In reply to grok's message of Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:52:12 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
Assuming we even make it thru the next 100 years.
[snip]
If we don't then atmospheric Oxygen depletion will be the least of our worries.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Rick Monteverde wrote:
Jed wrote:
If you would like to argue that salt or CO2 in the wrong places in the
wrong amounts are not pollutants, let's see some reasons.
Hum, I assume the plan is to bury the NH3 (CO2)2. I wonder what happens
when it gets hot?
Wait a minute!
-
Hum, it's almost summer here in the great northwest, why am I wearing
this sweater? Oh yes, that's why they call it climate change.
and here in arizona , we hit 9 days of over 100 in a row sooner than
ever in recorded history.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:14 PM, thomas malloy
Rick Monteverde wrote:
Jed wrote:
If you would like to argue that salt or CO2 in the wrong places in the
wrong amounts are not pollutants, let's see some reasons.
Wait a minute!
- Anthropogenic contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere is warming earth's
climate (and we're at the
Rick Monteverde wrote:
Wait a minute!
- Anthropogenic contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere is warming earth's
climate (and we're at the tipping point now, etc.) If you say it's not,
show me some reasons.
In your version of a science forum, you can just make up pure scientifical
sounding
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:34 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture
That may be incorrect, but it is not nonsense. It is
supported by some data
Rick Monteverde wrote:
The assertion made by
Fink -- that high
CO2 levels do not affect human respiration therefore the
global warming hypothesis must be wrong -- is not supported
by data or theory. . . .
[Fink] may be incorrect, but it is not nonsense. It is supported by some
data and
levels would have some measurable
effect on climate.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:21 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture
Rick Monteverde wrote:
The assertion
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As the smoke cleared, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
mounted the barricade and roared out:
His actual assertion here seems to be that carbon capture is impractical and
demanding it will, in practical terms, block use of the fuels for which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As the smoke cleared, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com
mounted the barricade and roared out:
Balance? Science is not political. Reality and facts do NOT bend to
political bias.
Is that a troll?
- --
Build the North America-wide General
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As the smoke cleared, leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com
mounted the barricade and roared out:
Hum, it's almost summer here in the great northwest, why am I wearing
this sweater? Oh yes, that's why they call it climate change.
and here in arizona
Jed -
What Jeff said later. I was just having fun with your response, no harm
intended.
- Rick
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:first day
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:21 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture
Rick Monteverde wrote:
The assertion made by
Fink -- that high
CO2 levels do
Jeff Fink wrote:
Repeat after me 100 times: CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is not a
pollutant. CO2 is not a pollutant.
Of course it is a pollutant! That is an absurd assertion. Excessive
CO2 causes harm, and it is injected into the atmosphere by people,
therefore it is a pollutant.
Any
Jed sez:
...
We can burn it. It is possible to burn it and capture the CO2. But it will
probably not be cost-effective. Also, this reduces atmospheric oxygen which
is a growing problem.
Ok... time to ask a dumb question:
How does one burn CO2?
My mundane sense of logic would seem to suggest
OrionWorks wrote:
Jed sez:
...
We can burn it. It is possible to burn it and capture the CO2. But it will
probably not be cost-effective. Also, this reduces atmospheric oxygen which
is a growing problem.
Ok... time to ask a dumb question:
How does one burn CO2?
My mundane sense
OrionWorks wrote:
We can burn it. It is possible to burn it and capture the CO2. But it will
probably not be cost-effective. Also, this reduces atmospheric oxygen which
is a growing problem.
Ok... time to ask a dumb question:
How does one burn CO2?
That's not what we meant. You burn the
...@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:11 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture
My first day in the carbon-sequestering group went well. The technology is
proprietary so I cannot share it with this group. I can, however, share
some items. In the year 2020
Thanks Stephen, Jed,
That's what I kind-a thot, but wanted verification.
I knew at least enough from basic chemistry to know that molecules
like H2O and CO2 are at the bottom of their respective energy wells.
They would need an external energy source applied in order to break
the covalent bonds.
Jeff Fink wrote:
Funny how we are willing to build Nuclear plants for other
countries, but we are going to stick ourselves with windmills and
solar collectors.
This is completely wrong. The U.S. is poised to license and build the
largest number of nuclear power plants since the 1960s,
Precisely.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:23 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture
OrionWorks wrote:
Jed sez:
...
We can burn it. It is possible to burn
I must have heard over a hundred times in the past year that CO2 is a
pollutant. I thought we could use a little balance.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 9:13 AM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:first day
OrionWorks wrote:
Thanks Stephen, Jed,
That's what I kind-a thot, but wanted verification.
I knew at least enough from basic chemistry to know that molecules
like H2O and CO2 are at the bottom of their respective energy wells.
They would need an external energy source applied in order
]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 10:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture
Well, this is a science forum, so lets test that. And we will do so in
true science fashion, by attempting to DISprove our theory.
So, our theory is that co2 is NOT a pollutant.
To test
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture
Jeff Fink wrote:
Funny how we are willing to build Nuclear plants for other
countries, but we are going to stick ourselves with windmills and
solar
From Jeff and all:
We are poised, and poised, and poised, and 10 or 15 years from now we might
have one running. In the mean time all the ones we have are passed there
service life. As far as nuclear goes, the clock is has run out for America.
...which all seems to come back to Frank's
From Leak:
Balance? Science is not political. Reality and facts do NOT bend to
political bias.
Ideally, science should not be political. The process should not bend
to political bias.
But how many here believe that actually occurs?
I suspect the Vort Collective is all-too aware that the
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 12:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture
Balance? Science is not political. Reality and facts do NOT bend to
political bias.
Jeff Fink wrote:
I must have heard over a hundred times in the past year that CO2 is a
pollutant. I thought we could use a little balance.
You have probably often heard that 2+2=4. Claiming that it equals 5
does not provide balance. Your assertion that CO2 is not a pollutant
is wrong. Flat
Jeff Fink wrote:
If you put me in a room where CO2 is double the ambient, I won't even
notice.
Oh come now! This is not a serious argument. If I put you in a
Japanese hot spring bath for a half-hour you would probably find it
pleasant. If a million acres of Georgia land were inundated with
as well as a method of suicide, combined with carbon MONoxide for a
more nerve deadening effect, vis a vis the old, run the car in an
enclosed garage and go to sleep method.
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jeff Fink wrote:
If
Jed wrote:
If you would like to argue that salt or CO2 in the wrong places in the
wrong amounts are not pollutants, let's see some reasons.
Wait a minute!
- Anthropogenic contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere is warming earth's
climate (and we're at the tipping point now, etc.) If you say
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:12:45 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
We can burn it. It is possible to burn it and capture the CO2. But it
will probably not be cost-effective. Also, this reduces atmospheric
oxygen which is a growing problem.
[snip]
Reduction of atmospheric oxygen
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
If we continued to use fossil fuels as our energy source, at the current
rate of energy consumption, until all the oxygen in the atmosphere had been
used up (assuming none of it were recycled by nature), then it would take
4 years to use it up.
In the blink
My first day in the carbon-sequestering group went well. The technology
is proprietary so I cannot share it with this group. I can, however, share
some items. In the year 2020 all power plants will be required to
sequester their carbon emissions. They will be required to capture 90% of
Subject: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture
My first day in the carbon-sequestering group went well. The technology is
proprietary so I cannot share it with this group. I can, however, share
some items. In the year 2020 all power plants will be required to sequester
their carbon emissions
36 matches
Mail list logo
