Innovating out of global warming
 

NYT: In a Test of Capturing Carbon Dioxide, Perhaps a Way to Temper Global Warming

It's early yet for this approach, but there are more like it. I say, be optimistic: if we innovated to created this problem, we can innovate to fix it.

I think we can come up with better ideas than this but it is good that we are searching.

If we inject it deep enough underground, does that mean it could eventually make new coal and/or diamond mines?

Carbon dioxide, CO2. Just separate the oxygen, which has plenty of uses. That leaves the carbon to make diamonds, pencils for third world schools, or throw it back in the firebox to burn again.
Burned again carbon, what could be more righteous than that?

OK, I've provided the solution, you handle the implementation. :dunce:

Can anyone envision one of these gigantic CO2 stashes finding a path to the surface, and suffocating whole towns like the volcano gases have done?

What I can imagine is many global warmists opposing innovating our way out, because it doesn't fit the agenda.

Co2 is big business. This link is just one of many on Google. bb

ITER tokamak
 

Controlled fusion is the long term answer to clean, limitless energy. The ITER project, an international effort to produce a 500 megawatt tokamak (toroidal) fusion reactor, is scheduled to be completed by 2050. Great strides have been made in developing a functional magnetic containment field for the 100 million degrees C plasma which displays highly nonlinear flow characteristics and what could be more logical than bringing a small part of the Sun some 93 millions miles closer? I see a bright, although somewhat distant, future.

Why spending Bio of $$$$ on CO2 storage if we even aren't sure that CO2 is causing AGW? Wasted money that is better spent in Bangladesh if one really wants to save the World.

From The Weather Makers, Tim Flannery.

Drill two wells
 

These days, a 9000 foot onshore well is chump change, so why not drill two while they're at it? Set a straddle packer across a water zone, inject the CO2, and then draw the mix from the second well. Add a little syrup, instant Dr. Pepper.

Pumping CO2 is one of the techniques for extracting oil from wells once considered dry.

Meanwhile, CO2 sequestration is one of so many possible global warming solutions even provided in that entire Scientific American issue devoted totally to global warming and solutions. Step one starts with a summary: a 15 slice pie.

The experiements with CO2 sequestration are trivial. What is not yet known is how effective the technique may be. But then nay-sayers about global warming routinely attack innovation - since that is the definition of an anti-American. Injecting CO2 into wells or deeply into the ocean - all interesting ideas deemed worthy by those who first learn before they know.

Maybe we could just all follow ole Al "I invented the internet" Gore's example and own 4 houses and jet around the world in a private plane. Or use 22 times the average anual expenditure of energy in one month for one house. Hey that's the ticket. Follo ole Al's lead.

Secondary recovery
 

Pumping CO2 is one of the techniques for extracting oil from wells once considered dry.......TW

The gas used is mostly nitrogen, but you're correct in that injecting a formation, sometimes even with plain water, is a common technique and is called secondary recovery. And I wasn't seriously making light of the idea of CO2 injection, but I do think that extra measures should be taken to protect water formations. New casing, good cementing techniques, the good sense to P & A and redrill if the bond logs are poor, et cetera; particulary, and here's the real kicker with coal, if the gas has substantial hydrogen sulfide content. H2S is none other than a cast iron bitch to deal with.

The fact that opponents of taking action on global warming are now resorting to personal attacks against the messenger says a lot about the strength of their argument.

Unfortunately, it also says a lot about Al and how seriously he really takes the threat. I'm trying to figure out if this is-

a) another case where Dems want to shift the burden to others caring little for individual actions
b) hyperbole intended to get early action on a real long-term problem that poses little threat for many years
c) an easy way to control growth in a misguided attempt at a command economy
d) a recruiting effort for The Church of Al Gore Scientist

I have no idea what Gore's excuse is, and it disappoints me that he is a hypocrite, but that doesn't mean his message is wrong. Maybe he thinks he can make the largest impact on this problem by doing what he is doing as a politician, rather than making changes in his personal life that will have a relatively small impact on a global scale.

Your point about one persons impact is well taken, but it reminds me of listening to a good friend pontificate on the value of public transport while we drove his (Valdez class) Montero through backwoods PA.

We do need to get off fossil fuels for many reasons and I'm just as frustrated as global warmers about that.

Plus, one reason his energy bill is so large is that he pays extra for green energy.

The other is that he uses a silly number of kilowatts per month, but it's okay because he is part of the ruling class and really really cares.

How does how much energy Gore uses have anything to do with global warming? It is just a cheap shot that brings no significance to the argument.

Also, how can anyone be so sure that they are right about global warming when we don't have proof of any reason?

My family of four used about 6720 kWh last year.

Generating electricity is how most CO^2 is freed up.

You're right. "ole Al"'s the debbil. Speaking of the former Vice President, this just in:

In the pay of hostile foreign powers, a turncoat former government official turned foreign agent violates US House rules, breaches House security. Conservatively erring on the side of caution, Georgia Republican Lynn Westmoreland warned “He could have been here talking about chipmunks”.

Thank goodness *someone’s* looking out for the good of the country!

It demonstrates how destructive we all will be if we stifle innovation - as an MBA like George Jr advocates.

Why are Japanese and German autos so much in demand all over the world? Because they innovated - installed technologies that create less pollution - are therefore more reliable, cost less to build, cost less to operate, and create more jobs - for them. Where did those innovations come from? Mostly from America in companies that insisted cars don't pollute and therefore stifled American innovations.

Why does GM not have overhead cams, 70 Hp/liter engines, and hybrids? Those innovations that make less pollution, consume less energy, make people more productive, even eliminate the $130 tune up every three months ... all resulted because those American innovations, instead, appeared in foreign products.

Why in foreign products? Same mentality that stifled American innovation in the 1970s again wants to stifle innovation in 2000s. Same people who insisted auto pollution control was not possible now deny global warming. At what point are we condemned to relive a history we did not learn from?

What does a 'global warming does not exist' mentality have in common with those 1970 auto execs? Both insisted that environmental solutions would destroy jobs, destroy the economy, and have us all driving Pintos. Therefore others now have our jobs and stronger industries in their economies. At what point do those who 'deny global warming' stop stifling innovation to destroy American jobs, strength, wealth, and health?

We are supposed to learn from history. History says nations who confront global warming and who therefore innovate will be world leaders - richer, wealthier, healthier, dominant, better respected, with more jobs, and with royalty incomes from those other nations who did not innovate.

Al Gores household today is what we all will be doing twenty years from now if we deny - stifle innovation. Why does Al Gore's household consume so much power? Where are the innovations to eliminate the problem? Well, considering how many Americans are now thinking like Rush Limbaugh, just more products we will have to buy from foreigners. Just more industries that must collapse like GM and big steel only because they were anti-Americans; feared to innovate.

Bull shit. The President wana-bee should not be telling me to clean up my act as he jets around the country from one of his four houses to the next. If he uses the same amount of energy in one month (green house gas emission) as I use in a year, he is a hypocrite and needs to STFU. Pretty simple to me.

If the cheap shot doesn't appear to be working, by all means, go ahead and take another one, Mercenary.

IOW TheMercenary hates innovation; loves the status quo. No way around that post. TheMercenary hates innovation - that which characterizes and defines a patriotic American. So what does that define TheMercenary as?

He's got a point. Same with Prince Charles coming to Philly then New York, with his whole gang, to accept that award for his environmental goodness. while in the process, caused enough extra energy use by the police and people sitting in traffic jams, to start a war over.

Acceptance of the message has a lot to do with the messenger.... like it or not, that's the way the world works. It will be accepted or rejected on trust, faith in the messenger, because people won't dig for the basis of the message. And in this case, the more they dig the more confusing it gets.

tw, going off on real Americans, true patriots, that 70hp per liter horseshit, MBAs, the lying prez, yada, yada, yada, doesn't win friends and influence people either. :2cents:

What are you? Like 20 years old? How would you draw such conclusions?

The truth behind the messengers double standard are blantent and difficult to accept. I understand your desire to stick your head in the sand as the message is important. But you need to take a closer look at the man behind the curtain.;)

Gore is hardly the only messenger on global warming. It him and how many thousands of scientists?

I agree, but funny how it took a political loser and a budget slide show to get the word out to the Congress. :3_eyes:

I don't know how many, what's 50% of all of them?

The problem is the when you say Global Warming, you are not just talking about global warming. You are inferring a shitload of other things that may or may not be true. When somebody says they agree with you on Global Warming, then they are saying they buy into everything you believe about it.

That's just stupid. To put my opinion at the mercy of someone else's whims? I refuse to buy into that crap. I have my own opinions and no amount of bullying, insulting or accusations of being anti-American from anyone, is going to make me swallow the whole Global Warming the sky is falling package.

If Gore had his way, Global Warming would be right up there with, "Homeland Security" or "It's For The Children", so no questions, do as your told.

You want my help, then break it down. Tell why it's bad? Tell me how bad it will get? Tell me why It's my fault? Tell me what I can do and how it will change anything?
I don't want to hear if I sacrifice then something good may happen somewhere, someday.
Stick your fairy tales. I want facts and you ain't got 'em.:headshake

All very fair questions. And Gore's personal use of energy has no bearing whatsoever on the answers. You don't like a message, question the message. Don't take cheap shots at the messenger. (directed at Mercenary, not you.)

Come on that is crap and you know it. Sort of like a child molesting preacher telling you to not hurt the children. Or the pandering TV preacher telling me to be pure and having sexual relations with men and smoking crack cocaine on the side. Or how about the head of the ACLU recently arrested for child porn. Or the Congressman who takes kickbacks from a lobbiest and tells everyone to clean up thier act and not bend to influence by lobbiests. Or how about someone telling you to reduce your energy consumption all the burning up fuels that are 20 times the average user, and that would be Gore. I call bs on that. Don't stand up in front of me and tell me to cut down on my consumption when you jet around the country. If you want to ignore the hipocrites go ahead, I will attack the messenger if you preach one thing to me and do another.

What's happening is they are starting the campaign to win people over with big name messengers. Do you think Gore actually knows jack shit about this, or is buying whatever his advisors say? They(advisors) may or may not be right, but this tactic makes me only more skeptical of the message.
The front man should be at least credible in his support of his message if they want people to buy it on the strength of his say so. Like it or not, unfortunately, this is the way the majority will choose sides.
At that point any silly ass piece of legislation to come along that's tagged "for Global Warming", will be politically unhealthy to oppose......and that's a damn shame.:(

And most likely they are going to try to attach some gun control legislation to it.:rolleyes:

Well Bruce, we have had this discussion before and I stupidly believed that I had made some impact on your opinions - at least let you open your mind to the possibility that we might be right. I cited several web sites that covered global warming in a reasonable manner, and you seemed to be satisfied then, but now you have reverted to your old beliefs.

As I said once before, we cannot design an experiment that will "prove" man's influence on global warming. We know that man has increased greenhouse emissions, and we know from statistical analysis and records going back thousands of years (eg. ice core samples), that while the current warming period is not unheard of, the *speed* at which it is taking effect is what alarms us. The fact that there have been other warm periods in Earth's history, and that we are not yet at the highest temperature, does not mean that the current global warming is not man induced. I am not necessarily endorsing Al Gore, because he has a political agenda, but this does not mean that he is wrong.

And the figure is more like 90% of us believe that it is man induced, not 50%.

Not true, my beliefs were formed partially by the information you provided and have not changed.
That said, the majority of the population will never see those websites or would bother to read them if they were aware they existed. Don't forget there's a large segment that doesn't know a PC from a microwave.

My point was the majority will be convinced of the severity, or lack thereof, of Global Warming by people like Gore. If they believe him, or not, will outweigh all the studies in the world. At that point they will accept or reject, any and every, thing they're told.

Like it or not, the messenger is very important to the conscription of adherents.:2cents:

So you are saying that if you don't like the messenger, their message is automatically false? That just because the preacher does little boys, then you should too?

Bruce is right that Gore is less effective as a messenger because of his hypocrisy. His hypocrisy is distracting from his message. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of his message.

Alexander's phalanxes and cavalry followed him because he was leading the charge. It's easier to give credibility to those that practice what they preach.

Gannett

Heh. I give you a solid maybe on this one.

Credibility is in the eye of the beholder, every time. There are those that believe because of what they see. There are those that believe because of what they hear. And there are those that believe because of who is doing or saying.

In fact, every one of us has all these traits, each of us uses these strategies to believe. But I believe that loud repetition has a dominant influence on what people believe, and, unfortunately, loudness and repetition have no need to be true to be effective.

. . . OK, So we are warming
 

My very serious doubt is . . . WHY!?
When one volcanic eruption releases a larger dose of "greenhouse gases" than the human race has generated during its entire existence, it should be obvious that our effect is minimal.

I understand Mars is warming as well. Isn't it amazing how much effect a few little solar powered rovers are having on such a big planet.

My own take on this is that a bunch of eco-terrorist Luddites are trying to pull the developed nations back to the level of the undeveloped nations.

Jerry

I've heard this "fact" often in discussion about global warming but never seen a citation to it. Often this "one volcanic eruption" is attributed to Mt. Pinitubo in the Philippines. I'd really like to see a citation.

I went looking for one, and the only thing I could find (through a link from Wikipedia) is this U.S. Geological Survey webpage which contradicts what you say.

Ivan Pavlov and I agree with your last statement to a degree. However, if I ask someone to sacrifice comforts, I wouldn't expect results whilst eating an ice cream cone. Nor would I feel compelled to confess to a priest that has a thing for little boys' backsides. Alternatively, if someone hums a few bars, I'm more likely to chime in.

Where does President George W Bush's credibility as a Commander in Chief come from, then?

I don't think we disagree much, actually. I believe that when presented with another piece of evidence, such as Gore's cause celebre, it is evaluated in the context of what is already known or decided about the subject. I then add it to the collected information about the subject and if the credibility of the speaker is high, it makes a bigger change in my belief in the subject. I do not say that it makes me believe it more. Because a credible reporter might bring to my attention a piece of evidence that is contrary to my understanding of a subject. The same math applies--it would make a larger impact on my belief in the subject. But the impact would be in the direction of the credible report.

In my experience, there are a very few subjects about which I feel I am an expert. So I try to remain open to new information about everything I know. For pete's sake, that's how I got to know things in the first place. I took reports from credible sources and added them to my own experience. Rinse and repeat.

I apply this successful method to the topic of this thread as well. But I consider the content of the message far more valid than the square footage of the home of the messenger. Seriously. What in the world does that have to do with the questions "Are we warming? Why? How? How fast? Is it important?" The size of his house is i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t. It has no contribution to the facts of the matter OR to the credibility of the messenger. YMMV.

Another hypocrital celeb joins the circuit as someone who should practice what he preaches. Hey John, nice plane collection you got there at the house.... :rolleyes:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbi...ent/article.do

Hey mercy, remind me which one is you again, willya?

Neither, but I love the pic.;)

Impressive picture:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n.../33983331.html

Companion article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ng-arctic.html

Don't for get the 20th century was the quietest century for volcanic activity .... ever.
If you want the source of that dig through that Inconvenient Truth thread.

That would be lovely if that's the way public opinion worked ... but it ain't.
You know better than to claim the messenger has no effect on the acceptance of the message by the public at large.

I understand you're trying to convince themercenary it should have no bearing on his decision, but the statement is far to broad to apply to the real world.

Yea, that's pretty futile.

I think the problem is that barring complete knowlege of the subject on our part, we want a messenger who has credibility. We know Gore has no scientific credentials. He has probably taken fewer high level science/mathematics classes than the average Cellar poster. So what does his argument rest on? Personal credibility? He doesn't have that. His lifestyle says the environment is secondary to his personal and political convenience.

I've been really really wrong in the past and don't want to be a roadblock if GW is a serious/fixable problem but putting too many eggs in the Gore basket won't help the cause.

So what does that mean? If it was quieter than usual, then it means that if it goes back to "normal" then global warming will become worse and more accelerated.

Then again, if the studies in the U.S. Geological Survey link are correct, it will likely be a drop in the bucket compared to our CO2 production. We are currently producing 150 times the CO2 that the volcanoes are producing, and China hasn't fully ramped up its CO2 production. Seems silly to be worried about the negligible role of volcanoes when the world's largest country is about to send human CO2 productions through the roof.

We really need a whole bunch of volcano's to go off or a good nuclear winter. That would reverse things.

Minnesota was thinking of giving Gore an honorary degree; I don't think it happened though.

The fault in your reasoning is what I've objected to from the getgo. There is more to global warming than co2, way more.
A good volcano fart puts a lot more in the air than co2. Along with a shitload of other things, the dirt... oh, excuse me, particulate matter is in a word, shade. With a big one, a lot of shade for more than a year. It's all a very complicated balance, a lot of which we don't understand yet.

I predict todays Supreme Court decision is going to cause inflation undreamed of in the past. I sure hope I'm wrong on that one, and would be greatly relieved if someone would repudiate it.

Great, have a big ceremony. Just the pollution from the reporters covering it would set things back a year.

You may be interpreting my posts as a denial of the existence of the global warming problem. On the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming and the problem requires immediate and possibly drastic action. However, your insistance that a champion of a cause need have no credibility, or that this individual not personally participate, is ludicrous. Luckily, there are other options in that I wouldn't follow Mr. Gore to the feed store, much less give his solutions (which aren't his to begin with) a second glance. I'll not sweat while he eats ice cream, and mon ami, that is that.