Shopping & Style0 min ago
Carbon emissions
Carbon emissions = nasty nasty global warming , so must stop carbon emissions.
Since this will be very difficult, would it not be better to focus on finding a use for the carbon, surely the most available raw material in the history of time?
Personally, I've no idea what it could be used for (giant electrodes?) but put your mind to it, send me your answer, and I'll save the world.
Since this will be very difficult, would it not be better to focus on finding a use for the carbon, surely the most available raw material in the history of time?
Personally, I've no idea what it could be used for (giant electrodes?) but put your mind to it, send me your answer, and I'll save the world.
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by poadster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
*sigh*
References to 'carbon emissions', in most contexts, mean 'carbon dioxide' gas. This is formed as a result of combustion of carbon-based compounds. (ie. burning coal, oil, petrol etc etc - I'm sure your reference source may have passingly mentioned the word 'hydrocarbons' or 'fossil fuels')
It is the carbon dioxide gas that causes - (Daily Mail / Sun collector-card buzz-word points coming up !) - the 'greenhouse effect' and ' global warming'.
Carbon dioxide gas can be 'reduced' (a chemical term meaning to 'un-oxidise' back to carbon, which would remove it from the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, since the energy required to do this would be enormous, and we gain most of our energy from hydrocarbon fuels, it would create more carbon dioxide than it would actually remove.
Try reading up about some of the basics before proposing your plan to save the planet.
References to 'carbon emissions', in most contexts, mean 'carbon dioxide' gas. This is formed as a result of combustion of carbon-based compounds. (ie. burning coal, oil, petrol etc etc - I'm sure your reference source may have passingly mentioned the word 'hydrocarbons' or 'fossil fuels')
It is the carbon dioxide gas that causes - (Daily Mail / Sun collector-card buzz-word points coming up !) - the 'greenhouse effect' and ' global warming'.
Carbon dioxide gas can be 'reduced' (a chemical term meaning to 'un-oxidise' back to carbon, which would remove it from the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, since the energy required to do this would be enormous, and we gain most of our energy from hydrocarbon fuels, it would create more carbon dioxide than it would actually remove.
Try reading up about some of the basics before proposing your plan to save the planet.
Thanks Ugly Bob.
As for the rest of you smug folk, if we need to rely on you to save us we'll all be dead! We don't need to burn fossil fuels and you don't have to be rude.
Now, lets try again - how can we find a way (WITHOUT burning fossil fuels!) to return the gas back to carbon - or combine the gas some other way - in order to provide a USEFUL raw material.
As for the rest of you smug folk, if we need to rely on you to save us we'll all be dead! We don't need to burn fossil fuels and you don't have to be rude.
Now, lets try again - how can we find a way (WITHOUT burning fossil fuels!) to return the gas back to carbon - or combine the gas some other way - in order to provide a USEFUL raw material.
OK Birt, your obviously ahead of Gef & Brachiopod.
I know it's "trees" - but why then isn't the simple answer just planting more trees? (You with this Ugly Bob? Switch the engine off now).
If we HAD TO re-forrest the Sahara, how would we do it? (No choice, trees all over the Sahara or your all toast, what's the solution?)
I know it's "trees" - but why then isn't the simple answer just planting more trees? (You with this Ugly Bob? Switch the engine off now).
If we HAD TO re-forrest the Sahara, how would we do it? (No choice, trees all over the Sahara or your all toast, what's the solution?)
To put it bluntly - we (as humans), don't have much use for carbon-fixing products other than burning them and therefore producing more carbon dioxide.
At best, we can hope to become �carbon neutral�
There are two efficient carbon fixers - trees, and carbonate-producing fauna, (corals, foraminifera, ostracods, molluscs, brachiopods etc). (Still with me, poadster?)
Trees, unfortunately have a habit of dying, and returning this carbon to the atmosphere, or when humans 'use' them, unless they form a carbon 'sink'.
If global temperatures continue to rise, the extinction event (assuming that, directly or indirectly, large volumes of the human population are eliminated), will allow vast swathes of tropical / equatorial land to return to its climatic climax vegetation - eg. rain forest.
It may be the case that the elevated temperatures produce new climatic regimes, and the formation of vast, swampy forests.
In this event, the carbon fixed by vegetation may not be returned to the atmosphere when it dies, but may be buried in the swamps, isolating it from the carbon cycle. As these swampy deposits of dead trees build up, more and more carbon is removed from the system (including the atmosphere), forming a carbon sink.
Meanwhile, in the warm seas and oceans, carbonate-fixing fauna will thrive. As they die, they will form carbonate-rich sediments on the sea bed - another carbon sink. The effect will be further enhanced by the fact that the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will raise the pH of the oceans (ie thy will be less acidic) - this further favours the formation of carbonate-rich deposits.
[cont.]
At best, we can hope to become �carbon neutral�
There are two efficient carbon fixers - trees, and carbonate-producing fauna, (corals, foraminifera, ostracods, molluscs, brachiopods etc). (Still with me, poadster?)
Trees, unfortunately have a habit of dying, and returning this carbon to the atmosphere, or when humans 'use' them, unless they form a carbon 'sink'.
If global temperatures continue to rise, the extinction event (assuming that, directly or indirectly, large volumes of the human population are eliminated), will allow vast swathes of tropical / equatorial land to return to its climatic climax vegetation - eg. rain forest.
It may be the case that the elevated temperatures produce new climatic regimes, and the formation of vast, swampy forests.
In this event, the carbon fixed by vegetation may not be returned to the atmosphere when it dies, but may be buried in the swamps, isolating it from the carbon cycle. As these swampy deposits of dead trees build up, more and more carbon is removed from the system (including the atmosphere), forming a carbon sink.
Meanwhile, in the warm seas and oceans, carbonate-fixing fauna will thrive. As they die, they will form carbonate-rich sediments on the sea bed - another carbon sink. The effect will be further enhanced by the fact that the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will raise the pH of the oceans (ie thy will be less acidic) - this further favours the formation of carbonate-rich deposits.
[cont.]
[cont.]
It has happened before. In the Carboniferous period, vast swampy forests produced our present-day coal measures � (which we are now burning, and thus releasing that locked-up carbon back into the cycle).
Similarly, the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods where when huge carbon sinks were formed by the deposition of carbonate rocks (limestones, chalks etc, which we also �burn� to produce our concrete and cement, and release huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the process).
In short, we need to strive for carbon neutrality - whether that means finding alternative mass energy sources, or foregoing your oil-derived products and polymers, or �carbon producing� industrial processes � or else reducing our population (through war, famine, collapse of civilisation etc.), and returning to a more subsistent lifestyle. This all costs money, so there is no short-term commercial benefit, and too much vested interest (oil companies etc). Basically, there is no �magic bullet�.
So before you post comments like � if we need to rely on [Gef & brachiopod] to save us, we'll all be dead! �, it might help if you;
1. Understood some of the scientific basics such as �the carbon cycle�; some of the major carbon-producing industrial processes, and also some of the economic and demographic realities of the situation.
2. Posted an understandable and credible question in the first place. ( I note that you had to rephrase and restate your question before anyone had a clue what your ignorant ramblings were on about).
It has happened before. In the Carboniferous period, vast swampy forests produced our present-day coal measures � (which we are now burning, and thus releasing that locked-up carbon back into the cycle).
Similarly, the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods where when huge carbon sinks were formed by the deposition of carbonate rocks (limestones, chalks etc, which we also �burn� to produce our concrete and cement, and release huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the process).
In short, we need to strive for carbon neutrality - whether that means finding alternative mass energy sources, or foregoing your oil-derived products and polymers, or �carbon producing� industrial processes � or else reducing our population (through war, famine, collapse of civilisation etc.), and returning to a more subsistent lifestyle. This all costs money, so there is no short-term commercial benefit, and too much vested interest (oil companies etc). Basically, there is no �magic bullet�.
So before you post comments like � if we need to rely on [Gef & brachiopod] to save us, we'll all be dead! �, it might help if you;
1. Understood some of the scientific basics such as �the carbon cycle�; some of the major carbon-producing industrial processes, and also some of the economic and demographic realities of the situation.
2. Posted an understandable and credible question in the first place. ( I note that you had to rephrase and restate your question before anyone had a clue what your ignorant ramblings were on about).
Thank you for you most enlightening response.
I'd like however to change the direction of the 'discussion', to take up the question of how brilliant intellectuals like you can ever hope to bring ignorant ramblers like myself onside to work for 'the cause' and adopt the appropriate behaviours.
Your rudeness and smugness would turn anyone off - I do hope you can find a cure for it soon.
I'd like however to change the direction of the 'discussion', to take up the question of how brilliant intellectuals like you can ever hope to bring ignorant ramblers like myself onside to work for 'the cause' and adopt the appropriate behaviours.
Your rudeness and smugness would turn anyone off - I do hope you can find a cure for it soon.
Brachiopod, you seem knowledgeable on this subject. Am i right in saying Chlorophyll is the substance that enables trees to absorb CO2 and release oxygen? I'm sure ive heard of a synthetic chloropyhl being produced. Could this be used for reduceing atmospheric CO2?
Can trees absorb CO as well as CO2?
Can trees absorb CO as well as CO2?
1 to 11 of 11
Latest Posts
News6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Is Keir Starmer Really Going To Arrest...
News30 mins ago
