Scientists Develop Lab-Made Mineral That Will Suck CO2 From The Atmosphere

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Guess I'm inclined to give weight to the scientists who have done extensive research on it.
The experts also recommend vegetable oil and reduced sugar. I used to be a believer in global warming and trusted the experts. However if you take the time you can also find many climate scientists who completely disagree with the IPCC, and make much more sense in their theories. The one thing many have in common is that they are mostly at the end of their careers and dont need to depend on Government research grants anymore. It's well known that if you dont buy into the anthropogenic warming dogma you will lose your funding.

Watts Up With That? is a good site to get the alternative pov
 
OP
L

lampofred

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
3,244
There are people focusing on smog too. Not everyone can do everything. If smog is your thing to tackle, go for it.

Solving each of those problems should help with the other - both have fossil fuel burning as a major contributor.

The scientists saying there is the potential for further destructive anthropogenic climate climate change and possibly climate collapse are not only looking at CO2, they are also looking at other green house gases, including methane etc.

I said that because after reading Peat's work, I don't think there is any evidence that shows CO2 is a problem gas. That's why I was rhetorically asking why scientists are so focused on a harmless, actually beneficial-for-plant life gas when there are chemicals in the air that aren't supposed to be there naturally that could be focused on instead.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
The magic mineral doesnt seem that promising.
you need billions of tonnes of magnesium to make a dent in the CO2 emissions, while world magnesium production is only a million tonnes. Plus most of that isnt in the right form to be used.

Also the reaction time is 72 days. The land requirement to set this up would be enormous.

This is how they waste billions of dollars a year on trying to solve a none problem. Reminds me of the space program.
Scientists Develop Lab-Made Mineral That Will Suck CO2 From The Atmosphere
 
Last edited:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
It's well known that if you dont buy into the anthropogenic warming dogma you will lose your funding.
As far as I can tell, the contrary views are not well founded, and have been well refuted.
Governments have been very slow to take global warming seriously. Probably because they have been under pressure from various industries that profit from extractive industries that would stand to lose if they had to pay for or limit their use of shared resources.
I said that because after reading Peat's work, I don't think there is any evidence that shows CO2 is a problem gas. That's why I was rhetorically asking why scientists are so focused on a harmless, actually beneficial-for-plant life gas when there are chemicals in the air that aren't supposed to be there naturally that could be focused on instead.
Peat is an expert in the field of biology, especially physiology. He seems to be fairly well informed in some other areas too - philosophy, history, politics, literature, etc.
He's not the first person I turn to for expertise in geology or climatology.

Certainly CO2 is beneficial and necessary for plants. So is water. I don't like floods either.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
As far as I can tell, the contrary views are not well founded, and have been well refuted.
Governments have been very slow to take global warming seriously. Probably because they have been under pressure from various industries that profit from extractive industries that would stand to lose if they had to pay for or limit their use of shared resources.

Peat is an expert in the field of biology, especially physiology. He seems to be fairly well informed in some other areas too - philosophy, history, politics, literature, etc.
He's not the first person I turn to for expertise in geology or climatology.

Certainly CO2 is beneficial and necessary for plants. So is water. I don't like floods either.

Okay, so let's get down to the exact issue..... what level, exactly, do you want CO2 to be in the atmosphere? It's about 410 PPM right now, and as X Ray Peat pointed out (and you haven't disputed), 150PPM is when plants start dying off. So, what's your target? 350? 300? 250? 175? What is "ideal?"

Personally, I want it higher. 500, 600, 700, even 1,000 PPM would be great. I don't like the idea of other pollutants that burning so called "fossil" fuels bring, but I still think the industrial revolution was a godsend for raising CO2 levels up to the current levels. I wish they were higher.
 

Joe C

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Messages
18
If you want to argue that CO2 levels should be higher, you're going to need to demonstrate that ocean acidification won't be a problem.

More precisely - that the rate of change won't be a problem.

My premise is that industrialisation represents a much, much, much quicker change than anything that had happened previously, and ecosystems just cannot adapt that quickly.

Plus - more that 80% of our natural forests have been destroyed. It is ridiculous to suggest that industrialisation has somehow helped vegetation on planet earth.

