Schuylaar's Sesh - NASA.."We Have Reached The Point Of No Return..

Do you believe NASA?

  • YES..but it came from Bloomberg so therefore it's not true

    Votes: 3 37.5%

  • No..NASA has become bleeding heart liberals in order to bankroll now defunct space program

    Votes: 5 62.5%

  • No..because Karl Rove says Hillary Clinton wears "special brain damage glasses"

    Votes: 2 25.0%

  • Yes..because Hillary's "special glasses" are actually "polarized bullshit deflectors"

    Votes: 3 37.5%
  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .
Wait! They said Climate CHANGE not Weather. Big Difference.

You see? The Climate has been stable for over 1 BILLION YEARS; Only the weather would change.

Now just in the last 150 years, humans managed the un-thinkable. We <gulp> CHANGED (oh no!!!!) the actual and thought to be stable, entire WORLD CLIMATE>...boo hooo hhooooo!

Horror!

But, only man can fix it. Only man can bring the precious Climate back into STABILITY.

Riiiiiiight. And we have a great selection of City Bridges for sale.
 
Last edited:
So nobody read the article about sequestering CO2 as limestone, like at the bottom of geothermal power plants?

God damnit, it was an MIT Tech Review article too, theyre pretty credible last I checked...
 
Harrekin said:
So nobody read the article about sequestering CO2 as limestone, like at the bottom of geothermal power plants?

God damnit, it was an MIT Tech Review article too, theyre pretty credible last I checked...
Click to expand...
Eh? I found an MIT Masters thesis from 1985 on the subject from DeLucia.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15136
The acknowledgements are funny.
But I suspect you mean this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/519406/capturing-and-storing-carbon-dioxide-in-one-simple-step/
Has a scale version been tested, yet?
 
Well, why sequester carbon if carbon has not been shown to be the problem?

Doesn't matter. The fix is in. We are already spending big to to make hideous rules about it.

Does anyone have any idea of what this can do? No. But, when the EPA began deep injection of waste water in Ohio, it lead to earthquakes. The EPA stopped the injection and the earthquakes stopped. But, the nut jobs still blame fraking for that.

What are the consequences of putting stuff back in the earth that normally takes millions of years, Buck? You think it is bad to pull stuff out, it is worse to try to put it back.

It is the same stupid that will support Nuke waste. We can just bury it. (oh we didn't know that would eventually melt the salt dome and collapse it...woops)

EPA - Effective Partisan Assholes (of rules.)

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm

EPA has finalized requirements for geologic sequestration, including the development of a new class of wells, Class VI, under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. These requirements, also known as the Class VI rule, are designed to protect underground sources of drinking water. The Class VI rule builds on existing UIC Program requirements, with extensive tailored requirements that address carbon dioxide injection for long-term storage to ensure that wells used for geologic sequestration are appropriately sited, constructed, tested, monitored, funded, and closed. The rule also affords owners or operators injection depth flexibility to address injection in various geologic settings in the United States in which geologic sequestration may occur, including very deep formations and oil and gas fields that are transitioned for use as carbon dioxide storage sites.

In a separate, yet complimentary, rulemaking under authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA has finalized reporting requirements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program for facilities that inject CO2 underground for geologic sequestration and all other facilities that inject CO2 underground. Information obtained under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program will enable EPA to track the amount of carbon dioxide received by these facilities. For more information about the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program and geologic sequestration, please see link below.
 
Carbon Dioxide underground... what could possibly go wrong? :fire:

tmp440_thumb.jpg

If they can just get that pressure up to 1000PSI, they'll be swimming in Texas Tea (frack style).
Oh, right...they want to pump CO2 in frack sites "to help the the Earth"...sure...;) ;) It's not for the subsidized collection of that last bit of crap underground...
bongsmilie Yes, it is just my imagination but I am wondering how good of a solvent SC CO2 would be in that situation.
 
heckler73 said:
Eh? I found an MIT Masters thesis from 1985 on the subject from DeLucia.
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15136
The acknowledgements are funny.
But I suspect you mean this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/519406/capturing-and-storing-carbon-dioxide-in-one-simple-step/
Has a scale version been tested, yet?
Click to expand...
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/526896/storing-greenhouse-gases-by-petrifying-them/

My initial question was, if the seawater is sequestering CO2 and has a mostly basalt floor...isn't it possible that its occurring by itself given the criteria in the above are met?
 
Harrekin said:

My initial question was, if the seawater is sequestering CO2 and has a mostly basalt floor...isn't it possible that its occurring by itself given the criteria in the above are met?
Click to expand...
Good question...perhaps before Pada gets in here and says you are "scientifically illiterate", you'd care to entertain yourself with the following. Although the vid is "part II" he gets right to the good stuff in the first 3 minutes...
I intend to spend the next hour blissfully absorbing the info with some fine herb and coffee...thanks for the inspiration!

pmel-oa-imageee_med.jpg


 
Wow! CO2 chemistry should be a required subject for climatologist. Oh wait, it isn't.

These forum mates keep harping on "one science discipline does not quality you for understanding another."

As heck knows and the Most Interesting Man in the World will say, first before cinco, begin with dos. :) If you know one science, you can learn another. I did. Physics then Computer Science. .

And if you know 2, the rest can be easily followed in depth, including Life Sciences and Climate.

Most of you have ZERO science. Not too late however. Begin with CO2. You will need it.
 
The most noteworthy addition to Astronomy, since Hubble found the rest of the Universe,.... was from a Physics guy.

