Using Captured CO2 as Chemical Feedstock

Isn't methane a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140327111724.htm

The picture is showing relative chemical energies, not the process products?

Yes, its showing the relative chemical energy, guess why! Because all other products need additional energy to be created.

It shows the products too. Chemically you can not turn CO2 into gold.

So take it or leave it!

23 times more heat trapping effect

Why do they hate the British so much?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/world-brink-new-ice-age-6646041

Yes and in the day its warmer than in the night!

It gets colder so it can get warmer! Every day!

And the only thing the atmosphere does is it prevents the Earth from having extreme heating and cooling cycles. It heats and cools at the same time.

Retain heat in the atmosphere the same way it dissipates heat via convection from the ground to cool it.

No, more turbulant weather with more intense rain and snow storms with higher winds cools the surface temps.

While Global Weather is acquiring more intensity from multiple small sources, it still responds in the way it always has, with more intense and faster moving large scale weather patterns that bring it back towards equilibrium.

The momentum of these large scale recalibrations takes them past the equilibrium point so they take time measured in decades or centuries to stabilize.

It is how far the pendulum swings that you have to worry about in the human scale of time. We've given it a pretty big push in the last two centuries since modern industrialization came into existance.

Show me the big push. Remember after Katrina it was said there will be more frequent hurricanes to come. There was not more so it was said they become stronger.

Nothing of this is true. Nothing.

There is not equilibrium point in a chaotic system. In my human scale of time I am still more worried when crossing the street.

As you will see the Winter still gets cold and the summer gets hot. Do you really think that while temperature swings over 40 deg C in places it has a big impact if the highest measured temperature is 40 or 40.5 deg C? The night is as cold afterwards as before or colder or just 0.5 deg C warmer.

The statistic over temperature holds no meaningful information because climate information is:

the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region,as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine,cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

You would think that it is time to look at some wind maps, the global pressure system, cloud and humidity distribution plus sunshine hours and so on to assess our climate!

By looking at just the temperature we further a statistical misinterpretation of our real climate system.

And by the way: There is no global weather! There also is no global climate other than as a statistical interpretation of everything on Earth . Weather is local, climate zones are regional.

"You would think that it is time to look at some wind maps, the global pressure system, cloud and humidity distribution plus sunshine hours and so on to assess our climate!"

The best peek might be at the change in the IR signature of the Earths disk.

To assume no human impact on climate is to suggest that atmospheric composition and albedo have no effect on equilibrium temperature.

And of course it has been suggested that if there is error to be made; do it on the side of caution.

Well so good that I assume little to no impact on climate otherwise I would be offended.

Within a variation of 30-35% of Albedo effect how much of a man made effect is in it?

You are poring oil in the fire because here is some hard facts:

Earth's average surface temperature due to its albedo and the greenhouse effect is currently about 15 °C.

From here I see that we currently have average temperature of 14.7 Deg C.

How comes we are under the Greenhouse and Albedo limit?

Are you suggesting that Albedo and atmospheric composition have little effect on equilibrium temperature or that mankind has little effect on Albedo and atmospheric composition? Or perhaps both?

No I suggest to have our numbers straight before we make assumptions.

I given you the numbers that are out there. I have my idea what they mean. You should have yours.

"Nothing of this is true. Nothing."

Climate trolls rate right up there with flat earthers and birthers.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201509 ---- "

• The year-to-date temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.53°F (0.85°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for January-September in the 1880-2015 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2014 by 0.19°F (0.12°C).
• The year-to-date globally-averaged land surface temperature was also the highest for January-September in the 1880-2015 record at 2.32°F (1.29°C) above the 20th century average. This value surpassed the previous record of 2007 by 0.31°F (0.17°C).
• The year-to-date globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20thcentury average and the highest for January-September in the 1880-2015 record. This value surpassed the previous record of 2010 by +0.11°F (+0.06°C).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/full/nature03906.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/causes-of-sea-level-rise.html#.VjlMU7erSM8

-----------"Remember after Katrina it was said there will be more frequent hurricanes to come" ---------

The Gulf of Mexico is a very small part of a very big picture.

This is no longer a scientific debate - it is a political one.

It would be scientific if you added the absolute number of the global average temperature. And then have a look how this number changed over the years.

I said it in another thread the Global Average Temperature assumed to be the affect of Albedo and Greenhouse gasses is 15 degC.

Currently the temperature Global Average is said to be 14.7 Deg C.

The point that you have that the whole thing is a political debate is correct!

There is not proper science behind this.

---------------"It would be scientific if you added the absolute number of the global average temperature. And then have a look how this number changed over the years."--------------

My confidence is very high that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has a handle on that "absolute number."

• "The year-to-date temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.53°F (0.85°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest for January-September in the 1880-2015 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2014 by 0.19°F (0.12°C)." ---- http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201509

Here are some "absolute numbers" for you.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

My comment - It is probable that the Antarctic ice surface area increase that many of the paid and unpaid climate trolls refer to is due to the change in salinity as the surrounding waters are diluted by the MASSIVE input of fresh water as total Antarctic Ice Mass decreases. Which by the way actually moderates increasing atmospheric temperature because of the heats of fusion and vaporization of water.

Its moot to discuss this further with you. These statements are deviations that refer to an absolute temperature.

If they say the albedo and green house effect makes the temperature average on Earth 15 deg C and as I pointed out they currently report 14.7 deg C, then it means we are too cold to what it should be from their own calculations.

"Its moot to discuss this further with you." - I agree.

Atmospheric composition and Albedo are the two most significant variables in determining the average temperature of the biosphere given constant solar input. Mankind impacts both of those variables.

True we are not going unnoticed on this world. Its just a question of how much it is or how much we want it to be!

"average temperature of the biosphere" You are using terms indiscriminately and making assumptions "given constant solar input" it makes me cringe.

As it seems this is turning into a religious discussion I better stop now.

Stay well!

What were the average temperatures at the North and South Poles from 1880 to 1915? How about Africa from 1880 to 1995? Do you really trust Lord Greystoke and Dr Livingstone's data? I also imagine the data from USSR and China is somewhat suspect for much of the early and mid 20th century. I chose 1995 as that was the launch of satellites that were able to monitor surface temperature. There are far too many variables, both the ones we know of and those we have yet to discover, to make any rational prediction. For example can you take data from 1920 to 1950, crunch it and get today's patterns? Or the Michael Crichton test, take today's data from 1995 to present, run it backwards, and see if it matches the 20's to 40's.

And yes Science, if it indeed was ever present walked left the stage yrs ago, it is political. CARIBCOM the local group that influences all things here is asking for reimbursement from the first world, because of rising sea levels. My take is the sea level is rising because people are fatter and more of 'em, just like the water raises in a bathtub when you get in.

It's much better to give it to the trees and plants for their food.

Problem is that all the excess CO2 we, as humans, are pumping into the atmosphere today took millions of years to be absorbed into the earth, converted into the "refined" products that get burned today, in the relative blink of a geologic eye.

The absorption medium available today cannot possibly keep up with the CO2 being released into the atmosphere.

The outcome is TBD.

The short term implications can be seen in the impact on ocean fish production, melting glaciers and the shifting of plant and animal life as a result of rising climatic temperatures.

Plant more corn!

Re-Forestation!

Don't be dump about what CO2 does.

But then if it takes more energy to turn something around from its current state you have to think about where the energy comes from to do what you are doing.

Maybe burn more coal. Try solar. Are we really that desperate to get rid of CO2?

Is stop breathing recommended?

There is too much money behind this fantastic idea!

A lot of mined limestone (calcium carbonate) is kilned to drive off CO2 to produce quicklime and slaked lime (calcium hydroxide). Used in agriculture and eg caustic soda production. If you already have calcium hydroxide I don't see why you would turn it into calcium carbonate. Maybe there's enough demand for calcium carbonate to make sodium carbonate (soda ash) by the Solvay process.