Is CO2 a pollutant?

[danielpalos]

Is there any way to passively collect CO2?

The way most of us have commonly done it is to breathe into a paper sack. But the oceans do absorb a lot of it and that seems pretty passive.

i meant for horticultural reasons.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is there any way to passively collect CO2?

The way most of us have commonly done it is to breathe into a paper sack. But the oceans do absorb a lot of it and that seems pretty passive.

i meant for horticultural reasons.

No clue but you can buy just about every nutrient your soil and plants need. Maybe CO2 for plants? I dunno. But if we believe some of our friends here who seem to think there are unusually huge amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere your plants are probably getting enough.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Is there any way to passively collect CO2?

The way most of us have commonly done it is to breathe into a paper sack. But the oceans do absorb a lot of it and that seems pretty passive.

i meant for horticultural reasons.

No clue but you can buy just about every nutrient your soil and plants need. Maybe CO2 for plants? I dunno. But if we believe some of our friends here who seem to think there are unusually huge amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere your plants are probably getting enough.

Ask any major grower using green houses... they get it by the high pressure tanker to put in their green houses to augment the levels for faster food growth. 25,000 us gallons displacement at a time.

 

[IanC]

back of the envelope, down and dirty calculations may help us here.

greenhouse gas would seem to cause the surface to be about 30C warmer than without GHGs. I have seen estimates for CO2 as being 5%-25% of the greenhouse gas effect. simple mathematical progression (1,2,4...128,256) put us into the 8th doubling from 1 ppm. atmospheric radiative calculations peg 2xCO2 at about 1C per doubling.

so 1C times 7+ doublings ~ 7C. 25% of 30C ~ 7C.

Therefore CO2 theory seems plausible if we make the assumptions that 1 ppm CO2 is the amount that causes the first 1C temp increase, that the GHG effect is 30C, and that CO2 is up to 1/4 of the GHG effect.

there are lots of uncertainties in those assumptions but I think we can safely say that CO2 does help warm the surface.

I am a lukewarmer, I think CO2 has an effect on surface temps. but I dont believe that there are net positive feedbacks that will multiply the 1C per doubling of CO2. I actually believe that the feedbacks will turn out to be net negative, especially in the long run.

why do I believe that? because H2O acts as both a heater and an air conditioner at the same time. when extra energy is around the air conditioner side runs more frequently (or earlier) and the extra clouds reflect solar insolation as they pump massive amounts of energy towards the TOA. the majority of the Sun's energy comes in at the equatorial region. ever wonder why ocean water never exceeds 30, 31 degrees Celcius? even though land often gets well over 40C?

 

[Crick]

Have we seen any increase in cloud cover in the last, say, 50 years?

No.

So much for the back of your envelope.

 

[IanC]

Have we seen any increase in cloud cover in the last, say, 50 years?

No.

So much for the back of your envelope.

have we seen any measurable increase in cloud cover? I dont know, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty in our understanding of water vapour in the atmosphere. that is the main reason why it is so hard to tease out the impact of increased CO2.

but as I have explained many times before, there does not even have to be an increase in cloud cover. a change in timing is more than enough to deal with any extra heating of the oceans. as the world turns on its axis, any specific locality goes from oblique solar insolation at dawn to direct sunshine at noon and back to shallow at dusk. the amount of available energy therefore increases till noon and then decreases. the collection of this available energy is what powers evaporation and ensuing heat pipes of water vapour laden air that pumps the energy up into the atmosphere until it reaches a cool enough level (adiabatic rate) to condense into clouds. the clouds reflect the incoming sunshine and reduce the rate of surface warming.

depending on when this happens, it cuts off more or less of the Sun's energy to the locality. cloudy at noon, biggest effect. cloudy at 6 pm, not so much.