As mentioned before, More than forests absorb CO2, therefore it's obvious that more is at work than that alone.
Teh mechanisims are known, and this is a direct measurement. The signifigance is that the US is not contributing to atmospheric CO2, therefore the complaints about us being the #1 CO2 Producer are at best a distortion, and while decreasing energy consumption is always a good thing, the hysteria is uncalled for.
Same holds true for AUS, if they are not contributing to atmospheric CO2, then they are not a signifigant issue. But more to the point, you asked for reference, reference supplied.
No I didn't, but you should have used a calculator on your reduction of O2 in a 10% CO2 enviornment. Since it's displacing 10% of atmosphere, not 10% of oxygen content.
oxygen is in approx ratio of 1 to 4 based on your #
Thus a 10% Co2 enviornment evenly distributed would reduce O2 content to 15.7% not your 19.042%
Regardless based on OSHA standards anything below 19.5% is dangerous http://www-nehc.med.navy.mil/ih/respirator/Altitud eAndO2.htm
So that's your whole first part completely wrong.
So, again, just the simple reduction of O2 content is what the problem is, as the above #s show, a 10% CO2 enviornemnt is well into the danger level by reduction of O2, so we've proven that CO2 is not toxic, becuse you will die from oxygen deprevation before anyting else.
It is well known why sumarines use CO2 Scrubbers, because as people breathe, they take in O2 and release CO2 and as such O2 is no longer available, without replensihing it people will die if the O2 level drops below 19.5%, so O2 needs to be re-introduced. They check CO2 content because it'seasier to check for CO2 than O2, and CO2 concentratioi are a good indicator of O2 content, when the primary source of CO2 is people metabolizing O2 to CO2, I've noticed you still haven't found any reference to CO2 toxicity that explcitly states that.
Inferiority? Not to smomeone who can't figure out low Oxygen levels are dangerous to humans. Or that 10% CO2 in the atmosphere reduces O2 content more than 10% of the beggining O2 content.
Ahhhh so in otherwords, if I don't know everything, I don't know anything. Kind of like your standard yes/no answer comment at the end there.
But at the minummum I can say something about causaution, and can see that an atmosphere with 10% CO2 might be a wee bit low on Oxygen. And I don't use ad Homminum attacks like, "You misspelled a word, so your an idiot who doesn't know anything", Actually as a dylexic I'm thinking of suing under the Americans with disabilities act.
So you breath in chlorine every day, with every breath? Odd life you live there, are you logging into/. from another planet?
Of course there are different levels of toxicity, and in fact even if CO2 were toxic at the levels you talk about, rather than just displacing oxygen, no matter how good our economy gets, no matter how much better and longer we live, atmospheric CO2 would NEVER get to levels like even 1% much less 10%. So comments about "Spewing toxic CO2" are useless fear mongering. And in fact as I've already stated CO2 at it's current concentrations is life giving, so in otherwords, even by your definitions of toxicity, it's not toxic at this level, it's anti-toxic. Lack of CO2 would be toxic
We are now beyond even the/. archives, your lack of thought* surely isn't going to sway me, I don't know why you continue, as I'd be the only person reading this.
And humor is a realitive thing, your lack of a sense of humor** means you are unqualified to comment on it.
*Being a memeber of the Big Money Global Warming Religion, you operate on Dogma, not reason. As do members of any religion.
** It' a well known fact that anal-retentve people who go around correcting poples grammer and spelling have no sense of humor.
Apparently you didn't look at the link, and for further CO2 Absorption you can refer to the link kindly supplied by ArsSine here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=139895&cid=117 15517
Where in a side note it mentions that soil absorption is greater than Tree absorption.
CO2 persists for only decades not hundreds of years, and regardless it only has a small percentage of the greenhouse capability of Methane, which only has a fraction of the greenhouse ability of Water vapor. Methane and CO2 combined only contribute 5% to the greenhouse effect.
But your basic premise is flawed anyways. Yes some will precipitate out, as I mentioned in my original post, so if everyone drove Hydrogen cars for a week, then stopped, in a few days humidity would return to normal, bu the whole point of any of this discusions is that people continue to drive so they will continue to add water vapor, the question is while it preciptate out faster?
And even when it does precipitate out, it still goes back into the system in warmer climes (why it's more humid in the summer than the winter) Simply go to Florida about 3 in the afternoon everyday it will rain torrentially, but in a matter of minutes, the streets will be dry, the ris in humifity is palpable, and immediately obvious.
There is no way that massive amounts of water vapor added to the atmosphere will not increase humidity and thus global warming.
And if your fallacy were true, why does it get more humid in areas like New Orleans and Miami? If more water Vapor were added wouldn't it just precipitate out.
But regardless, those are the exact same symptoms to those that try to scale Everest without suplemental O2, i don't know what the concentration is, nor do I care, because the symptoms are immediately reversable by using added oxygen, or going to a lower altitude.
Just as if you increase the O2 contenet in a rich CO2 enviornment you will have no issues.
Why do you continue to believe CO2 is toxic, while you breathe it in and out every single day.
But during those days it is creating measurably more GW than CO2 ever will.
And your comment about CO2 absorption is patently false as has been discussed recently.
Yes we ave drastically increased plant cover, and in fact this has allowed us to seuester more CO2 and studies show that Plants are able to absorb much more CO2 than they are currently exposed to.
Really, you've never seen local humidity effected by industrial means? The more water vapor you put into a system, the higher the humididty will be.
For two or three Hydrogen powered cars the effect will be negligible, for 300 million, many concentrated in urban areas, it will not.
The fact is that CO2 is a minor Greenhouse gas, water vapor is not. CO2 is also absorbed into numerous geologic features beyond the ocean, in fact the entire surface of the planet absorbs CO2, excepting deserts. While much of the atmosphere can absorb more Water vapor.
In fact, we will increase water vapor in the atmosphere drastically, becauuse we will take liquid water that would partially evaporate, and convert it almost 100% into water vapor.
To convert all vehicles in the LA basin would turn normally dry Los Angles into something similar to New Orleans.
Would be if SUV couldn't gold just as many people.
There are as many third row seating SUV's as minivans on the market.
By the way everyone has only listed incorrect assumptions, no one has shown any differences. I wouldn't think it was that hard to come up with a definitive difference.
"At any rate, the problem with CO2 generation is mostly an industrial issue."
Prezactly. How does one get the electricity to run said refrigerators, to manufacture said cars, to heat the house.
THat takes industry. When you have to supply said items to 5% of the population you prodce less CO2 than when you have to provide it to 100% of the population.
And since Water vapor is a much greater Greenhouse gas than CO2 is, we can really step up this global warming till finally I won't be freezing up here in the Northeast.
And we can look forward to getting those smug southern californians to shut up about their nice weather, when we turn that pollution haze over Los Angles into a perpetual rain storm.
"But the same biomass is also responsible for the release of carbon."
But not 100%, in fact it is a relatively small percent, as each year the Forests don't burn down hot enough to leave sterile land. Trees are made up of predominantly Carbon, which they get in the form of respiration, and release some of it, as we breath in oxygen and releases some of it, but we keep some as well, in the end they keep more Carbon in than thy release, as we do with oxygen, which is why we need plants to do the opposite.
"So, across the whole planet, carbon flux from biomass is approximately zero (as one would expect for a steady state). Note that nowhere yet has emissions from any other source been considered!"
No worldwide the carbon flux is zero, yes CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in 150 years it ha increased by approx 175 parts per million, or about 1.2 parts per million a year, this is not a massive amount, so it can be said that the net carbon Flux is 0 +/-1.2 parts per million atmospheric per year.
"The US forests have a positive flux of carbon. i.e., the amount of carbon stored in the forest per year is larger than the amount of carbon released by the forest per year."
Wrong but understandable, as that paragraph is very difficult to read. Re read it with a calculator.
