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

Limiting Global: How CO2?




by MB » 27/06/13, 11:28

Before the industrial revolution, there was about 275 ppm CO2 in the air. Today we are at 400 ppm. The official goal is not to exceed 450 ppm. Some would prefer to fall back to 350 ppm (in particular the site 350.org). And those who want to be sure of failing do not see any longevity above the pre-industrial 275 ppm.

Has anyone ever tried to use these numbers to play lotto? It is a random number generator that is worth another.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 27/06/13, 11:37

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!

It would be necessary to speak in ppm CO2 equivalent by relating the radiative forcing of the other gases to that of CO2 and thus to obtain a global figure!

For example, methane is 21 times more "powerful" than CO2 ... yet at the moment there are immense quantities escaping from permafrost / perigel !! (it was 29 ° C in Murmansk a few weeks ago !!!)

So those who rely solely on the CO2 to solve the problem are, sorry Mathieu, ... sweet dreamers ...
0 x
User avatar
RV-P
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 158
Registration: 27/09/12, 13:07
Location: Sainte-Marie (Reunion Island)
x 10




by RV-P » 07/07/13, 13:28

MB wrote:Before the industrial revolution, there was about 275 ppm CO2 in the air. Today we are at 400 ppm.

- And There were 10 times more during a ice Age, MB ("Le secret des oiseaux" broadcast on Sunday July 7 on ARTE!) !!!
- If you want to listen to the "sirens" of the IPCC and politicians, you had better "cover your ears"!
- According to you, in the midst of "global warming", the rotten and cold climate of Europe this winter and spring, what inspires you?!? ...
0 x
It's easier to just make things complicated than complicate simple things!
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 07/07/13, 15:38

RV-P wrote:- And There were 10 times more during a ice Age, MB ("Le secret des oiseaux" broadcast on Sunday July 7 on ARTE!) !!!
- If you want to listen to the "sirens" of the IPCC and politicians, you had better "cover your ears"!
- According to you, in the midst of "global warming", the rotten and cold climate of Europe this winter and spring, what inspires you?!? ...


Just two or three elements of reflection:

1) CO² level

a) CO² levels and "ice ages", etc., you can make them say whatever you want.

But we should not confuse "glaciations" (a few thousand / tens of thousands of years) and what we observe at the level of a generation!

b) We must not ignore other causes that have changed the climate at different times: volcanic eruptions, meteorites, which may have "darkened" the sky for a few years ...

c) It should not be forgotten that geologically, the continents are drifting ...

So yes, it's definitely more complicated than the IPCC equations ...

From there to spit on these "models", very imperfect, I leave the fools to take the plunge.

For me, still a peasant at heart, "it can only be good to put back into the atmosphere in the space of a generation, the CO² corresponding to the storage of millions of years of biomass - oil, gas. , coal: the carboniferous, it has been suspiciously 60 million years old.

2) ARTE

When you know a subject, it is rare that ARTE's broadcasts, which want to "shake" the coconut palm (and why not?) Are really correct, or nuanced, or balanced. They are often dependent (again, why not?), Sometimes sensationalist (you still have to make an audience) ...

So quote ARTE, for me, blah!

3) The third point is interesting!

While it was "cold" with us, it was exceptionally hot in Lapland, in Siberia.

It is obvious that "global warming" is on a planetary scale, therefore at the level of "average temperatures" which do not mean much not felt.

And this global warming is accompanied, in the "temperate" zones (here, where cold polar air masses clash with hot tropical air masses), by greater agitation. And who says agitation, sometimes says it is one who "wins more" (heatwave), sometimes the other (exceptionally cold spring - in fact, exceptionally little sunshine).

So this "cold", for me, is the local consequence - on our small scale of franchouillards - of global warming on a global scale!

But I could be wrong. Not being IPCC.
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 07/07/13, 15:45

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!

It would be necessary to speak in ppm CO2 equivalent by relating the radiative forcing of the other gases to that of CO2 and thus to obtain a global figure!

For example, methane is 21 times more "powerful" than CO2 ... yet at the moment there are immense quantities escaping from permafrost / perigel !! (it was 29 ° C in Murmansk a few weeks ago !!!)

So those who rely solely on the CO2 to solve the problem are, sorry Mathieu, ... sweet dreamers ...


On the other hand, yes. Talking about CO² alone is not enough.

There are the other greenhouse gases. And particles ... ETc ...

Hence the implication of ..... ruminants in the Kyoto protocol and the poor "balance sheet" of New Zealand for example (ruminants, which have the remarkable ability to digest cellulose - straw part of plants - have the misfortune of belching ... methane because their stomach is neither more nor less than a "biomethaniser" on foot!)
0 x
User avatar
RV-P
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 158
Registration: 27/09/12, 13:07
Location: Sainte-Marie (Reunion Island)
x 10




by RV-P » 07/07/13, 18:48

Did67 wrote:Hence the implication of ..... ruminants in the Kyoto protocol and the poor "balance sheet" of New Zealand for example (ruminants, which have the remarkable ability to digest cellulose - straw part of plants - have the misfortune of belching ... methane because their stomach is neither more nor less than a "biomethaniser" on foot!)

- And to think that in the "production" of CO2, there are some who have almost "zapped" them! By the time we also count our breathing and our farts, "there are no kilometers" ... : Mrgreen:
- In any case, for ruminants, if we recovered methane produced by these animals to heat our homes!? ... It was done not so long ago, in our French countryside ... So, we burn methane (which is a greenhouse gas much more efficient than CO2!) and produces ... a little CO2 and water!
- But I realize that there are some who do it, breeders who put in the tank the methane produced by the biomass of their animals and who burn it to cook or to heat! ... And this despite French laws, such as those that adapt their diesel engine to roll with cooking oil!
- In France, we have (almost) no oil, but we have "System D"!
0 x
It's easier to just make things complicated than complicate simple things!
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 08/07/13, 11:10

1) Formerly one warmed oneself with animals, living above the barn. Not by recovering methane. As far as I know, the methane of rumination has always escaped.

2) Yes, methanization of waste, including animal dung (manure, slurry), that exists.

I regularly report here on such a project: https://www.econologie.com/forums/post259731.html#259731

But it is still not a question of valorizing the methane resulting from the rumination. But the energy potential of organic waste, which is the non-assimilated part of the plants ingested by the animal. And which, in anaerobic condition, can turn into methane.

Note that the CO² released in the cogeneration unit does not increase the CO² balance because it was absorbed by the plants during their growth. It "goes around in circles" (unlike CO² from fossil fuels).

Regulations are admittedly complicated. But nothing prohibits these anaerobic digestion stations. On the contrary, they benefit from a "subsidized" electricity feed-in tariff.

This is to restore some truth.
0 x
User avatar
RV-P
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 158
Registration: 27/09/12, 13:07
Location: Sainte-Marie (Reunion Island)
x 10




by RV-P » 08/07/13, 16:42

Did67 wrote:Note that the CO² that is released in the cogeneration unit does not increase the CO² balance because it was absorbed by the plants during their growth. It "goes around in circles" (unlike CO² from fossil fuels).

- Fossil fuels did exist in a "remote" period on Earth for some time as plants and animals, right !? ... They then found themselves buried under tons of sediment and were charred. 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!
- If man introduced climate change by burning fossil fuels, there was another: In 40 days, Earth's climate has gone from subtropical (everywhere, even to the poles) to polar, temperate and tropical!
- We lack elements to appreciate this time if we do not appeal to the Creator who recorded everything and recorded everything.
- If there were CO2 in the atmosphere in sufficient quantities, why are they sold in garden centers to improve plant growth?
- It is not only the combustion of fossil fuels that produces CO2: the manufacture of lime produces "tons" of it (it is stored in fire extinguishers and cartridges to make lemonade and sodas), as well than volcanic eruptions. And in front of that, our "production" is very low ...
0 x
It's easier to just make things complicated than complicate simple things!
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 08/07/13, 20:12

RV-P, I wonder if you read the post from Did67, who was very explicit about CO2 sequestration in the Carboniferous era?
For the rest, sorry, your arguments leave me dreamy ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 08/07/13, 22:49

when you cook limestone to make lime, it releases CO2 ... but when you use lime, it absorbs CO2 to become limestone, and the result is zero

the only real CO2 emission is from the fuel that was used to cook the lime

with a furnace that has a good efficiency the CO2 of the fuel is at least 10 times lower than the CO2 of the limestone
0 x

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

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 153 guests