Natural CO2 emissions versus human created

[Old Rocks]

One can tell the depths of ignorance or dishonesty in a poster when they start the yap-yap about how miniscule man's CO2 emissions are compared to natures. Of course, they just happen to fail to mention that nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. At least for the present.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

Humans are raising CO2 levels 2
When you look through the many arguments from
global warming ‘skeptics’, a pattern emerges. They
tend to focus on small pieces of the puzzle while
neglecting the bigger picture. A good example of this
is the argument that human carbon dioxide (CO2 )
emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions.
The argument goes like this. Each year, we send over
20 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Natural
emissions come from plants breathing out CO2 and
outgassing from the ocean. Natural emissions add
up to 776 billion tonnes per year. Without a full
understanding of the carbon cycle, our emissions
seem tiny when compared to nature’s contribution.

CO2 and huge amounts of
CO2 dissolve into the
ocean. Nature absorbs 788
billion tonnes every year.
Natural absorptions roughly
balance natural emissions.
What we do is upset the
balance. While some of our
CO2 is being absorbed by
the ocean and land plants, around half of our CO2
emissions remain in the air.

Edited-CO2

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One can tell the depths of ignorance or dishonesty in a poster when they start the yap-yap about how miniscule man's CO2 emissions are compared to natures. Of course, they just happen to fail to mention that nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. At least for the present.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

Humans are raising CO levels 2
When you look through the many arguments from
global warming ‘skeptics’, a pattern emerges. They
tend to focus on small pieces of the puzzle while
neglecting the bigger picture. A good example of this
is the argument that human carbon dioxide (CO )
emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions.
The argument goes like this. Each year, we send over
20 billion tonnes of CO into the atmosphere. Natural
emissions come from plants breathing out CO and
outgassing from the ocean. Natural emissions add
up to 776 billion tonnes per year. Without a full
understanding of the carbon cycle, our emissions
seem tiny when compared to nature’s contribution.

CO and huge amounts of
CO dissolve into the
ocean. Nature absorbs 788
billion tonnes every year.
Natural absorptions roughly
balance natural emissions.
What we do is upset the
balance. While some of our
CO is being absorbed by
the ocean and land plants, around half of our CO
emissions remain in the air.

CO is carbon monoxide, right?

Don't catalytic converters convert CO to CO2?

 

[Intense]

One can tell the depths of ignorance or dishonesty in a poster when they start the yap-yap about how miniscule man's CO2 emissions are compared to natures. Of course, they just happen to fail to mention that nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. At least for the present.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

Humans are raising CO levels 2
When you look through the many arguments from
global warming ‘skeptics’, a pattern emerges. They
tend to focus on small pieces of the puzzle while
neglecting the bigger picture. A good example of this
is the argument that human carbon dioxide (CO )
emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions.
The argument goes like this. Each year, we send over
20 billion tonnes of CO into the atmosphere. Natural
emissions come from plants breathing out CO and
outgassing from the ocean. Natural emissions add
up to 776 billion tonnes per year. Without a full
understanding of the carbon cycle, our emissions
seem tiny when compared to nature’s contribution.

CO and huge amounts of
CO dissolve into the
ocean. Nature absorbs 788
billion tonnes every year.
Natural absorptions roughly
balance natural emissions.
What we do is upset the
balance. While some of our
CO is being absorbed by
the ocean and land plants, around half of our CO
emissions remain in the air.

Why are you talking about Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide as if it is the same thing?????

Please clarify?????

 

[Big Fitz]

I wonder how much CO a forest fire or volcano gives off? huh.

 

[Intense]

I wonder how much CO a forest fire or volcano gives off? huh.

Hot fires burn pretty clean. Wet fires, slow burns, oxygen starved, will throw off CO.

 

[Big Fitz]

True... but no burn is perfect. All emit some level of CO.

 

[Intense]

CO2
As for other complete combustion processes, nearly all of the carbon content in the waste is emitted as CO2 to the atmosphere. MSW contains approximately the same mass fraction of carbon as CO2 itself (27%), so incineration of 1 ton of MSW produces approximately 1 ton of CO2.

If the waste was landfilled, 1 ton of MSW would produce approximately 62 cubic metres (2,200 cu ft) methane via the anaerobic decomposition of the biodegradable part of the waste. This much methane has more than twice the global warming potential than the 1 ton of CO2, which would have been produced by incineration. In some countries, large amounts of landfill gas are collected, but still the global warming potential of the landfill gas emitted to atmosphere in the US in 1999 was approximately 32 % higher than the amount of CO2 that would have been emitted by incineration.[16]

In addition, nearly all biodegradable waste has biological origin. This material has been formed by plants using atmospheric CO2 typically within the last growing season. If these plants are regrown the CO2 emitted from their combustion will be taken out from the atmosphere once more.

Such considerations are the main reason why several countries administrate incineration of the biodegradable part of waste as renewable energy.[17] The rest – mainly plastics and other oil and gas derived products – is generally treated as non-renewables.

Different results for the CO2 footprint of incineration can be reached with different assumptions. Local conditions (such as limited local district heating demand, no fossil fuel generated electricity to replace or high levels of aluminum in the waste stream) can decrease the CO2 benefits of incineration. The methodology and other assumptions may also influence the results significantly. For example the methane emissions from landfills occurring at a later date may be neglected or given less weight, or biodegradable waste may not be considered CO2 neutral. A study by Eunomia Research and Consulting in 2008 on potential waste treatment technologies in London demonstrated that by applying several of these (according to the authors) unusual assumptions the average existing incineration plants performed poorly for CO2 balance compared to the theoretical potential of other emerging waste treatment technologies.[18]

[edit] Other emissions
Other gaseous emissions in the flue gas from incinerator furnaces include sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric acid, heavy metals and fine particles.

The steam content in the flue may produce visible fume from the stack, which can be perceived as a visual pollution. It may be avoided by decreasing the steam content by flue gas condensation and reheating, or by increasing the flue gas exit temperature well above its dew point. Flue gas condensation allows the latent heat of vaporization of the water to be recovered, subsequently increasing the thermal efficiency of the plant.

[edit] Flue gas cleaning
The quantity of pollutants in the flue gas from incineration plants is reduced by several processes.

Particulate is collected by particle filtration, most often electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and/or baghouse filters. The latter are generally very efficient for collecting fine particles. In an investigation by the Ministry of the Environment of Denmark in 2006, the average particulate emissions per energy content of incinerated waste from 16 Danish incinerators were below 2.02 g/GJ (grams per energy content of the incinerated waste). Detailed measurements of fine particles with sizes below 2.5 micrometres (PM2.5) were performed on three of the incinerators: One incinerator equipped with an ESP for particle filtration emitted 5.3 g/GJ fine particles, while two incinerators equipped with baghouse filters emitted 0.002 and 0.013 g/GJ PM2.5. For ultra fine particles (PM1.0), the numbers were 4.889 g/GJ PM1.0 from the ESP plant, while emissions of 0.000 and 0.008 g/GJ PM1.0 were measured from the plants equipped with baghouse filters.[19][20]

Acid gas scrubbers are used to remove hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, hydrofluoric acid, mercury, lead and other heavy metals. Basic scrubbers remove sulfur dioxide, forming gypsum by reaction with lime.[21]

Waste water from scrubbers must subsequently pass through a waste water treatment plant.

Sulfur dioxide may also be removed by dry desulfurisation by injection limestone slurry into the flue gas before the particle filtration.

NOx is either reduced by catalytic reduction with ammonia in a catalytic converter (selective catalytic reduction, SCR) or by a high temperature reaction with ammonia in the furnace (selective non-catalytic reduction, SNCR). Urea may be substituted for ammonia as the reducing reagent but must be supplied earlier in the process so that it can hydrolyze into ammonia. Substitution of urea can reduce costs and potential hazards associated with storage of anhydrous ammonia.

Heavy metals are often adsorbed on injected active carbon powder, which is collected by the particle filtration.
Incineration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Intense]

True... but no burn is perfect. All emit some level of CO.

Consider your home appliances, if you have a gas Natural Gas pr Propane Stove or Dryer. If your adjustments (gas/air ratio) are correct, you should have no yellow in the flames. yellow in the flames or soot on the pots would indicate a dirty burn with high CO output. That is a serious health risk, in a heater with poor ventilation, odorless and deadly. Pilot's burn yellow, but it is minimal, though stove pilots can easily trigger CO Detectors, if they are positioned too close. Just a thought. CO accumulates in the blood and stays there a long while.

 

[Big Fitz]

True... but no burn is perfect. All emit some level of CO.

Consider your home appliances, if you have a gas Natural Gas pr Propane Stove or Dryer. If your adjustments (gas/air ratio) are correct, you should have no yellow in the flames. yellow in the flames or soot on the pots would indicate a dirty burn with high CO output. That is a serious health risk, in a heater with poor ventilation, odorless and deadly. Pilot's burn yellow, but it is minimal, though stove pilots can easily trigger CO Detectors, if they are positioned too close. Just a thought. CO accumulates in the blood and stays there a long while.

