An engineering solution to climate change?

[JohnRoberts]

Apologies, I didn't read the article - just writing in response to the heading and some of the comments.

The notion of climate engineering has always scared me (at least the concept of injecting some sort of matter into the atmosphere for the purpose of global effect). Oh the hubris. I suppose you could argue: volcanoes do it, why can't we?

There are ways to use carbon dioxide extracted from the atmosphere (if you can get it without breaking the "energy" bank). I think it was perhaps George Olah that first championed the idea of converting atmospheric carbon dioxide to a fuel? He favoured what he called the methanol economy. Both methanol (MeOH) (a fuel and chemical intermediate) and dimethyl ether (DME) (a diesel substitute and chemical intermediate) can be produced from a mixture of carbon dioxide and hydrogen - a lot of hydrogen (CO2 + 3H2 = H2O + CH3OH). Both MeOH and DME are considered hydrogen carrier molecules. Electrolysis of water with nuclear power is probably an option for generating the H2  (if you want to avoid thermochemically converting carbonaceous material to generate the H2). I suppose you could equally argue that the above process (hydrogenation of CO2) is just as much a way of making water (molar equivalent produced). (Aside: In a real world process plant the water would be recycled for further electrolysis).

George Olah is a Nobel prize winner. Not sure if I have mentioned this before, but I recommend reading at least the first chapter of his book "The Methanol Economy". It gives an excellent high level overview of the earth's energy budget (for man to exploit). Puts things in perspective.

You could also use algae to remove CO2 - oils, vitamins and biomass are all useful products that could be generated. This sounds like a great idea until you look at the footprint required for an algae plant to remove the carbon dioxide from even a relatively small point source.

In any process that extracts CO2 for use, there is typically a huge parasitic energy cost associated with this extraction. It is difficult (energy intensive) enough at high concentrations of CO2 but becomes even more difficult at very low (ppm) levels of CO2. There are pushes for major technology development in this field (e.g. membrane technology). The energy cost of CO2 removal has been one of the down sides to power plants proposing sequestration.

The notion that there is some ideal level of atmospheric carbon dioxide would seem to be, in my humble opinion, absolute poppycock. I guess you could make a decent argument for a preferred range (we have limited knowledge or memory of the alternatives so this is challenging as well). Admittedly, the Holocene has largely been very pleasant for man, so from an anthropocentric position low to mid hundreds seems pretty nice. I do like plants and trees though (it is worth taking a look at carbon dioxide levels over geological time frames if you haven't yet).

I hope we don't see the end of the Holocene any time soon. I believe there is a push to bring in a new era, the "Anthropocene". Therein lies the rub, separating the man's influence from natural variation. Tough job. As a scientist I would be fearfully avoiding words like "certainty" and even "likelihood" when discussing model results. That is just me though.

Accurately (whatever that means) modelling a coupled, non-linear chaotic system seems to be a fool's errand. However, I've (mostly) preferred empirical data to simulations. Even hindcasting seems problematic enough (beyond relatively short-term tuning).

If a computer was developed to understand the above-mentioned  system, then I might be more worried about the computer than anything else!

Sorry - got a bit off track towards the end.

Yup  it almost sounds like you're describing photosynthesis... take CO2 and add energy (sunlight) and we can make carbohydrates and other more useful compounds (like eventually petroleum). .

Thanks for the thoughtful observations...

JR

 

[boji]

"

LOL
The weather man doesn't help"

Yeah man no doubt, circumstance has biased the **** outta me lately ^.^

 

[Phrazemaster]

Absolutely not................
You cannot engineer out a problem that exists only in the brains of the anthropomorphic propergandists.
Climate change is a natural cycle of warming and cooling, it is NOT manmade and CO2 is not a problem !
Remove CO2 and your crops and oceans die = starvation .
This huge lie from corperate  spin bullsh*te gets me really knarley.
Mr Gore is a total croney capatalist scammer, as well as many more bandwagon misinforming money grabbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMttEhtgpk

The worlds population should really be worrying about banking and internal government coruption, far more than the climate change unicorn, that truth will wake all citizens from the long sheeple sleep.

You're not wrong, although I do think we are contributing somewhat at least to global warming.

One of the biggest contributors to green house is methane, caused by cows. Not saying we all need to become vegetarians to fix the planet, but we are a virus, like Mr. Smith says in The Matrix. We don't seem to have the sense not to defecate where we eat, and we consume all resources until they are gone. Then look around like "what happened here? Not MY fault!"

It's time to have a larger outlook than "I'm American" or "I'm Japanese." We need to enlarge our viewpoint to see ourselves as planetary citizens of Mother Earth. And ultimately, universal citizens of the Milky Way galaxy.

That requires a different kind of thinking. Yes, we need to look seriously at population and birth rates. The time of "going forth and multiplying" now needs to be left to the mathematicians and not the masses. We cannot sustain a population that grows geometrically. It's basic physics. We can't support all these people. Without offending anyone, it's time to talk about how to limit population growth in kind ways, rather than s2udio's conspiracy concepts that we are being killed off (hint: we are. But there's a kinder way to go about it...).

As long as we have the systems in place that we have in place, and refuse to change anything, we will destroy ourselves. We can only hope we can be smarter than we've been. And going to other planets as a way to "fix" the overpopulation problem will simply spread our ill-conceived notions to another planet, and we'll end up in the same place again unless we seriously look at ourselves here.

Peace

Mike

 

[Matador]

I really wish I could get one of my colleagues from school (we were in doctoral programs at the same time, although in different schools)  at GroupDIY, as someone who does this for a living.

To deny the effects of CO2 is to deny gravity, the wetness of water, and voltage is current times resistance.  The consensus is overwhelming at this point.

 

[ruffrecords]

To deny the effects of CO2 is to deny gravity, the wetness of water, and voltage is current times resistance.  The consensus is overwhelming at this point.

Science is about fact, not consensus. At one time the consensus was the sun revolved around the earth.

CO2 does have an effect but it is small in comparison to water vapour.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Phrazemaster]

Science is about fact, not consensus. At one time the consensus was the sun revolved around the earth.

CO2 does have an effect but it is small in comparison to water vapour.

Cheers

Ian

That’s a little bit terrifying actually. So the hotter it gets, the more the oceans boil making more water vapor, making it hotter, which boils off more water...

 

[ruffrecords]

That’s a little bit terrifying actually. So the hotter it gets, the more the oceans boil making more water vapor, making it hotter, which boils off more water...

No, the hotter it gets the more water evaporates and the more clouds form ,which reflect sunlight and so cool things down. That is the basic mechanism. Maybe you haven't noticed it gets cooler when it's cloudy?

Cheers

Ian

 

[Matador]

Science is about fact, not consensus. At one time the consensus was the sun revolved around the earth.

CO2 does have an effect but it is small in comparison to water vapour.

Cheers

Ian

Science is consensus of observation and experimental results not consensus of opinion.  We arrive at what we know as fact only after this has taken place.  To say the effects of CO2 are solely because scientists agreed to agreed is distorting what is actually happening in research.

People thought the sun revolved around the earth before there were instruments and mathmatics to explain otherwise, and was mostly based on religious beliefs that it couldn't be otherwise.

That isn't the case with CO2 and it's effects by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[ruffrecords]

Science is consensus of observation and experimental results not consensus of opinion. 

I agree. However, it is important to distinguish between measured data and theory.  Meaured data are facts. Theory is not unless is predicts something that can then be measured. This is why current climate models are useless

We arrive at what we know as fact only after this has taken place.  To say the effects of CO2 are solely because scientists agreed to agreed is distorting what is actually happening in research.

I agree. The facts are that there is no evidence of a direct correlation between CO2 level and and observed temperature changes. To make CO2  the bad guy some scientists have proposed (theory) an amplification factor to bring the effects of CO2 up to those of water vapour. There is as yet no experimental data to verify this theory.

People thought the sun revolved around the earth before there were instruments and mathmatics to explain otherwise, and was mostly based on religious beliefs that it couldn't be otherwise.

That isn't the case with CO2 and it's effects by any stretch of the imagination.

See above comments about theory.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

I agree. However, it is important to distinguish between measured data and theory.  Meaured data are facts. Theory is not unless is predicts something that can then be measured. This is why current climate models are uselessI agree. The facts are that there is no evidence of a direct correlation between CO2 level and and observed temperature changes.

Another thesis is offered for correlation between CO2 and temperature is that the increased CO2 followed the temperature rise, didn't cause it (as I recall old ice cores found increased CO2 during previous warmer period).

Of course there are other powerful factors driving global temperature (like solar output that isn't very constant), so climate theories need to include all significant factors, not just the convenient ones.

I am repeating myself but the political class likes to reduce complex relationships to overly simple ones they can promote to the sheeple to gain control to manipulate major industries (read money and power). Of course that alone doesn't prove they are wrong, but makes it a lot more likely IMO.

JR

To make CO2  the bad guy some scientists have proposed (theory) an amplification factor to bring the effects of CO2 up to those of water vapour. There is as yet no experimental data to verify this theory.See above comments about theory.

Cheers

Ian

 

[s2udio]

I am repeating myself but the political class likes to reduce complex relationships to overly simple ones they can promote to the sheeple to gain control to manipulate major industries (read money and power). Of course that alone doesn't prove they are wrong, but makes it a lot more likely IMO.

JR

+1
This is exactly the point, political agendas are now employing mainstream psudo science to persuade sheeples to follow and vote,
These  pushed agendas, are not for the betterment of society but for a healty corperate profit.....the facts seem to be getting twisted more and more every year.
We are living in a post fact world, where the "non facts" are spun as  a vehicle for political and profit gain.
IMHO a crime against a true democracy, while knowingly  deceiving the electorate !

 

[john12ax7]

Any links on the actual science of climate change,  that doesn't have a political slant?

It's not my field,  but through personal observation it would seem man has a detrimental effect on the environment.  The science I've seen suggests a correlation between man's actions and climate change,  but causation has not yet been proven.

So isn't a prudent  course of action to preemptively act? The downside of acting, and being wrong,  is wasted time and money.  But the downside of not acting,  and being wrong,  is potentially catastrophic.

 

[ruffrecords]

IMHO a crime against a true democracy, while knowingly  deceiving the electorate !

Agreed but unfortunately this is all to frequent an occurrence - hence the backlash of Brexit and Trump.

Cheers

ian

 

[ruffrecords]

Any links on the actual science of climate change,  that doesn't have a political slant?
[./quote]

I gave a linel eralier to an excellent book on the subject written by a professor of palaeoclimatology )IIRC)

It's not my field,  but through personal observation it would seem man has a detrimental effect on the environment.  The science I've seen suggests a correlation between man's actions and climate change,  but causation has not yet been proven.

So isn't a prudent  course of action to preemptively act? The downside of acting, and being wrong,  is wasted time and money.  But the downside of not acting,  and being wrong,  is potentially catastrophic.

No, this is erroneous because it assumes the worst problem facing us is climate change.

Cheers

ian

 

[Matador]

The facts are that there is no evidence of a direct correlation between CO2 level and and observed temperature changes. To make CO2  the bad guy some scientists have proposed (theory) an amplification factor to bring the effects of CO2 up to those of water vapour. There is as yet no experimental data to verify this theory.

Let's see if we can tease this apart, and set aside climate models for the time being.

Do you agree that CO2, and water vapor, and to a lesser extent other gasses, are green house gasses?  To be specific, that they have the property of being invisible to short wavelength radiation (aka. visible light), but absorbtive/reflective at infrared wavelengths (aka. radiated radiation)?  Unlike nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc? 

Do you agree with infrared spectrophy data published by Perodi-Cross, Toth, NASA, etc, that proves that this is the case, the exact wavelengths that are absorbed/emmitted, tested against nearly ever detectable gas in the Earth's atmosphere?

 

[ruffrecords]

Let's see if we can tease this apart, and set aside climate models for the time being.

Do you agree that CO2, and water vapor, and to a lesser extent other gasses, are green house gasses? 

I agree the greenhouse gases  are:

water vapour
carbon dioxide
methane
nitrous oxide
hydroflourocarbons
perflourocarbons
sulphur dioxide

Cheers

Ian

 

[ruffrecords]

Are you, OK Matador? I was looking forward to this discussion but you seem to have gone quiet.

Cheers

Ian

 

[dmp]

The idea that we shouldn't do anything hasty while there is uncertainty about climate science / the effect of CO2 on the environment is more an argument to maintain the status quo than a genuine point of view, since tons of fossil fuels are consumed everyday, putting more CO2 into the atmosphere.  If 'nothing' should be done, people need to realize 'nothing' would mean changing the energy infrastructure to none-carbon fuel sources. 'nothing' means not modifying the environment more everyday.

The cost of wind/solar is cheaper than coal, nuclear, and hydro and competitive to natural gas, from data I have seen recently.
My electricity is about $0.10 / kWh (natural gas) or slightly more with a voluntary wind & solar program $0.125 / kwh.

 

[Matador]

Are you, OK Matador? I was looking forward to this discussion but you seem to have gone quiet.

Was traveling for Father's Day weekend!

Do you agree that the concentration of water vapor in a given volume of air is a function of the temperature of that air?

 

[ruffrecords]

Was traveling for Father's Day weekend!

Do you agree that the concentration of water vapor in a given volume of air is a function of the temperature of that air?

It is likely to be a function of several variables but one of them will be temperature.

Cheers

Ian