Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[magibeg]

We can collect methane using tarps and use it instead of oil for energy (also a means to generate profit from the land during the process). The majority of carbon is still in the dirt even after it stops venting gases.

A side benefit to the process is all that moisture the plants collected will find its way back into the natural water cycle instead of being transported to dryer bins where the vapor is vented to atmosphere.


Carbon dioxide is not a disease.

The scales that would be required to gather methane using tarps, while also trying to grow more plants to further bury on tarps would be extremely difficult. I can't see this working on any kind of scale. For all your skepticism on so many subjects I'm surprised you don't see how difficult this would be to pull off.

Comparing it to a disease was simply saying that we're not tackling the cause of the problems, just treating the symptoms, which is the worst way to solve any problem.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The scales that would be required to gather methane using tarps, while also trying to grow more plants to further bury on tarps would be extremely difficult. I can't see this working on any kind of scale. For all your skepticism on so many subjects I'm surprised you don't see how difficult this would be to pull off.

As I said, the bulk of the carbon is the plant matter itself and it will stay in the ground. If you're really that concerned about gases escaping, we already have a wide selection of biodegradable plastics that could be used for this purpose.

New land fills are already deploying similar techniques and using it to power their garbage truck fleet.

It doesn't stop with agriculture either. Cities that have leave collection programs could adopt a policy of not letting the decaying plant matter sit in the open where the decomposition vents to atmosphere. They can either bury it on a daily basis or they can put it in an industrial compost bin that also collects the CH4. Right now, most municipalities don't do anything with the pile for months and when they do, they make no effort to keep the carbon in the ground (often just push it on to a nearby field).

Comparing it to a disease was simply saying that we're not tackling the cause of the problems, just treating the symptoms, which is the worst way to solve any problem.

We're never going to do away with anthropomorphic carbon. It's too useful. Better top soil techniques not only improve the amount of farmable land on Earth but also reduce the amount of fertilizer required which is principally also an oil product. It's win-win-win. The only loser is the farmer because during this process, the land isn't likely to make much money. Governments need to implement radical, carbon-conscious conservation programs like this so farmers will do it. Most modernized countries already have field conservation programs but they don't weigh in how they could improve committing carbon to the ground.

In the USA, the Secretary of Agriculture could probably make this change without needing Congress to approve.



I think you're missing the point that Dyson is trying to make. Carbon dioxide is a very common element and there are a lot of things humanity can do to change the balance in either way. We're not talking about spent uranium here which is undeniably harmful to organic life. We're talking about a gas we exhale and plants require to survive.

You're responses continue to stink of alarmism: you want to punish man for using anthropomorphic carbon by taking it away. If we stopped all burning, the best case scenario is atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would maintain at over 400 ppm. Many alarmists claim that is too high; the path you desire is not a solution.

 

[silkstone]

As I said, the bulk of the carbon is the plant matter itself and it will stay in the ground. If you're really that concerned about gases escaping, we already have a wide selection of biodegradable plastics that could be used for this purpose.

New land fills are already deploying similar techniques and using it to power their garbage truck fleet.

It doesn't stop with agriculture either. Cities that have leave collection programs could adopt a policy of not letting the decaying plant matter sit in the open where the decomposition vents to atmosphere. They can either bury it on a daily basis or they can put it in an industrial compost bin that also collects the CH4. Right now, most municipalities don't do anything with the pile for months and when they do, they make no effort to keep the carbon in the ground (often just push it on to a nearby field).

The problem I see with this is that you have to sequester the carbon at a greater rate than (rain)forests are being destroyed. You also need the land to do it on, which is not a cheap commodity. Also the total animal and plant Carbon content of the planet is only 560 GT, compared to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere which is 800GT (Oelkers, E. H. & Cole, D. R. Carbon dioxide sequestration: a solution to the global problem. Elements4, 305-310).

We've seen a rise of roughly 26% in atmospheric CO2 since 1959 (http://co2now.org/current-co2/co2-now/annual-co2.html) Which means that we would need to grow a hell of a lot of plants just to bring it down to previous levels.. I daren't even imagine the amount of fresh water that would be needed.

Interesting reading: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/soil-carbon-storage-84223790

But, this would only work when also reducing the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. I don't understand where this support of the oil/coal industry is coming from. There are much cleaner, safer, energy secure technologies available now. Adopting them would not be expensive, they would actually create a huge amount of jobs and mitigate the monopoly that fossil fuels have on the market/economy.

BTW C02 isn't an element.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

36,000 lbs of CO2 per acre of corn
90 million acres of corn in the USA
=
3.24 trillion pounds of CO2 per year
2205 pounds per metric ton
=
1.47 GT (0.2% of your 800 GT figure) per year only in corn, only in the USA, we could bury in a year.

Assuming the target is 280ppm CO2 and current is somewhere around 400ppm, it would take approximately 120 years of burying all of the corn crops to reach that target--assuming no new anthropomorphic contributions of carbon dioxide which is about 30 GT/year. We can drop that to 17 GT/year by simply replacing all coal power plants with nuclear.

So how do we increase the amount of CO2 processed? Corn greenhouses that have 24/7 light and forced airflow increasing the flow of CO2 rich air across the plants. Because placing these on land would be detrimental to the cause, they would have to be placed on self-contained barges at sea and they would have to specialize in sweet corn (the stalks are buried while they are still green). Their roofs would be composed of slatted mirrors that can rotate to let sun and rain in or close to reflect sun to space (high albedo compared to the ocean/sea background) and provide desalinated water and artificial light. If they are anchored to the sea floor, they can use tidal and wave energy to produce electricity to power its functions. If desalination is required, it would probably have to use nuclear power.

I don't understand where this support of the oil/coal industry is coming from.

Coal is still cheap and very plentiful.

 

[silkstone]

36,000 lbs of CO2 per acre of corn
90 million acres of corn in the USA
=
3.24 trillion pounds of CO2 per year
2205 pounds per metric ton
=
1.47 GT (0.2% of your 800 GT figure) per year only in corn, only in the USA, we could bury in a year.

Assuming the target is 280ppm CO2 and current is somewhere around 400ppm, it would take approximately 120 years of burying all of the corn crops to reach that target--assuming no new anthropomorphic contributions of carbon dioxide which is about 30 GT/year. We can drop that to 17 GT/year by simply replacing all coal power plants with nuclear.

So how do we increase the amount of CO2 processed? Corn greenhouses that have 24/7 light and forced airflow increasing the flow of CO2 rich air across the plants. Because placing these on land would be detrimental to the cause, they would have to be placed on self-contained barges at sea and they would have to specialize in sweet corn (the stalks are buried while they are still green). Their roofs would be composed of slatted mirrors that can rotate to let sun and rain in or close to reflect sun to space (high albedo compared to the ocean/sea background) and provide desalinated water and artificial light. If they are anchored to the sea floor, they can use tidal and wave energy to produce electricity to power its functions.



Coal is still cheap and very plentiful.

Oh, I understand where it is coming from on the industrial/economic side of things. Just I don;t understand individuals who are more in support of continuing the use of fossil fuels over fading them out by using better technology.

With regard to your calculations, You are assuming a 100% efficiency. The paper you linked talks about managing their fields to help sequester carbon, but to do that, there has to be some economic benefit to the farmers (capitalism). Also, while corn may be cheap, agricultural land is not. You'd also need to do a cost analysis of growing that much corn and compare it to other methods to see if it made sense. As far as I can tell, there is no benefit to an individual to bury that much corn rather than putting it to other uses. Where would the money come from?
At least with solar/wind/nuclear, you are getting something that you can sell from your investment. Burying all the corn grown is pretty ridiculous, I don;lt know what to say about the practicality of growing corn on the sea

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I figured for 70% of carbon committed to dirt, 30% reintroduced to the atmosphere.

