the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

AGW Stupid Factory

Posted by Jeff Id on February 2, 2009

stupid-factoryOne thing about leftist global warming extremists, is they provide an apparently unlimited supply of bad and expensive ideas for solving it. From my previous posts on Algae, biofuel, solar and others we learned that the total energy from the sun as captured by plants cannot replace our current fossil fuel usage simply because of the area of sunlight we would need to capture. The second thing we learned is that the cost of these installations would at least double our current fuel costs, placing enormous load on our economies.

Well here’s another idea, one which supposedly will help curb global warming. Of course it suffers the same failings as so many plans, a ten minute jaunt with a calculator proves the impossibility of the solution.

Seawater project aims to combat global warming

This gentleman claims he can make a dent in global warming by use of plants. By hydrating soil he increases the potential for plant life and can then fight global warming. Unfortunately, the idea is so bad at capturing CO2 the point is entirely moot.

Why don’t plants make the difference? Well capture of CO2 using plants requires the same amount of energy as you receive when the CO2 is released by burning. It’s an energy balance. This means if you get one Joule of energy from combining the carbon in a fossil fuel with oxygen you need one joule to recapture it into a carbon chain. Since plants and animals are comprised of numerous carbon chains which break down over millions of years into oil deposits, the balance requirement is even more clear Simple eh.

What About Algae Biofuel Hype

We discovered in this most excellent post by myself, that biofuel cannot replace our current fuel producion due to the simple limits of the available and captured energy. It also demonstrates the simple energy limits of plants to capture CO2. Grasses and random plants can be expected to capture under 6% of the solar energy, this is captured as plant material. Of course most of these grasses decompose within a couple of years and release the same CO2 they captured but at a 6% efficiency, assuming you captured the CO2 permanently you could cover the US two times over with this project just to capture the energy from our cars.

It is the height of hypocracy for the same liberals screaming from the towers that we have to sacrifice anything necessary to stop global warming, just mumble in corners about why we can’t use nuclear power. This in my mind shows the true motive of the politicians and polyscienticians, from their perspective it has nothing to do with AGW (which in my mind may be real), it is about subjugation and control. Otherwise the real solutions would be front page news, not bull like this.

4 Responses to “AGW Stupid Factory”

  1. page48 said

    “This in my mind shows the true motive of the politicians and polyscienticians, from their perspective it has nothing to do with AGW (which in my mind may be real), it is about subjugation and control. Otherwise the real solutions would be front page news, not bull like this.”

    I agree with you. The technology for nuclear is available, relatively safe, underused, and not even discussed much. That says it all.

    If the politicians were interested in solutions, they also wouldn’t continue giving out millions (billions?) for “climate modeling.” To the best of my knowledge, climate modelers won’t be the ones to find ways to mitigate or remove CO2 in the atmosphere, nor will they be the ones to develop the actual “clean” technology and “clean” energy that we need.

    By the way, those scientists who want to solve the problem by keeping newly formed CO2 out of the atmosphere scare me to death with some of their suggestions – like sequestering CO2 in underground caves, old salt domes, etc. (Cameroon, anyone?).

    Mirrors in space to deflect sunlight don’t thrill me, either (whoever gets to control those things could control the world). Can you imagine having the sun “turned off” during your growing season? I can’t even begin to fathom the cost of them, anyway. BTW, I actually saw Dr Heidi Cullen expound on this brilliance on her show at the Weather Channel. She even showed an animated short to show how the mirrors would work (they appeared to be really, really HUGE). I figure Heidi is already invested in the company.

    My greatest fear, however, is that the scientists will start to fiddle around with the current atmosphere in some way. I read somewhere that scientists have developed a method for “scrubbing” CO2 out for the atmosphere. One said, “If we overshoot, the problem will be easy to fix.” Really? How long can the biosphere, starved of CO2, survive until its supply is replenished? And what kind of shape will it be in? Also, if climate systems are as exquisitely sensitive to CO2 concentration as claimed, what kind of havoc might the scientists wreck if they get the concentration way too low – even for a short time? (I don’t recall the source of this particular scenario, so I’m not certain how true it is).

    In light of what might happen to the world due to unintended consequences if the scientists get the go-ahead to change current atmospheric composition and/or concentrations, AGW doesn’t look too bad.

    I’ll be gone for a couple of days. Can’t wait to see the new posts & comments when I get back.

    Have a nice week, everyone!

  2. Matt Y. said

    Any solution that doesn’t involve scaling back our “evil” capitalist lifestyle and going back to a simpler way of life more in tune with nature (the good ole days, like when avg life expectancy was around 40 years) will not gain any traction. The solution is the ultimate goal, the “problem” is merely the impetus to impose that solution.

    Solving the problem without destroying capitalism would be counterproductive to the radical enviromentalist faction of the AGW crowd, which fairly describes a big percentage of the movement IMO. In fact I think that’s part of the appeal of windmills, etc to the militant greens. Reliance on them would force us to move back into the stone age.

    As an aside, are space mirrors a completely insane idea, or is it just me? Think of the surace area of the earth, and then imagine trying to cover a significant portion of it with mirrors. Then think of the surface area of a sphere equal to the orbit of a satellite. And somebody thinks they can cover that with mirrors? How are they going to get them into space, anyways? Wind power? How much CO2 would be released by all of the rocket fuel one would have to burn to get that many mirrors into orbit. The hubris and lack of common sense is astounding sometimes.

  3. Louis Hissink said

    If you consider the theories of the plasma universe then there is no great problem – the energy we get from the sun includes the prodigous electrical energy via the Birkeland currents entering and leaving the poles, as the THEMIS mission has discovered.

    useful information at

  4. Jeff Id said


    Certainly there is energy coming from other than light sources, how much is the question. I didn’t see any numbers at your link. And in the context of this post, electrical energy won’t help plants capture carbon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: