Remember me
▼ Content

A Better Way To Deal The Problem off Climate Change?



Page 1 of 212>
A Better Way To Deal The Problem off Climate Change?24-11-2015 15:56
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
If we consider climate change to be primarily caused by anthropomorphic greenhouse gas production (not yet convinced either way), why do we spend so much time and energy on trying to reduce emissions rather than attack the problem directly and remove the gases by intervention. It would seem to me that there would be considerably more indurtrial benefits in building, managing and running absorbtion facilities as opposed to following an economic model of cap and trade, to reduce or move quotas from one country source to another?

Thoughts (be gentle)
24-11-2015 16:05
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
If you have a technology which removes vast amounts of CO2 from the air let's hear it.

Alternatively why worry? What are the significant problems of CO2 induced warming?

I use the word significant here to be something that will cost more than is spent (by any State) on traffic lights.

Edited on 24-11-2015 16:05
24-11-2015 16:33
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Carbon capture and storage is only practicable where CO2 concentrations are high, typically the exhaust from power plants or other industrial facilities. Even then, it doesn't come cheap, and the technology is not yet proven. Without some form of legislative intervention, there is no incentive for power generation companies to implement such technology.
24-11-2015 16:37
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
The technology has been widely used since WWII in submarine atmosphere scrubbers and diving rebreathers and has been recently advanced by using amines as the absorbing agent, to acheive commercially acceptable cost per ton capture. The cost could be offset by the redirection of proposed or current carbon taxes, also there is a commercial use for the recovered CO2 in injection into exsisting oil wells to aid in oil extraction. I believe there is a company named Global Thermostat in California that has a working capture system using the amine process.

The point of my question was really to see if it would be more appropriate to tackle the emmisions first or to go directly after the symptom which is the CO2. This is if it is deemed to be a problem!
I just find it odd to spend so much money on reducing a growing emmission figure rather than spending the same amount of money on actually reducing the CO2 levels.
24-11-2015 16:45
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
I'd go with simply taxing carbon emissions and rewarding carbon absorption, and then let the market decide which technologies make sense within that legislative framework. The job of government is to set the boundary conditions, not pick winners.
24-11-2015 18:14
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
MK001 wrote:
.....
The point of my question was really to see if it would be more appropriate to tackle the emmisions first or to go directly after the symptom which is the CO2. This is if it is deemed to be a problem!
I just find it odd to spend so much money on reducing a growing emmission figure rather than spending the same amount of money on actually reducing the CO2 levels.


Yes, it's matter of which is most cost effective, the avoidance of CO2 emissions by not burning so much fossil fuel, or scrubbing and safely disposing of the CO2 that is an unavoidable consequence of fossil fuel burning. There are or were several carbon capture and sequesteration projects promoted in recent years. Remember "Clean Coal?" Never materialized.

Looked at the Global Thermostat website, didn't actually get much out of it. There is at least a little Madison Avenue type exaggeration.

Found a year-old article that seems informative, at http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/531346/can-sucking-co2-out-of-the-atmosphere-really-work/
24-11-2015 18:20
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
MK001 wrote:
The technology has been widely used since WWII in submarine atmosphere scrubbers and diving rebreathers and has been recently advanced by using amines as the absorbing agent, to acheive commercially acceptable cost per ton capture. The cost could be offset by the redirection of proposed or current carbon taxes, also there is a commercial use for the recovered CO2 in injection into exsisting oil wells to aid in oil extraction. I believe there is a company named Global Thermostat in California that has a working capture system using the amine process.

The point of my question was really to see if it would be more appropriate to tackle the emmisions first or to go directly after the symptom which is the CO2. This is if it is deemed to be a problem!
I just find it odd to spend so much money on reducing a growing emmission figure rather than spending the same amount of money on actually reducing the CO2 levels.


When you burn fuel to get energy you can as a theoretical maximum get some 34% (I think it is) out.

