I want to ask a question my apologies if it seems a stupid question.
I wanna ask is that its a fact that Co2 is increasing at alarming rate so why dont we utilize the heat traping effect of CO2.
We just have to store the CO2 and concentrate suns energy/sun light onto co2 if its not that much to boil water or heat the paltier compres it to make it hoter and then utilize it to make electricity. In this way we can trap the gas utlize its energy and can eradicate the extra by plating trees in certain close environment and leting co2 reach there I know that specific heat of water is much greater but still can we.

 

Welcome to AAC!

The point is to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to reduce global warming. The only way to do that is to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.

A plant has been built to do that, but it will only remove 150 tons annually and the world emits 30-40Gigatons annually. A drop in the bucket...

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-air-announces-a-new-methane-producing-plant/

 

Welcome to AAC!

The point is to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to reduce global warming. The only way to do that is to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.

A plant has been built to do that, but it will only remove 150 tons annually and the world emits 30-40Gigatons annually. A drop in the bucket...

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-air-announces-a-new-methane-producing-plant/

To put that in perspective, a gallon of diesel fuel produces about 22 pounds of CO2 when burned. As best I can determine, the average heavy-truck mileage is about 6.5 mpg and the average truck travels 45,000 miles annually, so each truck produces, on average, about 76 metric tons of CO2 annually. So this plant will just about be able to keep up with the CO2 emissions of a whopping two such trucks.

Further putting some perspective on the number, the best estimate I can find is that an acre of forested land sequesters about 9 to 10 tons of CO2, so about 15 to 17 acres of forest does what this plant will do.

I'm guessing that if someone were to plant fast-growing trees they could probably lower the land needed by quite a bit, but I haven't been able to find numbers.

I did, however, run across an interesting article (from 2009) about an artificial tree prototype (the term "artificial tree" appears to be more descriptive of effect rather than form or function -- it seems to be just a machine) that absorbs about 1000x the CO2 of a natural tree.

https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/installing-plastic-trees-help-environment

However, I'm not a big believer in what any outfit that begins with the word "Popular ..." touts (and, it would seem like if this were likely to do anything it would have received some very widespread attention in the last decade).

The article claims that each tree could collect 90,000 tons of CO2 a year. However, as best I can tell, natural trees can collect about 50 pounds (not tons) of CO2 a year. So 1000x that would only be 25 tons a year. Now THAT's about the quality of work that I expect from a Popular Whatever publication -- neither the author nor the editor managed to catch a discrepancy of 3.5 orders of magnitude. However, the fact that the publication screwed the pooch doesn't mean that there's nothing of value there.

This is the best I've been able to find quickly that is recent:

https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-08...t-solution-climate-change-these-guys-think-so

Note that the other research has a system that uses a stack of absorbers about the size of a tractor-trailer to remove about 1000 tons annually, or about the same as 13 trucks.

 

I'm not alarmed by the amount of man made CO2 emissions or the purported threat of global warming and climate change. From April to July of this year, a single volcanic eruption in Hawaii spewed 1000s of tons of various toxic gases into the atmosphere. There are hundreds of active volcanoes around the world so I wouldn't worry about the amount of CO2 contributed by cars and trucks.

 

I'm not alarmed by the amount of man made CO2 emissions or the purported threat of global warming and climate change. From April to July of this year, a single volcanic eruption in Hawaii spewed 1000s of tons of various toxic gases into the atmosphere. There are hundreds of active volcanoes around the world so I wouldn't worry about the amount of CO2 contributed by cars and trucks.

But it still is CO2 emission and contributes to global warming. Volcanic eruptions isn't something we can control but even if a fraction can be controlled, it should be welcomed. One thing leads to other in science.

 

I'm not alarmed by the amount of man made CO2 emissions or the purported threat of global warming and climate change. From April to July of this year, a single volcanic eruption in Hawaii spewed 1000s of tons of various toxic gases into the atmosphere. There are hundreds of active volcanoes around the world so I wouldn't worry about the amount of CO2 contributed by cars and trucks.

You can believe that, or read what those who measure the emissions say:
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/file_mngr/file-154/Gerlach-2011-EOS_AGU.pdf

 

We just have to store the CO2 and concentrate suns energy/sun light onto co2

There seems to be a common misconception that CO2 absorbs the sunlight and turns it into heat. Not so. CO2 allows visible and UV light to pass through it, but blocks infrared. So the sunlight comes through and heats the earth. The earth tries to radiate some of that heat back into space and that re-radiation is blocked by the CO2. The CO2 is acting almost exactly like the glass roof in a greenhouse does - the glass doesn't get hot, it simply prevents the heat from escaping. Hence the "greenhouse effect" and "greenhouse gasses".

 

I'm not alarmed by the amount of man made CO2 emissions or the purported threat of global warming and climate change.

That's a curious statement for someone who appears to have a scientific background.
How can you look at the large rise in global average temperatures over the last century and not think it's due to the activities of humans?

 

That's a curious statement for someone who appears to have a scientific background.
How can you look at the large rise in global average temperatures over the last century and not think it's due to the activities of humans?

If large rises in global average temperature over a period of a century must be due to activities of humans, then are all claims of large rises in global average temperatures over comparable time frames prior to significant human activity hoaxes? If not, then why must THIS rise in global average temperatures over that time scale due to the activities of humans?

 

If large rises in global average temperature over a period of a century must be due to activities of humans, then are all claims of large rises in global average temperatures over comparable time frames prior to significant human activity hoaxes?

I believe there's no record of such a large rise in temperature over such a short time-frame.
Call it a hoax (fake news) if you want but the vast majority of climate specialists believe it's due to human activity.
I'm sure the coming generations will appreciate your ignorance (if they survive the climate change and rising sea levels).

 

I think the warming is natural and benefits all life on earth. It will also calm the weather down. It should moderate and even it out. Green deserts and brushy tundras. Yuge herds of red meat. You'll get tired of steak.

 

That's a curious statement for someone who appears to have a scientific background.

I just wish the research would get out from under the UN. For me, if it comes out of the UN it has questionably credibility. .

 

I believe there's no record of such a large rise in temperature over such a short time-frame.
Call it a hoax (fake news) if you want but the vast majority of climate specialists believe it's due to human activity.
I'm sure the coming generations will appreciate your ignorance (if they survive the climate change and rising sea levels).

Must you really resort to personal insults in order to state your case?

Why wouldn't it have been sufficient to simply say, "Yes, all claims of prior large temperature swings over similar time frames are hoaxes."

 

I think the warming is natural and benefits all life on earth. It will also calm the weather down. It should moderate and even it out. Green deserts and brushy tundras. Yuge herds of red meat. You'll get tired of steak.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

 

Must you really resort to personal insults in order to state your case?

No.
I apologize for that.
I'm afraid I've let the present political climate of personal insults from the President on down, corrode my responses.

 

I'm not alarmed by the amount of man made CO2 emissions or the purported threat of global warming and climate change. From April to July of this year, a single volcanic eruption in Hawaii spewed 1000s of tons of various toxic gases into the atmosphere. There are hundreds of active volcanoes around the world so I wouldn't worry about the amount of CO2 contributed by cars and trucks.

You've got it in one .... People are waking up to the reality that anthropogenic climate change is a huge lie pushed by politicians and bankers with the aim of extracting vast amounts of wealth from the public .

All Gore one of the main cheer leaders of this has made BILLIONS of $ in personal wealth by running the main carbon exchange trading company with his business partner David Blood ... the company is call Blood and Gore ... you couldn't make this stuff up . .. https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#561559c732dc

In 2000 Gore said within 15 years the icecaps would melt and Venice , Bangladesh and many islands would be under water ... all lies based on pseudo science .

He clearly doesn't believe it himself ...in 2010 Gore bought yet another beach front property (.$8 million).. http://www.worldpropertyjournal.com...-cage-peter-reckell-kelly-moneymaker-2525.php

Gore's latest property acquisition

Running multiple mansion sized homes and private jets Gore has a massive carbon footprint ...

He's laughing at the suckers who believe him!

 

..... the vast majority of climate specialists believe it's due to human activity.
.

These "climate specialist " collect a government pay check ! they know that without this imagined crisis they would loose their job ... Some have been caught fixing the numbers , more than once ....
"Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.
A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced..." " https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

The people exposing the fraud are independent and not in the governments pocket.

 

These "climate specialist " collect a government pay check ! they know that without this imagined crisis they would loose their job ... Some have been caught fixing the numbers , more than once ....
"Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.
A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced..." " https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

The people exposing the fraud are independent and not in the governments pocket.

Instead of posting an 8 year old newspaper article, why not go to the latest scientific advice by some of the top scientists on the planet from probably the most prestigious scientific institution. These folk would resign if they thought there were political or financial interests affecting their work.

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/po.../27-11-2017-Climate-change-updates-report.pdf

 

In earlier times I would have laughed at that. Now I worry.

 

To put that in perspective, a gallon of diesel fuel produces about 22 pounds of CO2 when burned.

How is this possible? A gallon of gas weighs no where near that? What is going on that it can produce CO2 so much more than its weight?

Every time someone cuts down a tree I cringe. There was a huge one in the neighborhood that was just cut down. I understand the reason as it was becoming a nuisance. If it fell it would have crushed the owner's home but still ssad.

But what was really upsetting is when a neighbor tore out his huge lawn and replaced it with carpet.