No-till doesn't work for crops like corn because of the big stalks. Crops like soybeans can use no-till and because time is money, it costs farmers less. The problem comes from crop rotation. Whenever a farmer harvests a crop that requires tilling, they have to till it.

For harvesting corn for the explicit purpose of burying carbon would have to be fully funded by government through conservation programs already in place. Instead of planting native prairie grass, they would plant corn, chop, and bury it (not sure if discs can handle it--might require specialized equipment the Department of Agriculture would own).

The whole barge concept would be something philanthropical greenies could do. For example, imagine parking them off the coast of Africa. They remove carbon from the atmosphere, reflect some sunlight to prevent heating of the oceans, produce high quality soil that has to be deposited on land where new farms could be established, they provide some sweet corn for food, provides full-time employment for some and a lot of part-time employment during harvest every few months, and can desalinate a lot of water that is safe for consumption.


Solar/wind/nuclear only reduce how much carbon is being added to the atmosphere; they do not remove the ~240 GTs of carbon that is already present. If we are serious about tackling the atmospheric carbon problem, we have to do both: reduce emissions and remove as much as possible of what is already there. Note: the most economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon is to process recently deceased plants into propene and similar compounds that can be commoditized/processed into other goods.

 

[newconroer]

Umm..
Carbon Dioxide makes plants grow.
If you were say..trying to grow some kind of unspecified plants..
They would need Carbon Dioxide, and the more they got,the better they'd grow and the more oxygen they would produce.

There is no global warming;Contrary to the "green-oriented" "kids" shows that replaced Saturday morning cartoons.The facts say it's not happening.

Ugh, Captain Planet and his gay Earth /Wind /Fire thing(why did they have to make him camp anyways?) destroyed Saturday morning cartoons.

Global warming stresses me none. There's more pressing matters, such as why they replaced Bandit in Johnny Quest, with that silly useless girl..

 

[dorsetknob]

For harvesting corn for the explicit purpose of burying carbon would have to be fully funded by government through conservation programs already in place. Instead of planting native prairie grass, they would plant corn, chop, and bury it (not sure if discs can handle it--might require specialized equipment the Department of Agriculture would own).

Then the question will be raised if your growing corn just to bury it why ?
that crop could be sold to feed the world
In Case you Americans are un aware there is vast area's of the world that are on a Starvation level of existance

 

[FordGT90Concept]

1) 75% of a kernel of corn (edible part) is composed of starch (C6H10O5). Note the carbon content.

2) Transporting crops long distances almost always involves burning fossil fuels.

3) The more of the plant that is buried, the more carbon is taken out of the atmosphere.


A note to my previous post: reasons why greenhouse is ideal and why that 36,000 lb figure is low:
1) can reasonably get three or more crops per year instead of one; remember, we don't have to wait for it to dry before chopping.
2) corn can purge CO2 from a 1 meter circumference around the plant in 5 minutes; when it runs out of CO2, it simply stops processing it. Active airflow, especially using compressors and large collection area could reasonably double the amount of CO2 the plants are given access to.
3) giving corn access to all of the water it needs (e.g. hydroponics) makes the only limiting factor sunlight.
4) that figure is based on non-ideal climate (Michigan versus, for example, Iowa) and a breed of corn designed for food production, not CO2 processing
5) artificial lighting means CO2 processing never stops (24 hours per day versus ~12 and only 4 hours or so of those being peak)

I think 100,000 lbs of carbon dioxide per acre is completely achievable. 200,000 lb/acre may even be attainable if all of the above were done.


Why corn? It's a large plant that grows relatively quickly and there's already a lot of research that has been done to make them more resistant to pests and disease.

 

[dorsetknob]

1) 75% of a kernel of corn (edible part)

And those overweight stars and strippers still not thinking about feeding the world

here is a suggestion for you import India's Dead you can bury them as well to help fertilize the corn your going to plow straight back into the ground
side +
you also cut down on carbon being burnt in India as the widows cannot chuck themselves into the funereal pyre's

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If the barges were built, park them in the Indian ocean and they can provide a steady flow of sweet corn. Only one rule really needs to be followed: if you don't eat it, bury it. Don't refrigerate and definitely don't freeze it (the environmental cost of cooling erases the benefit of growing it in the first place).

