Forum Post: How Do We Deal with CO2
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 12, 2011, 2:18 p.m. EST by Shamus27
(84)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
0 comments 5 days ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 week ago by grapes
0 comments 2 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
2 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 months ago by factsrfun
7 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
6 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 4 months ago by gsw
7 comments 4 months ago by factsrfun
3 comments 5 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 5 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 5 months ago by grapes
2 comments 5 months ago by agkaiser
CO2 101
First the suns ray generate heat on the surface of the planet.
Many of he suns rays bounce back out into space verses getting soaked up by the planets surface.
CO2 in the atmosphere blocks the suns ray from bouncing back out into space, keeping them here which means more of those rays are soaked up by the planet. That means the planet gets warmer.
Fossil fuels when burned increases the amount of CO2 put into the planets atmosphere which means more of the rays are blocked from going back out into space which means more heat on the planet. It is a vicious cycle.
On the first link below look at the Climate 101 clip, it does a good job of explaining this.
http://climaterealityproject.org/
Global scientist from all over the world agree that CO2 levels have been steadily increasing for decades. They measure CO2 levels in "parts per million."
By using trapped gas in ice core samples scientist can measure the CO2 content that was in the earths atmosphere going back hundreds of thousands of years.
Recently it was discovered that over the course of the past 600,000 years that the CO2 concentration has never been over 300 parts per million, that is until the onset of the second industrial revolution when the world began to use fossil fuels.
We are now at about 389 pars per million or somewhere very close to that.
Scientist fear that if we go over 400 to a max of 450 parts per million the temperature of the earth will increase by 6 degrees celsius or more.
This would result in the permafrost in places such as siberia and others to melt. That is important because that permafrost contains tons of methane gas which is frozen in the tundra. Methane is 20 times more powerful of a green house gas than CO2
This could cause all of the ice on the planet to melt. Sea levels will rise, etc.
http://co2now.org/Future-CO2/
http://co2now.org/
As the temperature increases the planets water cycle changes. More of the water from the oceans is evaporated and comes back to earth as rain, snow, hail, etc. The storms get bigger and larger and the water comes down faster. This is why we have seen so many severe weather events. These severe weather events are become more and more frequent as the climate changes.
All of the worlds scientist agree is caused by increasing CO2 levels.
The US is the only industrialized nation IN THE WORLD that has a MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY that DENIES Climate Change/Global Warming.
Who are you going to believe, the world community of scientist or the fossil fuel lobby?
How much salt can you asimilate on diner....2 grams?? what about trying to have 200 grams of salt. Salt by itself is not danger, we can asimilate salt, the trouble is the amount. Same thing for CO2, by itself is ok, the trouble is how to asimilate the big amounts of CO2 ,we all contribute to generated......even writing to this post has contributed on more C02.
Will you support the death of humans to reduce CO2? If so you have missed the point. You cannot fix the environment until you establish Peace. People that are willing to kill people with war don't actually care about the environment despite what they tell you. So DEMAND PEACE NOW.
Your out there
If you are worried about CO2..PLANT A TREE! or 5 or 10 or 1000.
It's a vital part of our atmosphere, without it, there would be NO green. NO TREES, NO PLANTS, NO ANYTHING.
Please read through this document and see how they planned on implementing this and how they are implementing this. If you can see the result of the agenda spelled out, you just might see through C02.
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/index.shtml
Coeert,
Plants use CO2 and product O2.
The earths plants are diminishing because of the growth and expansion of society. If we continue to clear away plant life that only means that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase.
Look at how fast the Amazon is being cleared!!!!!!!!!!!
We need to focus on a sustainable future and quit wasting our resources.
Plant more trees.
Someone please explain this to me: if co2 is what plants need to produce oxygen, and co2 is what we exhale, how can co2 be that dangerous? I understand how CO is harmful, but not co2. Also, if we exhale co2, doesn't that make every individual a contributor to co2 when we exhale, and what is to keep the government from trying to regulate these emissions through taxation? Isn't this just a ploy for corporations to own the air we breath, like they do with water?
Nulamda,
Please stop using foolish logic to undermine a larger issue.
One can use that flawed argument for oxygen, of which an overabundance of results in oxygen toxicity and can eventually lead to your death, as well - watch:
If oxygen is what humans need to breath and oxygen is the byproduct of photosynthesis, how can oxygen be that dangerous?
I am not trying to. I am really confused. I mean, if we wanted to reduce co2, wouldn't clearing forest have the same impact? I understood the larger environmental impacts of cutting down forest, but I don't understand how such a small increase in co2 emissions can have such a large global affect. Now if the argument is CO, then I get it. If it is mercury, I get it. If it is the fertilizersand pesticide that destroy organic life having toxic effects on all organic life, I get it.
I am confused. Please explain it to me.
"If a little bit of something is good, then A LOT must be AWESOME" is a fallacy. Don't fall for it.
I don't think that. And that is true. Moderation is deffinetly key. But I worry that their is too much emphasis on co2, and not enough emphasis on other toxcities. Is it not the same fallacy to put all of our emphasis on co2 and not on other environmental factors?
It would be a fallacy if environmentalists were doing that.
Fortunately for us, they're not. There's media focus now on CO2, so environmentalists are riding that crest to get as far as they can with it. But it's not the only thing they're agitating for.
The issue is environmental regulation. Not of the political kind, but of the natural kind.
Just like your body, the Earth is an organism within a balance. If you nudge a certain chemical balance in your body the wrong way, your body will all but shut down. The same goes for the Earth.
The Earth can create and dissipate a certain amount of CO2 naturally. This happens through a delicate balance that was created through millions upon millions of years.
The CO2 created by humans is outside of the norm that the Earth can handle and regulate. It's our 3% that is actually pushing it past the boundary of normalcy.
The best way to view this in a microcosm is to look at when we unleash an unnatural predator to an ecosystem. The consequences are almost universally disastrous because the ecosystem was created in a bubble that adapted to a status quo.
I hope this helps.
It does. And thank you. One question. And maybe it is impractical, but if we had plant growth at the same rate we produce co2, would this curb our increae by balancing out the natural equilebrium?
To logical for those that are invested in the idea. They don't want you to think like that. If we replaced the green we used, and kept planting more, logic dictates there would be less CO2.
Nulambda,
I'm not truly qualified to answer that question.
My gut reaction is that yes there are ways to maintain a balance. Focusing on one side of the equation is never the right answer though - and that goes from balancing a budget to balancing the environment.
So, I would not just look at planting new flora but look at reduction of emissions.
Finally, there is a hidden predator in all of this that no one likes to talk about. It's the oceans. They remove more CO2 from the environment than any other factor - but this is done through the delicate balance of our oceans. This is being impacted by shark depopulation and overfishing.
Corporations are the primary obstacle to reducing CO2 emissions. It hurts their profits. The levels of CO2 from industrial activites have thrown the whole system out of whack, and it affects climate to the point that, no matter how much CO2 is a fertilizer (and it is only up to a certain limited point) the changes taking place in ecosystems are killing trees and otherwise saturating carbon sinks at a much faster rate. The planet's ecosystem is being rocked by this, and we're likely to see 2/3 off high-order species extinct within a century. Further, agriculture is in real danger of collapse for all sorts of reasons directly related to climate change, and extreme weather and events like wildfires and droughts are becoming more and more common. It is the biggest challenge we, as a species, face.
Is it co2 solely responsible for this? Or is it combination with all the other industrial chemicals (toxics) we are saturating our environment with? It seems to me that everyone is fixated on co2, while pesticides that are dsigned to kill organic life are pumped into the environment at alarming rates. The waste companies dump into our water supply can also be causing the extinction rates we see. I think it is dangerous that we put all our emphasis on Co2.
All this is bad. We need to reduce all of our impacts as a species. But CO2 is the game-changer.
Stop drinking Al Gore's kool-aid. Climate change is coming from the sun. CO2 causes earthquakes, too? I don't think so. Solar flares do.
99% of all life that has ever lived on Earth in its 4.5 billion year existence...is Extinct.
Man's VERY short existence on Earth thus far has contributed practically nothing to this.
CO2 is air for plants. They breath it. Without it, they suffocate. Don't kill them. We need them. The plants breathe CO2 and produce O2, which we need to breath or we suffocate and die. Therefore, without CO2, we suffocate and die. Please don't kill us.
Stop drinking Al Gore's kool-aid. Climate change is coming from the sun. CO2 causes earthquakes, too? I don't think so. Solar flares do.
Get off the forum, you are a waste of time.
You ignore a huge phenomenon going on in our solar system. You are a waste of time.
Start and support local community ethanol fuel companies. Look up the documentary and book Alcohol can be a Gas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgclE_1d1ZY Don't let the government get involved.
co2 is an important nutrient for the survival of plants
Before the Industrial Revolution...even before Man existed on Earth...There were periods where CO2 levels were higher and the Earth was warmer than it is now.
And vice-versa.
Over Earth's 4.5 billion year existence, it continually goes through climate changes and will continue w/ or w/out Man's existence.
These are the facts.
Why blame Man and demand we stop human advancement to change something we cannot control?
How do you explain the rate of increase since the industrial revolution.
None of the ice core samples show such a dramatic increase and rate of increase since the industrial revolution.
Also how do you explain the rate of increase of all of the "severe weather events" over the past 3 decades, especially the past 10 years?
It's the rapidity of the change and that we're so dependent on the existing stasis that's the real problem. Ecosystems changing/evolving over long periods and ecosystems collapsing in less than a century are two very different problems.
The oil supply will run out and we Humans WILL adapt long before those CO2 emissions will create any lasting problems for life on Earth