Carbon Dioxide Capture, Utilization & Sequestration Technical Section

This is one of the most controversial issues of our time. I think that the US government will soon adopt the opposite of its present (affirmative) position.

I don’t think that there is any valid evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Our climate has been constantly changing since the earth was formed.  I also don’t believe that there’s any need or rationale for CO2 storage   And, I don’t think that there’s even a remote possibility of affecting the weather by doing so, as Marco Rubio also claims.

I think that we can determine the answer to the main question here through rational scientific debate.   Engineers and scientists use the scientific method to validate or refute any claim or method.  That means that we use simple logic and the simplest possible examples or tests to substantiate our claims and methods.  “Rational” means that if one is asked a simple question regarding his position and he is unable or unwilling to respond, then his position is lost.  This is what makes these discussion forums so important – they allow such rational debate to pursue and possibly prove the truth on any subject.  Publications do not allow the possibility of timely debate and resolution of controversial subjects.

Proponents claim global warming due to greenhouse effect resulting from a 100 ppm increase in CO2 that can be attributed to man. Where are the results of the simplest possible experiment demonstrating it?  The difference in equilibrium temperature in 2 tanks exposed to the same amount of radiation with a 100 ppm difference in CO2 would demonstrate the effect (initialize the tanks equally, withdraw gas from one and add CO2 to establish the 100 ppm difference).  I think that experimental results can’t be found because the effect is negligible, and because we’ve mostly forgotten how to substantiate or refute a claim using the scientific method.  Endless debate is the result of ignoring it.

We must of course minimize pollution, but CO2 is not a pollutant. Increased levels are in fact beneficial to plant and animal life.

Search for "ice age cycle" and look at the interpreted data from ice cores showing the last 5 or 6 ice ages on a cycle of 80 to 120 thousand years (the Malankovich cycle, thought to be caused by variations in the earth’s orbit). Every annual orbit of the earth around the sun is different due to variation in gravitational forces on the scale of the solar system.  Also look at the 5 degree F oscillations in interpreted global average temperature on a cycle of a century or two over the last 15 thousand years, far greater than the 1 degree change over the last century noted by proponents.  This oscillation dies out before that because the interpretations become less accurate as the older and deeper ice layers become more difficult to distinguish due to compaction.  Why is there any concern over a claimed 1 degree temperature change in a century?

It is actually impossible to compute a global average temperature from sparse surface measurements. Any claim of accurately doing so is false.  A fine grid over the entire surface of the earth monitored 24/7 would be required, to integrate temperature data over time and accurately compute a global average temperature (how is temperature at the ocean surfaces covering most of the earth accounted for?).  Satellite imagery can be used but it isn't by NASA/NOAA because it doesn't reflect any warming at all, according to a number of sources.  Even if global warming currently exists, I don’t think that there is any valid evidence that it’s due to man.  Since our climate is constantly changing, either global warming or cooling is constantly occurring to some degree.  Climate is guaranteed to be constantly changing at every point on the surface of the earth on the scale of hours, days, years, and geologic time.

I and many others believe that anthropogenic global warming is no more than a current government and UN agenda to increase regulation and control of business. I find the whole idea of carbon sequestration and storage to be nonsensical.  I don’t think we can possibly store enough CO2 to have a significant effect.  I don’t even think that we even produce enough to have a significant effect!  Our climate is constantly changing over geologic time and is controlled by forces on the scale of the planet and moon and solar system that are far beyond the control or influence of man.

It’s certainly important that we minimize pollution, and I believe that our most important current environmental concern by far is the dumping of trash and toxic chemicals into our lakes, rivers, and oceans, since man was able to stand.

Why does anyone believe in anthropogenic global warming, or in the need or benefit of CO2 storage? I’ve looked through the references given by this technical section and all technical papers on the subject that I can find, and I find no proof of it.  I find much valid evidence against it, including the extremely valuable potential use of CO2 for (primary or EOR) miscible flooding.

Regards,

Brian

Brian,

I'm kind of puzzled by your barrage of posts, mostly for two reasons.

First, there is a misunderstanding of what scientific method is about. You say it should be use to "validate or refute", but actually science cannot prove a theory (or paradigm), it can only try to hack it down so you can use it until it stands. Then the theory is replaced with something that works better (i.e. that can answer more questions). We can discuss about "truth", but most scientists would leave this slippery subject to philosophers and theologians. Also "rational" has a deeper meaning than providing a simple answer, and simplicity is not always a prerequisite of truth: Occam's razor rephrased by Einstein requires explanations to be as simple as possible, but no simpler. Rational in scientific debates has come to mean applying scientific method, rather than carrying on with public polemic like the entertaining, but ultimately sterile, exchanges between Christian and Muslim apologists in the Middle Ages. There are answers to your criticisms (e.g. how you define global average temperature changes, how plants react to increased CO2, the role of orbital and sun cycles in the current climate changes) but I don't think we should occupy this blog and be a bore to all of the others; more to the point, I'm not sure that starting a real rational exchange would help change your mind - or mine, why not?

And this is the second topic that is tickling my curiosity: why of all of science's endeavors is climate change the one most likely to get intelligent people to spot the hidden hand of conspiracy? Granted, there is a surprising amount of technically illiterate people denying that the US ever landed on the moon, but no real scientific theory (as opposed to an engineering feat) gets such a sustained and emotional attack from a minority that claims to have read all literature on the subject, indeed a prerequisite for rational scientific debate (together with study, validation and peer review, I'm afraid). Even opposition to the theory of evolution is far more marginal and with less bombastic scientific claims. You can scream from the rooftops that you don't believe in a theory, but no scientist will bother correcting you, since "belief" has very little role in a shamelessly utilitarian field. And seeing conspiracies is a deeply rooted human response that must have saved plenty of our ancestors in time pasts; now all it does is provide manure for paranoia to grow.

At least you propose a villain for this conspiracy, the current US government and the UN. I've always wondered why people are obsessed with this quaint and polite talking shop (sitting in NYC, of all places), but I can reassure you: whenever you wonder why a handful of billions of "others" are out to get you, then it is very likely that they are not. When Hillary Clinton talked of "deplorables" she tarred millions of fellow Americans with base and despicable motives, instead of understanding what drove their views and beliefs. Is a general accusation of irrational behavior driven by an international conspiracy not the same?

Best regards,

This is one of the most controversial issues of our time. I think that the US government will soon adopt the opposite of its present (affirmative) position.

I don’t think that there is any valid evidence of anthropogenic global warming. Our climate has been constantly changing since the earth was formed.  I also don’t believe that there’s any need or rationale for CO2 storage   And, I don’t think that there’s even a remote possibility of affecting the weather by doing so, as Marco Rubio also claims.

I think that we can determine the answer to the main question here through rational scientific debate.   Engineers and scientists use the scientific method to validate or refute any claim or method.  That means that we use simple logic and the simplest possible examples or tests to substantiate our claims and methods.  “Rational” means that if one is asked a simple question regarding his position and he is unable or unwilling to respond, then his position is lost.  This is what makes these discussion forums so important – they allow such rational debate to pursue and possibly prove the truth on any subject.  Publications do not allow the possibility of timely debate and resolution of controversial subjects.

Proponents claim global warming due to greenhouse effect resulting from a 100 ppm increase in CO2 that can be attributed to man. Where are the results of the simplest possible experiment demonstrating it?  The difference in equilibrium temperature in 2 tanks exposed to the same amount of radiation with a 100 ppm difference in CO2 would demonstrate the effect (initialize the tanks equally, withdraw gas from one and add CO2 to establish the 100 ppm difference).  I think that experimental results can’t be found because the effect is negligible, and because we’ve mostly forgotten how to substantiate or refute a claim using the scientific method.  Endless debate is the result of ignoring it.

We must of course minimize pollution, but CO2 is not a pollutant. Increased levels are in fact beneficial to plant and animal life.

Search for "ice age cycle" and look at the interpreted data from ice cores showing the last 5 or 6 ice ages on a cycle of 80 to 120 thousand years (the Malankovich cycle, thought to be caused by variations in the earth’s orbit). Every annual orbit of the earth around the sun is different due to variation in gravitational forces on the scale of the solar system.  Also look at the 5 degree F oscillations in interpreted global average temperature on a cycle of a century or two over the last 15 thousand years, far greater than the 1 degree change over the last century noted by proponents.  This oscillation dies out before that because the interpretations become less accurate as the older and deeper ice layers become more difficult to distinguish due to compaction.  Why is there any concern over a claimed 1 degree temperature change in a century?

It is actually impossible to compute a global average temperature from sparse surface measurements. Any claim of accurately doing so is false.  A fine grid over the entire surface of the earth monitored 24/7 would be required, to integrate temperature data over time and accurately compute a global average temperature (how is temperature at the ocean surfaces covering most of the earth accounted for?).  Satellite imagery can be used but it isn't by NASA/NOAA because it doesn't reflect any warming at all, according to a number of sources.  Even if global warming currently exists, I don’t think that there is any valid evidence that it’s due to man.  Since our climate is constantly changing, either global warming or cooling is constantly occurring to some degree.  Climate is guaranteed to be constantly changing at every point on the surface of the earth on the scale of hours, days, years, and geologic time.

I and many others believe that anthropogenic global warming is no more than a current government and UN agenda to increase regulation and control of business. I find the whole idea of carbon sequestration and storage to be nonsensical.  I don’t think we can possibly store enough CO2 to have a significant effect.  I don’t even think that we even produce enough to have a significant effect!  Our climate is constantly changing over geologic time and is controlled by forces on the scale of the planet and moon and solar system that are far beyond the control or influence of man.

It’s certainly important that we minimize pollution, and I believe that our most important current environmental concern by far is the dumping of trash and toxic chemicals into our lakes, rivers, and oceans, since man was able to stand.

Why does anyone believe in anthropogenic global warming, or in the need or benefit of CO2 storage? I’ve looked through the references given by this technical section and all technical papers on the subject that I can find, and I find no proof of it.  I find much valid evidence against it, including the extremely valuable potential use of CO2 for (primary or EOR) miscible flooding.

Regards,

Brian