Would burning biofuels affect global warming?

[burritos]

Since the carbon released presumably is coming from the atmosphere in the first place, would burning biofuels effectively be a zero net carbon balance?(And I'm just considering this from a carbon point of view, not how this would affect the food supply and prices and geopolitical bs, blah blah blah).

If this assumption is true, then ALL the fossil fuels(oil, coal, etc...) at one point was once in the atmosphere and is now in the ground right? Presumably there was life during this time, so all the carbon in the ground NOW was in the air THEN and it was compatible with life. Not only was it compatible with life, it must have sustained so much life that the life was able to convert that vast amount of carbon into what we know now as the vast reserves of fossil fuels.

So if we burn it all and put the carbon back in the air, life as we know today might not be the same, but life will certainly continue. Survival of the fittest baby! So says Darwin. So it is.

[burritos]

Since the carbon released presumably is coming from the atmosphere in the first place, would burning biofuels effectively be a zero net carbon balance?(And I'm just considering this from a carbon point of view, not how this would affect the food supply and prices and geopolitical bs, blah blah blah).

If this assumption is true, then ALL the fossil fuels(oil, coal, etc...) at one point was once in the atmosphere and is now in the ground right? Presumably there was life during this time, so all the carbon in the ground NOW was in the air THEN and it was compatible with life. Not only was it compatible with life, it must have sustained so much life that the life was able to convert that vast amount of carbon into what we know now as the vast reserves of fossil fuels.

So if we burn it all and put the carbon back in the air, life as we know today might not be the same, but life will certainly continue. Survival of the fittest baby! So says Darwin. So it is.

[Danny Hamilton]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 12 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]511562[/snapback]</div>

Since the carbon released presumably is coming from the atmosphere in the first place, would burning biofuels effectively be a zero net carbon balance?(And I'm just considering this from a carbon point of view, not how this would affect the food supply and prices and geopolitical bs, blah blah blah).

If this assumption is true, then ALL the fossil fuels(oil, coal, etc...) at one point was once in the atmosphere and is now in the ground right? Presumably there was life during this time, so all the carbon in the ground NOW was in the air THEN and it was compatible with life. Not only was it compatible with life, it must have sustained so much life that the life was able to convert that vast amount of carbon into what we know now as the vast reserves of fossil fuels.

So if we burn it all and put the carbon back in the air, life as we know today might not be the same, but life will certainly continue. Survival of the fittest baby! So says Darwin. So it is.
[/b]

There are a couple of gaping holes in your theory.

[Danny Hamilton]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 12 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]511562[/snapback]</div>

Since the carbon released presumably is coming from the atmosphere in the first place, would burning biofuels effectively be a zero net carbon balance?(And I'm just considering this from a carbon point of view, not how this would affect the food supply and prices and geopolitical bs, blah blah blah).

If this assumption is true, then ALL the fossil fuels(oil, coal, etc...) at one point was once in the atmosphere and is now in the ground right? Presumably there was life during this time, so all the carbon in the ground NOW was in the air THEN and it was compatible with life. Not only was it compatible with life, it must have sustained so much life that the life was able to convert that vast amount of carbon into what we know now as the vast reserves of fossil fuels.

So if we burn it all and put the carbon back in the air, life as we know today might not be the same, but life will certainly continue. Survival of the fittest baby! So says Darwin. So it is.
[/b]

There are a couple of gaping holes in your theory.

[MarkMN]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 12 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]511562[/snapback]</div>

Since the carbon released presumably is coming from the atmosphere in the first place, would burning biofuels effectively be a zero net carbon balance?(And I'm just considering this from a carbon point of view, not how this would affect the food supply and prices and geopolitical bs, blah blah blah).

If this assumption is true, then ALL the fossil fuels(oil, coal, etc...) at one point was once in the atmosphere and is now in the ground right? Presumably there was life during this time, so all the carbon in the ground NOW was in the air THEN and it was compatible with life. Not only was it compatible with life, it must have sustained so much life that the life was able to convert that vast amount of carbon into what we know now as the vast reserves of fossil fuels.

So if we burn it all and put the carbon back in the air, life as we know today might not be the same, but life will certainly continue. Survival of the fittest baby! So says Darwin. So it is.
[/b]

No, not so simple. If you are not a scientist, you should be careful about stating such things - the statements are foolish. The vast majority of carbon is and has always been stored in rocks. Where do you think the CO2 originates from when volcanoes erupt ? - not from dinosaur poo, and not from the atmosphere, but from inorganic-never-living rocks that formed when earth cooled after being formed billions of years ago. Fortunately for the stability of the planet, life has evolved fast enough (it took at least a billion years) to the point that it can take the Carbon that weathers from rocks and erupts from volcanoes and put it back into the ground - some of it as back as minerals and some of it as carbon rich deposits (fossil fuels) that will enventually form into inusable minerals . Otherwise, the earth would just had more and more CO2 in the atmosphere and we become more like Venus because only very, very slowly, (on average, much slower than carbon is released by volcanoes) can carbon recrystallize into sediments without life. Fortunately, life forms entered into the picture to help greatly decrease CO2 amounts and stabilize them, though it took a couple billion years. Have you noticed that generally planets and moons with a lot of volcanic activity have atmospheres that are rich in methane and/or carbon dioxide?? It is because those places are releasing a lot of carbon into their atmospheres without any life to compensate. There are problems with humans releasing a lot more carbon into the atmosphere in a short time frame, we are undoing all of the work that previous life was able to do to decrease and keep CO2 levels at livable amounts, and so in essence we are releasing a lot of the 'volcanic' carbon back into the air into the active carbon cycle. But never has all of that carbon that accumulated into fossil fuels plus our present day active carbon been active at the same time. It was all released over long periods of time by volcanoes.

[MarkMN]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 12 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]511562[/snapback]</div>

Since the carbon released presumably is coming from the atmosphere in the first place, would burning biofuels effectively be a zero net carbon balance?(And I'm just considering this from a carbon point of view, not how this would affect the food supply and prices and geopolitical bs, blah blah blah).

If this assumption is true, then ALL the fossil fuels(oil, coal, etc...) at one point was once in the atmosphere and is now in the ground right? Presumably there was life during this time, so all the carbon in the ground NOW was in the air THEN and it was compatible with life. Not only was it compatible with life, it must have sustained so much life that the life was able to convert that vast amount of carbon into what we know now as the vast reserves of fossil fuels.

So if we burn it all and put the carbon back in the air, life as we know today might not be the same, but life will certainly continue. Survival of the fittest baby! So says Darwin. So it is.
[/b]

No, not so simple. If you are not a scientist, you should be careful about stating such things - the statements are foolish. The vast majority of carbon is and has always been stored in rocks. Where do you think the CO2 originates from when volcanoes erupt ? - not from dinosaur poo, and not from the atmosphere, but from inorganic-never-living rocks that formed when earth cooled after being formed billions of years ago. Fortunately for the stability of the planet, life has evolved fast enough (it took at least a billion years) to the point that it can take the Carbon that weathers from rocks and erupts from volcanoes and put it back into the ground - some of it as back as minerals and some of it as carbon rich deposits (fossil fuels) that will enventually form into inusable minerals . Otherwise, the earth would just had more and more CO2 in the atmosphere and we become more like Venus because only very, very slowly, (on average, much slower than carbon is released by volcanoes) can carbon recrystallize into sediments without life. Fortunately, life forms entered into the picture to help greatly decrease CO2 amounts and stabilize them, though it took a couple billion years. Have you noticed that generally planets and moons with a lot of volcanic activity have atmospheres that are rich in methane and/or carbon dioxide?? It is because those places are releasing a lot of carbon into their atmospheres without any life to compensate. There are problems with humans releasing a lot more carbon into the atmosphere in a short time frame, we are undoing all of the work that previous life was able to do to decrease and keep CO2 levels at livable amounts, and so in essence we are releasing a lot of the 'volcanic' carbon back into the air into the active carbon cycle. But never has all of that carbon that accumulated into fossil fuels plus our present day active carbon been active at the same time. It was all released over long periods of time by volcanoes.

[MarkMN]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 12 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]511562[/snapback]</div>

Since the carbon released presumably is coming from the atmosphere in the first place, would burning biofuels effectively be a zero net carbon balance?(And I'm just considering this from a carbon point of view, not how this would affect the food supply and prices and geopolitical bs, blah blah blah).
[/b]

That is what we want to believe, but generally not true. By burning the biomass that has carbon that was recently fixed, we are keeping carbon in the active pools, where otherwise a smaller percentage of that carbon would be permanently attached to minerals or buried into the sediment where it would leave the active carbon cycle. Over the short term (100s of years), if we got all of our energy that way, the increase in CO2 wouldn't be life threatening, but over time, the carbon in the atmosphere would still accumulate. However, obviously, not all plants act the same way, and there are some plants that put a lot of carbon into the sediment through their root system (greater than the average plant and hugely greater than freak'n corn), and by cultivating those plants, we would be increasing the amount of plant life that buries a relatively large amount of carbon and in theory we could get our energy from the tops of those plants indefinately without increasing CO2 levels. Unfortunately, cultivating plants for biofuels would have a lot of other problems (the blah, blah blah you mentioned and so much more).

[MarkMN]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 12 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]511562[/snapback]</div>

Since the carbon released presumably is coming from the atmosphere in the first place, would burning biofuels effectively be a zero net carbon balance?(And I'm just considering this from a carbon point of view, not how this would affect the food supply and prices and geopolitical bs, blah blah blah).
[/b]

That is what we want to believe, but generally not true. By burning the biomass that has carbon that was recently fixed, we are keeping carbon in the active pools, where otherwise a smaller percentage of that carbon would be permanently attached to minerals or buried into the sediment where it would leave the active carbon cycle. Over the short term (100s of years), if we got all of our energy that way, the increase in CO2 wouldn't be life threatening, but over time, the carbon in the atmosphere would still accumulate. However, obviously, not all plants act the same way, and there are some plants that put a lot of carbon into the sediment through their root system (greater than the average plant and hugely greater than freak'n corn), and by cultivating those plants, we would be increasing the amount of plant life that buries a relatively large amount of carbon and in theory we could get our energy from the tops of those plants indefinately without increasing CO2 levels. Unfortunately, cultivating plants for biofuels would have a lot of other problems (the blah, blah blah you mentioned and so much more).

[teyde]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Danny Hamilton @ Sep 12 2007, 11:48 PM) [snapback]511572[/snapback]</div>

There are a couple of gaping holes in your theory.
[/b]

I am intrigued. Can you name a few?

[teyde]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Danny Hamilton @ Sep 12 2007, 11:48 PM) [snapback]511572[/snapback]</div>

There are a couple of gaping holes in your theory.
[/b]

I am intrigued. Can you name a few?