CDZ What do the "Warmers" really want?

[Toronado3800]

I take it you are against my idea of TRYING to hold 1950's levels by using such draconian restrictions that KIA can ONLY get 250 HP out of your new automobile?

Or is the picture being sarcastic?

I'm against central planning of any kind. That power always -yes ALWAYS- gets abused.

Really that is what you believe? You have a quote from Mr. Big Government there who wants to use the army I guess to deport half the population. That guy may have been a libertarian at one point but he has swung to big government / no human rights or democracy if he believes that quote.

So if you believe the government oughta be exporting people based on their political beliefs I don't think regulating carbon emissions is a big deal.

Now if you don't care who I vote for, what I do all night long in my yard, how loud my car or music is, if I burn dirty coal for heat, who I marry and if I have an abortion or not then not wanting the govenment regulating your power plant or automobile is consistent.

 

[Toronado3800]

My apologizes AnCap'n_Murica if you have that picture up in jest or protest of the statement or if that was too personal. I don't always get sarcasm well online.

 

[jwoodie]

It appears that the global catastrophists have latched onto increased CO2 levels as about the only measurable statistic they can cite to support "Climate Change." No one knows if this portends good or bad effects, especially since the Earth has experienced dramatic decreases in CO2 in the past which could induce mass famines.

It is not unreasonable to attribute some of the current CO2 levels to the widespread burning of fossil fuels. However, this will become a diminishing cause as the industrial revolution matures and more efficient forms of energy production are developed.

I think the "warmers" know this and are hurrying to impose their statist political agendas before it becomes a reality. Why else would they oppose nuclear power generation as a currently available alternative to fossil fuels?

 

[320 Years of History]

Ok, so we are basically talking about going back to pre-industrial levels right?

What will that take? What would our world look like?

Borneo forestation in modern times



One finds a more comprehensive answer to your questions here: Dark ages and dark areas: global deforestation in the deep past.

 

[Holos]

Could anyone inform me of what is going along with the measurement of CO2 (carbon dioxide) PPM (parts per million)?

It doesn't make sense to me. Seems like there are chemical units missing. Parts of CO2 per million of what?

I suppose the atmosphere isn't and can't be a continued constant of mixed molecules either, since single organisms and organic groups contribute progressively by their own developing standards.

I assume the information is widely available, since there have been so much attention to the problem, but the relay is apparently incomplete when reaching my position.

 

[Toronado3800]

Could anyone inform me of what is going along with the measurement of CO2 (carbon dioxide) PPM (parts per million)?

It doesn't make sense to me. Seems like there are chemical units missing. Parts of CO2 per million of what?

I suppose the atmosphere isn't and can't be a continued constant of mixed molecules either, since single organisms and organic groups contribute progressively by their own developing standards.

I assume the information is widely available, since there have been so much attention to the problem, but the relay is apparently incomplete when reaching my position.

I have always assumed it is a percentage reading of what you find in a "jar of air"

 

[JoeMoma]

Could anyone inform me of what is going along with the measurement of CO2 (carbon dioxide) PPM (parts per million)?

It doesn't make sense to me. Seems like there are chemical units missing. Parts of CO2 per million of what?

I suppose the atmosphere isn't and can't be a continued constant of mixed molecules either, since single organisms and organic groups contribute progressively by their own developing standards.

I assume the information is widely available, since there have been so much attention to the problem, but the relay is apparently incomplete when reaching my position.

I have always assumed it is a percentage reading of what you find in a "jar of air"

Most of that jar of air is oxygen and nitrogen. Carbon dioxide is a trace compound in comparison.

 

[320 Years of History]

Could anyone inform me of what is going along with the measurement of CO2 (carbon dioxide) PPM (parts per million)?

It doesn't make sense to me. Seems like there are chemical units missing. Parts of CO2 per million of what?

I suppose the atmosphere isn't and can't be a continued constant of mixed molecules either, since single organisms and organic groups contribute progressively by their own developing standards.

I assume the information is widely available, since there have been so much attention to the problem, but the relay is apparently incomplete when reaching my position.

Parts-per notation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does ppm or ppb mean?

 

[jwoodie]

Ok, so we are basically talking about going back to pre-industrial levels right?

What will that take? What would our world look like?

Borneo forestation in modern times



One finds a more comprehensive answer to your questions here: Dark ages and dark areas: global deforestation in the deep past.

Deforestation may be a bigger contributor to increasing CO2 levels than man-made pollutants. Inversely, many researchers believe that reforestation of Native American planting grounds during European colonization was a main driver of the Little Ice Age (1550-1750).

 

[Holos]

Could anyone inform me of what is going along with the measurement of CO2 (carbon dioxide) PPM (parts per million)?

It doesn't make sense to me. Seems like there are chemical units missing. Parts of CO2 per million of what?

I suppose the atmosphere isn't and can't be a continued constant of mixed molecules either, since single organisms and organic groups contribute progressively by their own developing standards.

I assume the information is widely available, since there have been so much attention to the problem, but the relay is apparently incomplete when reaching my position.

Parts-per notation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does ppm or ppb mean?

Those links still don't answer the question.

If it is a comparison between concentrations, either current, past or future goal concentrations, those comparable concentrations should be made immediately evident.

Take the West Virginia University website as a reference for example.

Most fundamentally, it simply states a ppm is a conversion within the same unit system. One part of a million using the same measure.

The problem then with the CO2 in the atmosphere still remains, since although the same measure (liters for example) is being used to distinguish CO2 it is only CO2 which is being compared against itself.

If that approach would be complete and deliberate it would be partial and inaccurate science, and would then have to be categorized as short-sighted uneducated manipulation. The thought process of the alleged flawed scientists would have to be something like this: "in the place where I live there isn't as much air pollution (CO2) as many neighboring zones, so let us proceed in the attempt to make those areas with inappropriately high concentrations of CO2 as our cleaner spaces are, where the same pollution rate still hasn't affected us in our daily life in the same way as theirs, consequently not only assisting other communities in their development but also ensuring our own safe and comfortable future".

The frame of mind described above not only articulates scientific procedure absently, but also is a spawn of neglected arts and humanities.

The WVU has two examples that can be used in making the problem here presented clearer. Ink in water and salt on potatoes. The ppm in those examples is a comparison between two very distinct substances (ink and water, salt and potatoes), and what actually allows those to be compared is how they are capable of being measured; ink and water are liquid, so they can be measured through liters; salt and potatoes are solid, so they can be measured in grams.

Now, in this atmospheric CO2 problem here we only have half of the unit (measuring) balance needed for evaluation. Another substance of the same aspect as CO2 (gas) makes itself necessary, and especially a singular one, so that "ppm" (a single unit converter, according to WVU) can actually be used as primary comparing measurement or standard.

Joe Moma in a post above pointed to the possibility for two of those other substances being oxygen and nitrogen. However, oxygen and nitrogen aren't equivalent in aspect to CO2 (carbon dioxide). CO2 is a molecule, and oxygen and nitrogen are chemical elements.

The simplest compounds that can be made from oxygen and nitrogen occur by putting two of each element together (O2, N2, NO), thereon making molecules of oxygen, nitrogen and nitrogen oxide.

Then the question would be to choose which of those (and possibly all) would be appropriate for atmospheric comparison. I'm sure there are certain compounds that are specifically circulating in the atmosphere, I just don't know which.

200 ppm of CO2 by the sum of O2, N2, and NO standards?
For each million of shared O2, N2, and NO we have 200 of CO2?

With that information explicit the problem becomes simpler to analyze.

My questions next would be how stable (constant) are those concentrations by zone in which measurement has been approached, or how is it possible to calculate how stable and constant are the concentrations in the sum of all zones containing such concentrations, that is, a single global pattern for those concentrations? Not simply in reference to the pure compounds itself, but to how those compounds are modified through a variety of physical processes. (I think that the common physical process associated here, because of the "warming" factor, is the radiation from the sun, but I have not seen any educative information on the problem about physical processes initiated within the Earth itself, in contrast to the Earth as a mere reaction to solar heat).

I think I was informed at some point of some geological approaches for measuring the CO2 captured through centuries, but I cannot remember O2 and N2 also being addressed through the same method so that we could have a simple and mathematical analysis of the problem in reference to the past. Then would that geological method for measuring gas captured through centuries and millennia also be appropriate for measuring gas still circulating? If so, why?

Is the planet's atmosphere a closed molecular system in which a certain minimum and a certain maximum of specific molecule concentrations are necessarily bound to physical forces?

What are those maximums and minimums for each specific molecule according to regular modification of their chemical elements throughout standard and Earthly physical conditions?

I suppose molecules can't escape gravity through classical physics, but what happens then to the molecules that have been geologically trapped? If we are dealing with a closed system, how are those trapped molecules to return to the atmosphere in it's due cyclical time? What about molecules that are not trapped, but are temporarily used by varying individual organisms? How do they affect the molecules and their concentrations?

These questions are more so relevant because they will provide evidence that the scientific method used in the prior investigations is actually to be agreed with.

I guess the situation here becomes less so about temperature modification than about toxicity analysis, and the problem is still equally relevant, although the politics of it aren't anymore confrontational since temperature is of a personal preference for differing individuals (even in an evolutionary scale), but it is toxicity which presents itself as impartial and biologically intrusive.

 

[320 Years of History]

Could anyone inform me of what is going along with the measurement of CO2 (carbon dioxide) PPM (parts per million)?

It doesn't make sense to me. Seems like there are chemical units missing. Parts of CO2 per million of what?

I suppose the atmosphere isn't and can't be a continued constant of mixed molecules either, since single organisms and organic groups contribute progressively by their own developing standards.

I assume the information is widely available, since there have been so much attention to the problem, but the relay is apparently incomplete when reaching my position.

Parts-per notation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does ppm or ppb mean?

Those links still don't answer the question.

If it is a comparison between concentrations, either current, past or future goal concentrations, those comparable concentrations should be made immediately evident.

Take the West Virginia University website as a reference for example.

Most fundamentally, it simply states a ppm is a conversion within the same unit system. One part of a million using the same measure.

The problem then with the CO2 in the atmosphere still remains, since although the same measure (liters for example) is being used to distinguish CO2 it is only CO2 which is being compared against itself.

If that approach would be complete and deliberate it would be partial and inaccurate science, and would then have to be categorized as short-sighted uneducated manipulation. The thought process of the alleged flawed scientists would have to be something like this: "in the place where I live there isn't as much air pollution (CO2) as many neighboring zones, so let us proceed in the attempt to make those areas with inappropriately high concentrations of CO2 as our cleaner spaces are, where the same pollution rate still hasn't affected us in our daily life in the same way as theirs, consequently not only assisting other communities in their development but also ensuring our own safe and comfortable future".

The frame of mind described above not only articulates scientific procedure absently, but also is a spawn of neglected arts and humanities.

The WVU has two examples that can be used in making the problem here presented clearer. Ink in water and salt on potatoes. The ppm in those examples is a comparison between two very distinct substances (ink and water, salt and potatoes), and what actually allows those to be compared is how they are capable of being measured; ink and water are liquid, so they can be measured through liters; salt and potatoes are solid, so they can be measured in grams.

Now, in this atmospheric CO2 problem here we only have half of the unit (measuring) balance needed for evaluation. Another substance of the same aspect as CO2 (gas) makes itself necessary, and especially a singular one, so that "ppm" (a single unit converter, according to WVU) can actually be used as primary comparing measurement or standard.

Joe Moma in a post above pointed to the possibility for two of those other substances being oxygen and nitrogen. However, oxygen and nitrogen aren't equivalent in aspect to CO2 (carbon dioxide). CO2 is a molecule, and oxygen and nitrogen are chemical elements.

The simplest compounds that can be made from oxygen and nitrogen is by putting two of each together (O2, N2), thereon making molecules.

Then the question would be to choose which of those (and possibly both) would be chosen for comparison.

200 ppm of CO2 by O2 and N2 standards?
For each million of combined O2 and N2, we have 200 of CO2?

With that information explicit the problem becomes simpler to analyze.

My questions next would be how stable (constant) are those concentrations by zone in which measurement has been approached, or how is it possible to calculate how stable and constant are the concentrations in the sum of all zones containing such concentrations, that is, a single global pattern for those concentrations?

I think I was informed at some point of some geological approaches for measuring the CO2 captured through centuries, but I cannot remember O2 and N2 also being addressed through the same method so that we could have a simple and mathematical analysis of the problem in reference to the past. Then would that geological method for measuring gas captured through centuries and millennia also be appropriate for measuring gas still circulating? If so, why?

Is the planet's atmosphere a closed molecular system in which a certain minimum and a certain maximum of specific molecule concentrations are necessarily bound to physical forces?

What are those maximums and minimums for each specific molecule according to regular modification of their chemical elements throughout standard physical conditions?

I suppose molecules can't escape gravity through classical physics, but what happens then to the molecules that have been geologically trapped? If we are dealing with a closed system, how are those trapped molecules to return to the atmosphere in it's due cyclical time? What about molecules that are not trapped, but are temporarily used by varying individual organisms? How do they affect the molecules and their concentrations?

These questions are more so relevant because they will provide evidence that the scientific method used in the prior investigations is actually to be agreed with.

I guess the situation here becomes less so about temperature modification than about toxicity analysis, and the problem is still equally relevant, although the politics of it aren't anymore confrontational since temperature is of a personal preference for differing individuals (even in an evolutionary scale), but it is toxicity which presents itself as biologically intrusive.

??? Jesus H. Christ! What is all that prattling about? Don't answer; I don't really want to know. That's why I didn't read beyond the first sentence. You asked an objective question, and I gave you two links to the accurate and objective answer. It's not a debatable topic.

You asked what "PPM" means, "Parts of CO2 per million of what?" Parts per million units of whatever substance the CO2 being discussed is found in and measured/stated by, which given that the CO2 is stated in parts per million, the base measure is always liters/cubic meters (cubic kilometers, etc.) because "ppm" is a metric system measure. That was made perfectly clear in the very first paragraph of the WVU document.

Parts per million also can be expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/L). This measurement is the mass of a chemical or contaminate per unit volume of water. Seeing ppm or mg/L on a lab report means the same thing.​

For example:

• Water:
  • 32ppm of CO2 per million liters of water = 32mg of CO2 per liter of water.
  • For water, 1kg = 1L. One can convert kilograms to liters for other substances, but to do so, one must know the specific density of the substance because kilograms depict mass and liters depict volume.
• Oil
  • 32ppm of CO2 = 32mg of CO2 per liter of oil
• Hydrogen
  • 32ppm of CO2 = 32mg of CO2 per liter of hydrogen

Air is measured volumetrically just as is water. So is dirt, however, it and other solids are generally depicted volumetrically as cubic meters rather than as liters. (1m^3 = 1000L)

That's it. There's nothing more to it.

 

[Holos]

Could anyone inform me of what is going along with the measurement of CO2 (carbon dioxide) PPM (parts per million)?

It doesn't make sense to me. Seems like there are chemical units missing. Parts of CO2 per million of what?

I suppose the atmosphere isn't and can't be a continued constant of mixed molecules either, since single organisms and organic groups contribute progressively by their own developing standards.

I assume the information is widely available, since there have been so much attention to the problem, but the relay is apparently incomplete when reaching my position.

Parts-per notation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does ppm or ppb mean?

Those links still don't answer the question.

If it is a comparison between concentrations, either current, past or future goal concentrations, those comparable concentrations should be made immediately evident.

Take the West Virginia University website as a reference for example.

Most fundamentally, it simply states a ppm is a conversion within the same unit system. One part of a million using the same measure.

The problem then with the CO2 in the atmosphere still remains, since although the same measure (liters for example) is being used to distinguish CO2 it is only CO2 which is being compared against itself.

If that approach would be complete and deliberate it would be partial and inaccurate science, and would then have to be categorized as short-sighted uneducated manipulation. The thought process of the alleged flawed scientists would have to be something like this: "in the place where I live there isn't as much air pollution (CO2) as many neighboring zones, so let us proceed in the attempt to make those areas with inappropriately high concentrations of CO2 as our cleaner spaces are, where the same pollution rate still hasn't affected us in our daily life in the same way as theirs, consequently not only assisting other communities in their development but also ensuring our own safe and comfortable future".

The frame of mind described above not only articulates scientific procedure absently, but also is a spawn of neglected arts and humanities.

The WVU has two examples that can be used in making the problem here presented clearer. Ink in water and salt on potatoes. The ppm in those examples is a comparison between two very distinct substances (ink and water, salt and potatoes), and what actually allows those to be compared is how they are capable of being measured; ink and water are liquid, so they can be measured through liters; salt and potatoes are solid, so they can be measured in grams.

Now, in this atmospheric CO2 problem here we only have half of the unit (measuring) balance needed for evaluation. Another substance of the same aspect as CO2 (gas) makes itself necessary, and especially a singular one, so that "ppm" (a single unit converter, according to WVU) can actually be used as primary comparing measurement or standard.

Joe Moma in a post above pointed to the possibility for two of those other substances being oxygen and nitrogen. However, oxygen and nitrogen aren't equivalent in aspect to CO2 (carbon dioxide). CO2 is a molecule, and oxygen and nitrogen are chemical elements.

The simplest compounds that can be made from oxygen and nitrogen is by putting two of each together (O2, N2), thereon making molecules.

Then the question would be to choose which of those (and possibly both) would be chosen for comparison.

200 ppm of CO2 by O2 and N2 standards?
For each million of combined O2 and N2, we have 200 of CO2?

With that information explicit the problem becomes simpler to analyze.

My questions next would be how stable (constant) are those concentrations by zone in which measurement has been approached, or how is it possible to calculate how stable and constant are the concentrations in the sum of all zones containing such concentrations, that is, a single global pattern for those concentrations?

I think I was informed at some point of some geological approaches for measuring the CO2 captured through centuries, but I cannot remember O2 and N2 also being addressed through the same method so that we could have a simple and mathematical analysis of the problem in reference to the past. Then would that geological method for measuring gas captured through centuries and millennia also be appropriate for measuring gas still circulating? If so, why?

Is the planet's atmosphere a closed molecular system in which a certain minimum and a certain maximum of specific molecule concentrations are necessarily bound to physical forces?

What are those maximums and minimums for each specific molecule according to regular modification of their chemical elements throughout standard physical conditions?

I suppose molecules can't escape gravity through classical physics, but what happens then to the molecules that have been geologically trapped? If we are dealing with a closed system, how are those trapped molecules to return to the atmosphere in it's due cyclical time? What about molecules that are not trapped, but are temporarily used by varying individual organisms? How do they affect the molecules and their concentrations?

These questions are more so relevant because they will provide evidence that the scientific method used in the prior investigations is actually to be agreed with.

I guess the situation here becomes less so about temperature modification than about toxicity analysis, and the problem is still equally relevant, although the politics of it aren't anymore confrontational since temperature is of a personal preference for differing individuals (even in an evolutionary scale), but it is toxicity which presents itself as biologically intrusive.

??? Jesus H. Christ! What is all that prattling about? Don't answer; I don't really want to know. That's why I didn't read beyond the first sentence. You asked an objective question, and I gave you two links to the accurate and objective answer. It's not a debatable topic.

You asked what "PPM" means, "Parts of CO2 per million of what?" Parts per million units of whatever substance the CO2 being discussed is found in and measured/stated by, which given that the CO2 is stated in parts per million, the base measure is always liters/cubic meters (cubic kilometers, etc.) because "ppm" is a metric system measure. That was made perfectly clear in the very first paragraph of the WVU document.

Parts per million also can be expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/L). This measurement is the mass of a chemical or contaminate per unit volume of water. Seeing ppm or mg/L on a lab report means the same thing.​

For example:

• Water:
  • 32ppm of CO2 per million liters of water = 32mg of CO2 per liter of water.
  • For water, 1kg = 1L. One can convert kilograms to liters for other substances, but to do so, one must know the specific density of the substance because kilograms depict mass and liters depict volume.
• Oil
  • 32ppm of CO2 = 32mg of CO2 per liter of oil
• Hydrogen
  • 32ppm of CO2 = 32mg of CO2 per liter of hydrogen

Air is measured volumetrically just as is water. So is dirt, however, it and other solids are generally depicted volumetrically as cubic meters rather than as liters. (1m^3 = 1000L)

That's it. There's nothing more to it.

Except for your displaced statements that you did not read the whole previous post because it is "not a debatable topic", along with the altogether disassociate presentation in relation to the general OP topic and the CDZ form, what your post contains is exactly what my previous post contained, and what was, like you said, already obvious the moment you shared the link to WVU website.

I still find my previously posed questions relevant to the OP's topic, but maybe we are all coming from different scientific and educative backgrounds, which may be provoking our misunderstandings in promptly addressing each question and their possible contribution or digression to the topic's development according to each debating participant.

 

[320 Years of History]

I still find my previously posed questions relevant to the OP's topic

Relevant or not relevant. I answered the question you asked which was "Parts of CO2 per million of what?" The OP is about CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. That makes the "what" be air, thus X parts of C02 per million liters of air.

I didn't say that before because I thought surely you understood that part of the "climate change debate" has to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. Not CO2 stored in rocks. Not CO2 waiting to be exhaled from your lungs. Not CO2 stored in plants. Not CO2 that will make its way out of humans and other creatures' bodies as farts. Just the CO2 that's in the air is all the CO2 aspect of the climate change debate is about.

What else do you want it to be? What else do you think it might be?

 

[Holos]

I still find my previously posed questions relevant to the OP's topic

Relevant or not relevant. I answered the question you asked which was "Parts of CO2 per million of what?" The OP is about CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. That makes the "what" be air, thus X parts of C02 per million liters of air.

I didn't say that before because I thought surely you understood that part of the "climate change debate" has to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. Not CO2 stored in rocks. Not CO2 waiting to be exhaled from your lungs. Not CO2 stored in plants. Not CO2 that will make its way out of humans and other creatures' bodies as farts. Just the CO2 that's in the air is all the CO2 aspect of the climate change debate is about.

What else do you want it to be? What else do you think it might be?

Thank you for answering my question.

The air which is relevant to the debate then is made of compounds at a constant then? There is no air within the debate context that differs in its concentrations of compounds, except for concentrations of CO2? Maybe this one more question isn't relevant, and any concentration of O2 and N2 or NO, or any other air compound are safe in contrast to the potentially lethal outcomes of CO2 concentrations? I apologize for any inconvenience my lack of knowledge seems to pose or has indeed posed.

I thought climate, or meteorology, was a field of it's own apart from chemistry and more so related to geography. Is the debate then really only about chemistry? How are you referring to a debate on climate then, except by using a misnomer, which perhaps renders the entire debate misdirected by its very initial presentation?

 

[JoeMoma]

There is much overlap in many scientific fields of study.

 

[mamooth]

Maybe this one more question isn't relevant, and any concentration of O2 and N2 or NO, or any other air compound are safe in contrast to the potentially lethal outcomes of CO2 concentrations?

Atmospheric components, not including water vapor (because water vapor is highly variable):

Nitrogen 78.08%
Oxygen 20.95%
Argon 0.93%
CO2 0.04%
The other trace gases, <0.01%

Are those constant?

Nitrogen and Argon levels are constant, at least on scales of less than millions of years.

CO2 levels are rising

Oxygen levels fall as CO2 levels rise, because that "O2" becomes part of the "CO2". However, even in worst case situations, we won't have to worry about decreased oxygen levels.

A lot of the of trace gas concentrations can vary by quite a bit. Whether that's harmful depends on which one and how much. That's generally why air pollution laws are in effect.

And calling CO2 "lethal" is wrong. It only gets lethal to breathe in the 5% concentration range, with symptoms starting around 1%, and we'll never get close to that.

 

[Holos]

Maybe this one more question isn't relevant, and any concentration of O2 and N2 or NO, or any other air compound are safe in contrast to the potentially lethal outcomes of CO2 concentrations?

Atmospheric components, not including water vapor (because water vapor is highly variable):

Nitrogen 78.08%
Oxygen 20.95%
Argon 0.93%
CO2 0.04%
The other trace gases, <0.01%

Are those constant?

Nitrogen and Argon levels are constant, at least on scales of less than millions of years.

CO2 levels are rising

Oxygen levels fall as CO2 levels rise, because that "O2" becomes part of the "CO2". However, even in worst case situations, we won't have to worry about decreased oxygen levels.

A lot of the of trace gas concentrations can vary by quite a bit. Whether that's harmful depends on which one and how much. That's generally why air pollution laws are in effect.

And calling CO2 "lethal" is wrong. It only gets lethal to breathe in the 5% concentration range, with symptoms starting around 1%, and we'll never get close to that.

Since you have been so polite and pertinent, would you perchance also have information about the process in which O2 becomes CO2?

If the CO2 levels are rising above normality standards in respect to a clean and habitable environment, as some debaters propose or perhaps even so more accurately inform, how and why, if so, is atmospheric CO2 bound and restricted in continued accumulation by contrast of a regular molecular cycle of O2 (in the scale of less than millions of years)?

I acknowledge the continued processes in which CO2 is bound: the waste products of factories, and of other smaller but wide-spread mechanical processes. Is there, however, no process, either natural or artificial, through which that excess of CO2 is and can be converted again into clean O2, without any further atmospheric or environmental disturbance, as the atmosphere and the environment may continue to provide for enduring livable habitats?

 

[mamooth]

Since you have been so polite and pertinent, would you perchance also have information about the process in which O2 becomes CO2?

Either biologically processes, such as breathing or decay, or combustion of carbon-containing fuels. Forexample, combustion of methane (natural gas) would be

CH4 + 3 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O

If the CO2 levels are rising above normality standards in respect to a clean and habitable environment, as some debaters propose or perhaps even so more accurately inform, how and why, if so, is atmospheric CO2 bound and restricted in continued accumulation by contrast of a regular molecular cycle of O2 (in the scale of less than millions of years)?

Before wide-scale industrialization, CO2 was roughly balanced. CO2 absorbed by growing plants was roughly equal to CO2 emitted by decay and breathing animals and volcanoes. So, the CO2 levels stayed roughly the same.

Enter industrialization. Humans now emit about 3% as much CO2 as nature does. That doesn't seem like a lot, but it tips the balance. Year after year, that extra CO2 slowly accumulates, so concentrations have risen from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

The sort of good news is that as CO2 levels go up, the rate of absorption by the biosphere goes up. Plants grow a little faster, the ocean absorbs more. So we don't need to get human CO2 emissions down to zero. The goal is to knock it down a lot, maybe by 75%, which would allow things to stabilize. With advances in renewable energy, that's a realistic goal, one that can be accomplished without reducing standards of living.

I acknowledge the continued processes in which CO2 is bound: the waste products of factories, and of other smaller but wide-spread mechanical processes. Is there, however, no process, either natural or artificial, through which that excess of CO2 is and can be converted again into clean O2, without any further atmospheric or environmental disturbance, as the atmosphere and the environment may continue to provide for enduring livable habitats?

In the short term, reforestation can pull some CO2 out of the atmosphere, as plants grab the "C" and release the "O2". However, that can only go so far, as there's only so much room for forests. In the longer term, the oceans have to serve as the sinks. Organic matter of all types, which contains the carbon, falls to the bottom of the ocean, which takes it out of the atmospheric cycle, and there it slowly turns into carbonate rocks like limestone, or oil.

 

[320 Years of History]

reforestation can pull some CO2 out of the atmosphere, as plants grab the "C" and release the "O2". However, that can only go so far, as there's only so much room for forests.

It also can only go so far because trees aren't tall enough to reach the bulk of the CO2 in the atmosphere. (Being a little facetious there.)

The carbon cycle will allow the excess carbon to be consumed by plants, but at the moment we haven't enough plants to do in a timely enough manner.

 

[Arianrhod]

It's right there for you. What, specifically, do the "Warmers" want? In a previous thread, I asked a similar question, and got the response (in part) 200PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. (I may be slightly incorrect on the number)

So, lets look at that. When was the last time we had ~200-300 PPM of CO2?

Climate Change: Climate Resource Center - Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide

From the article, "During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph)."

Ok, so we are basically talking about going back to pre-industrial levels right?

What will that take? What would our world look like?

It would look like pre industrial society....for everyone but the politically powerful.....

If everyone had your attitude there would never have been an Industrial Revolution.

"Everything's fine the way it is! Don't change my safe, familiar world! Now, excuse me...I have to unhitch the horses..."