Emissions, Global warming or a scam

[Richard 1234]

17 minutes ago, Khriss said:

Might just 'point out here that trees use carbon dioxide to grow....' it's called photosynthesis.... K

And lock it inside the tree.

 

trees cut for building things out of is ok I think as the co2 staying locked inside it trees cut for burning I’m not sure about.

i do think trees could be carbon neutral if enough were to be planted.

just my thoughts.

 

 

[openspaceman]

45 minutes ago, Richard 1234 said:

i do think trees could be carbon neutral if enough were to be planted.

They can be carbon negative if turned to charcoal and buried.

[Khriss]

9 hours ago, Big J said:

Heresy! 

Might also point out that the sulphur dioxide produced by one lil volcanoes far exceeded the total diesel pollution of Forestry operations world wide. So stick that in yr Cat enabled Stihl an smoke it ? k

[Khriss]

8 hours ago, openspaceman said:

They can be carbon negative if turned to charcoal and buried.

... On top of you for such facetious poo stirring ? k

[difflock]

13 minutes ago, Khriss said:

Might also point out that the sulphur dioxide produced by one lil volcanoes far exceeded the total diesel pollution of Forestry operations world wide. So stick that in yr Cat enabled Stihl an smoke it ? k

Which is why I doubt that any puny efforts by man can or will make a significent positive difference in respect of CO2/SO2 etc.

Never mind the vast amounts of currently trapped methane hydrate, ready to be released by the merest world sneeze, hiccup or tectonic  fart.

Profligate breeding and resource consumption is a different matter, in these respects man has no competitors.

Marcus

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, Khriss said:

... On top of you for such facetious poo stirring ? k

Never poo poo another mans poo poo Black Adder !

[Khriss]

1 hour ago, difflock said:

Which is why I doubt that any puny efforts by man can or will make a significent positive difference in respect of CO2/SO2 etc.

Never mind the vast amounts of currently trapped methane hydrate, ready to be released by the merest world sneeze, hiccup or tectonic  fart.

Profligate breeding and resource consumption is a different matter, in these respects man has no competitors.

Marcus

I will look up the figures fr kracato eruption - they are astonishing. K

[openspaceman]

2 hours ago, Khriss said:

I will look up the figures fr kracato eruption - they are astonishing. K

Yes and look what effect it had on the globe.

 

Man's contribution is of course additive and for CO2 it is larger than  volcanoes but still a small part of the total exchange between earth and atmosphere. However the net effect is that for some reason the natural cycle has not been able to buffer the increase as I expect in my youth.

 

Ordinarily I thought increased CO2 would stimulate extra photosynthesis, and it does, but overall other factors counter this such that the CO2 from fossil fuels stays in the form of an equilibrium between the atmosphere and the surface waters of oceans, about 45% of the increase bcoming carbonic acid in the oceans.

 

Now given marine skeletons are a massive carbon store, in the form of chalk and limestone,  and require a slightly alkaline environment to form  plus the fact that anthropogenic heavy metal contamination of the oceans has a disproportionately very large effect on bioactivity and we can see a couple of reasons why excess carbon is not being removed.

 

So the effects of excess CO2 are not only affecting the climate and the simple fact that photosynthesis is such a huge fixer of carbon makes me believe that sequestering carbon in an inert form by intervening in the growth to decay cycle is likely more benign than other proposed geoengineering solutions which strike me are time bombs.

 

 

[Big J]

45 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

Yes and look what effect it had on the globe.

 

Man's contribution is of course additive and for CO2 it is larger than  volcanoes but still a small part of the total exchange between earth and atmosphere. However the net effect is that for some reason the natural cycle has not been able to buffer the increase as I expect in my youth.

 

Ordinarily I thought increased CO2 would stimulate extra photosynthesis, and it does, but overall other factors counter this such that the CO2 from fossil fuels stays in the form of an equilibrium between the atmosphere and the surface waters of oceans, about 45% of the increase bcoming carbonic acid in the oceans.

 

Now given marine skeletons are a massive carbon store, in the form of chalk and limestone,  and require a slightly alkaline environment to form  plus the fact that anthropogenic heavy metal contamination of the oceans has a disproportionately very large effect on bioactivity and we can see a couple of reasons why excess carbon is not being removed.

 

So the effects of excess CO2 are not only affecting the climate and the simple fact that photosynthesis is such a huge fixer of carbon makes me believe that sequestering carbon in an inert form by intervening in the growth to decay cycle is likely more benign than other proposed geoengineering solutions which strike me are time bombs.

 

 

Very good post

[tree-fancier123]

“Fusion is a major challenge, but one that must be tackled. We believe that with collaboration, dedication and investment, fusion will be the best means of achieving deep decarbonisation of the global energy supply in the 2030s and beyond.”

 

I'm not convinced, but the amount of wires and gadgets on display is impressive.

Uk private effort

 

big experiment coming together in France

 

A US one with algorithm work by Google

lots of components in the quest to make an artificial Sun