Europeans and Americans are beginning to see the results of depending on renewables.

[TailingsPond + 1,006]

On 10/11/2022 at 12:31 PM, specinho said:

It is commonly known that CO2 is absorbed by plants during the day, and be converted into food or carbohydrate. Besides reforestation that is happening (with marvelous results in Europe e.g. Germany - from 5 to 10% coverage to ~ 30% within a decade or so), rethinking the need to develop massively, quickly would be another. The later prevents more forest to be cut and gives way to development or agricultural activities.

 

 

Reforestation is good for many reasons (animal habitat, pretty parks, etc.) but it is only a net carbon sink while it is actively growing early on.  Old forests are basically carbon neutral themselves as forest fires and leaf litter decomposition become large carbon sources themselves.

On that note the timber industry can act as a carbon sink if they keep the harvested wood products from being burnt and replant all the trees.  Wood construction can store all that carbon for a couple hundred years easy.

[specinho + 467]

On 10/14/2022 at 5:13 AM, TailingsPond said:

Reforestation is good for many reasons (animal habitat, pretty parks, etc.) but it is only a net carbon sink while it is actively growing early on.  Old forests are basically carbon neutral themselves as forest fires and leaf litter decomposition become large carbon sources themselves.

On that note the timber industry can act as a carbon sink if they keep the harvested wood products from being burnt and replant all the trees.  Wood construction can store all that carbon for a couple hundred years easy.

not too sure if it is correct to assume that 'carbon sink' originated in coastal region where

1. a survey mentioned that more than 90% of riverine sediment retained at the river mouth, or it could be diluted by large volume of sea water

2. mangrove traps organic matter and sediment

* a funny side note *: a government somewhere small put up a sign board at a tourists center of a mangrove center that says " Mangrove is important because it traps garbage............"

Therefore, by carbon sink, we probably are assuming " retention of organic matter "?

If it is true, carbon neutral would mean production of organic matter = destruction?

Not too sure if this could be accurate as plants could grow incessantly and most probably not 50% of leaves and cells at tree trunk, tree branches would fall off at one given time?

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 61]

On 10/11/2022 at 8:31 PM, specinho said:

good to be far sighted but there are a few things that might have been missed:

1. definition of net zero.

Mentioned before somewhere in the board. Often, could have been drowned by strings of happening comments. Briefly recap it, if you do not mind, for your reference and second consideration. First of all we need to define net zero, if it means:

 

a) a balance between production of CO2 and absorption. Or

b) no carbon dioxide to be emitted

If it the (a), a balance, then the solution could be easy and achievable.

It is commonly known that CO2 is absorbed by plants during the day, and be converted into food or carbohydrate. Besides reforestation that is happening (with marvelous results in Europe e.g. Germany - from 5 to 10% coverage to ~ 30% within a decade or so), rethinking the need to develop massively, quickly would be another. The later prevents more forest to be cut and gives way to development or agricultural activities.

If it is (b), no emission, the solution might be forceful and unlikely to be achievable.

For example, breathing activity of living things would produce CO2. Although it is novel, but the image below is........ inconvenient?

.

 

2. Costa Rica might have achieved > 90% of renewable by hydropower.

If rivers and water reservoirs are drying up, it might be not a bad idea to recreate the conditions. It could be starting with having water catchment areas which is usually forests, building up aquifer etc...

 

3. Nuclear. Not familiar but heard a minute amount of those could generate much energy for a very long time.

 

Since, we are into fusion, is there a possibility to recreate uranium from plumbum?

 

 

4. solar, wind, wave might not necessary be all we have as alternative.

Mentioned mechanical power that requires no dependency on uncontrollable nor predictable natural factors e.g. sun, wind or wave; requires little limited materials etc. Awaiting to be explored?

 

a) Oil&gas are putting new carbon atoms ("new" = carbon atoms that have been out of the carbon cycle for millions of years) in circulation. breathing animals are just part of the natural balance of CO2 and O2.

At the moment we emit 4.5tons/capita/year from fossil sources. With 7.7 Bn people, that is 34 Gton CO2 per year. A tree consumes 25 kg a year. To absorb that much CO2 by trees takes 1.36 trillion fully grown trees. At the same time, we have at least 3 Bn trees on earth. So the trees should easily be able to absorb all emitted CO2, but we know that is not true, as CO2 concentration in the atmosphere goes up. So what is the problem? Well, trees die. And then all the CO2 is emitted again, as it rots, or is being burnt. 

We need to sequester, or not emit. There is no way around it.

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

4 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

a) Oil&gas are putting new carbon atoms ("new" = carbon atoms that have been out of the carbon cycle for millions of years) in circulation. breathing animals are just part of the natural balance of CO2 and O2.

At the moment we emit 4.5tons/capita/year from fossil sources. With 7.7 Bn people, that is 34 Gton CO2 per year. A tree consumes 25 kg a year. To absorb that much CO2 by trees takes 1.36 trillion fully grown trees. At the same time, we have at least 3 Bn trees on earth. So the trees should easily be able to absorb all emitted CO2, but we know that is not true, as CO2 concentration in the atmosphere goes up. So what is the problem? Well, trees die. And then all the CO2 is emitted again, as it rots, or is being burnt. 

We need to sequester, or not emit. There is no way around it.

I disagree.  I have been following the topic for more than a decade with my degree in the Environmental Sciences.  There is a tremendous amount of corruption and jiggering of the facts by the IPCC and elite who are pushing this Climate Change agenda.  I highly recommend that you visit some of the following sights to discover all the many ways the official narrative of Climate Change has been a deception which has been designed by powerful elite.

Most people refuse to investigate the corruption and deception, but rather prefer to hold onto a myth.  Mattias Desment calls it "Mass Formation" and explains why people will not depart from the official narratives.

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 61]

1 hour ago, Tom Nolan said:

I disagree.  I have been following the topic for more than a decade with my degree in the Environmental Sciences.  There is a tremendous amount of corruption and jiggering of the facts by the IPCC and elite who are pushing this Climate Change agenda.  I highly recommend that you visit some of the following sights to discover all the many ways the official narrative of Climate Change has been a deception which has been designed by powerful elite.

Most people refuse to investigate the corruption and deception, but rather prefer to hold onto a myth.  Mattias Desment calls it "Mass Formation" and explains why people will not depart from the official narratives.

So what is corrupted and jiggered about the following graph?

Note I am a geophysicist myself.

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

1 hour ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

So what is corrupted and jiggered about the following graph?

Note I am a geophysicist myself.

Well, It is your choice... to either research the many deceptions surrounding the Climate Change narrative...or not.  If you don't research and discover them, then you won't know about them. 

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 61]

9 minutes ago, Tom Nolan said:

Well, It is your choice... to either research the many deceptions surrounding the Climate Change narrative...or not.  If you don't research and discover them, then you won't know about them. 

Blah blah blah conspiracy and deceptions blah blah blah global socialist hoax blah blah blah flawed science blah blah blah falsified data blah blah blah.

Next you're going to send me an article from some dark website or not? Or is it Fox News. I am curious....

You can buy your own CO2 meter at AliExpress for less than $/€ 15. Check yourself!

Edited October 17, 2022 by Jeroen Goudswaard
add more information

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

31 minutes ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

Blah blah blah conspiracy and deceptions blah blah blah global socialist hoax blah blah blah flawed science blah blah blah falsified data blah blah blah.

Next you're going to send me an article from some dark website or not? Or is it Fox News. I am curious....

You can buy your own CO2 meter at AliExpress for less than $/€ 15. Check yourself!

 I despise Fox NEWS and all the other mainstream news media.   It is your choice to LOOK into it or not...it involves real research.

I suggest starting here.   Transcripts with sources.

The Corbett Report has produced these EXCELLENT Visual Documentaries...

How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World with transcripts
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
Episode 310 – How Big Oil Conquered The World – 12/28/2015
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-310-rise-of-the-oiligarchs/
Episode 321 – Why Big Oil Conquered the World – 10/06/2017
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-321-why-big-oil-conquered-the-world/

The following THREAD has some good stuff also...

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

1 hour ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

Blah blah blah conspiracy and deceptions blah blah blah global socialist hoax blah blah blah flawed science blah blah blah falsified data blah blah blah.

Next you're going to send me an article from some dark website or not? Or is it Fox News. I am curious....

You can buy your own CO2 meter at AliExpress for less than $/€ 15. Check yourself!

Ah, willful ignorance. That and pretending CO2 warms the earth as it would not matter if CO2 were 50% of the earths atmosphere, it would not warm any.  Partial pressure increase can warm the earth, not an increase in CO2 percentage(water covers CO2 absorption band).  But hey, basic thermodynamics and black body radiation physics...

How so called "scientists" are getting away with this bald faced lie is truly amazing due to government funding of near all institutions and whomever holds the funding strings also hires those who will take over for them as well.  Why pushed by government?

Why it is happening?  Easy, pushed mostly by European governments looking for an excuse to lie to their population to force an energy transition away from Oil/Gas because Europe has very little and quickly going to -->none.  Follow the $$$ and POWER is the true answer. 

Plants/invertebrates LOVE high CO2, use less water, minerals, etc and produce more as well.  Humans love eating I have been told...

You want to look at climate change?  Look at humans changing the land from forests to farm land and cities as the only change that has mattered in recent times.  Changes albedo, heat retention.

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 61]

15 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ah, willful ignorance. That and pretending CO2 warms the earth as it would not matter if CO2 were 50% of the earths atmosphere, it would not warm any.  Partial pressure increase can warm the earth, not an increase in CO2 percentage(water covers CO2 absorption band).  But hey, basic thermodynamics and black body radiation physics...

How so called "scientists" are getting away with this bald faced lie is truly amazing due to government funding of near all institutions and whomever holds the funding strings also hires those who will take over for them as well.  Why pushed by government?

Why it is happening?  Easy, pushed mostly by European governments looking for an excuse to lie to their population to force an energy transition away from Oil/Gas because Europe has very little and quickly going to -->none.  Follow the $$$ and POWER is the true answer. 

Plants/invertebrates LOVE high CO2, use less water, minerals, etc and produce more as well.  Humans love eating I have been told...

You want to look at climate change?  Look at humans changing the land from forests to farm land and cities as the only change that has mattered in recent times.  Changes albedo, heat retention.

Ah, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Sure. 

the atmosphere of Venus is mostly CO2. It is also 350 deg C hotter than you would expect given the distance to the Sun.

• Mercury - 333°F (167°C)
• Venus - 867°F (464°C)
• Earth - 59°F (15°C)
• Mars - Minus 85°F (-65°C)

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

4 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

Ah, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Sure. 

the atmosphere of Venus is mostly CO2. It is also 350 deg C hotter than you would expect given the distance to the Sun.

• Mercury - 333°F (167°C)
• Venus - 867°F (464°C)
• Earth - 59°F (15°C)
• Mars - Minus 85°F (-65°C)

 

Sigh... are you this ignorant of basic physics? 

Closer to sun... CHECK.  2600W/m^2.  Earth is 1300W/m^2 Black body radiation into deep space goes by what power again?  Oh right, to the 4th power of temperature.  So, 2X the power requires 16X the radiance temperature in crude terms. 

Do you not know what partial pressure is?  Venus's atmosphere pressure  is 93X that of earth at its surface.  You know BASIC gas dynamics... How do gas act again?  PV = nRT in ideal world but does not perfectly match... and why I wrote partial pressures...  

Increase P 93X in simple terms requires T to increase by 93X....... 

Now increase the power irradiated by Venus Atmosphere by 2X over that of earth and Black body radiation happens to the 4th of T.  Enjoy. 