"the live components of forests and the wood products produced from them (including paper and wood-based construction materials)"
"sequestered a net of approximately 111 million metric tons of carbon"
"A further 127 million metric tons of carbon were believed to be sequestered in forest soils and the forest floor"
From forests ALONE 111 Mmt in the wood products utilized in such a way as to not re-release CO2, and an additional 127 Mmt in soils and the forest floor (leaves for example). 111+127=238 Mmt
Now if we look at the amount released in 1992 from the burning of fossil fuels. That was 1381 Mmt X 17% = 234.7 Mmt
So Forests ALONE sequestered 17% of CO2 released from fossil fuels. But forests are not our only plant mass, in fact yards do a decent job of sequestering CO2, dependent on how you get rid of the clippings from mowing, but there are also prairie land, Crops (Which sequester far more C02 than forests), algae and so forth. The scope of that article is only the land usage of CO2, and in fact Forests are a small percentage due to how slowly they grow, you'll note that forest soil sequestered quite a bit more than the trees themselves.
But what is more telling about your post is how you are so bloody excited that we are not a carbon sink. It's almost a religious zeal, like when Christians think they have found a minor problem in Darwin's theory "Look Darwin couldn't balance his checkbook, so obviously evolution theory is wrong" You actually want us to be a net CO2 polluter, given partial evidence showing how one portion of the US CO2 economy negates part of the other you are excited that, that one portion does not negate all of US C02 Production. Well we've found one part that sequesters a significant portion, now why don't you look at the rest of them.
It also shows how a piece of evidence that shows something contrary to what the reader believes can be twisted to reinforce their belief.
Just because SOME people in third world countries own those things, does not mean that all people do at the same level as those of s in the developed world.
In fact I'll think you'll find the majority of people by far, do not.
Having spent time in those countries I can attest to that.
It's pretty much a given that our standard of living (Which includes material goods) is higher than developing countires. I never said that no one in those countries have such luxuries, but the vast majority do not.
But do you have a reference to satisy my curiosity as it is an oft reported statement. I agree that doens't prove it's validity, but I'd like to get my story straight before I repeat it.
The 11.3 Billion metric tons is the increase from 1952 and 1942, this increase alone is capable of absorbing 25% of US CO2 output (Using the C to increase the carbon int he tree, and releasing the O2 fo people to breath.). Obviously much of the US was forested before 1952, and that forest also absorbed CO2, since the amount of forest before 1952 was much greater than the forest land we have added, it also had a much greater ability to absorb CO2, more than 75%.
On second point, you will note the use of "net" as I was discusiing in the the other porion of the thread. In other words US forrests will sequester CO2 at a rate of 178 Million metric tons -more- than the US output of 1,270 Million Metric tons* Hence we are a CO2 Sink.
* I believe your 1400 Million Tons are regular tons not Metric tons, but I could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
"How much did the comparable (IE: first) nuclear power plant cost per megawatt?"
"That breaks down to 125 acres and $2.5 million dollars per megawatt."
60MW for 72.5 million dollars or about 1.25 million dollars per megawat in 1954-7 in Shippingport PA.
As mentioned before, More than forests absorb CO2, therefore it's obvious that more is at work than that alone.
Teh mechanisims are known, and this is a direct measurement. The signifigance is that the US is not contributing to atmospheric CO2, therefore the complaints about us being the #1 CO2 Producer are at best a distortion, and while decreasing energy consumption is always a good thing, the hysteria is uncalled for.
Same holds true for AUS, if they are not contributing to atmospheric CO2, then they are not a signifigant issue. But more to the point, you asked for reference, reference supplied.
In case you look back in here.
d f
http://www.climatechangedebate.org/pdf/FanPaper.p
Published in Science 282: pgs 442-446
well would you look at this
0 05/d001005.html
e nts_abstracts&eventId=PG20&abstractId=cwcc_ab35&ab stractType=ext
http://www.abe.iastate.edu/human_house/aen125.asp
"Carbon dioxide is a non-toxic gas."
Department of agriculture.
From the CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d001001-d001100/d001
UK Geologic Society
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=geoev
I'll eave the rest up to you. Plenty of quality references if you google the exact phrase. "Carbon dioxide is a non-toxic gas"
Bzzt typo on my part. 18% not 15.7% still well into dangerous levels.
Hmmm if that were true, you must be in negative numbers as you don't understand basic math.
No I didn't, but you should have used a calculator on your reduction of O2 in a 10% CO2 enviornment. Since it's displacing 10% of atmosphere, not 10% of oxygen content.
d eAndO2.htm
oxygen is in approx ratio of 1 to 4 based on your #
Thus a 10% Co2 enviornment evenly distributed would reduce O2 content to 15.7% not your 19.042%
Regardless based on OSHA standards anything below 19.5% is dangerous http://www-nehc.med.navy.mil/ih/respirator/Altitu
So that's your whole first part completely wrong.
So, again, just the simple reduction of O2 content is what the problem is, as the above #s show, a 10% CO2 enviornemnt is well into the danger level by reduction of O2, so we've proven that CO2 is not toxic, becuse you will die from oxygen deprevation before anyting else.
It is well known why sumarines use CO2 Scrubbers, because as people breathe, they take in O2 and release CO2 and as such O2 is no longer available, without replensihing it people will die if the O2 level drops below 19.5%, so O2 needs to be re-introduced. They check CO2 content because it'seasier to check for CO2 than O2, and CO2 concentratioi are a good indicator of O2 content, when the primary source of CO2 is people metabolizing O2 to CO2, I've noticed you still haven't found any reference to CO2 toxicity that explcitly states that.
Inferiority? Not to smomeone who can't figure out low Oxygen levels are dangerous to humans. Or that 10% CO2 in the atmosphere reduces O2 content more than 10% of the beggining O2 content.
PS. I've heard that breathing a vacum is dadly, does that make it Toxic?
Ahhhh so in otherwords, if I don't know everything, I don't know anything. Kind of like your standard yes/no answer comment at the end there.
/. from another planet?
/. archives, your lack of thought* surely isn't going to sway me, I don't know why you continue, as I'd be the only person reading this.
But at the minummum I can say something about causaution, and can see that an atmosphere with 10% CO2 might be a wee bit low on Oxygen. And I don't use ad Homminum attacks like, "You misspelled a word, so your an idiot who doesn't know anything", Actually as a dylexic I'm thinking of suing under the Americans with disabilities act.
So you breath in chlorine every day, with every breath? Odd life you live there, are you logging into
Of course there are different levels of toxicity, and in fact even if CO2 were toxic at the levels you talk about, rather than just displacing oxygen, no matter how good our economy gets, no matter how much better and longer we live, atmospheric CO2 would NEVER get to levels like even 1% much less 10%. So comments about "Spewing toxic CO2" are useless fear mongering. And in fact as I've already stated CO2 at it's current concentrations is life giving, so in otherwords, even by your definitions of toxicity, it's not toxic at this level, it's anti-toxic. Lack of CO2 would be toxic
We are now beyond even the
And humor is a realitive thing, your lack of a sense of humor** means you are unqualified to comment on it.
*Being a memeber of the Big Money Global Warming Religion, you operate on Dogma, not reason. As do members of any religion.
** It' a well known fact that anal-retentve people who go around correcting poples grammer and spelling have no sense of humor.
Apparently you didn't look at the link, and for further CO2 Absorption you can refer to the link kindly supplied by ArsSine here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=139895&cid=117 15517
Where in a side note it mentions that soil absorption is greater than Tree absorption.
CO2 persists for only decades not hundreds of years, and regardless it only has a small percentage of the greenhouse capability of Methane, which only has a fraction of the greenhouse ability of Water vapor. Methane and CO2 combined only contribute 5% to the greenhouse effect.
But your basic premise is flawed anyways. Yes some will precipitate out, as I mentioned in my original post, so if everyone drove Hydrogen cars for a week, then stopped, in a few days humidity would return to normal, bu the whole point of any of this discusions is that people continue to drive so they will continue to add water vapor, the question is while it preciptate out faster?
And even when it does precipitate out, it still goes back into the system in warmer climes (why it's more humid in the summer than the winter) Simply go to Florida about 3 in the afternoon everyday it will rain torrentially, but in a matter of minutes, the streets will be dry, the ris in humifity is palpable, and immediately obvious.
There is no way that massive amounts of water vapor added to the atmosphere will not increase humidity and thus global warming.
And if your fallacy were true, why does it get more humid in areas like New Orleans and Miami? If more water Vapor were added wouldn't it just precipitate out.
PO2? What would that be? Smelly Oxygen.
But regardless, those are the exact same symptoms to those that try to scale Everest without suplemental O2, i don't know what the concentration is, nor do I care, because the symptoms are immediately reversable by using added oxygen, or going to a lower altitude.
Just as if you increase the O2 contenet in a rich CO2 enviornment you will have no issues.
Why do you continue to believe CO2 is toxic, while you breathe it in and out every single day.
But during those days it is creating measurably more GW than CO2 ever will.
And your comment about CO2 absorption is patently false as has been discussed recently.
Yes we ave drastically increased plant cover, and in fact this has allowed us to seuester more CO2 and studies show that Plants are able to absorb much more CO2 than they are currently exposed to.
http://www.biology.duke.edu/jackson/oecol96b.htm
Really, you've never seen local humidity effected by industrial means? The more water vapor you put into a system, the higher the humididty will be.
For two or three Hydrogen powered cars the effect will be negligible, for 300 million, many concentrated in urban areas, it will not.
The fact is that CO2 is a minor Greenhouse gas, water vapor is not. CO2 is also absorbed into numerous geologic features beyond the ocean, in fact the entire surface of the planet absorbs CO2, excepting deserts. While much of the atmosphere can absorb more Water vapor.
In fact, we will increase water vapor in the atmosphere drastically, becauuse we will take liquid water that would partially evaporate, and convert it almost 100% into water vapor.
To convert all vehicles in the LA basin would turn normally dry Los Angles into something similar to New Orleans.
Would be if SUV couldn't gold just as many people.
There are as many third row seating SUV's as minivans on the market.
By the way everyone has only listed incorrect assumptions, no one has shown any differences. I wouldn't think it was that hard to come up with a definitive difference.
And PS
"At any rate, the problem with CO2 generation is mostly an industrial issue."
Prezactly. How does one get the electricity to run said refrigerators, to manufacture said cars, to heat the house.
THat takes industry. When you have to supply said items to 5% of the population you prodce less CO2 than when you have to provide it to 100% of the population.
Funny, those are the same symptoms that Mountain climbers get when there i a lack of oxygen, but no extra CO2.
Do you thiink maybe a connection?
Or does your GW Religion not let you believe anything but that CO2 is bad. Kind of a don't question the Pope kind of thing.
And I still stand by the fact that CO2 is not toxic.
Lack of oxygen does not equate to CO2 toxicity.
The exact same effect happens with any inert non-toxic gas, igh enough concentrations can cause death through lack of oxygen.
Unfortunately even repition doesn't get through your dogma.
And I don't know why you continue here, as no-one is reading this deep in slashdot.
Why does everyone keep talking about Deutirium?
Or is it the second generation vehicle from Hummer?
Hydrogen is H, Deutirium is H2, and if we are going to restrict ourselves to using Deutiruim it's going to make things a lot more difficult.
And since Water vapor is a much greater Greenhouse gas than CO2 is, we can really step up this global warming till finally I won't be freezing up here in the Northeast.
And we can look forward to getting those smug southern californians to shut up about their nice weather, when we turn that pollution haze over Los Angles into a perpetual rain storm.
No the other guy made a comment that has no data to back it. I made a similar comment.
No I'm not. But I'll bet 10 Bucks your a democrat.
We all misread? You mean you misread
"But the same biomass is also responsible for the release of carbon."
But not 100%, in fact it is a relatively small percent, as each year the Forests don't burn down hot enough to leave sterile land. Trees are made up of predominantly Carbon, which they get in the form of respiration, and release some of it, as we breath in oxygen and releases some of it, but we keep some as well, in the end they keep more Carbon in than thy release, as we do with oxygen, which is why we need plants to do the opposite.
"So, across the whole planet, carbon flux from biomass is approximately zero (as one would expect for a steady state). Note that nowhere yet has emissions from any other source been considered!"
No worldwide the carbon flux is zero, yes CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in 150 years it ha increased by approx 175 parts per million, or about 1.2 parts per million a year, this is not a massive amount, so it can be said that the net carbon Flux is 0 +/-1.2 parts per million atmospheric per year.
"The US forests have a positive flux of carbon. i.e., the amount of carbon stored in the forest per year is larger than the amount of carbon released by the forest per year."
Wrong but understandable, as that paragraph is very difficult to read. Re read it with a calculator.
"the live components of forests and the wood products produced from them (including paper and wood-based construction materials)"
"sequestered a net of approximately 111 million metric tons of carbon"
"A further 127 million metric tons of carbon were believed to be sequestered in forest soils and the forest floor"
From forests ALONE 111 Mmt in the wood products utilized in such a way as to not re-release CO2, and an additional 127 Mmt in soils and the forest floor (leaves for example). 111+127=238 Mmt
Now if we look at the amount released in 1992 from the burning of fossil fuels. That was 1381 Mmt X 17% = 234.7 Mmt
So Forests ALONE sequestered 17% of CO2 released from fossil fuels. But forests are not our only plant mass, in fact yards do a decent job of sequestering CO2, dependent on how you get rid of the clippings from mowing, but there are also prairie land, Crops (Which sequester far more C02 than forests), algae and so forth. The scope of that article is only the land usage of CO2, and in fact Forests are a small percentage due to how slowly they grow, you'll note that forest soil sequestered quite a bit more than the trees themselves.
But what is more telling about your post is how you are so bloody excited that we are not a carbon sink. It's almost a religious zeal, like when Christians think they have found a minor problem in Darwin's theory "Look Darwin couldn't balance his checkbook, so obviously evolution theory is wrong" You actually want us to be a net CO2 polluter, given partial evidence showing how one portion of the US CO2 economy negates part of the other you are excited that, that one portion does not negate all of US C02 Production. Well we've found one part that sequesters a significant portion, now why don't you look at the rest of them.
It also shows how a piece of evidence that shows something contrary to what the reader believes can be twisted to reinforce their belief.
I saw a report that it blew up due to high levels of CO2
Just because SOME people in third world countries own those things, does not mean that all people do at the same level as those of s in the developed world.
In fact I'll think you'll find the majority of people by far, do not.
Having spent time in those countries I can attest to that.
It's pretty much a given that our standard of living (Which includes material goods) is higher than developing countires. I never said that no one in those countries have such luxuries, but the vast majority do not.
I'll concede the point.
But do you have a reference to satisy my curiosity as it is an oft reported statement. I agree that doens't prove it's validity, but I'd like to get my story straight before I repeat it.
The 11.3 Billion metric tons is the increase from 1952 and 1942, this increase alone is capable of absorbing 25% of US CO2 output (Using the C to increase the carbon int he tree, and releasing the O2 fo people to breath.). Obviously much of the US was forested before 1952, and that forest also absorbed CO2, since the amount of forest before 1952 was much greater than the forest land we have added, it also had a much greater ability to absorb CO2, more than 75%.
On second point, you will note the use of "net" as I was discusiing in the the other porion of the thread. In other words US forrests will sequester CO2 at a rate of 178 Million metric tons -more- than the US output of 1,270 Million Metric tons* Hence we are a CO2 Sink.
* I believe your 1400 Million Tons are regular tons not Metric tons, but I could be wrong.