True, but wood and natural gas are two different things. That's all I'm saying.

 

[liebuster]

One can tell the depths of ignorance or dishonesty in a poster when they start the yap-yap about how miniscule man's CO2 emissions are compared to natures. Of course, they just happen to fail to mention that nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. At least for the present.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

Humans are raising CO2 levels 2
When you look through the many arguments from
global warming ‘skeptics’, a pattern emerges. They
tend to focus on small pieces of the puzzle while
neglecting the bigger picture. A good example of this
is the argument that human carbon dioxide (CO2 )
emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions.
The argument goes like this. Each year, we send over
20 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Natural
emissions come from plants breathing out CO2 and
outgassing from the ocean. Natural emissions add
up to 776 billion tonnes per year. Without a full
understanding of the carbon cycle, our emissions
seem tiny when compared to nature’s contribution.

CO2 and huge amounts of
CO2 dissolve into the
ocean. Nature absorbs 788
billion tonnes every year.
Natural absorptions roughly
balance natural emissions.
What we do is upset the
balance. While some of our
CO2 is being absorbed by
the ocean and land plants, around half of our CO2
emissions remain in the air.

You dismissed yourself when you post the bolded above


Please tell me how .032% CO2 already in the air is going to affect the temp of the earth.

I think there are better "green house" gases in this world like water vapor

 

[Si modo]

One can tell the depths of ignorance or dishonesty in a poster when they start the yap-yap about how miniscule man's CO2 emissions are compared to natures. Of course, they just happen to fail to mention that nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. At least for the present.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

Humans are raising CO levels 2
When you look through the many arguments from
global warming ‘skeptics’, a pattern emerges. They
tend to focus on small pieces of the puzzle while
neglecting the bigger picture. A good example of this
is the argument that human carbon dioxide (CO )
emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions.
The argument goes like this. Each year, we send over
20 billion tonnes of CO into the atmosphere. Natural
emissions come from plants breathing out CO and
outgassing from the ocean. Natural emissions add
up to 776 billion tonnes per year. Without a full
understanding of the carbon cycle, our emissions
seem tiny when compared to nature’s contribution.

CO and huge amounts of
CO dissolve into the
ocean. Nature absorbs 788
billion tonnes every year.
Natural absorptions roughly
balance natural emissions.
What we do is upset the
balance. While some of our
CO is being absorbed by
the ocean and land plants, around half of our CO
emissions remain in the air.

You don't even know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide? Plants breathe out carbon monoxide?

Stop playing at science. You soil it with your political agenda.

 

[elvis]

One can tell the depths of ignorance or dishonesty in a poster when they start the yap-yap about how miniscule man's CO2 emissions are compared to natures. Of course, they just happen to fail to mention that nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. At least for the present.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

Humans are raising CO levels 2
When you look through the many arguments from
global warming ‘skeptics’, a pattern emerges. They
tend to focus on small pieces of the puzzle while
neglecting the bigger picture. A good example of this
is the argument that human carbon dioxide (CO )
emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions.
The argument goes like this. Each year, we send over
20 billion tonnes of CO into the atmosphere. Natural
emissions come from plants breathing out CO and
outgassing from the ocean. Natural emissions add
up to 776 billion tonnes per year. Without a full
understanding of the carbon cycle, our emissions
seem tiny when compared to nature’s contribution.

CO and huge amounts of
CO dissolve into the
ocean. Nature absorbs 788
billion tonnes every year.
Natural absorptions roughly
balance natural emissions.
What we do is upset the
balance. While some of our
CO is being absorbed by
the ocean and land plants, around half of our CO
emissions remain in the air.

you don't know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, do you, dipshit?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One can tell the depths of ignorance or dishonesty in a poster when they start the yap-yap about how miniscule man's CO2 emissions are compared to natures. Of course, they just happen to fail to mention that nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. At least for the present.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

Humans are raising CO2 levels 2
When you look through the many arguments from
global warming ‘skeptics’, a pattern emerges. They
tend to focus on small pieces of the puzzle while
neglecting the bigger picture. A good example of this
is the argument that human carbon dioxide (CO2 )
emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions.
The argument goes like this. Each year, we send over
20 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Natural
emissions come from plants breathing out CO2 and
outgassing from the ocean. Natural emissions add
up to 776 billion tonnes per year. Without a full
understanding of the carbon cycle, our emissions
seem tiny when compared to nature’s contribution.

CO2 and huge amounts of
CO2 dissolve into the
ocean. Nature absorbs 788
billion tonnes every year.
Natural absorptions roughly
balance natural emissions.
What we do is upset the
balance. While some of our
CO2 is being absorbed by
the ocean and land plants, around half of our CO2
emissions remain in the air.

Funny.

the numbers I have seen indicate that the balance is not as delicate as you are implying. It seems that when the amount of CO2 increases, the absorption rate also increases. If your statement was true the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be increasing a lot faster than it is, because mankind has been pouring CO2 into the atmosphere for millennium, yet the amount has been relatively stable.

We are, however, reducing the ability of nature to absorb CO2 every year, and that is something we should be concerned about. Maybe if you understood science you would worry about the actual problems instead of the hysterical rantings of idiots like Al Gore.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One can tell the depths of ignorance or dishonesty in a poster when they start the yap-yap about how miniscule man's CO2 emissions are compared to natures. Of course, they just happen to fail to mention that nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. At least for the present.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

Humans are raising CO levels 2
When you look through the many arguments from
global warming ‘skeptics’, a pattern emerges. They
tend to focus on small pieces of the puzzle while
neglecting the bigger picture. A good example of this
is the argument that human carbon dioxide (CO )
emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions.
The argument goes like this. Each year, we send over
20 billion tonnes of CO into the atmosphere. Natural
emissions come from plants breathing out CO and
outgassing from the ocean. Natural emissions add
up to 776 billion tonnes per year. Without a full
understanding of the carbon cycle, our emissions
seem tiny when compared to nature’s contribution.

CO and huge amounts of
CO dissolve into the
ocean. Nature absorbs 788
billion tonnes every year.
Natural absorptions roughly
balance natural emissions.
What we do is upset the
balance. While some of our
CO is being absorbed by
the ocean and land plants, around half of our CO
emissions remain in the air.

Why are you talking about Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide as if it is the same thing?????

Please clarify?????

Its Old Rocks, what do you expect?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One can tell the depths of ignorance or dishonesty in a poster when they start the yap-yap about how miniscule man's CO2 emissions are compared to natures. Of course, they just happen to fail to mention that nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. At least for the present.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

Humans are raising CO2 levels 2
When you look through the many arguments from
global warming ‘skeptics’, a pattern emerges. They
tend to focus on small pieces of the puzzle while
neglecting the bigger picture. A good example of this
is the argument that human carbon dioxide (CO2 )
emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions.
The argument goes like this. Each year, we send over
20 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Natural
emissions come from plants breathing out CO2 and
outgassing from the ocean. Natural emissions add
up to 776 billion tonnes per year. Without a full
understanding of the carbon cycle, our emissions
seem tiny when compared to nature’s contribution.

CO2 and huge amounts of
CO2 dissolve into the
ocean. Nature absorbs 788
billion tonnes every year.
Natural absorptions roughly
balance natural emissions.
What we do is upset the
balance. While some of our
CO2 is being absorbed by
the ocean and land plants, around half of our CO2
emissions remain in the air.

You don't even know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide? Plants breathe out carbon monoxide?

Stop playing at science. You soil it with your political agenda.

Plants don't even breath out CO2, they breathe out O2.

 

[IanC]

If you guys had looked at the link you would have seen that the 2 in CO2 had been lost because of the font in the cut&paste.

mind you there is nothing to explain why they think plants give off CO2 rather than use it to make food.

overall the site is very simplistic, with appeals to authority and highly charged wording ("The rate of energy building up since 1970 is equivalent to 2.5 Hiroshima bombs
every second"). there is nothing new there but it is easy to see how people with no background in science or critical thinking could be swayed by the alarmist tone and casual dismissal of counter evidence.

 

[Old Rocks]

One can tell the depths of ignorance or dishonesty in a poster when they start the yap-yap about how miniscule man's CO2 emissions are compared to natures. Of course, they just happen to fail to mention that nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. At least for the present.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

Humans are raising CO levels 2
When you look through the many arguments from
global warming ‘skeptics’, a pattern emerges. They
tend to focus on small pieces of the puzzle while
neglecting the bigger picture. A good example of this
is the argument that human carbon dioxide (CO )
emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions.
The argument goes like this. Each year, we send over
20 billion tonnes of CO into the atmosphere. Natural
emissions come from plants breathing out CO and
outgassing from the ocean. Natural emissions add
up to 776 billion tonnes per year. Without a full
understanding of the carbon cycle, our emissions
seem tiny when compared to nature’s contribution.

CO and huge amounts of
CO dissolve into the
ocean. Nature absorbs 788
billion tonnes every year.
Natural absorptions roughly
balance natural emissions.
What we do is upset the
balance. While some of our
CO is being absorbed by
the ocean and land plants, around half of our CO
emissions remain in the air.

Why are you talking about Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide as if it is the same thing?????

Please clarify?????

If you go to the site, you will see that CO2 has the 2 in subscripts, and it failed to copy the subscripts.

 

[Old Rocks]

If you guys had looked at the link you would have seen that the 2 in CO2 had been lost because of the font in the cut&paste.

mind you there is nothing to explain why they think plants give off CO2 rather than use it to make food.

overall the site is very simplistic, with appeals to authority and highly charged wording ("The rate of energy building up since 1970 is equivalent to 2.5 Hiroshima bombs
every second"). there is nothing new there but it is easy to see how people with no background in science or critical thinking could be swayed by the alarmist tone and casual dismissal of counter evidence.

LOL. And then there is the people who created the site;

• Dr. John Abraham, Associate Professor of
Engineering, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul,
Minnesota
• Paul Beckwith, Laboratory for paleoclimatology and
climatology, Department of Geography, University
of Ottawa, Canada
• Prof. Andrew Dessler, Department of Atmospheric
Science, Texas A&M University
• Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director, Global
Change Institute, University of Queensland
• Prof. David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences,
University of Melbourne
• Prof. Scott Mandia, Physical Sciences, Suffolk
County Community College
• Dana Nuccitelli - Environmental Scientist, Tetra
Tech, Inc.
• James Prall, The Edward S. Rogers Sr. Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University
of Toronto
• Dr. John Price, www.grandkidzfuture.com
• Corinne Le Quéré, Professor of Environmental
Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK
• Prof. Peter Reich, Sr. Chair in Forest Ecology and
Tree Physiology, University of Minnesota
• Prof. Riccardo Reitano, Department of Physics and
Astronomy, University of Catania, Italy
• Prof. Christian Shorey, Geology and Geologic
Engineering, Colorado School of Mines
• Suffolk County Community College MET101
students
• Glenn Tamblyn, B Eng (Mech), Melbourne
University, Australia
• Dr. André Viau, Laboratory for paleoclimatology and
climatology, Department of Geography, University
of Ottawa, Canada
• Dr. Haydn Washington, Environmental Scientist
• Robert Way, Department of Geography, Memorial
University of Newfoundland, Canada
• Dr. Ray Weymann, Director Emeritus and Staff
Member Emeritus, Carnegie Observatories,
Pasadena, California; Member, National Academy
of Sciences
• James Wight
• Bärbel Winkler, Germany

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

 

[Si modo]

If you guys had looked at the link you would have seen that the 2 in CO2 had been lost because of the font in the cut&paste.

mind you there is nothing to explain why they think plants give off CO2 rather than use it to make food.

overall the site is very simplistic, with appeals to authority and highly charged wording ("The rate of energy building up since 1970 is equivalent to 2.5 Hiroshima bombs
every second"). there is nothing new there but it is easy to see how people with no background in science or critical thinking could be swayed by the alarmist tone and casual dismissal of counter evidence.

I confess. I went to the link and did notice that the link had it right.

However, I dismissed the link almost immediately. It is wrought with rhetoric and peppered with inaccurate science.

 

[Old Rocks]

One can tell the depths of ignorance or dishonesty in a poster when they start the yap-yap about how miniscule man's CO2 emissions are compared to natures. Of course, they just happen to fail to mention that nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. At least for the present.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

Humans are raising CO levels 2
When you look through the many arguments from
global warming ‘skeptics’, a pattern emerges. They
tend to focus on small pieces of the puzzle while
neglecting the bigger picture. A good example of this
is the argument that human carbon dioxide (CO )
emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions.
The argument goes like this. Each year, we send over
20 billion tonnes of CO into the atmosphere. Natural
emissions come from plants breathing out CO and
outgassing from the ocean. Natural emissions add
up to 776 billion tonnes per year. Without a full
understanding of the carbon cycle, our emissions
seem tiny when compared to nature’s contribution.

CO and huge amounts of
CO dissolve into the
ocean. Nature absorbs 788
billion tonnes every year.
Natural absorptions roughly
balance natural emissions.
What we do is upset the
balance. While some of our
CO is being absorbed by
the ocean and land plants, around half of our CO
emissions remain in the air.

You don't even know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide? Plants breathe out carbon monoxide?

Stop playing at science. You soil it with your political agenda.

Now we have another dumbass chiming in without even looking at the site. Ol' Si, another person posing at being a scientist.