Mars pressure is what again?  Oh right... According to you with its 95% CO2 Mars should be boiling hot... oh right its not... Partial pressures who knew, Physics, gas laws still work... Well damn who knew!

Good Grief your ignorance is amazing!

You do realize that radiance is how we see exo planets via telescope and know their atmosphere pressure/temperature right?  Matches perfectly for Mars, Venus, Titan, but all of a sudden genius's like you pretend it does not work on earth....👍🤡

It is why the CO2 religious cult never address this basic reality. 

Of course the REAL way to warm the earth, is increasing H2O in atmosphere and increased cloud cover.  Cooler over tropics and warmer at the poles.  So, watch the H20 partial pressures.  If they increase, then we finally have a real difference in temperature.  Until then stop the anti science BS.

[specinho + 467]

On 10/17/2022 at 3:05 PM, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

a) Oil&gas are putting new carbon atoms ("new" = carbon atoms that have been out of the carbon cycle for millions of years) in circulation. breathing animals are just part of the natural balance of CO2 and O2.

At the moment we emit 4.5tons/capita/year from fossil sources. With 7.7 Bn people, that is 34 Gton CO2 per year. A tree consumes 25 kg a year. To absorb that much CO2 by trees takes 1.36 trillion fully grown trees. At the same time, we have at least 3 Bn trees on earth. So the trees should easily be able to absorb all emitted CO2, but we know that is not true, as CO2 concentration in the atmosphere goes up. So what is the problem? Well, trees die. And then all the CO2 is emitted again, as it rots, or is being burnt. 

We need to sequester, or not emit. There is no way around it.

Carbon cycle

 

 

 

 

from this image taken from google, fossil fuel has been counted into the cycle. Probably not some kind of new carbon.

Not too sure if you have seen this image below. Posted before, a copy made from a discussion board of an online course. Lost my file on the name of the course, note made and discussions posted but probably it's called Global Housing Design, DELFx.

The image on the left shows the land at the beginning. The image on the right shows changes of land usages e.g. development and agricultural activities. It might be easy to see that the number of trees cut down is far more than the remaining plants after the change(s). Even though concentration of CO2 has increased, it is still 0.04%, a 0.01% increment from previous 0.03%. Not major culprit.

 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

Ah, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Sure. 

the atmosphere of Venus is mostly CO2. It is also 350 deg C hotter than you would expect given the distance to the Sun.

• Mercury - 333°F (167°C)
• Venus - 867°F (464°C)
• Earth - 59°F (15°C)
• Mars - Minus 85°F (-65°C)

 

venus is called sister earth? water vapour could be another reason, besides PV = nRT mentioned by @footeab@yahoo.com

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by specinho

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 61]

6 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Sigh... are you this ignorant of basic physics? 

Closer to sun... CHECK.  2600W/m^2.  Earth is 1300W/m^2 Black body radiation into deep space goes by what power again?  Oh right, to the 4th power of temperature.  So, 2X the power requires 16X the radiance temperature in crude terms. 

Do you not know what partial pressure is?  Venus's atmosphere pressure  is 93X that of earth at its surface.  You know BASIC gas dynamics... How do gas act again?  PV = nRT in ideal world but does not perfectly match... and why I wrote partial pressures...  

Increase P 93X in simple terms requires T to increase by 93X....... 

Now increase the power irradiated by Venus Atmosphere by 2X over that of earth and Black body radiation happens to the 4th of T.  Enjoy. 

Mars pressure is what again?  Oh right... According to you with its 95% CO2 Mars should be boiling hot... oh right its not... Partial pressures who knew, Physics, gas laws still work... Well damn who knew!

Good Grief your ignorance is amazing!

You do realize that radiance is how we see exo planets via telescope and know their atmosphere pressure/temperature right?  Matches perfectly for Mars, Venus, Titan, but all of a sudden genius's like you pretend it does not work on earth....👍🤡

It is why the CO2 religious cult never address this basic reality. 

Of course the REAL way to warm the earth, is increasing H2O in atmosphere and increased cloud cover.  Cooler over tropics and warmer at the poles.  So, watch the H20 partial pressures.  If they increase, then we finally have a real difference in temperature.  Until then stop the anti science BS.

Venus is hot so the atmosphere traps heat. Another way of looking at it is that the side of Venus not facing the sun is equally hot as the side facing. Contrary to the moon, Mercury and Mars that have a virtually non-existent atmosphere.

Pressure has no impact on temperature. The pressure in the ocean at 900 m depth is the same as in the atmosphere of Venus. Is the ocean suddenly warmer than the atmosphere, given that water is a powerful greenhouse agent? No, the pressure plays no part in retaining temperature, unless the molecules retain heat. And only molecules with at least 3 atoms are infrared active. 

If Earth would be at the position of Venus, the average temperature would be 35C, or 20 degree hotter than now. Carl Sagan did the math. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

22 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

Pressure has no impact on temperature.

🤣🤡Go back to school child.  A liquid is not a gas.  Everything irradiates/absorbs infrared

Stop embarrassing yourself.

EDIT: A very few rare are VERY poor IR absorbers/emitters though

Edited October 19, 2022 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 10/18/2022 at 9:44 PM, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

Pressure has no impact on temperature.

This equation helps us explain how weather works, such as what happens in the atmosphere to create warm and cold fronts and storms, such as thunderstorms. For example, if air pressure increases, the temperature must increase. If air pressure decreases, the temperature decreases. It also explains why air gets colder at higher altitudes, where pressure is lower.

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 61]

30 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

This equation helps us explain how weather works, such as what happens in the atmosphere to create warm and cold fronts and storms, such as thunderstorms. For example, if air pressure increases, the temperature must increase. If air pressure decreases, the temperature decreases. It also explains why air gets colder at higher altitudes, where pressure is lower.

temperature as a function of altitude:

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 61]

 

19 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

🤣🤡Go back to school child.  A liquid is not a gas.  Everything irradiates/absorbs infrared

Stop embarrassing yourself.

EDIT: A very few rare are VERY poor IR absorbers/emitters though

Well, last time I checked, the "atmosphere" of Venus is a fluid.

The atmosphere of Venus is composed primarily of supercritical carbon dioxide

Supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO2) is a fluid state of carbon dioxide 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Jeroen Goudswaard
Improved readability.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

3 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

 

Well, last time I checked, the "atmosphere" of Venus is a fluid.

The atmosphere of Venus is composed primarily of supercritical carbon dioxide

Supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO2) is a fluid state of carbon dioxide 

Ah, you wish to definition shave and turn an abject embarrassment into a total embarrassment...

Last I checked, super critical fluids act on a ratio between gas/liquid.  Which means at ~460K and 92~bar the vast majority of the atmosphere is in gas phase as  CO2's critical pressure point is ~73bar. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Carbon_dioxide_pressure-temperature_phase_diagram.svg/800px-Carbon_dioxide_pressure-temperature_phase_diagram.svg.png

Are you still going to pretend that the science of thermodynamics does not work as soon as CO2 is added to the equation?

 

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 61]

On 10/20/2022 at 5:29 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ah, you wish to definition shave and turn an abject embarrassment into a total embarrassment...

Last I checked, super critical fluids act on a ratio between gas/liquid.  Which means at ~460K and 92~bar the vast majority of the atmosphere is in gas phase as  CO2's critical pressure point is ~73bar. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Carbon_dioxide_pressure-temperature_phase_diagram.svg/800px-Carbon_dioxide_pressure-temperature_phase_diagram.svg.png

Are you still going to pretend that the science of thermodynamics does not work as soon as CO2 is added to the equation?

 

The number of silly statements in your posts is starting to rub on me. 

> You claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas 🤣🤡

> You claim that sCO2 is a gas 🤣🤡

> You believe that earth is black body that can be described by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, while ignoring the athmosphere 🤣🤡

what a waste of time this discussion was.