Re: [Phys-L] carbon wars

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 10/06/2014 11:55 AM, Dr. Holly Priestley wrote:
> Maybe this is a really stupid question -- but in this discussion, what about
> the myriad of carbon sinks removing carbon from the atmosphere?  We just
> aren't dumping C into the environment without anything working to remove it
> .... or did I miss that in the discussion?

Well, that's absolutely central to any intelligent discussion.

There are not a "myriad" of effective sinks.  There are a lot
of short-term reservoirs such as plants that take up carbon
when they grow and give it up when the rot.  A reservoir is
not a sink.  The plant reservoir is a net loser at present, 
because people are killing plants and exposing fossil plants 
faster than they are growing plants.

Also CO2 dissolved in the oceans is a reservoir, not 
a sink.  And it's not good for the oceans.

Conceivably you could grow a bunch of plants and then
protect the product from rot, forever ... but nobody is 
doing this.  The cost of doing so -- if added to the cost 
of fossil fuels -- would be prohibitive.  It would be more 
economical to leave the fossil fuel in the ground and just 
grow biofuels.

The only process I know of for effective long-term carbon
sequestration is the weathering of silicate rocks.  This
was mentioned a couple of days ago under the heading of
"carbon sequestration, or not".

On 10/04/2014 01:50 PM, I wrote:

>    CO2 + CaSiO3 --> ... --> CaCO3     + SiO2
>    CO2 + wollastonite   --> limestone + sand
>
> This happens naturally on a timescale of hundreds of
> years.

Bottom line:  We absolutely *ARE* dumping C into the
environment without anything working to remove it on 
any relevant timescale.