Posted on 08/14/2018 10:36:38 PM PDT by Innovative
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. This work is presented at the Goldschmidt conference in Boston.
Project leader, Professor Ian Power (Trent University, Ontario, Canada) said:
"Our work shows two things. Firstly, we have explained how and how fast magnesite forms naturally. This is a process which takes hundreds to thousands of years in nature at Earth's surface. The second thing we have done is to demonstrate a pathway which speeds this process up dramatically"
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
Yep, foliage removes more CO2 and does it faster than any other means. Since it is part of the earth’s own natural buffer system, we are not screwing around with mother nature in ways we know nothing about and might create a whole new slew of man-made problems.
CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food. Only a radical, communist, New World Order control freak could be worried about a natural plant food, and use it to try to destroy America’s economy.
BINGO
How stupid do you have to be to keep repeating the same type of mistake over and over again. Then again, our political class is pretty stupid.
The climate alarmists need to foist that lie on the uninformed so they can continue to brainwash the masses. How can they destroy the American economy and transfer all that money to their friends if they tell the truth that CO2 is a byproduct of increased solar warming and not a cause of planetary warming.
One of the biggest scams in world history. I really really wish this hoax would finally end. At least more than ever don’t believe it and even greater numbers of people don’t care about it. There are a lot of people who believe man has warmed the earth with SUVs and manufacturing, but they no longer get all irate and furious about it. Even they don’t sweat it anymore. Only the radicals are left pounding the table over it.
What could possibly go wrong ...
What an efficient way to terraform the earth into a desert and depopulate it at the same time. As the Co2 levels drop the plant life will wane and mass starvation will solve the population.
Satan is a liberal scientwist!
I would laugh but it is too true.
Great. Global warming is solved. Now the warming hysterics can go away.
But what will we do with all those rocks? Introducing large volumes of a new mineral to our delicate, balanced ecosystem must be risky — maybe even threaten a dreaded tipping point.
But I’m sure it’ll all work out fine — the EPA will waive Environmental Impact Statements — so it’ll be cheap. And I’m sure Al Gore will be happy to store the newly CO2 rich rocks on his estate.
Or even better, all the green nutjobs in Boulder, Berkeley etc can make it an earnest sacrament of environmental virtue to make other people drive on sidewalks and street paving out of that stuff.
Of course, it would be wrong to let that affect affect Boulder’s streets because that would disturb the feng shui of tree lined lanes filled with $2,000,000 homes.
So crappy roads made of CO2 rocks would be required in other, lesser places while our green overlords bask in the glory and virtue of once again having made other, lesser, people pay for their stupid ideas.
Maybe you should go to wattsupwiththat.com and check some of the articles and the comments by the experts that note that atmospheric CO2 is very low in comparison to where it should be. I’ve read comments that note that at levels of 150 to 160 ppm will be too low to support plant life and subsequently will cause massive starvation. They certainly take the position that at the current 400 ppm we are no where in danger. The idea to begin removing it from the atmosphere is fraught with unintended consequences.
Exactly my thoughts too.
Create a HEALTHY planet. That's what God did.
Unintended consequences 'n all that......
Plants will die.
great so they will monkey with it enough to cause needed plants to die
why not use plants?
Exactly. My first thought was "Yeah--this sure won't be abused at all /s"
Likely to involve chemical processes which use sufficient energy (which has to be generated largely via burning fossil fules) to in the WHOLE process create more CO2 than it ‘traps’.
Add inefficiencies like transport (more energy burned) to dispose of this new mass of waste material, and how it might become a separate eco-liability as well.
This is, quite literally, an existential threat to all life if carried out. Many others have already pointed that out in this thread.
Such a scheme will not, at first, have any perceptible effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This is because CO2 is constantly being put into the atmosphere by a number of processes. Normally, this CO2 would be extracted by the plants which convert it into the biomass that all life requires for survival, since *all* living things are made of biomolecules which were converted from CO2. But with the CO2 being sequestered in biologically unusable form, the plants cannot extract it from the air. The plants that require higher concentrations of CO2 will die off first, and the decay of their bodies returns some of that CO2 to the air. The effect of this is that even though dangerous amounts of CO2 have already been rendered bio-unavailable, the change in atmospheric CO2 concentration may not even be measurable. At some point, however, the decrease in planetary biomass will become noticeable. By the time this occurs, the damage to the biosphere is already extensive and severe; many species will have already gone extinct. The question then becomes, will we be able to return that bio-unavailable carbon to the atmosphere and stop further damage, assuming that our species manages to survive when the extinctions begin to happen?
The idea of artificially removing CO2 from the biosphere in the name of a hypothesis which has yet to be experimentally validated is stupid and foolhardy. I should point out here that the common practice of writing scientific papers detailing an observation and then tacking “because of global warming” into the discussion of possible causes of the observed phenomenon does not, in fact, constitute proof of “global warming.” But, so far, that is the only kind of “ proof” I have ever seen in the scientific literature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.