So you agree that perspective plays a large role in this ongoing debate - then you go on to talk about alternative sources (of energy, I assume) while we know full well that the only thing that readily burns and is found easily is carbon.
Even now some are looking at ways to allow natural processes to reduce existing CO2 but with limited success due to environmental pressures and a bit of general trepidation.
For instance there is this article from Europe where a few scientists have modeled the use of iron and its oxides to fertilize the ocean:
[The impact on atmospheric CO2 of iron fertilization induced changes in the ocean’s biological pump
X. Jin1, N. Gruber2,3, H. Frenzel1, S. C. Doney4, and J. C. McWilliams3
1Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics (IGPP), UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
2Environmental Physics, Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
3IGPP & Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
4Dept. of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1543, USA
Abstract. Using numerical simulations, we quantify the impact of changes in the ocean’s biological pump on the air-sea balance of CO2 by fertilizing a small surface patch in the high-nutrient, low-chlorophyll region of the eastern tropical Pacific with iron. Decade-long fertilization experiments are conducted in a basin-scale, eddy-permitting coupled physical/biogeochemical/ecological model. In contrast to previous studies, we find that most of the dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) removed from the euphotic zone by the enhanced biological export is replaced by uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere. Atmospheric uptake efficiencies, the ratio of the perturbation in air-sea CO2 flux to the perturbation in export flux across 100 m, integrated over 10 years, are 0.75 to 0.93 in our patch size-scale experiments. The atmospheric uptake efficiency is insensitive to the duration of the experiment. The primary factor controlling the atmospheric uptake efficiency is the vertical distribution of the enhanced biological production and export. Iron fertilization at the surface tends to induce production anomalies primarily near the surface, leading to high efficiencies. In contrast, mechanisms that induce deep production anomalies (e.g. altered light availability) tend to have a low uptake efficiency, since most of the removed DIC is replaced by lateral and vertical transport and mixing. Despite high atmospheric uptake efficiencies, patch-scale iron fertilization of the ocean’s biological pump tends to remove little CO2 from the atmosphere over the decadal timescale considered here.]
What do you think of this approach?
Of course perspective plays a large role -- so does the way information is presented. The skeptical spin on the Keenlyside paper is a perfect example.
Speaking of things that cost $133 a barrel and burn, the world may be pricing itself out of carbon consumption rather quickly. A global recession could change things far faster than efforts to curb carbon emissions, I think.
What do you think of this approach?
They answered that question: "Despite high atmospheric uptake efficiencies, patch-scale iron fertilization of the ocean’s biological pump tends to remove little CO2 from the atmosphere over the decadal timescale considered here."
Which is a long way of saying it doesn't work.
If you're interested, I actually thought a bit about the long future. There's a couple ways out. Controlled nuclear fusion is one. Another might be large-scale hydrogen generation using solar. (Hydrogen burns too!) The problem with solar in general is that the sun is either not there (at night) or affected by cloud cover. But sunlight in normally cloudless areas (= deserts) can be concentrated and then focused onto advanced photovoltaics to generate a considerable amount of power. That power could be used for electrolytic breakdown of water, producing hydrogen. Vehicles can run on fuel cells. What do you think of that approach?