Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A dash of lime -- a new twist that may cut CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels
Science Codex ^ | July 21, 2008

Posted on 07/21/2008 9:28:27 AM PDT by Abathar

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: Abathar
Who cares about CO2? It's good for plants. Make more CO2.

The primary evidence that CO2 and the greenhouse effect have anything to do with raising global temperature is missing entirely. It isn't there.

No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)

That is a short and easily understandable article showing the plain truth. The hinge pin that links global temperature to the greenhouse effect is missing. It is easily measurable and hundreds of probes have done so.

41 posted on 07/21/2008 10:40:49 AM PDT by TigersEye (Drill or get off the Hill. ... call Nancy Pelosi @ 202 - 225 - 0100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Just down 37 from me, I’m in Martinsville.

Plenty of clay here if they need that...


42 posted on 07/21/2008 10:46:55 AM PDT by Abathar (Proudly posting without reading the article carefully since 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Cut back on CO2 then what are the plants goin breathe to make oxygen, hmmmm???


43 posted on 07/21/2008 10:47:45 AM PDT by kcm.org (Conservatives bashing Sen. McCain has Ronald Reagan spinning in his grave!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

Coal fired power plants already use lime in their scrubbers. This produces a synthetic form of gypsum (CaS04*2H2O). This used to be a waste product, but gypsum companies have increasingly been using this “waste” product to make Sheetrock. In fact my company uses syngyp from coal fired power plants almost exclusively in the eastern US. In the Midwest, and the west, they still primarily rely upon mines and quaries. So if you live in the eastern US, there is a good chance that the walls of your office or house are made from the byproducts of scrubbing power plant exhaust.


44 posted on 07/21/2008 10:50:40 AM PDT by dsrtsage (John Galt, Dagney Taggart..2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Plant more plants!


45 posted on 07/21/2008 10:51:58 AM PDT by xander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Oh, no no no no no, save the world by killing all life in the ocean? Bad idea. Bad bad idea. These people claim to be ecologists? See tagline


46 posted on 07/21/2008 11:00:28 AM PDT by Ellendra (Most eco-freaks wouldn't know nature if it bit them on the butt . . . and it often does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
"It is our OBLIGATION to increase carbon dioxide to the degree we are able, to aid our plant life"

Damn tree-hugger! ;-)

47 posted on 07/21/2008 11:02:02 AM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Exton1
The amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased from 578 gigatons in 1700 to about 766 gigatons in 1999, and continues to increase at the rate of about 6.1 gigatons per year.

Something seems funny here. In the 299 years since 1700, we gained 188GT of carbon compounds in the atmosphere. That is an increase of .6287 Gt/Year.

Yet we are now gaining an order of magnitude faster than that in the present, implicitly since 1999.

It will depend on how much is methane and C=O to figure out what to blame it on.

I would tend to suspect the Gas Chromatograph they used in 1700. -Mild questioning sarcasm,( thinking of leather bellows and powder horns charged with quicklime), but not much. Atmosphere recoveries from Civil War Uniform buttons and ice cores should be questioned because of different gas reactivities and diffusion rates, solubilities, etc., and that a tiny amount of the C14 isotope would have been converted to N in that time.

48 posted on 07/21/2008 11:03:30 AM PDT by Gorzaloon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Vanbasten
Not only that, but I guarantee an unintended consequence would come from this.

Tinkering with the ocean's pH level (which is what they're talking about) is VERY MUCH GUARANTEED to have a whole bunch of bad consequences for a large number of oceanic life forms

49 posted on 07/21/2008 11:06:51 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Abathar; All

My God, what idiots.

Starting with the premise that human “error” has mucked up the atmosphere with “too much CO2” (if you buy that false premise) we are now to trust human arrogance and hubris in the escapade to artificially, massively and DELIBERATELY intervene in earth’s biosphere (play God) as if we know with total certainty (we don’t) that we are NOT embarked on a “cure” that will have unforeseen consequences worse than the “illness”.

The natural earth history shows there is in fact no such “natural balance” of CO2 in the “air” portion of earth’s biosphere.

There has been greater levels of CO2 (in the “air”), at some times, when the earth’s “temperature” has been lower and there has been lower levels of CO2, at some times, when the earth’s temperature has been higher - and vice-a-versa. The natural record indicates no implied CO2 “balance” and in terms of earth “temperature” changes the changes in CO2 levels have been trailing indicators, not leading indicators. CO2 may be a factor in earth’s layer of insulation, but, just like your house, the insulation does not drive the source of the heating and cooling cycle - the sun.


50 posted on 07/21/2008 11:44:23 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Put de lime in de coconut, shake it all up.

Put a lime in it? You're such a silly woman!!!!

Brother bought a coconut, he bought it for a dime
His sister had another, she paid it for a lime.
She put the lime in the coconut, and drank them both up
She put the lime in the coconut, and drank them both up
She put the lime in the coconut,
Called the doctor, woke him up, and said,
"Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take,
I say, Doctor, to relieve this belly ache?
I say, Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take,
I say, Doctor, to relieve this belly ache?"

"Now let me get this straight;
You put the lime in the coconut, you drank them both up
You put the lime in the coconut, you drank them both up
You put the lime in the coconut,
called your doctor, woke him up, and said,
'Doctor, ain't there nothing I can take, I say, Doctor, to relieve this belly ache?
I say, Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take,
I say, Doctor, to relieve this belly ache?'

You put the lime in the coconut, and drink them both down,
You put the lime in the cocount, you're such a silly woman!
Put the lime in the coconut, and drink them both together,
Put the lime in the coconut, and call me in the morning."

51 posted on 07/21/2008 11:47:36 AM PDT by mc5cents (Show me just what Mohammd brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

“One useful definition of insanity might be: searching for solutions to non-problems.”

You’re looking at it the wrong way. Think millions in grant money from the taxpayers for unending studies, hundreds of very scholarly papers to prestigious science journals, doctoral thesis out the wazoo. This could put food in the mouths of countless starving grad students.


52 posted on 07/21/2008 11:48:33 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Abathar; TenthAmendmentChampion; Horusra; CygnusXI; Entrepreneur; Defendingliberty; WL-law; ...
 




Beam me to Planet Gore !

53 posted on 07/21/2008 11:58:31 AM PDT by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

The law of unintended consquences comes to mind.


54 posted on 07/21/2008 12:17:53 PM PDT by hdstmf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

How much sea life do they plan on killing in the process?


55 posted on 07/21/2008 12:24:52 PM PDT by Doohickey (SSN: One ship, one crew, one screw.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

maybe just try it around a few major cities. Like LA, they got nothing to lose. =)


56 posted on 07/21/2008 1:06:20 PM PDT by Marko413
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
"Now the use of lime in a power plant bubbler scrubbing system before gasses escape might be an interesting concept....could something like that be put into cars and trucks?'

Not needed because- CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT!!!

CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE "GLOBAL WARMING"!!!

Co2 is PLANT FOOD!!! The more the better. Man made co2 represents .01% of the 600 or so parts per million- that's 6 PARTS PER MILLION PARTS of other stuff.!

Again, CO2 does not cause Gore Bull warming, and man made co2 even less so.

57 posted on 07/21/2008 1:09:24 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gorzaloon
"If you use HTH in your swimming pool, many see that it turns milky briefly after a rain. That can be from pH shift or from "Acid Rain" where the Ca is precipitated out as the sulfate, or from CO2 in the raindrops."

I have that problem when I refill my pool in the spring. But it isn't from rainwater, it's from the high calcium levels in my well water. Huge limestone deposits around here dissolve calcium in the water due to A) pressure and B) the cool temperature of the water. When it warms up it precipitates out.

58 posted on 07/21/2008 1:22:22 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ghengis
"Some scientists were advocating shooting large doses of sulfuric acid into the upper atmosphere a few years ago to provide the same reduction in CO2."

Wouldn't burning high sulfur content coal in coal fired electric plants accomplish that? It also causes acid rain, dissolving all the limestone works in Europe.

59 posted on 07/21/2008 1:25:23 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

It’s a lot easier to increase the absorbtion of CO2 through the oceans, and through planting more trees and vegetation, than it would be to try to reduce our USE of it.

IN the past, we understood that we had a natural solar energy cycle. We plant trees, they grow absorbing energy from the sun, we burn the trees releasing that energy in ways that is useful to us, we plant more trees, they absorb the C02 we gave off by burning the previous trees.


60 posted on 07/21/2008 1:31:20 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson