Sulfur Dioxide

[westwall]

These are the things I believe in and have stated on this Board numerous times. I am FOR gay marriage. I am For legalization of drugs. I am PRO CHOICE. I am ANTI MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS, I am in favor of the maximum amount of individual freedoms and the minimum amount of governmental control over the lives of individuals.

So....what does that make me?

A Libertarian.

Libertarians like Corporations, I despise them. You're wrong yet again. Try to care for another...

 

[Old Rocks]

Buddy boy, on the subject of this post, SO2 in the atmosphere, I showed what a liar your are. Posted a definative article that showed that mankind puts up more SO2 in normal years, than all the volcanos. And even when we get a Pinatubo, we still exceed the volcanoes.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) - Air quality fact sheet

What is sulfur dioxide?
Sulfur dioxide is a gas. It is invisible and has a nasty, sharp smell. It reacts easily with other substances to form harmful compounds, such as sulfuric acid, sulfurous acid and sulfate particles.

About 99% of the sulfur dioxide in air comes from human sources. The main source of sulfur dioxide in the air is industrial activity that processes materials that contain sulfur, eg the generation of electricity from coal, oil or gas that contains sulfur. Some mineral ores also contain sulfur, and sulfur dioxide is released when they are processed. In addition, industrial activities that burn fossil fuels containing sulfur can be important sources of sulfur dioxide.

Sulfur dioxide is also present in motor vehicle emissions, as the result of fuel combustion. In the past, motor vehicle exhaust was an important, but not the main, source of sulfur dioxide in air. However, this is no longer the case

 

[sealybobo]

A Libertarian.

Libertarians like Corporations, I despise them. You're wrong yet again. Try to care for another...

A loser.

 

[KissMy]

Plants love sulfur. Every since sulfur was removed from fuel, farmers have to start purchasing sulfur & spray it on the fields. That causes food & fuel price to rise.

You're saying sulfur from gasoline rained down from the sky and fertilized crops? One wonders how people manage to grow crops before the internal combustion engine.

Fields do need more sulfur as time passes, but that's because crops pull sulfur out of the ground, the crops get hauled off, and eventually the soil sulfur is depleted.

Apparently the sulfur from the diesel exhaust was kept the crop fields from being depleted of sulfur. Because after sulfur was removed from the fuel all the farmers I know had to start putting it on their fields.

 

[jc456]

Buddy boy, on the subject of this post, SO2 in the atmosphere, I showed what a liar your are. Posted a definative article that showed that mankind puts up more SO2 in normal years, than all the volcanos. And even when we get a Pinatubo, we still exceed the volcanoes.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) - Air quality fact sheet

What is sulfur dioxide?
Sulfur dioxide is a gas. It is invisible and has a nasty, sharp smell. It reacts easily with other substances to form harmful compounds, such as sulfuric acid, sulfurous acid and sulfate particles.

About 99% of the sulfur dioxide in air comes from human sources. The main source of sulfur dioxide in the air is industrial activity that processes materials that contain sulfur, eg the generation of electricity from coal, oil or gas that contains sulfur. Some mineral ores also contain sulfur, and sulfur dioxide is released when they are processed. In addition, industrial activities that burn fossil fuels containing sulfur can be important sources of sulfur dioxide.

Sulfur dioxide is also present in motor vehicle emissions, as the result of fuel combustion. In the past, motor vehicle exhaust was an important, but not the main, source of sulfur dioxide in air. However, this is no longer the case

Back to Australia again. hmmm.... funny how it seems te globe is Australia.

 

[Crick]

Plants love sulfur. Every since sulfur was removed from fuel, farmers have to start purchasing sulfur & spray it on the fields. That causes food & fuel price to rise.

You're saying sulfur from gasoline rained down from the sky and fertilized crops? One wonders how people manage to grow crops before the internal combustion engine.

Fields do need more sulfur as time passes, but that's because crops pull sulfur out of the ground, the crops get hauled off, and eventually the soil sulfur is depleted.

Apparently the sulfur from the diesel exhaust was kept the crop fields from being depleted of sulfur. Because after sulfur was removed from the fuel all the farmers I know had to start putting it on their fields.

First, I'd like to see better data than "all the farmers I know...". Second, do you actually believe that the damage that sulfur was causing to human health, creating acid rain, killing wildlife - that all of that was worth saving farmers the cost of buying minute amounts of sulfur with which to fertilize their crops every few years? Sulfur is DIRT cheap, after all.

 

[sealybobo]

You're saying sulfur from gasoline rained down from the sky and fertilized crops? One wonders how people manage to grow crops before the internal combustion engine.

Fields do need more sulfur as time passes, but that's because crops pull sulfur out of the ground, the crops get hauled off, and eventually the soil sulfur is depleted.

Apparently the sulfur from the diesel exhaust was kept the crop fields from being depleted of sulfur. Because after sulfur was removed from the fuel all the farmers I know had to start putting it on their fields.

First, I'd like to see better data than "all the farmers I know...". Second, do you actually believe that the damage that sulfur was causing to human health, creating acid rain, killing wildlife - that all of that was worth saving farmers the cost of buying minute amounts of sulfur with which to fertilize their crops every few years? Sulfur is DIRT cheap, after all.

Do we even know what is happening to the bees? I don't think gw deniers realize the damage their greed/ignorance is going to cause.

 

[KissMy]

You're saying sulfur from gasoline rained down from the sky and fertilized crops? One wonders how people manage to grow crops before the internal combustion engine.

Fields do need more sulfur as time passes, but that's because crops pull sulfur out of the ground, the crops get hauled off, and eventually the soil sulfur is depleted.

Apparently the sulfur from the diesel exhaust was kept the crop fields from being depleted of sulfur. Because after sulfur was removed from the fuel all the farmers I know had to start putting it on their fields.

First, I'd like to see better data than "all the farmers I know...". Second, do you actually believe that the damage that sulfur was causing to human health, creating acid rain, killing wildlife - that all of that was worth saving farmers the cost of buying minute amounts of sulfur with which to fertilize their crops every few years? Sulfur is DIRT cheap, after all.

After sulfur was removed from the fuel & coal power plant exhaust, sulfur deficiency in plants is very wide spread & still spreading. Currently it takes 15-lbs of sulfur per acre to prevent sulfur deficiency. This sulfur deficiency is showing in many areas yards, gardens & forest.

 

[Crick]

2012 Sulfur Fertilizer Price Comparison for Alfalfa | Integrated Pest and Crop Management

At $445/ton, the recommended 10-15 lb/acre would cost $2.23 - $3.34/acre

How much sulfur would the rest of us have to breathe to get that onto those crops from reeking high-sulfur diesel fuel? Cause, I don't think I could take 15 lbs of sulfur into my lungs without some unwanted effects.

And your article did not state that farmers had gone from needing no sulfur to needing 15 lbs, but that the amount they needed to supply had increased with the use of low- sulfur fuels. All in all, the suggestion that we shouldn't have reduced sulfur in fuels because it cost farmers a couple bucks per acre per season is simply ludicrous.

 

[KissMy]

2012 Sulfur Fertilizer Price Comparison for Alfalfa | Integrated Pest and Crop Management

At $445/ton, the recommended 10-15 lb/acre would cost $2.23 - $3.34/acre

How much sulfur would the rest of us have to breathe to get that onto those crops from reeking high-sulfur diesel fuel? Cause, I don't think I could take 15 lbs of sulfur into my lungs without some unwanted effects.

I have not looked into whether sulfur causes problems with human lungs. I am just saying removal of sulfur from fossil fuels is harming plant life.

 

[Crick]

You have to look into that? Are you kidding me? It's been discussed here repeatedly. Just look up sulfur dioxide at Wikipedia.

 

[itfitzme]

Apparently the sulfur from the diesel exhaust was kept the crop fields from being depleted of sulfur. Because after sulfur was removed from the fuel all the farmers I know had to start putting it on their fields.

The obvious question is; "What did they do before the diesel engine was invented?"

 

[itfitzme]

2012 Sulfur Fertilizer Price Comparison for Alfalfa | Integrated Pest and Crop Management

At $445/ton, the recommended 10-15 lb/acre would cost $2.23 - $3.34/acre

How much sulfur would the rest of us have to breathe to get that onto those crops from reeking high-sulfur diesel fuel? Cause, I don't think I could take 15 lbs of sulfur into my lungs without some unwanted effects.

I have not looked into whether sulfur causes problems with human lungs. I am just saying removal of sulfur from fossil fuels is harming plant life.

Same question. What did plants do before people discovered fossil fuels?

It's kinda a philosophical consideration of how to assign cause and affect properly. If plants lived without the burning of fossil fuels, is it logical to say that removing them is "harmful"?

Isn't it more correct to say that the burning of fossil fuels has had a side effect of relieving farming of the need to replenish the soil?

That side effect, or what economics calls an externality, isn't isolated in it's consequences. It comes with negative externalities. The cost-benefit ratio is greater than one.

It's a rather poor way of fertilizing crops. Run off from farm fertilization is bad enough. Fertilizing crops by way of burning fossil fuels skips the whole run off process and just pours it right into the streams.

 

[KissMy]

2012 Sulfur Fertilizer Price Comparison for Alfalfa | Integrated Pest and Crop Management

At $445/ton, the recommended 10-15 lb/acre would cost $2.23 - $3.34/acre

How much sulfur would the rest of us have to breathe to get that onto those crops from reeking high-sulfur diesel fuel? Cause, I don't think I could take 15 lbs of sulfur into my lungs without some unwanted effects.

I have not looked into whether sulfur causes problems with human lungs. I am just saying removal of sulfur from fossil fuels is harming plant life.

Same question. What did plants do before people discovered fossil fuels?

It's kinda a philosophical consideration of how to assign cause and affect properly. If plants lived without the burning of fossil fuels, is it logical to say that removing them is "harmful"?

Isn't it more correct to say that the burning of fossil fuels has had a side effect of relieving farming of the need to replenish the soil?

That side effect, or what economics calls an externality, isn't isolated in it's consequences. It comes with negative externalities. The cost-benefit ratio is greater than one.

I have no idea. I was born in the sixties after we filled the air with exhaust. It's possible that plants evolved to live off that exhaust. It's possible the soil was being depleted over many years & the exhaust was maintaining it at a certain level. I have always observed crops being the healthiest near roads. We always theorized it was the extra sunlight, exhaust & lime dust from gravel roads. If you want to check the health of crops, you have to walk at least 50'ft into the fields. Plants love CO2, sulfur, nitrogen, potash, phosphate & water. It's always a challenge to discover which deficiency or disease is holding the crop back & then remedy the situation as cost effectively as you can without losing money.

 

[itfitzme]

I have not looked into whether sulfur causes problems with human lungs. I am just saying removal of sulfur from fossil fuels is harming plant life.

Same question. What did plants do before people discovered fossil fuels?

It's kinda a philosophical consideration of how to assign cause and affect properly. If plants lived without the burning of fossil fuels, is it logical to say that removing them is "harmful"?

Isn't it more correct to say that the burning of fossil fuels has had a side effect of relieving farming of the need to replenish the soil?

That side effect, or what economics calls an externality, isn't isolated in it's consequences. It comes with negative externalities. The cost-benefit ratio is greater than one.

I have no idea. I was born in the sixties after we filled the air with exhaust. It's possible that plants evolved to live off that exhaust. It's possible the soil was being depleted over many years & the exhaust was maintaining it at a certain level. I have always observed crops being the healthiest near roads. We always theorized it was the extra sunlight, exhaust & lime dust from gravel roads. If you want to check the health of crops, you have to walk at least 50'ft into the fields. Plants love CO2, sulfur, nitrogen, potash, phosphate & water.

To an extent. At some point, even water becomes a poison. And the entire ecosystem is a balance. Every thing has evolved together, adapting to the envronment and affecting it at the same time, over thousands of years.

Nothing lives in isolation. Change one thing to much or to quickly and it all goes to shit.

 

[itfitzme]

I've kept a garden and the balance is a bitch. It gets real obvious that the environment, spreading out way beyond the fence line has a tremendous effect. Getting the insect life to balance out is tough.

 

[jc456]

You're saying sulfur from gasoline rained down from the sky and fertilized crops? One wonders how people manage to grow crops before the internal combustion engine.

Fields do need more sulfur as time passes, but that's because crops pull sulfur out of the ground, the crops get hauled off, and eventually the soil sulfur is depleted.

Apparently the sulfur from the diesel exhaust was kept the crop fields from being depleted of sulfur. Because after sulfur was removed from the fuel all the farmers I know had to start putting it on their fields.

First, I'd like to see better data than "all the farmers I know...". Second, do you actually believe that the damage that sulfur was causing to human health, creating acid rain, killing wildlife - that all of that was worth saving farmers the cost of buying minute amounts of sulfur with which to fertilize their crops every few years? Sulfur is DIRT cheap, after all.

For the umpteenth time, I'd like to see the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature rise. Or what the temperature rise is with an added 10 PPM, 40, or what is supposed to be at 280 PPM.

hahahaahhaahhahahaahahaha....................................LoSiNg

 

[Old Rocks]

Apparently the sulfur from the diesel exhaust was kept the crop fields from being depleted of sulfur. Because after sulfur was removed from the fuel all the farmers I know had to start putting it on their fields.

First, I'd like to see better data than "all the farmers I know...". Second, do you actually believe that the damage that sulfur was causing to human health, creating acid rain, killing wildlife - that all of that was worth saving farmers the cost of buying minute amounts of sulfur with which to fertilize their crops every few years? Sulfur is DIRT cheap, after all.

For the umpteenth time, I'd like to see the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature rise. Or what the temperature rise is with an added 10 PPM, 40, or what is supposed to be at 280 PPM.

hahahaahhaahhahahaahahaha....................................LoSiNg

From the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

But you won't read the article, and I doubt you have the educational background to understand it if you did.

 

[jc456]

First, I'd like to see better data than "all the farmers I know...". Second, do you actually believe that the damage that sulfur was causing to human health, creating acid rain, killing wildlife - that all of that was worth saving farmers the cost of buying minute amounts of sulfur with which to fertilize their crops every few years? Sulfur is DIRT cheap, after all.

For the umpteenth time, I'd like to see the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature rise. Or what the temperature rise is with an added 10 PPM, 40, or what is supposed to be at 280 PPM.

hahahaahhaahhahahaahahaha....................................LoSiNg

From the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

But you won't read the article, and I doubt you have the educational background to understand it if you did.

yep, it's what you do. You want me to read twenty five pages of papers written, instead of just grepping the words that prove your point. I don't see any mention of what the adding of CO2 in the atmosphere, the upper atmosphere will do to change temperatures by some value. there are many mentions of saturation and that CO2 in the atmosphere will become saturated and adding of more CO2 will do nothing.

I'll read it if you provide the paragraphs that prove the 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Cause I read in it that it doesn't cause temperatures to rise.

from the document:
"Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.(7*) "

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, the differance between continental glaciers and interglacials is 100 ppm of CO2. There have been a number of swings in CO2 in the last 2 million years. When it was about 180 ppm, we have continental glaciers. When it was about 280 ppm, we had interglacials. Now it is at 400 ppm, and we are seeing rapid changes. Changes in the cryosphere, changes in the oceans. The last time the CO2 was this high, there were no polar caps.

Now we really don't know how this will play out. Thus far, the models we have used have been far too conservative. The glaciers and caps are losing ice far faster than predicted, and the ocean rise is also faster. Just denying these facts will hardly change reality, only paint those that do as fools.