Excellent point! Volcanic activity.

Both, the sun's release [AFTER a sunspot-cycle, remember lag time changers Love to mislead people...] and volcanos could and DO easy out weigh what little we put into the air.

With a incomplete imput of the variables we get mucked up science. Lot's of mucking going on with this topic!

There are more...

I'm sure there are. Perhaps we should be stopping deforestation then, :) maybe even planting more of the right kind of trees, because trees and other plant life have helped to soak up a lot of carbon in the past? That way, we might get a head start were there to be a volcanic eruption in the future? And in the meantime, they could have a go at sorting out the yearly net C02 increase we're seeing at the moment?

I think it would be nice if we could keep looking for an alternative method of generating affordable energy that isn't as dirty as the one we have inherited from our forebears though. :)

Well I can't see any mention of carbon release that might come from a volcanic eruption... ...

Except that along with the CO2 volcanoes also put a lot of ash and particulates into the air so they have a net cooling effect.

That is a good point Es (How are you?!! So nice to see you! :)) Am I right in thinking that ultimately, over a lengthy period of time admittedly, emissions from volcanic activity actually make for very fertile soil? :)

Sorry - late thought so late edit - and huge hole in my knowledge - does fossil fuel burning do the same without it being absorbed by plant life first? I'll go try find that out... :)

Late late edit everyone :) - early investigation (nothing written down yet) is posing a dilemma. Technically - that answer could go in this thread - but it might be deemed by some to be more fitting in a different thread :/ The nearest I can find is the enviro-zealots thread - which it doesn't seem to completely belong in either. So... really don't think I should start a new thread do you @.@ ? :) Wonder how everyone would feel if it went in the solutions thread? I don't feel qualified enough to post there though... oh dear... I'm rambling again, bye! :)

Ahem... I meant to clarify a point with you ID but all this volcano stuff got very interesting very quickly

You said:

Could it be that you fail to understand the Christian Faith? We are charged to be good stewards of the planet. Dumping trash in the sea as well as on land is not being the good steward.

Are Christians also charged to be good stewards of the planet by not dumping trash in the air? Obviously it has to be in the form of gasses, aerosols etc, otherwise it would just come straight back down under the force of gravity. I'm only asking because you mentioned land and sea. :) Anyway - I promise to add no more edits to this message :)

Well I can't see any mention of carbon release that might come from a volcanic eruption... ...

Except that along with the CO2 volcanoes also put a lot of ash and particulates into the air so they have a net cooling effect.

That is a good point Es... Am I right in thinking that ultimately, over a lengthy period of time admittedly, emissions from volcanic activity actually make for very fertile soil? :)

Volcanic material can 'weather' very quickly to quickly allow vegetation to grow.

However, volcanoes can release large amounts of sulfur which then can cause acid rain.

... Which is also something we suffered with badly from our industrial burning of coal. At least there are now antipollution controls in place to force the fossils burners to at least clean up the sulfur and ash from their smoke stacks.

The past destruction of European and Scandinavian forests from our industrial acid rain before the harshly criticized pollution controls were enforced also demonstrates how our industry is spewing out far more pollution than even the Earth's volcanoes. All very unnatural...

Sorry - late thought so late edit - and huge hole in my knowledge - does fossil fuel burning do the same without it being absorbed by plant life first?

As fertilizer?... Not that I know of.

[edit] See:

Coal ash disposal: Who pays?

Wikipedia: Fly ash

Commonly, fly ash is disposed of to bulk up cement/plaster production or is disposed of as land-fill/ballast.
[/edit]

Aside: You can use partly burnt woody material to form what is called "biochar" (biological 'charcoal') where the carbon particles act to hold onto nutrients to greatly fertilize the ground. That is more effective than artificially produced fertilizers and the biochar also acts to protect the soil structure for a very good productive win.

There are a few plants that grow more quickly in a higher CO2 atmosphere, however that is badly offset in that there are a lot of negatives as everything else gets adversely impacted and overall everything grows less well. The only commercially 'good example' I know of is to force grow tomatoes where the CO2 exhaust from a heating system is fed into the greenhouse. Note how that is NOT used for other crops (because it doesn't work).

There could well be some long term natural feedback mechanisms that have balanced our planet's biosphere and CO2 to an optimum level. As in a sort of natural feedbacks "Gaia" mechanism. We certainly do seem to have enjoyed a few thousand years of a climate sweet-spot where Mankind has enjoyed benign conditions to easily thrive. So why spoil all that now with industrial pollution?

Late late edit everyone :) - early investigation (nothing written down yet) is posing a dilemma. Technically - that answer could go in this thread - but it might be deemed by some to be more fitting in a different thread :/ ...

Everyone is free to start up their own thread! Please do so for any tangents or alternate thoughts.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

antipollution controls in place to force the fossils burners to at least clean up the sulfur and ash from their smoke stacks.

As much as 600 lbs of scrubber sludge per ton of coal burned is produced, which is put into holding ponds or landfills along with the fly ash from bag houses. This mess is concentrated as far as pollutants are concerned and may very well find it's way into the ground and surface water as it did at the massive Clinch river plant breach here in Tennessee.

In many cases it might be better to spread smoke stack emissions around where they can actually be beneficial to plant life. Locating coal burning plants where they can fog over cities however is also not the way to go.

antipollution controls in place to force the fossils burners to at least clean up the sulfur and ash from their smoke stacks.

As much as 600 lbs of scrubber sludge per ton of coal burned is produced, which is put into holding ponds or landfills along with the fly ash from bag houses. This mess is concentrated as far as pollutants are concerned and may very well find it's way into the ground and surface water as it did at the massive Clinch river plant breach here in Tennessee.

In many cases it might be better to spread smoke stack emissions around where they can actually be beneficial to plant life. Locating coal burning plants where they can fog over cities however is also not the way to go.

Is there any possible "benefit" as opposed to just benign disposal?

The burning of the coal concentrates various toxic components by over 10 times and adds further toxic components. The result is also rather acidic. It's even slightly radioactive.

For myself, I wouldn't want that being concentrated further by spreading it onto food plants to concentrate the toxic stuff yet further!

There's been an example for Birmingham city in the UK recently where the smokestack filters were not properly in place for a city power plant. Nearby food growing allotments were found to be contaminated with heavy metals from the smokestack fallout... To allow food to be grown again, the topsoil had to be removed and replaced...


Note Wikipedia: Fly Ash Contaminants


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

As much as 600 lbs of scrubber sludge per ton of coal burned is produced, which is put into holding ponds or landfills along with the fly ash from bag houses. This mess is concentrated as far as pollutants are concerned and may very well find it's way into the ground and surface water as it did at the massive Clinch river plant breach here in Tennessee.

I have wondered why they don't bury the stuff back in the holes they dug it up from.

---

Well I can't see any mention of carbon release that might come from a volcanic eruption... ...

Except that along with the CO2 volcanoes also put a lot of ash and particulates into the air so they have a net cooling effect.

That is a good point Es... Am I right in thinking that ultimately, over a lengthy period of time admittedly, emissions from volcanic activity actually make for very fertile soil? :)

Volcanic material can 'weather' very quickly to quickly allow vegetation to grow.

However, volcanoes can release large amounts of sulfur which then can cause acid rain.

... Which is also something we suffered with badly from our industrial burning of coal. At least there are now antipollution controls in place to force the fossils burners to at least clean up the sulfur and ash from their smoke stacks.

The past destruction of European and Scandinavian forests from our industrial acid rain before the harshly criticized pollution controls were enforced also demonstrates how our industry is spewing out far more pollution than even the Earth's volcanoes. All very unnatural...

Sorry - late thought so late edit - and huge hole in my knowledge - does fossil fuel burning do the same without it being absorbed by plant life first?

As fertilizer?... Not that I know of.

[edit] See:

Coal ash disposal: Who pays?

Wikipedia: Fly ash

Commonly, fly ash is disposed of to bulk up cement/plaster production or is disposed of as land-fill/ballast.
[/edit]

Aside: You can use partly burnt woody material to form what is called "biochar" (biological 'charcoal') where the carbon particles act to hold onto nutrients to greatly fertilize the ground. That is more effective than artificially produced fertilizers and the biochar also acts to protect the soil structure for a very good productive win.

There are a few plants that grow more quickly in a higher CO2 atmosphere, however that is badly offset in that there are a lot of negatives as everything else gets adversely impacted and overall everything grows less well. The only commercially 'good example' I know of is to force grow tomatoes where the CO2 exhaust from a heating system is fed into the greenhouse. Note how that is NOT used for other crops (because it doesn't work).

There could well be some long term natural feedback mechanisms that have balanced our planet's biosphere and CO2 to an optimum level. As in a sort of natural feedbacks "Gaia" mechanism. We certainly do seem to have enjoyed a few thousand years of a climate sweet-spot where Mankind has enjoyed benign conditions to easily thrive. So why spoil all that now with industrial pollution?

Late late edit everyone :) - early investigation (nothing written down yet) is posing a dilemma. Technically - that answer could go in this thread - but it might be deemed by some to be more fitting in a different thread :/ ...

Everyone is free to start up their own thread! Please do so for any tangents or alternate thoughts.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

Hi Martin! How are you?

Thanks for the info. Yes, I also came across biochar which I hadn't heard about before. I think a huge problem is that our planet had everything pretty much well balanced to sort out its natural occurring chemistry issues and time on its side to do so. Perhaps if we had only impacted in one way instead of the multiple ways we have done, none of us would have to be talking about this subject at all.

We have released 2,271,052 tons (and rising) of toxic chemicals into the environment this year so far. If we were the only ones to suffer the consequences, then so be it. We're not.

I will consider another thread, but I'll leave it a day or so before making any decision on that. :)

In the meantime, best wishes to you, and everyone else too! :)

But my dear, Co2 is not trash. You exhale it. LMBO! It is part of our bodily functions.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

But my dear, Co2 is not trash. You exhale it. LMBO! It is part of our bodily functions.

There are lots of things people naturally excrete as waste. Doesn't mean we want them all over the place. Somehow I doubt you decorate your walls with feces while decrying how natural it is.

---

Reality Internet Personality

lol. There are those though who plaster it all over the Internet.

---

Some people call it art and do so in the Cross and or depictions of other things Christians hold Holy. Surely you think this is good and artful...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Ya, they sure do.... LMAO!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Some people call it art and do so in the Cross and or depictions of other things Christians hold Holy. Surely you think this is good and artful...

Are you sure you understood what I wrote?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Never the less, it has been shown here that life---went on. Life with lots of Co2 in the air provided the dinosaurs huge fern forests.

You cannot tell me that all the Co2 in the air is caused from us. Adding the sunspot cycles and volcanos to the VERY NICE 'carbon cycle!!!' example we see here we can clearly see that what we humans add is of NO significance, virtually no environmental impact as compared to what nature herself does.

Matthew 23:24 You strain your water so you won't accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Yes. Do you understand me? (smile)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Yes. Do you understand me? (smile)

No.

For a minute there I thought you'd had a revelation and were comparing religious paraphernalia to poop. It seemed far too insightful to be one of your posts so I guess I misunderstood who you were replying to.

---

Reality Internet Personality

But my dear, Co2 is not trash. You exhale it. LMBO! It is part of our bodily functions.

Trees need Co2 to exist.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

But my dear, Co2 is not trash. You exhale it. LMBO! It is part of our bodily functions.

ID,
Too much of a good thing can be bad. Even water.


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/525038674/SMU-student-is-critical-after-water-hazing-event.html?pg=all

But my dear, Co2 is not trash. You exhale it. LMBO! It is part of our bodily functions.

ID,
Too much of a good thing can be bad. Even water.


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/525038674/SMU-student-is-critical-after-water-hazing-event.html?pg=all

Fair point Kong, and taken to heart. But never the less it was you who said---life went on.

There has been huge increases in Co2 in our past, none of them were man made. In the WONDERFUL CARBON CYCLE!!! that was supplied to us we can see how much man as added, the numbers too high but we can see that we do indeed add some. But we don't compare at all to nature and what she does.

The sunspot cycle adds way the hell more then we do in that 11 year cycle. And man has taken the blame many times now for something that happen years before. Done so on purpose or out of ignorance of changers who with the government gun and monies for false and misleading research.

Simple question that needs a simple answer, how much Co2 can be in the air and we can still live with it? 100,000 ppm/min? 10% concentration? <--is this true? Where are we at now?

How much is too much? LOL!

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

You are talking rubbish - the facts do not align with your ill formed theory. The change in atmospheric carbon has JUMPED in the last couple of hundred years, far faster than at other comparable period of time. In that time man has burnt millions of tons of fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil). That combustion has released into the atmosphere about three times that mass of carbon dioxide. Some of that has been absorbed by the oceans, some by plants, but the vast majority is still in the atmosphere.

For you information the LD50 of carbon dioxide is 4% (that is the carbon dioxide concentration that will 50% of a population in 1 hour) While that is the one hour dose to kill reduced function can kick in at 1% of that level.

But that is not the problem... Atmospheric carbon dioxide acts in the same way as glass does in a greenhouse, trapping heat, and not letting it re-radiate. If we take a baseline of 300ppm (which we last saw on earth somewhere around 1700), and double it (more or less what we have today) there would be an increase in temperature, averaged over the whole earth of a couple of degrees Kelvin, and this temperature increase per 300ppm is fairly linear at low concentrations, increase from 600ppm to 900 and the temperature rise is another couple of degrees, but push up to something like 5000ppm and there is a change in behaviour - instead of a couple of degrees per 300ppm the increase doubles per 300ppm, so if 5000ppm to 5300ppm give two degrees 5300 to 5600 give 4 degrees and so on. But all this assumes we were at a steady state to begin with (constant carbon dioxide level for say a hundred years to let the temperature stabilise) but we aren't, and this results in a increase in the impact on temperature by about 0.1K per additional 300ppm per one hundred years.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?