PDA

View Full Version : Make Carbon Output Zero



KDawg
03-11-2008, 08:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Senate is poised to vote in June on legislation that would reduce U.S. emissions by 70 percent by 2050; the two Democratic senators running for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), back an 80 percent cut. The Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), supports a 60 percent reduction by mid-century. </div></div>

Carbon Output Must Near Zero To Avert Danger, New Studies Say (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901867.html)

These scientists and politicians think we are stupid. We exhale CO2 as we breathe! They want to reduce that to zero .......

There is nothing left to say on this matter.

Huggy85
03-11-2008, 08:21 PM
I'd say the implication is that we are doomed.

starterwiz
03-12-2008, 10:34 AM
How long does a single human need to exhale to emit one ton of CO2?
Speedy excluded.

Barry Morris
03-12-2008, 10:49 AM
I suppose the point must be that we shouldn't create more CO2 than the environment can handle.

Every green plant, including those in the sea, converts CO2 to oxygen. The question is how much CO2 is man creating and how much can Mother Nature process.

Hans
03-12-2008, 04:07 PM
Earth is a closed system. As such, each part of this system has to be balanced in order for the system as a whole to function properly.

I compare the issue of global warming, to the issue that arises when you put to many fish in an aquarium. Anybody who has experience with an aquarium knows the consequences and solutions to that problem.

KDawg
03-12-2008, 08:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Earth is a closed system. As such, each part of this system has to be balanced in order for the system as a whole to function properly.

I compare the issue of global warming, to the issue that arises when you put to many fish in an aquarium. Anybody who has experience with an aquarium knows the consequences and solutions to that problem. </div></div>

That's all well and good, but how do you square that with this: "The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further," when CO2 is what we exhale?

Huggy85
03-12-2008, 08:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KDawg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Earth is a closed system. As such, each part of this system has to be balanced in order for the system as a whole to function properly.

I compare the issue of global warming, to the issue that arises when you put to many fish in an aquarium. Anybody who has experience with an aquarium knows the consequences and solutions to that problem. </div></div>

That's all well and good, but how do you square that with this: "The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further," when CO2 is what we exhale?
</div></div>

According to these definitions, human exhalation doesn't seem to count as a carbon emission.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=e...nition&ct=title (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Carbon+Emissions&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title)

Barry Morris
03-12-2008, 08:33 PM
You could pack all of humanity into a box less than half a cubic mile.

Our exhalations ain't hurting squat.

KDawg
03-12-2008, 08:38 PM
The 3rd definition says, As the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide changes, so does the earth's temperature....."

The article says:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further. </div></div>

When they say carbon emmissions, they mean CO2 (and maybe other gases, but definitely CO2). Humans exhale CO2. There's no getting around that.

Barry Morris
03-12-2008, 08:40 PM
What percentage of the CO2 output comes from humans?? As compared to industry??

KDawg
03-12-2008, 08:46 PM
I don't know.

But the Carnegie Institute says total output should be zero. The current crop of American presidential candidates call for 60%-80% reductions.

At best, they want to grind our economies to a complete halt. A 60% reduction in CO2 (the least of the figures in the article) can accomplish nothing less.

Barry Morris
03-12-2008, 08:47 PM
Now why would they want to grind our economies to a complete halt??

Nobody wants to starve.

Hans
03-12-2008, 08:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KDawg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Earth is a closed system. As such, each part of this system has to be balanced in order for the system as a whole to function properly.

I compare the issue of global warming, to the issue that arises when you put to many fish in an aquarium. Anybody who has experience with an aquarium knows the consequences and solutions to that problem. </div></div>

That's all well and good, but how do you square that with this: "The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further," when CO2 is what we exhale?
</div></div>

I again go back to my original aquarium comparison. The issues that arise from anything that is present inside the aquarium is very low. The issues that arise from items introduced in the aquarium, is huge.

We burn, amongst other things, huge amounts of fossil fuel. While that fuel is part of the closed system, the result is we release all the emissions from that in the system. None of those emissions would be there if we did not do this.
As such, we add huge amounts and concentrations of co2 to our environment, that normally would have never made it in there. I suppose you could see it as a conversion from one form to another.

While nobody truly knows what the effects are in the long term, we do know that if there are any effects, it's going to be a very daunting task to reverse it.

In my opinion, it's better to act before we get to that point.

Huggy85
03-12-2008, 08:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What percentage of the CO2 output comes from humans?? As compared to industry?? </div></div>

Look at the chart in this article. I think its safe to say that if less than .5% of the carbon emissions are produced by lead production, the amount produced by our breathing is irrelevant.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html

Huggy85
03-12-2008, 08:55 PM
Q. Should we be concerned with human breathing as a source of CO2?

A. No. While people do exhale carbon dioxide (the rate is approximately 1 kg per day, and it depends strongly on the person's activity level), this carbon dioxide includes carbon that was originally taken out of the carbon dioxide in the air by plants through photosynthesis - whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants. Thus, there is a closed loop, with no net addition to the atmosphere. Of course, the agriculture, food processing, and marketing industries use energy (in many cases based on the combustion of fossil fuels), but their emissions of carbon dioxide are captured in our estimates as emissions from solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels. [RMC]

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

KDawg
03-12-2008, 09:11 PM
You all make good points, but this thread was about the Carnegie Institute and American politicians calling for between 60%-100% reductions in CO2.

The distinctions you make are not in the article.

Huggy85
03-12-2008, 09:15 PM
And I thought the point you were trying to make was concern for the amount of CO2 that we breathe making that impossible.

I think the evidence is there that our exhalations are irrelevant to the totals.

starterwiz
03-13-2008, 07:42 AM
Decreasing emissions will not collapse the economy.
Increasing taxes will naturally cause exploration for advanced technology. That is already occurring. Universities compete to produce carbon free vehicles, and industry will as well as long as is makes economic sense.

There is no doubt that we have to reduce. Perhaps not to zero, but it makes for a nice goal.

The big question is how to get China and other soon to be heavily industrialized countries to follow suit.

GenX
03-15-2008, 12:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Increasing taxes will naturally cause exploration for advanced technology </div></div>

God help us all...

starterwiz
03-15-2008, 02:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: R W G R</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Increasing taxes will naturally cause exploration for advanced technology </div></div>

God help us all... </div></div>

'Tis a good thing He does.