The Carbon Thread

[Woebot]

(discussion)

[noel emits]

Buckyballs!



Nanotubes!

[swears]

Is this thread about carbon emmisions or just carbon in general?

[Mr. Tea]

'Carbon emmissions' is a rather lazy term (not having a go, swears, I know everyone uses it), people should say 'carbon dioxide emmissions' if that's what they mean - methane, which also contains carbon, is a much worse greenhouse gas (weight for weight), while chloroflourocarbons are worse still.

So a ton of carbon in the form of CFCs is much worse, environmentally, than a ton of carbon in CO2.

[HMGovt]

GRAPHENE - a single sheet of graphite only one atom thick with. Useful for making single electron transistors. Way cool.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/18264/

[Woebot]

remember the whole "cows farting" spiel that the USA laid on us before kyoto?

well apparently it aint such a joke. (i think) it's a source of approx 15% of our carbon!

which is a good argument for being a vegan they say...

[Mr. Tea]

The main downside being, you don't get to eat lovely, lovely meat...

[dHarry]

George Monbiot seems to me to be the most reliable watchdog on the sorry state of the planet vis-a-vis carbon emissions and governments' failur eto do anything about it. (And I have to say that Woebot's derisory comments about him here not so long ago were misleading and unfair.)

This is well worth reading.

[noel emits]

Seems my response was inappropriate, sorry haha.

Buckyballs are kool tho.

[Mr. Tea]

Seems my response was inappropriate, sorry haha.

Buckyballs are kool tho.

I don't think so - if it was meant to be a 'carbon emmissions' thread, it should have been called that.

[swears]

Right, I'm not really up on my science, so this question may seem a bit daft but it's something I've wondered for a while now. Can we actually reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by cutting emissions, or are we simply stopping the situation getting any worse? Where does the excess carbon dioxide go? Into the water supply, into the earth...or is it up there forever?

[Mr. Tea]

CO2 is naturally soaked up by plants: they use the carbon to form carbohydrates (sugars, starches and cellulose) and output oxygen (O2). So if human CO2 emmissions suddenly stopped - or were even just reduced to a manageable level - the excess CO2 in the atmosphere would eventually be reduced to the natural equilibrium level. I have no idea how long this would take, mind you. The problem at the moment is that CO2 emmissions are continuously increasing, while the amount of rainforest (they're not called 'the lungs of the planet' for nothing) is constantly decreasing.

[dHarry]

Trees use ("fix") carbon; animals exhale, flatulate and emit (in the case of industrial humans) carbon. When trees die the insects, rot etc. which break them down release their carbon again. More trees = less carbon in the atmosphere. Unfortunately trees and the related eco-systems of large rain-forests etc. are being razed all over the planet.
[edit - apologies for simul-post with Mr.Tea's above]

[swears]

Oh yeah, I remember now. Animals produce carbon dioxide and plants produce oxygen. That's primary school biology. Christ, I can be dense sometimes.

[Mr. Tea]

Oh yeah, I remember now. Animals produce carbon dioxide and plants produce oxygen. That's primary school biology. Christ, I can be dense sometimes.

Don't feel bad - you can be bothered to spell correctly and form proper sentences, which officially puts you in the top 0.1% of the Internet.