This might be an obvious question but why do we still pump CO2 into the atmosphere? Couldn't we just store it and then turn it into something else less harmful to the environment via a chemical reaction?
In fact, why can't we just "react away" the CO2 in the atmosphere and get to a greenhouse gas level that is optimal?
Other urls found in this thread:
skepticalscience.com
youtube.com
petitionproject.org
mnn.com
youtube.com
earthobservatory.nasa.gov
twitter.com
you can't "stop" something that doesn't exist
...
>react away
CO2 is extremely dilute in the atmosphere, so reaction rates would be very slow. Furthermore, other unwanted reactions might occur that would worsen the problem. It can be hard to predict what will happen in a complex atmosphere.
It's hard to store gases, but please google catalytic converters to get a feel for a currentday implementation that avoids gas storage.
What point are you trying to make here?
...
>catalytic converters
I did a quick Google search and saw that catalytic converters are used to make other hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide.
This is a good solution for cars and other small vehicles, but couldn't factories do better since they have the time and space to do whatever they need?
>Global Warming isn't real because Heartland Institute told me so!
I still don't see what you're trying to say here
Co2 isn't only thing causing global warming
An easy way to reverse global warming is to tear down all the forests and turn them into deserts. Deserts, as we all know, are very dry. Water vapor is the biggest contribute to the greenhouse effect and deserts are basically giant mirrors on the surface of Earth because of that.
#36 #79 #94
>list of strawman "arguments" that nobody seriously makes
>armchair climatologists analyse ice-cores
>i didn't click on the links
Embarrassingly terrible.
CO2 is the result of an energy-releasing reaction, just like water is. Think of as is as an "ash".
Therefore, it's extremely stable.
It TAKES energy to turn it into something in a higher energy state. To revert it to, say, carbon (coal) would take all the energy you got by burning it in the first place.
Plants take CO2 out of the air and reduce it to carbon to build their tissues.
They need energy -- in the form of sunlight -- to do so.
Given enough time, they'll reduce the CO2 level.
The trouble is that we're releasing, in a few centuries, all the carbon they sequestered over millions of years. Plants can't keep up with us!
Catalysts merely speed up a reaction which would take place even in their absence. The products must have less energy that the reactants.
So catalysts can turn hydrocarbons into CO2 (essentially, "burning" them) but they can't turn CO2 into something else.
CO2 and water aren't the lowest possible states. Magnesium will burn in CO2 and sodium in water. They'll yank the oxygen right out of those compounds. But you have to separate the sodium and magnesium from the compounds you find them in - and THAT takes energy. There's no way to win!!! :(
>>Global Warming isn't real because Heartland Institute told me so!
Who are you quoting?
Idiots.
Got it, thanks dude
...
simply let a globally warmed earth collide with another locally chilled earth
Global warming doesn't exist, and it was already proven not to exist by several sources, you can beat your head around it like an animal, but there is no proof humans change anything, maybe, slightest, locally volcanoes alter something.
It first started with soviets in the 1920s, trying to stop American industrial development, then in the 1930s they changed it for "global cooling", and whenever they needed to change the rethoric for political purposes, they did so.
Then comes the EU and the UN, lobby scientists wordwide to preach the same propaganda.
It was already refuted by American scientists and an independent French scientist called Pascal Bernardin, books were never translated into English for this sole purpose.
>petitionproject.org
>31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
Liberals that want to steal, yes, steal, money from companies will keep hitting the same note, because they are lazy faggots that were told an ecology degree would make them rich in the 80s-90s.
You can put your "oil" lobby schematics and do whatever you want, a "Climate Change Believer" receives billions and billions of dollars to keep the big lie.
>why do we still pump CO2 into the atmosphere?
to feed the trees and shit
They will claim we need more trees even though in the United States of America there are already more trees than we had in the 50s.
It's too late, dude. Al Gore said the ice caps would have totally melted by 2014 and it's already 2018. We're totally fucked
>mnn.com
Correction, more than we had a 100 years ago.
Sagan said that during the Gulf War the oil being burned would cause a nuclear winter.
>in the United States of America there are >already more trees than we had in the 50s
...because by 1950 more than 25% of USA
had been deforested.
"already" = 60 years, and the recovery is minuscule.
Try harder to defend the indefensible.
Already corrected it to 100+ years.
And by the way, the rest of your data is misleading, nobody have documented proof that far from the present.
Since everyone is sliding my post I will bump.
go back to /pol/ you fucking brainlet
kek
the handwriting says it all
>go back to /pol/ you fucking brainlet
Why the vulgarity?
sometimes that's just how facts work
if only there were self-replicating organisms that could absorb massive amounts of carbon from the air and store it for a significant portion of time, eventually returning it to the earth in a natural, non harmful way.
1. CO2 and many other gases have "greenhouse" properties in that they allow visible light to pass through (hence invisible), but trap and re-emit infrared radiation. This is literally 19th century science, first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, verified and quantified experimentally beyond reasonable doubt by Svante Arrhenius.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising, and this is a result of fossil fuel combustion (pic related). CO2 can be measured experimentally in the lab, and the stable isotopes of CO2 plunges into the negative values. Fossil fuel has distinct negative isotopic signature compared to natural CO2. This is also an undeniable fact from observation.
3. You add 1+2, you would expect the radiative energy budget of the earth to be out of equilibrium. This is exactly what we observe, based on satellites that measures total energy in vs. energy out by CERES satellite at NASA. earthobservatory.nasa.gov
In short, CO2 causes greenhouse effect. Humans put CO2 into the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning. The earth is now in energy imbalance due to additional CO2, and therefore warming. All basic, high school physics that should be easy to understand
With commercial nuclear fusion you could do it,rip CO2 out of the atmosphere and use it for all kinds of stuff like carbon fiber,graphene,etc. But that's a hell of a mountain to climb.
>wants documented proof
>cites Mother Nature Network
Not fast enough and if the capitalists allow it it will be so they can cut them down in few years.
nice unsourced chart, check out my unsourced chart
Are we all going to die soon from global warming?