Reduce CO2 emissions, drink flat soda
exactly... it's the hypocrisy... If they really believed in what they were doing they would walk or ride bikes to this conference...Kmarion wrote:
I think their point is .. if it were an issue, and you did believe it then why ____?AussieReaper wrote:
Spouting off that climate change is bullshit yet at the same time crying about the carbon footprint of the officials as they travel to Copenhagen from around the world makes you sound and look like a douche.
No offence.
and eat berries... and wipe their butts with leaves.
Nothing will come of this summit... lot of cool speeches and soundbites...
but India and China aren't going to have their economies slowed down or halted for this now debunked theory. And hopefully the US will
also not add job killing regulations and even more taxes on a bad economy.
It's too bad they don't focus on limiting pollution and actually let us build nuclear facilities and allow solar and wind powered systems to be implimented... instead they don't want anything in their backyard.
Love is the answer
I hope it snows at the Conference.
No snow just rain.......Harmor wrote:
I hope it snows at the Conference.
The forecast calls for light snow Saturday through to Wednesday, and likely beyond as well.Harmor wrote:
I hope it snows at the Conference.
Solution:
1. Take some limestone
2. Heat and separate into lime and CO2
3. Capture the CO2 as it is released
4. Dump lime into sea
5. ????
6. Profit
Seriously - it could work and improve the oceans as well.
Now where do we find 25 billion tons of limestone each year?
1. Take some limestone
2. Heat and separate into lime and CO2
3. Capture the CO2 as it is released
4. Dump lime into sea
5. ????
6. Profit
Seriously - it could work and improve the oceans as well.
Now where do we find 25 billion tons of limestone each year?
More energy (and hence Co2 production) would go into the process than would be offset.Bertster7 wrote:
Solution:
1. Take some limestone
2. Heat and separate into lime and CO2
3. Capture the CO2 as it is released
4. Dump lime into sea
5. ????
6. Profit
Seriously - it could work and improve the oceans as well.
Now where do we find 25 billion tons of limestone each year?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No it wouldn't. (you get about double the reduction compared to what you put in)JohnG@lt wrote:
More energy (and hence Co2 production) would go into the process than would be offset.Bertster7 wrote:
Solution:
1. Take some limestone
2. Heat and separate into lime and CO2
3. Capture the CO2 as it is released
4. Dump lime into sea
5. ????
6. Profit
Seriously - it could work and improve the oceans as well.
Now where do we find 25 billion tons of limestone each year?
But obviously it's completely impractical because of the cost.
We're talking about around 10 km3 of limestone every year. It's not feasible in the real world - but it could work.
Geo-engineers do not tout this as a solution - but done on a medium scale it could have a huge impact suplementing emission reductions - and on the plus side it would help with the oceans in general. Since there is too much carbon in the atmosphere currently, the oceans are overworked as carbon sinks - which means they are more acid than they should be. Dumping loads and loads of akaline in there each year can only help the PH balance.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-12-11 10:21:14)
And that, significantly, has nothing to do with global warming.Since there is too much carbon in the atmosphere currently, the oceans are overworked as carbon sinks - which means they are more acid than they should be. Dumping loads and loads of akaline in there each year can only help the PH balance.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
That's not the purpose of doing it.Spark wrote:
And that, significantly, has nothing to do with global warming.Since there is too much carbon in the atmosphere currently, the oceans are overworked as carbon sinks - which means they are more acid than they should be. Dumping loads and loads of akaline in there each year can only help the PH balance.
That's just an added bonus I was pointing out.
I know, I was probably a bit too indirect with that... what I meant was, with all the hubbub about supposed 'cooling' (which I've yet to see), any talk about ocean acidification is rebutted with the world isn't actually warming... and?Bertster7 wrote:
That's not the purpose of doing it.Spark wrote:
And that, significantly, has nothing to do with global warming.Since there is too much carbon in the atmosphere currently, the oceans are overworked as carbon sinks - which means they are more acid than they should be. Dumping loads and loads of akaline in there each year can only help the PH balance.
That's just an added bonus I was pointing out.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Are you on drugs?Bertster7 wrote:
No it wouldn't. (you get about double the reduction compared to what you put in)JohnG@lt wrote:
More energy (and hence Co2 production) would go into the process than would be offset.Bertster7 wrote:
Solution:
1. Take some limestone
2. Heat and separate into lime and CO2
3. Capture the CO2 as it is released
4. Dump lime into sea
5. ????
6. Profit
Seriously - it could work and improve the oceans as well.
Now where do we find 25 billion tons of limestone each year?
But obviously it's completely impractical because of the cost.
We're talking about around 10 km3 of limestone every year. It's not feasible in the real world - but it could work.
Geo-engineers do not tout this as a solution - but done on a medium scale it could have a huge impact suplementing emission reductions - and on the plus side it would help with the oceans in general. Since there is too much carbon in the atmosphere currently, the oceans are overworked as carbon sinks - which means they are more acid than they should be. Dumping loads and loads of akaline in there each year can only help the PH balance.
Taking CO2 locked up in rocks, releasing the CO2 from the rocks - using energy - and somehow storing that C02 elsewhere, then taking the lime and dumping it the sea to absorb the same amount of C02 you just released?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-12 04:22:27)
Fuck Israel
UmmmDilbert_X wrote:
Are you on drugs?Bertster7 wrote:
No it wouldn't. (you get about double the reduction compared to what you put in)JohnG@lt wrote:
More energy (and hence Co2 production) would go into the process than would be offset.
But obviously it's completely impractical because of the cost.
We're talking about around 10 km3 of limestone every year. It's not feasible in the real world - but it could work.
Geo-engineers do not tout this as a solution - but done on a medium scale it could have a huge impact suplementing emission reductions - and on the plus side it would help with the oceans in general. Since there is too much carbon in the atmosphere currently, the oceans are overworked as carbon sinks - which means they are more acid than they should be. Dumping loads and loads of akaline in there each year can only help the PH balance.
Taking CO2 locked up in rocks, releasing the CO2 from the rocks - using energy - and somehow storing that C02 elsewhere, then taking the lime and dumping it the sea to absorb the same amount of C02 you just released?
look up your chemsitry before calling people druggos.
Limestone - i.e. calcium carbonate - does not release CO2 in water. It releases bicarbonate (HCO3-) which is a very, very different thing. You won't get CO2 out of limestone unless you acidify the oceans a fuckload or if the oceans suddenly reached about a thousand degrees C, and adding limestone could get you some calcium hydroxide (could, can't remember the chem) which would raise ph anyway.
ps. we already dig up fuckloads of limestone anyway to make sodium carbonate.
Last edited by Spark (2009-12-12 04:33:35)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Yes I am.Dilbert_X wrote:
Are you on drugs?Bertster7 wrote:
No it wouldn't. (you get about double the reduction compared to what you put in)JohnG@lt wrote:
More energy (and hence Co2 production) would go into the process than would be offset.
But obviously it's completely impractical because of the cost.
We're talking about around 10 km3 of limestone every year. It's not feasible in the real world - but it could work.
Geo-engineers do not tout this as a solution - but done on a medium scale it could have a huge impact suplementing emission reductions - and on the plus side it would help with the oceans in general. Since there is too much carbon in the atmosphere currently, the oceans are overworked as carbon sinks - which means they are more acid than they should be. Dumping loads and loads of akaline in there each year can only help the PH balance.
Taking CO2 locked up in rocks, releasing the CO2 from the rocks - using energy - and somehow storing that C02 elsewhere, then taking the lime and dumping it the sea to absorb the same amount of C02 you just released?
Taking CO2 out of rocks and storing it is something that can be done, and has been done. It's nothing special or new.
The lime can then absorb around double the quantity of CO2 that was released when the limestone was converted to lime by increasing the oceans capacity to act as carbon sinks.
It's just the scale it would need to be done on makes it pretty much impossible. But still a worthwhile idea to go hand in hand with emissions reductions.
I not entirely sure what you mean here.Spark wrote:
I know, I was probably a bit too indirect with that... what I meant was, with all the hubbub about supposed 'cooling' (which I've yet to see), any talk about ocean acidification is rebutted with the world isn't actually warming... and?Bertster7 wrote:
That's not the purpose of doing it.Spark wrote:
And that, significantly, has nothing to do with global warming.
That's just an added bonus I was pointing out.
Could you clarify a bit?
As far as I'm concerned high atmospheric carbon levels are blamed for both warming and ocean acidification. Warming is unlikely to be such a linear trend as acidification is though.
what i mean is acidification has basically nothing to do with global warming per se despite what many deniers say.Bertster7 wrote:
I not entirely sure what you mean here.Spark wrote:
I know, I was probably a bit too indirect with that... what I meant was, with all the hubbub about supposed 'cooling' (which I've yet to see), any talk about ocean acidification is rebutted with the world isn't actually warming... and?Bertster7 wrote:
That's not the purpose of doing it.
That's just an added bonus I was pointing out.
Could you clarify a bit?
As far as I'm concerned high atmospheric carbon levels are blamed for both warming and ocean acidification. Warming is unlikely to be such a linear trend as acidification is though.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
GG. Climate negotiations have been suspended.
Yeah. That's rich.Zimmer wrote:
GG. Climate negotiations have been suspended.
China, India, and others have brought the talks to a halt because the developed nations won't cut more...when they will cut hardly anything at all.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34412503/ns … vironment/
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
We'll just have to see. This was going to happen. We're all hypocrites. Trying to make the "world a better place" but thinking that we can keep on doing the shit we usually do.
This isn't going to work. End of story. We might as well let the world die.
This isn't going to work. End of story. We might as well let the world die.
Keanu Reeves will save the planet!Zimmer wrote:
We'll just have to see. This was going to happen. We're all hypocrites. Trying to make the "world a better place" but thinking that we can keep on doing the shit we usually do.
This isn't going to work. End of story. We might as well let the world die.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's all about economics, china and india don't give a shit about the climate, look at what they did to their own nations. They want to cripple western industry by forcing unobtainable regulations on it while they can continue poisoning their own people.FEOS wrote:
Yeah. That's rich.Zimmer wrote:
GG. Climate negotiations have been suspended.
China, India, and others have brought the talks to a halt because the developed nations won't cut more...when they will cut hardly anything at all.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34412503/ns … vironment/
Yep. They give two shits about climate change. It's just a Machiavellian vehicle to guilt our liberal weaklings into destroying our society for them without them having to lift a finger.S.Lythberg wrote:
It's all about economics, china and india don't give a shit about the climate, look at what they did to their own nations. They want to cripple western industry by forcing unobtainable regulations on it while they can continue poisoning their own people.FEOS wrote:
Yeah. That's rich.Zimmer wrote:
GG. Climate negotiations have been suspended.
China, India, and others have brought the talks to a halt because the developed nations won't cut more...when they will cut hardly anything at all.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34412503/ns … vironment/
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-14 10:14:22)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
All I'll ever see all this shit as, is something to stop us being so reliant on Fossil fuels, someone needs to take the initiative with a real drive. Personally I think Nuclear + Hydrogen based economy is the way forward but people are too scared for something like that.
Or just wait for battery/capacitor innovations to really come into their own, and once they surpass the old Mark 1 fuel tank that's it for fossil fuels. Well as long as you have good ways of generating electricity, but even if you're using fossil fuels to generate that electricity it's still better than individual onboard energy generation (engine)
When it comes to 'developing' countries arguing about this shit with 'developed' ones. At the end of the day, Western society is still a massive factor far more wasteful. Of course they're gonna argue and bitch if someone tells them to cut down on their shit, especially big population countries like China and India who are aspiring a bounce (back) into the big time. Yeah it might be a secret economical ploy on their behalf, but at the end of the day most of their populations are already way more environmentally friendly than we could ever hope to be, whether they like it or not, lol
Or just wait for battery/capacitor innovations to really come into their own, and once they surpass the old Mark 1 fuel tank that's it for fossil fuels. Well as long as you have good ways of generating electricity, but even if you're using fossil fuels to generate that electricity it's still better than individual onboard energy generation (engine)
When it comes to 'developing' countries arguing about this shit with 'developed' ones. At the end of the day, Western society is still a massive factor far more wasteful. Of course they're gonna argue and bitch if someone tells them to cut down on their shit, especially big population countries like China and India who are aspiring a bounce (back) into the big time. Yeah it might be a secret economical ploy on their behalf, but at the end of the day most of their populations are already way more environmentally friendly than we could ever hope to be, whether they like it or not, lol
Anytime you give humans power, they will eventually abuse it. This totalitarian impulse that the author speaks of is no more a problem among alarmists than it is of corporations in their continual attempts at controlling the supply of their products or services.
For a good example of this, observe how corporations are hiding under the guise of fighting piracy while making intellectual property laws ever more strict.
It doesn't matter if your inspiration is to "save humanity" or just to make a buck. It all comes back to power and control.
He calls it totalitarian... I call it human... and inevitable.