Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Stopped By Adding Lime To Sea
Antiglobalism writes "Scientists say they have found a workable way of reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere by adding lime to seawater. And they think it has the potential to dramatically reverse CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, reports Cath O'Driscoll in SCI's Chemistry & Industry magazine published today."
A solution to nasty-tasting seawater! Lemonade oceans FTW!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Look at all the limes in this god damn thing! This fuckin' thing is tropical! Look at the limes, how they float. That's good news. Next time I'm on a boat and it capsizes, I will reach for a lime. Like I'll be water-skiing without a life preserver, people will say "What the hell?" and I'll pull out a lime. I'm saved by the buoyancy of citrus."
This couldn't possibly have any additional side-effects, right?
Next they'll want to add tequila and filter the salt to the coasts.
There goes my giant vacuum cleaner idea. But seriously, maybe I'm remembering it wrong but doesn't lime burn people's skin? So wouldn't it kill sea creatures?
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Here in Bloomington, Indiana, we have a huge number of limestone blocks that were left over from building larger blocks.
...thus solving the problem forever. FOREVER!
Adding ten million square kilometers of lime from Australia's outback to sea water...
...yeah, no chance for any unintended consequences here.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
As long as they don't start putting the lime in coconuts and mixing it together, we haven't entirely lost our sanity.
You know...
Based on the success of introducing the cane toad, tamarisk, the bark beetle, the banana slug, the mongoose, or the brown tree snake!
Any time humans screw something up, the best bet is for humans to go double-or-nothing.
Sure beats efficiency, responsible building practices, responsible reproduction rates, or simply riding a bike to work! Surely, changing the pH, salinity, disolved o2, and turbidity of the oceans will have no unwanted effect.
You'd think it'd be obvious, but at slashdot, you actually do need to point that out to people.
The process of making lime generates CO2, but adding the lime to seawater absorbs almost twice as much CO2. The overall process is therefore 'carbon negative'.
RTFA. FTW. My acronyms are more powerful than your anonymity.
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
RTFA. The article claims this process sequesters twice as much CO2 as is released during the production of lime.
It addresses this.
On a chemical level, how does this differ from growing coral?
A coral bred / genetically modified to grow in a wider variety of climates could also scrub CO2 from the air. Though the 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' crowd might be concerned with over scrubbing by the GM coral.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
And then all these fish die because of too much acid in the water! Epic Fale.
Uh, not really - Calcium Oxide reduces the acidity of water: Calcium Oxide
It's more sensible and cost effective for mankind to use technology to adapt to climate change rather than to try to change the climate. After all, some climate change isn't caused by man and can't be stopped. Witness the last little ice age, and the last ice age before that that glaciated much of the northern hemisphere.
Eventually some idiotic scheme like dumping X in the oceans is going to cause a truly great disaster. We need to stop screwing around with the Earth. Climate science is still in its infancy.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
But what happens when one nation decides this is a great idea while another fervently disagrees? Water doesn't obey boundaries.
yeah that will have a SLIGHT effect on ocean ecosystems /sarcasm
pH (cough) pH
in related news, looks like those guys who were going to seed dead zones with iron and create algal blooms to suck up co2 gave up the ghost:
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0219-planktos.html
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Too much acid? Try it shifting it the opposite way (to the alkaline side). It may still be Epic Fail, but in the other direction.
This is why we RTFA:
There are potentially huge environmental benefits from addressing climate change and adding calcium hydroxide to seawater will also mitigate the effects of ocean acidification, so it should have a positive impact on the marine environment.
Lime is an alkalide.
Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_oxide
Also here: http://www.cquestrate.com/
And this appears to work. I'm sure some not-rtfa'ing people above me will have got in with a quick "making lime generates carbon dioxide hur hur" but the process already takes this into account. By increasing the pH of the seawater, they claim that it will absorb two moles of CO2 for every mole released in the manufacture of lime. I'm not an environmental chemist so I can't comment on the adsorption gradient of seawater, but if they think it'll work then it'll work.
Carbon dioxide dissolves in water:
CO2 + H2O H(+) + HCO3(-)
As does Calcium Oxide (lime)
CaO + H2O Ca(2+) + 2 * OH(-)
Hydroxide and protons naturally combine to form water - it's another equilibrium but the constant is something like 10**-7 (that 7 is the pH of water)
H(+) + OH(-) H2O
i.e. at pH 7, there will be ten million times as much water as either of the other two.
I'd imagine that various equilibrium constants shift around to prove that there's a net increase in the absorption of carbon dioxide from air. It's pretty elementary science - so elementary, I've forgotten how to do it. by simply ascribing a token amount of competence to the scientific background of the people in TFA, it can be shown that they probably know what the hell they're talking about.
Also, there's no doomsday scenario where a drop of lime juice makes the ocean boil pure CO2 and kill us all. As far as I can see.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
I am also a bit confused about the chemistry here:
If they put "lime" in the ocean, and it absorbed co2, it becomes something else, and even if this has a good effect on the ph of the water, the chemical itself could be harmful right?
Is this a substance common in the water already?
I wish this were discovered 20 years from now, after we had switched our processes to something more green. As it is this might just prolong on the bad habits we have now.
The researchers are, surprise surprise, well aware of that, and in TFA they point out that it removes twice as much CO2 as it creates.
Slashdot poster arrogance and failure to RTFA is not on the rise - it's always been this high.
Now, I'm not saying this is a great idea, but I'm getting pretty sick and tired of people bashing scientific findings simply because of who sponsored them. Why is Al Gore's sponsored research any more compelling than Shell's?
Instead of a knee-jerk attack on the messenger, why don't you discuss what's wrong with the research, like every one else ("lime" jokes aside) is doing?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Science ignorance on the rise
I love it when people think they know everything and don't even see if these scientists even considered the issue.
So, correction:
Reader ignorance on the rise.
In case anyone was wondering:
Lime = CaO
CaO + H_2O Ca(OH)_2 + 63.7kJ/mol of CaO
Ca(OH)_2 (aq) + CO_2 (g) -> CaCO_3 (s) + H_2O (l)
CaCO3(s) + CO2(g) + H2O(l) -> Ca(HCO3)2(aq)
Some of these compounds are strong bases that may be dangerous for both human consumption and wildlife contact. If this were done in segregated water areas, however, it may be possible to utilize the properties of the first reaction to produce energy via a heat engine.
Heh... Because of the CO2 we already have in the atmosphere, it's too acid right now. All they're doing is a process mother nature already does (Much like Thermal Depolymerization does with biomass and plastics to break it down into natural gas and sweet crude...). Strange as it seems, it might actually do some good- but it's a bold thing they're proposing.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
We salute you, Mr. CO2 Reducing Ocean Lime Dumper.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
Home Depot: Hello, Home Depot, how can I help you?
Spongebob Squarepants: Do you guys carry Lime-Away?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Lime (or calcium carbonate, CaCO3) is a base, which is the opposite of an acid.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
> I'll leave out the fact that temperatures globally have been flat for several years now
Wise move, since it's an incorrect statement.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
[TMB]
maybe that's because in the article they were talking about how they were trying to figure out how to make it practical (and thus cutting down on what you were talking about)
Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is chalk, not lime.
"Lime" is calcium oxide, CaO. "Slaked lime" is calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I wrote a real quick firefox extension to filter out everything that's a lime joke.
Sorry, your's is the only post left ;)
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
If you'd have RTFA, you'd see they're proposing doing this in places where they've raftloads of SOLAR energy in a situation that's impractical to utilize it for our needs right now- that, amazingly, have raftloads of limestone to convert to Quicklime.
They're not proposing doing it akin to the Lime industry...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You're absolutely correct. There's no end to the number of environmental "solutions" that led to far greater problems down the road. And the sad thing is that they were not unforeseen problems. The people who thought up the solutions figured it was easier to let subsequent generations deal with the mess; they were more interested in a quick fix for political expediency.
Anyone else of a certain age remember the animated bit from The Electric Company (then-unknown Morgan Freeman was one of the cast members) wherein the wife is freaking out about a mouse in the house? To cut a long story short, as the problems cascade, the husband gets a cat, then a dog, then a tiger, then finally an elephant to scare away the tiger. When the wife complains about the elephant, the husband says "Everyone knows elephants are afraid of mice" reintroducing the original problem and losing an entire wall of the house in the process as the panicked elephant stampedes through it. The punch line is the battered husband lying on the ground saying to himself, "You know...maybe I should have just gotten a trap...". I think that little cartoon is one of the great cautionary tales of environmental engineering.
That is pretty much it. People who keep trying to come up with stupid ass ideas to fix the environment are almost always dumb asses anyway. First of all there is nothing wrong with the environment that needs fixing. We are not yet at the point of no return. What the environment needs from us is for us to start acting in a more reasonable manner.
Once we start doing that the environment will correct itself. It has gotten along fine without our help for 3.5 billion years. I'm pretty sure if we left it alone and fixed our issues then it will do just fine.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
This sounds a lot like that episode of the Simpsons where Bart unleashes some lizards that spread all over and end up killing off the pigeons which annoyed the town:
Skinner: Well, I was wrong; the lizards are a godsend.
Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Only on /. does this:
"Remembrances of my chemistry classes tell me this is not practical... "
magically make one person more qualified than dozens of environmental scientists with PhDs.
I feel better knowing that the /. crowd is on the job.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
You might not be in Margaritaville - but you might still get plastered.
WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Despite the political rhetoric we have no proof as to how much human activity is contributing to any warming trends, and even less of an idea on the possible side effects of any direct intervention. Other scientists have actually proposed putting more particulate pollution into the air to create a mild 'nuclear winter' style cooling in order to offset any rising temperatures.
I'll leave out the fact that temperatures globally have been flat for several years now, but I will point out in closing that hair brained schemes such as this one remind me of a five year old child trying to rebuild a Formula 1 engine with a pair of chopsticks. We are so very ignorant of how and why we have or can effect the climate. The sheer hubris of some people today who assume we have such great control over climate just amazes, and scares, me.
I agree that the climate is extremely complex, and that while we cannot understand all of the factors involved, we can draw some simple conclusions about some of the effects we are having on the environment.
You probably already know that humans produce a lot of carbon dioxide. We breathe it out, we burn things, and our agricultural and industrial processes create even more.
You probably also know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and that greenhouse gasses increase warming due to sunlight.
You may or may not know that the ppm of carbon dioxide has been increasing over the years.
I propose that you cannot prove that we aren't increasing the temperature of the planet
There are two forces in this world keeping the pirates in check: ninjas and scurvy. If the seas were suddenly full of lime, scurvy would be vanquished. The balance of power would be horribly altered, and no one's booty would be safe.
Please, everybody, write your congressman about this!
I dunno what the hell you're trying to babble about. The proper reference for /. readers goes like this:
Skinner: Ahh, but as it turns out the lizards were a godsend since they've eaten all the pigeons.
Lisa: Isn't that a little short-sighted? What happens when we're up to our ears with lizards?
Skinner: Ah, well we shall simply release wave after wave of Chinese needlesnakes.
Lisa: Then what about the snakes?
Skinner: We simply import gorillas who will eat all the snakes.
Lisa: Well what happens when we're up to our ears in gorillas?!
Skinner: Ah that's the beauty of the thing, come winter the gorillas will freeze to death.
TFA says they did think of this years ago but the problem was back then they wanted to do it on a truly global scale and, with the exception of a few places, getting the lime out of limestone and to the ocean generally puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than the lime would help the ocean take back out of the atmosphere.
IOW, "net negative". Somebody seems to have had the genius thought that just because it can't be done everywhere and act as a "silver bullet" for global warming doesn't mean it isn't worth getting what help it can provide by doing it in those places where it doesn't produce more CO2 than it scrubs.
Based on the speed at which the we are progressing through the Kubler-Ross model of grief, the world governments should hit "acceptance" sometime around 2025. Then maybe we'll start hearing some sense out of people.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
You mean... calcium carbonate and hydrogen? A common compound in rocks and sea shells and a light gas that combines with oxygen to form pure water? No, it's not harmful.
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Hey. This is not global warming, this is ocean acidification. The rise in CO2 in the last two centuries coincides exactly with the burning of fossil fuel. The acidification, which will kill of corals and other shellfish is an easily derived consequence of rising CO2.
If you want to dispute the effect of CO2 on climate, fine. I disagree with you, but there are valid questions. There are no valid questions on ocean acidification.
"All they're doing is a process mother nature already does"
Cuz we all know that doing much (much) more of what mother nature already does never has unintended consequences.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
DING! Give that anon coward a cigar!
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I was thinking of agricultural lime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate
"Calcium carbonate is a chemical compound with the chemical formula CaCO3. It is a common substance found as rock in all parts of the world, and is the main component of shells of marine organisms, snails, and eggshells. Calcium carbonate is the active ingredient in **agricultural lime**, and is usually the principal cause of hard water."
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Epic Fale.
What's that? Like a really big Samoan thatched roof house?
"And there be unix which have made themselves unix for the kingdom of heaven's sake." - Matt. 19:12
Umm...RTFA!
The lime is being added to REDUCE the acidification of the ocean which will then better absorbe CO2...which will return the ocean to the current acidity and rate of CO2 absorption. The excess CO2 will generally precipitate out, collect on the bottom and form...lime stone.
Not that I'm claiming Car and Driver has a "stance" on global warming they heavily prefer, but that statement is simply untrue. Volcano CO2 output is dwarfed by human CO2 output.
Been over thirty years since Chem H101, but doesn't that mean a lot of calcium carbonate when/if the carbon dioxide combines with the calcium oxide? (Fishing for someone who actually knows what they are talking about to speak up to confirm/deny.)
I'm not familiar witht he process you're talking about, but what happens naturally in ocean water is that CO2 from the air binds with H2O from the ocean and forms H2CO3, which is acidic. They want to add CaO, which combines with water to Ca(OH)2, which is a base, which means it makes the ocean less acidic.
The less acidic the ocean is, the more CO2 it can absorb from the atmosphere, is what TFA is saying.
I saw no plan addressing the sequestering of VAST quantities of CO2 produced in the 'manufacture' of the Lime (not to mention what mineral/surface owner is going to allow the refrigeration/compression/storage of VAST quantities of CO2 in their terrestrial strata if they even are porous and isolated enough to 'store' high-pressure CO2), nor the plan for the infrastructure *for the VAST energy needs* TO sequester the liberated CO2 from the Limestone, nor a mention of a PLAN on how to TRANSPORT the VAST quantities of Lime produced, nor a CO2-free Plan on the extraction/quarrying of the limestone source rock and its transport before it becomes lime.
...I mean "Climate Change"... (Sorry, I missed the 'new directive from HQ' to change out the buzz terms).
Running around with your arms waving in the air and yelling "Change!, Change!, Change!!!", does NOT make it a PLAN.
I want to see the *actual numbers*, the real logistics, and the bottom line cost in "Dollars per Gigaton of CO2 sequestered" in the ocean (less the total amount of CO2 released in the atmosphere in the manufacture, transportation/distribution, and extraction of Lime *AND* the energy production needed to power this proposed CONCEPT.
And, oh yes, and WHO THE HELL PAYS FOR IT? I Smell the scent of *Heavy Taxation* for the funding...
It may just well be cheaper to relocate our coastal cities and deal with higher oceanic levels...
Plus, think of the positives to "Global Warming"... er, uh, um... ya,
Plus, think of the positives to "Climate Change", It could really free up lots of new real estate in Alaska and Asia, not to mention Greenland and the Antarctic...
Me thinks this is akin to sausage making... tastes good, looks good all covered with kraut, but you don't want to know how its made...
I don't know about you, but about 10 years ago, in basic chemistry, I learned that acidification, which is currently happening to the oceans, *lowers* the pH of the water (lower pH = more acidic). Adding lime will raise the pH of the oceans (higher pH = more alkaline). In other words... this might actually make the pH of the water *more* friendly to the fish eggs you're so concerned about...
What you're saying is that the release of carbon dioxide was not the cause of past global warming. It does not follow that the release of carbon dioxide cannot be the cause of global warming this time. If you show up to work late ten times in a row because of bad traffic, it does not mean that the eleventh time you're late it cannot be because your car didn't start. It looks like you could benefit from learning more about science.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
If you hadn't stopped reading "scientific" literature in February of 2007, you might know that claim has since been retracted. No, "big science" didn't get to him -- it's just that warming due to Solar forcing (which accounts for Martian heating) is already accounted for in terrestrial models.
Careful with the lime please!
If you put a lot of lime into the ocean, in places where coconuts might fall into the water, you'll end up poisoning the whole area.
This is a dangerous game.
To wit:
Brother bought a coconut, he bought it for a dime
His sister had another one, she paid it for the lime
She put the lime in the coconut, she drank 'em both up
She put the lime in the coconut, she drank 'em both up
She put the lime in the coconut, she drank 'em both up
Put the lime in the coconut, she called the doctor, woke him up, and said
Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
Doctor, to relieve this bellyache, I said
Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
Doctor, to relieve this bellyache
Now let me get this straight
Put the lime in the coconut, you drank 'em both up
Put the lime in the coconut, you drank 'em both up
Put the lime in the coconut, you drank 'em both up
Put the lime in the coconut...
(repeat until you're out of CO2)
Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
True enough (and no, I'm not the AC/GP), but on a macro scale...
* how much CO2 will get released by transporting the stuff from mine, to mfr. plant, to ocean drop-off points? Simply dumping it at the beach from the end of a really long conveyor belt won't do much good, and would actually do more harm (by turning that locality into a giant caustic soup).
* how much CO2-sequestering plant life has to be cleared away to get at the sheer amount of raw materials needed (e.g. strip-mining)?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Do Lifesavers float? Maybe the Tropical Lime ones do because they contain lime but I don't think the Wintergreen ones will do any good at all.
Quick Lime = Calcium Oxide
Andy
Not mentioning that I did study Engineering and Chemistry for my undergraduate should not make my points here any *less valid*.?
I do have an ugly do too, I bet your dog could probably beat my dog also.
I remember many PhD-holding professors (including some environmental scientists) who knew very very little about engineering and how real-world logistics work.
I agree that this Concept and Hypothesis of dumping Lime into the Ocean to increase oceanic CO2 absorption is theoretically possible and chemically sound.
My background and experience and education all tell me that the brains behind it have not fully accounted for *many* of the other factors I have posted here.
This will require MUCH more than the proposed solar power plants in energy requirements when the *actual* quantities of CaO to be produced to have any real actual reduction effects on CO2 levels are considered. We are talking Several Gigawatt-Class Nuclear power plants or large hydroelectric generation stations in the least.
Lime is one of the most energy-consumptive substances Mankind has yet learned to create from raw materials (considering how much we ALL consume yearly). This CO2-Reduction Concept and proposal is dead in the water (pun intended) without some very clean, non-CO2 releasing, method of CaO (Lime) production...
They want to do all this using stranded energy-- wind or solar which no one uses because it is located in the middle of nowhere.
Their analysis makes no mention of the energy cost of transporting zillions of tons of limestones from the middle of nowhere to the ocean. Or, rather, to all the world's oceans (since we don't want to cause one region to spike in alkylynity.)
And if it doesn't cost that much money/energy to transport those zillions of tons of rock, then it presumably costs even less to transport the electricity (Electrons don't weigh that much). In which case, the resource wouldn't be stranded.
But, it is good to see people thinking about this sort of thing, however incompletely.
Maybe it's time to upgrade to Sea++?
Er, Um, there seems to be a wide gulch here.
World production of CaO ( white lime powder, not the fruit ), is around 200 megatons/yr
World CO2 is about 40 billion tons/yr.
That's a mismatch of about 200 times.
Also making lime is not free, it now costs about $60/ton. That's $240 buillion per year just for the lime, never mind the cost of moving it to the oceans.
Wise move, since it's an incorrect statement.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Don%27t-believe-it.html
Oddly enough this has been done in the Reef hobby world for decades. You add what is called "Kalkwasser" which is nothing more then a solution of water and lime. Course I would think to have similar effect on the ocean you are going to need to add MASSIVE amounts.
I think he just proved it a bit too well...
"oohh.. girl... tight... clothes..."
Brawndo!
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I see a large problem ith using lime to reduce atmospheric CO2. First of all, I fail to see how going from calcium carbonate to calcium hydroxide back to calcium carbonate will have a net reduction in carbon dioxide. By saying "twice as much carbon dioxide is used" there are more likely referring to the creation of calcium bicarbonate, which does happen to some extent. However, calcium bicarbonate is simply not as chemically stable as calcium carbonate and is only preferentially formed under certain circumstances, and the bicarbonate will them generally precipitate back to the carbonate form with the release of carbon dioxide. Essentially, if this reaction were favorable in seawater it would have already happened to the large amounts of calcium carbonate in the oceans. It would make as much sense to simply drop crushed calcium carbonate (limestone) into the ocean as it would to dump calcium hydroxide.
The only way this process would have a net reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide would be to sequester the carbon at the factory producing the calcium hydroxide. If we were to develop the technology to sequester carbon dioxide on this huge industrial scale, it would make more sense to simply apply it to our current carbon dioxide releasing processes.
Additionally, making the calcium hydroxide in the Australian desert as suggested in the article would have a huge limiting factor. The hydroxide group will have to come from water on any large enough scale to have an effect on worldwide atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. This simply is not present in adequate quantities in the desert. Simply performing this step by dumping the calcium oxide straight into the oceans would be a no-go as the chemical reaction releases large amounts of heat which would significantly impact the oceans if done on a scale large enough to have a significant environmental impact. So the operation of making calcium hydroxide on a level large enough for eco-engineering would use vast amounts of fresh water in a desert, and likely need even more water to cool the plant down. It may be possible to pump some of the heat released from this stage of the reaction to earlier stages in which the calcium carbonate is heated to form calcium oxide, however heat pumps require energy to run. This may end up being slightly more energy efficient than using the original energy to heat the calcium carbonate, but I doubt it would be that much more efficient.
Unless someone shows me some hard numbers on this process that account for all of the needs (transportation, water, heating, cooling, mining, crushing, purification, lighting, secondary services required for the employees running the vast industrial complexes that would be needing for this level of eco-engineering and so on) my guess is that using the water and energy needed for this process would be better spent irrigating the Australian desert to grow trees, grasses (or the perennial favorite - hemp, which would actually be a good choice due to its high growth rate and low fertilization needs) which are simply buried in a big pit which is cut off from the atmosphere to sequester the carbon, eventually turning into coal. I'm not saying that this large scale irrigation project would have no environmental consequences, just that I am highly skeptical that it would be any worse than the process as offered in the article.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
We're going to fix a weather problem, which may be cyclical, that we don't understand that may not be a problem because there may be solar interactions we don't fully understand as well as Earth core changes we don't fully understand by dumping lime into the ocean?
Camping on quad since 1996.
CO2 does act as a "greenhouse" gas. However there are some small caveats to the whole "greenhouse" gas concept. CO2 only reflects certain frequencies of light. Therefore there becomes a saturation point at which adding more CO2 to the atmosphere reflects no additional light and causes no additional "greenhouse" effects. CO2 also shares it's light bandwidth with water vapor, causing those bandwidths of light to be completely reflected at even lower densities of atmospheric CO2. There is NO infinite feedback loop. If there was the earth NEVER would have become habitable becuase during the time of the dinosaurs atmospheric CO2 levels were many times what they are now, and yet global temperatures were similar to what they are now. Can you please explain to me how that is the case? During the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods CO2 levels were between 1000 and 2500ppm. Currently the levels are in the 300s. All of the oil, coal, and natural gas we are currently burning used to exist as atmospheric CO2 before it was sequestered by plant and animal life. So please explain how, with levels of CO2 that were 3-8 times as high as they are now the planet wasn't boiling hot.
Callendar proposed the effect of increased carbon dioxide levels causing global warming in the 1930s. Keeling started monitoring carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere in the 1950s. If some "environmentalists" were predicting an ice age in the 1970s, it sounds like they were quite ignorant of the scientific research.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Its takes energy to make lime (CaO). You need to start with limestone (CaCO3) and drive off the CO2. Eventually the CaO added to the water will become limestone and precipitate out. There is no magic here.
So where will this energy come from? Ans: Presumably the great new oil finds that Shell has been announcing on a regular basis for the last 30 years. Folks - oil prices might be down a little bit now but they won't stay down. And if you actually check the numbers you'll find that Shell has NOT been making much progress in replacing the oil we burn. So how about Natural Gas? More insanity.
Methane is a chemical source of hydrogen. Alkanes are C(n)H(2n+2) and for octane n=8. For methane n=1. The issue is that our liquid fuels have n>=7 so they are much closer to a 2:1 ratio of hydrogen to carbon. Now consider that coal is C(0.6n)H(n) so coal is hydrogen poor. Bitumin is about C(n)H(n). Its actually a little hydrogen rich but the issue is that if we want to produce liquid fuels via coal->liquids or via bitumin->liquids or for that matter from oil shales then we are desperately short of hydrogen and without it we leave about 1/2 the carbon we mine sitting around in piles which we call COKE. And the only other option is if we try to get energy from it and create copious amounts of CO2.
This would have to be the most INSANE use of our non-renewable natural resources that I can possibly imagine. It will result in more carbon in the atmosphere and not less.
Its a very good thing that CO2 is not responsible for global warming. It hasn't been responsible in the geological record other than back in the precambrian when CO2 concentrations reached 130,000 PPM. The levels are now about 370-380 PPM which is a rise of about 100 PPM over the last 100 years or so. Meanwhile water vapour is anywhere from under 1% (10,000 PPM) to over 10% (100,000 PPM). The issue is that water vapour acts closer to the surface of the planet and that its a stronger green house gas than CO2 and we have no idea if there has been a net positive change or a net negative change in average water vapour levels over the planet in the last say 100 years. We don't know the sign and we certainly don't know the magnitude but a 100 PPM change gets swallowed up very quickly when one considers the uncertainties involved here.
Read this: http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
There is a high correlation between climate and sun spot activities. CERN is undertaking experiments soon to confirm this linkage. We are fortunate that solar cycle #24 is looking to be about 2 years late and if so will probably be very weak and this will provide us with the opportunity to actually do some measurement.
Rather than go berzerk with crazy ideas it will probably make more sense to see what influence solar cycle #24 has.
Here's the link for you.
The data that was determined to be faulty & was therefore corrected only concerned the US, which accounts for ~2% of the globe.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
The only change having a detectable influence on analyzed temperature was the 7 August 2007 change to correct a discontinuity in 2000 at many stations in the United States. This flaw affected temperatures in 2000 and later years by ~0.15C averaged over the United States and ~0.003C on global average. Contrary to reports in the media, this minor flaw did not alter the years of record temperature, as shown by comparison here of results with the data flaw ('old analysis') and with the correction ('new analysis').
Denial, juvenile insults & proud willful ignorance do not refute reality.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Look deeply into the arguments for and against anthropogenic warming. The most interesting thing isn't global warming, but the sociological issues surrounding the head-in-sand propaganda campaign. Truly an eye-opener into how far we can trust corporate america, and mainstream media - which is to say not at all.
Take everything you read with a grain of salt. When you read a website - look at the references. Read the references. Examine the arguments for yourself, instead of trusting someone else's analysis.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
It just floors me. In 1974 "they" were predicting an ice age. Now "they" say it is global warming. Here is a well thought out examination of the climate and "they" says its another ice age... http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Fool me once, same on you...
Uh, so they're saying "Ignore 4.3 billion years of what's happened to Earth - only the last 2-3 millenia count."
I didn't get any further than that - talk about knee-jerk; anybody who doesn't see that it's obvious that all which is wrong with the world is mankind's fault is just wrong? No trial, no evidence, no investigation.
Broaden your horizons, dude. Look at references which don't agree with yours; you may not be convinced, but it's just barely possible you'll learn something.
Oh, I love NASA.
Especially when they pull shit like this.
FYI, the temperatures in that chart are in comparaison to 1940-1970, the coldest period in recorded times.
"Only 150 years of research shows that science has been in dilemma about where the temperatue has been going for the last 150 years."
4 times scientists have pivoted their position on global warming and global cooling. 4 times in the last 100 years. 50 years of research before that did not address "Global" climate whatsoever, but sure, lets listen to your history as you call it.
I am just waiting until we hear that the sky is falling because of an impending ice age, because lets face it, if history teaches us anything, it teaches us that it just repeats itself over and over again.
Then again, maybe it appears we are warming since 1820 because that was the end of the little ice age.... If you start your data points where you want to, the results the computer produces will always be favorable. GIGO.....and if you don't understand that, then you really don't need to be looking at computer models to begin with, much less posting about your opinions.
Chris,
What you say about ice cores and CO2 levels is accurate but incomplete. THe story isn't so simple. In point of fact, ice cores have shown that the atmospheric CO2 levels have been dropping steadily over time, essentially until the bottom of the last ice age, aboujt 11,000 years ago. Since that time, the CO2 levels have slowly risen until about 1800 AD or so, at which time human CO2 production became a significant additional planetary burden,
Prior to the ice ages, in the carboniferous period, planetary levels of CO2 were as high as 1500 parts per million, five times what they are today. One must consider that all that limestone and fossil fuel in the ground (or what used to be in the ground) came from this atmospheric carbon dioxide, over hundreds of millions of years. The CO2 levels reached a planetary minimum during the last series of ice ages. Whether the cooling was due to low CO2 levels, or the low CO2 levels were due to cooling is unresolved.
What is not arguable is that humans are adding to the atmospheric CO2 levels, and that during this microscopic period of geological time, global warming has become very fast indeed.
What is also not arguable is that prior to the ice ages, the planet was very much warmer than it is now, and very much warmer than ecological models predict for tne forseeable future. We're not treading on new ground here, we're retracing steps that occurred half a million years ago. The world is not coming to an end, at least, not yet.
Having said that, going back to a Permian climate would be exceptionally inconvenient to a few billion humans. At those times, the entire interior of the United states was a warm tropical inland sea. Somehow, I think the future residents of St. Louis might object to that. Siberia could become the rice bowl of civilization. From today's point of view, it would be bad, no doubt.
For better or worse, we (humanity) don't really have the option to go back to a small population of agrarians. I might point out that agriculture itself is very recent, only about 6,000 years old. We don't really get to "go back to nature" -- if you doubt this, take a trip to Cambodia.
The only option we have left is to take over engineeing of our planet. This will include finding ways to stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but also includes things like building seawalls around New Orleans, and in the quite near future, a lot of other urban places, or relocating the entire place to higher locations. Ocean levels have varied by a thousand meters throughout history, and we aren't (yet) in a position to stop them.
The important thing to remember is that our planet is a "complex system" and that on such systems, one never, ever, gets to adjust just one knob. Everything interacts, and we must proceed cautiously so that our "fixes" don't end up causing more damage than leaving things alone.
There is a lot to be done, and predicting that the sky is falling isn't helpful. Pointing out that when a suburb of Los Angeles floods, it is due to increased oceanic evaporation caused by global warming is a lot more truthful, and in my opinion, more effective, than painting pictures of the end of the world.
-- Norm Reitzel
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
It isn't GW denying, it's that CO2 probably accounts for less than 25% of the greenhouse effect.
Less than 25% over what period of time? What is the incremental effect of ongoing CO2 emissions, vs. other gases? What are the chemical sources for all the gases?
In a short snapshot of time, CO2 does not contribute much to the greenhouse effect. Water vapor and methane produce a greater percentage of warming. HOWEVER, the global balance of water vapor is not significantly changing, and imbalances cycle out of the atmosphere within a week or two (as rain). So while water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, it does not contribute to long-term climate trends very much. Methane lasts a lot longer than water vapor, but still quite a bit less time than CO2. That is because methane is not stable in the atmosphere; it breaks down into water, ozone, and...CO2. CO2 lasts a long time in the atmosphere. It is chemically stable and the carbon cycle moves slowly.
We have a situation where mankind produces a lot of water vapor, methane, and CO2. The water vapor washes out of the atmosphere so quickly that no matter how much extra we produce, the balance is back a week later. Plus the amount we produce is tiny compared to say, ocean evaporation.
Methane and CO2 are produced from living plant matter and from fossil fuels. Plant matter is made of CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere, so every plant we convert to CO2 will eventually be plant again, etc--keeping the system in balance. But methane and CO2 coming from fossil fuels are not part of our ongoing balance. And since CO2 lasts a long time, the aggregate effect of increases over decades will actually be the greatest due to CO2.
A metaphor for this is a comparison of growing your money at 20% compounded for 2 years or 7% compounded for 10 years. Yes the former has a "larger effect," i.e. a bigger instantaneous interest rate. But even though the percentage is smaller, the latter produces the larger final effect. This is a metaphor for why scientists are most concerned about CO2 among the greenhouse gases. Whatever we do now with CO2, we're going to be stuck with the results for a long time.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Your Flamebait Post
My Informative Post
You are wrong, this is July. Brush clearing is not 'always' ok, in fact it's prohibited between March 1st and August 15th (about 6 months out of the year). Here's an example reference from the Brush Management Guide for the city of San Diego in California.
Iron Fertilization is a far more effective way to sequester carbon.
According to wikipedia, worst case, 16 supertanker loads of iron costing 27 billion dollars total dumpped in low iron areas of the ocean would sequester the 3 gigatons of CO2. At that rate, to nullify human carbon emmissions by sequestering it all would mean fertilizing the ocean with enough iron to sequester 30 gigatons of CO2 per year at a cost of 270 billion dollars per year.
This would actually be quite affordable when you consider that "the annual value of the global carbon credit market is projected to exceed $1 trillion by 2012 "
Of course there is the law of unintended consequences to deal with, and also it's possible that only the first 3 gigatons of sequestration would be possible to so efficiently bring about. It might be that after fertilizing the ocean to sequester the first 3 gigatons, that the next 27 gigatons would require dumping iron where it would less efficiently sequester CO2, or perhaps not.
...