I generally don't listen much to AlGore type people.  Global warming isn't a concern to me.  I have real things in my life to worry about.

That being said, what is the deal with Carbon?

Carbon is an element, and the fourth most abundant element in the UNIVERSE, according to the wikipedia article.

Yet, all you hear about on the news is "carbon offset" "carbon credit" "carbon footprint", etc. etc...

What does this mean and what's wrong with carbon?

(yes, I've been listening to a Glenn Beck rerun today)

From what I have heard they are unreliable.

Carbon is the vector though which socialists turn lies into revenue and control.

Nothing.

It's just some "fancy lingo" that will confuse the sheep to get them to give up their freedom.

Environmentalist hate people (notice I did not say Conservationist) and people are "Carbon Based Lifeforms".

its not the carbon itself just its in oxide form. It needs to be on the bottom of the ocean in the form of decaying plant and animal matter making fuel.

ive heard " carbon credits" being spoken out of libs mouths for a while now..


imagine my suprise when i found out they are REAL.. < this weekend >   and people are selling them in exchamge for dumbasses not cutting down the rainforrest < yeah .. THAT will work ..  >

Nothing! We are Carbon! Study your Chemistry 101 about photosynthesis, and you will learn that without CARBON those annoying lettuce-eating weirdos would starve!

They probably mean carbon dioxide but that sounds too technical for retards so they shortened it to just carbon.

Quoted: its not the carbon itself just its in oxide form. It needs to be on the bottom of the ocean in the form of decaying plant and animal matter making fuel.

It is.  "Missing Carbon" amounts to over 50% of the carbon that human activity releases each year.  Why is is missing?  Because they do not know the system.

The models are wrong.  Why?  Because 85% of the oxygen produced comes from the sea.  Meaning it is the most likely absorber of carbon from photosynthetic activity that is under-accounted.

This biomass has to go somewhere and that is the ocean deep where it forms methane clathrates.  And there is twice as much carbon in methane clathrates than all other fossil fuel combined.

I could go into detail if needed.

Quoted: They probably mean carbon dioxide but that sounds too technical for retards so they shortened it to just carbon.

That's what I'm thinking.
 
I'm  not ignorant of basic chemistry and I know what happens when hydorcarbon fuels are burned which results in carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, etc.

So "carbon" is just a catch phrase, now?  Nice.  

Quoted: I generally don't listen much to AlGore type people.  Global warming isn't a concern to me.  I have real things in my life to worry about. That being said, what is the deal with Carbon? Carbon is an element, and the fourth most abundant element in the UNIVERSE, according to the wikipedia article. Yet, all you hear about on the news is "carbon offset" "carbon credit" "carbon footprint", etc. etc... What does this mean and what's wrong with carbon? (yes, I've been listening to a Glenn Beck rerun today)

Carbon, in its most common allotropic form, is BLACK!

Clearly the environmentalists are closet racists.

Carbon is people!!!

Quoted: Quoted: its not the carbon itself just its in oxide form. It needs to be on the bottom of the ocean in the form of decaying plant and animal matter making fuel. It is.  "Missing Carbon" amounts to over 50% of the carbon that human activity releases each year.  Why is is missing?  Because they do not know the system. The models are wrong.  Why?  Because 85% of the oxygen produced comes from the sea.  Meaning it is the most likely absorber of carbon from photosynthetic activity that is under-accounted. This biomass has to go somewhere and that is the ocean deep where it forms methane clathrates.  And there is twice as much carbon in methane clathrates than all other fossil fuel combined. I could go into detail if needed.

thats wait i was going for in a nutshell

Quoted: Quoted: its not the carbon itself just its in oxide form. It needs to be on the bottom of the ocean in the form of decaying plant and animal matter making fuel. It is.  "Missing Carbon" amounts to over 50% of the carbon that human activity releases each year.  Why is is missing?  Because they do not know the system. The models are wrong.  Why?  Because 85% of the oxygen produced comes from the sea.  Meaning it is the most likely absorber of carbon from photosynthetic activity that is under-accounted. This biomass has to go somewhere and that is the ocean deep where it forms methane clathrates.  And there is twice as much carbon in methane clathrates than all other fossil fuel combined. I could go into detail if needed.

Go ahead.

www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/03-co.pdf What’s Been Done to Control Carbon Monoxide Levels? The Clean Air Act gives state and local governments primary responsibility for regulating pollution from power plants, factories, and other “stationary sources.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has primary responsibility for “mobile source” pollution control.  The EPA motor vehicle program has achieved considerable success in reducing carbon monoxide emissions. EPA standards in the early 1970’s prompted automakers to improve basic engine design. By 1975, most new cars were equipped with catalytic converters designed to convert carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. Catalysts typically reduce carbon monoxide emissions upwards of 80 percent. In the early 1980’s, automakers introduced more sophisticated converters, plus onboard computers and oxygen sensors to help optimize the efficiency of the catalytic converter. Today’s passenger cars are capable of emitting 90 percent less carbon monoxide over their lifetimes than their uncontrolled counterparts of the 1960’s. As a result, ambient carbon monoxide levels have dropped, despite large increases in the number of vehicles on the road and the number of miles they travel. With continued increases in vehicle travel projected, however, carbon monoxide levels will begin to climb again unless even more effective emission controls are employed.

Sounds like the .gov and envirowienies are responsible for our current greenhouse gas problem.

CO is not a greenhouse gas but CO2 is and they mandated that CO be converted to CO2, great call there chief.

In order to Tax and Control people,  you must first convince the people that Carbon is Bad.  TT

Quoted: www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/03-co.pdf What’s Been Done to Control Carbon Monoxide Levels? The Clean Air Act gives state and local governments primary responsibility for regulating pollution from power plants, factories, and other “stationary sources.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has primary responsibility for “mobile source” pollution control.  The EPA motor vehicle program has achieved considerable success in reducing carbon monoxide emissions. EPA standards in the early 1970’s prompted automakers to improve basic engine design. By 1975, most new cars were equipped with catalytic converters designed to convert carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. Catalysts typically reduce carbon monoxide emissions upwards of 80 percent. In the early 1980’s, automakers introduced more sophisticated converters, plus onboard computers and oxygen sensors to help optimize the efficiency of the catalytic converter. Today’s passenger cars are capable of emitting 90 percent less carbon monoxide over their lifetimes than their uncontrolled counterparts of the 1960’s. As a result, ambient carbon monoxide levels have dropped, despite large increases in the number of vehicles on the road and the number of miles they travel. With continued increases in vehicle travel projected, however, carbon monoxide levels will begin to climb again unless even more effective emission controls are employed. Sounds like the .gov and envirowienies are responsible for our current greenhouse gas problem. CO is not a greenhouse gas but CO2 is and they mandated that CO be converted to CO2, great call there chief.

CO is reactive and rapidly is oxidized.  

All fossil fuels have carbon that was at one time, CO2 in the air.  What we have released so far is a TINY percentage of the total.  And nature is compensating.

Quoted: All fossil fuels have carbon that was at one time, CO2 in the air.  What we have released so far is a TINY percentage of the total.  And nature is compensating.

I heard a stat a while back that CO2 in the air is near trace gas and combustion is responsible for less than 1% of that.  Is that close?

ETA: found that CO2 is 0.0383% of the gas volume of the atmosphere.

Quoted: All fossil fuels have carbon that was at one time, CO2 in the air.  What we have released so far is a TINY percentage of the total.  And nature is compensating.

Ultra deep drilling has proven that fossil fuels are not "fossil fuels".

The last thing I want to do is argue with the arfcom god of knowledge. But all oil is not made of dead plants and biomass.

Carbon = liberal Ecco snake oil.

Quoted: Quoted: All fossil fuels have carbon that was at one time, CO2 in the air.  What we have released so far is a TINY percentage of the total.  And nature is compensating. I heard a stat a while back that CO2 in the air is near trace gas and combustion is responsible for less than 1% of that.  Is that close?

383 parts per million.  Up from 320 in 1970.  

Quoted: Quoted: All fossil fuels have carbon that was at one time, CO2 in the air.  What we have released so far is a TINY percentage of the total.  And nature is compensating. Ultra deep drilling has proven that fossil fuels are not "fossil fuels". The last thing I want to do is argue with the arfcom god of knowledge. But all oil is not made of dead plants and biomass.

What about coal?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All fossil fuels have carbon that was at one time, CO2 in the air.  What we have released so far is a TINY percentage of the total.  And nature is compensating. Ultra deep drilling has proven that fossil fuels are not "fossil fuels". The last thing I want to do is argue with the arfcom god of knowledge. But all oil is not made of dead plants and biomass. What about coal?

It's black and burns well. Thats about all I know about that.

All oil and methane on the other hand are not composed of old dead things.

I know that talking to me must be like discussing physics with a 2 year old. I apologize.

Quoted: Carbon = liberal Ecco snake oil.

Now that pretty well sums it up.   TT

Carbon dioxide is what's known as a "greenhouse gas" because it tends to prevent the re-release of heat energy radiated to us by the sun. Higher amounts of CO2 lead to greater retention of heat energy and thus an increased temperature on earth. That much is true. What's debatable, however, is how much of the increased CO2 has human origin, how severe of an effect it has on the planet, if anything needs to be done about it, and if so, what.

Edit: ironically, the ecolibs have it all wrong. Here are some huge ways to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide:

1. Nuclear power. This is simply the best form of power generation available. Clean, safe, low-carbon, low space footprint (at least compared to wind or solar), and efficient. But the NIMBY idiots still think nuclear power is the boogeyman.

2. Landfills. Putting plastics and other hydrocarbons into landfills creates a carbon sink, tying up excess carbon and preventing it being released as carbon dioxide.

3. Treat trees as a crop. Trees take up a lot of carbon dioxide in their first fifty or so years of life, around 1500 lbs on average. After that, though, they don't take up much at all, and when they die, they rot or burn and all that carbon gets released. A tree farm just sucks up carbon, and the lumber from it acts as a carbon sink.

Quoted: Quoted: All fossil fuels have carbon that was at one time, CO2 in the air.  What we have released so far is a TINY percentage of the total.  And nature is compensating. Ultra deep drilling has proven that fossil fuels are not "fossil fuels". The last thing I want to do is argue with the arfcom god of knowledge. But all oil is not made of dead plants and biomass.

As far as I know, abiogenic origin of petroleum is not scientifically supported. IIRC, petroleum is thought to have come from algae and plankton, whereas land plants formed coal.

The "green house" hypothesis is full of holes.  First of all, it is a very poor analogy because the atmosphere is highly dynamic.  The atmosphere sinks in areas of high pressure and lifts in areas of low pressure.  Low pressure zones are analgous to bubbles in a boiling pot.

Over 25% of the TOTAL heat from solar radiation leaves the surface through the evaporation of water.  This latent heat of vaporization bypasses most of the insulative effects of the lower atmosphere.