A Few Things Ill Considered

Thanks to Crakar14, I came across this article from the India Times online:

In a major breakthrough that could help in the fight against global warming, a team of five Indian scientists from four institutes of the country have discovered a naturally occurring bacteria which converts carbon dioxide (CO2) into a compound found in limestone and chalk.


Based on this, Crakar thinks we should just continue business as usual and forget this whole global warming scare thing. (Oh, btw, that’s what he thought that before too)

Now, I don’t know anything more than what it says in the article, but it hardly seems obvious just yet that this is the deus ex machina that will save us all! After all, carbon fixing via iron fertilization of oceans water is not a new concept, but we have not got much past the speculation stage with that one yet. Beware the unwanted side effects!

The article’s details are sparse and the data about energy investment and costs required to scale it up to anything relevant is completely absent, but it is certainly an interesting finding (if it is anything more than a fake story, I have no idea).

Rayalu said the chemical reactions involved in the process have been successfully established while its economic viability, cloning, expression and single-step purification are under study. The team has published its findings in the Indian Journal of Microbiology and its paper has been accepted for publication in the World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

This is in the concluding paragraph:

it is nature that has come to the rescue of the human race from harmful effects of global warming

WTF?!? To call that “overly optimistic” is understatement taken to the extreme! Let’s keep the cork in that champagne bottle for a little while longer, shall we?

Comments

  1. #1 Kiwiiano
    February 17, 2009

    Siiigh!!! Bloody journalists. Is there a single one out there with the nouce to ask the blindingly obvious scientific questions, like there’s a Ca and an extra O in there, where are they coming from?

  2. #2 Crakar14
    February 17, 2009

    Coby, (sorry for the long post)

    Thanks for the plug, the reason i sent you the link is to highlight the fact that we dont know all there is to know (hence the post in the other topic).

    Let me explain, the IPCC has fingered C02 through a process of elimination, they have taken all the warming and cooling over the past century (a nett gain of about 0.7C) and attributed this to natural variation. These include Vulcanism, solar variation and ENSO weather patterns etc.

    In the end there is a small amount of warming unaccounted for so according to the IPCC the only thing left is C02. From this they have guesstimated via computer models the effects of C02 in the real world (they claim it is too hard to do such a thing so just trust us).

    The problem with the process of elimination is that it suffers from to flaws, the first is that you may over or under estimate all the known forcings.

    The second is that we do not know all of the forcings, the link i gave highlights our ignorance.

    This leads to the IPCC projecting/predicting the amount of C02 in the air in the year 2100 and from this the guesstimation of the temp. Which at worst will be over 6C higher than it is now, after 8 years into thier 100 year prediction C02 levels are already well below the lower limit.

    This is probably because no one at the IPCC fore saw the oceans cooling via the -PDO and now -AMO (IPCC: WTF are they)we all know a cooling ocean will absorb more C02, and now we have found several types of bacteria which actually scrub C02 from the air, what else is out there waiting to be discovered?

    So i sit here waiting patiently for the IPCC to retract thier guesstimation with a more realistic update. I am not holding my breath.

    In regards to the above topic, i do not and never will prescribe a BAU approach. However the circus called the IPCC and government ETS are a joke. Why do people continue to push for wind and solar power as an alternative and get rid of coal when we both know they do not produce enough to be considered as a base load alternative.

    Oh i know some twit here in Australia is now praising the benefits of nuclear power, apparently it is much better for the environment. What would you rather do spill a barrel of C02 or a barrel of radio active waste, do you see where i am going with this Coby?

    Lets not forget that joke called Kyoto, The thing has been watered down so much that now China and India are exempt WTF!!!!!! The two biggest emitters of C02 are EXEMPT WTF!!!!!!!!!

    We as a species pump numerous amounts of crap into every crevice we can find destroying the planet as we go and have spent the last 20 years and billions upon billions of dallers squabbling about how much C02 we need to get rid of. How much have we reduced so far? Not one molecule thats what.

    That money spent IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION would have eliminated petrol cars, funded cold fusion power (still a pipe dream i know) but still, advances in solar and wind, alternatives to non biodegradable plastic crap made in china.

    In summary we have become a lazy race and a throw away society, taxing C02 to make wall street speculators and academy/nobel prize winners rich beyond imagination will not solve the problems of the world.

    Cheers

    Crakar

  3. #3 mikatollah
    February 17, 2009

    Cold fusion? Really? Intelligent Design and now cold fusion…

    Crakar, you are the gift that keeps on giving.

  4. #4 llewelly
    February 18, 2009

    Crakar14 | February 17, 2009 9:13 PM

    That money spent IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION would have eliminated petrol cars, funded cold fusion power (still a pipe dream i know) …

    You know cold fusion is a ‘pipe dream’, yet you you think funding it would be ‘money spent IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION’? You think money should spent on demonstrable frauds?
    Finally, an AGW denialist I understand.

  5. #5 DaleP
    February 18, 2009

    Crakar14:
    Lets not forget that joke called Kyoto, The thing has been watered down so much that now China and India are exempt WTF!!!!!! The two biggest emitters of C02 are EXEMPT WTF!!!!!!!!!
    ———-
    What should the limits be, and how to reach an international agreement? The developed countries are emitting CO2 on a much higher per capita basis. They will not accept, nor can anyone expect them to accept, a per country calculation, since their populations are so much larger than ours. Since each person shares the atmosphere equally, each of have an equal but not superior right to pollute it. Thus it is appropriate for us to plan to reduce our per capita emissions, while their total emissions continue to increase. The goal to to agree to find a cap on emissions that will not restrict their economic development too much.

  6. #6 Crakar14
    February 18, 2009

    Mikatollah,

    Just when i thought we were being nice to each other, by the way Herpes is the “gift that keeps on giving” i am not that good.

    llewelly,

    Sorry i made a mistake (there i said it) i was refering to nuclear fusion not cold fusion here is a link

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

    So the next time you here a lobbyist saying nuclear fission is much better than coal for the environment you know he is full of crap

    Whilst on the subject of fraud. Dont know about any frauds conducted, well apart from the one Al Gore is perpetrating. However it should be noted the last time the church got involved in science a lot of good people were locked for fraud (history repeating).

    Dale P,

    One slight correction, C02 is not a pollutant. You seem to be a bit confused in other areas as well. I thought the goal was to reduce C02 levels back to pre industrial levels how is this possible with China and India not participating?

    For example if Australia stopped all emissions today China will make up for it in less than 6 months, so you see ALL COUNTRIES need to STOP.

    Australia is about to abandon its emissions trading scheme before it even began and is looking at returning to more tried and true methods of revenue raising by introducing a carbon tax scheme.

    Question for all in the peanut gallery:

    How is applying a tax going to reduce Australias emissions? (take your time)

    And no dont give me that old chestnut of “if you increase the cost of something people wont buy it” Thats why they increase taxes to make more money.

Current ye@r *