[Neusser]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

No it won't because the amount of emissions continues to grow. This is why companies are working on sequestering carbon.

That is why you think they are working on sequestering carbon.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Ah, another internet argument that requires a thesis paper...

The terrestrial carbon sink (forest) consumes "about 30% of carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels" (read in the attachment to my previous post). NASA states "Forests and other land vegetation currently remove up to 30 percent of human carbon dioxide emissions" by photosynthesis (read in the attachment to my previous post). NOAA states about 31% of CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the earth's oceans. The ocean can sequester CO2 for hundreds or even thousands of years. CO2 in the atmosphere is CO2, the source of the CO2 is immaterial to the discussion; all CO2 sources mix together in the atmosphere.

So, add the terrestrial carbon sink with the ocean carbon sink and that's around 60% of automotive emissions are recycled by mother earth. 60% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation are also recycled by mother earth. Mother earth doesn't recycle the toxic chemicals in EV batteries. In fact, once EV battery recycling comes on line in significant capacity, that industry will produce additional carbon emissions because most recycling activities require energy for the recycling process.

Believe the science.

We need more forest, more oceans, and less cities.

I agree with much of what you write, but at this point I don't even think we need fewer cities.

The idea that we are pushing the global ecosystem toward catastrophe is unfounded and serves only to push the Davos agenda. And that agenda means the end of private property, geofencing, and digital trackers linked up to the IoT.

A dystopian nightmare.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Neusser

That is why you think they are working on sequestering carbon.

I know they are. Oil companies specifically are working on it.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Neusser

I agree with much of what you write, but at this point I don't even think we need fewer cities.

The idea that we are pushing the global ecosystem toward catastrophe is unfounded and serves only to push the Davos agenda. And that agenda means the end of private property, geofencing, and digital trackers linked up to the IoT.

A dystopian nightmare.

I don't either, I'm just trying to make a point. Unfounded, I agree 100%

My point, since the get go, is 30% of an automobile's CO2 output is immediately recycled into oxygen another 30% is recycled but at a slower rate. 0% of an EV battery is recycled into anything useful other than a new EV battery. At the moment, EV batteries are mostly repurposed rather than recycled. With every cycle of recycling (recapturing battery metals to make new batteries, not 100% of the recycled products is recovered. It hard to get a number on the loss, I've yet to find a reliable source for the number, but for sure it is not 100%. Is it closer to 60% or 70% who knows.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by David70

If what you said in the first statement made sense I wouldn't have questioned it.



What you should have said- - 30% of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is absorbed by forests.

As for the disposal problem, you are acting like CO2 is the only pollutant ICE is producing. Note the brown haze that hangs over most major cities that we breath in. Batteries, if recycled, disposed of properly I won't ingest any of it.

As for the net result of batteries, there are ways to recyle most of the battery, there are ways to dispose of the waste properly. Plastics don't decay in a reasonable amount of time, neither does nuclear waste.

No idea what you are proposing with the "we need more forest, more oceans, and less cities" --- We aren't getting more oceans, if everyone from the city left and went to the country it would be far worse for society.

Again, I don't need to write an internet thesis paper every time I post. You asked for the source for the number and I presented the source. The two sources state CO2 is absorbed by the forest and vegetation. CO2 is cited by most climate fearers as the concerning greenhouse gas mostly created by automobiles (there are nearly 8 billion people on the planet that exhaust CO2 as well, but let's leave that subject alone). I never discounted other oxides, such as nitrogen, don't warrant concern, but catalytic converters were invented to burn most of those compounds post combustion in the cylinder. And we are getting more oceans, as the climate fearers tell us, the oceans are rising. If oceans both recycle and sequester CO2, rising oceans are a good thing. If green plants recycle CO2 into oxygen, we need more green plants.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

The question is over the impact to the climate over the rapid, in geological terms, iincrease in CO2

Oceans absorb some but eventually it'll reduce the pH of saltwater which can have a negative impact on fish stocks.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html

Yeah, that was the newest fear mongering once enough people talked back that the climate constantly changes, the argument pivoted to the rate of CO2 increase. Again, all modeling. The geological record has proven the earth has built in climate controls.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Yeah, that was the newest fear mongering once enough people talked back that the climate constantly changes, the argument pivoted to the rate of CO2 increase. Again, all modeling. The geological record has proven the earth has built in climate controls.

CO2 and other GHG have always been the underlying reason.

The concern is how disruptive a changing climate will be for the human race. Concerns range from a loss of capital due to rising sea levels along coastal cities to food/water shortages which cause massive migrations of people across national boundaries.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

CO2 and other GHG have always been the underlying reason.

The concern is how disruptive a changing climate will be for the human race. Concerns range from a loss of capital due to rising sea levels along coastal cities to food/water shortages which cause massive migrations of people across national boundaries.

I'm sticking with Darwin; animals adapt to the climate rather than the other way around.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I'm sticking with Darwin; animals adapt to the climate rather than the other way around.

Yes, and the crux of the BS remains the idea that more CO2 is bad. CO2 simply greens the planet. Nature has already provided the tools for the job.

[David70]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Again, I don't need to write an internet thesis paper every time I post. You asked for the source for the number and I presented the source. The two sources state CO2 is absorbed by the forest and vegetation. CO2 is cited by most climate fearers as the concerning greenhouse gas mostly created by automobiles (there are nearly 8 billion people on the planet that exhaust CO2 as well, but let's leave that subject alone). I never discounted other oxides, such as nitrogen, don't warrant concern, but catalytic converters were invented to burn most of those compounds post combustion in the cylinder. And we are getting more oceans, as the climate fearers tell us, the oceans are rising. If oceans both recycle and sequester CO2, rising oceans are a good thing. If green plants recycle CO2 into oxygen, we need more green plants.

I question your statements when they don't make sense as written. You are welcome to write whatever you want. Yes CO2 is absorbed by the forest, thanks.

For a year, our human produces about 365 x 0.7 kilograms a year, or 255 kilograms.

https://www.globe.gov/explore-scienc...5%20kilograms.

The average annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from a typical passenger vehicle is around 4.6 metric tons. This is based on the assumption that the average gasoline vehicle gets 22.2 miles per gallon and drives 11,500 miles per year.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/gr...senger-vehicle

255 kilograms = .255 metric tons ==== The car is the same as 18 people.

This thread is turning in the same sh7t show as the EV thread, must be slow over there. No longer anything to do with the topic of hydrogen, same old story.

[Neusser]

Originally Posted by David70

I question your statements when they don't make sense as written. You are welcome to write whatever you want. Yes CO2 is absorbed by the forest, thanks.




https://www.globe.gov/explore-scienc...5%20kilograms.



https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/gr...senger-vehicle

255 kilograms = .255 metric tons ==== The car is the same as 18 people.

This thread is turning in the same sh7t show as the EV thread, must be slow over there. No longer anything to do with the topic of hydrogen, same old story.

Perhaps the thread took the turn it did is because all of these new technologies are predicated on the idea that we need something to replace oil.

It seems fine to me to question the very genesis of the supposed need for these technologies in a thread about one of them.

Over here in Germany, the auto industry is being slowly dismantled (and the national economy with it) under the guise that we need to save the climate. EVs, hydrogen, etc., are being floated as solutions, but we can already see that EVs are not a solution, so before betting the farm on the next idea, perhaps we should examine who is telling us we have to do these things and why...

[SportySpice]

Originally Posted by Neusser

Perhaps the thread took the turn it did is because all of these new technologies are predicated on the idea that we need something to replace oil.

It seems fine to me to question the very genesis of the supposed need for these technologies in a thread about one of them.

Over here in Germany, the auto industry is being slowly dismantled (and the national economy with it) under the guise that we need to save the climate. EVs, hydrogen, etc., are being floated as solutions, but we can already see that EVs are not a solution, so before betting the farm on the next idea, perhaps we should examine who is telling us we have to do these things and why...

Are “we” really still questioning anthropogenic climate change? Just wow.