Arguments about climate change

Guardian article on CO2 extractors - A CO2 technofix within 2 years?link



A very simple, mechanical solution to CO2 emissions - it's a wonder there isn't one applied to every car exhaust and chimney. Next they'll find a way of turning the CO2 back into oil

Quote :

Now a group of US scientists say they have made a breakthrough towards creating such a machine. Led by Klaus Lackner, a physicist at Columbia University in New York, they plan to build and demonstrate a prototype within two years that could economically capture a tonne of CO2 a day from the air, about the same per passenger as a flight from London to New York.

The prototype so-called scrubber will be small enough to fit inside a shipping container. Lackner estimates it will initially cost around £100,000 to build, but the carbon cost of making each device would be "small potatoes" compared with the amount each would capture, he said.

A ton of CO2? That sounds good doesn't it? When you read on, the bad news starts to appear...

Quote :

The scientists stress their invention is not a magic bullet to solve climate change. It would take millions of the devices to soak up the world's carbon emissions, and the CO2 trapped would still need to be disposed of. But the team says the technology may be the best way to avert dangerous temperature rises, as fossil fuel use is predicted to increase sharply in coming decades despite international efforts. Climate experts at a monitoring station in Hawaii this month reported CO2 levels in the atmosphere have reached a record 387 parts per million (ppm) - 40% higher than before the industrial revolution.

Millions of devices, shite. However, the good news starts appearing again in the next paragraph

Quote :

The quest for a machine that could reverse the trend by "scrubbing" carbon from the air is seen as one of the greatest challenges in climate science. Richard Branson has promised $25m (£12.6m) to anyone who succeeds.

Lackner told the Guardian: "I wouldn't write across the front page that the problem is solved, but this will help. We are in a hurry to deal with climate change and will be very hard pressed to stop the train before we get to 450ppm [CO2 in the atmosphere]. This can help stop the train."

Really and truly do trees not do this or could we not genetically engineer trees to suck it in and contain it for saving in case we find a way to turn it back into oil. $25 million would be a good incentive for me to do some research into splicing tree genes and all sorts of other Frankensteinery in order to get the Branson cheque.

The rest of the article is too complicated for me to understand.

According to the Met (reported on RTE), it has been hottest May since records began over 100 years ago.

Auditor. The process above is a disastor for the global warming people and will be ignored. The last thing they want is for the CO2 issue to be resolved because they want global government and no more believe the baloney than I do.

If you were relying on NASA youngdan, that might explain your disbelief:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- NASA's press office "marginalised or mischaracterised" studies on global warming between 2004 and 2006, the agency's own internal watchdog concluded.

Quote :

In a report released Monday, NASA's inspector general office called it "inappropriate political interference" by political appointees in the press office. It said the agency's top management wasn't part of the censorship, nor were career officials.

NASA downplayed the report as old news on a problem that has since been fixed. NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage said the space agency's new policies have been hailed for openness by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

The report found credence in allegations that National Public Radio was denied access to top global warming scientist James Hansen. It also found evidence that NASA headquarters press officials canceled a press conference on a mission monitoring ozone pollution and global warming because it was too close to the 2004 presidential election.

In addition, the report detailed more than a dozen other actions in which it said the NASA public affairs office unilaterally edited or downgraded press releases having to do with global warming or denied access to scientists.

That is not a great name for a spokesman, Michael Cabbage

The Financial Times is running a three-part series on Global Warming starting today
http://www.ft.com/climatechangeseries

Massive algae bloom in Qingdao where the olympics sailing due to be held.

India Times

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Massive algae bloom in Qingdao where the olympics sailing due to be held.

India Times

That'll make for lovely photographs at the events.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Massive algae bloom in Qingdao where the olympics sailing due to be held.

India Times

That'll make for lovely photographs at the events.

They are lovely pitchers.



I love this one

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Massive algae bloom in Qingdao where the olympics sailing due to be held.

India Times

That'll make for lovely photographs at the events.

They are lovely pitchers.



I love this one

They should try to get Campbells/Erin Foods to come in now as a sponsor so they can say they've turned the sea into a pea soup for their corporate partners. Let's make money out of environmental devastation!

It reminded me of St.Patricks day in Qingdao..

I thought algae were CO2 eaters. I think some headbangers had a CO2 reduction plan to dump huge amouns of nitrogen into the ocean at certain places to trigger algae groeth. These algae would eat CO2 , die and trap the co2 on the seabed.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

It reminded me of St.Patricks day in Qingdao..

Me too. Perhaps they should use it next year for the parade? That'd show up the Chicagoans with their dyed river.

Quote :

I thought algae were CO2 eaters. I think some headbangers had a CO2 reduction plan to dump huge amouns of nitrogen into the ocean at certain places to trigger algae groeth. These algae would eat CO2 , die and trap the co2 on the seabed.

I doubt we could do it as neatly as that. I feel some externalities would come about as a result of that. Some species could be wiped out, for example.

THe India Times said -

Quote :

China's pledge to stage a "Green Olympics" has taken on a worrying meaning

Isn't this the stuff that kills dogs when they go for a swim in it?
Is it any good for bio-fuel?

I think it is generated by nitrates - sewage and detergents and stuff.

Jason-2 has returned its first pictures after being in orbit less than a month.

Its mission is to map the depth of the oceans and it is accurate by up to 4 cm so if there's any water rising then this yoke will show you. Of course, the tipping-point might prove it to be of no avail when the oceans rise dramatically over a period of a fortnight or something ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7533921.stm

I drove through NJ a few weeks back and I am glad to report that I did not see the Empire State building submerged when I looked accross. Also not too many days over 90 so far this summer. Not to much huricane activity yet either but the season is early. There was an earthquake in Ca. though if that is any good. How is global warming back in Ireland. The Sun must be splitting the stones over there.

Bloody sea is too warm and is dowsing us with constant rain, as you know quite well

September and October should give us our summer.

I will cancell Mexico and book Mayo then.

George Monbiot a prominent member of the Green Party and environmentalist in the UK has just said on Newsnight that he now supports the extension of Nuclear Power.

johnfás wrote:

George Monbiot a prominent member of the Green Party and environmentalist in the UK has just said on Newsnight that he now supports the extension of Nuclear Power.

Dear me. I hope Pax will not be too conflicted.

5-minute algae youtube documentary with whatshisname from M*A*S*H as one of the protagonists as well as the narrator.



You see how they come to the fact that emitted CO2 - the main cause of global warming - is re-used in the algae production process to get a second energy shot - once in the burning of fossils and the second time as food for the algae. I have the image of coal-burning power stations with massive algae plants beside them, one producing electricity the other biodiesel in a symbiotic fashion almost.

It also looks like algae oil might be possible to produce in your back garden - another Anarchist technology until some shower come along and patent elements of the production process or the algae itself so you'd have to pay to use a particular strain ... a bit depressing. However, could a world-wide tax on carbon dioxide emissions be the new gold standard? Our society cannot function without energy and gold intrinsically has no value but CO2 has, albeit a negative one. Is the value of money and any currency going to be directly related eventually to the quantity of co2 a process or region or country produces? Is this already being institutionalised with the Kyoto etc. agreements?

Is CO2 the new money?

It seems that government has not made it obligatory for the ESB to use a proportion of renewables and that the ESB has accepted bids from carbon based suppliers instead of wind on a "first come, first served" basis.

Anyone know the full story?

cactus flower wrote:

It seems that government has not made it obligatory for the ESB to use a proportion of renewables and that the ESB has accepted bids from carbon based suppliers instead of wind on a "first come, first served" basis.

Anyone know the full story?

Have you got a newspaper reference - there is nothing on the ESB website except something from 2003 saying the ESB would meet its commitments in providing 1250 MW of wind by 2010 (unlikely - there's only 860 MW now) and there's nothing on Eirgrid at first glance either.

I'd be suspicious of the wind interest here - the Arklow bank has 7 3.6 MW monsters but it was planned to have 100 - I can' find any news or reports on why that windfarm was not completed.

johnfás wrote:

George Monbiot a prominent member of the Green Party and environmentalist in the UK has just said on Newsnight that he now supports the extension of Nuclear Power.

Darn, missed Newsnight tonight, did he definitely say that, johnfas?
I know Arthur Scargill (rem. him? Ol' King Coal) last week challenged Monbiot re coal v nuclear. In today's Guardian, Monbiot responded, taking up Scargill's challenge of Scargill spending two mins. in a room full of CO2, if Monbiot would spend two mins. in a room of radiation.

However, Monbiot also wrote: "... I feel I need to point out that I have not become an advocate for nuclear power. My position is that environmentalists should stop trying to pick technologies for electricity generation. Instead we should demand a maximum level for the carbon dioxide produced per megawatt-hour, impose a number of other public safety measures, then allow the energy companies to find the cheapest means of delivering it. Otherwise we are in danger of backing the solutions we find aesthetically appealing and delaying the massive carbon cuts that need to be made. If nuclear power meets the very tough conditions I proposed last week, we should no longer oppose it - though that remains a big if. This is too subtle a point for Arthur and other commentators, who are shrieking that Monbiot has gone nuclear. ...."

Monbiot's article in today's Guardian -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/12/fossilfuels.nuclearpower

of course, even James Lovelock now supports nuclear, doesn't he? ...

Just to reference a book and website I have seen mentioned a lot in various media over the last couple of weeks - another book for your ever-expanding library, cactusflower!

http://www.kyoto2.org/

The book is called Kyoto 2 by Oliver Tickell.

I suppose if Climate change is real then there's an emergency and there could be a justification for going nuclear. There are hundreds of stations in the world already and we saw somewhere here before that nuclear submarines can have tidy little reactors in them that don't need refuelling for 30 years. But in 30 years we could have yet another problem in finding an alternative - best do it now if possible but if there is an emergency and the reactors can be built that fast ...

For China, England or Germany perhaps, for ireland it's a bit ludicrous.

Here's something from Der Spiegel on Atomkraft with some stats. The Germans were talking about phasing out their nuclear stations by 2018 ...
I hope they don't
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,492111,00.html

Are you disappointed Atticus?