Reducing CO2 in the Atmosphere

The oil industry is investigating the sequestration of Co2 into old oil wells where the right kind of porous rocks exist this will possibly lead to a future means of disposal and may make old drilling's produce new oil.

Thank you Guest for your comment, Yes I'm aware of sequestration, and I believe that bacteria in the porous rocks are part of the process. I suppose the heart of the dicussion is should Co2 be part of a recycled loop? Bio mass is one such loop. I used an example which included ocean currents as a source of energy to complete the loop, as I believe that ocean currents will be the source for future energy. I see some comments on the rotation of the earth being affected, I would like to add to that, by saying that sea currents are a product of reactive forces, driven by wind and possible the moon, reactive in the sense that it puts the energy back into the system, which was neccesary to drive it. Like a fluid in a tanker, slopping back and forth, this my vary the tanker speed, but after a few cycles the averge speed remains the same.

Is sequestration really the solution or is it simply an analog of sweeping the dust under the carpet (discuss)?

Removing ALL the CO₂ from the atmosphere would kill all the plants, followed shortly by the animal life...

Removing the CO₂ would kill you faster than you think: it is the CO₂ in your blood that makes you breath. (it is the trigger to manage the breathing frequency: reducing it to zero makes you stop breathing.)

It is a known problem with ventilated patients: the CO₂ level in their blood is sometimes so low that they don't start breathing when the ventilation is stopped: handy to prevent them from counter breating while ventilated but not handy when ventilation needs to be build of.

I would like to start by saying I agree with your comment. My experiance in engineering is more practical than academic, the one thing I learnt was that there are two ways to do things, the right way and the easy way, and it is not long before the easy way becomes the right way, for a number of reasons. The price to pay is that knowledge and expertise suffer. Sequestration is a short term sulution, of possible ecconomic merit but, the pool of ideas may not be given the neccessary attension. I also thing that Hydrogen is part of the solution, but no as a gas? with all the present infrastucture in place I thing that a system that compliments it is cheaper than changing the whole system, example putting CO2 into a recycle loop that fits in with the present system? I'm thing of PVC's that are produced from compressing gasses, can hydrocarbons be produced in a simular manner?

There is a quite easy way to reduce the CO₂ level in the atmosphere: Plant a three.

OK it might sound silly or rude but it is true.

There are nice experimenets actually taking place that use algae in ponds to transform CO₂ into hydrocarbons.

All oil has a biological source and the hydrocarbons as produced by algae and plants are nice to use as a fuel (you can make your diesel run on olive oil)

Biodiesel is chemical altered oil from seeds (rape seed, sunflower,..) to reduce the influence of temperature on viscosity and to improve the flammability. But in fact a decent installation does not need the changes: fuel line heating and high pressure injectors solve the issues (marine diesels run on heavy oil that needs to be heated to 80°C before it even can be pumped to the injection system, the heat from the engine cooling system is used)

Biofuels have the advantage that they reduce more CO2 than that gets produced in the final energy cycle. Some of the absobed CO2 gets into the roots of the plant that remain in the ground.

I know that some farmers already started to grow rape seeds before it was allowed to be used as fuel for cars: they used it to fuel the tractors which are allowed to run on household fuel. Now the rape seeds field are exploding. (production is tenfolded in 2 years time)

Although slightly off topic , I would think that as engineers we would want to make sure we were "solving the right problem" before launching off into design solutions. Isn't anyone the least suspicious of the tabloid media inspired politically driven race for solutions to the CO2 "problem" - mostly culminating in taxes and fines. I have seen enough dissenting statements by high level scientists and meteorologists supposedly "signing on" to the man-made global warming issue and am amazed at the lack of scientific peer review (skewed data, flawed models i.e.: no account for rainfall in ANY of the apocolyptic predictors) on the underlying issues and wonder if the return (if any) is worth the effort. A consensus does not produce facts - and that is all we really have to go on here. Mob rule is a form of consensus, so is a room full of management types who agree the safety issues in a certain plant are not worth fixing...

I've learned to take a step back ever so often while in the midst of the design process and see if we are still heading in (hopefully) the right direction - and on occasion have found "group think" taking precedence over physics. I see all kinds of "flags" here - especially when any form of dissent is met immediately with personal attacks instead of a review of the data to verify accuracy.

Fact - the earth has been on a warming trend long before man could have had any impact, Fact - the models used to predict the ultimate destruction of all life on the planet due to CO2 are fundamentally flawed: there is no check and balance since they are highly variable in their predictions and driven by assumptions (exponential rise in CO2 -due solely to man - unrealistic estimate of "natural" prediction of CO2 - the far more deletorius impact of methane) and ignore significant aspects of the environment (rainfall). Even more telling is the assumption that CO2 levels drive the panets temperature and not the other way around! This was in fact the assumption during the 70's, spawning that dire prediction that we were undergoing "global cooling".

It would be the global joke of the century if those pointing at the (natural) increase in global temperatures and blaming it on man one day are compared to a planet full of shamans pointing to the east every morning at dawn and declaring that the day begin (consensus being that only if at least one of them did it the sun would continue to rise - if he didn't, well its too terrible to talk about - so "keep up that tithe".)

To my knowledge the peer review process on the reports on global warming only frightened the sceptic researchers.

It is the all time excuse: environmental changes have been recorded over the last millions of years, even with bigger changes in global temperature as we see today.

But people think that global warming is only a regional effect in Greenland and Australia. None is less true, real data checks in Belgium have showed that the temperature has jumped since 1988 with 0.9°C on average.

We used to have one hot summer / decenia (period of 5 day's above 30°C) on average. Since 2000 we have it every year and last year we had two.

This year april could just not reach 30°C and we had almost no sub zero temperatures this winter. on average we live 52° north.

The data check turned the sceptic climatologists into believers.

I'm sure that if each meteorological institute on earth would really dive into their data that much more would be known. The data check used 10 scientists for 3 years. (just the Belgian data)

The real problem is to complicated to explain, so we just get slapped with CO₂ levels. But in the Kyoto agreements CH₄ and other gasses are also taken into account. Rather quickly after Kyoto was agried, scientists yelled that it was not enough, the agreement was not good. this has been used by others just to disagree and do nothing. While on the Kyoto summit thare was an agreement to start with this and look what could be done to map the real problem.

My problem with sequestering CO₂ is the fact that we would also be sequestering O₂, a useful substance to all of us animals. If you really want to sequester CO₂, plant some trees, promote agriculture, bubble it through algae reactors, etc. Photosynthesis will not only tie up the C but it releases the O₂ for living things to breath.

I respectfully disagree. I even submit that the possibility exists that increasing CO2 may have beneficial impacts that outweigh the (as yet to be proven) negative. See link below for more on CO2:

It appears from the literature that peer review is frowned upon and any negative commentary is dismissed without any consideration.

There are plenty of references for this argument - after less than a minute of surfing I came up with several - this a representaive :

I am not saying that energy efficiency is a bad thing nor that we should strive to reduce harmful emissions when ever possible - however - the current lemming like race to rid the earth of all signs of man made anything is distressing - where is the reasoned dissent? the constant review verification that assumed theories are still relevant? Is the destruction of the worlds economy worth it?

Science has been short circuited by politicized partisanship. Even in your own evidence of global warming - it was warmer this year than last .. means nothing in a climactic sense. Even 3 years or 30 years we are missing the point - using the micro to predict the macro is a fools errand. Yet the media has latched upon it with absolutely no dissent from people who ought to know better. Here in Vermont we have had a relatively warm winter - while in Alaska the normally "temperate" Anchorage bowl experienced a bitterly cold winter. Which area got the news report? I rest my case.

I stated in the previous post that the models used are flawed - the letter cited in the reference above cites an attempt to use the models to "look back" in time with known data (rather than forward with assumptions) and predict what the (known) temperatures were - the result? errors in prediction as high as 20C.

Would you base one of your designs on a spreadsheet with that kind of error?

The Kyoto protocl describes the need for real measurable negative feedback to rise in CO2 levels. We fear their correlation with climate patterns. The direct correlation greenhouses have with actual climate data is now a terrorizing fear in most minds. Have we already pulled the trigger? Why arent we experiencing inflated temperature trends. Unfortunately, statictics prove anything you want them to and capitalist are still finding a way to profit from 'biofuels'... Atmospheric concentration of Greenhouse Gases keep increasing. It's sad the need for power and control completely oversees the need to take care of 'real problems.'

"Why arent we experiencing inflated temperature trends."

Because we just don't look. Spitting out the measurement data of 200 years, building up a system that enables to compare the actual precice data (0.1° one measurement /minute) with rough old data (approx 1° and one point / day or hour) is a job that can take years and work for several people.

For a lot of regions the data available is just not going back in time for more than 20 to 40 years, the some sattelite data is only available from the last 10 years as we decided to start looking into possible human influence.

A lot is just don't known and this is used by capitalist unions to prove their way of lining.

Other techniques of denial are the abuse of the religious part of civilisation: in general those religious communities are very conservative and try to be higkly influencive. Accepting global warming and the consequences that we will have to adapt our way of living is very difficult of those communities.

Why don't we see more inflating temperature trends: We are still in the latent phaze of our planet: we need to melt a lot of ice before the temperature can go up. In regions where the ice is gone the temperature jumps. This latent capacity is a very difficult one: how many heat will be absorbed? what will be freed again next winter? A lot is to be captured in very complex formulas and calulation methods and in many cases empirical: we will look at the reality and adapt the model to get the same results.

I don't know, but I suspect that hydrocarbon formation requires a lot of time under heat and pressure. It is much easier to plant a seed to grow carbohydrates and eat the resulting food to produce energy for your body or convert the food into fuel for vehicles. I know this is a lighthearted response to your serious question, but I encourage you to continue searching for new ideas and answers. Some people are already making diamonds from carbon in high temperature furnaces under pressure, so your idea is theoretically possible.

I would like to summerise the comments if I may. First of all the point is raised, is the removal of CO2 necesssary? is it a fools errand? I have had some experiance in methods, (heavy engineering manufacture and repairs),in one's designs when looking at the budgent one has to concider what will end up an asset and what will end up out the back on the spare block, what is practical and what is specialised, in nature if an animal becomes too specialised there is the possibilty of it becoming extinct.

So is removing CO2 a specialised exercise of no merit? I remember reading somewhere that inteligence is the abilty to think a problem through without resorting to trial and error. (I believe the truth is possible somwhere in between), In ecconomics trial and error could be concidered to be the same as lets wait and see? If we believe what we read the earth temperature was last this warm? when dinosaurses roamed the earth, and their size and design suggests that feeding was something of a smorgusboard, I raise the point to highlight our use of energy, and if the use of CO2 in a production process is meritorius.

Is CO2 in a production loop an asset? There is disagreement as to whether CO2 is a cause of global warming, attension is also been drawn to natures way of handling sequestration, and where it all go's is an open question. Is there a natural balance of equilibrium at work? also the point of interferring with that balance and it's effect on humans, as a necessary part of life. We are already effecting that balance by burning fossal fuels, I think that putting CO2 into a production loop is an asset not only as a source of energy, but also of giving future generation a choice, the choice of more or less on the pricipal, Lets wait and see, it gives then a tool to work with?

There is also the point that we should work with nature by planting trees etc, and reap the benifits, this may be a light hearted approach, but is there an other choice?is this easy way the RIGHT WAY?

I will try one more time and if not able to plant the seed of skepticism wander off looking for other windmills to tilt. Please take 15 minutes and scan these two sites:

First since CO2 is the topic take a look at that particular gas in relation to ALL the greenhouse gases (which interestingly did not just occur at the beginning of the industrial revolution)

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

and finally for perspective on the history of global climactic change please consider the following:

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263

IMHO we would be a lot better off using our skills as engineers and designers in coming up with ways to deal with the inevitable changes in climate rather than trying to stop something that has been occurring naturally since this planet began.

I've just read through the first document, and there is no indication of how much water vapour is needed to keep the planet at the "standard condition", although as it is nearly all natural I expect that it is essential for keeping enough heat in for plant & animal survival.

The amount of water vapour may have risen as the planet's surface has gradually been turned to desert - and while some of this is a natural occurance, much of the desertification of the last 2000years has been caused by human intervention.

Even if we assume that human effects are so far negligible, we still need certain conditions for our survival - CO₂ raising above 2% would cause ill effects; temperature rises lead to less food in tropical areas, and less water on the ground where it is needed for drinking.

Humans have got to the point of adjusting their environment to suit, rather than adapting to their environment, so keeping the entire system (our planet) in a condition which will suit our needs is essential.

To dream the impossible dream........ Time to step back for a reality check?

The original point of discussion, an outside the box idea, to extract CO2 from sea water not the atmosphere and H2O, and with the use of sea currents produce power to create hydrocarbon, this is an unanswerable question, but was intended to gauge the reality of the concept?

Yes I had read the sites refered to, I would like to refer you to the following, which supports much of what you believe. The great global warming swindle.

This can be found on the web site of Carl Wunsch, at MIT. I would also refer you to his remarks as to how he was mislead, in a effort to have him appear in the documentry. His papers on the subject are also interesting. If you down load the above, as its a video you will need to be on a plan that allows you down load the necessary megabytes.

Do I dream? yes I do, and maybe I can share my dreams with others, and who knows.......................

If you have now had time to view the recommended video, and are enjoying the nice warm feeling of being right (excuse the pun), I would like to suggest the following alternative view. This site is where the video is found, and reviews the thoughts of those who took part, and how they where misled and misrepresented.

I prefer to keep an open mind rather that being skeptical at this stage. I think having an alternative point of view is healthy, I appreciate your comments and input.

I'm beginning to wonder - I tried to locate your link, but got a code 404 - not found.

Have "the powers that be" removed it??

Goto web site:-

http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch

click on:- London channel 4 TV film" The great global warming swindle"

click on:- Discussion of some of the science and distortion in the swindle (Bill Butler)

Hope this is more successful. JD

Thanks - it needed capital "s"s in the link.

Removing carbon dioxide from the air by itself will not kill you. The CO2 in your blood actually comes from the oxidation of glucose for energy in your cells, so you will always produce it. It does not come from the air. However, if all the CO2 from the air is somehow permanently removed, then plants will no longer have a carbon source and will eventually perish, and when that happens.....

Excessively high O2 content in the air is also undesirable as it makes things more flammable. Picture this scenario: Dry, highly O2 enriched air. Woolen carpetted floor. Cotton clothing. Shuffling along the floor in nylon socks. Static buildup. Metal doorknob. Hand reaches for doorknob after building up a nice static charge and......

Yes Shamans todays Lesson is taken from Genesis.

In the begining the earth was fruitful and because of the earths natural cycles drought and famine occured, during times of plenty it was noted that some acted in a sinful way, by thinking and planting fruitful trees and tilling the ground instead of hunting and gathering, and partaking of the bounty. Shorely by their unnatural behaviour, they where all being punish, though they where brothers they rose up and smote one another, and for their sinful act they where all marked by having to plant trees and grow crops to suvive.

What do we learn from this lesson? shorely if we think about alternative fuel and sweat and toil we will all one day be punished and fossel fuels will be taken from us.These sharams are wrong to point, enjoy the bounty.

Nothing lasts forever.

I've read the bible, too and, while I don't neccessarily beleive in an "Ultimate Presence", have seen much good advice - like the seven years of plenty/7 of famine.

I also see the vast majority of companies looking to take what they can, as soon as possible, with no regard for the future - expecting to move into another field once the current one has been exploited to the full (otherwise known as "diversifying") - watch the oil companies buy up renewables once their income starts to decline.

CO2 it seem still hold some interest it peoples minds, feelings of concern or scepticism regarding its affects on the weather? Having read other peoples post in this discussion and others, I would like to make some observations. I personally thought that the earths tilt was the main cause, and this comes about by some natural cause referred to as the Milakovitch Hypothesis, which I believe is the gravitational influences from other masses in the universe. So I would like to approach this discussion from a different angle which goes something like this. The amount of kinetic energy contained within the earths system was created at the time it came into existence, with gravitational force and heat radiation as variables governed by proportion, a plus or minus value on the difference of the incoming and outgoing. We are then left with conversion of energy between gasses, fluids and solids, and if there is no other influence they move into a state of equilibrium. The weather is referred to as having multiple states of equilibrium. This then leads to the statement that past weather pattern have come about naturally without the help of mankind as indicated by proxy records, ice cores etc. This then begs the question, if nature can vary the atmosphere and weather then imitating what nature does naturally has no effect? So if one accepts the possibility that both the variables gravitational forces and heat are a cause of a change in the state of equilibrium, then one could put forward the following hypothesis: With moderate atmospheric temps we have a exchange of warm and cool air mixing between the north and southern hemisphere ensuring wide spread precipitation. As the air temperature rises around the equator it hold more moisture and when cooler air mixes with it precipitation occurs, and energy is dissipated, this stops or minimises the mixing of south and northern hemisphere air, thus leading to heavy storms and heavy precipitation at some latitude moving away from the equator. One could then speculate that as the equator temp rises the front between moist and cool air moves closer to the poles, leading to heavy cloud cover north and south of the heavy precipitation belt, and a new state of equilibrium. Any thoughts on that, I agree that its nothing more than speculation.