cheaply it would derail the entire issue! Think about that IBdaMann.

When I was a little kid I thought there was a monster under the bed. My parents took to legs off the bed frame and set it on the ground. Game over.


Are you sure? That monster could've quite possibly just live under the flattened area and ooze out to get you!

Guess you didn't think of that as a kid!

It is cheap. Plant something. It makes no significant difference, but at least you have a garden.


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2019 19:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Karl Marx
.


Oh yeah

You got me good

I'm so Marxist.

I guess that's why you can't explain how a person in a 70F room doesn't freeze to death

Living a lie must be exhausting

He already did, liar.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Why cant we suck carbon out of the air?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?317-09-2019 00:37
Uses for solid carbon2413-08-2019 18:21
The field of carbon sequestration?706-08-2019 19:17
Alaska in desperate need, of air conditioners and sunscreen...1308-07-2019 05:20
carbon footprint16309-06-2019 20:27
▲ 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