backtop

Print 131 comment(s) - last by Injuneer.. on Nov 28 at 12:47 AM

Kurt Zenz House, in action, studying ways to take on global warming  (Source: Kurt House, Harvard University)
Exciting research from Harvard University looks to kill global warming with silica

More than two thirds, or about 71%, of the Earth's surface is covered by salty bodies of water.  These oceans are a rich reaction site for aqueous chemical reactions.  Researchers at Harvard seek to set these reaction to work in taming one of the most contentious and troublesome issues of our times -- global warming.

Kurt Zenz House is a doctoral candidate in Geosciences at Harvard University.  For several years House, with the help of some of the brightest minds at Harvard and partner universities, has researched novel solutions to the tricky problem of global warming.  His basic approach has been to store carbon dioxide in Earth's largest sector by surface area -- the oceans.  This is an intriguing idea, as the ocean already stores CO2 in sediments and in the water.  Ocean water stores CO2 in acidic form as carbonic acid, H2CO3.

House's initial work was performed with Harvard's Daniel P. Schrag Ph.D, MIT's Charles F. Harvey Ph.D, and Klaus S. Lackner Ph.D at Columbia University.  This work studied deep sea storage of CO2 in ocean sediments.  It illustrated how the high pressures and low temperatures of ocean depths would help dissolved CO2 deposits stay in place, even in the case of geomechanical perturbations including earthquakes and volcanoes. 

Furthermore the formation of hydrates offers even more security for this deep seas storage of carbon dioxide.  House estimated in his paper that the deep ocean area along a 200-mile stretch of U.S. commercial coastline could store thousands of years of current U.S. CO2 emissions.

Not satisfied with this solution, House continued his research into how to sink carbon dioxide into the ocean, shielding the Earth from any atmospheric effects, such as warming or weather changes.

Now House has released exciting new research with the help of his brother Christopher H. House at Penn State, Harvard's Daniel P. Schrag Ph.D, and Michael J. Aziz Ph.D (also from Harvard).  The new research studies how to increase the solubility of CO2 in ocean water, using everyday materials.

By exposing ocean water to silica rocks, hydrochloric acid will be removed from the ocean via electrochemical reactions and neutralized.  The silica rocks will be weathered into sand, giving the process its name -- "Engineered Weathering."  The ocean water, freed of hydrochloric acid, will shift towards alkalinity, causing it to compensate by absorbing more CO2 to form carbonic acid.  The effect would be exponential, as hydrochloric acid is far stronger and acid than carbonic acid.

The approach benefits from the fact that Silicon as crystalline silica is one of the most abundant elements in the Earth's crust.

It is estimated in the study that it would take between 100-400 kJ/mol for one mol of CO2 to be captured and stored on relevant timescales.  While a significant energy expenditure, this might be considered acceptable to reduce global warming.

The method seems processing because it could be used across the world and in remote locations, with minimal impact to the environment, if executed properly.  The only environmental concerns would be to make the pH transition from the process slow enough that the HCl was replaced with sufficient carbonic acid before continuing the process.  Also, the effects of ocean chlorine ion concentration on sea life, including sea crops, would need to be examined.

Global warming is certainly a contentious issue.  At the heart of the debate is what kind of changes in the environment it will manifest and whether warming is anthropogenic (human-caused).  DailyTech blogger Michael Asher frequently points to incongruities in the data, for example in a recent blog he pointed to a study that indicated that global warming began 250 years ago.  On the same token other blogs at DailyTech point to information that indicates that global warming will have a very real effects on weather.

Al Gore, former Vice President, was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work regarding global warming awareness that culminated in his film An Inconvenient Truth.

Will this solution be enough to satisfy opinions as diverse as these?  No one can say for sure, but for now it certainly seems to be an intriguing step in the right direction.  In the meantime, Kurt House will be hard at work coming up with advanced fossil fuel and carbon storage solutions.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By michal1980 on 11/12/2007 3:46:52 PM , Rating: 5
there is no 'stable' earth temprature. It changes from colder to warmer all the time, and has for millions of years.

Who's to say what the 'right' temperature is, and why should we waste millions attempting to stop it from changing?

whats next. lets stop the tides?




By Parhel on 11/12/2007 3:59:10 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not a believer in global warming, but obviously according to global warming theory the 'right' temperature is whatever the temperature would be right now if humans hadn't upset the balance. It's not like were all quabbling over the thermostat being set at 70 versus 72.


By Ringold on 11/12/2007 4:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
Have either of those been a problem in the US in the last couple decades?

If you're talking about China, that's one thing, but here in the US.. I'm glad you brought up acid rain, because I remember being told as a child it'd destroy all our forests, and yet we've got more forested land than before.

China will move up the economic ladder sooner or later, probably sooner, and start to be concerned less with absolute growth and more about the trappings of wealth (a corner office is so much nicer when you can see the building across the street) regardless of tech like this.

Next up for industrialization is Africa; the cycle will repeat as China kicks its polluting industries and low paying jobs there. By the time Africa is developed, may not be any such thing as a heavily polluting industrial center.


By TSS on 11/12/2007 5:41:19 PM , Rating: 5
when the oil runs out, we'll have solved alteast one source of CO2 emmission.

but seriously, your putting more CO2 into the ocean then it's handeling and there will be no affect on the marine life? i didn't catch much in science class but as far as i know molecules never dissapear (or atleast not that easy) so all where doing is moving the smog to the fish, and that can't be good.

but once we've fished the oceans dry we'll have solved that problem as well. heck the way where going why are we worrying?


By masher2 (blog) on 11/12/2007 6:07:29 PM , Rating: 5
> " i didn't catch much in science class but as far as i know molecules never dissapear "

That's just the point. Where do you think that CO2 originally came from? All that carbon was originally in the ocean and atmosphere. At many points in the past, CO2 levels were up to ten times higher than they are today...some of these periods were the most fertile in all of history.

CO2 is the most important airbone plant nutrient, critical for all life on earth. Increased CO2 levels means higher plant growth and -- since all animals ultimately derive their food from that growth -- higher animal populations asw well. Indeed, from one point of view, increasing CO2 is simply helping restoring the earth to a more healthy state, repairing the damage done by countless centuries of unrestricted plant growth, which locked that essential nutrient away in fossil fuels.

By the way, to be precise it's atoms that never disappear, barring a few special events such as radioactive decay.


By Xenoterranos on 11/12/2007 6:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
That always confused me as a child. The whole greenhouse thing should be good for everyone right? Better food growth and all that. Then I learned that it's the ice-melting-and-a-bunch-of-people-drowning that was the problem. (Which confused me even more, since Captain Planet was against global warming, even though it would be healthier for the planet and kill a lot of the 'Baddies'. His psychiatrist must have owned beach-front property.)


By mcnabney on 11/13/2007 12:16:03 AM , Rating: 5
Wrong.

Modern civilization and agriculture is unnatural. We do well in our niche based upon stability and predictability. The planet has been storing carbon for millions of years. The carbon comes from volcanic out gassing and the chemical breakdown of rocks. The atmosphere is the median location where it waits to be acted upon. There is an existing cycle of carbon between life-constructed organic material and the atmosphere. The oceans absorb some as dissolved gases or as solutes on the sea floor. Some organics get locked away in the form of what we call fossil fuels (petroleum, coal, natural gas, tar sands, oil shale...) These things take loads of time.
What we are doing now is releasing sequestered carbon from fossil fuels and clear cutting carbon heavy organics (like forests). That carbon goes into the atmosphere and waits to be used, but our speed of production is 100x the ability to re-fix the carbon and put it somewhere.
So what does it do? It absorbs a teeny bit more heat. So does water. So does methane. Water is self limiting and methane has a 10 year lifespan in the atmosphere (so ignore the hippies talking about cow farts and global climate change - the methane doesn't accumulate like carbon does). The problem is that the atmosphere is usually at balance. Things are predictable. This is because the systems are self regulating. They want to return to what we think of as normal patterns. They are not normal for the earth, but they have been normal for a long time. Introduce outside influences, like a major meteor collision, and it gets pushed out of balance. We are doing that in slow motion, but instead of reacting to the changes we continue to push. Once out of balance many of the controls work backwards and act to increase global climate change. Less polar ice absorbs more heat since the white ice isn't there to reflect. Tundra that has been frozen since before the last ice age will soften and allow the tremendous sink of frozen organic material to melt, rot, and return that carbon to the air. Larger and larger pools of water will begin to warm. As water warms, it loses the ability to carry dissolved carbon, so that releases yet even more and takes away a reservoir to hold it.
And it doesn't take many degrees of change to create startling changes in the environment. The ice ages didn't require that many degrees of cooling (those were not carbon unrelated - rather precision related). You have to understand that while humanity can surely survive severe global warming/climate change, it will lead to droughts, insect pandemics (since freezes aren't killing them), and warmer sea water that will gin-up storms.
It is something that we can minimize in the near term and avoid in the long term, but it is going to take effort.


By Ringold on 11/13/2007 12:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Modern civilization and agriculture is unnatural.


Gather round, children, and let us disect core left wing fundamental beliefs from an unguarded moment of honesty from a fine specimen!

The Logic Gravy Train: Civilization and agriculture is unnatural; perhaps the brain and the fruit of its intellectual powers is an evolutionary mistake, or meant to do nothing beyond imagine various sexual fantasies all day. Either way, since civilization is 'unnatural', and various other species such as fungus and mussels are of equivalent value to human life*, we should seek to minimize the impact of our somehow unnatural existence. Therefore, we should stop having children, consume minimal resources** and live monk-like existances until, finally, in a moment of glory, the last human finally dies, allowing pond algae around the earth to rejoice at being free of human tryanny*** and deer to frolick on the highways free of SUV collisions.

* I refer to the Florida endangered mussels siphoning water away from Georgia's primary resevoir during a critical shortage.

** Except for when viewing Inconvenient Truth DVD's, at which point turning on even a plasma TV may be morally acceptable

*** I refer to the algae which home owners associations try to keep from covering their nice rentention ponds.


By crfog on 11/13/2007 6:33:11 PM , Rating: 4
I've never been involved in the comments here on Dailytech before as I either have nothing I feel adds to the discussion (which should centre around the news item) or I have no time to truly compose my thoughts. In this case, I feel something needed to be said, however.

*Prepare for rant*

Ringold, I find your attack on Mcnabney inappropriate and childish (yes, it was an attack). Mcnabney contributed one of the clearest (if somewhat simplified), most relevant posts in this thread. He explained some scientific/geologic processes in a way that everyone should be able to understand. He provided some evidence and background to explain why the idea of greenhouse gases being good for plant growth and the environment as a whole is wrong. You chose the least important sentence in his entire post (or one of them) and attacked him for it.

Mcnabney stated "Modern civilization and agriculture is unnatural". Yes, this is a bold statement and is not properly explained or even referenced further in his post, but maybe he forgot to address that quick thought that passed through his mind as he formulated his post. Is this improperly explained/elaborated sentence grounds for an attack and to label him a fine specimen of core left wing fundamentalism? Not even close.

Ringold, you took a simple sentence which contained very little meaning as it was not explained and extracted a universe of meaning from it. Where did Mcnabney talk about fungus or mussels? Where di he say we should stop having children? I still can't find anything in his post about humans dying off (can you maybe underline it for me?). I admit the deer would probably be happier without fear of SUVs bringing tragedy to their leisurely family strolls, but Mcnabney didn't talk about that!

Since Mcnabney didn't explain himself properly, let me try my hand at deciphering what his sentence was supposed to mean. This is what I get from it (nothing about the brain being an evolutionary mistake or meant to imagine sexual fantasies all day, I assure you)...

Modern civilization and agriculture is unnatural. That is, certain agricultural techniques and "civilized" practices go against nature. Nature is composed of geosystems and ecosystems at the macro scale. Both of these are designed to sustain themselves and to remain balanced. When they become unbalanced the result can be catastrophic for ALL participants in these systems and therefore it is in the best interest of those intertwined in these systems to maintain a balance (within an acceptable range or deviation). Certain agricultural techniques, such as burning/clear cutting forests in tropical regions to make way for farm space are not sustainable. Typically, these large scale farms will be created, will consume nutrients from the fertile soil until there is nothing left and then will be shut down and moved as it is cheaper and more profitable to clear new land than to try and maintain a single crop. This is an unsustainable practice for a few reasons. First, the soil takes a very long time to become useful again. In many cases, it will not become fertile again and will instead turn into a dusty, desert sort of terrain as the trees and vegetation have been removed, allowing the soil to be blown freely and for the sun to penetrate to the ground. In tropical regions, the canopy of the forest is important to maintain life as the plant and animal life is protected from the harsh sun. Without this canopy, the original tropical life-forms will not populate the area again. In effect, a new geosystem is created and an ecosystem is slowly destroyed through this method of farming. Civilization has a lot to do with this as our international relationships and laws (or lack thereof) allow (and in a way encourage) large corporations to exploit these locations for their resources. Cheap labour, high profits through this farming model and lack of interference from less organized foreign governments are all reasons to pursue this type of business model.

That is what popped into my head as I read Mcnabney's sentence. Not quite the same as your interpretation (and a little less hostile, I think).

In closing, I'd like to ask or maybe even challenge those who post on Dailytech to write informative, relevant information in the comments. Too often have I come across personal attacks and blanket statements. You cannot label someone a commie or a left wing fundamentalist or a right winger etc. from a single opinion/piece of information they present. Sadly, it seems that anytime someone posts a comment which has an antiwar sentiment or a pro-environmental message, an inappropriate comment is made about An Inconvenient Truth or Al Gore or some such nonsense. Similarly, I'm sick of hearing references of hate toward George Bush etc. any time an argument for war or conservatism is made. I urge the *intelligent* group here on Dailytech (because I believe almost everyone here is just that) to compose posts which are informative, relevant and free of hate/exaggeration. Lately I have been reading the comments less and less as I ALWAYS come across something disrespectful and cannot force myself to read anything more out of anger/annoyance.

I meant to point this out before, but Ringold's post was a perfect example for me to base my feelings on. I don't mean to offend you in any way Ringold, but I do believe you took this too far. Please, if there's something you do not agree with/understand, then ask for an explanation or give your own views. No matter what your views are in political/environmental/scientific/world issues, respect for all human beings, no matter how different they may be is essential to make any kind of real progress.

Thanks,

Ryan


By Plazmid19 on 11/13/2007 7:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
I second crfog's request.

I think Ringold has been battling the Ultra-Greenies too long, so his first thoughts upon the sight of a trigger phrase "Modern civilization and agriculture are unnatural" immediately evoked the need to issue a counter argument against all the ridiculous arguments that have been made by the "save nature, kill the humans" bunch. For that I think we can give Ringold some credit.

Ringold, not all of us with an environmental bent are in league with the radical mob, from either side. In my mind, humans are as natural as anything else in this world. The major difference is that humans have the capacity and the will to both analyze and radically manipulate the environment in which we live. Perhaps humans are not the only species that have that capacity, but certainly humans have been the only ones to act on it, so far and recognizably.


By masher2 (blog) on 11/13/2007 8:52:12 PM , Rating: 4
> "...to explain why the idea of greenhouse gases being good for plant growth and the environment as a whole is wrong"

Not only did he provide no evidence of this, but the idea itself isn't wrong. Higher atmospheric CO2 increases plant growth; this is an indispustable result, confirmed by countless thousands of experiments.

Here's a link to a summary paper of research on the environmental effects we're already seeing from increased atmospheric CO2. Pages 8-9 detail effects on plant growth, and the bibliography cites over 100 peer-reviewed research papers:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf

To say whether increased CO2 "good for the environment" is a different question, and requires one to define exactly what one means by those terms. But a substantial body of evidence exists to confirm that increased CO2 will benefit mankind. There is contradictory research...but even that doesn't suggest that the effects will be in any way, shape, or form "catastrophic".


By Plazmid19 on 11/14/2007 2:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
I can live with thought-out responses. I think this was crfog's request.

Lively, well thought-out debate is good for the mind and shaping opinions!

I usually find that a good debate often changes my point of view a bit when good arguments are made and presented. Learning, I think it is called.

The more we learn, the more we begin to understand how very little we really know.


By A5un on 11/13/2007 12:22:26 AM , Rating: 2
If I remember correctly, I think what global warming is all about is the relatively strong bond in the CO2 molecule that can "take in" large amount of heat per bond and still remain as a CO2 molecule. This means that the vibration between C and O atoms will increase, which produce an increase in the molecular kinetic energy. Increased kinetic energy means shorter mean free path, high rate of collision, which translates into higher temperature. Temperature is the result of molecular collisions and vibrations.

So, while plants do certainly need CO2, it isn't as simple as just plants taking in CO2 and gets eaten by animals...etc. With that said, there must be an explanation to why global temperatures hasn't risen when CO2 concentration was high. There must be a trade-off reaction happening somewhere that we aren't aware of, because from first principle, CO2 WILL bring about an increase in temperature because of their ability to store energy.

Also, even in radioactive decay, atoms (or should I say the nucleus composed of nucleons) do not disappear. A proton may gets ejected in beta(-) decay or a combination of 2 protons and 2 neutrons may be ejected in the form of alpha particles in alpha decay...What do disappear is when you have a reaction combining positron and electrons (both are particles WITH rest-mass). Such reactions translates the particles' kinetic and rest-mass energy into, well, just energy in the form of photons (no rest-mass)!

Okay! Time to end Nerd Talk. Thanks for reading another educational programme. We'll see you same time tomorrow!


By masher2 (blog) on 11/13/2007 10:47:42 AM , Rating: 2
> "there must be an explanation to why global temperatures hasn't risen when CO2 concentration was high"

It's due simply to the fact that CO2 is an extremely weak greenhouse gas. It absorbs only in a narrow band of the infrared, which limits its heating ability sharply. As one atmospheric scientist put it, increasing CO2 is like continually painting a car window black-- after the first coat, everything else you do has almost no effect.


By PrezWeezy on 11/19/2007 4:55:37 PM , Rating: 2
Actually...to be really technical, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Meaning that even though and atom might be destroyed (through decay and other things), the parts of it are still around.


By SilthDraeth on 11/12/2007 8:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
us needing air bottles to bread


I want more details on the mechanics of this please.


By chrisld on 11/12/2007 5:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. A recent poll showed most scientists don't believe in global warming. No decent scientist who's looked at the data could believe there is any global warming caused by man. There's just no evidence to prove that. I hope they stop teaching this rubbish to our kids. Let's look after the enviroment but concentrate on things that are actual rather than imagined problems.


By Disorganise on 11/14/2007 3:25:50 AM , Rating: 2
And yet the vast majority of scientific papers published actually support the conclusions of global climate change. It's only the regular press that insist presenting a 'balanced' view and therefore disproportionally represent both sides (ie, regular suggest the divide is around 50-50 when the number of scientific community published papers are nearer 90-10 in favour of climate change being a very real issue).


By masher2 (blog) on 11/14/2007 11:58:12 AM , Rating: 2
> "the vast majority of scientific papers published actually support the conclusions of global climate change"

If you define "conclusions" as climate change is a reality, then yes. But if you define it as a human-induced phenomena that will result in catastrophe, then almost none of the papers published in recent years support that conclusion.


By Terberculosis on 11/12/2007 5:18:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
obviously according to global warming theory the 'right' temperature is whatever the temperature would be right now if humans hadn't upset the balance


And the temperature sans human influence would be...


By peter7921 on 11/13/2007 5:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
Bottom line is what temperature is best for humans. Lets face it thats whats most important to most of us. So lets figure whats best for us, and lets make it happen!


By masher2 (blog) on 11/13/2007 8:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "Bottom line is what temperature is best for humans"

It's interesting that you mention this, as humans typically find a temperature in the range of 70 degrees most comfortable, whereas the average global temperature is somewhere in the range of 54 degrees. This goes a long way to explain why past warming events (such as the Medieval Climate Optimum) were so beneficial to civilization.


By Justin Case on 11/12/2007 5:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
As to the "right" temperature being "whatever it would be if humans hadn't upset the balance"... well, let's just say that if an ice age is about to start, I hope we manage to "upset" it (we may already have greatly reduced the effects of the last one).

And as to "believing in global warming"... I really don't think it's a matter of faith. The issue with global warming isn't (just) the rising temperatures - in some places higher temperatures would actually be nice. It's what the added energy in the atmosphere causes, and how that affects our lives (and the global economy, etc.).

There is no "right" global temperature, especially because the global temperature is just an average. But there are better (calmer, more uniform, more predictable) and worse (more destructive, more irregular, less predictable) climates.

The issue to me is that we need to learn to control our climate, not just so we can recover from our (present, past or future) blunders, should we push things past their tipping point(s), but also so we can survive as a species if the climate starts to change in radical ways for reasons that have nothing to do with us.

And beyond a certain point, the only way to learn more about a subject is to start tinkering with it (in a deliberate, controlled way). I'm totally in favor of a significant reduction in global emissions, just to see how that affects climate. I'm pretty sure the world economy would survive, and possibly come out stronger (many companies care only about short-term profits, so they don't modernize, but if they are forced to do so, they'll actually be more competitive and more efficient in the long run). Unfortunately, in most countries, corporations tell governments what to do, which in turn tell the people what to think, and not the other way around.

P.S. - An article in DT that actually has links to sources and not just to other DT articles! There's a rare beast.


By Ringold on 11/12/2007 7:23:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
P.S. - An article in DT that actually has links to sources and not just to other DT articles! There's a rare beast.


DT isn't a valid primary source?!

*scrambles to rewrite papers*


By murphyslabrat on 11/13/2007 5:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
The bulk of Dailytech references to past articles, are ones where a source was quoted or addressed. These links are for those who do not patrol the forums, reading each article the instant it comes out. Sometimes, people need to get an explanation of a research paper or bill before they go and read it.


By Spivonious on 11/12/2007 4:00:02 PM , Rating: 4
It's easy, just blow up the Moon.


By Suomynona on 11/12/2007 4:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
Oy, before claiming global warming is a conspiracy, do a little research into who funds the people who debunk it. Legitimate climate scientists are in debate over how fast climate change is occurring, but they are in agreement over the fact that it is happening. Here's an article by Newsweek, a very centrist publication, detailing the history of debunking global warming. http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482


By clovell on 11/12/2007 4:20:11 PM , Rating: 1
I read that article awhile back, and I didn't appreciate it. It was far more biased than anything I've ever read on the subject - so much so, that more than a few moderates jumped on it and called it out.


By Micronite on 11/12/2007 4:36:00 PM , Rating: 2
I stopped reading when you said Newsweek was a centrist publication.


By Micronite on 11/12/2007 4:45:38 PM , Rating: 3
If you'd like to read an equally un-biased opinion from the Weather Channel founder:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JC_comments.doc


By JDub02 on 11/13/2007 8:51:11 AM , Rating: 1
That guy is right on. Global warming is pretty much a political, almost religious, viewpoint. Not much science involved.

Lots of money in it, though. That's why the support for it is so vehement.


By Screwballl on 11/13/2007 9:52:48 AM , Rating: 3
That is the exact problem... big oil stops major innovation relating to vehicles that will hurt their oil profits. So they pay off politicians to keep gas mileage low. So what is the number 1 gas mileage killer? Pollution controls. So they act like they care for the environment when all they really care for is lining their pockets. It hurts the environment more manufacturing these "pollution control" parts than it does preventing pollution from our vehicles.
Look at a early 1970s truck before the catalytic converter versus after they put the catalytic converters on with exact same engine. More power, better gas mileage and longer lasting engines in the 70s.
Now fast forward to today with all these newer vehicles and pollution controls that strap the engine down tighter than a billion dollar hººker and you are lucky to get 150,000 miles from that engine. (There is always the exception.) Gas mileage is at a historically low point.
Two examples I have of this:
One is a behemoth vehicle: the Chevy/GMC Suburban. Take a 1975 version next to a 1990 version with same engine (350), almost the exact same body style but the main difference the pollution controls. That 1975 with no pollution controls will get around 22-25 mpg and still be running great with almost no pollution today at 400,000 miles yet the 1990 with a more "efficient" TBI ranks in around 12-15 mpg and are known to need a rebuild around 150,000 miles. The only real difference was the pollution controls.
Now number two is a late 1980s/early 90s Geo Metro. Since it had a small engine and good gas mileage, it was not required to have the whole 9 yards of pollution controls. The 3 cylinder engine was rated and tested at over 50 mpg and the 4 cylinder was rated around 40mpg (both EPA estimates) but I have heard the average in the real world was closer to 60/48 respectively. As soon as Clinton forced these controls on ALL vehicles, this Metro (now Chevy) started seeing around 25-30 mpg with the same 4 cylinder engine in the late 90s on to today.


By masher2 (blog) on 11/12/2007 6:09:41 PM , Rating: 4
> " Here's an article by Newsweek, a very centrist publication, detailing the history of debunking global warming"

You couldn't have picked a worse example. That article was debunked right after publication by Newsweek's own editor, who called it biased, wholly inacurrate, and a disgrace to the magazine.


By Ringold on 11/12/2007 7:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
A few months after I let my Newsweek subscription lapse, some poor innocent girl phoned me up and asked why.

Oh, that was fun.


By HrilL on 11/12/2007 11:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
So did you resubscribe? and take the free 3 months they probably offered for you to do so?


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/13/2007 12:19:32 PM , Rating: 3
Only if she gave me her phone number ;)


By johnsonx on 11/12/2007 7:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Newsweek, a very centrist publication


oh, dear, it's a wonder my computer didn't crash having to process that sequence of ASCII characters!


By Terberculosis on 11/12/2007 5:16:35 PM , Rating: 1
I would vote you up to a six if I could.

I cannot stand all of these knee-jerk reactionaries trying to control a natural process that will most likely do more good than harm.

Also: I will see your stopping the tides and raise you a keeping the sun from rising tomorow.


By cloh2083 on 11/14/2007 10:32:50 AM , Rating: 2
My god, with all these hate/fear mongering and ignorance it's real hard to decipher the truly educated comments!

I'm still undecided on this whole GW issue, but must admit that being prudent is better than being sorry. I get the impression that a lot of the anti-GW are so focused on the "no immediate problem; not my problem" stance. A lot of the arguments here are about GW not being 'scientific' - a disputable fact when there are hundreds of papers written on the topic (some based on historic data).

And yet, often the same argument would state that preparing for GW contingencies would definitely result in a Drepression. Now I'd let to see how that is in any way scientific. Are we looking historic data now, or simply speculate about the future? Did preparing to deal with the ozone problem over Australia cause a Depression? Let us all remember too that economics is not a precise science, and at best can be called a 'soft' science compared to the harder biochem studies (which is what GW is all about).

Sure, carbon emissions aid in plant growth, but I want to know the impact on the macro level. Building nuclear power plants create jobs and wealth - but what is the impact on the environment in terms of pollution? Indirect effects on war-mongering and terrorist access to real WMDs?


By masher2 (blog) on 11/14/2007 12:11:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Let us all remember too that economics is not a precise science, and at best can be called a 'soft' science compared to the harder biochem studies (which is what GW is all about)
At present, economics is far more precise than climate modelling. No global climate model has ever made a single successful prediction of future events, and most are wholly unable to explain even past climate changes in the historical record.

Compared to that, economics is an extremely exact science.

quote:
Did preparing to deal with the ozone problem over Australia cause a Depression?
CFCs were one small class of chemical. It's a far different matter with CO2, which is generated by nearly every activity known to man. Nearly all industrial processes, commercial businesses of every type, transportation, shipping, mining, manufacturing, service industries, leisure and travel, and every house and home on the planet-- anything that uses energy at all. Everything.

Control carbon emissions, and you control the world.

Take a look at the recent Lieberman-Warner "cap-and-trade" bill designed to limit US GHG emissions. Its just the start...and even its supporters say it'll cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Others claim the real toll is far worse, and will run to tens of trillions, and halt all econmic growth in the nation.


geez, why even start this?
By mdogs444 on 11/12/2007 3:42:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
DailyTech blogger Michael Asher frequently points to incongruities in the data, for example in a recent blog he pointed to a study that indicated that global warming began 250 years ago. On the same token other blogs at DailyTech point to information that indicates that global warming will have a very real effects on weather.


Well i for one will side with Michael Asher. Global warming is nothing more than a natural cycle, and being strongly politicized from the left by instituting a "fear tactic" into the citizens. When John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, calls "Man Made Global Warming" the biggest scam in history, I have to agree and laugh each time I hear some stupid global warming atrocity theory:

global warming contributed to the california fires! - no, it was arson.

global warming is killing polar bears! - yeah, 4 polar bears drowned, and as a result we have an increasingly endangered specie!
global warming is going to raise sea level 23 feet! - whoops, you must have meant 23 inches, or 23 centimeters, or 23 years from now.

Lets just stop with the whole conspricy and blaming everything in nature on global warming.




RE: geez, why even start this?
By James Holden on 11/12/2007 3:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to usually agree with what Michael writes as well. However, I do take some pride in the fact that a U.S. researcher has some big ideas (good luck on the PHD, btw) rather than just spouting gloom and doom to get more funding. Kudos.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By Polynikes on 11/12/2007 4:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
The question now is, if global warming is indeed just natural, what might be the effects of combating it on the presumption that it isn't natural? I hope we figure out soon if it's natural or not, or we may do even worse damage trying to fight a phantom problem.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By BikeDude on 11/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: geez, why even start this?
By Parhel on 11/12/2007 4:51:45 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, his post was intended as a personal attack those 4 polar bears.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By arazok on 11/12/2007 5:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
When I first started reading your comment, I thought you were being scarcastic. Then I kept reading and realized you're a moron.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By clovell on 11/12/2007 5:45:43 PM , Rating: 1
OK, maybe we humans do not contribute anything to the "natural cycle". Maybe the hurricane Catrina would've been as strong as it was regardless of our contribution to the eco-system.

It's Katrina - and Global Warming had nothing to do with it.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By nofranchise on 11/13/2007 9:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
And that is a SCIENTIFIC FACT!

Just like Noahs Ark, Adam and Eve, the Virgin birth and the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By murphyslabrat on 11/13/2007 5:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, all except for the nukes in Iraq.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By aalaardb on 11/12/2007 6:01:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and then we spew CO2 into the atmosphere
97% of CO2 is natural, 3% is man made

quote:
The previous clima changes throughout history have happened nowhere as rapidly as the current change
Just last night, on THC there was a program called 'A Global Warning?' In it, it said there was an 18 degree F rise in 10 years.

quote:
Greenland alone has substantial amount of water tied up in ice form
But it didn't use to. It used to be farmable land just a few hundred years ago. If Greenland had no ice, how much ice was in the Arctic for the polar bears? Polar bears won't go extinct now, or else they would have the last time.

quote:
AFAICT, of those sceptic to the UN IPCC, most hail from the US. ....... I'm sorry, but I tend to trust scientists from other parts of the world first
A good portion of those same UN IPCC scientist are American (we are a part of the UN after all). So what? 80% of the entire world's pharmaceuticals are developed in the US. Do you trust getting your drugs cheap from Chile?


RE: geez, why even start this?
By nofranchise on 11/13/2007 9:57:37 AM , Rating: 2
Greenland was farmable land a few hundred years ago... Right. You are obviously talking out of your ass.

Greenland was farmable, but the Greenlandic Icecap was there - and it was there long before the polar bear. The ice sheet in Greenland is 3200 kilometers thick at the thickest point:

quote:
The Greenland ice sheet is three km thick and broad enough to blanket an area the size of Mexico. The ice is so massive that its weight presses the bedrock of Greenland below sea level, so all-concealing that not until recently did scientists discover that Greenland might actually be three islands
(Wikipedia.org)

Your knowledge of Greenland and the vikings who actually farmed a bit, and raised cattle etc. is obviously very small. Which begs to question your other arguments...

Read a book - or at least look at a semi trustworthy site before posting.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By Hawkido on 11/14/2007 1:06:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
3200 kilometers thick


The only place deep enough for you to pull this number out of is Al Gore's Butt.

quote:
The ice is so massive that its weight presses the bedrock of Greenland below sea level, so all-concealing that not until recently did scientists discover that Greenland might actually be three islands


Newton might have discovered gravity, and physical laws.
Einstein might have discovered relativity.
Columbus Sailed across the Atlantic and might have discovered America.

My experience tells me if it is discovered, it IS. There is no might. I looked up and discovered the Sun, Moon, and stars. If I discovered them then the next person who looks up will see the Sun, Moon, and stars. See, no might needed.

So since your source was so definite as to use the powerful word might, then we as a scientific community have to conclude that they in fact did not discover anything.

quote:
(Wikipedia.org)
quote:
Read a book - or at least look at a semi trustworthy site before posting.


Umm... you do realize common Joe’s with less scientific background than even the most ignorant of Liberals posts that stuff on Wikipedia... It is a great place to collect information but a horrible place to confirm it. No University professor will EVER let you source Wikipedia. Well, a Liberal Indoctrination Center may, but a legitimate Learning institution will not.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/12/2007 6:14:26 PM , Rating: 4
> "I think four bears are significant"

I think the hundreds of thousands of children who die each year for want of a fifty-cent shot of antiobiotics are more significant than those four polar bears. And the millions of others who die from equally-treatable ailments even more significant.

If we're going to dispense a few trillion dollars to solve problems, why not start with the big ones first?


RE: geez, why even start this?
By A5un on 11/13/2007 12:45:05 AM , Rating: 2
That's right. While I'm somewhat of a firm believer in CO2 bringing about rise in temperature (read my prior post in this thread), I do strongly think there're more pressing issues at hand then the climate.

I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with masher.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By crimson117 on 11/13/2007 2:17:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think the hundreds of thousands of children who die each year for want of a fifty-cent shot of antiobiotics are more significant than those four polar bears.

I wish more global warming doubters actually believed that, and tried to raise awareness of other real issues affecting humans, instead of just casting doubt global warming and stopping there.

- If global warming is indeed a problem, and we don't do something, then we're genuinely screwed: rising oceans, shrinking glacial lakes and rivers, and more awful movies about the northern hemisphere freezing over and the USA migrating to mexico.
- If global warming turns out not to be a problem, but we reduced emissions and made more efficient vehicles and moved to renewable energy sources, then where is the harm in trying?

Your answer to the "where is the harm in trying" is that the money could have been better spent solving other problems. I would agree with that - we need to commit more to helping those around the world with real, solvable problems.

But most other global warming doubters that I've encountered don't share your generosity. Most others sound like oil company executives, whose driving reason for casting doubt on global warming is to maximize their profits from rising oil consumption. When a regular person sees those two sides - reduced emissions and renewable energy on one side, and oil companies growing bigger on the other side - clearly most will go against the oil companies and for reduced emissions.

But if you present the alternatives, and show that the global warming doubters really have humanitarian alternatives to spend the money on, it'll be easier to draw others to your side.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/13/2007 5:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
> "If global warming is indeed a problem, and we don't do something, then we're genuinely screwed"

Even if one accepts the official IPCC position, we're not "screwed" by global warming. A few centimeters rise in sea level, a mild increase in storm and flood activity, etc. Nothing that can't be easily adapted to, and nothing at all close to a calamity.

Of course, an equal amount of evidence suggests that the expected amount of warming will actually benefit mankind, through lengthened growing seasons, a more temperature climate, fewer deaths from cold and cold-related ailments, etc.

But in neither case are we "screwed". It's either a mild benefit or a mild problem.

> "If global warming turns out not to be a problem, but we reduced emissions and made more efficient vehicles and moved to renewable energy sources, then where is the harm in trying?"

By that logic, where was the harm in the Great Depression? The "harm in trying" is the vastly increased taxes, the lowered productivity, the economic stagnation, the increased unemployment, and the wasting of tens of trillions of dollars which could have instead been used to solve real problems.

When you and ten million other Americans are sitting in a soup line, unemployed and unemployable because every company in the nation is cutting back to reduce carbon emissions, then ask where the harm is. Think it can't happen again? Take a strong look at what failed US government policies led to the Great Depression. There are real and serious consequences to those bills signed into law. Consequences that hurt ordinary, average people.

The "harm in trying" is boondoggles like the biofuel program, which actually increase CO2 emissions, while it simultaneously raises both gas and food prices. Programs which prompt third-world farmerms to slash down rain forest, to meet rising demand. This is just some of ill-advised "trying" has bought us. I wouldn't even discuss what other problems we might have solved with the hundreds of billions already spent....that's a drop in a bucket compared to the tens of trillions it may cost in the future.

The cost of energy is closely linked to both standard of living and economic growth. And everything generates carbon, even "alternative" energy sources like wind and solar. Limit carbon emissions, and you limit life itself.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By Plazmid19 on 11/13/2007 5:57:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By that logic, where was the harm in the Great Depression? The "harm in trying" is the vastly increased taxes, the lowered productivity, the economic stagnation, the increased unemployment, and the wasting of tens of trillions of dollars which could have instead been used to solve real problems.


This all depends on the approach that is used to reduce emissions, make more energy efficient vehicles, and move to renewable energy sources. If you make this a government mandate and implement it they way that is common right now, yes, the things you have stated will come to pass.

I propose that it is possible to move on to better methods of energy and mobility without using the heavy-handed governmental approach. Those same minds that have generated the novel idea of using the ocean to absorb CO2 may also yield ideas that would propel us to the technologies to reduce energy usage. There are many fantastic ideas already out there. They just need to be implemented. I don't see why economy, science, and society can not strike a balance. (Yes, way over simplified, but I think you can get the point)

This comes full circle to the approach used to reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency. If the approach is mindful of economic and standard-of-living needs, it could be done. Not all with a mind to the environment are hell-bent on completely eliminating carbon at the expense of all. But like all problems, there are many with hidden agendas and not-so-obvious problems to surmount. I think you made the notion of "ill advised trying." A successful try would be of the "advised" variety.


By milomnderbnder21 on 11/12/2007 5:00:47 PM , Rating: 1
Yup, stupid liberal fear mongers.

Next they'll start using Al Qaeda or something to scare people into voting for them...

While I agree that the media latches onto the term 'global warming' and improperly attaches it to anything having to do with weather and destruction (like fires), there is a serious effort being made by scientists (NOT partisan hacks) to elucidate the effects of humans on global climate change, and the majority opinion so far seems to be that we have had a warming effect. What this means is not clear yet, but we evolve to fit an ecosystem, so a changing ecosystem will demand adaptation, not extra beaches for sipping mai-tais.

In any case, taking care of your planet seems like common sense to me. I get the impression that some people hate on climate change science simply because environmental conservation has been a liberal policy, and they dare not agree with anything liberals believe in.

Given the importance of the oceans as a source of resources and, yes, biodiversity, I would be very interested in the effects of this method on ocean life. Small pH changes can have serious impacts on biological systems.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By nofranchise on 11/12/2007 5:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah - the LEFT is instituting a "fear tactic" into the citizens... I must laugh good sir.

Figure out why - although from your gullible "argumentation" as to why global warming is not occurring I guess it'll be hard to grasp.

Oh - and of course nothing the founder of the Weather Channel says could be wrong - like nothing the founders of ESPN says about sports could be biased...or outright wrong.

I've got an idea - let's ignore the UN Climate Panel and listen to a guy who's only professional training as far as I know, is reading the weather report...


RE: geez, why even start this?
By clovell on 11/12/2007 5:50:08 PM , Rating: 1
Or, we could critically analyze all arguments regardless of where they're coming from and stop dropping names and acronyms like geeks playing D&D.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/13/2007 11:06:05 AM , Rating: 2
> "I've got an idea - let's ignore the UN Climate Panel "

Just to name a few, Dr. Vincent Gray, Dr. Richard Courtney, Dr. Mahdev Khandekar, and Dr. Richard Lindzen are all current or former expert reviewers for the UN IPCC. All agree that the UN is grossly micharacterizing the state of the science, and that there is no impending climate disaster.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By nofranchise on 11/13/2007 12:07:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 850 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors


http://www.ipcc.ch/27ipcc.swf

Right - so it is completely unrealistic that the 2500 scientific experts reviewing the IPCC's reports, but entirely realistic that four former members, are right...

Admit it masher - you disagree because that is your political and personal agenda, not because you have strong evidence to support your conviction that nothing is wrong, and we should shrug at global warming.

I am all for getting rid of malaria, figuring the trade problems of Africa out, building nuclear powerplants and a lot of other pressing problems, but I cannot grasp why you are so convinced GW won't happen that you are willing to gamble the future of life as we know it.

Ever heard of being on the safe side?


RE: geez, why even start this?
By masher2 (blog) on 11/13/2007 12:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
> "so it is completely unrealistic that the 2500 scientific experts reviewing the IPCC's reports"

Err, the IPCC doesn't have 2500 expert reviewers. It has a a few per chapter only. The "thousands of contributing scientists" are simply those who have papers referenced...and the majority of those are not atmospheric scientists, but rather biologists and others investigating possible effects of rising temperatures.

And the "Summary for Policymakers" which is typically the only thing quoted by the media? That's written by politicians, not scientists, with representatives from each nation voting to decide the actual text.

> "...that four former members, are right"

Three of the four are current expert reviewers. The fourth is the Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. And that was just the first four off the top of my head. I've previously posted dozens of other scientists who disagree with the "media pop" view of global warming.

> "Ever heard of being on the safe side? "

The safe side doesn't involve jeopardizing our entire economic future on multi-trillion dollar boondoggles to stop illusory problems. Especially when those attempts may well make matters worse. The latest research has demonstrated that our current biofuel program is generating more GHG emissions than the amount of gasoline it replaced. And if the US winds up pasisng cap-and-trade programs like the recent Lieberman-Warner bill, you're going to see the nation in a depression worse than that in the 1930s.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By Ringold on 11/13/2007 12:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And if the US winds up pasisng cap-and-trade programs like the recent Lieberman-Warner bill, you're going to see the nation in a depression worse than that in the 1930s.


Aww, Masher, you had to go and ruin my romantic view of Lieberman as a respectable moderate semi-Dixiecrat. Warner I already knew was a moonbat.

Well, at least he's not Harry Reid. As long as the party still tries to politically execute him, I know he must be doing something right in the aggregate.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/13/2007 12:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
It's the "Play it safe" logic that is so flawed. How about you implement all the changes you want, but in the process of doing so cause an ice age instead, now what are you gonna do?

Risks are part of life, deal with it. The risk of the apocalypse coming because of a few degree temperature variance is fear mongering. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning TWICE than you do of being killed by something related to "global warming".


RE: geez, why even start this?
By nofranchise on 11/13/2007 5:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
Wonderful statistic Kenobi...

You could also argue, that there is going to be enormous spin off and therefore economic benefit in finding solutions to these problems - although I gather a lot of people here think the planet is just dandy.

I guess I am talking to deaf ears - we'll have to see what happens. It'll just be a bit hard to laugh about being right, when large parts of Europe is submerged, including my home country, which is actually working on finding some solutions.

Ack - whats the use - tonight the dark side won the election here again. I guess it is time to think about moving to higher ground anyway.

By the way - I will freely admit that some advocates of GW problems are mediawhores and unscientific bastards. But to ridicule every scientist who says there could be a problem is not only foolish, it is also dangerous.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By FITCamaro on 11/12/2007 5:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
I for one would rather we just leave shit alone. I'd really rather not f*** with our oceans.

I'm all for environmental friendliness but realize you can't just switch overnight.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By nofranchise on 11/12/2007 5:19:58 PM , Rating: 1
For once I think I almost agree somewhat with FITCamaro... But I'm guessing you by "shit" probably mean leave everything alone - also the stuff we actually HAVE to do something about. (Guessing you're a neocon... so donning the flameretardant suit)

The ostrich tactic is very understandable, but not very wise or farsighted.

No offense intended...


RE: geez, why even start this?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/13/2007 12:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
The over-reaction tactic is also not a very wise tactic. The general concensus from the GW supporters is we need to make changes to "stop global warming". The generally accepted method is to reduce Co2 in the atmosphere. Ok, show me a data model that cuts Co2 production and tells me what (in theory) would happen if we did that. How would plant life, wild life, climate, etc... be effected by this.

I would also trust mother nature to correct an imbalance than a bunch of humans who think they know better than the planet. Here is the reality, you don't control global warming, IT CONTROLS YOU. You adapt to the changes and life goes on, this is how mammals survived the last ice age, and how they have made it to the top of the food chain. To think we are so badass that we can actually stop the natural cycles and events is pretty egotistic. Worst case, mother nature wipes us off the planet to pave the way for a better species. Best case (And most likely) we just adapt to the changes and keep on truckin'. Start looking at this from an evolution standpoint and not the far out theories.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By treehugger87 on 11/13/2007 3:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure where i stand on global warning, waiting a few years can't hurt, but i do agree that the media are wrongly portraying it as an impending doom if we don't "fix it". However there is an flaw in your agrument Mster Kenobi, the natural cycle of the world is based upon the past, billions of years ago. Billions of years ago the earth didn't have industries pumping pollution into the atmosphere. Therefore refering to the natural cycle is invalid, because our industrailization as a species only came over a century ago, and the effects of our pollution and impact upon the "natural cycle" of the earths heating and cooling cannot be known after this many years.


RE: geez, why even start this?
By murphyslabrat on 11/13/2007 5:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you don't control global warming, IT CONTROLS YOU.

Only in Soviet Russia


Ta-Da!
By Plazmid19 on 11/12/2007 3:46:45 PM , Rating: 1
Leave it to the Human Ego to think we can re-engineer nature and solve problems we created in the blink of an eye. I hope some serious study goes into the ramifications of shifting the ph of the ocean, not to mention the feasibility of controlling such a reaction.

However, that would certainly (in a not-so-wanted fashion) solve the problem of global warming by killing us all by severely destabilizing an ecological balance that has taken thousands of years to develop. Nature can correct itself, but we may not like how nature decides to do it. The trick is to co-exist, not over-power.

Read "Water Babies", it's a good book a quite appropriate for this sort of solution.




RE: Ta-Da!
By Ringold on 11/12/2007 4:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
I've heard environmentalists whine about the ocean becoming more acidic due to our actions, now the complaint is that we should consider the ramifications from undoing what we did?

Beautiful.


RE: Ta-Da!
By nofranchise on 11/12/2007 5:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
Who said these guys were environmentalists? And yes - our actions have made some parts of the worlds oceans more acidic. This is a question of a lesser evil for a greater good.

Then again - we could also reduce the defense budget to 50% and spend the mountain of funding on CSS, solar panel research, fusion research etc. But I guess the terrorists will overrun the country in an instant if that were to occur...


RE: Ta-Da!
By clovell on 11/12/2007 5:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's a difficult decision to weigh as the role of CO2 in GW isn't as bad as once was thought.


RE: Ta-Da!
By Ringold on 11/12/2007 7:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
No, but the Taliban would easily take back Afghanistan, as our NATO allies would fold like a lawn chair. Iraq would be a roll of the dice; much improved since "the surge", but still not good when legislators are getting targeted.

Even if it were done anyway, since private industry is already dumping huge sums of money in to exactly the research you noted (except fusion afaik), how about a 50% tax cut accompanying a 50% reduction in government? I like that idea. :)


RE: Ta-Da!
By nofranchise on 11/12/2007 8:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
*shudders*

Yeah you'd probably like that I'm afraid...


RE: Ta-Da!
By Ringold on 11/13/2007 1:10:38 PM , Rating: 3
A 50% reduction in government?

Given how much it's grown since the New Deal, and how the New Deal in a single year boosted the federal government to a size larger than all previous years budget combined, and how society got along just peachy in 1920 (or even 1820, minus the technological advances), I suspect the only people that would miss it would be welfare queens.

Not to mention.. key government processes (infrastructure, defense, safety related agencies) could probably very easily survive nearly unscathed from a 50% reduction in government budgets. Many things could be privatized with regulatory oversight; water and toll roads come to mind. There's just a huge amount of corruption and waste, and a huge amount of things that, prior to destroying states rights, would of been done on the state level as opposed to the imperial level. Er, Federal level.

If we really wanted to dump social safety nets, could probably get away with a 75% reduction pretty easily and keep the FDA, DHS, USMC (what else do we need?), etc.

Avoiding wars of choice would also help immensely. If the UN doesn't want to stop a genocide, for example, not our job to disagree and invest troops.

Not to mention, with all that freed up money swishing around in the free economy, productivity growth would be huge for a time while federal employees started getting real jobs that engaged in productive activities.

So, yeah, I'd like that you could say. :P


RE: Ta-Da!
By nofranchise on 11/13/2007 5:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
If you ever come into power, let me know so I can kill myself.


RE: Ta-Da!
By masher2 (blog) on 11/12/2007 6:18:09 PM , Rating: 4
> "Leave it to the Human Ego to think we can re-engineer nature and solve problems we created"

That ego is what first brought us out of our dung-filled, lice-infested caves so many years ago.

Personally, I am horrified so many people deride that attitude today.


RE: Ta-Da!
By Plazmid19 on 11/13/2007 3:51:53 PM , Rating: 3
Masher,

Do not misinterpret my comment to be inclusionary of all good things that have come from man's creativity. There is a big difference between creativity and ego. Technology has been a wonderful thing and has given us much. My worry has been the knee-jerk reaction to every wobble our environment makes, good or bad.

My conjecture is that we, as a people, do not fully understand what is going on with our climate and what has caused the warming trend. We do know that we (people) are an influencing factor, but to what degree? And how have we influenced it? Is it really "Green House Gases", Habitat density, Our Cities, a combination, or something we haven't uncovered. The possibility exists that this is a natural cycle as well. The point being is that we do not know, and we really don't have a full grasp on how our oceans or other complex environments work either.

My concern is that making such a direct intervention to something we do not fully understand may lead to some pretty nasty unforeseen consequences. I find it really exciting that such a thing could be done, but to quote Michael Crichton, "The question is not that it can't be done, it is `should it be done?`"


Power Requirements
By aalaardb on 11/12/2007 5:42:07 PM , Rating: 1
Now, I'm dubious that CO2 causes AGW, and so I'm against anything that will have a large economic impact for scant effect. But I realize that somewhere, someone is going to do something about CO2, for better or worse, and so if there are the 2 options of either scaling back the economy or storing some CO2 out of sight and out of mind I'd choose to store it. For that reason this seemed like a good idea. Until I read the power requirements.

100 kJ == 27.8 watt-hours
27.8 watt-hours of electricity produces 6.1 grams CO2
1 mol CO2 == 44 grams
So we have a decent trade-off at the most efficient, it takes 6 grams to store 44 grams, but at its least efficient that's 24 grams put into the atmosphere to store 44 grams in the ocean.

20617 mols in 1 ton of CO2, 22727 in 1 metric tonne
At its most efficient, 573 kWatt-hours to store 1 ton, and release some CO2 too
~665 kWatt-hours to take 1 ton out of the atmosphere
Assuming 10 cents per kWatt hour in the US, that's 66 dollars.
At its least efficient, 2292 kWatt-hours to store 1 ton, ~4203 to take 1 ton out of the atmosphere.

Taking 1 ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere by putting 1.2 - 1.5 tons in the ocean: $66 - $420
Taking 1 ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere by planting 3 to 5 trees: Priceless




RE: Power Requirements
By nofranchise on 11/12/2007 8:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
All of this is conveniently forgetting the immense energy problems ahead. We can store all the Co2 we want, and it won't solve the problem that we WILL run out of fossil fuel - oil and gas being the first to go - and have no real alternatives. So talking about avoiding economic downscaling will become necessary soon no matter what. Unless you want to tell the Chinese and India, they can't have what we have.

Even if we somehow magically solve the climatic problems, we've only just begun addressing far more serious issues, and it seems most people want to believe it's all just made up.

We have to remember that it's not like we will be able to get more oil from somewhere - Canadian tar sands et al are sources of oil, but cost a large amount of energy to get at - all the oil and gas we are using, is a product of a period with immense plant growth followed by millions of years. We won't be able to reproduce that, and the fossil fuel stemming from that era will run out. Sooner or later.

Unless we start addressing this with SERIOUS research, and I mean Apollo program combined with the Manhattan project kind of research, we are royally screwed.

Masher, feel free to ridicule...


RE: Power Requirements
By RaisedinUS on 11/12/2007 9:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
the fossil fuel stemming from that era will run out. Sooner or later.
I've heard this for decades. We still have and are finding new sources of oil.
I'm going to go a little off base here but I think the term fossil fuel could be erroneous. Pre Google and Wiki, I found many "scientific" papers claiming the Russians have been drilling and pumping out oil well below the fossil layer since the 50's, IIRC. I can't find much info on this anymore, maybe it's been debunked or conveniently deleted. I did find this link but it's a pay to download. http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020812/full/news02...
To me,(and I am no expert by any means),I find it hard to believe there were that many dead animals and plants to make up the oil the world has already consumed.
Also, I have ran across many topics in the past that oil companies are now reopening closed, used up wells. It seems they have replenished themselves.
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/97015/...
http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm
Some even believe the oil came/comes from magma. http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/09-23-05/discussi...
I have not verified the validity of these sites, just posting for discussion.
I also fail to believe, as inefficient and sometimes corrupt as our gov. is, they don't have a plan for "other" sources for energy. After all, they have to keep Air Force 1 in the air and all the politicians planes flying. Maybe just wishful thinking on my part.
Unless we start addressing this with SERIOUS research, and I mean Apollo program combined with the Manhattan project kind of research, we are royally screwed
Geeee...what ever did man do before oil and the ICE? Oh, built pyramids and other marvels that we can't or just barely duplicate today.


RE: Power Requirements
By rdeegvainl on 11/13/2007 2:14:58 AM , Rating: 2
Anything is possible with determination, hard work, and an unlimited supply of expendable labor.


RE: Power Requirements
By nofranchise on 11/13/2007 9:44:03 AM , Rating: 2
Please tell me you are joking about the last comment... Something tells me you are not, seeing you obviously have blind faith that somebody else will solve the problems for you.

Ever considered that the current US administration do not have any long term plans, because they would immediately be in deep sh*t with the voters if they admittet the severity of the problems at hand?

I'm not saying mankind will end - I am saying, that OUR way of life could come to and end. The millions of people living in suburbs aren't going to be able to go out and build pyramids when their cars run out of gas. They will have their hands full converting their tiny gardens into potato patches.

Some sort of good news: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/news/2007/11/g...


RE: Power Requirements
By Ringold on 11/13/2007 1:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
You point out one bit of good news, of which there are literally thousands of similar investments going on throughout the United States and likely the world, and yet you still somehow think lifestyles will somehow change? There are people very close to using bacteria (or is it fungus -- or is there a big difference?) to convert biomass directly in to high-octane fuel. Probably at not too great a cost.

Commercialization of many of these things are probably a decade away, but thats just fine. Things won't fall apart in that short of time frame; the EIA today stated that demand destruction was occuring at current price levels for oil. Of course, could've seen this coming a couple weeks ago when a CEO of a tanker company came on CNBC and said he just wasn't getting customers, but oil at $90 isn't sustainable. While it's not sustainable, it's also thankfully of almost no significant economic consequence! We've been at much higher than normal for oil prices for far too long for some hidden, huge effect to suddenly come out of no where.

And the current administration has tried to take a long term view to some problems -- like ending the unsustainable inter-generational wealth confiscation and transfer program commonly known as Social Security by grandfathering in many over a certain age but establishing private accounts for the rest, so that declining worker:retiree ratios don't destroy the system, but the opposing party had no interest in solving the upcoming fiscal chaos. All this despite sound economic and financial reasoning; even a portfolio of government bonds would provide one with a greater return on their SS taxes. Blame goes both ways.


RE: Power Requirements
By RaisedinUS on 11/13/2007 5:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
Please tell me you are joking about the last comment... Something tells me you are not,

No, I'm not. If man kills himself off, the world will still go on.
I'm not saying mankind will end - I am saying, that OUR way of life could come to and end.
Well, let me quote you: ......we are royally screwed
My reply was man will do what it takes to get around, just as he always has.
you obviously have blind faith that somebody else will solve the problems for you.

Quite a leap you made there, but oh well. If I had trillions of dollars to spend, maybe I could come up with solutions but since I don't, I can only do what I can do, which is little.
current US administration do not have any long term plans,
Yes, oil problems have only happened since Bush took office. I see where you're headed.
BTW, I have some nice tinfoil hats for sale, any takers?


RE: Power Requirements
By masher2 (blog) on 11/13/2007 10:54:19 AM , Rating: 2
> "Oh, built pyramids and other marvels that we can't or just barely duplicate today."

I hope you weren't actually seriously suggesting we couldn't rebuild the pyramids today. The Great Pyramid at Giza is 135 meters tall. Burj Dubai is now over 550 meters tall, and they still almost 300 meters to go before the building is finished.


RE: Power Requirements
By cochy on 11/13/2007 1:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well they built one in Vegas. Plus it's basically all hollow, so it has the largest atrium on Earth. Beat that!


RE: Power Requirements
By Ringold on 11/13/2007 4:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
When we've got our own Jedi Temple I'll be impressed.

What are those buildings on Coruscant, 3 or 4 miles tall?


RE: Power Requirements
By RaisedinUS on 11/13/2007 5:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
I hope you weren't actually seriously suggesting we couldn't rebuild the pyramids today. The Great Pyramid at Giza is 135 meters tall. Burj Dubai is now over 550 meters tall, and they still almost 300 meters to go before the building is finished.
Given the tools they had, I think we'd have a hard time but it could be done. Huge tech diff there. Apples to oranges.


RE: Power Requirements
By aalaardb on 11/13/2007 11:32:36 AM , Rating: 2
You obviously rated me down because of my global warming viewpoint, not my math. The point of the post was to show that whether or not you think CO2 needs to be taken out of the atmosphere, there are better ways to do it. You can pay $420, or you can plant 5 trees. Or better yet, you can replace x lightbulbs and save money too.

If you think we will run out of oil, fine, promote nuclear energy. If you think CO2 causes global warming, fine, just don't force the most expensive "alternative" possible on the rest of us. I enjoyed replacing my lightbulbs and saving money. I would not enjoy a $5000 tax on the 11.5 tons of CO2 an average household puts out every year.


jolly good idea
By R3MF on 11/13/2007 3:30:42 AM , Rating: 2
*waits for the climate nuts to crawl out of their hole and try to rubbish the idea*

"we must have government legislation curbing business/individual output, only then can we save ourselves from impending doom!"

And lo, it becomes clear where all the communists went after the fall of the berlin wall. There new ideology was Green rather than red.................




RE: jolly good idea
By nofranchise on 11/13/2007 9:46:23 AM , Rating: 1
How intelligent and eloquent. Read a book.


RE: jolly good idea
By Ringold on 11/13/2007 1:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you? Then you'd figure out where the communists really have gone, which is essentially where he said they went. You would also note in some books on the matter that communism only rises to power during times of economic catastrophe and upheavel. Then, flip on the news, note the policy positions of many environmental groups, and note how the most liberal of them reject nuclear power out of hand, despite it being perhaps the one technology that really could provide us with clean power.

The dots then connect very neatly. Global warming as the smoke screen catalyst for policy that results in economic crisis and deeping social reliance on government solutions. Again, any given groups policy position on nuclear power is at least how I weed out of the stealth communists (even if they aren't aware of it themselves) from those who are genuinely concerned about nature and the welfare of animals (and people).

Was his post a literary masterpiece? This is DT. But essentially accurate in that communists actively try to hide both from the term "socialism" today (this was suggested at an international socialist convention earlier this year), try to integrate with environmental groups, and that environmentalists are more interested in direct, immediate curbs on energy and economic activity with no regard for the impact on the worlds impoverished.

Of course, there are exceptions. That has been the general trend. You can either shoot off another veiled insult, or try to suggest, I suppose, communist conversion to the Republican party, or deny Europe's warp-speed move to a cap-and-trade system, or many of the policy suggestions floated by various candidates.. I suggest trying to show communist infiltration of the Republican party; that'd be fun.


RE: jolly good idea
By nofranchise on 11/14/2007 5:18:26 AM , Rating: 1
I've a large stash of tin foil hats with anti-commie spray on. Just let me know.


RE: jolly good idea
By R3MF on 11/15/2007 2:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
doesn't seem like much of a reply to his much more detailed and elegant explanation, now does it?


What does the US defense budget
By Dfere on 11/13/2007 8:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
Have to do with global warming? Do you know currently how little we spend on defense versus wealth re-distribution (aka "entitlements"). What about if we reduced the amount of entitlement spending instead?

And actually spent it towards something with proven impact, like improvements in our infrastructure (bridges and roads that have been neglected, water and rail and mass transit systems, battery development for true all around use electric vehicles etc, etc etc, ) medical research, or schools?




RE: What does the US defense budget
By andrinoaa on 11/15/2007 2:57:17 AM , Rating: 1
What planet are you on? America spends sqillions on defence. As a matter of fact, if defence spending stopped america would stop !!!!
This is the root of world misery at the moment, everybody is paying for the dumb arse american war machine. Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, vietnam, chile, argentina, mexico, why can't you see? Are you so blind? What is in the water in USA? If you stopped spending on the war machine and invested in social infrustructure instead, man, the world would be a beautiful place.
No one is saying you cannot have a defence system, but blowing the world up a 1000 times over and selling as many weapons of destruction as humanly possible to as many frootloops as possible? DOH


RE: What does the US defense budget
By RaisedinUS on 11/15/2007 8:40:23 AM , Rating: 2
And what flavor of koolaid are you having today? Sqillions? I can't seem to find that value.
As a matter of fact, if defence spending stopped america would stop !!!! Ok, show us the facts. I'm sure you have "sqillions" of them.
the world would be a beautiful place. Ahhhh, we have a dreamer. As long as man is on this earth, true peace is a pipe dream. And we all know more government is a good thing. We need MORE money for SOCIAL programs. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
but blowing the world up a 1000 times over Wow! I must have slept through these. What is a frootloop? Is that like a yute?
And I believe it's DEFENSE. Or in football, D fence.


RE: What does the US defense budget
By andrinoaa on 11/17/2007 2:38:53 AM , Rating: 1
Sqillions is slang for a fucking lot of money!
How much has uncle sam spent on Iraq?
How much has uncle sam spent proping up Israel?
How much has uncle sam spent on the CIA and FBI?
What is the american defense budget?
How many nuclear warheads has america got?
How big is the american arms industry?
Who said more government? I didn't!
Who says more government is bad and Why? This is just stupid mantra. Leave it to the Hari Krishnas palease!
Substitute war money for social infustructure and what is the size difference? Last time I did the maths, there was non!
Come on smart arse, answer the questions!


By andrinoaa on 11/17/2007 2:45:42 AM , Rating: 2
PS "dafense", is a play on words ie defence, fence around
LoL

So I exagerated, maybe not a thousand, maybe 50 times over, but what the heck, you only need once over, the rest is just insurance!
LoL

The military is not part of BIG government? Since when?


Question
By HeavyB on 11/14/2007 10:31:11 AM , Rating: 1
Is it a requirement to be a right wing tool to become a Daily Tech blogger. Inquiring minds want to know.




RE: Question
By masher2 (blog) on 11/14/2007 12:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
I can't speak for the rest of the bloggers, but given I support legalized drugs, gambling, and prostitution, oppose the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, and have voted Libertarian in the last two presidential elections, labelling me a "right wing tool" is rather problematic.


RE: Question
By GeorgeOrwell on 11/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: Question
By RaisedinUS on 11/14/2007 5:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
Whenever there is any possibility that big industry is responsible for harming the planet, you are quick to step in and shoot it down, usually citing a bunch of nonsense research papers that themselves were funded by big industry.
Care to back this up? To me, he wants proof on GW before spending trillions and making us to a third world country while China and others will only continue as they are. I see very little compelling proof out there. Nothing wrong with a cleaner planet but it's also very idiotic to foolishly spend money and enact legislation without solid proof . No one has done that yet.
As for nonsense research papers you must read a lot of them.


RE: Question
By andrinoaa on 11/17/2007 2:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
There is no solid proof that electrons whis around protons either! LoL


RE: Question
By clovell on 11/14/2007 5:45:35 PM , Rating: 1
Shameless.


So....
By Misty Dingos on 11/12/2007 3:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
You get lots of rocks (silica based) and lots of HCL (hydrocloric acid) and mix it together in the ocean. So do you really think that Green Peace (and others) is going to sit still for this?

Even the most benign visions of this technology will have environmentalists going nuts.




RE: So....
By ElFenix on 11/12/2007 4:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
it sounds like the rocks pull HCL that is already in the ocean out, allowing the ocean to absorb more CO2 in the form of carbonic acid out of the atmosphere.


RE: So....
By treehugger87 on 11/13/2007 3:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
they definately arent pouring hcl into the ocean re-read the article, unless your being sarcastic


Go for it.
By clovell on 11/12/2007 3:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
Aside from being a little worried about the possible side-effects of hurting our [sarcasm]very delicate ocean ecosystem[/sarcasm] via changing the alkalinity of the oceans, I think this is great.

I hope it works and reduces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That way the greenhouse effects of CO2 can be clearly demonstrated as negligible and we can all get on with life. Thank you, Mr. House.




RE: Go for it.
By Ringold on 11/12/2007 4:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't the first proposal we've heard to try to combat global warming, but probably the most feasible.

Perhaps it's also the first legitimate use for renewable power! Solar panels and wind turbines could power these processes when the power was available; it wouldn't matter when exactly that happens, unlike the demands of the energy grid, which needs what it wants right when it wants it.

I knew even if IPCC were dead right ideas like this would come along and one of them, ultimately, will be implemented. If we don't do it, perhaps some less environmentally up-tight nation would, like China. Hence my perpetual lack of concern of what the summers will be like in Miami in 2100.

Has anyone got a price-per-ton of CO2 sequestered figured out though? That would probably be the make-or-break point for this idea.


RE: Go for it.
By clovell on 11/12/2007 4:22:08 PM , Rating: 1
Jimmy Carville rides again.


House is awesome!!
By Manch on 11/13/2007 9:43:44 AM , Rating: 2
He saves people evey week and now he's going to save the world!!!!




RE: House is awesome!!
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/13/2007 3:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone watch Frisky Dingo? Killface tries to push the Earth into the Sun but he pushes the Earth just far enough away from the Sun that he cures Global Warming. :)


Break out the popcorn...
By jskirwin on 11/13/2007 10:01:35 AM , Rating: 2
I do love the Global Warming tussles here at DT.
Very entertaining, intelligent and balanced when all is said and done.




RE: Break out the popcorn...
By andrinoaa on 11/15/2007 2:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
It seems that the loonie fringe has taken over this site.
There don't seem to be many coherent aguements but a lot of putdowns!
It seems that contrary to wHAT MOST SCIENTISTS say, some people will find the needle in the haystack and pickout the frootloops!!
As I have often said, what part of science do you believe in? If you beleive in science, you will take heed of the warnings. However, you cannot be selective about what part of science you chose to believe. If you try to be selective, all reason goes out the window and you are no better than the TALIBAN or any ther fruitloop in town.
And make no mistake, the scientists are screaming that we have a problem in the making.
What would you do? Do you believe conspiracy theories or what the majority of scientists are say. AND By majority I mean greater than 90%,


How will we control the machine?
By wookie1 on 11/13/2007 11:47:53 AM , Rating: 2
If this works, how will we know how much to store without going too far and causing global cooling? With a response time of decades (the time before you see the effects of changes you make), it seems impossible that we wouldn't over-correct, and then over-correct again to get out of the cooling, back into heating again. Has anyone ever tried to tune a PID loop with a very slow response time? Has anyone ever played SimEarth?

Don't tell me about models, either. The weathercaster can't get the temperature right one week out and people are modeling 100 years out. Are they considering that there would be more plant growth because of the increased CO2 and warmer temps? Maybe the big objections humans have is fewer pretty glaciers to look at, etc.

Maybe more time and resources should be focus on adapting rather than changing. This would be much more useful.




By Plazmid19 on 11/13/2007 6:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
A very good question indeed. A model is only as good as the parts of the model and the accuracy of those parts. You can model all day long and still get the wrong answer.

Ever look at how the weather models are rendered? Vector computing, the fastest wrong answers in the world. Well, sometimes. Most of the time they do work. But that brings us back to the accuracy and completeness of the model.

We are talking about the ocean here, not a bathtub that we can empty and start over with if we get it wrong. Even if you start thinking of it as an aquarium, it still will not be that easy. Anyone who has maintained an aquarium, especially a salt water one, will tell you that it is a complex dance of balancing ph, salts, temperature, and a myriad of other factors. And most aquariums are in the 20 to 50 gallon range. The fact that nature has devised a way to maintain an ocean is almost beyond comprehension if you really get into the details of just how many elements are involved.

Yes, Houston, we have a problem. I propose some thinking beforehand, and a whole lot of modeling. Oh, and for the curious about environ-engineering, read the "Mars Trilogy" by Kim Stanley Robinson. Sure it is a work of fiction, but covers some interesting socio-scientific problems of creating and controlling climate on Mars.


Ahhh Global Warming
By BSMonitor on 11/13/2007 1:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
For one thing, the earth and all its diverse life forms will survive global warming. It is we humans and our great civilization which may not.

However, whatever damage we do could easily be reversed by a period of increased volcanic activity or one big volcanic eruption. i.e. Yellowstone's volcano. A couple decades of having ash in the atmosphere will put the earth right back on track for another ice age.

The biggest issue I have with people is their hurry to base an opinion on a single fact, trend, whatever... The earth is one huge chemistry experiment with an uncountable number of variables. No one can possibly know the outcome of this "sped up" warming of the planet. But to deny that it is happening is foolish.




RE: Ahhh Global Warming
By wookie1 on 11/15/2007 1:20:55 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines, it caused some cooling due to the ash in the high levels of the atmosphere for many years.


Global Warming: "biggest scam in history"
By xxsk8er101xx on 11/14/2007 2:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
As i quote the founder of the weather channel "It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM."

or ""Global Warming' as Pathological Science"
- Freeman Dyson, one of the great physicists alive today, put it plainly enough in his autobiography:

"...all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. ... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. ... They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."

www.icecap.us

I'll believe a meteorologists and a physicist over al gore.




By andrinoaa on 11/15/2007 2:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
You are deluded , mate. You hear what you want to hear. Scientists as a whole say its real, yet you would prefer to listen to the dumb arse minority?
Yea right, the world is flat and is only 5000yrs old, yea right! Better still, stand in the cooling pool of a nuclear power plant, it won't kill you, its only a scam.
Here ye here ye, witches are still burned only in the USA!!


Who cares about CO2 in the atmosphere
By jp7189 on 11/16/2007 3:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
Water vapor holds 30x more solar energy that CO2. Patrick Bedard published an article stating CO2 emissions from human sources counts for 0.01% of the total energy stored in the atmosphere. Sorry don't remember his source, but even if the global warming people are right, it's exceptionally insignificant.




By andrinoaa on 11/17/2007 3:00:21 AM , Rating: 2
The absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the full story. It acts like a catalyst.
As an example, by changing the carbon content in steel, you can change its hardness. A small change can have a big effect. This is the way it works.
CO2 is normally in equilibrium between the ocean and atmosphere (the exact Ratio , I don't know ). If you pump more in to the atmosphere, the laws of physics says it will try to maintain the equilibrium. Therefore, more will be absorbed by the oceans AND vis a vis. Under pressure 3k down may be ok short term, but I think long term, its a disaster in the making!


Didn't you get the memo?
By kyleb2112 on 11/13/2007 6:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
"Global Warming" is soo passé. It's all about "Climate Change" now. That way they're covered no matter what happens.

Seems there were a few too many of us with distinct memories of having the fear of god put into us regarding the impending ice age.




unintended results
By spepper on 11/17/2007 10:01:48 AM , Rating: 2
Wonder what our descendants are going to decide about what were we thinking, by artifically changing the chemistry of the ocean, all for the purpose of controlling global warming? According to Nobel prize winning politicians, I thought that all we had to do was stop driving SUV's and cow farting-- in other words, the whole notion of "global warming" is a man-made industry (i.e. SCAM)-- for the sole purpose to beat over the heads of the "great unwashed masses" to re-educate them that they are causing harm to the planet by their lifestyles, and that they must be "governed"---




By Injuneer on 11/28/2007 12:47:05 AM , Rating: 2
This article must be a bad joke for at least two reasons:

First is that the energy released by burning carbon is about 400KJ/mole. That means that these people are proposing a CO2 disposal process that will use up to 100% of the energy produced by creating the carbon dioxide pollution in the first place!

The second reason is that anyone happy about mixing CO2 with water and dumping it on the bottom cannot have heard of Lake Nyos. For those of you under 30 or who need reminding, this is a lake in Africa that receives a leak of CO2 from a volcano. The water at the bottom becomes saturated with CO2. In 1986 a small landslide or a rush of cold rainwater disturbed the bottom layer. Part of it moved upwards and as the pressure dropped the CO2 fizzed out as bubbles. This caused it to move up further, fizz more and suck more bottom water after it. In minutes the whole lake was boiling. About 1.6 Million tonnes of CO2 fizzed out of the lake in a layer tens of metres thick and suffocated every living thing, including 1700 people living within 20KM of the lake. I don't know how much CO2 the US produces, but the UK, with one fifth the population and a much lower 'carbon footprint' per head produces, each year, 45 times as much CO2 as came out of Lake Nyos. Think in terms of the US producing more than enough CO2 for a lake Nyos every day!

I'm not certain how soon the CO2 would start to come out of the sea bottom but I'd rather live on a radioactive waste dump than on a coast near where these jokers have dumped CO2.

PS: I've never worked for or invested in the nuclear industry but it's starting to sound strangely attractive.




"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki