Scientists find way to make mineral which can remove CO2 from atmosphere

August 14, 2018, Goldschmidt Conference
Scientists find way to make mineral which can remove CO2 from atmosphere
Natural magnesite crystal (4 microns wide). Credit: Ian Power

Scientists have found a rapid way of producing magnesite, a mineral which stores carbon dioxide. If this can be developed to an industrial scale, it opens the door to removing CO2 from the atmosphere for long-term storage, thus countering the global warming effect of atmospheric CO2. This work is presented at the Goldschmidt conference in Boston.

Scientists are already working to slow by removing dioxide from the atmosphere, but there are serious practical and economic limits on developing the technology. Now, for the first time, researchers have explained how magnesite forms at low temperature, and offered a route to dramatically accelerating its crystallization. A tonne of naturally-occurring magnesite can remove around half a tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere, but the rate of formation is very slow.

Project leader, Professor Ian Power (Trent University, Ontario, Canada) said:

"Our work shows two things. Firstly, we have explained how and how fast magnesite forms naturally. This is a process which takes hundreds to thousands of years in nature at Earth's surface. The second thing we have done is to demonstrate a pathway which speeds this process up dramatically"

The researchers were able to show that by using polystyrene microspheres as a catalyst, magnesite would form within 72 days. The microspheres themselves are unchanged by the production process, so they can ideally be reused.

"Using microspheres means that we were able to speed up magnesite formation by orders of magnitude. This process takes place at room temperature, meaning that magnesite production is extremely energy efficient"

Magnesite sediments in a playa in British Columbia, Canada. Credit: Ian Power
"For now, we recognise that this is an experimental process, and will need to be scaled up before we can be sure that magnesite can be used in carbon sequestration (taking CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently storing it as magnesite). This depends on several variables, including the price of carbon and the refinement of the sequestration technology, but we now know that the science makes it do-able".

Commenting, Professor Peter Kelemen at Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory (New York) said "It is really exciting that this group has worked out the mechanism of natural magnesite crystallization at low temperatures, as has been previously observed—but not explained—in weathering of ultramafic rocks. The potential for accelerating the process is also important, potentially offering a benign and relatively inexpensive route to carbon storage, and perhaps even direct CO2 removal from air."

Explore further: Scientists probe abandoned mine for clues about permanent CO2 sequestration

Related Stories

Video: Developing carbon management solutions

July 20, 2017

Global consumption of fossil fuels is causing atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to rise to levels that threaten human and environmental sustainability. These gases warm the planet and negatively impact ...

Storing carbon in rocks may help fight against climate change

October 5, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- As climate change continues to emerge as the biggest challenge of the 21st century, the race to come up with novel ways to deal with the threat has become more urgent than ever. Carbon capture and storage ...

Recommended for you

79 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rubiks6
1.4 / 5 (18) Aug 15, 2018
"As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease."
Genesis 8;22

The Earth was made for Man and will continue to be habitable and useful for him as long as it remains. We should use every resource available to improve our quality of life. We don't need artificial CO2 "scrubbers." The Earth is a well-designed system and will naturally restore any imbalances we may create. We are incapable of disrupting the Designer's plans. We are the main part of His plans.
Shootist
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2018
"As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease."
Genesis 8;22

The Earth was made for Man and will continue to be habitable and useful for him as long as it remains. We should use every resource available to improve our quality of life. We don't need artificial CO2 "scrubbers." The Earth is a well-designed system and will naturally restore any imbalances we may create.


well that is a crock of happy horseshit.

"The polar bears will be fine" (for different reasons) -- Freeman Dyson
rubiks6
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2018
Well - that was a well thought out and imaginative refutation. You must have spent every bit of two seconds coming up with that. Ad hominem, over easy, no salt.
rodkeh
1 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2018
"As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease."
Genesis 8;22

The Earth was made for Man and will continue to be habitable and useful for him as long as it remains. We should use every resource available to improve our quality of life. We don't need artificial CO2 "scrubbers." The Earth is a well-designed system and will naturally restore any imbalances we may create. We are incapable of disrupting the Designer's plans. We are the main part of His plans.

That would have been right on the money if you hadn't spoiled it with Voodoo.
FredJose
1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
Would have been so much better if it could also scrub the most dangerous automobile gases - HydroCarbons (Benzenes, Ethylene, etc.) -, Carbon-Monoxides, Nitrogen Oxides, sulphur oxides and brake dust instead of just CO2.
johnbrianshannon
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2018
It would be great to pave/paint roads with this material.
France has built a road from (a special kind of) solar panels.
But imagine if magnesite could be blended with asphalt or concrete...
Whart1984
Aug 15, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whart1984
Aug 15, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SCVGoodToGo
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2018
You might want to fast forward about 50 years, FreddyJ. Those are already scrubbed with catalytic converters, if not fully combusted.
carbon_unit
not rated yet Aug 15, 2018
(delete)
carbon_unit
4 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2018
Would have been so much better if it could also scrub the most dangerous automobile gases - HydroCarbons (Benzenes, Ethylene, etc.) -, Carbon-Monoxides, Nitrogen Oxides, sulphur oxides and brake dust instead of just CO2.
Electric cars will largely take care of this.
In addition this process would be energy hungry and it would actually increase the fossil fuel consumption instead of decrease.
It would be monumentally silly to power this process with fossil fuels. Seems like a good use for excess/off peak wind/solar energy.
carbon_unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2018
Would have been so much better if it could also scrub the most dangerous automobile gases - HydroCarbons (Benzenes, Ethylene, etc.) -, Carbon-Monoxides, Nitrogen Oxides, sulphur oxides and brake dust instead of just CO2.
Electric cars will largely take care of this.
In addition this process would be energy hungry and it would actually increase the fossil fuel consumption instead of decrease.
It would be monumentally silly to power this process with fossil fuels. Seems like a good use for excess/off peak wind/solar energy.
carbon_unit
4 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2018
Would have been so much better if it could also scrub the most dangerous automobile gases - HydroCarbons (Benzenes, Ethylene, etc.) -, Carbon-Monoxides, Nitrogen Oxides, sulphur oxides and brake dust instead of just CO2.
Electric cars will largely take care of this.
In addition this process would be energy hungry and it would actually increase the fossil fuel consumption instead of decrease.
It would be monumentally silly to power this process with fossil fuels. Seems like a good use for excess/off peak wind/solar energy.
carbon_unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2018
Sorry about the redundancy. The page seemed to be ignoring Submit, then hung on a gateway timeout when I tried to reload, then there were dups.
catrov
5 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2018
For a reality check, let's calculate how much magnesite would be needed to absorb all the CO2 produced by energy generation just in the US in one year. The reference year is 2010; emissions have undoubtedly risen since then. But it will give us a good ballpark figure.

We need 2 tons of magnesite to absorb 1 ton of CO2, we emit 1.2 billion tons of CO2 per year, and magnesite has a density of 3. Thus we would need about 1 billion cubic meters of magnesite, which is enough to cover the city of Los Angeles to a depth of nearly a meter.

That's a big waste disposal problem. If it has to be shipped to a disposal site, that's 100 million dump truck loads, or 200 dump trucks unloading every minute, 24/7, 365 days a year. This is not likely to be a practical solution.
rodkeh
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2018
The whole thing is an exercise in stupidity. We need more atmospheric CO2, NOT less! The Physics proves that AGW is a lie and a fraud.

So many are worried about over population, so they want to starve the ecosystem to make sure that everyone starves to death in the future! That should solve the overpopulation problem but it is so stupid and so wasteful, when all we need to do, is to do more of what we now do. The more CO2 the better and the more CO2, the better the ecosystem can respond to our growing need.

The ecosystem can not feed us if we don't feed it and CO2 is the food the ecosystem needs! The AGW alarmists are liars and frauds who only what to rape the system and profit from the fear of the ignorant and gullible!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2018
@rod
The Physics proves that AGW is a lie and a fraud
where is that validated study
surely if you're making this claim then the study is published and has been subsequently validated, right?
We need more atmospheric CO2
https://skeptical...nced.htm

https://skeptical...nced.htm

why is it that you always make claims but you've never once been able to refute the evidence?

and you call AGW a lie and fraud?
technically, you've just proven you're a liar and fraud
rodkeh
2 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2018
@ CS
What evidence? All the AGW frauds can provide is coincidental drivel.
It is ALL right there in the textbooks. No papers or studies are required. The laws of Physics are well documented in the textbooks.
Get an education!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2018
@rof
What evidence?
you mean, you can't read?
what about the studies referenced?
oh right... you didn't read them because then you would have to address specifics
well, you can start here: https://scholar.g...pogenic+

funny thing is: so far, you've provided only unsupported conjecture based upon your faulty interpretations of reality, so it's even below drivel

oh, and thanks for validating that you're a liar and fraud, mind you
I really did appreciate that one
It is ALL right there in the textbooks. No papers or studies are required
so, you can't point to anything?
but you claimed the physics proved something - and that would mean experiment backed by validation

so...
Get an education!
I've got several
what happened to you?
sphannan
4 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2018
"As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,"

"The whole thing is an exercise in stupidity. We need more atmospheric CO2, NOT less! The Physics proves that AGW is a lie and a fraud."

Wow, and to think the GREAT FOOL George Carlin said it all 20 years ago. To paraphrase the GREAT ONE 'the earth has plastic, it doesn't need us anymore."

Yep CO2 is serious, but plastic being at the bottom of the food chain doesn't bode well for the top of the food chain.

Enjoy the earth, it will be done with us soon enough.

rodkeh
1 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2018
@rof
Get an education!
I've got several
what happened to you?


You are an uneducated twit and a liar! Why would I waste my time?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2018
@rolf
You are an uneducated twit and a liar!
says the man who just proved he can't read, is a liar and a fraud?

here is the thing: your entire argument centres around a claim that CO2 is "good"

except that I just provided no less than 27 references in two links (first post) and "About 169,000 results" in a second post that demonstrate you're wrong (and a liar, and a fraud)

and the best you can come up with to the *validated* evidence presented is ad hominem, blatant lies and a hand-wavey "The laws of Physics are well documented in the textbooks" claim that points to absolutely nothing while those well-documented laws of physics are demonstrated (and validated) in my links and references
Why would I waste my time?
if you are validated with proof, you will be a billionaire, propelled to notoriety and fame, you get a Nobel in physics and you will be lauded for your amazing insight and intellect

otherwise, you've proven yourself a fraud and liar
again
rodkeh
1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
"As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,"

"The whole thing is an exercise in stupidity. We need more atmospheric CO2, NOT less! The Physics proves that AGW is a lie and a fraud."

Wow, and to think the GREAT FOOL George Carlin said it all 20 years ago. To paraphrase the GREAT ONE 'the earth has plastic, it doesn't need us anymore."

Yep CO2 is serious, but plastic being at the bottom of the food chain doesn't bode well for the top of the food chain.

Enjoy the earth, it will be done with us soon enough.


Speak for yourself! The Earth will provide everything we need, we only need to feed it more CO2!
rodkeh
1 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2018
@CS

You're an uneducated nitwit. You have no idea of what constitutes evidence because you lack the education to be able to tell. That is why you keep spouting the same idiotic Duck Speak!

Why would I waste my time trying to educate a fool who obviously doesn't now and never did, want to learn anything about science.

You're an uneducated idiot!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2018
@IQ of a rod of aluminum
You're an uneducated nitwit
and orders of magnitude above you
You have no idea of what constitutes evidence because you lack the education to be able to tell
says the man who just got served by more than 169,000 links to evidence he is ignoring...

So, why do you fear the evidence so much that you are willing to ignore it?
You're an uneducated idiot!
considering I just made you look illiterate, ignorant, fanatical and like a complete moron...

.

so roddy-TROLL, if I am so uneducated, why can't you produce evidence proving the laws of physics are violated in any of the 169,000 links above?

better yet, focus on the initial two links and refute the combined validated evidence therein
that would be easier considering the limited literacy skills you've demonstrated

should I find something easier for you to understand?
I'll look for 5th grade reading level material for you
or should I look for lower than that?
rodkeh
1 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2018
@CS

You are an uneducated idiot!!!
rodkeh
1.1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
@CS
"So, why do you fear the evidence so much that you are willing to ignore it?"

You are an uneducated idiot! You have no idea of what constitutes evidence.
Phyllis Harmonic
5 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2018
For folks like rubiks6, all their questions eventually resolve to the same answer, "GOD!!", which is the exact opposite of science.
rodkeh
1 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2018
For folks like Rodkeh, all their questions eventually resolve to the same answer, "GOD!!", which is the exact opposite of science.


You really are thick! All Your questions are resolved by your political dogma which is why you know nothing about science!
Phyllis Harmonic
5 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2018
I mistakenly pointed at you instead of rubiks6, and fixed that.

But seeing how you respond to me and everyone else here, I can only conclude that invective is the only tool in your argumentation tool bag. You sound like an angry 15 year old.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2018
@rod-the-godderTROLL
All Your questions are resolved by your political dogma
except the questions are "resolved" by the validated science presented in my links above
you know nothing about science!
You really are thick!
You are an uneducated idiot! You have no idea of what constitutes evidence
you keep repeating this to everyone
why?

is it because you know you don't have evidence?
https://www.youtu...8Sx4B2Sk

is it because you're projecting?

or is it because you're trying to convince yourself of your own dogma despite the evidence?

rodkeh
1 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2018
why can't you produce evidence proving the laws of physics are violated in any of the 169,000 links above?


Why would I want to prove anything to an idiot??? Only an idiot would try to convince an idiot! I'm not an idiot, so I can't be bothered.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2018
@IDIOTrodkeh
Why would I want to prove anything to an idiot???
I'm not trying to convince you of anything
nor am I asking you to convince me of anything
I'm saying that if you can produce the evidence you can teach others here at the site
and get your nobel
[snicker]
Only an idiot would try to convince an idiot!
which is why I'm not trying to convince you of anything - LOL
I'm not an idiot
then why are you demonstrating otherwise?

it's a simple request
I kept it simple because I know there isn't any evidence like you claim and I knew you would need time to seek out legitimate references from your political sites (and because you're an idiot and illiterate, too)
rodkeh
1 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2018
I mistakenly pointed at you instead of rubiks6, and fixed that.

But seeing how you respond to me and everyone else here, I can only conclude that invective is the only tool in your argumentation tool bag. You sound like an angry 15 year old.


Yes, angry and disgusted, after 20+ years, with the fact that all you AGW fanatic go on and on about owning the scientific high ground but not a single one of you knows anything about science, so not one of you can debate the issue on its' own merits! You all rely on others to do your thinking for you, so have to place your trust in the opinion of others but you can't tell if they are lying to you or not! You are uneducated!!! I don't give a sh*t about the sources or links of a lot of uneducated, useful idiots! Physics has already answered all the questions, so why would I want proof that a wheel can roll?

If you have an education in science, there are no questions about it! Only answers!
rodkeh
1 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2018
I'm not an idiot .....then why are you demonstrating otherwise?

it's a simple request
I kept it simple because I know there isn't any evidence like you claim and I knew you would need time to seek out legitimate references from your political sites (and because you're an idiot and illiterate, too)


It is so hard to get through to an idiot but I'll try again.

Why would I bother?
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2018
ddevon
3 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2018
I am pleased to see scientists working the problem with science. That is how we find solutions. Politicians with political solutions can never actually solve problems that take scientists to fix.
Politicians want to simply stifle economic behavior, but we need wealth creation to fix things. Poverty doesn't produce much scientific production. It takes money.
Whart1984
Aug 15, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JackOfManyTrades
not rated yet Aug 15, 2018
It seems to me that this would also represent a sequestration of oxygen that was previously in the atmosphere as you are taking hydrocarbons out of the ground, combining them with oxygen from the atmosphere, and locking the non-energy products into minerals.

Granted, CO2 represents only 0.06% of the atmosphere by weight and so the reduction in oxygen levels created by cutting that down to a more reasonable number would also be small (relative to O2's 23% share of the mass of the atmosphere), but we know that plants have impressive responses to changes in CO2 at the parts per million level. Does anybody know if they have a similar response to changes in oxygen levels?
3251957
not rated yet Aug 16, 2018
It would be nice if we could get along.
leetennant
4 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2018
"As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease."
Genesis 8;22

The Earth was made for Man and will continue to be habitable and useful for him as long as it remains. We should use every resource available to improve our quality of life. We don't need artificial CO2 "scrubbers." The Earth is a well-designed system and will naturally restore any imbalances we may create. We are incapable of disrupting the Designer's plans. We are the main part of His plans.

That would have been right on the money if you hadn't spoiled it with Voodoo.


Taken literally that quote from Genesis means "As long as it exists, the earth will continue to revolve and rotate around the sun".
Nothing about humans, civilisation, climate, weather, the price of tea in China or crystal growth.
Just "Earth exists".
Thanks for that. Profound and relevant.
God these fundies are morons.
leetennant
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2018
For a reality check, let's calculate how much magnesite would be needed to absorb all the CO2 produced by energy generation just in the US in one year. .


That was my issue. This only becomes a solution if we reduce emissions to zero and then use the magnesite in tandem with other C02 scrubbing tech. Even then we'll probably have a brand-new magnesite problem.
rubiks6
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2018
Wherever natural resources are exploited (like oil, minerals) quality of life gets better. The rich get richer and the poor get richer. These resources were put here for our benefit. Let's use them to make the world a better place.

As for CO2, my understanding is that an increase in CO2 increases the growth rate of plants, thus reducing CO2 and bringing things back into balance. Increased plant growth means increased food production, too.
rubiks6
2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2018
PS - I did not find it the least bit necessary to call anyone derogatory names or use any other form of ad hominem to make my position understood. The words of folks who find it necessary to use insults to make their case are not worth listening to.
leetennant
5 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2018
Wherever natural resources are exploited (like oil, minerals) quality of life gets better. The rich get richer and the poor get richer. These resources were put here for our benefit. Let's use them to make the world a better place.

As for CO2, my understanding is that an increase in CO2 increases the growth rate of plants, thus reducing CO2 and bringing things back into balance. Increased plant growth means increased food production, too.


You understand wrong and your arguments are moronic. Pointing that out is hardly "ad hominem". You are wrong.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2018
what will happen to plant life when we remove the last molecule of carbon dioxide?
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2018
The evolution of the circular arguments
Assuming of course, when removing last said molecule of carbon dioxide, we have not replaced it with zillions more carbon dioxide molecules in the process, there by nullifying my first question.
what will happen to plant life when we remove the last molecule of carbon dioxide?

These circular arguments are catching; they are now extending to experimental research to actual implementation where we replace what one removes by the same!
rodkeh
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2018
what will happen to plant life when we remove the last molecule of carbon dioxide?

At about 280 ppm all plant life dies.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2018
PATRICK MOORE the astronomical scientist and most down to earth gentleman to grace this earth
rodkeh> 280 ppm all plant life dies

Devonian Period plants evolved producing lignin which in combination with cellulose created wood in turn allowed plants to grow tall for sunlight Forests pulled down CO2 from the atmosphere making wood. Lignin with no decomposer species to digest it. Trees died making of the great coal beds as this huge store for 90 million years Fortunately for life white rot fungi evolved enzymes digesting lignin the coal-making era came to an end If it had not CO2 which had already been drawn down for the first time in Earth's history to levels similar to today's would have continued to decline until CO2 approached the threshold of 150 ppm below which plants begin first to starve, then stop growing altogether, and then die http://sepwww.sta...ate.html
barakn
5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2018
Yes, angry and disgusted, after 20+ years, with the fact that all you AGW fanatic go on and on about owning the scientific high ground but not a single one of you knows anything about science...-rodkeh

Citation needed.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2018
@rubiks6
As for CO2, my understanding is that an increase in CO2 increases the growth rate of plants, thus reducing CO2 and bringing things back into balance
for clarification with citations, links and references to studies, read this: https://skeptical...nced.htm

and this: https://skeptical...nced.htm

that should help you understand the problem
Increased plant growth means increased food production, too
"A specific plant's response to excess CO2 is sensitive to a variety of factors, including but not limited to: age, genetic variations, functional types, time of year, atmospheric composition, competing plants, disease and pest opportunities, moisture content, nutrient availability, temperature, and sunlight availability. The continued increase of CO2 will represent a powerful forcing agent for a wide variety of changes critical to the success of many plants..."- linked above
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2018
@rubiks6
PS - I did not find it the least bit necessary to call anyone derogatory names or use any other form of ad hominem to make my position understood. The words of folks who find it necessary to use insults to make their case are not worth listening to.
PS - as you are new here, perhaps you should research the interactions with the basic denier trolls and religious here a bit

When you post a comment to a science site that includes religious dogma, it makes everyone question your literacy and comprehension of what science actually is

There are a considerable number of original profiles like yourself here at PO that are nothing more than sockpuppets of deniers and religious fanatics of all kinds wanting only to spread their personal messages which are directly contrary to proven validated evidence like the studies presented in my links to you above

people jump to conclusions - it's best to leave religion out of a science discussion
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2018
@Idiot trolling falafel-rod
Why would I bother?
It is so hard to get through to an idiot but I'll try again:
where is your evidence?
where is any evidence of your claims that refutes the validated science that I linked to you repeatedly?

surely even an idiot like yourself can understand that making a claim without evidence when the overwhelming amount of evidence directly contradicts your claims makes you look even stupider

especially since the evidence is freely accessible by everyone and you can't actually substantiate your claims

thank you for the perfect demonstration of Dunning-Kruger though
this is pure gold!
rodkeh
1 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2018
@Idiot trolling falafel-rod


Why would I bother? You don't want to learn anything, you are far to proud of your ignorance!
I wouldn't waste my time!
rodkeh
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2018
PATRICK MOORE the astronomical scientist and most down to earth gentleman to grace this earth
rodkeh> 280 ppm all plant life dies

Devonian Period plants evolved producing lignin which in combination with cellulose created wood in turn allowed plants to grow tall for sunlight Forests pulled down CO2 from the atmosphere making wood. Lignin with no decomposer species to digest it. Trees died making of the great coal beds as this huge store for 90 million years Fortunately for life white rot fungi evolved enzymes digesting lignin the coal-making era came to an end If it had not CO2 which had already been drawn down for the first time in Earth's history to levels similar to today's would have continued to decline until CO2 approached the threshold of 150 ppm below which plants begin first to starve, then stop growing altogether, and then die http://sepwww.sta...ate.html

Very good, I stand corrected, below 150 ppm plant life dies.
rodkeh
1 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2018
Yes, angry and disgusted, after 20+ years, with the fact that all you AGW fanatic go on and on about owning the scientific high ground but not a single one of you knows anything about science...-rodkeh

Citation needed.

Citation is for the ignorant and uneducated!
Timmy_
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2018
We already have a MUCH BETTER, more realistic and natural way to remove CO2 from the air [and sequester the carbon in the soil]. It's called photosynthesis* and we need to do it [more, more wisely and more strategically] on a planetary scale. Wake up to (regenerative) agriculture and sylvopasture/agroecology, folks! [Including the revered IPCC]

* plus root exudates/exudation.
leetennant
5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2018
what will happen to plant life when we remove the last molecule of carbon dioxide?


Why the hell would we ever do that? Who's even proposing that? WTH are you even talking about?

Which part of 'pre-industrial levels' is so difficult for you idiots. The planet has a climate system. We're talking about human emissions on top of that. This is not a difficult concept. Geez.

PS - I did not find it the least bit necessary to call anyone derogatory names or use any other form of ad hominem to make my position understood. The words of folks who find it necessary to use insults to make their case are not worth listening to.


And who comes by a science site and posts a paragraph from a piece of stone-age literature and then goes "mic drop" and expects he won't get laughed at.
Timmy_
not rated yet Aug 16, 2018
Footnote to my comment two or more above.

Here are some people (a scientist, farmer, author) to investigate regarding soil carbon: Elaine Ingham, Gabe Brown, Courtney White -- for a start. Websites SoilFoodWeb, carboncycle, carbonunderground and others found through a simple search.
MuddShark
not rated yet Aug 16, 2018
Can we release that CO2 from the crystals later when we need it?
leetennant
5 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2018
Can we release that CO2 from the crystals later when we need it?


We would never need it later. In fact, the CO2 being released from the crystals would be a massive risk to using it. It would be the equivalent of us digging up large amounts of fossilised carbon and burning it for fuel....

howhot3
5 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2018
Without citations; I read the original paper (more or less) and recall that one of the issues with this material was that it only absorbed CO2 at a 2-1 ratio. In other words, it takes 2 units of magnesite to trap 1 unit of CO2. From the article;
A tonne of naturally-occurring magnesite can remove around half a tonne of CO2
.

For every tonne of Coal burned, 2 tonnes of CO2 is created. So every tonne of coal will need 4 tonnes of this magnesite stuff just to trap the CO2. Considering we are burning GIGATONS of coal for electricity, this is going to be a lot of magnesite to dispose of. Add in all of the fly-ash nasty crap and you have a witches brew of pollution to deal with.

The best direction is solar/wind - battery smart grid, and remove fossil fuels. In fact, to change people, we should make fossil fuels illegal globally once a transition has been made to a post AGW period.
rubiks6
not rated yet Aug 17, 2018
Well, my religious orientation aside - very little has been said about my general proposition that the Earth's biosphere responds to changes and balances itself. Is that proposal scientific enough?

Please, respond to the proposal and leave your character out of the discussion.

Can Earth's biosphere respond to our burning of fossil fuels and find a new balance?
Timmy_
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2018
Can Earth's biosphere respond to our burning of fossil fuels and find a new balance?
This is basically the Gaia Hypothesis, and even if it were [proven] true, there would be limits, just as there are with the human body and other living things and systems. If you disturb the equilibrium too much or damage part of "the equilibrium-keeping mechanism", things may spiral out of control [or 'normal bounds', which in this case would be livable temperature range for humans].

So even if the earth could find a new balance, it might be a balance in which humans could not live.
Whart1984
Aug 17, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2018
Well, my religious orientation aside - very little has been said about my general proposition that the Earth's biosphere responds to changes and balances itself. Is that proposal scientific enough?

There are buffer systems, but these are not inifnite and there are not infinitely many of them. Even so there is no guarantee about balance (runaway effects are a very real thing. Just look at Venus what a runaway greenhouse effect looks like).
Even if there is balance there is absolutely no guarantee that this balance will lie within human survivable parameters.
leetennant
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2018
Just before 36 millions of years the concentrations of CO2 were three times higher than today (i.e. by 300% whereas we are discussing only 30% increase today) - and the nature thrived these times: for example the largest Pleistocene mammals (now extinct) started their evolution just in this period. It's the fragile human economy which suffers by EVERY change, not the Earth as such.


Yes but the Earth is only 6000 years old and it was created for us. So therefore none of this is true.

And that's why this conversation on a science site is ridiculous. If you already reject the fundamental nature of reality, you can hardly handle nuance in that reality.
Gigel
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2018
So lemme see if I got this right: these guys have found a way to speed up the erosion of olivine (or other magnesium-containing minerals) in the presence of carbon dioxide in order to sequester said dioxide. That is pretty neat, but is it required for the olivine to be turned into powder beforehand?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2018
@whart zeph
concentrations of CO2 were three times higher ...and the nature thrived these times
it's almost as if *gasp* they evolved to live in that environment!

I wonder what would happen to them with rapid onset global climate change...
oh wait: Root, Price, Hall et al discuss this via their " gathered information" and "143 studies for our meta-analyses"
Although species have responded to climatic changes throughout their evolutionary history, a primary concern for wild species and their ecosystems is this rapid rate of change
...
The synergism of rapid temperature rise and other stresses, in particular, habitat destruction, could easily disrupt the connectedness among species and lead to a reformulation of species communities, reflecting differential changes in species, and to numerous extirpations and possibly extinctions
get the point yet?

just because it was higher in the past doesn't mean it's good now
antigoracle
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2018
@whart zeph
concentrations of CO2 were three times higher ...and the nature thrived these times
it's almost as if *gasp* they evolved to live in that environment!

I wonder what would happen to them with rapid onset global climate change...
oh wait: Root, Price, Hall et al discuss this via their " gathered information" and "143 studies for our meta-analyses"......HAWW...HEE...HAWW...HEE....get the point yet?

just because it was higher in the past doesn't mean it's good now

The Stumpid Jackass brays yet again.
I wonder what would happen if this Jackass had a brain instead of AGW Cult shite in the space between his ears. Take a gander at actual FACTS - http://www.global...g?x57846 - of how RAPIDLY temperatures / climate changed at the end of the ice-ages and yet nature survived.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2018
Thanks for those divine words of wisdom @antiAlGoracle. We are all amazed at how wise, human and brave you are. You are certainly a pillar of truth in the lefts diabolical plans. I find your thinking on climate and ice-age to be spot on; nature survived didn't it? And you've seen those B12 bombers with there b12 chemtrails too? Avoid B12... it messes with your brain man. It will turn you AGW just like it did those others.

Seriously avoid the b12 @alGoreacle.. it will shrink your nuts man.... seriously @algoreacle. The AGW has made sure of it...
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2018
literally that quote from Genesis means... fundies are morons
God is at times even more specific...

"16For god so loved the WORLD that he would promise the people upon it whatever nonsense it would take, up to and including immortality, wishes granted, miracles on command, retribution, absolution, etcetcetc, to protect IT from THEM." JON3

And he went on to describe precisely how he intended to do this...

"18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil..."

-IOW unbelievers are evil. They cannot NOT be evil. And so you cannot trust them, associate with them, or tolerate their existence when it threatens your own.
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2018
By defining the unbeliever as the embodiment of evil, religion laid the framework for healthy wars, revolutions, pogroms, and similar butchery for the purpose of keeping our numbers low and our impact minimal. Until quite recently that is.

Now this framework threatens to destroy the entire world and kill us all.

And so it must end.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2018
"There was a time when the countless tribes of men, though wide-dispersed, oppressed the surface of the deep-bosomed earth, and Zeus saw it and had pity and in his wise heart resolved to relieve the all-nurturing earth of men by causing the great struggle of the Ilian war, that the load of death might empty the world. And so the heroes were slain in Troy, and the plan of Zeus came to pass." Homer, Iliad 1.5 (Scholia)

"1. And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth... 9. And to Gabriel said the Lord: 'Proceed against the bastards and the reprobates, and against the children of fornication: and destroy [them and] the children of the Watchers from amongst men... send them one against the other that they may destroy each other in battle..." book of enoch

"I'd rather be good than original." I M Pei
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2018
By defining the unbeliever as the embodiment of evil, religion laid the framework for healthy wars, revolutions, pogroms, and similar butchery for the purpose of keeping our numbers low and our impact minimal. Until quite recently that is.

Now this framework threatens to destroy the entire world and kill us all.

And so it must end.

can I hear an AMEN and Hallelujia ???

oh, wait...
Macrocompassion
not rated yet Aug 20, 2018
Looks as if this material is almost white in color, that suggests it will reflect light and some heat back into space too.
HealingMindN
not rated yet Aug 23, 2018
For a reality check, let's calculate how much magnesite would be needed to absorb all the CO2 produced by energy generation just in the US in one year. The reference year is 2010; emissions have undoubtedly risen since then. But it will give us a good ballpark figure.

We need 2 tons of magnesite to absorb 1 ton of CO2, we emit 1.2 billion tons of CO2 per year, and magnesite has a density of 3. Thus we would need about 1 billion cubic meters of magnesite, which is enough to cover the city of Los Angeles to a depth of nearly a meter.

That's a big waste disposal problem. If it has to be shipped to a disposal site, that's 100 million dump truck loads, or 200 dump trucks unloading every minute, 24/7, 365 days a year. This is not likely to be a practical solution.


And are they getting the carbon from the tons of trees getting ripped out from the rain forests everyday? This is a solution from a mad scientist's perspective: Magnesite
nstone
not rated yet Sep 04, 2018
As a species we are too dysfunctional to manage the planet. We rely on novel emergent conditions to re-balance the catastrophic imbalances that we continually introduce into our environment. One of these days we will develop an imbalance for which there is no emergent counteractive measure, and the Earth will no longer be "made for us." Nature will not even blink at our passing.
nstone
not rated yet Sep 04, 2018
Stupid survival theories look at conditions under which nature "survives". We really need to look at *rates of change* to understand the stresses that bring an end to stable cultures and societies. Predictability is necessary for cultural stability, and degrades quickly when the rate of change increases.

So if you are happy with subsistence-level survival, bring on global warming. There will be more plants and insects. There will be fewer people, and plenty to eat. If you can get to it.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.