SLUniverse Forums

Tyche Shepherd · 07-21-2008, 01:03 PM

A new initiative to increase the Carbon Sink capabilities of the worlds oceans by dumping Lime (Calcium Hydroxide) was published today.
Dumping lime in the oceans would help increase Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide absorption.

The idea is an old one and was seen as unworkable because of the high energy costs of extracting Lime from Limestone - however new plans to use Solar Energy may make this possible . The Oil Giant Shell is taking an interest in the project.

A dash of lime -- a new twist that may cut CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels

What is also of interest is this project has been set up as a OpenSource project Their new web site is here Cquestrate : Developing an open source solution to climate change

Quote:

We are developing this project in an open source way. There are no patents involved in this process and that is the way we want to keep it. We are opening it up to everyone so that we can draw on the expertise of people who can help us to transform the idea from concept to reality.

By posting any ideas or suggestions onto this website you will be publicly disclosing that information, which will create a broad ‘anti-patent’ space. This will prevent anyone from gaining a patent that could restrict the development of this process. Every contribution will be logged and date-stamped, creating a permanent record, which can be used to challenge anyone trying to gain patents in this area.

By using an open source approach no-one can restrict anyone else from developing this process.

Beebo Brink · 07-21-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyche Shepherd

Dumping lime in the oceans would help increase Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide absorption.

There's just one small problem with that approach:

Quote:

Ocean acidity is gradually on the rise

The UK's Royal Society has launched an investigation into the rising acidity of the world's oceans due to pollution from the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

The change could have catastrophic consequences for marine life.

....

Scientists fear this increasing acidification could have a particularly detrimental effect on corals and sea creatures with hard shells.

Increasing acidity reduces the availability of calcium carbonate from the water - which the creatures rely on to produce their hard skeletons. Juvenile organisms could be most susceptible to these changes.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Probe into rising ocean acidity

Daman · 07-21-2008, 05:02 PM

I wonder how dangerous lime is to the animals living in the oceans.

edit: somehow I must have missed Beebo's message. Stupid me.

Tyche Shepherd · 07-21-2008, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebo Brink

There's just one small problem with that approach:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Probe into rising ocean acidity

Without knowing the full chemistry I understand that the addition of lime (basically an alkaline) actually reverses the growing acidity and can be used to encourage growth of natural coral reefs which also act as carbon sinks themselves . But from reading more of the site its very much early stages and as Damen says Delivery into the the environment is going to be crucial even if a positive environmental impact can be achieved .

Daman · 07-21-2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyche Shepherd

Without knowing the full chemistry I understand that the addition of lime (basically an alkaline) actually reverses the growing acidity

Yeah, true. That's what I get for not paying attention in chemistry class. I thought hydroxides were acids as well, but just looked it up and they're like anti-acids.

Beebo Brink · 07-21-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyche Shepherd

Without knowing the full chemistry I understand that the addition of lime (basically an alkaline) actually reverses the growing acidity and can be used to encourage growth of natural coral reefs which also act as carbon sinks themselves.

I didn't have time at work today to clarify my concerns. But basically I have this wariness of using the ocean as a dumping ground for our unfettered polluting growth. We're already bringing the ocean ecosystem to its knees, and this just seems to foster the attitude that the oceans are there for us to saturate. Throw some lime in, then pile some CO2 on that, then throw in more lime.

It seems an awful lot of work to undo the damage we cause. Rather than clean up our messes with elaborate and expensive schemes that will require yet more energy at a time when we are struggling with energy issues, why not just stop making them?

Dnate Mars · 07-21-2008, 11:23 PM

Basically, doing this would be the quickest way to return the carbon back to where we got it from. The biggest problem would be to make sure we don't over do it.

Plus I am always leery of man doing anything right when it comes to trying to control nature. We usually end up messing it up even more.

Klannex Northmead · 07-22-2008, 07:52 AM

It appears that since we began CO2 extraction and release in the 1800s the oceans have been quietly clearing up our mess. Lime it's true will allow greater absorption of this waste gas but the price i,e is an entirely man made cycle, release CO2 offset with lime.

It would be undoubtedly one of the worse and most addictive behaviour loops to date. What's wrong with wind/tidal/biofuel/solar generation of green energy and using that, simply stopping the CO2 release, I have absolute faith that if we don't unleash any more toxic shocks there is a natural offset that will kick in quite unnoticed.

I'll bet you a streak across Kings Cross station it's a bug too. Yay bugs rule.

Markubis · 07-22-2008, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klannex Northmead

It appears that since we began CO2 extraction and release in the 1800s the oceans have been quietly clearing up our mess. Lime it's true will allow greater absorption of this waste gas but the price i,e is an entirely man made cycle, release CO2 offset with lime.

It would be undoubtedly one of the worse and most addictive behaviour loops to date. What's wrong with wind/tidal/biofuel/solar generation of green energy and using that, simply stopping the CO2 release, I have absolute faith that if we don't unleash any more toxic shocks there is a natural offset that will kick in quite unnoticed.

I'll bet you a streak across Kings Cross station it's a bug too. Yay bugs rule.

Agreed

I'm tired of seeing us running around and trying to patch up the messes we make with quick fixes.
Instead, why can't we stand back and address the issue the correct way? We know what we need to do...yet we take the quick and easy way...anything for the fast buck or quick fix.

ConductorX · 07-22-2008, 09:40 AM

Everyone is drinking the “Kool-Aid”® of Global Warming caused by CO2 emissions. This is just another way to separate us from our hard earn salaries in the form of “carbon credits” and future carbon footprint taxes. People will tell you the corporations will have to pay those taxes to compensate for their Carbon Footprint. Corporations pay no taxes. The customers of corporations ultimately pay the taxes. The stockholders of a corporation only pay taxes on the dividends of the stock they own.

Lets look at a few facts I learned from Wikipedia.org. Earth’s atmosphere is composed of various gases. The dry volume of this atmosphere is 5.1352 quadrillion metric tons of various gases mostly Nitrogen. (78%) Just for information a pure nitrogen atmosphere will kill you immediately. Carbon Dioxide makes up .0383 % of our atmosphere. Four hundredths of 1 percent is all of the CO2 in our atmosphere. All of this CO2 weighs in at 1.971684 Trillion Metric Tons. Just to increase the CO2 percentage from .038 percent to one percent we would have to produce 51.1398 Trillion Metric Tons of CO2. That is the amount needed to increase from .038 percent to 1 percent.

Lets try to just increase it to .048 percent, 1 hundredth of 1 percent higher. That is only 19.71684 billion metric tons of CO2 that we would have to produce to raise the percentage .01 percent to .048 percent.

Trillions of metric tons of CO2 are required to measurably affect the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. To appease environmentalist and non-government organizations such as Green Peace and the Sierra Club oil companies are devising ways to pump CO2 underground and store it in abandoned oil wells. The extremely small amounts of CO2 stored this way will total in the millions of tons at best. But everyone will feel better because we are doing something. No matter the cost or how futile the exercise is.

Ultimatly we will pay for this folly everytime we buy a tank of gas or pay through some bogus "carbon taxes".

Remember years ago when the bad guy was chloroflourocarbons? Freon and related products. The answer was to do away with refrigerants such as Freon 11 and Freon 12.

Freon 12 was replaced with R134 which costs 10 times as much and isn't any safer than 12. It did elminate the do it your self mechanic from working on his car.

Freon 11 is a liquid at room temp. You can pour it in a open bucket and it will sit there all day and eventually evaporate. You can wash your hands with it and the only effect is it removes the oils from your skin. Industrial Water Chillers used freon 11 to chill the water. I personally saw one of these Chillers replaced with a new model. The new refrigerant required the operator and maintenance workers to wear self contained breathing equipment because it is a deadly poison and will kill you dead if you accidentally breathe it. The equipment had to housed in a special locked building with no admitance without breathing equipment.

Now that the flourocarbon hoax has been applied to us, we are going after the carbon dioxide hoax.

What is next? Dihydromonoxide?

"CX" (stepping down from the soapbox)

Psyke Phaeton · 07-22-2008, 09:56 AM

Who is orchestrating this conspiracy and how come they get to fool so many government and scientist?

and what about:

The correlation between temperature rise and CO2 in the atmosphere (in low levels as you say)?

Wikipedia - climate change

and now look at the more recent CO2 levels:

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

There is good health reasons to stop pollution and we should pay a bit more to look after our environment rather than continue exploiting it and our health.

There is a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature change. But I do not yet know if we can say it is the cause.

ZATZAi · 07-22-2008, 10:04 AM

I seem to remember a similar plan that involved dumping mass quantities of iron into the ocean. As I recall this plan is already being carried out in "relatively small" test cases. Relatively small being massive on the human scale.

ConductorX · 07-22-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psyke Phaeton

Who is orchestrating this conspiracy and how come they get to fool so many government and scientist?

Quote:

I deleted photos and other items provided "CX"

Currently active volcanos (naturally occuring) spew more CO2 into the atmosphere in one day than all the cars in the USA in one year. Right now we have a number of active volcanos all over the world.

I am all for stopping pollution. Real Pollution. The governement is pushing this myth on us. Why? One more way to control people and extract taxes from us.

These compact flourescent bulbs that are pushed on us as a way to save energy and reduce the carbon footprint contain Mercury a very dangerous pollutant. Who is pushing these bulbs on us? Who is trying to outlaw incandescent bulbs?

The Government that is who. California is trying to outlaw incandescent bulbs right now.

"CX"

Psyke Phaeton · 07-22-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConductorX

Currently active volcanos (naturally occuring) spew more CO2 into the atmosphere in one day than all the cars in the USA in one year. Right now we have a number of active volcanos all over the world.

I am all for stopping pollution. Real Pollution. The governement is pushing this myth on us. Why? One more way to control people and extract taxes from us.

These compact flourescent bulbs that are pushed on us as a way to save energy and reduce the carbon footprint contain Mercury a very dangerous pollutant. Who is pushing these bulbs on us? Who is trying to outlaw incandescent bulbs?

The Government that is who. California is trying to outlaw incandescent bulbs right now.

"CX"

Wouldn't the scientific community also have to be in on the con? Why are they falling for it? Do you have references for the active volcanos? bearing in mind that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than for hundreds of thousands of years.

I could understand a natural cycle of global warming leading to hotter Earth, leading to volcano activity, leading to more CO2 but also more particles in the air, more plants, more CO2 absorbed, dust causes temp drop, dust eventually falls or precipitates from the atmosphere. Then cycle repeats.

So now lets see the evidence for the volume volcanic CO2 being generated.

Psyke Phaeton · 07-22-2008, 10:36 AM

"Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."

"On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady."

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity? - USGS

Beebo Brink · 07-22-2008, 12:00 PM

You know, the amount of well-funded disinformation being generated by big industry would really upset me if I didn't happen to think we're already too screwed to save ourselves.

People will not stand for the extremely painful economic disruption that would be required to substantially alter our C02 emmissions in a short space of time (ie, within 5-10 years or sooner). They might be persuaded to change behavior over the course of 50-75 years, but we don't have that much time left. We probably have no time left in which to effect change because so many feedback mechanisms are already in motion.

So fuck it. Let the deniers babble on and spew their nonsense. The only compensation we'll have is a sardonic "I told you so" when the ship goes down with us all.

Psyke Phaeton · 07-22-2008, 01:22 PM

We haz a Dept of Climate Change now

Australian Department of Climate Change - Home Page

Dnate Mars · 07-23-2008, 02:49 AM

Hmmm... this interests me more then anything really. Why is it before every major spike in CO2 levels was there an increase in dust? And if you look, it almost seems that the temperature leads the CO2 levels, but that could just be tired eyes looking at the graph.

Dnate Mars · 07-23-2008, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dnate Mars

Hmmm... this interests me more then anything really. Why is it before every major spike in CO2 levels was there an increase in dust? And if you look, it almost seems that the temperature leads the CO2 levels, but that could just be tired eyes looking at the graph.

The more I look at the dust, the better the correlation seems to be with the temperature. There seems to be an inverse correlation between these two.

Interesting. But then, correlation does not mean causation either.

Beebo Brink · 07-23-2008, 07:28 AM

Another interesting aspect of that chart is how it demonstrates the way in which climate can rocket from one state to another. These aren't gradual swoops up and down; they're steep spikes of sudden intensity.

I know that one of the biggest concerns among researchers is that we won't move gradually to some new climate paradigmn, with time to adjust along the way. Instead, we're going to somehow, somewhere trigger a state change that will flip us from one stage to another very quickly. Quckly, within this context, being a ten year period, which is almost instantaneous on a geologic time scale and still pretty damn fast on a human one.

C02 is a critical component in climate chemistry, but we've never -- in the history of our species -- seen the levels this high in the atmosphere, so it is impossible for us to predict with any certainty how this condition will integrate into a dynamic climate system.

In theoretical terms, there is no good or bad change, just change. But in practical terms for any species survival, change increases the risk that you will not be adapted to the new conditions that arrive. An incredibly depressing example of this is the current plight of the penguins who l

07-21-2008, 05:02 PM	#3 (permalink)
Daman Wodenborn Sovereign Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Europe Posts: 1,524 SL Join Date: May 2007 My Mood:	I wonder how dangerous lime is to the animals living in the oceans. edit: somehow I must have missed Beebo's message. Stupid me. __________________ I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it Last edited by Daman; 07-21-2008 at 05:21 PM..

07-21-2008, 11:23 PM	#7 (permalink)
Dnate Mars Tastes like purple Waiting for the right time Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Home Posts: 8,268 Funny Bubbles Champion! Wordtris Champion! SL Join Date: 01/27/2004 Business: Scripter for hire My Mood:	Basically, doing this would be the quickest way to return the carbon back to where we got it from. The biggest problem would be to make sure we don't over do it. Plus I am always leery of man doing anything right when it comes to trying to control nature. We usually end up messing it up even more. __________________ SLU Clubhouse - Open 24/7 Visit at http://slurl.com/secondlife/Tan/138/25/25 <Duke Chaparral> On panther paws he stalks radiating mystery and cacophony from his bunching feline muscles as he slowly stalks his Vertiprey.... <Duke Chaparral> tearing her from her employment shackles with his razor like claws he drags her off to his azure cougar den...

07-22-2008, 07:52 AM	#8 (permalink)
Klannex Northmead Orange belt poet Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 131 My Mood:	It appears that since we began CO2 extraction and release in the 1800s the oceans have been quietly clearing up our mess. Lime it's true will allow greater absorption of this waste gas but the price i,e is an entirely man made cycle, release CO2 offset with lime. It would be undoubtedly one of the worse and most addictive behaviour loops to date. What's wrong with wind/tidal/biofuel/solar generation of green energy and using that, simply stopping the CO2 release, I have absolute faith that if we don't unleash any more toxic shocks there is a natural offset that will kick in quite unnoticed. I'll bet you a streak across Kings Cross station it's a bug too. Yay bugs rule. __________________ P . N . P . A . B . T Pirate Neko Poets Against Bad Things

07-22-2008, 09:40 AM	#10 (permalink)
ConductorX Speed Cajun Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Louisiana Posts: 118 My Mood:	Everyone is drinking the “Kool-Aid”® of Global Warming caused by CO2 emissions. This is just another way to separate us from our hard earn salaries in the form of “carbon credits” and future carbon footprint taxes. People will tell you the corporations will have to pay those taxes to compensate for their Carbon Footprint. Corporations pay no taxes. The customers of corporations ultimately pay the taxes. The stockholders of a corporation only pay taxes on the dividends of the stock they own. Lets look at a few facts I learned from Wikipedia.org. Earth’s atmosphere is composed of various gases. The dry volume of this atmosphere is 5.1352 quadrillion metric tons of various gases mostly Nitrogen. (78%) Just for information a pure nitrogen atmosphere will kill you immediately. Carbon Dioxide makes up .0383 % of our atmosphere. Four hundredths of 1 percent is all of the CO2 in our atmosphere. All of this CO2 weighs in at 1.971684 Trillion Metric Tons. Just to increase the CO2 percentage from .038 percent to one percent we would have to produce 51.1398 Trillion Metric Tons of CO2. That is the amount needed to increase from .038 percent to 1 percent. Lets try to just increase it to .048 percent, 1 hundredth of 1 percent higher. That is only 19.71684 billion metric tons of CO2 that we would have to produce to raise the percentage .01 percent to .048 percent. Trillions of metric tons of CO2 are required to measurably affect the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. To appease environmentalist and non-government organizations such as Green Peace and the Sierra Club oil companies are devising ways to pump CO2 underground and store it in abandoned oil wells. The extremely small amounts of CO2 stored this way will total in the millions of tons at best. But everyone will feel better because we are doing something. No matter the cost or how futile the exercise is. Ultimatly we will pay for this folly everytime we buy a tank of gas or pay through some bogus "carbon taxes". Remember years ago when the bad guy was chloroflourocarbons? Freon and related products. The answer was to do away with refrigerants such as Freon 11 and Freon 12. Freon 12 was replaced with R134 which costs 10 times as much and isn't any safer than 12. It did elminate the do it your self mechanic from working on his car. Freon 11 is a liquid at room temp. You can pour it in a open bucket and it will sit there all day and eventually evaporate. You can wash your hands with it and the only effect is it removes the oils from your skin. Industrial Water Chillers used freon 11 to chill the water. I personally saw one of these Chillers replaced with a new model. The new refrigerant required the operator and maintenance workers to wear self contained breathing equipment because it is a deadly poison and will kill you dead if you accidentally breathe it. The equipment had to housed in a special locked building with no admitance without breathing equipment. Now that the flourocarbon hoax has been applied to us, we are going after the carbon dioxide hoax. What is next? Dihydromonoxide? "CX" (stepping down from the soapbox) __________________ A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.

07-22-2008, 09:56 AM	#11 (permalink)
Psyke Phaeton Psyke's Defense Systems None Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Behind the Great Firewall of Australia Posts: 4,978 SL Join Date: 12-Oct-2003 Business: Psyke's Defence Systems Blog Entries: 3 SLShopper Ads: 1	Who is orchestrating this conspiracy and how come they get to fool so many government and scientist? and what about: The correlation between temperature rise and CO2 in the atmosphere (in low levels as you say)? Wikipedia - climate change and now look at the more recent CO2 levels: Trends in Carbon Dioxide There is good health reasons to stop pollution and we should pay a bit more to look after our environment rather than continue exploiting it and our health. There is a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature change. But I do not yet know if we can say it is the cause. __________________ Χάος \| Psyke's Defense Systems - the original security orbs \| Psyke's AjaxLife - Free web based Second Life access. Last edited by Psyke Phaeton; 07-22-2008 at 10:01 AM..

07-22-2008, 10:04 AM	#12 (permalink)
ZATZAi Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: California Posts: 2,423 XBOX Leaderboard: 9^th	I seem to remember a similar plan that involved dumping mass quantities of iron into the ocean. As I recall this plan is already being carried out in "relatively small" test cases. Relatively small being massive on the human scale. __________________ - ZATZAi

07-22-2008, 10:36 AM	#15 (permalink)
Psyke Phaeton Psyke's Defense Systems None Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Behind the Great Firewall of Australia Posts: 4,978 SL Join Date: 12-Oct-2003 Business: Psyke's Defence Systems Blog Entries: 3 SLShopper Ads: 1	"Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value." "On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady." Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity? - USGS

07-22-2008, 12:00 PM	#16 (permalink)
Beebo Brink Uppity Alt I'm the woman your mother warned you about. Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,088 SL Join Date: October 2006 Business: Brazen Women Shapes and Skins SLShopper Ads: 20 My Mood:	You know, the amount of well-funded disinformation being generated by big industry would really upset me if I didn't happen to think we're already too screwed to save ourselves. People will not stand for the extremely painful economic disruption that would be required to substantially alter our C02 emmissions in a short space of time (ie, within 5-10 years or sooner). They might be persuaded to change behavior over the course of 50-75 years, but we don't have that much time left. We probably have no time left in which to effect change because so many feedback mechanisms are already in motion. So fuck it. Let the deniers babble on and spew their nonsense. The only compensation we'll have is a sardonic "I told you so" when the ship goes down with us all.

07-22-2008, 01:22 PM	#17 (permalink)
Psyke Phaeton Psyke's Defense Systems None Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Behind the Great Firewall of Australia Posts: 4,978 SL Join Date: 12-Oct-2003 Business: Psyke's Defence Systems Blog Entries: 3 SLShopper Ads: 1	We haz a Dept of Climate Change now Australian Department of Climate Change - Home Page

07-23-2008, 02:49 AM	#18 (permalink)
Dnate Mars Tastes like purple Waiting for the right time Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Home Posts: 8,268 Funny Bubbles Champion! Wordtris Champion! SL Join Date: 01/27/2004 Business: Scripter for hire My Mood:	Hmmm... this interests me more then anything really. Why is it before every major spike in CO2 levels was there an increase in dust? And if you look, it almost seems that the temperature leads the CO2 levels, but that could just be tired eyes looking at the graph.