Who's a sucker for carbon dioxide?
There are two things you can do with carbon dioxide emissions: 1) reduce them; or 2) capture them and store them somewhere. Currently, most public debate seems to revolve around reducing output, but some interesting advances have been made at the capture end of the spectrum that are worth keeping an eye on.
Around 50% of carbon emissions from human activity are already absorbed by natural 'carbon sinks', like forests, oceans and soil, but the rest can hang around for as long as a hundred years.
There are lots of ways of potentially 'sequestering' carbon from the atmosphere, including 'biological, chemical and physical processes', after which you have to find somewhere like an disused oil field, the ocean bed or a reservoir to store it in - a process known as carbon capture and storage, or CCS.
The technology is in its infancy and the prevailing mood is 'let's wait and see if this thing works'. This extends to the British government, which has just OK'd the building of a new generation of coal-fired power plants on the proviso that that they can make CCS happen.
Within the last 12 months, scientists at Columbia University have discovered that a rock called 'peridotite', the most common in the Earth's mantle, naturally converts CO2 into minerals like calcite. Not only that, but they believe they can 'supercharge' the process by a million times, potentially storing up to 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. (What makes it expensive is that the mantle is the layer directly below the Earth's crust, but it does occur sporadically on the surface, and mainly in Oman.)
Columbia has also given us the physicist Dr Klaus Lackner, who is working on a 'synthetic tree' that absorbs carbon dioxide but unlike a real tree doesn't expel oxygen. 'It looks like a goal post with Venetian blinds,' says Dr Lackner, helpfully.
Meanwhile over at UCLA, Omar Yaghi and team have created a 'nanoscale crystal that traps roughly 80 times its volume of carbon dioxide'. This is particularly exciting because it only has eyes for CO2 and nothing else.
And representing Britain we have Novacem, whose scientists have discovered a low carbon cement that requires half the heating of the usual stuff and actually absorbs carbon dioxide as it hardens, making it ultimately carbon negative. This is potentially a massive dose of good news for the global cement industry, which presently generates up to 5% of human carbon emissions.
Early days, but probably fair to say you can't write off the tech fix just yet.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~38~RS~)
Comments
There is a 3rd option for CO2 emissions - just ignore it all and get on with your life.
With every breath we exhale CO2 - it used to be called the 'carbon cycle'. Plants love CO2 - they absorb it and emit Oxygen (O2).
Global temperatures have flatlined since 1998 - but global output of CO2 is now 30% higher than 1998. Time for some 'adjustments' to the computer models ?
Complain about this comment
and given that the ipcc predict a CO2 induced, AGW signature over the tropics (chapter 9 see the diagrams), which despite decades of searching still hasn't been found, isn't it time we forgave CO2 for helping to keep us snug and warm and for feeding the plants?
Complain about this comment
Comment 2's quote "CO2 induced, AGW signature over the tropics (chapter 9 see the diagrams)" is from an article and interview by Australian David Evans that has been thoroughly dissected and debunked elsewhere in the blogsphere. e.g.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/david_evans_doesnt_know_what_t.php
http://mitchellanderson.blogspot.com/2009/04/heartland-institutes-skeptic-handbook.html
Despite being described as both a 'climate' and 'rocket' scientist Evans actually has a degree in electrical engineering and is a software engineer. He is not a climatologist and has published nothing in climate science literature. His role at the Australian Greenhouse Office was in writing computer software.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/08/19/60-minutes-climate-change-story-just-plain-irresponsible/
As for making sense of the conflicting claims regarding CO2 in the blogsphere I always suggest turning to books for in-depth information:
Ten books for starters: (there are of course many others.)
1) 'Ice, Mud and Blood' by Chris Turney. A summary of key discoveries by scientists about past climate change going back deep in time and the implications for the present.
2) 'Earth: The Power of the Planet' by Iain Stewart & John Lynch.
3) 'CO2 Rising' by Tyler Volk. Designed as clear yet detailed exposition of the carbon cycle and atmospheric chemistry for the lay reader. It takes as its protagonist a carbon atom and its journeys and interactions with other elements over the course of earth's history.
4) 'The Carbon Age: How Life's Core Element Has Become Civilizations Greatest Threat' by Eric Roston. A book devoted to the carbon atom, the building block of life, and its role in the formation of everything from rocks, diamonds and Kevlar to plants, our DNA, CO2 and its role in earth's atmosphere and climate.
5) The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate by Andrew Dessler and Edward Parson. This is a readable introduction to help the public and policy makers sort through the conflicting claims in the climate-change debate.
6) 'The Forgiving Air: Understanding Environmental Change, Second Edition' by Richard C.J. Somerville. Written by a leading climate scientist this aims to describe the science of climate in a manner that a lay person can understand, as: 'we're less likely to do serious and irreversible damage if we understand it better.'
7) 'The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate' by David Archer. Archer is leading researcher into atmospheric chemistry and climate.
8) 'Earth's Climate Past And Future' by William F. Ruddiman. An account of known factors that have influenced climate change over earth's history.
9) 'Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach' by William James Burroughs. This surveys many technical aspects and issues of modern climate science.
10) 'An Ocean of Air: A Natural History of the Atmosphere' by Gabrielle Walker. A history of some of the major discoveries about air, gasses and the atmosphere from Galileo to the present day together with explanation as to their importance for life on Earth.
Complain about this comment
First of all, it wasn't a quote from anybody or i would have provided a link
Second, I wasn't thinking bout Evans when i wrote that
Third, blogs are hardly science are they?
Finally, do the IPCC diagrams show a signature of CO2 induced AGW or not? And, despite decades of searching, has the hot spot been found? Try not to include references to Sherwood or Santer in your answer - Sherwood tried to use wind shear for his "data" and Santer found nothing other than noise.
Complain about this comment
Re discussion above in #2,3 and 4. One link appears to be broken, this should repair it.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/
Given both CuckooTwo and Evans are going over the same ground I'll let readers follow the links rather than simply copy and paste.
RealClimate also has a 3 part discussion of it:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/10/tropical-tropopshere-iii/langswitch_lang/im
There's another commentary here:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/skepticsdenialists-part-2-hotspots-and-repetition/
Complain about this comment
Can someone please explain to me the end-game of the Greenies ?
All I hear is "less of this" and "more of that" - but I want someone to spell out what a green lifestyle looks like.
Can I own and use a car ? Have holidays ? Switch lights on in my house ? Have a job ?
Is flying OK ? A lot of greenies do all these things so maybe they are OK after all.
Maybe some of the posters on here could start...
Complain about this comment
@Jack_Hughes_NZ,
Indeed, ignoring CO2 emissions is a third option, and it seems to be something many seem content with doing. We wanted to share a video we made to get people to take action againstclimate change. We are trying to use humor to reach people with a powerful message. It's called: "An Inconvenient Poop."
Check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV8FoEzQhXw
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS