Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (18826)	12/22/2007 2:48:43 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Neo, I invented liquid CO2 400 metres under the ocean to do some geo-engineering back in 1987 and Mitsubishi patented the idea a few years later [cheeky blighters]. It was obvious that people are putting out more CO2 than is sequestered by nature. That's why the CO2 level in the atmosphere is rising. Way back then, when you were presumably blissfully in ignorance about the whole thing, I didn't think CO2 levels would be a problem as they were small compared with nature's activities. I still don't. But I thought about what we could do if there was really a problem. Carbon tax [I suggested it to my boss in 1984 and he didn't like the idea one bit] and liquid CO2 under the ocean were two solutions if there was a problem. The other big solution is the coming population bust. Japan has already peaked. Russia has declined. China is heading that way. Many countries are only holding their own. Even India's boom has pretty much ended. There's also technology change. People don't need dirty great SUVs roaring around freeways to run a lifestyle. <Which is why the geoenginnering guys are more interested in using the oceans to sequester CO2, not plants. Or using compressors and just pumping it underground. Skip the bio route. Read up a little. > You can forget about "underground". There isn't enough room down there. Plus it gets hot. You say you like to understand, not misunderstand. That doesn't seem true. Read up a little? Neo, this is old stuff. It's now quarter of a century since I started dealing with it. It's like alternative fuels. I was involved with alternative fuels projects in 1983 which are now touted as great new saviours of the world. Ethanol, methanol, synthetic petrol, tallow ester, LPG, CNG etc. Yawn... seen it all before. Mqurice

To: neolib who wrote (18826)	12/26/2007 10:33:27 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36921

You have to understand that the amazing Maurice is visiting us from Sim's Planet. Imagine a planet where the C02 metabolism is l0 times that of earth. After that, it almost becomes EZ (next post) ==== Carbon Dioxide Duration in Atmosphere name Bill status student grade 9-12 location PA Question - How long dose Carbon Dioxide stay in the atmosphere? --------------------------------------- Bill, The duration period for carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere is somewhere between 100 and 500 years. Obviously, not all carbon dioxide molecules will stay in the atmosphere that long, but on average the duration may be around 200-300 years. Some scientists believe that it could be longer than that, others believe that the duration is shorter. Presently, there is some uncertainty in those figures. The most important thing concerning CO2 duration is that its large concentration plus its long duration in the atmosphere make it the most important greenhouse gas after water vapor. Some other greenhouse gases also have similarly long durations in the atmosphere, but their concentrations are much smaller than CO2 and thus they are less important (but not unimportant) contributors to warming. Although water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas, it has a duration in the atmosphere of only 3-7 days and its concentration will likely only increase if atmospheric temperature increases. This is a double whammy that most climate scientists are concerned about. If increasing concentrations of CO2 result in warmer atmospheric temperatures, that will likely result in higher water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere and thus further enhance atmospheric warming, assuming that the increased water vapor concentration does not lead to increased cloudiness (which may reduce warming in some regions of the world, but increase warming in others). David R. Cook Meteorologist Climate Research Section Environmental Science Division Argonne National Laboratory newton.dep.anl.gov