When you use energy to take CO2 out of the air and make carbon and oxygen you need more energy than you got out of it in the first place.

So how do you get a net energy output if you want to cature all the CO2 and separate it out into C and O?
24-11-2015 18:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
MK001 wrote:
The technology has been widely used since WWII in submarine atmosphere scrubbers and diving rebreathers and has been recently advanced by using amines as the absorbing agent, to acheive commercially acceptable cost per ton capture. The cost could be offset by the redirection of proposed or current carbon taxes, also there is a commercial use for the recovered CO2 in injection into exsisting oil wells to aid in oil extraction. I believe there is a company named Global Thermostat in California that has a working capture system using the amine process.

The point of my question was really to see if it would be more appropriate to tackle the emmisions first or to go directly after the symptom which is the CO2. This is if it is deemed to be a problem!
I just find it odd to spend so much money on reducing a growing emmission figure rather than spending the same amount of money on actually reducing the CO2 levels.


When you burn fuel to get energy you can as a theoretical maximum get some 34% (I think it is) out.

When you use energy to take CO2 out of the air and make carbon and oxygen you need more energy than you got out of it in the first place.

So how do you get a net energy output if you want to cature all the CO2 and separate it out into C and O?

Nobody's suggesting separating the CO2 into C and O. The suggestions generally involve capturing and permanently storing the CO2, typically in geological formations.
24-11-2015 18:42
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
No, actually I am suggesting seperating the C and O.
I am not looking at this as an energy cycle equation, my thought is to do something else with the products of seperation. Simple CO2 for oil fields; Carbon for manufacturing (Nano Tubes perhaps) and oxygen well we always need O2.
So we have industry that has products to sell that takes resources to manufacture said products, one resource is power, another is LIthium Hydroxide (I think) as a catalyst and other is air.
24-11-2015 18:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
MK001 wrote:
No, actually I am suggesting seperating the C and O.
I am not looking at this as an energy cycle equation, my thought is to do something else with the products of seperation. Simple CO2 for oil fields; Carbon for manufacturing (Nano Tubes perhaps) and oxygen well we always need O2.
So we have industry that has products to sell that takes resources to manufacture said products, one resource is power, another is LIthium Hydroxide (I think) as a catalyst and other is air.

Well, that's not what you've been suggesting so far. Amines don't break down CO2 into C and O; they just absorb it.

Also, as Tim the Plumber mentioned, this would make no sense from an energetic point of view. It would require more energy to decompose the CO2 into C and O than would be obtained by combining C and O in the first place. Where's that energy going to come from?
24-11-2015 19:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
CO2 has no magical thermal superpowers and cannot affect weather. One would have to ask why you consider it a problem in the first place. For reasons of faith, perhaps?

If you're like Surface Detail and simply want a new tax, just to drain money out of the economy and to fuel government bloat, then you don't need any pretense. Just propose your tax. You can call it the "Government Appetite Tax" or "GAT." Just slap that tax on everything and keep increasing it periodically until the economy is dead. Simple.


.
24-11-2015 19:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Don't mind IBdaMann, MK001. He has a profound and deeply-held religious conviction that climate is completely independent of the composition of the atmosphere, and no evidence to the contrary will convince him otherwise. It's sad, really.
24-11-2015 19:22
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
CO2 has no magical thermal superpowers and cannot affect weather. One would have to ask why you consider it a problem in the first place. For reasons of faith, perhaps?

If you're like Surface Detail and simply want a new tax, just to drain money out of the economy and to fuel government bloat, then you don't need any pretense. Just propose your tax. You can call it the "Government Appetite Tax" or "GAT." Just slap that tax on everything and keep increasing it periodically until the economy is dead. Simple.


.

I said at the beggining I am not convinced either way if it affects climate or not and to be honest I don't care. Once again the thrust of my question is why spend money, as we are doing now, to reduce emissions when we could spend that money to recondition the atmosphere and use the by products for a more useful purpose.
24-11-2015 19:34
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
No, actually I am suggesting seperating the C and O.
I am not looking at this as an energy cycle equation, my thought is to do something else with the products of seperation. Simple CO2 for oil fields; Carbon for manufacturing (Nano Tubes perhaps) and oxygen well we always need O2.
So we have industry that has products to sell that takes resources to manufacture said products, one resource is power, another is LIthium Hydroxide (I think) as a catalyst and other is air.

Well, that's not what you've been suggesting so far. Amines don't break down CO2 into C and O; they just absorb it.

Also, as Tim the Plumber mentioned, this would make no sense from an energetic point of view. It would require more energy to decompose the CO2 into C and O than would be obtained by combining C and O in the first place. Where's that energy going to come from?


You are correct the first element of CO2 capture based on amines does not breakdown into constituent parts. A different method described in the MIT Technology Review August 19, 2015 looked at some very promising work on doing just that using compounds of Lithium.

Dont get bent out of shape over the energetic cost of doing something. If you applied that logic to any manufacturing process it would never be worth making anything. In this case making Carbon fibres that can be shaped and processed as required and Oxygen.
24-11-2015 20:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
MK001 wrote:I said at the beggining I am not convinced either way if it affects climate or not and to be honest I don't care.

You obviously cared enough to ask for input. The fact that you specifically asked why we focus more on one way of reducing CO2 as opposed to another instead of asking why we even bother at all tells me that, yes, you lean a particular way.

MK001 wrote:Once again the thrust of my question is why spend money, as we are doing now, to reduce emissions when we could spend that money to recondition the atmosphere and use the by products for a more useful purpose.

This tells me that you see value in "reconditioning" the atmosphere. So while you're on the topic, why don't you elaborate what benefit you believe we would get out of "reconditioning" the atmosphere to have less CO2?

Would I be correct in assuming that you are not looking for a convenient pretense for launching new taxation?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-11-2015 20:22
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
I see potential value in the end product of the "reconditioning" not necessarily in the reconditioning itself. The production of carbon fibre nano tubes is the way of the future in both construction and transportation and if the production of that material placates the the global warming proponents at the same time its a win win. At least this way if removing CO2 has no effect on climate change you can always say "I told you so" and I would still have the material to build a space elevator!
I am not suggesting any government financial input especially not higher taxes.
24-11-2015 20:23
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
MK001 wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
MK001 wrote:
No, actually I am suggesting seperating the C and O.
I am not looking at this as an energy cycle equation, my thought is to do something else with the products of seperation. Simple CO2 for oil fields; Carbon for manufacturing (Nano Tubes perhaps) and oxygen well we always need O2.
So we have industry that has products to sell that takes resources to manufacture said products, one resource is power, another is LIthium Hydroxide (I think) as a catalyst and other is air.

Well, that's not what you've been suggesting so far. Amines don't break down CO2 into C and O; they just absorb it.

Also, as Tim the Plumber mentioned, this would make no sense from an energetic point of view. It would require more energy to decompose the CO2 into C and O than would be obtained by combining C and O in the first place. Where's that energy going to come from?


You are correct the first element of CO2 capture based on amines does not breakdown into constituent parts. A different method described in the MIT Technology Review August 19, 2015 looked at some very promising work on doing just that using compounds of Lithium.

Dont get bent out of shape over the energetic cost of doing something. If you applied that logic to any manufacturing process it would never be worth making anything. In this case making Carbon fibres that can be shaped and processed as required and Oxygen.

The energetics determine the basic feasibility of a process. You seem to be proposing:

C + O2 -> CO2 + energy (in the power plant)

followed by

CO2 + more energy -> C + O2 (in your separation plant)

So you end up with the same as you started with, but have wasted energy. Where's the sense in that?
Edited on 24-11-2015 20:23
24-11-2015 20:28
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Read the article then comment, I will be interested to see if it makes sense to you after that.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540706/researcher-demonstrates-how-to-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/
24-11-2015 22:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
MK001 wrote:
Read the article then comment, I will be interested to see if it makes sense to you after that.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/540706/researcher-demonstrates-how-to-suck-carbon-from-the-air-make-stuff-from-it/


This process is an electrochemical one, using lithium oxide as the transfer medium. It will require more energy to produce the carbon then you get by burning it. Where is that energy going to come from?