Remember, if someone eats a vegetable or fruit over meat, their carbon footprint is substantially reduced.

 

[dorsetknob]

If the barges were built, park them in the Indian ocean and they can provide a steady flow of sweet corn. Only one rule really needs to be followed: if you don't eat it, bury it. Don't frigate and definitely don't freeze it (the environmental cost of cooling erases the benefit of growing it in the first place).

do i detect the whiff of condesending bullshit Spinning in the breeze !!!? i sure do

You just gone from growing it to bury.... to growing it to eat Wuckin hippcritter

 

[FordGT90Concept]

When plants grow, they pull CO2 out of the air. When we bury it, that carbon contributes to topsoil reducing its impact on the atmosphere. Quite simple but it goes against conventional wisdom because its not profitable.

 

[Schmuckley]

Ugh, Captain Planet and his gay Earth /Wind /Fire thing(why did they have to make him camp anyways?) destroyed Saturday morning cartoons.

Global warming stresses me none. There's more pressing matters, such as why they replaced Bandit in Johnny Quest, with that silly useless girl..

I'm sure "Hadji" is "not PC" these days.

 

[SK-1]

Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet.


The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.

A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.

This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...un-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

Ha ha ha and pigs will fly ( no not in Optica aircraft or pink floyd Ballons)
this is the real World not Telly Tubby land.

Edit
Oh it was reported in the Daily mail and their source was the Onion supported by the huffinton post and the National Inquirer

so it must be true Snigger

Gotta love the daily mail, it's always good for a laugh.

Don't deny science...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/world/sun-irregular-heartbeat-ice/

 

[Schmuckley]

1) 75% of a kernel of corn (edible part) is composed of starch (C6H10O5). Note the carbon content.

2) Transporting crops long distances almost always involves burning fossil fuels.

3) The more of the plant that is buried, the more carbon is taken out of the atmosphere.


A note to my previous post: reasons why greenhouse is ideal and why that 36,000 lb figure is low:
1) can reasonably get three or more crops per year instead of one; remember, we don't have to wait for it to dry before chopping.
2) corn can purge CO2 from a 1 meter circumference around the plant in 5 minutes; when it runs out of CO2, it simply stops processing it. Active airflow, especially using compressors and large collection area could reasonably double the amount of CO2 the plants are given access to.
3) giving corn access to all of the water it needs (e.g. hydroponics) makes the only limiting factor sunlight.
4) that figure is based on non-ideal climate (Michigan versus, for example, Iowa) and a breed of corn designed for food production, not CO2 processing
5) artificial lighting means CO2 processing never stops (24 hours per day versus ~12 and only 4 hours or so of those being peak)

I think 100,000 lbs of carbon dioxide per acre is completely achievable. 200,000 lb/acre may even be attainable if all of the above were done.


Why corn? It's a large plant that grows relatively quickly and there's already a lot of research that has been done to make them more resistant to pests and disease.

How do you get 3 crops a year without fertilizer?
Here's what the earth that they get fertilizer from looks like:

Miles and miles of it used to be woods,and they still have to truck the fertilizer to where the corn is;because corn does not grow where is the fertilizer is from.
Picture how big that bucket is: http://farmfutures.com/cdfm/Faress1/osty/QF5077/stripmine.jpg
It's a 60 yard bucket.Usually you can't see anything but the moonscape,there's a little green in the background of that pic.
Your avg 70,000 lb dump truck holds 8 yards of dirt.

 

[dorsetknob]

Breaking News
Monsanto announce patent for Soylent Green
buy your shares in Monsanto Now before the price goes through the ceiling

dont forget to wash it down with

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Breaking News
Monsanto announce patent for Soylent Green
buy your shares in Monsanto Now before the price goes through the ceiling

I should have mine supplied free by the State, is there a form to fill in ?

 

[dorsetknob]

a glass of the beer a day keeps the Doctor away

for caps

 

[FordGT90Concept]

How do you get 3 crops a year without fertilizer?

Good question and I don't know what corn needs, nutrient wise, to answer it.

Most fertilizers (especially ammonia) are composed of nitrogen and nitrogen can be manufactured anywhere (air is 78% nitrogen) with enough power. Considerations would have to be made for nitrogen waste though.

Strip mines are usually used for coal or metals. Chemical fertilizers usually aren't sourced that way.

 

[dorsetknob]

Chemical fertilizers usually aren't sourced that way.

No they are a product of the Oil /chemical industry and the resultant energy cost to process coal and oil into chemical fertilizer ( Not Very Green unlike Soylent Green )

Not as safe as you might think either as the Indians living in the aftermath of Bhopel

Strip mines are usually used for coal or metals. Chemical fertilizers usually aren't sourced that way.

Many a pacific island was stripped mined for its Guano ( that's bird shit in case you were unaware)
this pratice only reduced / stopped when it became possible and cheaper to artificially manufacture it

 

[rtwjunkie]

No they are a product of the Oil /chemical industry and the resultant energy cost to process coal and oil into chemical fertilizer ( Not Very Green unlike Soylent Green )

Not as safe as you might think either as the Indians living in the aftermath of Bhopel


Many a pacific island was stripped mined for its Guano ( that's bird shit in case you were unaware)
this pratice only reduced / stopped when it became possible and cheaper to artificially manufacture it

Phosphate is strip-mined though http://thephosphaterisk.com/phosphate/mining , and isn't that one of the major components in most fertilizers? It stimulates healthy root growth.

 

[dorsetknob]

All nitrogen fertilizers are made from ammonia (NH3), which is sometimes injected into the ground directly. The ammonia is produced by the Haber-Bosch process.[5] In this energy-intensive process, natural gas (CH4) supplies the hydrogen and the nitrogen (N2) is derived from the air. This ammonia is used as a feedstock for all other nitrogen fertilizers

All phosphate fertilizers are obtained by extraction from minerals containing the anion PO43−. In rare cases, fields are treated with the crushed mineral, but most often more soluble salts are produced by chemical treatment of phosphate minerals. The most popular phosphate-containing minerals are referred to collectively as phosphate rock. The main minerals are fluorapatite Ca5(PO4)3F (CFA) and hydroxyapatite Ca5(PO4)3OH. These minerals are converted to water-soluble phosphate salts by treatment with sulfuric or phosphoric acids. The large production of sulfuric acid as an industrial chemical is primarily due to its use as cheap acid in processing phosphate rock into phosphate fertilizer. The global primary uses for both sulfur and phosphorus compounds relate to this basic process.

In the USA in 2004, 317 billion cubic feet of natural gas were consumed in the industrial production of ammonia, less than 1.5% of total U.S. annual consumption of natural gas.[76] A 2002 report suggested that the production of ammonia consumes about 5% of global natural gas consumption, which is somewhat under 2% of world energy production.[77]

Ammonia is produced from natural gas and air.[78] The cost of natural gas makes up about 90% of the cost of producing ammonia.[79] The increase in price of natural gases over the past decade, along with other factors such as increasing demand, have contributed to an increase in fertilizer price

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yeah...pretty much what I said. CH4 comes from plant decay so ammonia can be produced pretty much for free.

I'm not sure how much phosphate, if any, corn requires.

 

[dorsetknob]

so ammonia can be produced pretty much for free.

The cost of natural gas makes up about 90% of the cost of producing ammonia.[79] The increase in price of natural gases over the past decade, along with other factors such as increasing demand, have contributed to an increase in fertilizer price

Even in the land of the Free and brave The cost of natural gas makes up about 90% of the cost of producing ammonia
so i don't know how you have the NERVE to say

so ammonia can be produced pretty much for free.