What's more current than the weather?

[xoxoxoBruce]

They don't have to put it anywhere they're grabbing from the air to use for things like carbonating drinks and enriching greenhouse air, rather than creating new carbon dioxide from fossil fuel.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They don't have to put it anywhere they're grabbing from the air to use for things like carbonating drinks and enriching greenhouse air, rather than creating new carbon dioxide from fossil fuel.

That is almost zero compared to CO2 that is produced. Many of those products simply put CO2 back in the atmosphere - where those products are already extracting CO2 from. That does nothing to address rising CO2 levels.

Once extracted, CO2 must be put somewhere else - not back in the atmosphere.

[glatt]

We should turn it into coal and bury it in the ground.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

That is almost zero compared to CO2 that is produced. Many of those products simply put CO2 back in the atmosphere - where those products are already extracting CO2 from. That does nothing to address rising CO2 levels.

Once extracted, CO2 must be put somewhere else - not back in the atmosphere.

The point is they are preventing these industries who use a LOT of carbon dioxide which will end up in the air, from making new carbon dioxide out of fossil fuels.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The point is they are preventing these industries who use a LOT of carbon dioxide which will end up in the air, from making new carbon dioxide out of fossil fuels.

Replace that 200 Hp engine that only need produce 8 Hp most of the time. Then massive amounts of gasoline are not burned only to create heat. IOW solve the problem at its source.

That will reduce CO2. But what remains is another problem. Where to put massive amounts of captured CO2.

Currently the oceans have been absorbing massive amounts. Deep ocean studies suggest that may now be diminishing or even ending as CO2 absorbed many decades ago might be coming back to the surface in future decades.

I believe a tunnel in Norway captures exhaust gases and pumps it into expired oil wells. Another solution that still needs plenty of what makes a patriotic American - innovation. The amount of CO2 that must be put somewhere (generated uselessly even by cars) is significantly larger.

Plenty of innovation is necessary. But we have a president who is anti-America. Who loves to subvert innovation in everything he can - including this CO2 problem. He only wants to 'wreck shit'. Since that is what he has done his entire adult life.

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by tw

Replace that 200 Hp engine that only need produce 8 Hp most of the time.

So, you would have no problem with your car only being capable of, say, 10 mph. And taking forever to get there? Have any idea how much products would cost if the truck what brung 'em takes FOR FUCKING EVER TO DELIVER SAID PRODUCTS. What happens when that 8 hp truck carrying 50,000 lbs comes to a hill? Or a mountain?

Originally Posted by tw

Then massive amounts of gasoline are not burned only to create heat.

I'm not sure you understand how an internal combustion engine works. Maybe it's me, I thought the gasoline was burned to make the pistons go up and down...

I've been cold in cars with gasoline burning engines. Guess the weren't burning massive enough amounts of gasoline.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

So, you would have no problem with your car only being capable of, say, 10 mph. And taking forever to get there?

Intentionally ignored were well understood facts posted long ago even here. Many who wait to be told what to think even denied parameters such as 'horsepower per liter'. Because propaganda (to protect the most anti-American vehicles) avoids realities. Reasons why and numbers cause eyes to glaze over.

A patriotic design has same acceleration, only outputs less than 8 Hp to maintain over 60 MPH, and does not swallow the extremist propaganda that disparages innovation. To reiterate, using high school physics on a 1960s Oldsmobile, and by worse casing my numbers, I determined it only needed 8 Hp to maintain highway speeds. Engineers in GM then told me that number was 2 or 4 Hp. Numbers that were posted then and still ignored today.

Why does that gasoline engine produce maybe 100 Hp when less than 8 are necessary to maintain highway speeds? Because we have not yet innovated enough. Innovations were even stifled by a scumbag president that enemies of America and mankind love. Only an extremist would say that is the way it must be because it was always that way. These same extremists also ignorantly believe pickup trucks need massively oversized (obsolete technololgy) 5.0+ liter engines. Because that was once the innovation in the 1950s and 60s.

Patriotic Americans want innovation - the advancement of mankind.

Why are most automobile factories in America now from foreign nameplates? Only wacko extremist in the 80s bashed Toyota and other foreign vehicles. Because 1960 American innovations were stifled by American companies. So those innovations (overhead cam, rack and pinion steering, McPherson strut suspensions, stratified charge engines, radial tires ... were rescued by innovative (patriotic American) companies that had foreign nameplates. Extremists knew otherwise because their emotions said so.

How to address a CO2 problem? Better method to capture it are one. Also stop burning so much gasoline to do nothing productive. A $35 tank of gasoline only uses something like $4 of that gasoline to move the car. Since gasoline even at $10 per gallon is inexpensive. And since extremist say global warming is does not exist.