Into the abyss: Deep-sixing carbon

That's all very well, but folks seem to think the ocean is a rubbish container, rather than a finely designed ecosystem.

The strange world of oceanic methane: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/48/01/article_3789_en.html - sorry, link no longer available

The seabed was long thought to be virtually devoid of life below the zone to which light is able to penetrate.

Over the past three decades, however, revelations about the extremely active anaerobic biosphere of the deep-sea abysses have revolutionised perceptions of the oceanic carbon cycle, in which methane plays the star role.

At the same time, this has raised questions about the impact of this powerful greenhouse gas on climate change.

So we should think carefully, very carefully, before an irreversible dumping of CO₂ is made into containers which may puncture or leak easily.

Kind Regards....

You have to read to the end of the article to find out why this is particularly nutty.

<The real costs lie in the capture of CO₂ and its transport to the deep ocean. "If we can drive those down," he notes, "then ocean storage might be an important option for reducing CO₂ emissions." >

Technologically possible? Yes. Economically. NO! And we haven't even done the environmental impact statement yet.

As CO2 levels rise in our atmosphere, we need in-depth research on what this means for plant life. We may find that elevating CO2 levels may have benefits not yet explored or understood.

[Prepared for the flaming by climatologists, hopefully using a carbon neutral source of flames ]

Another example of the lengths to which the CO2 hysterics will go to spend OUR money and raise prices to do something which can only be a temporary stopgap. The idea is as full of holes as the bag on the seabed would soon be.

Anyone who has studied the climates of the past 10,500 yrs. knows that warmer climates mean more rain/snow, therefore the deserts are less dry and smaller. The warmth also means that the frozen tundra retreats toward the Arctic and more plants and animals live in areas where they cannot now. Plants flourish on CO2, grow faster, bigger and produce more food, plus more oxygen for us.

The Vikings colonized Greenland and grew wheat there until the Little Ice Age of medieval times made it too cold. Greenland is warming, but you still can't grow wheat there. The whole Earth has been in a warming trend as the Little Ice Age ended gradually, but it is not as warm as when the Vikings settled Greenland, nor a warm as the 7,500 yrs after the end of the last big Ice Age 10,500 yrs ago.

Climate change is not a disaster, unless you stand still and don't change with it, thus making your own disaster. If sea levels rise we can walk away from the water, no one drowns. Losing buildings and money is not a disaster, losing lives is. Building where you are sure to be inundated by the sea is just stupid, not a disaster.

Since the change in climate started well before the industrial era it would continue even if all industry stopped, no cars were used, no planes and we lived like people of the 1700's. We exhale about 2.5 lbs of CO2 per person, we need CO2 in the air to regulate our breathing, it is not toxic, plants need it to live and make oxygen for us. CO2 is NOT a pollutant and needs no extraordinary controls. If we can make energy at equal cost in ways that do not produce CO2, that is fine. If we can be more efficient in using power at no increase in costs, to reduce the need for more energy use, that would be good too.

Sequestration schemes will not be effective in the long run and will run up costs and lower everyones standard of living.

Taganan,

It's not the warming, its the acceleration in warming that is unprecedented. It would be like driving in a car and suddenly your car went from 60 mph to 120 mph in one second. You would know something was wrong even if your car was capable of 120 mph because it certainly isn't capable of going 60-120mph in 1 second. Someone could show you all the information in the world on past occurances where your car went 120 mph, if they didn't explain the acceleration, they aren't addressing the real issue at all, they're just missing the point. That's where you're going wrong in your argument. You're not taking into account the acceleration in climate change the last 50 years. You talk about past climate cycles, but anyone who has looked at the climate cycles of the past million years know that in all that time there has never been anything CLOSE to an acceleration like the one we are observing today.

Do you have any idea how many scientists now agree with global warming? What"s more likely, that the vast majority of the scientists in the world are hysterically deluded regarding climate change, or that the handful of scientists that disagree are? Here are some official quotes on global warming from scientific societies, please notice that the first is the national organization of meteorologists:

• American Meteorological Society:
  
  "Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change." (February 2007)
  
• American Geophysical Union:
  
  "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)
  
• American Association for the Advancement of Science:
  
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)
  
• Geological Society of America:
  
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth's climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)
  
• American Chemical Society:
  
  "There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)

• U.S. National Academy of Sciences:
  
  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)

Regarding the story though.......

However, I do agree with you that the idea of piping CO2 liquefied under water into tubes is beyond absurd.

I don't disagree that it would be good to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without huge costs and changes in living standards. CO2 is the least of the problem. Particulates and other toxic gases are much worse.

I distrust the political group that pushes the panic to gain power, control and tax money. The scientists of the GW group have falsified data and used poor data. The way they treat those scientists who disagree is reminiscent of Stalinist treatment of dissidents.

How much of the warming is natural? It is not all man-made.

I too favor alternative fuels, not just because bio-fuels are CO2 neutral, but because they help make us less dependent on oil purchased from people who really don't like us.

And I stick to my argument that a warmer climate will not be a disaster, just a change that Man will live through.

Taganan,

It's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical. It was only this decade when the data became clear.

You Wrote: "The scientists of the GW group have falsified data and used poor data. The way they treat those scientists who disagree is reminiscent of Stalinist treatment of dissidents."

There is no "GW group". The scientists that confirm and support the theory of global warming come from every country. They are chemists, physicists, geologists, meteorologists, biologists, etc. They come in all races, genders, colors, and creeds. They are conservatives, liberals, and moderates. The only thing they have in common overall is that they have an advanced degree in some kind of scientific discipline.

"Stalinist treatment of dissidents" - Isn't this a bit dramatic? I mean, it's not like these people are rounded up and imprisoned or killed. Stalin murdered roughly 20 million people. The scientific community is just ignores the naysayers. The evidence is so overwhelming that engaging in debate on the subject no longer makes sense. It's like debating the world is flat, there is no point.

Roger

Roger-

What I call the GW group is a mindset, a way of thinking which a number of people hold in common. There are just as many advanced degrees on the other side of the question. The general attitude from GW supporters is to denigrate the opposition, say they are not real scientists, say they are stupid or insane, to deny them grants, jobs and publication because their opinions are worthless. Many GW supporters online have suggested the the "Deniers" should just "Shut up!", because there is no discussion. I said Stalin used these tactics on the opposition, I did not say that GW supporters rounded up, imprisoned or killed the "Deniers".

Then you reveal how closed your mind is on the subject, "... debate on the subject no longer makes sense. ... there is no point." The subject is far from settled and there is always a point to debate when there is disagreement about the facts.

You Wrote:"...there is always a point to debate when there is disagreement about the facts."

Really? There are some who believe that whites are superior to other races, is there a point to listening such opinions?

How about those who feel 911 didn't really happen, or was rigged by President Bush, should we really entertain such nonsense?

Some extremists believe women should be dressed from head to toe in robes and stripped of their rights? Should we engage in debate over that?

No, debate is not always necessary. Sometimes one side is just wrong.

You Wrote: "There are just as many advanced degrees on the other side of the question."

No, there isn't. It's not even close. I provided quotes from major scientific organizations with thousands of members. Those organizations have to have majority agreement before they make such a statement. I know of no organization of scientists that have disputed Global Warming. Perhaps you do?