He could hardly get the telescope time. He knew there was a standard candle for measuring distance in the Physics of certain Supernovae. But, science is competitive, personally destructive, petty, distrustful, etc including your humble narrator. We think we know better and that is why we do it. To prove the others wrong.

That is the very definition of Scientist.

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/03/standard-candle-supernovae-are-still-standard-but-why

16 years ago....Saul Perlmutter of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), declared that the expansion of the universe is accelerating — a Nobel-prize-winning discovery tantamount to the discovery of dark energy.....measured how fast the universe was expanding at different times in its history by comparing the brightnesses and redshifts of type Ia supernovae, the best cosmological “standard candles.”
 
schuylaar said:
Glacial Region's Melt Past 'Point of No Return,' NASA Says

A rapidly melting glacial region of Antarctica has passed “the point of no return,” threatening to increase sea levels, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

“The collapse of this sector of West Antarctica appears to be unstoppable,” Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of California, Irvine, said yesterday in a statement.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-12/antarctic-glacier-melt-appears-unstoppable-nasa-says.html

Q: how can you deny this righties?
A: you can't
Click to expand...
So there's no point in trying to stop it?
 
Doer said:
a 4 FOOT rise in sea Level is nothing, There have been 60 ft increases in a fairly short time.

Imagine a 4 foot drop in sea level. Which really would be worse?

The only way the sea can lower that much is by bitter cold and locking a lot of Ice, No shpping no harbors. A raise in sea level? No shipping no harbors.

And remember this is not including the tide, So, back to rise,

For 4 feet rise we have add between 1 and 40 feet of tide world wide,

For a visual, now add raging storm surge.

Now think about 630 million people world wide that live within 30 feet of sea level. In 150 years that will be over a billion,

4 feet of sea rise will kill the global economy if something is not done,

But doing anything about Man-made will not reverse this, It is gonna happen, We have to adapt, If an Ice shelf breaks it will displace the entire ocean somewhat. It is more dense than sea ice and sits deeper. And there are a lot of Ice Shelves around the world.

Where ie is Sky's house now?
sealevel_up6m-lrg.jpg
Click to expand...
Ice shelves float on water. Melting won't change the water level.
 
Doer said:
Don't listen to these retards. I find independent thought is what separates us from the Partisan Monkey Class,.

Did you account for the fact that these Ice Shelves are not floating?

They are Shelves. So, the idea that the submerged volume doesn't count may not be cleared yet, in you calculations.

Also, did you account for the fact that this is very dense, fresh water Ice? It will submerge to 90%

The Shelves are self supported, not actually submerged yet, until they break.

Did you account for the idea of cascade failure? You break one shelf, perhaps the Ross first, that will raise the sea below another shelf, and it breaks, etc. Did you account for global Shelf Volume? I bet that is in the published calculation.

Another factor is that melting ice changes the salinity locally in the sea water and that speeds up melting. This is another cascade. Faster melting faster.

Did you account for the fact that if all this fresh water was dumped by the polar ice, over a short period, like 10 decades, it will not only raise the sea, it will stall the deep polar conveyer currents because fresh water will not sink like cold salt water.

That will stall the warm surface currents like the Gulf Stream and it's counter parts in the South Hemisphere and the world does not become a jungle heat tent, with runaway greenhouse effect.

IT BECOMES AN ICE BALL. No heat is conveyed from the Equator. The Albedo War is won by Ice and the Equatorial regions also freeze.

We are pretty sure that has happened before.

Did you tell them that? :) Did you tell them what the code words, Climate Change, actually means? I know why they changed it. Among the many Political, Chomski-driven reasons, also it regards the simple fact that the outcome is not Greenhouse it is Ice World.
Click to expand...
Ice shelves do float, you idiot. Do you really think a piece of ice 1000 ft thick can extend 100 miles out over the ocean unsupported? No wonder you always pick the idiot side of every debate.
 
Doer said:
Well, why sequester carbon if carbon has not been shown to be the problem?

Doesn't matter. The fix is in. We are already spending big to to make hideous rules about it.

Does anyone have any idea of what this can do? No. But, when the EPA began deep injection of waste water in Ohio, it lead to earthquakes. The EPA stopped the injection and the earthquakes stopped. But, the nut jobs still blame fraking for that.

What are the consequences of putting stuff back in the earth that normally takes millions of years, Buck? You think it is bad to pull stuff out, it is worse to try to put it back.

It is the same stupid that will support Nuke waste. We can just bury it. (oh we didn't know that would eventually melt the salt dome and collapse it...woops)

EPA - Effective Partisan Assholes (of rules.)

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm

EPA has finalized requirements for geologic sequestration, including the development of a new class of wells, Class VI, under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. These requirements, also known as the Class VI rule, are designed to protect underground sources of drinking water. The Class VI rule builds on existing UIC Program requirements, with extensive tailored requirements that address carbon dioxide injection for long-term storage to ensure that wells used for geologic sequestration are appropriately sited, constructed, tested, monitored, funded, and closed. The rule also affords owners or operators injection depth flexibility to address injection in various geologic settings in the United States in which geologic sequestration may occur, including very deep formations and oil and gas fields that are transitioned for use as carbon dioxide storage sites.

In a separate, yet complimentary, rulemaking under authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA has finalized reporting requirements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program for facilities that inject CO2 underground for geologic sequestration and all other facilities that inject CO2 underground. Information obtained under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program will enable EPA to track the amount of carbon dioxide received by these facilities. For more information about the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program and geologic sequestration, please see link below.
Click to expand...
There hasn't been an earthquake in Ohio in hundreds of years, long before the EPA came into existence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top