Reverse Combustion: Can CO2 Be Turned Back into Fuel?

[lostinblue 1,989]

Any time you can find an economically viable use of a waste product is a great thing.Economically viable is the key.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Any time you can find an economically viable use of a waste product is a great thing.Economically viable is the key.

Anything is economically viable IF you can consfiscate money from people that earn it BEFORE they receive it and apply it to your waste product. Voila! Viable alternative energy for all! No more dependence on foreign oil! Eutopia!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

An amateur "scientist" blog? That is your proof? Paper towels cannot grow. Paper towels cannot multiply. Paper towels don't contain processes that convert water and carbon dioxide into the complex carbohydrate structures to make more paper towels. Argument fail.

Since your understanding of climate science is juvenile, Billy, I thought a simple, grade-school explanation might help you to understand. But if you want to read what the big boys know then here's more sophisticated explanation:

Earth Can't Soak Up Excess Fossil Fuel Emissions Indefinitely

By the end of the century, the land and ocean may reach their capacity to absorb greenhouse gas from the atmosphere

Earth’s land and oceans have been soaking up the excess carbon dioxide that humans have pumped into the atmosphere through smokestacks and tailpipes. But there are limits.

A new-generation computer model indicates that the capacity of land and ocean to absorb and store the heat-trapping greenhouse gas will reach its peak by the end of the century. Without that sponge, carbon dioxide could accumulate faster in the atmosphere and accelerate global warming.

“Time is of the essence in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions,” said Scott Doney, a WHOI geochemist and part of a team that created the new computer model to analyze the workings of Earth’s climate system. “We can start to address the issue now, or we can wait 50 years; but in 50 years we will have missed our best opportunity for remediation.”

The team reported its findings in the Aug. 9 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Five years ago, Doney and colleagues—Inez Fung and Jasmin John of the University of California, Berkeley, and Keith Lindsay of the National Center for Atmospheric Research—set out to create a new climate model that included important missing pieces of the puzzle: the roles that living things, ecosystems, and ocean circulation play in cycling carbon around the planet.

The researchers factored in a wide range of complex interactions that affect where carbon goes and where it ends up. These included: how plants on land and sea absorb and release carbon dioxide; how microbes decompose carbon in soil; how differences in forest litter can affect plant respiration—and the effects of temperature, rainfall, soil moisture, cloud cover, ocean salinity, and wind speeds on all these biogeochemical interactions.

The new model casts doubt on the oft-repeated argument that plants and ecosystems will exploit and accommodate excess carbon dioxide indefinitely. That ability ultimately is limited by other factors, such as the availability of water and nutrients, the researchers say. Meanwhile, humans show little inclination to limit their carbon dioxide emissions.

— Lonny Lippsett

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the WHOI Ocean and Climate Change Institute.

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=7486

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Any time you can find an economically viable use of a waste product is a great thing.Economically viable is the key.

So cleaning up a polluted lake is not worthwhile unless you can make money from it?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Since your understanding of climate science is juvenile, Billy, I thought a simple, grade-school explanation might help you to understand. But if you want to read what the big boys know then here's more sophisticated explanation:

And, exactly, what is your understanding, other that copy pasta?

Edited September 27, 2010 by ##########

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://seerpress.com/bats-kill-more-children-in-brazil/7675/

Bats Kill More Children in Brazil

Another child, the fifth in a row of four children whose cause of death diagnosis according to the Peruvian health experts is rabies, is dead after being bitten by vampire bats.

There is an ongoing outbreak as 15 other adults are dead because of the disease which primarily affects the brain and the nerves. It is caused by the rabies virus and so the attack made in the body spreads fast as well as the transmission.

Additionally, a concerned health personnel has revealed that in the said locality, 3,500 individuals were already bitten by the nocturnal animals and added a warning that the mortality rate could surge at a fast rate because of the price and inaccessibility of the vaccines to be used as the prime defense.

Records showed that the children who died belonged to the indigent groups inhabiting near the border of Ecuador. The attack is subsequently associated with climate change.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And, exactly, what is your understanding, other that copy pasta?

I understand that I trust science and the scientists who study it, while you don't....because, like a juvenile, you dismiss what you don't understand.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I understand that I trust science and the scientists who study it, while you don't....because, like a juvenile, you dismiss what you don't understand.

You just love to throw names around don't you? Can't you make a point without insults and name calling? The fact that you are calling someone juvenile is irony at its best.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I understand that I trust science and the scientists who study it, while you don't....because, like a juvenile, you dismiss what you don't understand.

So, you lack a healthy skepticism for authority. Logic fail.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You just love to throw names around don't you? Can't you make a point without insults and name calling? The fact that you are calling someone juvenile is irony at its best.

Calling a viewpoint juvenile is well within the TOS, but report me if you feel compelled to. If you now want to be the TOS police, I'd suggest you start with your own posts.

Don't put down Stevens religion. You know that isn't nice.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Calling a viewpoint juvenile is well within the TOS, but report me if you feel compelled to. If you now want to be the TOS police, I'd suggest you start with your own posts.

Uh huh, I really did call you a name there didn't I?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Uh huh, I really did call you a name there didn't I?

Perhaps you should read the TOS to understand them better or perhaps someone should explain them to you so can understand that they go beyond just name-calling.

Make comments in a Post either direct or implied toward another member that are purposely designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other users.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Perhaps you should read the TOS to understand them better or perhaps someone should explain them to you so can understand that they go beyond just name-calling.

This coming from the king of name calling and insults. More irony. Love it.

[^_^ 5,021]

"Your understanding of climate science is juvenile" is clearly designed to belittle another member and instigate an argument. It violates two clauses of that TOS statement.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

"Your understanding of climate science is juvenile" is clearly designed to belittle another member and instigate an argument. It violates two clauses of that TOS statement.

It also implies that he has a greater understanding. It is a given that with one possible exception there is no one on this board that can claim a high order of understanding of climate science. I find his conceit amusing.