Global Economy Bursting?

[Randolph Kinney]

The way forward is fraught with division. Are we European in our choices? Are we crony capitalists? Justice is not rendered on proof but who you know and what doctrines are followed.

As the good book says, ... critical times, hard to deal with

 

[Couch Potato]

According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNP

Gross National Product (GNP) is the market value of all products and services produced in one year by labor and property supplied by the residents of a country. Unlike Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which defines production based on the geographical location of production, GNP allocates production based on ownership.

The United States used GNP as its primary measure of total economic activity before 1991, when it began to use GDP.[3] In making the switch, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) noted both that GDP provided an easier comparison of other measures of economic activity in the United States and that "virtually all other countries have already adopted GDP as their primary measure of production.

According to the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States --

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Ah, but Joule is using emissions, specifically that most evil of emissions carbon dioxide, as the input to produce the fuel. Note the presence of John Podesta on the board of directors before making a judgement on the administrations interest.

If the carbon emissions in the diesel fuel are merely the recycled emissions from another source that would have been placed in the atmosphere whether or not they temporarily became diesel fuel it is hard for any to make a case against using the diesel fuel.

The problem with carbon dioxide, there are so many other sources than man that dwarfs any effort to recycle "carbon" by man.

You see, planting corn to make alcohol is not energy efficient nor is it carbon neutral. When you look at the petroleum based fertilizers used, it is pure irony.

There is a natural carbon cycle. Look it up.

• The carbon cycle is the set of biogeochemical processes by which carbon undergoes chemical reactions, changes form, and moves through different reservoirs on earth, including living organisms.
  
• The geological component of the carbon cycle is driven by plate tectonics and includes processes like volcanic eruptions and burial of carbon-rich sediments on the ocean floor.
  
• The biological component of the carbon cycle is driven by respiration and photosynthesis by living organisms.
  
• Humans influence the global carbon cycle in several ways, but primarily through burning fossil fuels.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

The carbon sequestering efforts are phony. Iceland volcanoes have put 10x the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past 1 year than man did.

CO2 is sequestered in cold waters. Since the earth has warmed since the Ice Ages, the oceans are warming which allows the CO2 to diffuse into the atmosphere naturally... again, man's contribution is relatively small which means that even if we achieve true "carbon neutral" living as a world society, the amount of CO2 will increase.

 

[Couch Potato]

I have no illusions about man's impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide, but as I read the process the company in question is using for its carbon source 100% carbon dioxide emissions attributable to waste carbon dioxide from other emission sources. Therefore the fuel can claim a zero carbon footprint. Not much of an environmental impact in my opinion, but the political and marketing impact is tremendous.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

I have no illusions about man's impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide, but as I read the process the company in question is using for its carbon source 100% carbon dioxide emissions attributable to waste carbon dioxide from other emission sources. Therefore the fuel can claim a zero carbon footprint. Not much of an environmental impact in my opinion, but the political and marketing impact is tremendous.

Actually not. The carbon that is used by the plant is used to generate a carbon based fuel, to be burned, releasing that same carbon as if nothing happened.

There is a fixed amount of carbon on Earth; how it is held - as gases (more than just CO2 you know, like methane gas as well as others) - as dissolved in water - as held in solids (mainly carbonates) - depends really on the sun, plate teutonics and the Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation - These variables are only important because the Earth has an asymmetric distribution of landmasses.


Terrel has it right. Carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water than warm water. The oceans serve as a sink and source for carbon dioxide, depending on temperatures of the oceans.

 

[Couch Potato]

Actually not. The carbon that is used by the plant is used to generate a carbon based fuel, to be burned, releasing that same carbon as if nothing happened.

There is a fixed amount of carbon on Earth; how it is held - as gases (more than just CO2 you know, like methane gas as well as others) - as dissolved in water - as held in solids (mainly carbonates) - depends really on the sun, plate teutonics and the Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation - These variables are only important because the Earth has an asymmetric distribution of landmasses.


Terrel has it right. Carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water than warm water. The oceans serve as a sink and source for carbon dioxide, depending on temperatures of the oceans.

All true, but in this case the carbon dioxide in question is emissions from things such as burning coal to make electricity being recycled and burned again on its way to the atmosphere from the electric power plant.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

All true, but in this case the carbon dioxide in question is emissions from things such as burning coal to make electricity being recycled and burned again on its way to the atmosphere from the electric power plant.

Methane gas from a human's butt that was sequestered by a cow, not burped or flatulate, that came from grass, that came from the atmosphere that came from the oceans, goes back to the atmosphere that reacts with lightening discharge that falls dissolved in rain back to the oceans, forms carbonates that are subducted by plate teutonics, released as CO2 through volcanoes and earthquakes.

Hence a net neutral carbon exchange. It does not matter where in the cycle you examine, it does not alter the carbon. The only facetious argument is where the carbon came from and where it is going.

Just like the water cycle; vapor - liquid - solid and back again. Where did the water come from and where is it going to?

By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:

• water vapor, 36–70%
• carbon dioxide, 9–26%
• methane, 4–9%
• ozone, 3–7%

The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the atmosphere.

The idea of attacking carbon dioxide as the major cause of global warming is for fools who did not learn anything in science. Or, they were recently educated by our political correct institutions of higher learning.

 

[Couch Potato]

Methane gas from a human's butt that was sequestered by a cow, not burped or flatulate, that came from grass, that came from the atmosphere that came from the oceans, goes back to the atmosphere that reacts with lightening discharge that falls dissolved in rain back to the oceans, forms carbonates that are subducted by plate teutonics, released as CO2 through volcanoes and earthquakes.

Hence a net neutral carbon exchange. It does not matter where in the cycle you examine, it does not alter the carbon. The only facetious argument is where the carbon came from and where it is going.

Just like the water cycle; vapor - liquid - solid and back again. Where did the water come from and where is it going to?

By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:

• water vapor, 36–70%
• carbon dioxide, 9–26%
• methane, 4–9%
• ozone, 3–7%

The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the atmosphere.

The idea of attacking carbon dioxide as the major cause of global warming is for fools who did not learn anything in science. Or, they were recently educated by our political correct institutions of higher learning.

In other words the majority of the American population.

Always keep in mind, marketing and politics have nothing to do with facts and truth.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

In other words the majority of the American population.

Always keep in mind, marketing and politics have nothing to do with facts and truth.

Do yourself a favor and look up the properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide for trapping energy from the sun.

Carbon dioxide accounts for only one in every 4000 molecules in the air; water vapor accounts for one in every 20. Carbon dioxide absorbs only a quarter as much energy from sunlight as water vapor, molecule for molecule; suggesting that water vapor is responsible for the majority of atmospheric heating.

Those are the facts. My question (as should be yours), why are the politicians not going after water vapor, to reduce its concentration in the atmosphere?

Answer: Because people would not believe man could control anything associated with water vapor production since water covers about 70% of the Earth's surface and the Sun drives the water cycle.