Comments on: A Familiar Pattern is Emerging

By: Harry Haymuss

Harry Haymuss — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:44:00 +0000

Hank -

I doesn’t look like you made it into that Therm 101 class yet. When will that be?

By: paddikj

paddikj — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 09:46:25 +0000

“…people wave their hands and direct scientists to go do work for them, claiming they know better than the scientists actually working on the material what should be done with it.”

That is one of the more bizarre sets of mischaracterizations I’ve read lately. Nowhere in the comments preceding it did I see anything remotely resembling them. What I read were thoughts and suggestions concerning policy – supposedly the point of this thread.

So to get back to policy, it would seem wise to first establish whether reducing carbon emissions is a good idea or not before discussing the hows. People seem to forget that we’re in a tiny de-glaciated interval of a 3-million-years-and-counting ice age, and if past cycles are any indication, it’s about to end.

By: paddikj

paddikj — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 09:45:31 +0000

“…people wave their hands and direct scientists to go do work for them, claiming they know better than the scientists actually working on the material what should be done with it.”

By: aaron

aaron — Wed, 28 May 2008 20:35:56 +0000

Relying on taxes may not be as effective as believed either. In the US, despite driving decreasing over 4% the past year, fuel production has declined less than 1%.

Even with more efficient cars being produced, efficiency continues to decline.

http://cumulativemodel.blogspot.com/2008/05/fuel-efficiency-continues-to-decline.html

By: JamesG

JamesG — Wed, 28 May 2008 13:08:59 +0000

To add to Hank’s list I did read about a serious proposal to ionize the CO2 molecules so they could be sucked out by the magnetosphere at the North pole. Probably cause an ice age if it worked though.

I find that where I live at least, if we leave nature alone she does actually grow trees quite well all by herself. Probably stopping the current forest destruction is the real best first step.

When I was planning my carbon-free home, with underground pipes for geothermal energy and solar roof panels to capture the sun I soon realized I was really designing an inferior type of tree. If we could just manage to copy what a leaf does naturally…

By: Lupo

Lupo — Tue, 27 May 2008 23:28:14 +0000

Would it not work better if everyone was focused on solving the problems rather than arguing with others that have thought up ideas of how to solve the problems that don’t match their conclusion on what the problem is and or how to go about it?

By: hank roberts

hank roberts — Tue, 27 May 2008 17:50:03 +0000

Oh, don’t forget the marine mammal scientists’ proposal:

– ” Restore large biomass consuming animals in the ocean, all the way up the trophic level from algae and plankton to codfish and sharks to the big whales, because large whales, both the filter-feeders and the carnivores, were the most effective carbon sequestration path available. All (except the ‘Right Whale’) sink when they die. The bottom of the abyssal ocean used to be littered with the slowly decomposing carcasses of the great whales, before whaling ships started taking them out of the ocean and the populations crashed. No other single pathway was so effective at collecting and removing large masses of carbon from the active biosphere to the abyss, before whaling began. Problem solved.”

By: hank roberts

hank roberts — Tue, 27 May 2008 17:44:46 +0000

Hm, I was thinking of a different pattern that I see emerging in this discussion again — the one where people wave their hands and direct scientists to go do work for them, claiming they know better than the scientists actually working on the material what should be done with it.

Like “genetically engineered carbon-eating trees”

A biologist might make similar suggestions. Like

— “what we need is the string theorists to simply pull in half the carbon dioxide strings, making half of those disappear from the atmosphere — problem solved.”

– “what we need is the radiation physicists to provide a way to — controllably — orient most of the molecules of any one or more of the greenhouse gases at the top of the atmosphere. Arrange them so that the emitted infrared photons go uphill or at worst sideways, and none of them go downhill, increasing the efficiency with which Earth’s atmosphere gets rid of excess heat. Problem solved.”

– “what we need is the ionospheric radio physicists using something like the HAARP system to create a heat pump, beaming small amounts of microwave energy to nudge all the greenhouse gases up to energy levels where they will emit infrared photons carrying away more energy than input. Power the radio transmitters with windmills or bicyclists. Problem solved.”

And of course

– “Details of calculation should be performed by practicing scientists in the field, not by me, since this is clearly important enough to preempt whatever they’re wasting time with on their day jobs now.”

By: docpine

docpine — Tue, 27 May 2008 03:38:11 +0000

Thanks for the link to the Venter article; it sounds like more of a lab or processing plant technology. The analysis of environmental impacts for such a technology including the efficacy of the “suicide gene” would be a compelling read, I’m sure.
I suppose we should be grateful that his team is only “using synthetic chromosomes to modify organisms that already exist, not making new life.”

Genetically engineered poplars are pretty low tech by comparison.

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Mon, 26 May 2008 22:39:18 +0000

docpine-

There has been some discussion of this subject by Craig Venter (human genome sequencer), e.g.,

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iYXm1UNEI-ViI-p5S6TAaogyDv8Q

I am unaware of any public research funds in the US focused on such technologies, but I’d love to hear of any . . .

James Hansen and Wallace Broecker have also proposed capturing carbon dioxide via various means (including plants).