« prev   random   next »
1   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 1:18pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Scientists have found a rapid way of producing magnesite, a mineral which stores carbon dioxide. If this can be developed to an industrial scale, it opens the door to removing CO2 from the atmosphere for long-term storage, thus countering the global warming effect of atmospheric CO2.

So scientists have found a way to do what billions of pieces of vegetation do worldwide every day. Also, this assumes that CO2 causes global warming. Much better if the scientists had developed ways to remove real pollutants that currently affect air and water. Problems like so many tributaries where a sign advises people to eat no more than two fish per month caught there, and eat none at all if pregnant.
2   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 1:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
Also, this assumes that CO2 causes global warming.

Dude. Dude.
3   MisterLearnToCode   ignore (4)   2018 Oct 1, 1:26pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
These and other ideas in geo-engineering can make sense, unlike transferring $$$ to backwards kleptocracies in the southern hemisphere.


And beamed solar power via microwave from geo.

Of course, we'll need Lunar ISRU (something we should already do to for both exploration and national defense, will give us the ability to refuel and maintain Geosynchronous Sats, and build huge Comm Sats). Ridiculous that people talk a Martian trip before we've even tested ISRU concepts on a celestial body and practiced long term habitation on a celestial object mere days away, where a "life boat" can be maintained and evacuation/rescue can happen in hours rather than years.

And then a mass driver, since once we scale power in space it will make economic sense.

The government will have to finance these projects in the beginning, get a basic infrastructure going, then private companies can take over and their taxes will more than make up the initial investment, not to mention the ability to completely switch to a permanent and uninterruptable power supply.
4   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 1:37pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

And beamed solar power via microwave from geo.

That actually will heat the Earth, as you are bringing in energy that would not be on Earth otherwise. Nothing significant, though.
5   Tenpoundbass   ignore (13)   2018 Oct 1, 1:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Since Trump has got elected the blatantly intentional crisscross chem trail patterns in the sky regardless of the impetus.
Have stopped completely. Now they only flow in obvious airport to and fro flight patterns.
Especially after he cut a lot of heads from the EPA.
6   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 2:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Evan F. says
HeadSet says
Also, this assumes that CO2 causes global warming.

Dude. Dude.


Evan, you cannot know this. The atmospherics, chemistry, and related dynamics are too complex. All you can do is be a disciple of whatever sect of AGW you chose. Answer this, water vapor is said by these same climate scientists to be a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. But burning any hydrocarbon produces not just the CO2, but creates water vapor as well. So why no talk about a "Hydro footprint." Why just panic about carbon?
7   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 1, 2:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
unlike transferring $$$ to backwards kleptocracies in the southern hemisphere.

Huuuu??
I thought capturing carbon is to allow burning oil and transferring $$$ to countries like Saudi Arabia (which may be a backward kleptocracy but is up there in the northern hemisphere).
8   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 1, 2:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
So why no talk about a "Hydro footprint." Why just panic about carbon?

Because when there is too much "water vapor", it just rains. This happens frequently.
9   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Oct 1, 2:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I thought capturing carbon is to allow burning oil

If those magnesite bricks can capture carbon, why not just burn those bricks? I presume the bricks do not store gaseous CO2, but take the carbon from the molecule somehow.
10   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 3:01pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Evan F. says
HeadSet says
Also, this assumes that CO2 causes global warming.

Dude. Dude.


Also assumes we want a colder planet instead of a warmer one.

If I had to choose, I would take a warmer planet any day of the week.

We may need to end up burning those magnesite bricks if the sun activity declines.
11   Evan F.   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 3:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
Answer this, water vapor is said by these same climate scientists to be a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. But burning any hydrocarbon produces not just the CO2, but creates water vapor as well.

Water vapor is the MOST potent greenhouse gas. Not really in debate. There is obviously always water vapor in the air. The focus of water vapor is it's amplifying effects from non-condensable gases raising temperatures.

From the American chemical society:

The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.

If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.


socal2 says
Also assumes we want a colder planet instead of a warmer one.

Actually I'd prefer if the planet stayed roughly the same temperature, instead of getting steadily hotter..
12   curious2   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 3:23pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Huuuu??


Is that a word?

Heraclitusstudent says
I thought capturing carbon is to allow burning oil and transferring $$$ to countries like Saudi Arabia....


No. Capturing carbon would be, for example, capturing the Persian Gulf and taking the oil. I seem to recall a recent candidate for POTUS who said of certain countries in that region, "We take the oil." If KSA had the guns and we had something they wanted, they would simply take it and kill us, as per Islam. Do unto others as they would do unto you.

Geo-engineering is about managing the climate. CO2 capture is one proposal to manage the climate.

Whether you choose to burn coal, gas, oil, or nothing at all is an energy choice. These are different choices on different menus.
13   MisterLearnToCode   ignore (4)   2018 Oct 1, 3:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I wish the country knew that Light Water Reactors are not the end all of nuclear power.
14   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Oct 1, 3:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says
Geo-engineering is about managing the climate. CO2 capture is one proposal to manage the climate.

Whether you choose to burn coal, gas, oil, or nothing at all is an energy choice. These are different choices on different menus.

Are you advocating taking Saudis oil? Or burning coal?
15   curious2   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 4:00pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says

Are you advocating taking Saudis oil? Or burning coal?


This thread is about climate change and geo-engineering.
16   Onvacation   ignore (4)   2018 Oct 1, 4:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The fact is co2 is plant food that has caused a spurt of vegetation growth worldwide.
17   noise   ignore (0)   2018 Oct 1, 6:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

So why no talk about a "Hydro footprint." Hurrycane steering technology was in Disney's pocket ~60 years ago. Think of the work (economy++) required in FL, N.O., TX, Carolina's: Then again, WTF insurance claims?
18   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Oct 1, 6:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Hurrycane steering technology was in Disney's back pocket 58 years ago.


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions