So how is the air levels after 14 hurricanes, water scrubbed it. Must be the reason we didn't have any fish kills in low oxygen water areas. That NO hurricane just aerated the "fire out of" the water. If that be the case, your air can absorb alot more stuff this year. Even by your logic.......
You're either terribly set in your ways or very uninformed. Either way, you just aren't getting it. When you put carbon into the air faster than the earth can remove it, the levels rise. The carbon won't dissipate from the atmosphere any faster just because you are burning biofuels. Growing more plants for biofuel won't scrub the atmosphere any faster either. All the cropland is already covered with vegetation.
....
Reference?
Except that it's not true. When you release CO2 into the air, it doesn't matter where it CAME from. it only matters where it would have gone if you hadn't burned it.
So the open question is whether growing corn for fuel REMOVES more carbon from the air than would have been removed had you not grown corn for fuel.
If you burn one ton of carbon in the form of dead dinosaurs, that puts one ton of carbon in the air, if you burn one ton of carbon in the form of corn-oil, that ALSO puts one tone of carbon in the air. If you grow a ton-s worth of carbon-bearing corn, and then burn it. The net effect on the atmosphere is zero. If you grow one ton's worth of carbon bearing corn and DON'T burn it, the net effect is minus one ton. How much carbon is in the parts of the corn that you don't burn? How much carbon is in whatever would be growing there if you weren't growing fuel-corn?
If I grow one ton of corn and burn it, I am not burning the equivalent BTU in petroleum based oil. Therfore my energy consumption is carbon neutral.
Fossil fuels biofuels...just not currently produced.
Obviously it will, since those plants are removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Speaking of uninformed... where in the world did you get *that* idea?
But where did it come from?
and therefore the carbon isn't current either. Burning it releases that stored carbon into play.
Aeration absorbs gas into the water....check out you goldfish bowl sometime. Then stop and think how much bigger the bubbler is in a hurricane .a100+ miles wide. Then check out the smog alerts in the Gulf Coastal area for the same period as the hurricanes.
That last staement spurs me to a response.
Oddly enough, there may be a non-human culprit that bears some responsibility for increasing carbon levels. I was surprised to find that the common earthworm is not indiginous to north america, but was imported by the europeans. While earthworms do aerate the soil, they are also implicated in shinking the layers of detrius called "duff" that carpets forest lands. That duff is a huge carbon sink that is being lost.
Perhaps one species was imported, but there are several earthworm species that are native to North America.
Yes, it does matter where it came from. In the case of biofuels, the carbon all came out of the atmosphere, so you are not adding any more. In the case of fossil fuels, all the carbon came out of the ground, and you are dumping it into the atmosphere, causing a carbon buildup.
It doesn't matter whether you burn corn or not, all the carbon will end up back in the atmosphere unless you protect it from decay. If you want to sequester carbon, you have to put it back into the ground. That's why those landfills full of disposable diapers have their up side.
Troll.
Supernovae
It doesn't matter if you call it carbon-neutral or not, the CO2 will continue to rise if you continue to burn carbon-based fuels at the current rate. The atmosphere doesn't know you switched to your "carbon-neutral fuel." It continues to take the carbon out of the atmosphere at the same slow rate that lags behind the rate we put it in. This is what caused the rise. Growing more biofuel crops doesn't automatically lower the atmospheric CO2, because there are already plants growing on nearly all the arable land.
You keep saying "carbon-neutral" as if it were a fact that it would reduce atmospheric carbon in some way. Prove it to us.
Can you explain to us what hurricanes have to do with reducing carbon dioxide in the air?
You get almost as much heat from burning the corn stover that's left over after you've separated out the corn kernels. Why you need to burn the grain itself is a mystery to me. Why not grow a crop more suited as a fuel? Something with tiny seeds and a lot of stalk. Leafy spurge for example is a very hardy weed that contains a good deal of oil and has been used in the past as a heating fuel.
You tend to overestimate the impact of the American consumer on the global carbon sink. They do, however have a disproportionately large influence on carbon emissions.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.