Also, all the other chemical changes that have happened from liberating fossil fuels are significant but almost completely ignored as this has sadly become a CO2 debate. That is reductionism at it's finest and totally ignores the systemic nature of our planet.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
My premise is that industrialisation represents a much, much, much quicker change than anything that had happened previously, and ecosystems just cannot adapt that quickly.
+1
At least, there will be some kind of adaptation, but many species are suffering. Ours is not exempt.
So, what's your target? 350? 300? 250? 175? What is "ideal?"
The organisation 350.org use 350ppm as a target for a safe upper limit. AFAIK, that would be reasonable - somewhere between 300-350ppm.
Since CO2 isn't the only significant green house gas, others (e.g. methane, ...) also need to be limited.
Also useful not to lose too much reflective ice and snow.
 

bistecca

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
191
Location
maryland, USA
I'm not going to comment on whether more co2 in the atmosphere is going to be better or worse for the health of the planet and humanity..

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

However I will say that I think the novel technology OP mentions, which probably isn't scalable to the level required(the synthesis of a mineral which will react and sequester co2) probably isn't the best way to approach the problem of high co2(if you view it as a problem).

Others in this thread have mentioned ocean acidification, and I think that is probably a real concern that results from increasing atmospheric co2.

Another concern, If you consider co2 as a driver of plant metabolism, is the risk of trace nutrient depletion. Just like increasing human metabolic rate increases demand for other nutrition co-factors, ecosystems are likely to experience similar phenomenon. The work of Irakli Loladze supports this notion, with increasing co2 driving increase in certain plant metabolites(sugars and vitamin e) and decreasing other ones(b vitamins, minerals).
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Irakli_Loladze

I'm a big fan of observing natural systems and understanding how and why they work. The reason I came upon ray peat and this forum is because I often asked myself questions like "if soybean oil is so new, and our ancestors didn't consume it, what is the likelihood it is good for me?"

In line with this kind of thinking, I have asked myself... "what factors contribute to the metabolic health of ecosystems at large, and which factors hinder it? " I knew that life depends upon certain important trace-minerals, and I knew that most of the elements necessary for life come from soil, which comes from rocks, or the geologic parent material. Certain regions are much more fertile because underneath the soil, you find different rocks. Those rocks were degraded(also referred to as "weathered") into the soil that is so fertile today. This line of thinking led me to learn about a process called either "enhanced weathering" or "soil remineralization", depending upon what the intended goal of the process is. The process itself involves taking crushed, renewable, massively available, mineral dense rocks, generally a rock called Basalt, and spreading them on land. Within the context of agriculture, the process is called soil remineralizaton, because the focus is on restoring the important minerals to the soil. (soil in my region, for instance, is very lacking in Magnesium). Within the context of climate change mitigation, the process is called "enhanced weathering", because the weathering of rocks, in addition to releasing trace minerals to the soil, also releases alkalinizing minerals like silicon, calcium and magnesium which leach in large quantities into local waterways and eventually oceans, buffering acidity. Acidity prevents the metabolic throughput of oceanic carbon dioxide into a huge variety of Silica and Carbon-based life forms- for instance Coral and Oysters. In a normal ecosystem, carbonaceous life grows, and dies, grows and dies, and gradually accumulates on the ocean floor and forms a rock called Limestone. Limestone is the longest term carbon sink that exists on earth. Acidified oceans=less Silica and Carbon-based life=less limestone, and less of the life that depends upon carbonaceous oceanic life(lots of delicious stuff in that category). (Eventually, pressure and tectonic activity metamorphose that limestone into marble. You find a butt-load of marble in Italy because the european alps literally used to be an ocean floor. Makes a great building material. I like marble. )

Wherever you find Basalt(which results from volvanic and tectonic activity) you almost always find tremendously fertile ecosystems. This isn't surprising given that mineralogical characteristics of Basalt. It's rich in Si,P,K,Ca,Mg, Fe, Cu, Zn, Co, Mo, Mn, Na, Cl, etc. It's like natures multivitamin. There are reports that Salmon runs in the PNW have tremndous increases in fish numbers when there are volcanic eruptions in Alaska. Washington state produces more wheat and potatoes per acre than any other state and it's geology is characterized by basalt. Cameron and Moira Thomson with the SEER center in scotland have been growing the largest vegetables the modern world has seen using Basalt rock dust. There is a detailed and long-standing body of research supporting the notion that volcanic rocks are good for soil productivity.

Applying basalt to soil would be like giving the ecosystem natures oldest and most proven pro-metabolic supplement.

Anyway, this process called "enhanced weathering" is tremendously interesting and potentially has benefits that extend way beyond sequestering carbon. The Leverhulme Center for Climate Change Mitigation at the University of Sheffield in the UK is working in conjuction with the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign and James Cook University in Australia, to conduct studies on the application of Basalt to cropping systems. The infrastructure already exists for applying large quantities of crushed rock, and the benefit could be most potentiated in those areas. They're looking into using Basalt in the Corn/Soy/Wheat systems so prevalent in the Americas and Europe, the Sugar Cane production systems in sub-tropical regions, and the Palm Oil plantations and Rice production in Asia and southeast Asia.


Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security | Nature Plants

Home - Leverhulme Centre for Climate Change Mitigation (LC3M)

https://remineralize.org/

Home - SEER Centre

https://rockdustlocal.com/index.html
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
My premise is that industrialisation represents a much, much, much quicker change than anything that had happened previously, and ecosystems just cannot adapt that quickly.

This premise is false. Volcanic Eruptions, Solar changes, and Meteor strikes can (and have) changed some ecosystems, and even the global ecosystem, far far quicker than industrialization ever could.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
The organisation 350.org use 350ppm as a target for a safe upper limit. AFAIK, that would be reasonable - somewhere between 300-350ppm. Since CO2 isn't the only significant green house gas, others (e.g. methane, ...) also need to be limited.
Also useful not to lose too much reflective ice and snow.

Fair enough. I still think those numbers are far too low. I would much prefer CO2 levels be at 700 PPM. That would be a boon for all plants and animals on this planet.
 

jitsmonkey

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
729
Guess I'm inclined to give weight to the scientists who have done extensive research on it. Yes climate has always changed; a chunk of the recent change is shown to be caused by human activity. (CO2 is just one of the significant GHGs, and not the whole of the story.)

The use of the term "scientist" in a broad reaching effort to imply competence, equates "scientist" to "clergyman"
Expertise in an ideology does not equate to expertise in REALITY.

There are experts in the REALITY of given investigative fields but they are outliers. ALL. OF. THEM.
Study in a given field does not equate to expertise in REALITY just ideology.

There may in fact be individuals who warrant your "weight" but their accurate appraisal has nothing to do with their religious/ideological underpinnings.

Scientist, Doctor, etc = Clergy of given ideology nothing more.
 

bistecca

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
191
Location
maryland, USA
Fair enough. I still think those numbers are far too low. I would much prefer CO2 levels be at 700 PPM. That would be a boon for all plants and animals on this planet.
It would be dangerous to assume that increasing co2 alone would be a boon for plants and the things which depend upon them. That would be akin to humans taking a normal diet and doubling the amount of glucose but not increasing the other nutrients in proportion. Just like you might see increasing growth rates in a human with strictly increased caloric intake, you can expect a loss in functionality and order if you don't increase all the essential nutrients in proportion. Same goes for ecosystems.
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
It would be dangerous to assume that increasing co2 alone would be a boon for plants and the things which depend upon them. That would be akin to humans taking a normal diet and doubling the amount of glucose but not increasing the other nutrients in proportion. Just like you might see increasing growth rates in a human with strictly increased caloric intake, you can expect a loss in functionality and order if you don't increase all the essential nutrients in proportion. Same goes for ecosystems.

Well, I would assume that plants and animals would naturally compensate for their new lush growing conditions and respond appropriately, assuming there isn't top down interference to prevent the organism from responding naturally.

Unfortunately, I don't have a magic wand where I can just double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so it will remain right around the 410 PPM, hopefully steadily increasing.

Also, for those wondering, here's Peat's view on it-

 

bistecca

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
191
Location
maryland, USA
Well, I would assume that plants and animals would naturally compensate for their new lush growing conditions and respond appropriately, assuming there isn't top down interference to prevent the organism from responding naturally.
Another concern, If you consider co2 as a driver of plant metabolism, is the risk of trace nutrient depletion. Just like increasing human metabolic rate increases demand for other nutrition co-factors, ecosystems are likely to experience similar phenomenon. The work of Irakli Loladze supports this notion, with increasing co2 driving increase in certain plant metabolites(sugars and vitamin e) and decreasing other ones(b vitamins, minerals).
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Irakli_Loladze

https://www.researchgate.net/public...oward_Globally_Imbalanced_Plant_Stoichiometry
Rising Atmospheric CO2 and Human Nutrition: Toward Globally Imbalanced Plant Stoichiometry?

"Terrestrial vascular plants obtain their major constituent – carbon (C) – from atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), but draw all other chemical elements largely from the soil. Concentrations of these elements, however, do not change in unison with steadily increasing concentrations of CO2 [CO2]. Thus, relative to pre-industrial times, modern plants are experiencing a global elemental imbalance. Could this imbalance affect the elemental composition of plants, the most important food source on Earth? Apart from an overall decline in nitrogen concentration, very little is known about the effects of high [CO2] on other chemical elements, such as iron, iodine and zinc, which are already deficient in the diets of the half of human population. Here, I apply stoichiometric theory to argue that high [CO2], as a rule, should alter the elemental composition of plants, thus affecting the quality of human nutrition. The first compilation, to my knowledge, of published data supports the claim and shows an overall decline of the (essential elements):C ratio. Therefore, high [CO2] could intensify the already acute problem of micronutrient malnutrition.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...llen_source_essential_for_North_American_bees

Rising atmospheric CO 2 is reducing the protein concentration of a floral pollen source essential for North American bees.

At present, there is substantive evidence that the nutritional content of agriculturally important food crops will decrease in response to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, Ca. However, whether Ca-induced declines in nutritional quality are also occurring for pollinator food sources is unknown. Flowering late in the season, goldenrod (Solidago spp.) pollen is a widely available autumnal food source commonly acknowledged by apiarists to be essential to native bee (e.g. Bombus spp.) and honeybee (Apis mellifera) health and winter survival. Using floral collections obtained from the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, we quantified Ca-induced temporal changes in pollen protein concentration of Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), the most widespread Solidago taxon, from hundreds of samples collected throughout the USA and southern Canada over the period 1842-2014 (i.e. a Ca from approx. 280 to 398 ppm). In addition, we conducted a 2 year in situ trial of S. canadensis populations grown along a continuous Ca gradient from approximately 280 to 500 ppm. The historical data indicated a strong significant correlation between recent increases in Ca and reductions in pollen protein concentration (r2 = 0.81). Experimental data confirmed this decrease in pollen protein concentration, and indicated that it would be ongoing as Ca continues to rise in the near term, i.e. to 500 ppm (r2 = 0.88). While additional data are needed to quantify the subsequent effects of reduced protein concentration for Canada goldenrod on bee health and population stability, these results are the first to indicate that increasing Ca can reduce protein content of a floral pollen source widely used by North American bees.
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
https://www.researchgate.net/public...oward_Globally_Imbalanced_Plant_Stoichiometry
Rising Atmospheric CO2 and Human Nutrition: Toward Globally Imbalanced Plant Stoichiometry?

"Terrestrial vascular plants obtain their major constituent – carbon (C) – from atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), but draw all other chemical elements largely from the soil. Concentrations of these elements, however, do not change in unison with steadily increasing concentrations of CO2 [CO2]. Thus, relative to pre-industrial times, modern plants are experiencing a global elemental imbalance. Could this imbalance affect the elemental composition of plants, the most important food source on Earth? Apart from an overall decline in nitrogen concentration, very little is known about the effects of high [CO2] on other chemical elements, such as iron, iodine and zinc, which are already deficient in the diets of the half of human population. Here, I apply stoichiometric theory to argue that high [CO2], as a rule, should alter the elemental composition of plants, thus affecting the quality of human nutrition. The first compilation, to my knowledge, of published data supports the claim and shows an overall decline of the (essential elements):C ratio. Therefore, high [CO2] could intensify the already acute problem of micronutrient malnutrition.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...llen_source_essential_for_North_American_bees

Rising atmospheric CO 2 is reducing the protein concentration of a floral pollen source essential for North American bees.

At present, there is substantive evidence that the nutritional content of agriculturally important food crops will decrease in response to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, Ca. However, whether Ca-induced declines in nutritional quality are also occurring for pollinator food sources is unknown. Flowering late in the season, goldenrod (Solidago spp.) pollen is a widely available autumnal food source commonly acknowledged by apiarists to be essential to native bee (e.g. Bombus spp.) and honeybee (Apis mellifera) health and winter survival. Using floral collections obtained from the Smithsonian Natural History Museum, we quantified Ca-induced temporal changes in pollen protein concentration of Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), the most widespread Solidago taxon, from hundreds of samples collected throughout the USA and southern Canada over the period 1842-2014 (i.e. a Ca from approx. 280 to 398 ppm). In addition, we conducted a 2 year in situ trial of S. canadensis populations grown along a continuous Ca gradient from approximately 280 to 500 ppm. The historical data indicated a strong significant correlation between recent increases in Ca and reductions in pollen protein concentration (r2 = 0.81). Experimental data confirmed this decrease in pollen protein concentration, and indicated that it would be ongoing as Ca continues to rise in the near term, i.e. to 500 ppm (r2 = 0.88). While additional data are needed to quantify the subsequent effects of reduced protein concentration for Canada goldenrod on bee health and population stability, these results are the first to indicate that increasing Ca can reduce protein content of a floral pollen source widely used by North American bees.

The first study you posted is merely a hypothesis, and adds no evidence either way to the argument. Suffice to say, I disagree with said hypothesis.

As for the second study.... well, I have no access to the actual data, so I can't say one way or another if what they claim is accurate or significant.
 

bistecca

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
191
Location
maryland, USA
The first study you posted is merely a hypothesis, and adds no evidence either way to the argument. Suffice to say, I disagree with said hypothesis.

As for the second study.... well, I have no access to the actual data, so I can't say one way or another if what they claim is accurate or significant.

You didn't try very hard because both studies are available in full-text, free of charge, at the link I provided. The first study, when you read the full text, does contain data, all of which supports the hypothesis.. As does the second.
 
Last edited:

Joe C

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Messages
18
This premise is false. Volcanic Eruptions, Solar changes, and Meteor strikes can (and have) changed some ecosystems, and even the global ecosystem, far far quicker than industrialization ever could.

Fair point. Meteor strikes definitely cause rapid ecosystem change - so I'll update my premise to say that the faster the change, the more difficult it is for an ecosystem to adapt. Which is why meteor strikes are devastating, and - to a lesser extent - industrialisation.

Volcano eruptions are slightly different. Yes - a few single events from the past caused massive releases of CO2, but they also released ash causing an overall cooling effect. The idea that volcano CO2 dwarfs man-made emissions has been largely disproven. If you look at the annual output now, for example, man-made CO2 output is estimated at over 130 times greater. The biggest eruption of recent years, in Iceland, was estimated to have released the same amount of CO2 as a medium European country - so significant, but not so disruptive. Certainly, earth-changing eruptions in the past happened, but another effect of industrialisation has been to drastically reduce the forests, which acted as a buffer.

But again - it's not all about CO2:

Right now it is well established that we have entered the sixth mass extinction event. The first mass extinction event was characterised by a severe drop in CO2 levels, leading to global cooling. The third mass extinction event was characterised by a massive rise in CO2, triggering methane release, global warming. Both nearly wiped out life on earth.

So what we need isn't a particular PPM of CO2, it's balance. Industrialisation is drastically reducing the natural buffering systems - the natural capacity to maintain homeostasis. That is a problem - and in that scenario, the high CO2 levels that may have been beneficial to plant life in the past may well be detrimental now.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
By 2013, all of the Arctic ice will be gone :(
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
You didn't try very hard because both studies are available in full-text, free of charge, at the link I provided. The first study, when you read the full text, does contain data, all of which supports the hypothesis.. As does the second.

Not impressed with the second study, either. Too many uncontrolled variables. A far, FAR better experiment would be to set up greenhouses, use the same species of plant, and experiment with different CO2 concentrations (such as 250PPm, 500, 750, 1000, and so on), and then compare densities from that.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
But again - it's not all about CO2:

Right now it is well established that we have entered the sixth mass extinction event. The first mass extinction event was characterised by a severe drop in CO2 levels, leading to global cooling. The third mass extinction event was characterised by a massive rise in CO2, triggering methane release, global warming. Both nearly wiped out life on earth.

How is it at all "Well Established?" The human population of the planet is more than double what it was 30 years ago. And the only way that population survives is thanks to the advancements in industrialization.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom