Why care about CO2?

[RainbowSingularity]

from greenhouse studies:
https://www.maximumyield.com/what-a...pplied-to-a-plant-before-destroying-it/7/2610

how big is the ocean inside the average greenhouse ?

 

[Confused2]

As long as the economy keeps growing your pension fund is safe. What could possibly go wrong? I guess nobody ever heard of a Ponzi Scheme.

 

[sculptor]

how big is the ocean inside the average greenhouse ?

From:
"Why care about CO2?"
to "oceans in a greenhouse"
my how the goalposts do change.
You obviously have a predetermined agenda.

Why not just be honest from the beginning?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

As long as the economy keeps growing your pension fund is safe. What could possibly go wrong? I guess nobody ever heard of a Ponzi Scheme.

or inflation

 

[RainbowSingularity]

From:
"Why care about CO2?"
to "oceans in a greenhouse"
my how the goalposts do change.
You obviously have a predetermined agenda.

Why not just be honest from the beginning?

your lack of comprehention is not my lack of honesty.
i will assign your response to the "having a bad day" catagory

 

[exchemist]

your lack of comprehention is not my lack of honesty.
i will assign your response to the "having a bad day" catagory

It might help if you avoided talking crap. What the hell is your - ostensibly - imbecile question about oceans in a greenhouse supposed to mean?

If you talk in riddles you must expect some criticism.

 

[iceaura]

from greenhouse studies:

From "field" - imitating - studies at the U of Minn, the effects of extra CO2 on plants not protected and fertilized and so forth in a greenhouse start to become complicated at much lower levels than 1000 ppm. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/rising-co2-levels-might-not-be-good-plants-we-thought

For the first 12 years, the plants hummed along as expected, with C3 plants responding more strongly to extra CO2 — a 20 percent boost in growth compared with plants grown in ambient air — and C4 plants largely ignoring the difference. But then something unexpected happened: The pattern reversed. Over the next eight years, C3 plants grew on average 2 percent less plant material if they received extra CO2, while C4 plants grew 24 percent more.

 

[Confused2]

how big is the ocean inside the average greenhouse ?

I think RainbowSingularity is drawing attention to the difference between a closed system and an open system. In an open system the volume of atmosphere and ocean is infinite - any CO2 added to an open system will (by definition) be infinitely diluted.

 

[Write4U]

I think RainbowSingularity is drawing attention to the difference between a closed system and an open system. In an open system the volume of atmosphere and ocean is infinite - any CO2 added to an open system will (by definition) be infinitely diluted.

And gravity has no effect on CO2 concentration?

David Vanderschel, PhD Mathematics & Physics, Rice (1970)
Answered Dec 15, 2015

A volume of pure CO2 will initially sink because it is denser than air. However, given time, the gas will mix with the air and the CO2 molecules will bounce around with oxygen and nitrogen molecules in roughly the same manner. Thus it will eventually reach the higher altitudes where it does cause the famous greenhouse effect.

https://www.quora.com/What-effect-does-gravity-have-on-CO2-molecules

However in defense of the proposition of infinite dilution, it does in fact happen, but it is a local phenomenon at the center of antarctica.

Except central Antarctica.

This is the only place on Earth where surface temperatures are regularly colder than those some 8 to 50 kilometers (5 to 31 miles) above the surface. This second layer of the planet’s atmosphere is known as the stratosphere. And over central Antarctica, excess carbon dioxide actually boosts the amount of heat escaping into space. This is the opposite of what happens everywhere else.

The surprising finding will appear in Geophysical Research Letters.

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/carbon-dioxide-has-unexpected-effect-antarctica

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I think RainbowSingularity is drawing attention to the difference between a closed system and an open system. In an open system the volume of atmosphere and ocean is infinite - any CO2 added to an open system will (by definition) be infinitely diluted.

closed systems with manually managed precipitation & hydration that can create generic hermitic seals to ensure forced Co2 levels without altering the entire greenhouse structure and supply is a fools game.
pretending that plants act the same in the wild as they do inside a greenhouse for Co2 processing while ignoring the atmospheric changes that destroy the entire planet/greenhouse is rediculous and childish logic.

it is no different to a child claiming who the best plastic superhero is then throwing the one they dont like into a fire and saying "look see it isnt a super hero because it burns"

 

[Write4U]

This may be of interest;

Scientists say they've developed a new technological solution to the climate crisis: an affordable method for sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to turn it into gasoline. But how does this process even work? And is it really a magic-bullet solution to climate change?

https://www.livescience.com/62784-co2-suck-climate-gasoline-air.html?utm_source=notification

 

[billvon]

And is it really a magic-bullet solution to climate change?

Nope. Burning coal to make CO2 into gasoline results in MORE CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[James R]

what happens if the sea level rises 2 meters in the next 15 years ?

More of Bangladesh disappears. All residents have to leave Tuvalu.

 

[Write4U]

Nope. Burning coal to make CO2 into gasoline results in MORE CO2 in the atmosphere.

That was my first impression also, but they are not talking about coal but harvesting CO2 from the air. IOW, it is a scrubbing process.
Trees and plants use airborne CO2 for energy and convert CO2 into oxygen in the process. Perhaps they have found a way to duplicate or replace the photosynthesis process.

Photosynthesis sure is a miracle, isn't it? It allows plants, bacteria, and algae to take carbon dioxide and, with the help of a little sunlight, turn it into the oxygen we all breathe. But now scientists have taken photosynthesis out of the equation and have managed to make oxygen (O2) by zapping carbon dioxide (CO2) with a laser.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...ioxide-into-oxygen-by-zapping-it-with-a-laser

 

[iceaura]

what happens if the sea level rises 2 meters in the next 15 years ?

Unlikely, in the extreme.
But:
The guy (Brian McNoldy) whose measurements of sea levels nearby produced this graph: https://media.wired.com/photos/593280cc26780e6c04d2c4b3/master/w_700,c_limit/tide_data_Feb16.png
thinks that a 2 meter rise in the sea level at Miami, Florida is more likely than not within 50 years. That's in the center of his prediction range.

Note that the peak inundation increases are multiples of the average sea level increases - the storm surges and highest tides increase faster and more than the average level. So increases can make big problems far more rapidly than the less alarming slow creep of average levels suggests. If your hotel lobby floods a foot deep four times a year, and the septic system backs up into the street, it's not that meaningful to note that it isn't under water most of the time.

 

[exchemist]

Unlikely, in the extreme.
But:
The guy (Brian McNoldy) whose measurements of sea levels nearby produced this graph: https://media.wired.com/photos/593280cc26780e6c04d2c4b3/master/w_700,c_limit/tide_data_Feb16.png
thinks that a 2 meter rise in the sea level at Miami, Florida is more likely than not within 50 years. That's in the center of his prediction range.

Note that the peak inundation increases are multiples of the average sea level increases - the storm surges and highest tides increase faster and more than the average level. So increases can make big problems far more rapidly than the less alarming slow creep of average levels suggests. If your hotel lobby floods a foot deep four times a year, and the septic system backs up into the street, it's not that meaningful to note that it isn't under water most of the time.

Trump's Mar-a-lago: the new Atlantis.

 

[billvon]

That was my first impression also, but they are not talking about coal but harvesting CO2 from the air. IOW, it is a scrubbing process.

Yes. A process that takes energy. That energy will come from coal and natural gas in the US, because that's where most of our energy comes from.

Trees and plants use airborne CO2 for energy and convert CO2 into oxygen in the process.

They use LIGHT for energy, not CO2. Basic thermodynamics prevents CO2 from being used as a fuel.

 

[Write4U]

Well, Mr Pruit is going to roll back EPA regulations on water pollution and car exhaust pollution.
Has the US gone completely mad?

 

[billvon]

Well, Mr Pruit is going to roll back EPA regulations on water pollution and car exhaust pollution.
Has the US gone completely mad?

Nope, it's just being used to profit a small group of wealthy investors.

 

[Write4U]

Nope, it's just being used to profit a small group of wealthy investors.

Yes I can see that. Actually this is basically an expansion of the Halliburton Loophole.

But the most infamous piece of the law was what is now commonly known as the “Halliburton Loophole,” an egregious regulatory exemption that ushered in the disastrous era of widespread oil and gas fracking that currently grips our nation.

https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/n...ton-loophole-and-americas-dirty-fracking-boom

But at what cost to society? IMO, this is an unconscionable act.