Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #541534 > unrolled thread

A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 16:40 -0600
    Re: A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 17:57 -0500
    A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 14:58 -0800
      Re: A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:06 -0500
    Re: A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-25 23:28 +0000
    Re: A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 15:47 -0800
      Re: A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 03:50 -0500
    Re: A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-26 00:31 +0000
      Re: A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 18:57 -0600
        Re: A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 20:16 -0800
          Re: A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-12-26 05:12 -0800
            Re: A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 08:17 -0600
              Re: A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-26 18:56 +0000
        Re: A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-26 06:33 +0000
          Re: A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 00:08 -0600
            Re: A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-25 06:57 +0000

#541534 — A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide

A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/a-not-so-modest-proposal-to-remove-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/


> "The sooner you start socking away part of your paycheck for
> retirement, the easier it is to hit your goals. If you wait until
> late in your career to start, your goal could be simply out of reach
> unless you take a second job or win the lottery." That axiom is a bit
> like how we've treated carbon emissions: when governments started
> negotiating to limit greenhouse gases in the early 1990s, the
> agreed-upon goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius was
> pretty doable. The continued rise of emissions since then has turned
> that into a tall task, while the 1.5 degree Celsius aspiration added
> to the recent Paris agreement is even taller.
>
> At this point, hitting those targets very likely requires more than
> just shifting away from fossil fuels. We’ll also need “negative
> emissions”—activities that absorb carbon dioxide from smokestacks or
> directly from the atmosphere—in order to squeeze under the line. It’s
> a simple concept but a very big challenge. Some nascent negative
> emission technologies exist, like capturing CO2 from smokestacks and
> pumping it into underground reservoirs. Other proposals, however,
> sound pretty wild and may not work—like dumping iron dust into the
> oceans to spur plankton growth.
>
> One tempting strategy is to imitate nature’s longterm carbon
> control—the weathering of fresh rock. When certain minerals react
> with CO2 in rainwater, they turn into different minerals, and the CO2
> turns into bicarbonate that ends up in groundwater, rivers, and
> ultimately the ocean.
>

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#541536

On 12/25/2015 05:40 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide
>> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/a-not-so-modest-proposal-to-remove-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
>>
>
>
>> "The sooner you start socking away part of your paycheck for
>> retirement, the easier it is to hit your goals. If you wait until
>> late in your career to start, your goal could be simply out of reach
>> unless you take a second job or win the lottery." That axiom is a bit
>> like how we've treated carbon emissions: when governments started
>> negotiating to limit greenhouse gases in the early 1990s, the
>> agreed-upon goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius was
>> pretty doable. The continued rise of emissions since then has turned
>> that into a tall task, while the 1.5 degree Celsius aspiration added
>> to the recent Paris agreement is even taller.
>>
>> At this point, hitting those targets very likely requires more than
>> just shifting away from fossil fuels. We’ll also need “negative
>> emissions”—activities that absorb carbon dioxide from smokestacks or
>> directly from the atmosphere—in order to squeeze under the line. It’s
>> a simple concept but a very big challenge. Some nascent negative
>> emission technologies exist, like capturing CO2 from smokestacks and
>> pumping it into underground reservoirs. Other proposals, however,
>> sound pretty wild and may not work—like dumping iron dust into the
>> oceans to spur plankton growth.
>>
>> One tempting strategy is to imitate nature’s longterm carbon
>> control—the weathering of fresh rock. When certain minerals react
>> with CO2 in rainwater, they turn into different minerals, and the CO2
>> turns into bicarbonate that ends up in groundwater, rivers, and
>> ultimately the ocean.

Here's a not so modest and not so stooopid proposal to remove CO2: Stop 
burning the rainforests!  Not only to trees take CO2 and (what silly 
greens now term "sequester") store it, but also give oxygen we all need 
to live. And you idiots are even WORSE than just cutting tree to use the 
wood (do you make fine furniture with it? No, if it's used for anything 
it's cement forms! and usually it's just burned. Well that is a really 
"green" idea. Not only stop trees from storing CO2 but also release into 
the air all the CO2 they've stored so far!

This is a perfect example of why all you Libs (which greens without 
exception are) can't pass a science course if their lives depended on it.



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541537

Plant trees.
Quit burning oil.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541683

On 12/25/2015 05:58 PM, john wrote:
> Plant trees.
> Quit burning oil.

Doesn't fly.

Tax oil, give money to Third World to say "we are sorry".
Just common sense.
-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541543

Sam Wormley wrote:

> A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide
>> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/a-not-so-modest-proposal-to-
remove-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

Not-so-modest!? A criminal stupidest thing to do. Plants and humans needs 
it, wormeley.

Forget Climate Change: Why Hasn't Obama Addressed the Massive 
"Unstoppable" Gas Leak in Cali? 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atvv55rsbA8

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541548

Its a trade off Have to much $$$$$$ and you get nothing out of the system.If they checked out the Money GOPers like they do people on SS USA would then be a country by and for the people.Get The Picture  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541622

On 12/25/2015 06:47 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> Its a trade off Have to much $$$$$$ and you get nothing out of the system.If they checked out the Money GOPers like they do people on SS USA would then be a country by and for the people.Get The Picture  TreBert
>
Obama and Wormley aren't GOPers, Herb. Empty your drool cup.

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541556

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide
>> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/a-not-so-modest-proposal-to-remove-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
> 
> 
>> "The sooner you start socking away part of your paycheck for
>> retirement, the easier it is to hit your goals. If you wait until
>> late in your career to start, your goal could be simply out of reach
>> unless you take a second job or win the lottery." That axiom is a bit
>> like how we've treated carbon emissions: when governments started
>> negotiating to limit greenhouse gases in the early 1990s, the
>> agreed-upon goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius was
>> pretty doable. The continued rise of emissions since then has turned
>> that into a tall task, while the 1.5 degree Celsius aspiration added
>> to the recent Paris agreement is even taller.
>>
>> At this point, hitting those targets very likely requires more than
>> just shifting away from fossil fuels. We?ll also need ?negative
>> emissions??activities that absorb carbon dioxide from smokestacks or
>> directly from the atmosphere?in order to squeeze under the line. It?s
>> a simple concept but a very big challenge. Some nascent negative
>> emission technologies exist, like capturing CO2 from smokestacks and
>> pumping it into underground reservoirs. Other proposals, however,
>> sound pretty wild and may not work?like dumping iron dust into the
>> oceans to spur plankton growth.
>>
>> One tempting strategy is to imitate nature?s longterm carbon
>> control?the weathering of fresh rock. When certain minerals react
>> with CO2 in rainwater, they turn into different minerals, and the CO2
>> turns into bicarbonate that ends up in groundwater, rivers, and
>> ultimately the ocean.
>>

Ever heard of photosynthesis, spamming shit head?

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541560

On 12/25/15 6:31 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Ever heard of photosynthesis, spamming shit head?


   Now, now, jimp, there you go again, you're outta control, your
   language is inappropriate, and your absolute contempt and total
   disgust are addressed in these Anger Management classes. You, jimp,
   need these services:
 > http://yellowpages.com/rancho-cucamonga-ca/anger-management-classes


   A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/a-not-so-modest-proposal-to-remove-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

 > "The sooner you start socking away part of your paycheck for
 > retirement, the easier it is to hit your goals. If you wait until
 > late in your career to start, your goal could be simply out of reach
 > unless you take a second job or win the lottery." That axiom is a bit
 > like how we've treated carbon emissions: when governments started
 > negotiating to limit greenhouse gases in the early 1990s, the
 > agreed-upon goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius was
 > pretty doable. The continued rise of emissions since then has turned
 > that into a tall task, while the 1.5 degree Celsius aspiration added
 > to the recent Paris agreement is even taller.
 >
 > At this point, hitting those targets very likely requires more than
 > just shifting away from fossil fuels. We’ll also need “negative
 > emissions”—activities that absorb carbon dioxide from smokestacks or
 > directly from the atmosphere—in order to squeeze under the line. It’s
 > a simple concept but a very big challenge. Some nascent negative
 > emission technologies exist, like capturing CO2 from smokestacks and
 > pumping it into underground reservoirs. Other proposals, however,
 > sound pretty wild and may not work—like dumping iron dust into the
 > oceans to spur plankton growth.
 >
 > One tempting strategy is to imitate nature’s longterm carbon
 > control—the weathering of fresh rock. When certain minerals react
 > with CO2 in rainwater, they turn into different minerals, and the CO2
 > turns into bicarbonate that ends up in groundwater, rivers, and
 > ultimately the ocean.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541589