It will also require energy to extract contaminants from the process, such as water vapor that also comes out of burning a hydrocarbon such as coal or oil. Such contaminants will produce lithium hydroxide, effectively poisoning it's use in the process of choice. Where is that energy going to be coming from?

Also, any sourness of the fuel will produce sulfur compounds, which will convert some of the lithium oxide into lithium sulfate, again poisoning the lithium from the desired process.

This just doesn't seem to be a practical process, especially since it's so much easier to just squeeze the CO2 out of the air with a compressor and a radiator system.


The Parrot Killer
24-11-2015 23:38
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Did you read the article? Please do before posting again.
There is no hydrocarbon burning going on.

You people are fixated on energy in versus energy out.
25-11-2015 01:24
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
MK001 wrote:
You people are fixated on energy in versus energy out.


If the idea is to help out with climate change, energy is a central issue. The reason folks burn fossil fuels is to obtain energy in some form or other.

Looking at the MIT Technology Review article you linked to, it is, in part anyway, about a different, maybe better/cheaper/less energy intensive/ way of producing carbon nanofibers. Maybe a better way of producing a very useful material.

Did some looking, found a journal article that seems to be the source of much of the material in the MIT Technology Review article, at the journal "Nano Letters."
See it at :http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b02427

The Nano Letters article is mainly about producing carbon nanofibers at the cathode of an electrolytic cell, the electrolysis carried out in a molten electrolyte that contains lithium carbonate as one component. The carbonate is the source of the carbon that ends up as nanofibers, with the carbonate's carbon being replenished by, potentially anyway, atmospheric CO2. Producing a valuable product in a maybe cheaper, less energy consuming way seems like a good idea. Could, in principle anyway, use concentrated sunlight to melt the electrolyte and use solar electricity to power the rest.
What's described is small scale lab stuff. One crucible size (contains the molten electrolyte) mentioned is 20 ml. That's about four teaspoons. No mention about the amount of carbon nanofiber produced, so no idea about how much CO2 was reduced. These are early results though, looks like. Maybe something useful will come of it. Wait and see.
25-11-2015 04:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
MK001 wrote:
Did you read the article? Please do before posting again.
There is no hydrocarbon burning going on.

You people are fixated on energy in versus energy out.

MK001 wrote:
If we consider climate change to be primarily caused by anthropomorphic greenhouse gas production (not yet convinced either way) ...


I wasn't referring to the article. I was referring to the structure of the argument you began this thread with. I don't know what you mean by 'you people'. I am only one person, last I counted.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-11-2015 04:03
25-11-2015 04:33
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(244)
MK001 wrote:
.... It would seem to me that there would be considerably more indurtrial benefits in building, managing and running absorbtion facilities......


Of possible interest is a $25 million prize yet to be won for coming up with a good way of removing atmospheric CO2. See http://www.virginearth.com/the-prize/
25-11-2015 06:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
still learning wrote:
MK001 wrote:
.... It would seem to me that there would be considerably more indurtrial benefits in building, managing and running absorbtion facilities......


Of possible interest is a $25 million prize yet to be won for coming up with a good way of removing atmospheric CO2. See http://www.virginearth.com/the-prize/


Do you realize that such a weapon would be able to kill life on earth?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-11-2015 10:38
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
still learning wrote:
MK001 wrote:
.... It would seem to me that there would be considerably more indurtrial benefits in building, managing and running absorbtion facilities......


Of possible interest is a $25 million prize yet to be won for coming up with a good way of removing atmospheric CO2. See http://www.virginearth.com/the-prize/


This device takes some beating:



Efficient, solar-powered, maintenance free, gives useful side-products and even looks good.
25-11-2015 11:03
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
MK001 wrote:
The technology has been widely used since WWII in submarine atmosphere scrubbers and diving rebreathers and has been recently advanced by using amines as the absorbing agent, to acheive commercially acceptable cost per ton capture. The cost could be offset by the redirection of proposed or current carbon taxes, also there is a commercial use for the recovered CO2 in injection into exsisting oil wells to aid in oil extraction. I believe there is a company named Global Thermostat in California that has a working capture system using the amine process.

The point of my question was really to see if it would be more appropriate to tackle the emmisions first or to go directly after the symptom which is the CO2. This is if it is deemed to be a problem!
I just find it odd to spend so much money on reducing a growing emmission figure rather than spending the same amount of money on actually reducing the CO2 levels.


When you burn fuel to get energy you can as a theoretical maximum get some 34% (I think it is) out.

When you use energy to take CO2 out of the air and make carbon and oxygen you need more energy than you got out of it in the first place.

So how do you get a net energy output if you want to cature all the CO2 and separate it out into C and O?

Nobody's suggesting separating the CO2 into C and O. The suggestions generally involve capturing and permanently storing the CO2, typically in geological formations.


He is.
25-11-2015 11:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
MK001 wrote:
The technology has been widely used since WWII in submarine atmosphere scrubbers and diving rebreathers and has been recently advanced by using amines as the absorbing agent, to acheive commercially acceptable cost per ton capture. The cost could be offset by the redirection of proposed or current carbon taxes, also there is a commercial use for the recovered CO2 in injection into exsisting oil wells to aid in oil extraction. I believe there is a company named Global Thermostat in California that has a working capture system using the amine process.

The point of my question was really to see if it would be more appropriate to tackle the emmisions first or to go directly after the symptom which is the CO2. This is if it is deemed to be a problem!
I just find it odd to spend so much money on reducing a growing emmission figure rather than spending the same amount of money on actually reducing the CO2 levels.


When you burn fuel to get energy you can as a theoretical maximum get some 34% (I think it is) out.

When you use energy to take CO2 out of the air and make carbon and oxygen you need more energy than you got out of it in the first place.

So how do you get a net energy output if you want to cature all the CO2 and separate it out into C and O?

Nobody's suggesting separating the CO2 into C and O. The suggestions generally involve capturing and permanently storing the CO2, typically in geological formations.


He is.

He wasn't when I wrote that.
25-11-2015 13:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
Surface Detail wrote:This device takes some beating:



Efficient, solar-powered, maintenance free, gives useful side-products and even looks good.

Absolutely.

...and there are many different models.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-11-2015 14:42
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Did you read the article? Please do before posting again.
There is no hydrocarbon burning going on.

You people are fixated on energy in versus energy out.

MK001 wrote:
If we consider climate change to be primarily caused by anthropomorphic greenhouse gas production (not yet convinced either way) ...


I wasn't referring to the article. I was referring to the structure of the argument you began this thread with. I don't know what you mean by 'you people'. I am only one person, last I counted.


I apologise for using the phrase "you people". I am not looking an argument, the purpose of my original statement was to float my hypothosis that it would be better to solve the problem (perceived problem) of elvated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere; by removing it directly, by some method, rather than destroying the hydrocarbon economy, in a huge push to reduce emissions.

Some have suggested the tree as the preferred method of CO2 extraction; but as I'm sure you all know, that is only removing the CO2 for the life of the tree and it converts back when the tree dies or is burnt.

If CO2 is not a factor in climate change, I am sure it is not the sole factor, and in my mind not even the prime factor (I think solar output is) then we will not have to worry about CO2 emmissions. But as it seems the bulk of the worlds politicians are getting on-board the CO2 gravy train and already making people pay for that, taxes, research and cap and trade ponsy schemes etc; it would seem that money could be made in solving the symptom. Money would then be saved long term because we would have solved the perceived problem and we could burn all the oil and coal we want until we have to move into the nuclear age.

What do you think?
25-11-2015 16:36
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
still learning wrote:
MK001 wrote:
.... It would seem to me that there would be considerably more indurtrial benefits in building, managing and running absorbtion facilities......


Of possible interest is a $25 million prize yet to be won for coming up with a good way of removing atmospheric CO2. See http://www.virginearth.com/the-prize/


Do you realize that such a weapon would be able to kill life on earth?


.

Are you really this stupid or do you just play stupid on this site to get reaction? What is your real view of the climate debate? it seems like you don't think there should be a debate at all so why bother posting?

I'm just interested!
25-11-2015 20:51
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@MK001


Maybe a good place to begin with such a project could be to save more rainforest..?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest

Rainforests are also responsible for 28% of the world's oxygen turnover,


Human induced deforestation plays a significant role in causing rainforests to release carbon dioxide,[18] as do other factors, whether human-induced or natural, which result in tree death, such as burning and drought.[19] Some climate models operating with interactive vegetation predict a large loss of Amazonian rainforest around 2050 due to drought, forest dieback and the subsequent release more carbon dioxide.




­
25-11-2015 20:59
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
[branner: Insulting post by IBdaMann above removed]

I see, you really are that stupid and still not one cohesive thought provided. I'll answer you questions though
CO2 i'm not sure if it is a problem or not but there is more of it now than there was 300 years ago.
Yes I went to school - I have a degree in chemical engineering and served in the miliatry for 20 years.
Bandwidth usage seems to be your problem not mine.
I think thats all the actual questions posed, oh I almost forgot the logic 101 bit:
you can turn the machine off when you get to the desired CO2 level whatever that is, or is the concept of an on /off switch a bit tough for you.
Edited by branner on 29-11-2015 02:24
25-11-2015 21:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5190)
MK001 wrote:
But as it seems the bulk of the worlds politicians are getting on-board the CO2 gravy train and already making people pay for that, taxes, research and cap and trade ponsy schemes etc; it would seem that money could be made in solving the symptom. Money would then be saved long term because we would have solved the perceived problem and we could burn all the oil and coal we want until we have to move into the nuclear age.

What do you think?


Step one: Engage your brain.

Step Two: Treat the problem, i.e. the politicians, not something that is not a problem, i.e. CO2.

Step Three: Once you have actually addressed the problem, you can reward yourself by turning your brain brain back off.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-11-2015 21:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
MK001 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Did you read the article? Please do before posting again.
There is no hydrocarbon burning going on.

You people are fixated on energy in versus energy out.

MK001 wrote:
If we consider climate change to be primarily caused by anthropomorphic greenhouse gas production (not yet convinced either way) ...


I wasn't referring to the article. I was referring to the structure of the argument you began this thread with. I don't know what you mean by 'you people'. I am only one person, last I counted.


I apologise for using the phrase "you people". I am not looking an argument, the purpose of my original statement was to float my hypothosis that it would be better to solve the problem (perceived problem) of elvated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere; by removing it directly, by some method, rather than destroying the hydrocarbon economy, in a huge push to reduce emissions.

Some have suggested the tree as the preferred method of CO2 extraction; but as I'm sure you all know, that is only removing the CO2 for the life of the tree and it converts back when the tree dies or is burnt.

If CO2 is not a factor in climate change, I am sure it is not the sole factor, and in my mind not even the prime factor (I think solar output is) then we will not have to worry about CO2 emmissions. But as it seems the bulk of the worlds politicians are getting on-board the CO2 gravy train and already making people pay for that, taxes, research and cap and trade ponsy schemes etc; it would seem that money could be made in solving the symptom. Money would then be saved long term because we would have solved the perceived problem and we could burn all the oil and coal we want until we have to move into the nuclear age.

What do you think?


The tree may die, but others take it's place, particularly where they are farmed, as with Weyerhauser here in the Pacific Northwest.

You've hit upon something important here. The role of government in the whole climate change story. Governments around the world see a new source of revenue. They also see a new source of exercising and expanding their power. Because the word 'science' is used, and because most people don't know what 'science' really is, credence is lent to the schemes because 'science' is a powerful word.

For the claim that carbon dioxide warms the surface of the Earth to work, you must somehow add energy into the Earth from a non-energy source. You are correct that the Sun is our primary source of energy (a tiny bit comes from deep within the Earth itself through fission reactions). It is the only way you can change the total energy of the Earth-Sun-space system.

Most arguments to justify a mechanism by which carbon dioxide (or any other gas) has this magick quality centers around absorption from one direction only, radiation of energy in one direction only, energy traps built by this method, or the gas somehow acting as if it were an insulator.

Each type of energy source has it's pros and cons. It's tough to put a nuke in a car, for example. As a fixed power plant, it works just fine. Oil and coal are more portable, particularly oil. They are also efficient stores of energy (not sources). It's hard to beat the hydrocarbon for storage of energy. Properly burned, they produce little more than carbon dioxide and water, both of which are good for plants. Contaminants such as sulfur can cause problems, but the oil can be sweetened or the resulting harmful gases can be converted into something less harmful.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2015 21:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
MK001 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
still learning wrote:
MK001 wrote:
.... It would seem to me that there would be considerably more indurtrial benefits in building, managing and running absorbtion facilities......


Of possible interest is a $25 million prize yet to be won for coming up with a good way of removing atmospheric CO2. See http://www.virginearth.com/the-prize/


Do you realize that such a weapon would be able to kill life on earth?


.

Are you really this stupid or do you just play stupid on this site to get reaction? What is your real view of the climate debate? it seems like you don't think there should be a debate at all so why bother posting?

I'm just interested!

There is truth in it. Without carbon dioxide, plant life would die. It would be like removing oxygen from the atmosphere for us. If such a device could be built, it literally could wipe out life, quite possibly on a planetary scale.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2015 21:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
MK001 wrote:
I see, you really are that stupid and still not one cohesive thought provided. I'll answer you questions though
CO2 i'm not sure if it is a problem or not but there is more of it now than there was 300 years ago.
Yes I went to school - I have a degree in chemical engineering and served in the miliatry for 20 years.
Bandwidth usage seems to be your problem not mine.
I think thats all the actual questions posed, oh I almost forgot the logic 101 bit:
you can turn the machine off when you get to the desired CO2 level whatever that is, or is the concept of an on /off switch a bit tough for you.

Such a machine would necessarily have to be built by a powerful government, since it would be large enough to affect the planet. Who would have their finger on the switch? It's kind of like a nuclear bomb, but much more powerful. Who would decide that the reduction is 'enough', and on what grounds?


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2015 21:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
Jakob wrote:
­



@MK001


Maybe a good place to begin with such a project could be to save more rainforest..?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainforest

Rainforests are also responsible for 28% of the world's oxygen turnover,


Human induced deforestation plays a significant role in causing rainforests to release carbon dioxide,[18] as do other factors, whether human-induced or natural, which result in tree death, such as burning and drought.[19] Some climate models operating with interactive vegetation predict a large loss of Amazonian rainforest around 2050 due to drought, forest dieback and the subsequent release more carbon dioxide.




­


First, you are arguing here that deforestation causes deforestation. Though the causes differ, this sounds like a circular argument.

Second, the biggest problem of tropical rainforest deforestation is erosion. The farmers and ranchers in Brazil has recognized this problem and are dealing with it.

Third, the Amazon forest is extensive. Almost all of it is inaccessible to man, and what is generally consists of small towns and tribes. The part eaten away by ranchers and farmers is smaller than you are led to believe. Remember the pictures you see are provided by a government. Are they real? Where does the 28% number come from?

Fourth, tree farming techniques are good in some parts of the world and those forests are growing. In addition, any plant will do, not just trees. Grass does more than trees to recycle carbon dioxide into oxygen, and it grows just about anywhere.

Concentrating on the Amazon is myopic. There are forests to consider everywhere. Oh, and I am a bit of a wood elf. I would rather live in the forest than just about anywhere.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2015 21:59
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
I see, you really are that stupid and still not one cohesive thought provided. I'll answer you questions though
CO2 i'm not sure if it is a problem or not but there is more of it now than there was 300 years ago.
Yes I went to school - I have a degree in chemical engineering and served in the miliatry for 20 years.
Bandwidth usage seems to be your problem not mine.
I think thats all the actual questions posed, oh I almost forgot the logic 101 bit:
you can turn the machine off when you get to the desired CO2 level whatever that is, or is the concept of an on /off switch a bit tough for you.

Such a machine would necessarily have to be built by a powerful government, since it would be large enough to affect the planet. Who would have their finger on the switch? It's kind of like a nuclear bomb, but much more powerful. Who would decide that the reduction is 'enough', and on what grounds?


Now that is a really good question, how much reduction is enough? especially if you live in the North. It would be interesting to see what the real fanatical climate change people would do if they could reduce CO2 levels to pre industrial levels without increasing the suns output. I think a rapid onset ice age might be less desirable. Maybe it is to much power for one country, perhaps I will go with your tree option after all.
25-11-2015 23:03
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Most arguments to justify a mechanism by which carbon dioxide (or any other gas) has this magick quality centers around absorption from one direction only, radiation of energy in one direction only, energy traps built by this method, or the gas somehow acting as if it were an insulator.

There's no magic involved, though I appreciate that it may look that way to those who struggle to understand the scientific basis for the greenhouse effect. The reason that greenhouse gases absorb the outgoing radiation rather than the incoming radiation is because most of the incoming radiation has shorter wavelengths that do not interact with these gases, while the outgoing radiation is primarily IR radiation, which as strongly absorbed. The overall effect of this is that greenhouse gases act as insulators.

There's a pretty straightforward explanation of the greenhouse effect here:

http://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect
26-11-2015 00:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Most arguments to justify a mechanism by which carbon dioxide (or any other gas) has this magick quality centers around absorption from one direction only, radiation of energy in one direction only, energy traps built by this method, or the gas somehow acting as if it were an insulator.

There's no magic involved, though I appreciate that it may look that way to those who struggle to understand the scientific basis for the greenhouse effect. The reason that greenhouse gases absorb the outgoing radiation rather than the incoming radiation is because most of the incoming radiation has shorter wavelengths that do not interact with these gases, while the outgoing radiation is primarily IR radiation, which as strongly absorbed. The overall effect of this is that greenhouse gases act as insulators.

There's a pretty straightforward explanation of the greenhouse effect here:

http://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect


Q.E.D. You just demonstrated my point.

No gas acts as an insulator. It has mass. It is subject to conductive, convective, and radiative methods of transferring heat.

No gas emits radiation in a particular direction. No gas absorbs from a particular direction. If carbon dioxide is the same (or near the same) temperature of the Earth's surface, they both emit the same color of IR at the same time and in all directions.

No gas can produce energy out of nothing. Fission and fusion are sources of energy, but not carbon dioxide or any other 'greenhouse' gas.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate A Better Way To Deal The Problem off Climate Change?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Real, 'Green New Deal'419-08-2019 02:52
The Senate Will Reject the Green New Deal. But It's Already Changing the Debate on Climate Change027-03-2019 17:27
The 3 Democrats Who Voted Against the Green New Deal027-03-2019 15:47
How much does it cost to rocket 1 billion tons of CO2 into space like Green New Deal does?022-03-2019 17:32
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Could Cost $93 Trillion, Group Says309-03-2019 05:15
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact