On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:47:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

This is different carbon?

Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2
content of the atmosphere.

When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a
short
period of time and then re-release it.

You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

If I capture a sample of CO2 and send it to you, neither you nor any
chemist you can hire will be able to determine if it was ever
sequestered, much less where and when.

It's more sensible to think of this as an accounting problem, and in
fact responsible scientists do look at it in that way by defining
carbon sources and carbon sinks.

Carbon sources emit carbon into the atmosphere. Those include animal
respiration, combustion, and various other sources. Carbon can also be
released from polar ice and ocean water with change in temperature.

Carbon sinks remove carbon from the atmosphere. Those include
solution in ocean water and captivation in ice, photosynthesis,
formation of carbonic acid by rain, formation of seashells and
eggshells that are primarily calcium carbonate, etc etc. Loss of
rainforest constitutes a major loss of carbon sink.


If the amount of CO2 being emitted exceeds the amount being removed,
then the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases. If the
concentration in the atmosphere is to be controlled, then it's
necessary to consider all sinks and all sources to find ways to get
and keep them in equilibrium.

This bookkeeping isn't difficult to understand, but politicans and
zeolots often seem to find the notion of "balance" incomprehensible.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:47:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

This is different carbon?

Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of
it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the
CO2
content of the atmosphere.

When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless
you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a
short
period of time and then re-release it.

You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

If I capture a sample of CO2 and send it to you, neither you nor any
chemist you can hire will be able to determine if it was ever
sequestered, much less where and when.


That's irrelevant, and you know it. What matters is where it has been, and
for how long.


It's more sensible to think of this as an accounting problem, and in
fact responsible scientists do look at it in that way by defining
carbon sources and carbon sinks.

Carbon sources emit carbon into the atmosphere. Those include animal
respiration, combustion, and various other sources.

Animal respiration does not ADD to the carbon in the atmosphere, in any
meaningful time frame. All meaningful "emission" of carbon by animals was
aborbed originally from the atmosphere and stored for, typically, a year to
a few years. All meaningful emission of carbon resulting from the burning of
fossil fuels was absorbed from the atmosphere millions of years ago. So
burning fossil fuels increases current carbon levels. Burning wood does not,
as long as you replace those trees.

Carbon can also be
released from polar ice and ocean water with change in temperature.

Carbon sinks remove carbon from the atmosphere. Those include
solution in ocean water and captivation in ice, photosynthesis,
formation of carbonic acid by rain, formation of seashells and
eggshells that are primarily calcium carbonate, etc etc. Loss of
rainforest constitutes a major loss of carbon sink.

Very interesting, perfessor. But it has nothing to do with the question
raised, which I answered, and which you responded to: does human respiration
increase carbon in the atmosphere? It does not, over a closed cycle that's
mostly a few years in length Does burning fossil fuels do so? It does, over
a cyle that's millions of years in length. Thus, the latter can increase CO2
levels to prehistoric levels. The former cannot.



If the amount of CO2 being emitted exceeds the amount being removed,
then the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases. If the
concentration in the atmosphere is to be controlled, then it's
necessary to consider all sinks and all sources to find ways to get
and keep them in equilibrium.

Ok, you go first. g I'll help you on the points that were raised he
Emitting CO2 from fossil sources increases the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere. Emitting CO2 from people does not.



This bookkeeping isn't difficult to understand, but politicans and
zeolots often seem to find the notion of "balance" incomprehensible.

Not to mention the doctors of climatology who discuss the subject on this
newsgroup. g

--
Ed Huntress

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...006195,00.html



Deep Underground, Miles of Hidden Wildfires Rage


Three blistering fires are blazing through Wyoming's scenic Powder River Basin,
but firefighters aren't paying any attention. Other than a faint hint of acrid
odors and a single ribbon of smoke rising from a tiny crack beyond the nearby
Tongue River, a long look across the region's serene grassland shows no sign of
trouble.

That's what makes the three infernos, and the toxins they spew, so sinister.
Their flames are concealed deep underground, in coal seams and oxygen-rich
fissures, which makes containment near impossible. Shielded from fire hoses and
aerial assaults, the flames are chewing through coal seams 20 feet thick,
spanning 22 acres. They're also belching greenhouse gases and contaminants,
contributing to an out-of-sight, out-of-mind environmental hazard that extends
far beyond Wyoming's borders. "Every coal basin in the world has fires sending
up organic compounds that are not good for you," says Mark Engle, a geologist
with the U.S. Geological Survey who studies the Powder River Basin, "but unless
you live close to them you probably never see them."

wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:16:30 -0700, Steve Ackman
wrote:


It takes a LOT of energy to produce PV panels. From
what I've read,

Let's see the cite. 'Cause I've read that Elvis is alive, working at
7-eleven by day, and posting to usenet at night. :-)

a PV panel will never make up the
carbon it cost in its expected 25 year life span.

This study says 3 years for energy payback.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

That didn't look like MANUFACTURING payback, just purchase cost payback

This one says 6 years for
carbon payback. http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2642/1/2642.pdf Both numbers
expected to improve substantially.

Wayne!
You might want to read that one again...
It said "
The carbon payback for solar thermal system is 2 years,
the BIPV system has a payback period of 6 years.

Simple economic payback for both systems is over 50 years(!)

At no time did they say anything about MANUFACTURING payback!


Wayne


--

Richard Lamb

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:34:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:47:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

This is different carbon?

Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of
it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the
CO2
content of the atmosphere.

When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless
you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a
short
period of time and then re-release it.

You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

If I capture a sample of CO2 and send it to you, neither you nor any
chemist you can hire will be able to determine if it was ever
sequestered, much less where and when.


That's irrelevant, and you know it. What matters is where it has been, and
for how long.

No. What matters is how much is being released to atmosphere by all
mechanisms vs how much is being removed from atmosphere by all
mechanisms. The only time constant here is the rate of concentration
change, which is proportional to the net increase of atmospheric CO2
per unit time divided by the total atmospheric volume.

CO2 from animal respiration doesn't magically migrate to trees while
CO2 from fossil fuel combustion goes directly to greenhouse. It may
be politically expedient to represent things that way, but that isn't
what happens.

I don't dispute that increasing the output by burning fossil fuels has
increased the load, but it's also true that reducing the amount
being removed by replacing vegetation with concrete decreases the rate
of removal -- again raising concentration.

In addition, increasing ocean temperatures can release huge amounts of
CO2 now held in solution.


It's more sensible to think of this as an accounting problem, and in
fact responsible scientists do look at it in that way by defining
carbon sources and carbon sinks.

Carbon sources emit carbon into the atmosphere. Those include animal
respiration, combustion, and various other sources.

Animal respiration does not ADD to the carbon in the atmosphere, in any
meaningful time frame.

Of course it does. Then other processes subract. If the subtractive
processes can't keep up with the additive processes, then atmospheric
concentration increases.

All meaningful "emission" of carbon by animals was
aborbed originally from the atmosphere and stored for, typically, a year to
a few years. All meaningful emission of carbon resulting from the burning of
fossil fuels was absorbed from the atmosphere millions of years ago. So
burning fossil fuels increases current carbon levels.

Burning fossil fuels releases CO2. So does animal respiration, forest
fires, and warming oceans.

Burning wood does not,
as long as you replace those trees.

Of course it does. If trees are replaced, then they will serve as a
CO2 sink but not until they are replaced and grow to size.

Carbon can also be
released from polar ice and ocean water with change in temperature.

Carbon sinks remove carbon from the atmosphere. Those include
solution in ocean water and captivation in ice, photosynthesis,
formation of carbonic acid by rain, formation of seashells and
eggshells that are primarily calcium carbonate, etc etc. Loss of
rainforest constitutes a major loss of carbon sink.

Very interesting, perfessor. But it has nothing to do with the question
raised, which I answered, and which you responded to: does human respiration
increase carbon in the atmosphere? It does not, over a closed cycle that's
mostly a few years in length.

If production equals consumption, there is no cycle length at all.
Whenever production exceeds consumption, concentration will steadily
increase.

Does burning fossil fuels do so? It does, over
a cyle that's millions of years in length. Thus, the latter can increase CO2
levels to prehistoric levels. The former cannot.

The fact that fossil fuel is millions of years old is immaterial. The
issue is that burning it releases CO2 now, which is in addition to
other sources like animal respiration, which makes the net release
rate greater than the present removal rate -- which is undoubtedly
less than it was 200 years ago.


If the amount of CO2 being emitted exceeds the amount being removed,
then the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases. If the
concentration in the atmosphere is to be controlled, then it's
necessary to consider all sinks and all sources to find ways to get
and keep them in equilibrium.

Ok, you go first. g I'll help you on the points that were raised he
Emitting CO2 from fossil sources increases the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere. Emitting CO2 from people does not.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases if the amount being
released exceeds the amount being removed. Even if we eliminated all
fossil fuel combustion, if we reduce the planet's ability to remove
CO2, as by replacing vegetation with concrete, then the CO2 emitted
from people would increase the amount in the atmosphere.

We need to look at the whole issue, not just one aspect of it.


This bookkeeping isn't difficult to understand, but politicans and
zeolots often seem to find the notion of "balance" incomprehensible.

Not to mention the doctors of climatology who discuss the subject on this
newsgroup. g

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 15:46:29 -0500, cavelamb
wrote:


http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...006195,00.html



Deep Underground, Miles of Hidden Wildfires Rage


Three blistering fires are blazing through Wyoming's scenic Powder River Basin,
but firefighters aren't paying any attention. Other than a faint hint of acrid
odors and a single ribbon of smoke rising from a tiny crack beyond the nearby
Tongue River, a long look across the region's serene grassland shows no sign of
trouble.

That's what makes the three infernos, and the toxins they spew, so sinister.
Their flames are concealed deep underground, in coal seams and oxygen-rich
fissures, which makes containment near impossible. Shielded from fire hoses and
aerial assaults, the flames are chewing through coal seams 20 feet thick,
spanning 22 acres. They're also belching greenhouse gases and contaminants,
contributing to an out-of-sight, out-of-mind environmental hazard that extends
far beyond Wyoming's borders. "Every coal basin in the world has fires sending
up organic compounds that are not good for you," says Mark Engle, a geologist
with the U.S. Geological Survey who studies the Powder River Basin, "but unless
you live close to them you probably never see them."


Hey! Dump all that CO2 from the gorbal warming thread down that crack!
The fires will go out and the CO2 will be sequestered again!!

Simple!

Send payment to

Gunner Asch
1313 Mockingbird Lane
Taft, California, 93268


One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:34:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:47:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

This is different carbon?

Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts
of
it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities
of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the
CO2
content of the atmosphere.

When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless
you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a
short
period of time and then re-release it.

You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

If I capture a sample of CO2 and send it to you, neither you nor any
chemist you can hire will be able to determine if it was ever
sequestered, much less where and when.


That's irrelevant, and you know it. What matters is where it has been, and
for how long.

No. What matters is how much is being released to atmosphere by all
mechanisms vs how much is being removed from atmosphere by all
mechanisms. The only time constant here is the rate of concentration
change, which is proportional to the net increase of atmospheric CO2
per unit time divided by the total atmospheric volume.

CO2 from animal respiration doesn't magically migrate to trees while
CO2 from fossil fuel combustion goes directly to greenhouse. It may
be politically expedient to represent things that way, but that isn't
what happens.

I don't dispute that increasing the output by burning fossil fuels has
increased the load, but it's also true that reducing the amount
being removed by replacing vegetation with concrete decreases the rate
of removal -- again raising concentration.

In addition, increasing ocean temperatures can release huge amounts of
CO2 now held in solution.


It's more sensible to think of this as an accounting problem, and in
fact responsible scientists do look at it in that way by defining
carbon sources and carbon sinks.

Carbon sources emit carbon into the atmosphere. Those include animal
respiration, combustion, and various other sources.

Animal respiration does not ADD to the carbon in the atmosphere, in any
meaningful time frame.

Of course it does. Then other processes subract. If the subtractive
processes can't keep up with the additive processes, then atmospheric
concentration increases.

All meaningful "emission" of carbon by animals was
aborbed originally from the atmosphere and stored for, typically, a year
to
a few years. All meaningful emission of carbon resulting from the burning
of
fossil fuels was absorbed from the atmosphere millions of years ago. So
burning fossil fuels increases current carbon levels.

Burning fossil fuels releases CO2. So does animal respiration, forest
fires, and warming oceans.

Burning wood does not,
as long as you replace those trees.

Of course it does. If trees are replaced, then they will serve as a
CO2 sink but not until they are replaced and grow to size.

Carbon can also be
released from polar ice and ocean water with change in temperature.

Carbon sinks remove carbon from the atmosphere. Those include
solution in ocean water and captivation in ice, photosynthesis,
formation of carbonic acid by rain, formation of seashells and
eggshells that are primarily calcium carbonate, etc etc. Loss of
rainforest constitutes a major loss of carbon sink.

Very interesting, perfessor. But it has nothing to do with the question
raised, which I answered, and which you responded to: does human
respiration
increase carbon in the atmosphere? It does not, over a closed cycle that's
mostly a few years in length.

If production equals consumption, there is no cycle length at all.
Whenever production exceeds consumption, concentration will steadily
increase.

Does burning fossil fuels do so? It does, over
a cyle that's millions of years in length. Thus, the latter can increase
CO2
levels to prehistoric levels. The former cannot.

The fact that fossil fuel is millions of years old is immaterial. The
issue is that burning it releases CO2 now, which is in addition to
other sources like animal respiration, which makes the net release
rate greater than the present removal rate -- which is undoubtedly
less than it was 200 years ago.


If the amount of CO2 being emitted exceeds the amount being removed,
then the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases. If the
concentration in the atmosphere is to be controlled, then it's
necessary to consider all sinks and all sources to find ways to get
and keep them in equilibrium.

Ok, you go first. g I'll help you on the points that were raised he
Emitting CO2 from fossil sources increases the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere. Emitting CO2 from people does not.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases if the amount being
released exceeds the amount being removed. Even if we eliminated all
fossil fuel combustion, if we reduce the planet's ability to remove
CO2, as by replacing vegetation with concrete, then the CO2 emitted
from people would increase the amount in the atmosphere.

We need to look at the whole issue, not just one aspect of it.

Seems like you two fundamentally agree.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:38:02 -0500, cavelamb
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:16:30 -0700, Steve Ackman
wrote:


It takes a LOT of energy to produce PV panels. From
what I've read,

Let's see the cite. 'Cause I've read that Elvis is alive, working at
7-eleven by day, and posting to usenet at night. :-)

a PV panel will never make up the
carbon it cost in its expected 25 year life span.

This study says 3 years for energy payback.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

That didn't look like MANUFACTURING payback, just purchase cost payback

I don't know what the heck you're talking about. The chart on the
first page is clearly titled "*energy* payback of rooftop pv systems".
The first paragraph explains that it takes energy to build the
product, and the summary of data says that the product makes more
energy in a small percentage of its lifetime than was required to
create it. NREL says up to 3 years, while some others rate it in
months, depending on the variables. People who pretend that PV
consumes more energy than it produces are promulgating a long-debunked
myth.

This one says 6 years for
carbon payback. http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2642/1/2642.pdf Both numbers
expected to improve substantially.

Wayne!
You might want to read that one again...
It said "
The carbon payback for solar thermal system is 2 years,
the BIPV system has a payback period of 6 years.

??? There seems to be an echo in here. :-)

Simple economic payback for both systems is over 50 years(!)

That wasn't at issue here. But simple economic payback for most of US
is much shorter, some people report only a few years in good-sun, high
utility-rate areas. In low-sun, low-rate areas, there is no simple
payback, especially since we're fine with putting off the cost of so
many things onto future generations, and hence frequently exclude
obvious outside costs. For example, if you believe that PV is
expensive, then think about how much of our healthcare costs are the
result of pollution from power production. Too much work? Then see
here http://www.usdebtclock.org/ for a partial tally of how well that
"easier for someone else to pay later" strategy is working out.

At no time did they say anything about MANUFACTURING payback!

Page 4, table 1. Note "embodied energy and carbon". How do you
imagine that those get into the product? See here for more details and
references. www.ongrid.net/papers/PVvsInputEnergySWCph.pdf

Wayne

On Jul 25, 4:34*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

If I capture a sample of CO2 and send it to you, neither you nor any
chemist you can hire will be able to determine if it was ever
sequestered, much less where and when.

That's irrelevant, and you know it. What matters is where it has been, and
for how long.


Ed Huntress

You must also believe that sunk costs matter in making decisions about
the future.

Dan

The common termite out produces man and man's machine.

Just think of the massive cut in South America and all of
the rotting wood being eaten up by termites that 'out-gas' CO2
as they eat cellulose and break it down.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Originator & Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/

On 7/24/2010 10:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the
wrote the following:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote:
"Phil wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel
system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be nice.

I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.

500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit
suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to
explain? I don't believe it........
phil

Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same
size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2
saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean
the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we
have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life? Yeah
500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the display
says. Maybe its really grams...

You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling:

"The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l)

"A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such
contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out
about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats
325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on
average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people alive
we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day.

"Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one
litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really
good
north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the litre,
which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs
(1.08
kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate
Change
Research"
-- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK

Just a thought.... ;-)

Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or
busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that
liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not
to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in
the same day, etc.

Remember that CO2 exhaled by humans -- or any animal -- does not add to
atmospheric carbon. Part of it is CO2 you breathed in. The rest of it is
part of the short-term, closed carbon loop: the oxidation product of carbon
in plants and animals that you ate.

The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the atmosphere
of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal.

CO2 is CO2 no matter where it comes from.

From bugs man, forest fire, Oil Field on fire or decaying matter.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Originator & Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/

On 7/25/2010 1:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Don wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:49:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the
wrote the following:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote:
"Phil wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel
system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be
nice.

I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.

500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit
suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to
explain? I don't believe it........
phil

Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same
size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2
saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean
the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we
have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life?
Yeah
500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the
display
says. Maybe its really grams...

You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling:

"The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l)

"A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such
contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out
about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats
325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on
average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people
alive
we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day.

"Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one
litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really
good
north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the
litre,
which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs
(1.08
kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate
Change
Research"
-- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK

Just a thought.... ;-)

Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or
busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that
liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not
to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in
the same day, etc.

Remember that CO2 exhaled by humans -- or any animal -- does not add to
atmospheric carbon. Part of it is CO2 you breathed in. The rest of it is
part of the short-term, closed carbon loop: the oxidation product of
carbon
in plants and animals that you ate.

The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the
atmosphere
of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal.

This is different carbon?

Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the CO2
content of the atmosphere.

When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a short
period of time and then re-release it.

You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:13:18 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
:

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:49:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
om...

The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the
atmosphere
of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal.

I wonder if Algore told him to say that.

Larry, if you had half enough knowledge to make the claims you frequently
make here about climate science, you'd recognize that this is THE
fundamental issue concerning the burning of fossil fuels. But you don't,
really, and it's clear you don't even recognize the basic issues.

I also doubt that he has
read about so many old wells coming back to life, producing again.

It has nothing to do with the question. Of course I've read about it.
Although I realize that the complexities of climate science are 'way over
my
head, I'm interested in learning anything I can about energy issues. I
just
don't make proclamations about things I don't know enough about to have an
opinion worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell. I find it
amusing
that so many people do.

I recently talked to a larry in person. He has clownish opinions on
*everything*, and I always enjoy hearing his latest rants. One of my
favorites was when he said he was going to move to Alaska to decrease
his cost of living. His own life is falling apart, so my latest
question was, given that he'd admittedly bungled that, then what
qualified him to disregard the opinion of experts etc. on so many
subjects. He said that the experts are all overeducated liberal
know-nothings, and that what we really need are more "down to earth"
people like him to run things, beginning with Palin. Then he declared
that if we'd had that for the last 20 years, then his life would have
turned out better. I could almost visualize the shrug :-) Of course
he thinks that the tea party is great blah blah blah. So next time I
see him I'm going to ask what he thinks about Angle cutting off his
SS, and try to keep from laughing too hard at whatever he comes up
with.

Wayne

This used to drive me crazy, until the last few years, at which time I
finally absorbed the fact that it's all about attitude, not facts, and to
the degree it's political, it's based on the old clashes between those who
are perceived as privileged and connected to sources of power, and those who
accept a narrow version of meritocracy and who feel they're being screwed by
the other class.

It's as old as the republic, but it's been drawn to a sharp point by recent
trends and events. There have been some good essays on the subject lately,
coming mostly from conservatives and outright libertarians, although they
tend to lard it up with a lot of judgments and ideology. If you caught
Douthat's column a couple of days ago:

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ive-illusions/

....you saw some of it. It's one of his better efforts. The link he provides
to Cordevilla's (staunch libertarian) essay in _The American Spectator_ is
worth following, too, if you want to see a full-blown libertarian take on
our state of politics.

Douthat, an intellectual conservative, concludes his piece with this:

"The two great vices of the Obama-era right, it seems to me, are premature
triumphalism (the Tea Parties haven't won much of anything just yet) and a
blithe conviction that "true conservative" good intentions trump policy
substance and deep expertise. And Cordevilla's essay, while sharp and
telling in many respects, ultimately seems likely to confirm conservatives
in these vices."

This explains the popularity of Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, and many others. It
isn't command of the facts. It's having the proper attitude about the
"ruling elite." That is, a negative one.

--
Ed Huntress

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
The common termite out produces man and man's machine.

Just think of the massive cut in South America and all of
the rotting wood being eaten up by termites that 'out-gas' CO2
as they eat cellulose and break it down.

Martin

But it's wood that absorbed that CO2 from the atmosphere within the last few
decades. They don't "add" a bit of CO2.

--
Ed Huntress



Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Originator & Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/

On 7/24/2010 10:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the
wrote the following:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote:
"Phil wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel
system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be
nice.

I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.

500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a bit
suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to
explain? I don't believe it........
phil

Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the same
size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of Co2
saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that mean
the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would we
have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life?
Yeah
500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the
display
says. Maybe its really grams...

You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling:

"The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l)

"A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such
contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out
about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats
325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person on
average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people
alive
we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day.

"Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of one
litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really
good
north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the
litre,
which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs
(1.08
kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate
Change
Research"
-- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK

Just a thought.... ;-)

Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or
busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that
liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not
to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in
the same day, etc.

Remember that CO2 exhaled by humans -- or any animal -- does not add to
atmospheric carbon. Part of it is CO2 you breathed in. The rest of it is
part of the short-term, closed carbon loop: the oxidation product of
carbon
in plants and animals that you ate.

The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the
atmosphere
of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal.

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
CO2 is CO2 no matter where it comes from.

From bugs man, forest fire, Oil Field on fire or decaying matter.

Martin

If it comes from recent photosynthesis, it adds nothing to the atmosphere.
If it comes from fossil fuels, it restores CO2 to the atmosphere that hasn't
been there for millions of years. It increases CO2 levels as a result.

--
Ed Huntress



Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Originator & Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/

On 7/25/2010 1:47 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Don wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:49:10 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Larry wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:36:15 -0700, Rich the
wrote the following:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:07:22 -0700, Stu Fields wrote:
"Phil wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
"Stu Fields" wrote in message
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel
system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

If Al Gore is reading this a text message of applause would be
nice.

I made a mistake the thing this am says 500# of Co2 saved.

500 pounds of CO2 in six days? That's an incredible amount! I'm a
bit
suspicious of that number. How can it be so high? Anyone care to
explain? I don't believe it........
phil

Now I don't blame you a bit. Just think if 1,000 people had the
same
size system going, not hard to believe, that would be 500,000 # of
Co2
saved in 6 days. That would mean 30M#/yr. Lets see...would that
mean
the power plants could go back to burning diesel and coal?? Would
we
have to artificially inject Co2 into the atmosphere for plant life?
Yeah
500# in 6 days causes my eyebrow to raise, but that is what the
display
says. Maybe its really grams...

You could save 1 KG of CO2 a day by not exhaling:

"The average person has a breath with the volue of 500ml (0.5l)

"A normal intake of breath is normal atmospheric composition, as such
contains 0.0360% CO2 or 0.18ml of CO2 intake. However we breathe out
about 5% CO2 or 25ml with an average of 13,000 breaths a day. Thats
325,000ml (325L )of CO2 Which means by the end of the day, a person
on
average will exhale 1kg of CO2. Now add there are 6 billion people
alive
we can say humans exhale 6 billion kg of CO2 a day.

"Compare that to the fact that as a rough estimate, the burning of
one
litre of gasoline produces about 2.4 pounds (1.08kg) of CO2. A really
good
north American car will get 40mpg which is still only 18km to the
litre,
which means for every 18 km that you drive, you will release 2.4 lbs
(1.08
kg) of CO2 or roughly what you breathe in a day. Source(s): Climate
Change
Research"
--
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3091421AA830QK

Just a thought.... ;-)

Rich, please now compare how many extra breaths that carload or
busload of people would expend hoofin' it from place to place for that
liter of gas. I'll bet the gas is more efficient in the long run, not
to mention getting people to work on time, getting all errands done in
the same day, etc.

Remember that CO2 exhaled by humans -- or any animal -- does not add to
atmospheric carbon. Part of it is CO2 you breathed in. The rest of it
is
part of the short-term, closed carbon loop: the oxidation product of
carbon
in plants and animals that you ate.

The carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels is a release to the
atmosphere
of long-term sequestration of carbon in petroleum, gas, or coal.

This is different carbon?

Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts of
it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the
CO2
content of the atmosphere.

When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a
short
period of time and then re-release it.

You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 16:34:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:47:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 2:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

This is different carbon?

Yeah, this is VERY different carbon. When you sequester vast amounts
of
it
underground, for millions of years, and then release large quantities
of
that carbon over a couple of hundred years, you wind up increasing the
CO2
content of the atmosphere.

When you sequester carbon via photosynthesis (the source of all of our
food), and re-release it in a cycle of a few years, at most -- unless
you
eat trees -- you don't have any significant effect. The effect is
steady-state, in which you have small amounts of carbon tied up over a
short
period of time and then re-release it.

You have an engineering background, Don. Don't play dumb. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

If I capture a sample of CO2 and send it to you, neither you nor any
chemist you can hire will be able to determine if it was ever
sequestered, much less where and when.


That's irrelevant, and you know it. What matters is where it has been, and
for how long.

No. What matters is how much is being released to atmosphere by all
mechanisms vs how much is being removed from atmosphere by all
mechanisms.

Don, that wasn't the question I addressed. Once again, there are two
questions: whether human respiration adds CO2 to the atmosphere (no), and
whether burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere (yes).

Are we agreed on this?

The only time constant here is the rate of concentration
change, which is proportional to the net increase of atmospheric CO2
per unit time divided by the total atmospheric volume.

No, that wasn't the question. That's a larger question, but my responses are
true, regardless of what you may want to speculate about what happens to
that CO2 after it's in the atmosphere.


CO2 from animal respiration doesn't magically migrate to trees while
CO2 from fossil fuel combustion goes directly to greenhouse. It may
be politically expedient to represent things that way, but that isn't
what happens.

It doesn't matter which CO2 goes where. The question is whether the CO2
emitted by humans comes from a short-term sequestration -- whether that CO2
we exhale was in the atmosphere a few minutes, months, or possibly a few
years ago, and we've just put it back where it was -- and whether the CO2
emitted by burning fossil fuels comes from sequestration effected millions
of years ago. The answer to both is yes.

No matter how much you complicate it, those two things are facts. And that
was the issue. The net effect of one is to neither add nor subtract from
atmospheric CO2. The net effect of the other is to add to atmospheric CO2.

Now, what happens in terms of production of carbonates and dissolved
carbonic acid? I don't know. You don't know. Experts seem to be arguing
about that as we speak. And it doesn't matter. Because, before it has an
opportunity to re-combine with other chemicals and become temporarily
sequestered again, or sequestered for all time -- or not -- it has to get
into the ATMOSPHERE first. And that was the point.


I don't dispute that increasing the output by burning fossil fuels has
increased the load, but it's also true that reducing the amount
being removed by replacing vegetation with concrete decreases the rate
of removal -- again raising concentration.

That's another issue. Neither you nor I can put numbers on it, so all we can
do is name some effects, without qualifying whether they're significant or
just distractions. You CAN put some reasonable numbers on the amount of
fossil fuel we burn, and thus on the amount of CO2 that's added to the
current atmospheric volume of CO2.


In addition, increasing ocean temperatures can release huge amounts of
CO2 now held in solution.

That's a larger question. You're getting into complications of the system as
a whole, and not you, nor I, nor any of the self-styled climatologists on
this NG have a freaking clue about the actual volumes any such interactions
may incur. All you can do is confound the issue.

But, again, there's no confounding the original question, and the only claim
that I made.



It's more sensible to think of this as an accounting problem, and in
fact responsible scientists do look at it in that way by defining
carbon sources and carbon sinks.

Carbon sources emit carbon into the atmosphere. Those include animal
respiration, combustion, and various other sources.

Animal respiration does not ADD to the carbon in the atmosphere, in any
meaningful time frame.

Of course it does.

Nonsense. That carbon was trapped for a short time, in a closed loop that
starts with photosynthesis. Do you deny this?

Then other processes subract.

You have it backwards. First, there is short-term sequestration by
photosynthesis. Then we eat food thus produced, and re-release the carbon.

If it was as you describe, what would we be eating in the first place? Air?

Don, trying to equate the trapping and releasing of CO2 in the production of
food, and then eating it and exhaling CO2, with burning fossil fuels is
profoundly misleading about the net effects. Larry sounded like he was
equating the two. That's why I commented. I've pointedly avoided discussing
the system-wide effects of CO2 sequestration and release, and of its effects
on global warming, because they have nothing to do with the original point.

Let me reiterate that point so there is no confusion. Burning fossil fuel
releases carbon into the atmosphere that was sequestered for millions of
years. We do it relatively quickly, so the net effect is to increase the
levels of atmospheric CO2 to something higher, in the direction of the
levels that existed millions of years ago.

Eating and exhaling does not. Before you have something to eat, CO2 must be
sequestered from the atmosphere into plant life, at some recent time. And
it's a continuous process. There is some mean time of CO2 sequestration for
that plant life, and it's on the order of a few years. The CO2 that we
release from burning fossil fuels was sequestered for MILLIONS of years. The
net effect in each case is vastly different. In the case of eating plants or
animals that eat plants, we're participating in a cycle that requires,
first, that CO2 must be sequestered from the atmosphere within recent years.
Then we release it, and the cycle, measured in a few years, repeats. There
is no net increase in atmospheric CO2.

If the subtractive
processes can't keep up with the additive processes, then atmospheric
concentration increases.

Something else, much more consequential, happens first: We starve. g

Again, you have the process backwards. First, short-term sequestration. Then
we eat. Then there is more short-term sequestration -- or we don't eat
again.

But we do. And ALL of the carbon we emit comes from that short-term
sequestration, and that particular cycle keeps repeating. Even if we had no
relationship to other trapping and emitting of CO2, that closed cycle, which
is quantifiable to a reasonable degree, would continue. You can treat it in
isolation of other effects because you know quite accurately how much carbon
is involved, how it's trapped, and how it's emitted -- and trapped again,
and re-emitted, etc.

By ignoring those facts, all you do is obfuscate these simple,
well-documented, measurable facts.


All meaningful "emission" of carbon by animals was
aborbed originally from the atmosphere and stored for, typically, a year
to
a few years. All meaningful emission of carbon resulting from the burning
of
fossil fuels was absorbed from the atmosphere millions of years ago. So
burning fossil fuels increases current carbon levels.

Burning fossil fuels releases CO2. So does animal respiration, forest
fires, and warming oceans.

Burning wood does not,
as long as you replace those trees.

Of course it does. If trees are replaced, then they will serve as a
CO2 sink but not until they are replaced and grow to size.

And how many millions of years does that take? Do you recognize the
qualitative difference that results from the different time scales?


Carbon can also be
released from polar ice and ocean water with change in temperature.

Carbon sinks remove carbon from the atmosphere. Those include
solution in ocean water and captivation in ice, photosynthesis,
formation of carbonic acid by rain, formation of seashells and
eggshells that are primarily calcium carbonate, etc etc. Loss of
rainforest constitutes a major loss of carbon sink.

Very interesting, perfessor. But it has nothing to do with the question
raised, which I answered, and which you responded to: does human
respiration
increase carbon in the atmosphere? It does not, over a closed cycle that's
mostly a few years in length.

If production equals consumption, there is no cycle length at all.
Whenever production exceeds consumption, concentration will steadily
increase.

No, the cycles still exist. Mixing the CO2 together doesn't change that. All
it does is obscure the cycles that are at work.


Does burning fossil fuels do so? It does, over
a cyle that's millions of years in length. Thus, the latter can increase
CO2
levels to prehistoric levels. The former cannot.

The fact that fossil fuel is millions of years old is immaterial.

That's a foolish thing to say, Don. You're ignoring the relative time to
sequester a fossil fuel, versus a plant that's used for food. The carbon
cycle for food is 100% (or nearly so) contained within a matter of years.
The cycle for fossil fuel is millions of years in, and now hundreds of years
out. We're dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere that required
millions of years to sequester. When we eat, we're emitting at about the
same rate as the sequestration of CO2 in food.


The
issue is that burning it releases CO2 now, which is in addition to
other sources like animal respiration, which makes the net release
rate greater than the present removal rate -- which is undoubtedly
less than it was 200 years ago.

Duh...g



If the amount of CO2 being emitted exceeds the amount being removed,
then the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases. If the
concentration in the atmosphere is to be controlled, then it's
necessary to consider all sinks and all sources to find ways to get
and keep them in equilibrium.

Ok, you go first. g I'll help you on the points that were raised he
Emitting CO2 from fossil sources increases the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere. Emitting CO2 from people does not.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases if the amount being
released exceeds the amount being removed. Even if we eliminated all
fossil fuel combustion, if we reduce the planet's ability to remove
CO2, as by replacing vegetation with concrete, then the CO2 emitted
from people would increase the amount in the atmosphere.

No, it wouldn't. It CAN'T. All of the CO2 emitted by people HAS TO be
sequestered first in plants, through photosynthesis, over the short term.


We need to look at the whole issue, not just one aspect of it.

Not if the question is about the emission of CO2 by people, versus engines
burning fossil fuels. That's ALL I've commented upon. And your statement
above, about increased CO2 emitted by people if we pave over the land with
concrete, is the fundamental flaw in your logic. It is impossible -- at
least, until we're able to synthesize food from something other than plant
sources. Maybe we can eat carbonate rocks. g

ALL of the CO2 we emit must first be sequestered in plants, via
photosynthesis. It's a short, closed cycle. If we pave over the land, we
have nothing to eat. The only "emitting" we'll do then will occur as our
bodies decompose. But even that CO2 "emission" is the result of plant life
stored in our bodies over a matter of decades. It has no net effect on
atmospheric CO2.



This bookkeeping isn't difficult to understand, but politicans and
zeolots often seem to find the notion of "balance" incomprehensible.

Not to mention the doctors of climatology who discuss the subject on this
newsgroup. g

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Jul 25, 4:34 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

If I capture a sample of CO2 and send it to you, neither you nor any
chemist you can hire will be able to determine if it was ever
sequestered, much less where and when.

That's irrelevant, and you know it. What matters is where it has been, and
for how long.


Ed Huntress

You must also believe that sunk costs matter in making decisions about
the future.

Dan

If you're going to sink my money in an investment that I can't get back for
millions of years, I might care about it. d8-)

This is not accounting. It is physics and chemistry, on two radically
different time scales.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:14:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
CO2 is CO2 no matter where it comes from.

From bugs man, forest fire, Oil Field on fire or decaying matter.

Martin

If it comes from recent photosynthesis, it adds nothing to the atmosphere.
If it comes from fossil fuels, it restores CO2 to the atmosphere that hasn't
been there for millions of years. It increases CO2 levels as a result.

I think you mean "if it comes from oxidation of organic matter that
was produced by photosynthesis..." Photosynthesis doesn't release
CO2, it consumes it.

Any release of CO2 from any source adds immediately to the local
atmosphere. If that were not true then submarines wouldn't need CO2
scrubbers to deal with CO2 from respiration: just add oxygen to
replace that used.

Simultaneously, current photosynthesis and other processes subtract
immediately from atmosphere in their locale. Any concentration
gradients that result are soon resolved by mixing due to winds and
Dalton's law of partial pressures. If these two processes balance
over a given period of time then there is no net change during that
period. If the CO2 added by burning fossil fuel is not balanced by
a corresponding increase in subtraction by photosynthesis or other
subtractive mechanism, then atmospheric concentration will increase
over time. In fact, over the past 200 years or so we have both
increased the rate of addition and reduced the rate of subtraction by
destruction of vegetation.

To mitigate this, we must look at both reducing production rate and
increasing subtraction rate. Breathing less is not a viable option
(pun intended) but fossil fuels are by no means the only other source
and subtraction is just as important in balancing the CO2 budget.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:12:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
The common termite out produces man and man's machine.

Just think of the massive cut in South America and all of
the rotting wood being eaten up by termites that 'out-gas' CO2
as they eat cellulose and break it down.

Martin

But it's wood that absorbed that CO2 from the atmosphere within the last few
decades. They don't "add" a bit of CO2.

If trees absorb (subtract) CO2 by photosynthesis, but the CO2
resulting from them later being broken down by combustion or digestion
doesn't add it back to atmosphere, then we'd have one hell of a CO2
deficit if we weren't making up the difference by burning fossil
fuels. G

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:14:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
CO2 is CO2 no matter where it comes from.

From bugs man, forest fire, Oil Field on fire or decaying matter.

Martin

If it comes from recent photosynthesis, it adds nothing to the atmosphere.
If it comes from fossil fuels, it restores CO2 to the atmosphere that
hasn't
been there for millions of years. It increases CO2 levels as a result.

I think you mean "if it comes from oxidation of organic matter that
was produced by photosynthesis..." Photosynthesis doesn't release
CO2, it consumes it.

No, I meant that if the source of the sequestered CO2 is the result of
recent photosynthesis, then it adds nothing to the atmosphere that wasn't
there days, years, or a few decades ago. If its source was photosynthesis
that occurred millions of years ago, as in the oil example, then it adds to
current atmospheric CO2, by re-releasing carbon that was sequestered from
the atmosphere millions of years ago.


Any release of CO2 from any source adds immediately to the local
atmosphere.

But if the source is from recent plant life, it only adds back what was in
the atmosphere hours, or days, or perhaps a few decades ago, and had been
sequestered in the short term. And since the cycle is continuous, it adds no
net CO2 over time.

If that were not true then submarines wouldn't need CO2
scrubbers to deal with CO2 from respiration: just add oxygen to
replace that used.

That CO2 comes from stored food that they brought on board. If they didn't
eat food that was produced from plant life that recently sequestered CO2,
they wouldn't need CO2 scrubbers. They'd all be dead from starvation. d8-)


Simultaneously, current photosynthesis and other processes subtract
immediately from atmosphere in their locale. Any concentration
gradients that result are soon resolved by mixing due to winds and
Dalton's law of partial pressures. If these two processes balance
over a given period of time then there is no net change during that
period.

And that's EXACTLY what MUST happen with food, and human respiration. You
can only exhale CO2 that you breathed in, plus CO2 that's released from
metabolizing food. And the amount of carbon sequestered in that food can be
no less than the amount you exhale.

If the CO2 added by burning fossil fuel is not balanced by
a corresponding increase in subtraction by photosynthesis or other
subtractive mechanism, then atmospheric concentration will increase
over time. In fact, over the past 200 years or so we have both
increased the rate of addition and reduced the rate of subtraction by
destruction of vegetation.

Yup. It sounds like we're getting close to the underlying point about what I
said to Larry in the first place.


To mitigate this, we must look at both reducing production rate and
increasing subtraction rate. Breathing less is not a viable option
(pun intended) but fossil fuels are by no means the only other source
and subtraction is just as important in balancing the CO2 budget.

The CO2 budget for food and human respiration is directly related to the
sequestration of CO2 by plants that we eat. We can't exhale more than the
amount of CO2 sequestered in our food. And the amount of CO2 we breathe out
must be re-sequestered by the plants that form the basis of our food before
we can eat again -- like tomorrow. g

That's one of the clearest, least equivocal of the carbon cycles we deal
with. It's self-contained in the sense that we know how much carbon must go
in, and how much comes out, and we know the average time for that cycle to
complete itself. Other carbon cycles within the overall system dynamic
neither increase nor decrease the quantity of the carbon in the food cycle,
nor the cycle's velocity.

There are many other carbon cycles, such as the natural growth and decay of
forests. You can try to isolate them and get a handle on their individual
effects, or you can mix them all together indiscriminately and confuse the
hell out of anyone who's trying to understand it. g Certain cycles can be
treated exactly if they were closed; no matter where each molecule of CO2
came from, a specific amount must be sequestered in plants or we don't eat.
And that particular cycle is so isolated from things like burning fossil
fuels that it's often called a "carbon-neutral" cycle. Over the relevant
span of time (a few years), that's accurate to a high degree.

Burning fossil fuels is the exact opposite. That cycle is so long, and the
velocity of release is so extremely short in relation to the overall cycle
time, that it has large atmospheric effects.

We're not likely ever to go through the whole fossil-fuel cycle. It looks
like it's sequester once, re-emit the products once, and then it's all over.
After that, we're more likely to synthesize the products we used to get from
it -- something like what happened to whale oil. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Don Foreman on Sun, 25 Jul 2010
22:32:11 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:14:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
CO2 is CO2 no matter where it comes from.

From bugs man, forest fire, Oil Field on fire or decaying matter.

Martin

If it comes from recent photosynthesis, it adds nothing to the atmosphere.
If it comes from fossil fuels, it restores CO2 to the atmosphere that hasn't
been there for millions of years. It increases CO2 levels as a result.

I think you mean "if it comes from oxidation of organic matter that
was produced by photosynthesis..." Photosynthesis doesn't release
CO2, it consumes it.

Any release of CO2 from any source adds immediately to the local
atmosphere. If that were not true then submarines wouldn't need CO2
scrubbers to deal with CO2 from respiration: just add oxygen to
replace that used.

Simultaneously, current photosynthesis and other processes subtract
immediately from atmosphere in their locale. Any concentration
gradients that result are soon resolved by mixing due to winds and
Dalton's law of partial pressures. If these two processes balance
over a given period of time then there is no net change during that
period. If the CO2 added by burning fossil fuel is not balanced by
a corresponding increase in subtraction by photosynthesis or other
subtractive mechanism, then atmospheric concentration will increase
over time. In fact, over the past 200 years or so we have both
increased the rate of addition and reduced the rate of subtraction by
destruction of vegetation.

To mitigate this, we must look at both reducing production rate and
increasing subtraction rate. Breathing less is not a viable option
(pun intended) but fossil fuels are by no means the only other source
and subtraction is just as important in balancing the CO2 budget.

Plant trees. Or other woody plants which grow rapidly. Then take
those plants and "sequester" the carbon (aka "bury it").
One proposal is to add trace amounts of Iron to various parts of
the ocean. The trace amounts of iron will increase the amount of
phytoplankton (iirc) which in turns sucks up a lot of carbon dioxide,
and precipitates out to the bottom of the ocean.

For a high tech solution - "shades" - big mylar sun shades in orbit.
That actually won't do much for CO2, but it will cool the earth,
offsetting the increase in Greenhouse Gasses.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:59:02 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Don, that wasn't the question I addressed. Once again, there are two
questions: whether human respiration adds CO2 to the atmosphere (no), and
whether burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere (yes).

Are we agreed on this?

No. Both processes immediately add CO2 to the atmosphere. Meanwhile,
photosynthesis consumes CO2 from the atmosphere. If the rate of
photosynthesis consumption matches the rate of natural production,
then there is no net change in atmospheric concentration. There may
be seasonal variance, but the volume of the atmosphere would make that
unmeasurable.

The only time constant here is the rate of concentration
change, which is proportional to the net increase of atmospheric CO2
per unit time divided by the total atmospheric volume.

No, that wasn't the question. That's a larger question, but my responses are
true, regardless of what you may want to speculate about what happens to
that CO2 after it's in the atmosphere.

I didn't speculate about that at all. To which CO2 do you refer: that
which was added by burning fossil fuel, or that which you insist
wasn't added because it came from respiration? I didn't and don't
differentiate.



CO2 from animal respiration doesn't magically migrate to trees while
CO2 from fossil fuel combustion goes directly to greenhouse. It may
be politically expedient to represent things that way, but that isn't
what happens.

It doesn't matter which CO2 goes where.

My point. Thank you.

The question is whether the CO2
emitted by humans comes from a short-term sequestration -- whether that CO2
we exhale was in the atmosphere a few minutes, months, or possibly a few
years ago, and we've just put it back where it was -- and whether the CO2
emitted by burning fossil fuels comes from sequestration effected millions
of years ago. The answer to both is yes.

No, it isn't. The term of sequestration is irrelevant. What matters
is if the rate of addition exceeds the rate of consumption. When we
burn fossil fuel we increase the rate of production with no
corresponding increase in consumption.

No matter how much you complicate it, those two things are facts. And that
was the issue. The net effect of one is to neither add nor subtract from
atmospheric CO2. The net effect of the other is to add to atmospheric CO2.

I didn't complicate it, I showed how simple it is. There's no magic
process wherein expirated CO2 magically goes to green vegetation while
CO2 from burning coal or oil doesn't. An individual carbon molecule
may experience the cycle you describe, but the concentration of CO2 in
the atmosphere is the result of continuous processes. Over any period
whether millisecond or millenium, the net change in atmospheric carbon
will be the difference between what was added and what was subtracted
during that period.

I don't dispute that increasing the output by burning fossil fuels has
increased the load, but it's also true that reducing the amount
being removed by replacing vegetation with concrete decreases the rate
of removal -- again raising concentration.

That's another issue. Neither you nor I can put numbers on it, so all we can
do is name some effects, without qualifying whether they're significant or
just distractions. You CAN put some reasonable numbers on the amount of
fossil fuel we burn, and thus on the amount of CO2 that's added to the
current atmospheric volume of CO2.

I can't put numbers on any of it. It may be easier to put numbers on
the amount of fossil fuel we burn, and that may be the sticking point
here. It's easier to sell simple to politicians and zealots than it
is to bother with understanding the processes.

You seem to assume that if we can't put numbers on rate of removal, we
can ignore it. Just quit burning fossil fuel and all will be OK.
That's exactly why I keep arguing here. It IS important. Your model
where expirated CO2 doesn't count because it get sequestered for just
a short time in organic matter by photosynthesis is specious because
it assumes that these two processes are and will always be in perfect
balance. That is clearly false if the number of breathers increases
while the amount of vegetation decreases, as has happened in the past
200 years. We need to look at the whole CO2 budget, both production
and consumption.

I agree that we must reduce and eventually eliminate use of fossil
fuels.


It's more sensible to think of this as an accounting problem, and in
fact responsible scientists do look at it in that way by defining
carbon sources and carbon sinks.

Carbon sources emit carbon into the atmosphere. Those include animal
respiration, combustion, and various other sources.

Animal respiration does not ADD to the carbon in the atmosphere, in any
meaningful time frame.

Of course it does.

Nonsense. That carbon was trapped for a short time, in a closed loop that
starts with photosynthesis. Do you deny this?

The carbon's history is immaterial, and there is no closed loop though
it may be so depicted for illustration in some elementary school
science books. Release and sequestration of carbon are both
continuous processes.

Then other processes subract.

You have it backwards. First, there is short-term sequestration by
photosynthesis. Then we eat food thus produced, and re-release the carbon.

There's no such order. Both processes are continous.

If it was as you describe, what would we be eating in the first place? Air?

Chicken and egg polemic. Shame on you.

Don, trying to equate the trapping and releasing of CO2 in the production of
food, and then eating it and exhaling CO2, with burning fossil fuels is
profoundly misleading about the net effects.

I didn't equate anything with anything else. I merely describe the
processes without regard to spin value. Exhaling CO2 and burning
fossil fuels both produce CO2. Photosynthesis consumes CO2. If rate
of production exceeds rate of consumption, then atmospheric CO2 must
increase over time.

It should not be misleading at all to anyone who can understand a
budget, and it is considerably more accurate than the spin mythology
about short cycles and sequestration time.

Larry sounded like he was
equating the two. That's why I commented. I've pointedly avoided discussing
the system-wide effects of CO2 sequestration and release, and of its effects
on global warming, because they have nothing to do with the original point.

Let me reiterate that point so there is no confusion.

Again?

Burning fossil fuel
releases carbon into the atmosphere that was sequestered for millions of
years.

It does release carbon into the atmosphere, regardless of how long
sequestered.

We do it relatively quickly, so the net effect is to increase the
levels of atmospheric CO2 to something higher, in the direction of the
levels that existed millions of years ago.

That's true, though a bit loaded by the reference to millions of years
ago. The effect is to increase atmospheric CO2 because the rate of
subtraction by photosynthesis didn't increase correspondingly. If
anything, it decreased.

Eating and exhaling does not.

False. Exhaling won't only if the rate of consumption by
photosynthesis balances the rate of production by expiration.

Before you have something to eat, CO2 must be
sequestered from the atmosphere into plant life, at some recent time. And
it's a continuous process. There is some mean time of CO2 sequestration for
that plant life, and it's on the order of a few years.

True, but irrelevant. That CO2 becomes relevant at the time it is
released, regardless of where and how long it was sequestered.

The CO2 that we
release from burning fossil fuels was sequestered for MILLIONS of years.

True but irrelevant.

The net effect in each case is vastly different.

The net effect in each case is exactly the same. CO2 is CO2.

In the case of eating plants or
animals that eat plants, we're participating in a cycle that requires,
first, that CO2 must be sequestered from the atmosphere within recent years.
Then we release it, and the cycle, measured in a few years, repeats. There
is no net increase in atmospheric CO2.

Fallacious conclusion. See above.

If the subtractive
processes can't keep up with the additive processes, then atmospheric
concentration increases.

Something else, much more consequential, happens first: We starve. g

Geez, Ed! We starve before atmospheric concentration changes? How
might that be? For that matter, how does increase in atmospheric CO2,
which may facilitate photosynthesis, portend starvation?

Again, you have the process backwards. First, short-term sequestration. Then
we eat. Then there is more short-term sequestration -- or we don't eat
again.

Chicken and egg. Which happened first in the primordial ooze? Doesn't
matter. They are both now continuous processes. There are always
critters eating, breathing, reproducing and dying, and there are
always plants consuming CO2 as they do photosynthesis.

But we do. And ALL of the carbon we emit comes from that short-term
sequestration, and that particular cycle keeps repeating. Even if we had no
relationship to other trapping and emitting of CO2, that closed cycle, which
is quantifiable to a reasonable degree, would continue.

It isn't a closed cycle, Ed. It's a set of continuous processes. Your
assertion could only be true if increased CO2 level caused by
increased number of breathers and decreased vegetation would result in
more prolific growth and photosynthesis of remaining vegetation, thus
establishing a new equilibrium -- and even that doesn't take into
account the additional CO2 influx from combustion of fossil fuels.

You can treat it in
isolation of other effects because you know quite accurately how much carbon
is involved, how it's trapped, and how it's emitted -- and trapped again,
and re-emitted, etc.

No, I don't know, and neither do you. You will never know if you are
unable to comprehend the nature of interacting continuous processes.

Burning fossil fuels releases CO2. So does animal respiration, forest
fires, and warming oceans.

Burning wood does not,
as long as you replace those trees.

Of course it does. If trees are replaced, then they will serve as a
CO2 sink but not until they are replaced and grow to size.

And how many millions of years does that take?

As long as it takes a tree to grow.

Do you recognize the
qualitative difference that results from the different time scales?

No. The only time scale that matters is from this point forward. What
happens to the atmosphere from this point forward depends entirely on
our finding a way to balance release of CO2 with consumption of same
by photosynthesis and other mechanisms. Or not.


If production equals consumption, there is no cycle length at all.
Whenever production exceeds consumption, concentration will steadily
increase.

No, the cycles still exist. Mixing the CO2 together doesn't change that. All
it does is obscure the cycles that are at work.

These mythical cycles do seem to have some mystical fascination for
you. Individual carbon atoms may experience various cycles but release
and consumption of CO2 are both continuous processes. Burning fossil
fuel certainly increases the rate of release.



The fact that fossil fuel is millions of years old is immaterial.

That's a foolish thing to say, Don. You're ignoring the relative time to
sequester a fossil fuel, versus a plant that's used for food.

Yes, I am ignoring that history as irrelevant. Change in CO2
concentration from this point forward is not a matter of history, only
of what we're doing now and the course we choose henceforth.

The carbon
cycle for food is 100% (or nearly so) contained within a matter of years.
The cycle for fossil fuel is millions of years in, and now hundreds of years
out. We're dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere that required
millions of years to sequester.

That's true, but the problem has nothing to do with how long it was
sequestered and everything to do with the increased rate of release --
which you describe as dumping, perhaps a bit of spin there?

When we eat, we're emitting at about the
same rate as the sequestration of CO2 in food.

You keep reciting that almost as an article of faith. If that were
true 200 years ago, then how can it possibly be true today with more
breathers and less vegetation?

Only way to deal with that question is by examining rates of
production and consumption in the continuous processes, not blind
faith in mythical cycles.


The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases if the amount being
released exceeds the amount being removed. Even if we eliminated all
fossil fuel combustion, if we reduce the planet's ability to remove
CO2, as by replacing vegetation with concrete, then the CO2 emitted
from people would increase the amount in the atmosphere.

No, it wouldn't. It CAN'T. All of the CO2 emitted by people HAS TO be
sequestered first in plants, through photosynthesis, over the short term.

At risk of challenging a fervent belief and article of faith, it ain't
necessarily so. CO2 emitted by people goes into the atmosphere,
plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere for photosynthesis, both
processes are continuous. There is no cosmic guarantee of equity or
balance.


We need to look at the whole issue, not just one aspect of it.

Not if the question is about the emission of CO2 by people, versus engines
burning fossil fuels. That's ALL I've commented upon. And your statement
above, about increased CO2 emitted by people if we pave over the land with
concrete, is the fundamental flaw in your logic. It is impossible -- at
least, until we're able to synthesize food from something other than plant
sources. Maybe we can eat carbonate rocks. g

Detail nit, paving the land doesn't increase emission by people; it
reduces consumption by vegetation. It's that pesky gozinto vs gozoutta
budget concept again.

It isn't impossible at all, though definitely short-sighted and
foolish. There's a lot less green forest on the planet than there was
200 years ago.

ALL of the CO2 we emit must first be sequestered in plants, via
photosynthesis. It's a short, closed cycle. If we pave over the land, we
have nothing to eat.

Some of the deforestation was conversion to land more suitable for
raising livestock. The livestock becomes food eventually, but the
photosynthetic contribution from that land is greatly diminished.

The only "emitting" we'll do then will occur as our
bodies decompose. But even that CO2 "emission" is the result of plant life
stored in our bodies over a matter of decades. It has no net effect on
atmospheric CO2.

No long term effect anyway. We'll spoil quickly, combustion of fossil
fuels will cease and the processes will continue as they have for
eons.

On 7/25/2010 11:32 PM, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:14:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Martin H. wrote in message
...
CO2 is CO2 no matter where it comes from.

From bugs man, forest fire, Oil Field on fire or decaying matter.

Martin

If it comes from recent photosynthesis, it adds nothing to the atmosphere.
If it comes from fossil fuels, it restores CO2 to the atmosphere that hasn't
been there for millions of years. It increases CO2 levels as a result.

I think you mean "if it comes from oxidation of organic matter that
was produced by photosynthesis..." Photosynthesis doesn't release
CO2, it consumes it.

Any release of CO2 from any source adds immediately to the local
atmosphere. If that were not true then submarines wouldn't need CO2
scrubbers to deal with CO2 from respiration: just add oxygen to
replace that used.

Simultaneously, current photosynthesis and other processes subtract
immediately from atmosphere in their locale. Any concentration
gradients that result are soon resolved by mixing due to winds and
Dalton's law of partial pressures. If these two processes balance
over a given period of time then there is no net change during that
period. If the CO2 added by burning fossil fuel is not balanced by
a corresponding increase in subtraction by photosynthesis or other
subtractive mechanism, then atmospheric concentration will increase
over time. In fact, over the past 200 years or so we have both
increased the rate of addition and reduced the rate of subtraction by
destruction of vegetation.

To mitigate this, we must look at both reducing production rate and
increasing subtraction rate. Breathing less is not a viable option
(pun intended) but fossil fuels are by no means the only other source
and subtraction is just as important in balancing the CO2 budget.

Don, I am curious--do you win many converts with the line of argument
you are using?

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:27:27 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 25, 10:47*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

It is faulty logic. *I too have an
engineering background.

Then let's see you put it to use here.

The effect of releasing a lb. of CO2 into the
atmosphere is the same regardless of where it came from.

No, it's not, Dan. Do you need an example here to see the point?

--
Ed Huntress

What ever. I have put my engineering background to use. Saying the
source of CO2 makes a difference is absurd. Some people will
understand, some never will.

Dan

Thermodynamically, you're correct Dan. Kinetically...a different
matter.

As has been noted in other threads, it's the fact that carbon is being
released much faster (millions of times faster) than it is being
consumed that makes the difference. You are correct that the effect
of releasing one pound of carbon into the atmosphere is the same
regardless of the source. The difference is not the amount but the
rate of release.

And FWIW the (bulk) carbon in coal and oil *is* (slightly) different
from the carbon in the life cycle. It has no significant amount of
carbon 14. Insofar as chemical reaction goes, that difference is not
significant, though. Carbon reacts pretty much the same whether it's
C-12, C-13, or C-14.

On Jul 26, 7:27*am, Terry wrote:

*You are correct that the effect
of releasing one pound of carbon into the atmosphere is the same
regardless of the source. *The difference is not the amount but the
rate of release.



You are one of those that understand.

Dan

On 7/25/2010 11:16 AM, Steve Ackman wrote:
, on Sat, 17 Jul 2010
07:56:22 -0700, Stu Fields, wrote:
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

It takes a LOT of energy to produce PV panels. From
what I've read, a PV panel will never make up the
carbon it cost in its expected 25 year life span.

How much energy is required to plant crops and
create oil from the harvest?

Does it take longer than 25 years?

--Winston -- Needs to know

On 7/26/2010 9:19 AM, Winston wrote:
On 7/25/2010 11:16 AM, Steve Ackman wrote:
, on Sat, 17 Jul 2010
07:56:22 -0700, Stu Fields, wrote:
I forgot to mention in 6 days of operation, our new solar panel system
claims to have saved: Are you ready?

300# of Co2

It takes a LOT of energy to produce PV panels. From
what I've read, a PV panel will never make up the
carbon it cost in its expected 25 year life span.

How much energy is required to plant crops and
create oil from the harvest?

Does it take longer than 25 years?

While it's possible to do that and it is efficient from an energy
viewpoint we're already seeing the unintended consequences in rising
food prices.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:18:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 7/25/2010 11:32 PM, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:14:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Martin H. wrote in message
...
CO2 is CO2 no matter where it comes from.

From bugs man, forest fire, Oil Field on fire or decaying matter.

Martin

If it comes from recent photosynthesis, it adds nothing to the atmosphere.
If it comes from fossil fuels, it restores CO2 to the atmosphere that hasn't
been there for millions of years. It increases CO2 levels as a result.

I think you mean "if it comes from oxidation of organic matter that
was produced by photosynthesis..." Photosynthesis doesn't release
CO2, it consumes it.

Any release of CO2 from any source adds immediately to the local
atmosphere. If that were not true then submarines wouldn't need CO2
scrubbers to deal with CO2 from respiration: just add oxygen to
replace that used.

Simultaneously, current photosynthesis and other processes subtract
immediately from atmosphere in their locale. Any concentration
gradients that result are soon resolved by mixing due to winds and
Dalton's law of partial pressures. If these two processes balance
over a given period of time then there is no net change during that
period. If the CO2 added by burning fossil fuel is not balanced by
a corresponding increase in subtraction by photosynthesis or other
subtractive mechanism, then atmospheric concentration will increase
over time. In fact, over the past 200 years or so we have both
increased the rate of addition and reduced the rate of subtraction by
destruction of vegetation.

To mitigate this, we must look at both reducing production rate and
increasing subtraction rate. Breathing less is not a viable option
(pun intended) but fossil fuels are by no means the only other source
and subtraction is just as important in balancing the CO2 budget.

Don, I am curious--do you win many converts with the line of argument
you are using?

Converts?

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:12:53 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
The common termite out produces man and man's machine.

Just think of the massive cut in South America and all of
the rotting wood being eaten up by termites that 'out-gas' CO2
as they eat cellulose and break it down.

Martin

But it's wood that absorbed that CO2 from the atmosphere within the last
few
decades. They don't "add" a bit of CO2.

If trees absorb (subtract) CO2 by photosynthesis, but the CO2
resulting from them later being broken down by combustion or digestion
doesn't add it back to atmosphere, then we'd have one hell of a CO2
deficit if we weren't making up the difference by burning fossil
fuels. G

But it *does* re-emit it back to the atmosphere. That's a closed loop, one
that closes over a period of decades. Over that time, there is no net
addition or subtraction from atmospheric CO@.

I don't have to explain to you the difference between that and burning
fossil fuels. And you're being downright silly. Like most old engineers,
you're deep into pedantry at the expense of understanding. It was fixing
arguments like yours that provided me a job for 30 years. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:59:02 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Don, that wasn't the question I addressed. Once again, there are two
questions: whether human respiration adds CO2 to the atmosphere (no), and
whether burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere (yes).

Are we agreed on this?

No. Both processes immediately add CO2 to the atmosphere.

We aren't talking about "immediately." We're talking about spans of time
shorter than a human life, as I've said repeatedly and to which you haven't
objected until now, in your search for some justification to extend your
pedantic argument. d8-)

Meanwhile,
photosynthesis consumes CO2 from the atmosphere. If the rate of
photosynthesis consumption matches the rate of natural production,
then there is no net change in atmospheric concentration. There may
be seasonal variance, but the volume of the atmosphere would make that
unmeasurable.

I'm not sure if seasonal variation *is* unmeasurable, but it's irrelevant to
the point, anyway. The subject, to remind you, was human respiration, and we
expell CO2 from what we eat.


The only time constant here is the rate of concentration
change, which is proportional to the net increase of atmospheric CO2
per unit time divided by the total atmospheric volume.

No, that wasn't the question. That's a larger question, but my responses
are
true, regardless of what you may want to speculate about what happens to
that CO2 after it's in the atmosphere.

I didn't speculate about that at all. To which CO2 do you refer: that
which was added by burning fossil fuel, or that which you insist
wasn't added because it came from respiration? I didn't and don't
differentiate.

Then you have muddled the issue until it's no longer comprehensible, because
the the CO2 that comes from respiration is 100% from short-term
sequestration, and the CO2 that comes from burning fossil fuels is 100% from
multi-million-year sequestration. So you can distinguish the two, as you
well know, and would focus on, if you didn't have too much time on your
hands and weren't engaging in obfuscatory pedantry. d8-)





CO2 from animal respiration doesn't magically migrate to trees while
CO2 from fossil fuel combustion goes directly to greenhouse. It may
be politically expedient to represent things that way, but that isn't
what happens.

It doesn't matter which CO2 goes where.

My point. Thank you.

But what does your "point" mean in relation to the original question?


The question is whether the CO2
emitted by humans comes from a short-term sequestration -- whether that
CO2
we exhale was in the atmosphere a few minutes, months, or possibly a few
years ago, and we've just put it back where it was -- and whether the CO2
emitted by burning fossil fuels comes from sequestration effected millions
of years ago. The answer to both is yes.

No, it isn't. The term of sequestration is irrelevant.

Now you're being foolish. Go find something useful to do with yourself.
Maybe you have a rifle barrel that needs lapping.

snip

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:20:48 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:




The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases if the amount being
released exceeds the amount being removed. Even if we eliminated all
fossil fuel combustion, if we reduce the planet's ability to remove
CO2, as by replacing vegetation with concrete, then the CO2 emitted
from people would increase the amount in the atmosphere.

No, it wouldn't. It CAN'T. All of the CO2 emitted by people HAS TO be
sequestered first in plants, through photosynthesis, over the short term.

At risk of challenging a fervent belief and article of faith, it ain't
necessarily so. CO2 emitted by people goes into the atmosphere,
plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere for photosynthesis, both
processes are continuous. There is no cosmic guarantee of equity or
balance.

I misread your paragraph above. I agree, all of the CO2 emitted by
people must have been first sequestered in plants. Any plants not
eaten by us or other animals eventually rot and release their CO2 to
atmosphere anyway.

When we add more CO2 by burning fossil fuels without a corresponding
subtractive mechanism, atmospheric CO2 must necessarily increase.

Planting more vegetation would not accomplish this because the
vegetation will eventually decompose and re-release the CO2 it
entrained. We must either stop burning fossil fuels, or find a way to
deal with the excess CO2. That might involve export (to space) or
some form of long-term sequestration, like perhaps being converted to
seashells or concentrating it and burying it.

On 7/26/2010 12:26 PM, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:18:47 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

On 7/25/2010 11:32 PM, Don Foreman wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:14:45 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Martin H. wrote in message
...
CO2 is CO2 no matter where it comes from.

From bugs man, forest fire, Oil Field on fire or decaying matter.

Martin

If it comes from recent photosynthesis, it adds nothing to the atmosphere.
If it comes from fossil fuels, it restores CO2 to the atmosphere that hasn't
been there for millions of years. It increases CO2 levels as a result.

I think you mean "if it comes from oxidation of organic matter that
was produced by photosynthesis..." Photosynthesis doesn't release
CO2, it consumes it.

Any release of CO2 from any source adds immediately to the local
atmosphere. If that were not true then submarines wouldn't need CO2
scrubbers to deal with CO2 from respiration: just add oxygen to
replace that used.

Simultaneously, current photosynthesis and other processes subtract
immediately from atmosphere in their locale. Any concentration
gradients that result are soon resolved by mixing due to winds and
Dalton's law of partial pressures. If these two processes balance
over a given period of time then there is no net change during that
period. If the CO2 added by burning fossil fuel is not balanced by
a corresponding increase in subtraction by photosynthesis or other
subtractive mechanism, then atmospheric concentration will increase
over time. In fact, over the past 200 years or so we have both
increased the rate of addition and reduced the rate of subtraction by
destruction of vegetation.

To mitigate this, we must look at both reducing production rate and
increasing subtraction rate. Breathing less is not a viable option
(pun intended) but fossil fuels are by no means the only other source
and subtraction is just as important in balancing the CO2 budget.

Don, I am curious--do you win many converts with the line of argument
you are using?

Converts?

It is my assumption that you have a viewpoint that you wish others to
accept rather than that you are arguing just for the sake of argument.
Correct me if I am in error on this point.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:20:48 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:




The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases if the amount being
released exceeds the amount being removed. Even if we eliminated all
fossil fuel combustion, if we reduce the planet's ability to remove
CO2, as by replacing vegetation with concrete, then the CO2 emitted
from people would increase the amount in the atmosphere.

No, it wouldn't. It CAN'T. All of the CO2 emitted by people HAS TO be
sequestered first in plants, through photosynthesis, over the short term.

At risk of challenging a fervent belief and article of faith, it ain't
necessarily so. CO2 emitted by people goes into the atmosphere,
plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere for photosynthesis, both
processes are continuous. There is no cosmic guarantee of equity or
balance.

I misread your paragraph above. I agree, all of the CO2 emitted by
people must have been first sequestered in plants. Any plants not
eaten by us or other animals eventually rot and release their CO2 to
atmosphere anyway.

When we add more CO2 by burning fossil fuels without a corresponding
subtractive mechanism, atmospheric CO2 must necessarily increase.

Planting more vegetation would not accomplish this because the
vegetation will eventually decompose and re-release the CO2 it
entrained. We must either stop burning fossil fuels, or find a way to
deal with the excess CO2. That might involve export (to space) or
some form of long-term sequestration, like perhaps being converted to
seashells or concentrating it and burying it.


Maybe we could sell it to China. They'll buy any kind of recycled scrap.
Then they'll send it back us in the form of some kind of sweaty T-shirts
that don't breathe and look like they've been boiled for a couple of days.

Then they'll rust. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Looks like I'll have to admit to starting this heated
discussion and apologize to all concerned. I did
not mean for this to go so far as to cause hard
feelings among posters to this fine group. I hope
you can just let it go and get on with more important
things we _can_ control. Once again, I'm sorry if I
caused trouble here.....I didn't mean to... :((
phil kangas

"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
...
Looks like I'll have to admit to starting this heated
discussion and apologize to all concerned. I did
not mean for this to go so far as to cause hard
feelings among posters to this fine group. I hope
you can just let it go and get on with more important
things we _can_ control. Once again, I'm sorry if I
caused trouble here.....I didn't mean to... :((
phil kangas

Good grief, Phil, that was nothing. And it wouldn't be your fault even if it
was something. It's an important and interesting subject.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:41:13 -0400, "Phil Kangas"
wrote:

Looks like I'll have to admit to starting this heated
discussion and apologize to all concerned. I did
not mean for this to go so far as to cause hard
feelings among posters to this fine group. I hope
you can just let it go and get on with more important
things we _can_ control. Once again, I'm sorry if I
caused trouble here.....I didn't mean to... :((
phil kangas

Hard feelings? Hardly! Ed's always calling folks names, doesn't
mean a thing. G

"Ed Huntress"

Good grief, Phil, that was nothing. And it wouldn't be
your fault even if it was something. It's an important and
interesting subject.

--
Ed Huntress

Don Foreman wrote:
Hard feelings? Hardly! Ed's always calling folks names,
doesn't
mean a thing. G


Well, good then. I'll sleep better tonight...... ;)) phil

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:53:42 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:59:02 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



Don, that wasn't the question I addressed. Once again, there are two
questions: whether human respiration adds CO2 to the atmosphere (no), and
whether burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere (yes).

Are we agreed on this?

No. Both processes immediately add CO2 to the atmosphere.

We aren't talking about "immediately." We're talking about spans of time
shorter than a human life, as I've said repeatedly and to which you haven't
objected until now, in your search for some justification to extend your
pedantic argument. d8-)

Meanwhile,
photosynthesis consumes CO2 from the atmosphere. If the rate of
photosynthesis consumption matches the rate of natural production,
then there is no net change in atmospheric concentration. There may
be seasonal variance, but the volume of the atmosphere would make that
unmeasurable.

I'm not sure if seasonal variation *is* unmeasurable, but it's irrelevant to
the point, anyway. The subject, to remind you, was human respiration, and we
expell CO2 from what we eat.


The only time constant here is the rate of concentration
change, which is proportional to the net increase of atmospheric CO2
per unit time divided by the total atmospheric volume.

No, that wasn't the question. That's a larger question, but my responses
are
true, regardless of what you may want to speculate about what happens to
that CO2 after it's in the atmosphere.

I didn't speculate about that at all. To which CO2 do you refer: that
which was added by burning fossil fuel, or that which you insist
wasn't added because it came from respiration? I didn't and don't
differentiate.

Then you have muddled the issue until it's no longer comprehensible, because
the the CO2 that comes from respiration is 100% from short-term
sequestration, and the CO2 that comes from burning fossil fuels is 100% from
multi-million-year sequestration. So you can distinguish the two, as you
well know, and would focus on, if you didn't have too much time on your
hands and weren't engaging in obfuscatory pedantry. d8-)





CO2 from animal respiration doesn't magically migrate to trees while
CO2 from fossil fuel combustion goes directly to greenhouse. It may
be politically expedient to represent things that way, but that isn't
what happens.

It doesn't matter which CO2 goes where.

My point. Thank you.

But what does your "point" mean in relation to the original question?


The question is whether the CO2
emitted by humans comes from a short-term sequestration -- whether that
CO2
we exhale was in the atmosphere a few minutes, months, or possibly a few
years ago, and we've just put it back where it was -- and whether the CO2
emitted by burning fossil fuels comes from sequestration effected millions
of years ago. The answer to both is yes.

No, it isn't. The term of sequestration is irrelevant.

Now you're being foolish. Go find something useful to do with yourself.
Maybe you have a rifle barrel that needs lapping.

snip

Let's say that I released x grams of CO2 from fossil fuel today while
driving on errands. Most of the trip was along tree-lined streets.
The trees glommed at least some of that fossil-fuel carbon and bound
it up with photosynthesis for a while. That fossil carbon just entered
your cycle! Meanwhile, Gunner exales in Taft where there ain't no
trees. That CO2 goes to atmosphere, at least for the moment and
possibly forever.

At this moment there is a certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and
a certain amount bound up in vegetation. What happens if we reduce
the amount of vegetation simply by eating it or letting it rot without
replanting or allowing it to propagate. The carbon that is in today's
vegetation will soon be released back to atmosphere -- and it will
then have nowhere to go. Therefore, atmospheric concentration must
increase. Your cycle model assumes constant global vegetative mass.

If we increase the total amount of global vegetative mass, then we
would always have more carbon bound up in that mass even though every
particular bit of that mass will eventually decay. That carbon would
come from the atmosphere. Fossil combustion releases carbon, increased
vegetation sequesters it for as long as the total vegetative
photsynthesizing mass remains constant. Not any particular bush or
tree but the total mass.


That's why a continuous interactive process model is more accurate.
CO2 is being added and subtracted all of the time. It's useful to
understand what's really going on because we can only find solutions
if we understand the problem and the processes.

On 7/26/2010 12:26 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Like most old engineers,
you're deep into pedantry at the expense of understanding.



You didn't state the integration time. So you shall have no pie!

Kevin Gallimore

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:02:38 -0400, axolotl
wrote:

On 7/26/2010 12:26 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Like most old engineers,
you're deep into pedantry at the expense of understanding.



You didn't state the integration time. So you shall have no pie!

Kevin Gallimore

I hate when that happens!

"axolotl" wrote in message
...
On 7/26/2010 12:26 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
Like most old engineers,
you're deep into pedantry at the expense of understanding.



You didn't state the integration time. So you shall have no pie!

Kevin Gallimore

I don't like eating in manufacturing plant cafeterias, anyway....

--
Ed Huntress