Carbon Capture And Storage: Hope Or Hype In The Global Warming Debate?

I would say the the earth is getting warmer.What I do not believe is that man is the cause. Go back to the 1970's and the talk was the next ice age.

Carbon Capture And Storage would be a waste of money.Making our cars and homes more energy efficient would be a better use of money. cutting world population by a few billion would be even better.

is global wanking getting out of hand?

I think global warming MAY be the only thing keeping us out of the next ice age. Temperatures in the 6 to 7 centuries pre-industrial era were lower than previous centuries or since mid 19th century. The industrial era has turned the corner and put us back into an interim era. We may need to capture and store some CO2, but we don't need to throw us into an Ice Age. Stability is a difficult achievment when talking about climate. If we can oscillate around the point of ice age and interim, I would be satisfied. Runaway greenhouse is not to be desired, but neither is a new Ice age.

This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
Think.... bio-fuel=food shortages.
Is anyone looking at the long term possibilities of problems with this plan?

I have some Co2 captured and stored in my garage. It is called a "Fire Extinguisher", Some more is stored dissolved in liquid and it is called "Cola"

I'm sure Al Gore will be on the band wagon soon enough if he believes this to be the gospel.

Store all that carbon and we can all help kill off these terrible trees; and also our food crops.
The stupidity of the peasantry really helps the government to impose taxes using whatever dumb ideas they can dream up.

Jammer wrote:

I would say the the earth is getting warmer.What I do not believe is that man is the cause. Go back to the 1970's and the talk was the next ice age.
Carbon Capture And Storage would be a waste of money.Making our cars and homes more energy efficient would be a better use of money. cutting world population by a few billion would be even better.

While I on the other hand do think it likely that human activity is cause for a lot of events, I have to agree with you on that last part.
The quoted line from this report is misleading though; the UN can't throw people out of the research community, just out of the UN...but I find it unlikely that the "research community" would be able to agree unanimously on anything, so maybe that is just another UN department and not an actual community.

"cutting world population by a few billion would be even better."

Are you volunteering yourself, your family and Let's see, who else are you related to who would be the first to go?

With carbon dioxide capture we can have gasoline and or oil for the next 10,000 years. All we have to do is electrolyse water and combine the resulting hydrogen with the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide can be taken from the air or sea water. For instance see the book by George Olah et al "Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy" or the patent by Meyer Steinberg "Synthetic Carbonaceous Fuels and Feedstocks" April 1980 #4,197,421, or the patent by Petrovic et al September 2001 "Electrochemical Conversion of Hydrocarbons" #7,033,406, or the patent by Weir et al April 2006.

Dear William, where and how would i fined and locate those patents?
Sincerely, JB

William wrote:

With carbon dioxide capture we can have gasoline and or oil for the next 10,000 years. All we have to do is electrolyse water and combine the resulting hydrogen with the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide can be taken from the air or sea water. For instance see the book by George Olah et al "Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy" or the patent by Meyer Steinberg "Synthetic Carbonaceous Fuels and Feedstocks" April 1980 #4,197,421, or the patent by Petrovic et al September 2001 "Electrochemical Conversion of Hydrocarbons" #7,033,406, or the patent by Weir et al April 2006.

Dear William,
Where and How would i fined and locate those patents?

Sincerely, JB

With all this talk about green house gasses i think they should be doing something about it insted of chewing up tax dollars. Go to the cause like auto emmissions, Airplane emisions ETC. This is what they are telling us Mr. taxpayer. I remember when on any given cool night you could go outside and almost chocck on coal gas. Manufacturing was at its all time high. If we were to have a breakdown then would have been the time.But i don't have the nessary equipment to prove any thing. But my theory lies within the earth. While you mad scientist are following one anothers calculations they are missing the point because for one they don't want the Gen. public to know too much. VP Gore told us about it but didn't tell us how to correct it. I think they should let the people know just what they are up to

I don't see how carbon capture and storage is going to kill off all the trees and crops...if all we're capturing is the emissions of coal-fired power plants and the like. We'll all still be breathing and producing more carbon dioxide for the trees and crops (a good reason not to reduce the world population). Actually, I think this is one good reason why rising levels of CO2 emissions may not lead to a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere-more CO2 makes plants and trees grow faster, thus making them capable of absorbing more CO2. But I still think capturing and storing CO2 could be a very good thing for this reason: If, instead of storing CO2 indefinitely in some storage facility, we build a large tent-like structure over a farmer's field, we could increase the production of that field (hey, that's a good way to increase our production of both biofuels and food!)-if we can filter out the various toxins present in the emissions of coal power plants and the like. One final thought: Why all the attention on carbon dioxide when we have many hazardous substances such as carbon monoxide and mercury coming out of coal-fired power plants and other such polluting centers.

Taxed Out wrote:

I'm sure Al Gore will be on the band wagon soon enough if he believes this to be the gospel.

Poor Al Gore he just keeps trying to make everything right don't he? Lets see what he trys with this.

JBateka wrote:

Dear William,
Where and How would i fined and locate those patents?
Sincerely, JB

JB, go to www.uspto.gov and search for the patents by number under 'patents'.

Charles wrote:

<quoted text>
Poor Al Gore he just keeps trying to make everything right don't he? Lets see what he trys with this.

Bless his little ole Green heart...I'm sure he will capitalize on this if it so suits him.

Why would anyone want to sequester CO2? If you want to sequester carbon, CO2 is a lousy way to do it. Grow plants (kudzu anyone?), cook it into charcoal (using the heat for power generation or something), and sequester That.

"The Marshall Institute is pleased to release its latest book, Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. This volume consists of ten essays on global warming, covering the earth’s temperature history and disparities between what has been predicted about climate change and what has actually been observed. The chapters highlight substantial anomalies and new information not generally discussed in mainstream reports about climate science. For example, the oft-quoted statement that recent years are the warmest of the last millennium is now in serious doubt. Temperature changes observed through the atmosphere (not just at the surface) are clearly different than what has been projected to occur. And disparities between observed precipitation and the simulations of computer models can be off by several hundred percent.

Shattered Consensus should be required reading for any serious student of climate change. Edited and introduced by climatologist Patrick J. Michaels, Shattered Consensus demonstrates the remarkable disparities between so-called "consensus documents" on global warming, such as the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and climate reality.

Shattered Consensus will also shatter commonly held opinions about global warming and leave the reader with serious doubts about whether policies to "fight" climate change are warranted at all.

Contributors:

Sallie L. Baliunas, Robert C. Balling Jr., Randall S. Cerveny, John Christy, Robert E. Davis, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels, Eric S. Posmentier, Willie Soon.

"The beauty of science is that truth is determined by observation and not by consensus. The seemly endless press releases, commentary and resolutions claiming a consensus for the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis is scientifically meaningless. The consensus claims, however, must be answered. This book, Shattered Consensus, presents the scientific facts underlying many of the "consensus" claims in a series of chapters answers some of those claims. The Chapter by McKitrick on the false claims of the "Hockey Stick" will be a classic -- comparable to Irving Langmuir’s 1953 talk on Pathological Science." -- David Douglass, Professor of Physics, University of Rochester"

it is CO2 - NOT carbon. if there was "Carbon pollution", the air would be full of very fine black particles - SOOT is one name for it. get it right, or shut up.