Limiting Global: How CO2?

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
MB
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 16
Registration: 27/06/13, 10:14




by MB » 09/07/13, 11:32

Christophe wrote:It's not even that these figures are "random", it's that just talking about ppm CO2 is completely insufficient because there are other greenhouse gases!
But if we include all the gases, we have the same question: what is the maximum quantity?
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 09/07/13, 19:23

Yes. I agree with you. It is therefore "neutral" in CO², over a fairly short cycle, of a few days / month (lime intake).

Aside from the question of cooking limestone to make lime (1ère step).

NB / if it is done with a fossil fuel, it will reject additional CO²; if it is biomass, it will also be neutral, on a longer cycle

NB2: Idem, basically, for cement (most of which is also derived from limestone, and which is also decarbonated during cooking).

To be precise, we should talk about the duration of the cycles. Even fossil fuels (oil, coal) have been biomass, produced a long time ago, from photosynthesis and CO².

The problem is not the CO² itself! This is the tremendous speed at which we change the data (CO² content in the air): the stored CO², sequestered for tens of millions of years (order of magnitude) has just been released roughly in two generations (50 years). This is what "explosive" (as a kg of very pure uranium can make a bomb if it burns - fart! - in a fraction of a millionth of a second or electricity if it is cracked calmly, diluted, in a reactor) ...

I think that we focus too much on CO² emissions and not enough on the explosive violence of the cycle time!
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 09/07/13, 22:20

counting the emissions of CO2 is complicated considering the multiple source: it is easier to count the carbon out of the basement!

lime is rather a way to use the heat that we do not know what to do in summer!

lime is easy to store! it could be lime with a solar oven in summer to avoid doing it with fuel in winter

there was a subject about a solar oven burkinafaso ... I almost went, it could not be done, but I have advanced a lot in the design of an original solar oven, good to achieve in France
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 09/07/13, 22:34

cement is another matter: the setting of the cement is not a carbonation, so it does not absorb the CO2 due to its manufacture
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 10/07/13, 19:36

Ah ??? I did not know.

I knew that it was manufactured by heating limestone (among other) so decarbonation. It does not take over the CO² ???
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 10/07/13, 20:24

I am not able to explain it in detail, but the cement hardened even if it is protected from the air or under water: so there is no need for CO2

then we talk about a carbonation of concrete as a defect: it only carbonates a few cm deep: it is not necessary that the carbonated layer reaches the iron of the reinforced concrete otherwise it rust
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 10/07/13, 21:47

To answer this question is probably impossible precisely. I do not think it is wise either, because it has in my eyes the serious disadvantage of missing out on the real question.

It indeed suggests that human activities have the main fault of emitting CO2, which itself could harm them, so that if this annoying feedback did not exist, "all would be for the best in the best of worlds"*.

Yet it is the excess of energy available today that is above all the means (and thus largely the cause) of the destruction of nature.
Therefore, the CO2 is only an additional part of the problem, since it arises only because the choice of destruction is beforehand.


*In "Candid" by Voltaire.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 12/07/13, 12:28

RV-P wrote:Oil doesn't just come from plants. It also comes from animals that died under the Flood. Evidence of this Flood is beginning to appear in islands in the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Siberia that are believed to consist only of the bones of dead animals. The suddenness of this "climate change" on the occasion of the Flood is manifested at this very moment by the discovery of the corpses of whole baby mammoths in Siberia, with their flesh and hair! .....


BIG DOES NOT MATTER WHAT!
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 12/07/13, 12:38

RV-P wrote: ..... in 40 days, the climate of the Earth has gone from subtropical (everywhere, even to the poles) to polar, temperate and tropical .....


Ah, is your hairdresser who said that?
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 12/07/13, 12:40

Ahmed wrote:...
For the rest, sorry, your arguments leave me dreamy ...


You are too polite Ahmed.

RV-P is an idiot.
0 x

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 75 guests