Jump to content
Ken Fabian

Is CO2 humankind's largest single waste product/waste stream?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What we have done to soils has added huge quantities of carbon to the atmosphere and oceans. Overgrazing and firewood and fuel gathering has turned huge areas into desert and semi-desert, and there is now practically no carbon in the soils. It can be reversed by managing grazing, but a lot of the countries are so poor that it's not feasible without outside help. 

Al gore shut up and vanished when the temps were found to not be rising even as co2 levels are rising wildly.   Co2 is natural you are spewing it now

14 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What we have done to soils has added huge quantities of carbon to the atmosphere and oceans. Overgrazing and firewood and fuel gathering has turned huge areas into desert and semi-desert, and there is now practically no carbon in the soils. It can be reversed by managing grazing, but a lot of the countries are so poor that it's not feasible without outside help. 

Excess means the CO2 that's NOT absorbed by plants etc. How do YOU not know this?

Co2 is absorbed by plants, fifth graders know this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Olin said:

Al gore shut up and vanished when the temps were found to not be rising even as co2 levels are rising wildly.

What do you believe was found, exactly?

 

co2_temp_broad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olin said:

Al gore shut up and vanished when the temps were found to not be rising even as co2 levels are rising wildly.   Co2 is natural you are spewing it now

I didn't say it wasn't. You don't seem to understand what you reply to. 

 

5 minutes ago, Olin said:

Co2 is absorbed by plants, fifth graders know this

I'm sure fifth graders know what excess means. You should try asking one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

Quote

the slowdown in the rate of average global surface warming that took place from 1998–2012 (relative to the preceding 30 years)  has unequivocally ended. Scientists have learned more about the physical factors that contributed to the short-term trend, and they have documented the continued build up in sub-surface ocean heat during the period.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Olin said:

Al gore shut up and vanished when the temps were found to not be rising even as co2 levels are rising wildly.   Co2 is natural you are spewing it now

Co2 is absorbed by plants, fifth graders know this

And as usual our friend has missed the point.

Oh, and here is Gore earlier this year.....

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/27/al-gore-climate-change-impact-black-poor-people-more

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

I didn't say it wasn't. You don't seem to understand what you reply to. 

 

I'm sure fifth graders know what excess means. You should try asking one of them.

That's been his problem over a couple of threads so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olin said:

Millions of gallons of methane, ammonia and sulfur compounds pour into the oceans every day.  These far from being waste or toxic actually provide vital nutrients to the oceans

Who has said anything about being toxic, except you? (hint: nobody) 

And again, "waste product" has a specific meaning in these discussions. Are you going to acknowledge that, or will the red herrings continue?

1 hour ago, Olin said:

 Sorry charon, co2 is absorbed from the air by plants.  How do you not know this?

Being obtuse impresses nobody. How do you not know this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olin said:

Al gore shut up and vanished when the temps were found to not be rising even as co2 levels are rising wildly.   Co2 is natural you are spewing it now

Co2 is absorbed by plants, fifth graders know this

If you have a glass and pour water into it until it runs over and see a puddle on the table, do you stop pouring or do you continue because "drinking glasses hold water, everyone knows this"?

We see the equivalent of the puddle in atmospheric CO2 measurements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

If you have a glass and pour water into it until it runs over and see a puddle on the table, do you stop pouring or do you continue because "drinking glasses hold water, everyone knows this"?

We see the equivalent of the puddle in atmospheric CO2 measurements.

Dump your glass of water and imagine that this means something

 

Have fun too

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

Who has said anything about being toxic, except you? (hint: nobody) 

And again, "waste product" has a specific meaning in these discussions. Are you going to acknowledge that, or will the red herrings continue?

Being obtuse impresses nobody. How do you not know this?

Millions of gallons of methane, sulfur dioxide and ammonia pour out of ocean thermal vents every day, for 5 billion years.  And this is normal, are you going to plug the vents because you say it's dangerous?  Co2 is not dangerous without it all plants would die, then we follow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olin, you can quibble over definitions of what is waste or pollution and what is not,  but the climate consequences of rapidly raising atmospheric CO2 content,  beyond the limits of natural variability in the absence of human influences, are real and they will have a profound effect on agriculture, infrastructure and economic systems - not my opinion, but the consistent conclusion of more than 3 decades of expert reports and studies. CO2 is a waste product from fossil carbon burning, and it is also modern civilisation's most abundant waste product.

No matter whether commissioned by Progressives or Conservatives, the expert reports continue to say essentially the same things - because there is now a genuine science based understanding of the fundamental processes involved in climate and what causes climate to change. That was not true in the 1970's, but the groundwork within mainstream science - programs to build climate data and get a good quantitative understanding of the various elements began even before then.

Your arguments are not consistent with the body of science based knowledge and it looks like you are burdened with some basic misunderstandings - mostly about the relative importance of things like CO2 to climate and to plant growth and how they are likely to impact human societies and economy. And it looks like you are resistant to being informed by people who are better informed about these things than you do - and I am not talking about the people posting here, or Al Gore or Greenpeace either, but about the people who have done the studies that raise this above mere differences of opinion. The IPCC reports, the State of Climate reports, National Academy reports, Royal Society, NOAA, NSIDC, CSIRO, BoM, CRU - well, every institution that studies climate and every peak science body says essentially the same.

But close to 30 years of science informing on climate/emissions/energy has been accompanied by nearly 30 years of vigorous, well supported counter messaging by those who don't want climate responsibility to be legally recognised or the costs of it impacting their near term activities. One of the themes popular amongst the counter-messaging is that adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere is a good thing. As long as you don't look too deeply - don't actually study these things or base your position on those studies - it is easy to believe raised CO2 will deliver an overall benefit. But people who do study them know it is not so simple and that some greening from CO2 fertilisation will not make the other concerns about raised CO2 go away or, given those other other factors, will lead to an overall benefit.

Olin, I don't expect you to change your position or learn anything - teaching resistance to arguments based on science and reason, to reject the role of expertise, has been another major theme of climate change counter-messaging. You aren't making a good impression here by putting up false and misleading arguments and sticking to them no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olin said:

Millions of gallons of methane, sulfur dioxide and ammonia pour out of ocean thermal vents every day, for 5 billion years.  And this is normal, are you going to plug the vents because you say it's dangerous?  Co2 is not dangerous without it all plants would die, then we follow

Did I say anything about methane, sulfur dioxide, or ammonia? Did I say anything was dangerous? Did I say we should eliminate CO2?

Is your straw supply running low yet, or should we expect you to fabricate more replies to fictitious arguments? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, swansont said:

Did I say anything about methane, sulfur dioxide, or ammonia? Did I say anything was dangerous? Did I say we should eliminate CO2?

Is your straw supply running low yet, or should we expect you to fabricate more replies to fictitious arguments? 

I mentioned those things, and never said that you did.  So your fictitious argument is with yourself, not me.  Do you argue with yourself often?

Millions of gallons of methane, sulfur dioxide and ammonia pour out of ocean thermal vents every day, for 5 billion years.  And this is normal, are you going to plug the vents because you say it's dangerous?  Co2 is not dangerous without it all plants would die, then we follow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Olin said:

Extra co2 is currently greening deserts

 

15 hours ago, Olin said:

We need to find more ways to add co2 to the environment. To green deserts

However, extra "greening" from extra CO2 doesn't seem to be as beneficial as you might ordinarily think.

Quote

 

Impact of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions on global human nutrition     Matthew R. Smith & Samuel S. Myers   doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0253-3

Elevated atmospheric CO2 (550?ppm) could cause an additional 175 million people to be zinc deficient and 122 million protein deficient (assuming 2050 population and CO2 projections) due to the reduced nutritional value of staple food crops.    [Nature Climate Change volume 8, pages 834–839 (2018)]                     "Atmospheric CO2 is on pace to surpass 550 ppm in the next 30–80 years. Many food crops grown under 550 ppm have protein, iron and zinc contents that are reduced by 3–17% compared with current conditions. We analysed the impact of elevated CO2 concentrations on the sufficiency of dietary intake of iron, zinc and protein for the populations of 151 countries using a model of per-capita food availability stratified by age and sex, assuming constant diets and excluding other climate impacts on food production. We estimate that elevated CO2 could cause an additional 175 million people to be zinc deficient and an additional 122 million people to be protein deficient (assuming 2050 population and CO2 projections). For iron, 1.4 billion women of childbearing age and children under 5 are in countries with greater than 20% anaemia prevalence and would lose >4% of dietary iron. Regions at highest risk—South and Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East—require extra precautions to sustain an already tenuous advance towards improved public health."

 

"Elevated CO2 could ...require extra precautions...."

It's usually more complicated than you'd think at first glance.  ~

Edited by Essay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Olin said:

I mentioned those things, and never said that you did.  So your fictitious argument is with yourself, not me.  Do you argue with yourself often?

You used those in a quote-reply.

Are you claiming to be a figment of my imagination? I need a better imagination.

9 hours ago, Olin said:

Millions of gallons of methane, sulfur dioxide and ammonia pour out of ocean thermal vents every day, for 5 billion years.  And this is normal, are you going to plug the vents because you say it's dangerous?  Co2 is not dangerous without it all plants would die, then we follow

Who is the "you" referring to here? You've already implied it's not me, because apparently your reply was not directed at me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.