On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 4:57:06 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 12/25/15 6:31 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > Ever heard of photosynthesis, spamming shit head?
> 
> 
>    No

  That explains a lot.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541647

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 5:17:00 AM UTC+1, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 4:57:06 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 12/25/15 6:31 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > > Ever heard of photosynthesis, spamming shit head?
> > 
> > 
> >    No
> 
>   That explains a lot.

That's right. As it appears he doesn't even want to hear 
photosynthesis or names/things like that.

Furthermore, singling out CO2 as the one culprit of the 
(alleged) AGW is rather silly in my opinion.

>   Mark L. Fergerson

regards
Angelo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541652

On 12/26/15 7:12 AM, Angelo wrote:
> Furthermore, singling out CO2 as the one culprit of the
> (alleged) AGW is rather silly in my opinion.


   Reading and Learning is good for you, Angelo. Evaluating
   and Explaining Climate Science
> http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541681

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/26/15 7:12 AM, Angelo wrote:
>> Furthermore, singling out CO2 as the one culprit of the
>> (alleged) AGW is rather silly in my opinion.
> 
> 
>   Reading and Learning is good for you, Angelo. Evaluating
>   and Explaining Climate Science
>> http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
 
Yet more doom and gloom from hysterical Chicken Littles. 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541650

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/25/15 6:31 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Ever heard of photosynthesis, spamming shit head?
> 
> 
>   Now, now, jimp, there you go again, you're outta control, your

Fuck off and die, spamming shit head.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547929

On 12/26/15 12:33 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Fuck off and die, spamming shit head.


   Now, now, jimp, there you go again, you're outta control, your
   language is inappropriate, and your absolute contempt and total
   disgust are addressed in these Anger Management classes. You, jimp,
   need these services:
 > http://yellowpages.com/rancho-cucamonga-ca/anger-management-classes


   A not-so-modest proposal to remove atmospheric carbon dioxide
 > 
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/a-not-so-modest-proposal-to-remove-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/

 > "The sooner you start socking away part of your paycheck for
 > retirement, the easier it is to hit your goals. If you wait until
 > late in your career to start, your goal could be simply out of reach
 > unless you take a second job or win the lottery." That axiom is a bit
 > like how we've treated carbon emissions: when governments started
 > negotiating to limit greenhouse gases in the early 1990s, the
 > agreed-upon goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius was
 > pretty doable. The continued rise of emissions since then has turned
 > that into a tall task, while the 1.5 degree Celsius aspiration added
 > to the recent Paris agreement is even taller.
 >
 > At this point, hitting those targets very likely requires more than
 > just shifting away from fossil fuels. We’ll also need “negative
 > emissions”—activities that absorb carbon dioxide from smokestacks or
 > directly from the atmosphere—in order to squeeze under the line. It’s
 > a simple concept but a very big challenge. Some nascent negative
 > emission technologies exist, like capturing CO2 from smokestacks and
 > pumping it into underground reservoirs. Other proposals, however,
 > sound pretty wild and may not work—like dumping iron dust into the
 > oceans to spur plankton growth.
 >
 > One tempting strategy is to imitate nature’s longterm carbon
 > control—the weathering of fresh rock. When certain minerals react
 > with CO2 in rainwater, they turn into different minerals, and the CO2
 > turns into bicarbonate that ends up in groundwater, rivers, and
 > ultimately the ocean.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#547949

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/26/15 12:33 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Fuck off and die, spamming shit head.
> 
> 
>   Now, now, jimp, there you go again, you're outta control, your

 Fuck off and die, copyright violating, cut and paste, spamming shit head.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web