with Peter Sinclair
Mars is essentially 100 percent CO2 at a partial pressure 2000 times that of earth ‘s CO2 and it is as cold as heck. What Mars teaches us about CO2 is that CO2 is a very poor greenhouse gas that has minimal effect on earths climate. Per a NASA study, 0.08F more warming from the increase in CO2.
Mastur Bates is back with his mental onanizing. This comment is so F-ing stupid, misinformed, and mindless that I hope no one bothers to waste the time replying to it as if it were serious.
It once again raises the question of whether Tommy-Poo is just some troll who wastes our time and gets his kicks by Poe-ing us.
Must be time to change hands
Tommy Poo, your so full of $hit you should run for president! Looks like there’s an opening for you now in the GOP … 😂
So Tom what do you think Venus teaches us about carbon dioxide then?
Er .. you do realise there’s an issue with density and amount of gas present & the difference between a really thick atmosphere a really thin one and one that’s in between yeah?
What a nice video! And it’s got SCIENCE in it! And a PhD “candidate” made it!
If one tracks down the source of this piece, one finds that it came from Science Hooker—–go to sciencehooker.com for a full understanding of who that is and what contributions to science are made by SH.
IMO, another self promoter who will one day try to get people to send $$$ to support her “skies into stone” BS. Perhaps she can team up with the Solar Roadway folks and try to sequester CO2 in the glass surface of the Solar Roadways that will soon be popping up everywhere. Maybe she can tag on to Musk’s Mars BS and suck up some $$$ there, and since NASA seems to be more interested in Mars BS than studying our rapidly deteriorating planet, there’s an opportunity there as well.
PS In case anyone is unaware, Musk is now talking about sending “ships” to Mars with 100 or more people on board. Make your reservations now (for your great grandchildren).
However if living in a prison is your thing, why wait for Mars Colonies, just do a crime
A tad light on details.
More than a tad. We have an example much closer to home of a planetary atmosphere de-carbonizing by forming carbonate rocks, and the video doesn’t make the case that Mars has any new information to offer. The Mars theme seems to be just a hook.
Hey, lay offa Master Tom. He gets his inside dope straight from Steve Goddard and Goddard is a respected scientific name in planetary science stuff.
Unfortunately, “Goddard” is a pseudonym for a guy with a Masters in Electrical Engineering whose real name is Tony Heller. Tony Heller, unfortunately, is a laughing stock. So, that doesn’t bode well for Heller’s acolyte, who I guess we should now call SpaceMaster Bates.
I *really* wonder about mineralization. It could be interesting of Greenman found an expert to explain how reasonable it would or wouldn’t be to sequester CO2 as carbonates.
My attitude has always been: I’m living on top of hundreds of feet of sequestered carbon. Look at almost any layered rock formation, any limestone quarry, the Grand Canyon: you are looking at carbonate rocks. My understanding is the carbon was once in the atmosphere, it reacted with minerals like olivine and calcite as they weathered out of the surface.
But you don’t see much written about the possibility of sequestering carbon through this process. You can find mention of the idea, and of pilot projects. But there doesn’t seem to be a lot of activity.
My guess is that there must be reasons it is not practical, perhaps it takes too much energy or the reaction is too slow.
Anyway, as an engaged layperson it would be nice to know.
It’s good to see that someone wants to discuss the science rather than let Master Bates jerk us off topic.
You’re right that the Earth has sequestered a lot of carbon “naturally” through “mineralization”, and it IS one of the things the geoengineering types are looking at seriously. The problem is, as you state, that “….perhaps it takes too much energy or the reaction is too slow”.
We would have to grind up a lot of rock and spread it thinly to get the CO2 uptake to happen with the rapidity needed to match our release of CO2—-unless every machine involved was powered by electricity from solar, wind, or nuclear, the CO2 budget would be high, and the “natural” process the Earth employs took place over a very long time—-more time than we have.
Keep googling, and you’ll find a fair amount of stuff. You could spend the rest of your life here: Scholarly articles for co2 capture by olivine
Much research needs to be done in this area, but one thing that is NOT likely to give us any answers is looking at what happened on Mars
“It’s good to see that someone wants to discuss the science rather than let Master Bates jerk us off topic.”
I saw what you did there! :>D
That obvious, huh? Master Bates “brings out” the best in me.
Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
"The sharpest climate denier debunker on YouTube."
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 3,179 other followers