Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

A denier solves CO2 emmissions

Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 9:31:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I can't be the first one to think of this. When plants absorb CO2, they store it as cellulose, part of their structure. Wood is a very useful structural material, totally renewable. The plants are determined to grow and replicate. Why not massive tree farms, support wood products and structural wood? Buildings and furniture tie up Carbon absorbed from the atmosphere for up to a century. If you wanted more, you could grow fast growth trees and fill up abandoned mines with them for long term storage, or sink them in the bottom of a cold lake, where oxygen is low. All this talk of more efficient scrubbers in exhaust stacks is too complex. Just plant more trees, then turn them into durable goods! They scrub carbon to survive.

Anyway, I don't actually think CO2 causes irreversible global warming, but that's how I'd solve it if it were my job.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:50:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 9:31:53 PM, Skynet wrote:
I can't be the first one to think of this. When plants absorb CO2, they store it as cellulose, part of their structure. Wood is a very useful structural material, totally renewable. The plants are determined to grow and replicate. Why not massive tree farms, support wood products and structural wood?

We used to have these massive tree farms. They were called forests. Unfortunately we have cut most of them down. Even now rainforest is being cleared for logging/chipping, plantations, grazing and other human use faster than any small efforts at tree planting can keep up.

Buildings and furniture tie up Carbon absorbed from the atmosphere for up to a century. If you wanted more, you could grow fast growth trees and fill up abandoned mines with them for long term storage, or sink them in the bottom of a cold lake, where oxygen is low. All this talk of more efficient scrubbers in exhaust stacks is too complex. Just plant more trees, then turn them into durable goods! They scrub carbon to survive.

All true. Unfortunately greed in harvesting wood resources is winning out against the efforts to make it sustainable.

Anyway, I don't actually think CO2 causes irreversible global warming, but that's how I'd solve it if it were my job.

No, the fact that we have had 13 of the 15 hottest years on record occurring since the year 2000 (with 2014 being the hottest of them all) is pure coincidence. All is well. Nothing to worry about at all.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 11:34:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 9:31:53 PM, Skynet wrote:
I can't be the first one to think of this. When plants absorb CO2, they store it as cellulose, part of their structure. Wood is a very useful structural material, totally renewable. The plants are determined to grow and replicate. Why not massive tree farms, support wood products and structural wood? Buildings and furniture tie up Carbon absorbed from the atmosphere for up to a century. If you wanted more, you could grow fast growth trees and fill up abandoned mines with them for long term storage, or sink them in the bottom of a cold lake, where oxygen is low. All this talk of more efficient scrubbers in exhaust stacks is too complex. Just plant more trees, then turn them into durable goods! They scrub carbon to survive.

Anyway, I don't actually think CO2 causes irreversible global warming, but that's how I'd solve it if it were my job.

Lets remove all the carbon from the air by putting them into trees and plants; great idea. If we can manage to stop bacteria and fungus from breaking it down, we can probably compress it to stop billions of trees and plant matter from taking up too much space.

There is only one issue; If we removed all the excess carbon from the atmosphere and put it into trees and plants; what happens if someone comes along in a few million years and says "hey, these compressed trees and plants are a convenient source of energy, lets burn them!"
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 11:51:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 9:31:53 PM, Skynet wrote:
Why not massive tree farms, support wood products and structural wood?

There already are reforestation programs for CO2-abatement Sky. In Australia, see for example: http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au...
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 11:28:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 9:31:53 PM, Skynet wrote:
I can't be the first one to think of this. When plants absorb CO2, they store it as cellulose, part of their structure. Wood is a very useful structural material, totally renewable. The plants are determined to grow and replicate. Why not massive tree farms, support wood products and structural wood? Buildings and furniture tie up Carbon absorbed from the atmosphere for up to a century. If you wanted more, you could grow fast growth trees and fill up abandoned mines with them for long term storage, or sink them in the bottom of a cold lake, where oxygen is low. All this talk of more efficient scrubbers in exhaust stacks is too complex. Just plant more trees, then turn them into durable goods! They scrub carbon to survive.

Anyway, I don't actually think CO2 causes irreversible global warming, but that's how I'd solve it if it were my job.

Numbers can vary based on type of tree, cost of land, etc but one hectare of trees can remove approximately 73,326lbs of CO2 per year (1). Humans are estimated to produce 26 billion tons per year (2). To cause a 10% offset to man made CO2 would require approximately 709,161 hectares (1,751,529 acres) of land. This is a land area almost the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined (two smallest states).

To possibly find this much land you would have to convert farm land back into forrest. There are several problems with that idea: the price of food and the escalating cost of land as soon as you started buying that much land. On average farm land currently goes at about $3000 per acre (3). If we assumed no escalation in price this means it would cost 5.25 billion to buy the land for your idea. It will cost about $345.00 per acre to plant the trees (4). This means another 604 million to plant the trees.

But here is the big problem. You would want to use something like pines that are fast growing. Cut them down every 20 years and start over. You will use about 600 trees per acre. This means every 20 years you have to find something to do with over 1 billion trees that doesn't involve burning them. You can't just drop those in lakes or put them in caves. Also, a semi carries less than 100 trees at a time so it would require 1 million semi truck trips to haul that many trees wherever you are going.

Don't ask me why I wasted my time bothering to type all this up, it just always puzzles me when someone suggests something without doing the few minutes of homework necessary to disprove their own idea.

https://www.broward.org...

https://www.skepticalscience.com...

http://www.agweb.com...

http://www.crawfordconservation.com...
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 11:27:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 11:34:14 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:31:53 PM, Skynet wrote:
I can't be the first one to think of this. When plants absorb CO2, they store it as cellulose, part of their structure. Wood is a very useful structural material, totally renewable. The plants are determined to grow and replicate. Why not massive tree farms, support wood products and structural wood? Buildings and furniture tie up Carbon absorbed from the atmosphere for up to a century. If you wanted more, you could grow fast growth trees and fill up abandoned mines with them for long term storage, or sink them in the bottom of a cold lake, where oxygen is low. All this talk of more efficient scrubbers in exhaust stacks is too complex. Just plant more trees, then turn them into durable goods! They scrub carbon to survive.

Anyway, I don't actually think CO2 causes irreversible global warming, but that's how I'd solve it if it were my job.

Lets remove all the carbon from the air by putting them into trees and plants; great idea. If we can manage to stop bacteria and fungus from breaking it down, we can probably compress it to stop billions of trees and plant matter from taking up too much space.

There is only one issue; If we removed all the excess carbon from the atmosphere and put it into trees and plants; what happens if someone comes along in a few million years and says "hey, these compressed trees and plants are a convenient source of energy, lets burn them!"

I think it would be hard to do anything about anything that will happen in a few million years. If global warming is real, something needs to be done that can effect the next few centuries.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 11:44:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/17/2015 11:28:53 AM, Floid wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:31:53 PM, Skynet wrote:
I can't be the first one to think of this. When plants absorb CO2, they store it as cellulose, part of their structure. Wood is a very useful structural material, totally renewable. The plants are determined to grow and replicate. Why not massive tree farms, support wood products and structural wood? Buildings and furniture tie up Carbon absorbed from the atmosphere for up to a century. If you wanted more, you could grow fast growth trees and fill up abandoned mines with them for long term storage, or sink them in the bottom of a cold lake, where oxygen is low. All this talk of more efficient scrubbers in exhaust stacks is too complex. Just plant more trees, then turn them into durable goods! They scrub carbon to survive.

Anyway, I don't actually think CO2 causes irreversible global warming, but that's how I'd solve it if it were my job.

Numbers can vary based on type of tree, cost of land, etc but one hectare of trees can remove approximately 73,326lbs of CO2 per year (1). Humans are estimated to produce 26 billion tons per year (2). To cause a 10% offset to man made CO2 would require approximately 709,161 hectares (1,751,529 acres) of land. This is a land area almost the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined (two smallest states).

To possibly find this much land you would have to convert farm land back into forrest. There are several problems with that idea: the price of food and the escalating cost of land as soon as you started buying that much land. On average farm land currently goes at about $3000 per acre (3). If we assumed no escalation in price this means it would cost 5.25 billion to buy the land for your idea. It will cost about $345.00 per acre to plant the trees (4). This means another 604 million to plant the trees.

But here is the big problem. You would want to use something like pines that are fast growing. Cut them down every 20 years and start over. You will use about 600 trees per acre. This means every 20 years you have to find something to do with over 1 billion trees that doesn't involve burning them. You can't just drop those in lakes or put them in caves. Also, a semi carries less than 100 trees at a time so it would require 1 million semi truck trips to haul that many trees wherever you are going.

Don't ask me why I wasted my time bothering to type all this up, it just always puzzles me when someone suggests something without doing the few minutes of homework necessary to disprove their own idea.

https://www.broward.org...

https://www.skepticalscience.com...

http://www.agweb.com...

http://www.crawfordconservation.com...

Well, doing nothing is fine with me, then.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 11:46:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 11:51:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:31:53 PM, Skynet wrote:
Why not massive tree farms, support wood products and structural wood?

There already are reforestation programs for CO2-abatement Sky. In Australia, see for example: http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au...

Why is there such an effort to do things like scrub CO2 by mechanical means directly from stacks? Trees self-replicate and absorb CO2 all day to survive. It's much less costly just to plant and harvest trees than engineer a new system of scrubbers and store pure CO2 underground, like some have suggested.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 2:15:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 11:46:49 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 7/16/2015 11:51:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:31:53 PM, Skynet wrote:
Why not massive tree farms, support wood products and structural wood?

There already are reforestation programs for CO2-abatement Sky. In Australia, see for example: http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au...

Why is there such an effort to do things like scrub CO2 by mechanical means directly from stacks? Trees self-replicate and absorb CO2 all day to survive. It's much less costly just to plant and harvest trees than engineer a new system of scrubbers and store pure CO2 underground, like some have suggested.

It might be that industries can do both, Skynet -- for example working in a carbon trading scheme where they can either reduce their CO2 waste, or buy credits from a forestry industry (perhaps in some other jurisdiction) to offset their emissions. This approach can allow each jurisdiction to play to its strengths, work with economies of scale, and avoid inefficiencies, while encouraging the market to work toward greater efficiency in carbon waste capture.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 10:27:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 10:50:40 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:31:53 PM, Skynet wrote:
I can't be the first one to think of this. When plants absorb CO2, they store it as cellulose, part of their structure. Wood is a very useful structural material, totally renewable. The plants are determined to grow and replicate. Why not massive tree farms, support wood products and structural wood?

We used to have these massive tree farms. They were called forests. Unfortunately we have cut most of them down. Even now rainforest is being cleared for logging/chipping, plantations, grazing and other human use faster than any small efforts at tree planting can keep up.

Buildings and furniture tie up Carbon absorbed from the atmosphere for up to a century. If you wanted more, you could grow fast growth trees and fill up abandoned mines with them for long term storage, or sink them in the bottom of a cold lake, where oxygen is low. All this talk of more efficient scrubbers in exhaust stacks is too complex. Just plant more trees, then turn them into durable goods! They scrub carbon to survive.

All true. Unfortunately greed in harvesting wood resources is winning out against the efforts to make it sustainable.

Anyway, I don't actually think CO2 causes irreversible global warming, but that's how I'd solve it if it were my job.

No, the fact that we have had 13 of the 15 hottest years on record occurring since the year 2000 (with 2014 being the hottest of them all) is pure coincidence. All is well. Nothing to worry about at all.

Its only a coincidence. Pure chance. Like rolling a 5 ten times in a row, or getting a full house 5 times in a row in the same poker game. No one is stacking the deck. The dice are not loaded. Now id wish my friends would stop complaining when i beat them with a full house every poker game.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 7:42:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 10:50:40 PM, dee-em wrote:
No, the fact that we have had 13 of the 15 hottest years on record occurring since the year 2000 (with 2014 being the hottest of them all) is pure coincidence. All is well. Nothing to worry about at all.

The earths weakening electromagnetic field, and 2014 being the suns Solar Maximum probably had a bit more to do with that than Global Warming Alarmists would like to accept.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 5:19:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 7:42:32 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:50:40 PM, dee-em wrote:
No, the fact that we have had 13 of the 15 hottest years on record occurring since the year 2000 (with 2014 being the hottest of them all) is pure coincidence. All is well. Nothing to worry about at all.

The earths weakening electromagnetic field, and 2014 being the suns Solar Maximum probably had a bit more to do with that than Global Warming Alarmists would like to accept.

The Solar Max is an 11 year cycle, so it hardly explains having 13 of the 15 hottest years on record spanning more than one cycle (including a minimum). Lol.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

However, the solar maximum was not declared to have occurred until 2014, and even then was ranked among the weakest on record.[4]

As to your contention about the weakening EM field of the Earth (measured at 0.5% per year), please provide your evidence that it is linked to climate change and explain the mechanism by which it occurs. A citation to something reputable please. Thank you.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 3:18:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 5:19:38 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/4/2015 7:42:32 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:50:40 PM, dee-em wrote:
No, the fact that we have had 13 of the 15 hottest years on record occurring since the year 2000 (with 2014 being the hottest of them all) is pure coincidence. All is well. Nothing to worry about at all.

The earths weakening electromagnetic field, and 2014 being the suns Solar Maximum probably had a bit more to do with that than Global Warming Alarmists would like to accept.

The Solar Max is an 11 year cycle, so it hardly explains having 13 of the 15 hottest years on record spanning more than one cycle (including a minimum). Lol.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

However, the solar maximum was not declared to have occurred until 2014, and even then was ranked among the weakest on record.[4]

As to your contention about the weakening EM field of the Earth (measured at 0.5% per year), please provide your evidence that it is linked to climate change and explain the mechanism by which it occurs. A citation to something reputable please. Thank you.
0.5% are you insane, or just ignorant of the facts? NASA hasn't believed that since it started rapidly weakening in 2008 when THEMIS detected a fairly large whole in the magnetosphere about 4 times the size of the earth. Have you ignored every single new about the EM field going though rapid weakening prepping for what some believe is a magnetic flip?

Here's a fact for you to read up on. http://science.nasa.gov...

Or how about this one
http://www.livescience.com...
Show the wholes in the field for all to see. Oh I wonder why North America didn't have 2014 as their Warmest year when it was for everyone else. Oh look. The magnetic field was being nice to North America. Sucked to be everyone else in 2014 though.

It's nice how Global Warming nonsense gets people to ignore every fact that is counter to their world view.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2015 6:01:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 3:18:53 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 8/5/2015 5:19:38 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/4/2015 7:42:32 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:50:40 PM, dee-em wrote:

No, the fact that we have had 13 of the 15 hottest years on record occurring since the year 2000 (with 2014 being the hottest of them all) is pure coincidence. All is well. Nothing to worry about at all.

The earths weakening electromagnetic field, and 2014 being the suns Solar Maximum probably had a bit more to do with that than Global Warming Alarmists would like to accept.

The Solar Max is an 11 year cycle, so it hardly explains having 13 of the 15 hottest years on record spanning more than one cycle (including a minimum). Lol.

No response, as expected.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

However, the solar maximum was not declared to have occurred until 2014, and even then was ranked among the weakest on record.[4]

As to your contention about the weakening EM field of the Earth (measured at 0.5% per year), please provide your evidence that it is linked to climate change and explain the mechanism by which it occurs. A citation to something reputable please. Thank you.

0.5% are you insane, or just ignorant of the facts? NASA hasn't believed that since it started rapidly weakening in 2008 when THEMIS detected a fairly large whole in the magnetosphere about 4 times the size of the earth. Have you ignored every single new about the EM field going though rapid weakening prepping for what some believe is a magnetic flip?

Here's a fact for you to read up on. http://science.nasa.gov...

Or how about this one
http://www.livescience.com...
Show the wholes in the field for all to see.

It's spelt 'holes'. From your own link:

Previously, researchers estimated the field was weakening about 5 percent per century, but the new data revealed the field is actually weakening at 5 percent per decade, or 10 times faster than thought.

I make that 0.5% per year. How about you?

Oh I wonder why North America didn't have 2014 as their Warmest year when it was for everyone else. Oh look. The magnetic field was being nice to North America. Sucked to be everyone else in 2014 though.

Please don't conflate global warming with local weather. That would be dishonest.

It's nice how Global Warming nonsense gets people to ignore every fact that is counter to their world view.

Lol. You should heed your own advice since your 'facts' aren't even facts.
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2015 2:57:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 3:18:53 PM, medv4380 wrote:

Or how about this one
http://www.livescience.com...
Show the wholes in the field for all to see. Oh I wonder why North America didn't have 2014 as their Warmest year when it was for everyone else. Oh look. The magnetic field was being nice to North America. Sucked to be everyone else in 2014 though.

I had a look at the global map of changes over a 6-month period in 2014 (at the top of your link). It shows that the magnetic field was weakening over the Americas (it's blue in the map). Can you explain how a weakening magnetic field helped North America not to have a warmest year record? I mean, your contention is that the weakening of the field overall, as the magnetic poles prepare to flip, has been causing global temperature increases over the last 15 years. Do you see a contradiction? Lol.
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 4:37:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 9:31:53 PM, Skynet wrote:

If you wanted more, you could grow fast growth trees and fill up abandoned mines with them for long term storage, or sink them in the bottom of a cold lake, where oxygen is low.

That's just what our more intelligent dinosaur ancestors did. The buried giga-tons of trees in bogs to provide for their (our?) future energy needs.

In the intervening 200 million years it turned to coal to give us a good source of energy.
Think
dee-em
Posts: 6,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 2:15:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 4:37:41 PM, ecco wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:31:53 PM, Skynet wrote:

If you wanted more, you could grow fast growth trees and fill up abandoned mines with them for long term storage, or sink them in the bottom of a cold lake, where oxygen is low.

That's just what our more intelligent dinosaur ancestors did. The buried giga-tons of trees in bogs to provide for their (our?) future energy needs.

In the intervening 200 million years it turned to coal to give us a good source of energy.

A convenient source of enery. The 'good' is disputable since coal is highly polluting as well as causing the greenhouse gas problems with CO2. What is wrong with solar and wind? They will be a sustainable, minimally polluting source of almost free energy whilst the Sun continues to shine. Why recreate the problems of the past by continued reliance on dirty, unsustainable energy?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 5:00:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/17/2015 11:28:53 AM, Floid wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:31:53 PM, Skynet wrote:
I can't be the first one to think of this. When plants absorb CO2, they store it as cellulose, part of their structure. Wood is a very useful structural material, totally renewable. The plants are determined to grow and replicate. Why not massive tree farms, support wood products and structural wood? Buildings and furniture tie up Carbon absorbed from the atmosphere for up to a century. If you wanted more, you could grow fast growth trees and fill up abandoned mines with them for long term storage, or sink them in the bottom of a cold lake, where oxygen is low. All this talk of more efficient scrubbers in exhaust stacks is too complex. Just plant more trees, then turn them into durable goods! They scrub carbon to survive.

Anyway, I don't actually think CO2 causes irreversible global warming, but that's how I'd solve it if it were my job.

Numbers can vary based on type of tree, cost of land, etc but one hectare of trees can remove approximately 73,326lbs of CO2 per year (1). Humans are estimated to produce 26 billion tons per year (2). To cause a 10% offset to man made CO2 would require approximately 709,161 hectares (1,751,529 acres) of land. This is a land area almost the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined (two smallest states).

Big, yes, however I think a certain amount of designated farmland could be found across the US.


To possibly find this much land you would have to convert farm land back into forrest. There are several problems with that idea: the price of food and the escalating cost of land as soon as you started buying that much land.

Or change the farming subsidy. Instead of paying people to not grow certain crops, they are now paid to tend trees.

On average farm land currently goes at about $3000 per acre (3). If we assumed no escalation in price this means it would cost 5.25 billion to buy the land for your idea. It will cost about $345.00 per acre to plant the trees (4). This means another 604 million to plant the trees.

Sounds cheaper than a border fence... but seriously, change the farm subsidy, or make use of already appropriated federal land.

But here is the big problem. You would want to use something like pines that are fast growing. Cut them down every 20 years and start over. You will use about 600 trees per acre. This means every 20 years you have to find something to do with over 1 billion trees that doesn't involve burning them. You can't just drop those in lakes or put them in caves.

I've been told "wood" is a very good substance with which to build a whole manner of things. I personally enjoy real wood furniture sets, these veneer and ply things are a bit... cheap.

Also, a semi carries less than 100 trees at a time so it would require 1 million semi truck trips to haul that many trees wherever you are going.

Or a few rail cars, or combination. Georgia Pacific knows a thing or two about moving pine. My father and his collection of pals hunt hogs on GP's pine farms. Apparently they have a nuisance hog problem.

Don't ask me why I wasted my time bothering to type all this up, it just always puzzles me when someone suggests something without doing the few minutes of homework necessary to disprove their own idea.

Because foils are easily, solutions are might trickier.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...