Coby Beck wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14834318/
>>
>> Hansen may be a climate science expert, but this particular argument
>> hasn't much to do with climate science as such and is awfully weak. If
>> we start ten years later, we'll just have to reduce emissions more
>> steeply to get to the same end result. It won't be too late, rather
>> it'll require a greater effort to get to the same end goal.
>
> Unless you are considering the development of technology that actually
> removes CO2 from the air, this is incorrect because of how long CO2
> concentrations will remain elevated.
This touches on one of my favorite ideas: removing CO2 from the air.
We need to find some big flat place that gets a lot of sunlight (maybe
the Qattara Depression?), put a layer of something impermeable like clay
on the bottom, fill it up with boatloads of rubisco and chloroplasts and
stuff, put a transparent cover on it, pump CO2 and water in one end, get
oxygen and glucose out the other end. Bingo, problem solved, and you
get a useful product as a bonus.
Granted maybe it would be a little more complicated than that.
OK, I'll shut up and go back to that review I've been putting off.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
