On 14 November 2013 20:24, Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> *From:* firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:
> email@example.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 13, 2013 7:29 PM
> *To:* firstname.lastname@example.org
> *Subject:* Re: Global warming silliness
> On 14 November 2013 16:25, Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>
> And to have the depth and breadth of understanding of the climatic systems
> both atmospheric and oceanic to be able to say with a high degree of
> certainty that there won't be unintended consequences that emerge out of
> geo-engineering intervention (especially if it is difficult to reverse). I
> say this because as history shows we -- as a species (or culture perhaps)
> often fail to first understand before we act... there is quite a bit of
> >> Yes of course. It would be preferable to stabilise the climate in its
> current benign state, which has allowed us to develop agriculture and
> civilisation, by simply (!) removing CO2 from the air.
> That’s not removing it – it is recycling the energy carriers (the hydrogen
> and the carbon) into new hydrocarbons (requiring other systems and taking
> more by some factor energy to re-generate the hydrocarbon chains that are
> the liquid fuel. Certainly preferable to just burning more fossil carbon,
> but it is not removing carbon from the biosphere (it is returned as soon as
> the fuel is burnt).
"That's not removing it" is a non sequiteur in answer to me saying we
should remove it. I think we should, if possible, remove some of the CO2
from the atmosphere. Whether removing it is removing it I will leave it to
others to judge.
Were you perhaps responding to my next comment, which you've left buried
down below for some reason? The one where I say we should remove CO2 from
the air and combine it with water (and sunlight) to make petrol?
If so - yes, I realise that removing CO2 from the air and converting it to
petrol is recycling it. Obviously. I'm not a complete idiot. The point is
that doing that would be a short term solution that would make the economy
more carbon neutral and wouldn't require creating huge amounts of new
infrastructure. It isn't intended to be a universal panacea, merely a
suggestion - a highly hypothetical one at this moment - for how we can use
solar power to reduce the amount of stuff we're digging up and burning.
(Unless of course we can remove more CO2 from the air than we burn, in
which case we might even have "negative emissions". But this is all, if
you'll forgive the pun, a pipe dream at present).
> What if we discover that we need to sequester large numbers of gigatons of
> CO2 in a near term horizon?
We do. How would you suggest we go about it? At the moment we're mainly
using the oceans, which is bad news for anything that lives there.
> *(And preferably turning it plus water into petrol... but I am starting to
> sound like a stuck record.)*
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.