Ocean Lime-aid

[Fash]

http://www.physorg.com/news135820173.html

Scientists say they have found a workable way of reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere by adding lime to seawater. And they think it has the potential to dramatically reverse CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, reports Cath O'Driscoll in SCI's Chemistry & Industry magazine published today.

Shell is so impressed with the new approach that it is funding an investigation into its economic feasibility. 'We think it's a promising idea,' says Shell's Gilles Bertherin, a coordinator on the project. 'There are potentially huge environmental benefits from addressing climate change – and adding calcium hydroxide to seawater will also mitigate the effects of ocean acidification, so it should have a positive impact on the marine environment.'

Adding lime to seawater increases alkalinity, boosting seawater's ability to absorb CO2 from air and reducing the tendency to release it back again.

However, the idea, which has been bandied about for years, was thought unworkable because of the expense of obtaining lime from limestone and the amount of CO2 released in the process.

Tim Kruger, a management consultant at London firm Corven is the brains behind the plan to resurrect the lime process. He argues that it could be made workable by locating it in regions that have a combination of low-cost 'stranded' energy considered too remote to be economically viable to exploit – like flared natural gas or solar energy in deserts – and that are rich in limestone, making it feasible for calcination to take place on site.

Kruger says: 'There are many such places – for example, Australia's Nullarbor Plain would be a prime location for this process, as it has 10 000km3 of limestone and soaks up roughly 20MJ/m2 of solar irradiation every day.'

The process of making lime generates CO2, but adding the lime to seawater absorbs almost twice as much CO2. The overall process is therefore 'carbon negative'.

'This process has the potential to reverse the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would be possible to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial levels,' Kruger says.

...

I science.

[cadalano]

from cquestrate.com comments

From CaCO3 we get CaO and CO2. CaO is a slightly heavier molecule than CO2, such that for every 100 grams of limestone, you’ll get roughly 54 grams of quicklime.

If they’re saying that CaO absorbs twice as much CO2 in the seawater than is used to produce it, then 100 grams of quicklime will absorb roughly 92 grams of CO2 from the seawater, causing a net change of 46 grams (since 46 grams of CO2 were produced during calcination). Note that this is a minimum, since they can sequester some of the CO2 released during calcination as they mention.

A quick google search yields an estimate of 290 ppmv for pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels. Wikipedia states that the dry air mass of the atmosphere is roughly 5.1352 ±0.0003×10^18 kg. Of this, about 3*10^15kg is CO2 (based on Wikipedia’s listing of .0384% CO2 in the atmosphere). So there is about 3000 trillion kg of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we want to get that to 290ppmv instead of 384ppmv, we’ll need to sequester about a quarter of the CO2 in the atmosphere, or about 750 trillion kg.

This would require about 1627 trillion kg of quicklime to accomplish. You’d need about 3000 trillion kg of limestone to accomplish this. The density of limestone is about 2000kg/m^3, so you’d need about 1500 cubic kilometers (a LOT) of limestone. Australia’s Nullarbor Plain is estimated to have 10000 cubic kilometers of limestone, so this has about 9 times more than we’d actually need.

Economy of scale would reduce costs for extraction and processing of that much lime. I don’t think it is a question of can we do it, but rather how much it will cost, whether we’re sure that it will work, and how long it will take to accomplish.

And to Tom above, you’d need about 1500 cubic kilometers of limestone, which is nearly as large as Mars’ tiny moon Deimos, so you are correct.

Trying to figure out if it is feasible to extract this much..

http://www.impactnews.com/georgetown-hu ... y-turns-50

That link states that a modern quarry employing 140 people extracted 10 million tons (9 billion kilograms) in one year. If that is an average quarry, we’d need 333,000 of those quarries to accomplish the task in one year. If we give ourselves 50 years to do this, it would only require about 6700 such quarries. That would require close to a million workers for 50 years at a mindblowing cost.

I am thinking this is not even remotely feasible if my above calculations are correct.

shrug. pipedream

[Kryshade]

I think stuff like this is pretty amazing. It appears using the ocean to suck up CO2 is the way we (science) wants to go to solve this problem.

I read in Popular Science that they also considered doing this with finely ground up iron. The iron is supposed to cause huge blooms in phytoplankton which suck up lots of CO2. The food chain goes into effect, they get eaten, things die and the CO2 winds up sinking to the bottom of the ocean. This was even posed as being a great thing for the ocean as abundant food supply would cause a huge boom in ocean population in general.

Apparently there was a ship that had tons of iron powder on it that was going to go ahead and just spread it out into the ocean, but they were blockaded and otherwise discouraged because no one could tell what the long term effects were going to be.

Things like this are tricky. I get scared when we talk about doing things to our oceans that are going to affect our entire planet. Can we really judge what the long term effects are? Sure we might get rid of half the CO2 in our atmosphere, but what are the ramifications to our ocean environment? Are we going to kill off half the Coral Reefs in the process? I just think it's hard to judge what the widespread and maybe unseen ramifications are.

Very cool stuff, but scary when you start to think of doing things that would show large scale results in a small amount of time. Changing our entire atmosphere/ecosystem in the course of a year or two (in the powdered iron example) makes me worry. I'm reminded of The Matrix when Morpheus says we scorched the sky to try and stop the machines, but it didn't work. Now we're stuck with a shitty sky and still have killer machines running around!

[cadalano]

it astounds me that people are so ready to invest their confidence into "solutions" like this which are ultimately nothing more than wildly impractical silver bullets... yet responsible plans are so often met with skepticism, apparently for nothing more than failing to be magical instant gratifiers

i have read about the phytoplankton thing before. a plan which basically boils down to something straight out of Looney Tunes- releasing a herd of cats to rid a house of mice. (as does the lime-aid fix... now that i think about it). the oddest thing about that whole iron plan, that i remember, is that it is a for-profit company that was doing it... which is why they were so eager to ignore concerns from the scientific community and just do it.

[Fash]

it astounds me that people are so ready to invest their confidence into "solutions" like this which are ultimately nothing more than wildly impractical silver bullets...

Kind of like cap and trade or carbon credits? Or hurting ones own economic growth while China and India will not participate? I agree... wildly impractical.

[Funkmasterr]

I just watched that "if humans disappeared tomorrow" type special on National Geographic, and this was basically what they said would happen. All of the carbon and bad shit in the world would be absorbed by life in the ocean, it would die, and carry it all to the bottom of the ocean with it.

This is what would happen. There is perfectly logical and relatively easy to understand scientific proof to show this. Now, that's not to say that this is the way we should/can go about getting rid of our "carbon footprint" (just typing that makes me want to base jump without a parachute)..

My only point being this isn't just some scientists dream..

[Kryshade]

Your right about the iron thing being a for-profit company. It's scary to think what would have happened if they had managed to dump all that into the ocean.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the science behind it, and yes, it seems like it's a good solution for quickly solving the CO2 problems of the world. One large scale dump of iron/lime into the ocean and our CO2 problems are solved. The issue is what problems is that going to cause? It's just hard to think of the ramifications of altering the ecology of something that covers 80% of our planet.

It's like messing with matter/anti-matter. It could be the solution to every energy problem we've ever had, but how do we know we won't start some sort of insane chain reaction that will bascially destroy our entire planet. Oops would be a bit too late.

If you think about 100 years ago, we didn't even have cars and now we have space shuttles. What are the "major" breakthroughs in the last 20 years?

I see technology/science becoming more of a dangerous thing as we get into the realm of planet altering and matter/anti-matter research, but I'm also completely behind it as well. We'll either blow ourselves up, or we'll reach that Star Trek era we've always seen on TV.

[Winnow]

The next time I'm near an ocean I'm going to do my part and throw a few limestones into it.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

it astounds me that people are so ready to invest their confidence into "solutions" like this which are ultimately nothing more than wildly impractical silver bullets...

Kind of like cap and trade or carbon credits? Or hurting ones own economic growth while China and India will not participate? I agree... wildly impractical.

Priceless.

[cadalano]

it astounds me that people are so ready to invest their confidence into "solutions" like this which are ultimately nothing more than wildly impractical silver bullets...

Kind of like cap and trade or carbon credits? Or hurting ones own economic growth while China and India will not participate? I agree... wildly impractical.

i have said nothing about those things. what if i agreed with you?

my point is that these solutions cant possibly be less absurd than others which you have denounced

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

it astounds me that people are so ready to invest their confidence into "solutions" like this which are ultimately nothing more than wildly impractical silver bullets...

Kind of like cap and trade or carbon credits? Or hurting ones own economic growth while China and India will not participate? I agree... wildly impractical.

i have said nothing about those things. what if i agreed with you?

my point is that these solutions cant possibly be less absurd than others which you have denounced

He was speaking to the populace of this board. It was not just directed at you individually. Think big picture.(TM)

[Fash]

it astounds me that people are so ready to invest their confidence into "solutions" like this which are ultimately nothing more than wildly impractical silver bullets...

Kind of like cap and trade or carbon credits? Or hurting ones own economic growth while China and India will not participate? I agree... wildly impractical.

i have said nothing about those things. what if i agreed with you?

my point is that these solutions cant possibly be less absurd than others which you have denounced

I completely agree, they're all absurd. Some have more of an economical impact than others, and the long-term effects of any of the solutions are completely unknown and possibly extremely dangerous. Cheers, friend.

[pyrella]

Or hurting ones own economic growth while China and India will not participate? I agree... wildly impractical.

So I have to ask about this snippet. When it's something that's good for the bigger picture, but other people aren't doing it....how is that impractical? Your mom wants you to drink milk, or clean your room, or do your homework, or help the elderly, but Johnny and Jimmy don't have to, so why should you? Reading in to it a bit, and perhaps saying something that isn't implied....shouldn't 'we' lead by example?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Or hurting ones own economic growth while China and India will not participate? I agree... wildly impractical.

So I have to ask about this snippet. When it's something that's good for the bigger picture, but other people aren't doing it....how is that impractical? Your mom wants you to drink milk, or clean your room, or do your homework, or help the elderly, but Johnny and Jimmy don't have to, so why should you? Reading in to it a bit, and perhaps saying something that isn't implied....shouldn't 'we' lead by example?

Has it been proven (1) that humans are the cause of global warming....err I mean Global Climate Change...(2) are humans the cause of elevated CO2 levels....(3) that CO2 increases are a direct link to the rise in temperatures....err I mean the drop in temperatures....err I mean the normalization in temperatures? No. So no action should be taken when it's sole reason for doing so is because IT FEELS GOOD. Wake the fuck up!

[Animale]

Has it been proven (1) that humans are the cause of global warming....err I mean Global Climate Change...(2) are humans the cause of elevated CO2 levels....(3) that CO2 increases are a direct link to the rise in temperatures....err I mean the drop in temperatures....err I mean the normalization in temperatures? No. So no action should be taken when it's sole reason for doing so is because IT FEELS GOOD. Wake the fuck up!

1) Almost certainly yes
2) Yes (beyond a doubt - C13/C12 ratio measurements bear this out)
3) Almost certainly yes

<shrug> Just because you won't read the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Animale

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Has it been proven (1) that humans are the cause of global warming....err I mean Global Climate Change...(2) are humans the cause of elevated CO2 levels....(3) that CO2 increases are a direct link to the rise in temperatures....err I mean the drop in temperatures....err I mean the normalization in temperatures? No. So no action should be taken when it's sole reason for doing so is because IT FEELS GOOD. Wake the fuck up!

1) Almost certainly yes
2) Yes (beyond a doubt - C13/C12 ratio measurements bear this out)
3) Almost certainly yes

<shrug> Just because you won't read the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Animale

Just because you won't acknowledge the endless line of scientists who disagree with you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Zaelath]

Has it been proven (1) that humans are the cause of global warming....err I mean Global Climate Change...(2) are humans the cause of elevated CO2 levels....(3) that CO2 increases are a direct link to the rise in temperatures....err I mean the drop in temperatures....err I mean the normalization in temperatures? No. So no action should be taken when it's sole reason for doing so is because IT FEELS GOOD. Wake the fuck up!

1) Almost certainly yes
2) Yes (beyond a doubt - C13/C12 ratio measurements bear this out)
3) Almost certainly yes

<shrug> Just because you won't read the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Animale

Just because you won't acknowledge the endless line of scientists who disagree with you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And there's just SO MANY scientists that disagree, that you can't find a single ONE that's actually in the field. At last count your scientists were a biologist and a tv weatherman. Animale really should look hard at himself.

[Nick]

The climate ostrich that is Midnyte is a pointless case, he may as well just kill himself now tbh.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Has it been proven (1) that humans are the cause of global warming....err I mean Global Climate Change...(2) are humans the cause of elevated CO2 levels....(3) that CO2 increases are a direct link to the rise in temperatures....err I mean the drop in temperatures....err I mean the normalization in temperatures? No. So no action should be taken when it's sole reason for doing so is because IT FEELS GOOD. Wake the fuck up!

1) Almost certainly yes
2) Yes (beyond a doubt - C13/C12 ratio measurements bear this out)
3) Almost certainly yes

<shrug> Just because you won't read the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Animale

Just because you won't acknowledge the endless line of scientists who disagree with you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And there's just SO MANY scientists that disagree, that you can't find a single ONE that's actually in the field. At last count your scientists were a biologist and a tv weatherman. Animale really should look hard at himself.

Find me a logical person of the cloth who disputes the existence of his God.

[Zaelath]

And there's just SO MANY scientists that disagree, that you can't find a single ONE that's actually in the field. At last count your scientists were a biologist and a tv weatherman. Animale really should look hard at himself.

Find me a logical person of the cloth who disputes the existence of his God.

Good try, but while you maintain the people that "preach" climate change are a religion, there was climatology long before this current movement. You can't say a disparate collection of scientists have a shared delusion in the same way you can with "men of the cloth" as they can show you more than a book of fables to explain their conclusions.

It was an entertaining analogy though.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

And there's just SO MANY scientists that disagree, that you can't find a single ONE that's actually in the field. At last count your scientists were a biologist and a tv weatherman. Animale really should look hard at himself.

Find me a logical person of the cloth who disputes the existence of his God.

Good try, but while you maintain the people that "preach" climate change are a religion, there was climatology long before this current movement. You can't say a disparate collection of scientists have a shared delusion in the same way you can with "men of the cloth" as they can show you more than a book of fables to explain their conclusions.

It was an entertaining analogy though.

It was an accurate one. And you know it.

[Fash]

Or hurting ones own economic growth while China and India will not participate? I agree... wildly impractical.

So I have to ask about this snippet. When it's something that's good for the bigger picture, but other people aren't doing it....how is that impractical? Your mom wants you to drink milk, or clean your room, or do your homework, or help the elderly, but Johnny and Jimmy don't have to, so why should you? Reading in to it a bit, and perhaps saying something that isn't implied....shouldn't 'we' lead by example?

So you're swimming in a pool with China and India and find out that all 3 of you have been pissing in it. Stopping is a great idea, and better for everyone, but if you're the only one who stops do you still want to swim in the pool?

I think leading by example is a great idea, and if we were all just happy friends on the planet, it might just work... but we're competing with them, and they piss a lot more than we do. Our 'example' will not fix anything, but it will hurt our economic and technological progress (based on the current solutions on the policy side.) I'm all for examining other solutions, though, since I can agree with most of the science (while not seeing it as an urgent crisis or unquestionable fact.)

I don't question the motives of the average citizen who buys the whole thing and wants us to lead the charge, I question the motives of the politicians driving the policy. Surely they've shown us they always act in the best interests of mankind.

[Forthe]

Or hurting ones own economic growth while China and India will not participate? I agree... wildly impractical.

So I have to ask about this snippet. When it's something that's good for the bigger picture, but other people aren't doing it....how is that impractical? Your mom wants you to drink milk, or clean your room, or do your homework, or help the elderly, but Johnny and Jimmy don't have to, so why should you? Reading in to it a bit, and perhaps saying something that isn't implied....shouldn't 'we' lead by example?

So you're swimming in a pool with China and India and find out that all 3 of you have been pissing in it. Stopping is a great idea, and better for everyone, but if you're the only one who stops do you still want to swim in the pool?

I think leading by example is a great idea, and if we were all just happy friends on the planet, it might just work... but we're competing with them, and they piss a lot more than we do. Our 'example' will not fix anything, but it will hurt our economic and technological progress (based on the current solutions on the policy side.) I'm all for examining other solutions, though, since I can agree with most of the science (while not seeing it as an urgent crisis or unquestionable fact.)

I don't question the motives of the average citizen who buys the whole thing and wants us to lead the charge, I question the motives of the politicians driving the policy. Surely they've shown us they always act in the best interests of mankind.

Build a better mousetrap and you can sell that mousetrap.

[Zaelath]

And there's just SO MANY scientists that disagree, that you can't find a single ONE that's actually in the field. At last count your scientists were a biologist and a tv weatherman. Animale really should look hard at himself.

Find me a logical person of the cloth who disputes the existence of his God.

Good try, but while you maintain the people that "preach" climate change are a religion, there was climatology long before this current movement. You can't say a disparate collection of scientists have a shared delusion in the same way you can with "men of the cloth" as they can show you more than a book of fables to explain their conclusions.

It was an entertaining analogy though.

It was an accurate one. And you know it.

Sure, whatever man.

[Zaelath]

I think leading by example is a great idea, and if we were all just happy friends on the planet, it might just work... but we're competing with them, and they piss a lot more than we do. Our 'example' will not fix anything, but it will hurt our economic and technological progress (based on the current solutions on the policy side.) I'm all for examining other solutions, though, since I can agree with most of the science (while not seeing it as an urgent crisis or unquestionable fact.)

It's just stupid to compare total output of some 1.3 BILLION people to your 250 million and say they are bigger emitters than you. In fact, they're around 100th on the "per capita" tables.

Australia is slightly worse than the US, but as I understand it we're attempting to do something about it now we don't have Bush's arse tickler in office any more.

[Fash]

It's not stupid at all to compare our contribution to that of others, in fact you just re-enforced my argument a little.

[Zaelath]

No, no, you bolstered my argument. See how easy it is to claim victory without any particular basis? Do you work for the whitehouse?

Anyway, you're clearly retarded. Enjoy believing whatever the little men tell you today.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

No, no, you bolstered my argument. See how easy it is to claim victory without any particular basis? Do you work for the whitehouse?

Anyway, you're clearly retarded. Enjoy believing whatever the little men tell you today.

And you go ahead and believe whatever the the little 'green' men tell you. *wink*

[Zaelath]

No, no, you bolstered my argument. See how easy it is to claim victory without any particular basis? Do you work for the whitehouse?

Anyway, you're clearly retarded. Enjoy believing whatever the little men tell you today.

And you go ahead and believe whatever the the little 'green' men tell you. *wink*

This isn't even an argument about climate change, this is an argument about individual contribution v's total contribution of a "country" which is effectively an artificial collection of individuals.

Perhaps China should split into 10 countries, China A, China B, etc, then you would be bigger "polluters" than they are?

You two are so fucking dense it's like talking to 3rd graders, only I don't wanna slap the 3rd graders.

[Fash]

Why would I care what the per capita is when talking about China? Why does that statistic matter when the entire country refuses to participate in efforts to reduce emissions? The biggest polluter by far, refuses to change course.. Retard.

[Zaelath]

Why would I care what the per capita is when talking about China? Why does that statistic matter when the entire country refuses to participate in efforts to reduce emissions? The biggest polluter by far, refuses to change course.. Retard.

So, really, you won't be happy until they're China A, China B, etc. Then, because each of those 10 new countries has 130 million people who emit far less 'greenhouse' gases than the US, then you'll say you need to step up? lol

[masteen]

I prefer to add lime to rum and coke.

[Fash]

Why would I care what the per capita is when talking about China? Why does that statistic matter when the entire country refuses to participate in efforts to reduce emissions? The biggest polluter by far, refuses to change course.. Retard.

So, really, you won't be happy until they're China A, China B, etc. Then, because each of those 10 new countries has 130 million people who emit far less 'greenhouse' gases than the US, then you'll say you need to step up? lol

Do you really think if that happened, they would be referred to individually?... It's a moot point, they are One China, your hypothetical doesn't make any sense.

If the US was the biggest overall contributor, by volume, then my argument wouldn't stand and I obviously wouldn't even make it.... BUT WE'RE NOT. They dwarf us, and if they're not going to participate we have to be careful not to cripple ourselves over it.

[Lynks]

So you're covered in shit but you refuse to take a shower because some other douche smells worse than you.

Take the fucking shower.




Back on topic, while I think this "solution" is interesting, it is unrealistic and who knows what kind of effect it would have on the ocean life.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

So you're covered in shit but you refuse to take a shower because some other douche smells worse than you.

Take the fucking shower.




Back on topic, while I think this "solution" is interesting, it is unrealistic and who knows what kind of effect it would have on the ocean life.

Your analogies blow. The US has gone through drastic measures to cut down on our pollutions. Do a little research. This is more of the same overreactionary bullshit. "OMG, you're not in favor of this? Well then you haven't done anything good!" It's just retarded already. Grow up.

[Lynks]

You failed to read the last line of my post.

Ok...so you're taking a shower with the water pick you use to brush your teeth with.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

You failed to read the last line of my post.

Ok...so you're taking a shower with the water pick you use to brush your teeth with.

I bet I could really get my asshole clean using a water pick. Might even tickle a bit. teehee

[Lynks]

As long as you don't brush your teeth with it... unless you're into that.

[Truant]

I prefer to add lime to rum and coke.

It then becomes a cuba libre!

[Forthe]

Why would I care what the per capita is when talking about China? Why does that statistic matter when the entire country refuses to participate in efforts to reduce emissions? The biggest polluter by far, refuses to change course.. Retard.

Fash you are accepting GOP talking points too easily. China does use a lot of Coal but they are also looking into alternatives. And they do shit very quickly when they make a decision. Our governments are too slow due to partisan bickering and political posturing, we can't compete. Before the retarded offshore oil debate is finished they will probably be well ahead of the US.

Check out what they are doing with wind: http://www.dailytech.com/China+Looks+to ... e12505.htm

[Noysyrump]

Of course we could just do nothing, and the planet will fix the problem all on it's own.

More CO2 in the atmoshphere would lend to more co2 hungry plant life to thrive. Or people and other animals will start to die off from co2 poisoning and the trend will reverse itself that way. Either way, the end of the world is not nigh.

[Fash]

It won't take much to out-pace the US in Wind power, since no one here wants it built in their backyard (idiots)

I concur with Noysy.

It is not a crisis, and the issue is being used to advance an agenda that will not benefit mankind.

[Aslanna]

Why would I care what the per capita is when talking about China? Why does that statistic matter when the entire country refuses to participate in efforts to reduce emissions? The biggest polluter by far, refuses to change course.. Retard.

President George Bush: 'Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter'
George Bush surprised world leaders with a joke about his poor record on the environment as he left the G8 summit in Japan.

The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.

As you can see, according to George Bush, China has nothing on us!

So yeah.. You got part of it right... The biggest polluter refuses to change course.

Pwned!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

from Nightline in 1992...

ALGORE: We now face a global ecological crisis that is more serious than anything human civilization has ever faced, and there's a problem of scale here.... Now we've got a whole new category of global or strategic problems, which include the hole in the ozone layer -- which now could appear above the United States.

RUSH 1992: There is no ozone hole above the United States and if we want to get into a detailed discussion of ozone depletion we can, but I think, Ted, that there is not a crisis. See, this is the problem I have. I don't think the earth is fragile. I don't think the ecology is fragilely balanced and I think that the doomsday industry that is typified by members of the Hollywood acting community who say, "We've only got ten years left to save our planet, we've gotta act now," there's no way, if what these people say is true, that we could solve these problems in ten years anyway. It's budget time in Washington; NASA is being cut, and I think that this fright and doom scenario is designed to frighten people. Everything in this country today seems to be crisis. I can't do anything without having to face it as a crisis. We don't have any time to think about it. There are as many scientists, maybe even more on the opposite side of all of these doomsday predictions, and I think that --

RUSH: Next, Koppel said, "Rush Limbaugh, we've both run into politicians during our careers who know how to fake it on an issue. I don't know anybody on Capitol Hill who is more knowledgeable on the subject of environment than Algore. You have to take seriously what he says."

RUSH 1992: The environmental movement as fueled by the militants who lead it, I think, is the new home of socialism. I think it is. They've adopted a constituency here which can't speak -- that is trees and rocks and so forth -- and can't reject the so-called help and concern that the advocates are giving it, and gives them a stage from which to constantly launch attacks at capitalism. If you listen to what Senator Gore said, it is manmade products which are causing the ozone completion. Yet Mt. Pinatubo has put 570 times the amount of chlorine into the atmospheric in one eruption than all of manmade chlorofluorocarbons in one year; and the ultraviolet radiation measured on this country's surface since 1974 has shown no increase whatsoever. And if there's ozone depletion going on, you're going to have UV radiation levels going way up, and they simply aren't. The sun makes ozone, and there's an ozone hole in the Antarctic Circle and the Arctic Circle simply because the sun is below the horizon for a portion of the year.

[miir]

Oh good grief, you're quoting Rush Limbaugh now?

[Boogahz]

Oh good grief, you're quoting Rush Limbaugh now?

It isn't the first time.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Oh good grief, you're quoting Rush Limbaugh now?

I'm quoting Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh. The post is mainly to show you how the end of the world was near in 1992.

[miir]

Oh good grief, you're quoting Rush Limbaugh now?

I'm quoting Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh. The post is mainly to show you how the end of the world was near in 1992.

Do you know what CFCs are?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Oh good grief, you're quoting Rush Limbaugh now?

I'm quoting Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh. The post is mainly to show you how the end of the world was near in 1992.

Do you know what CFCs are?

Do you? If you or I didn't, we could look it up on the handy little thing Al Gore invented called the internet. Just make your point. Spare me the theatrics.

[miir]

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Regarding CFCs.

On January 23, 1978, Sweden became the first nation to ban CFC-containing aerosol sprays that are thought to damage the ozone layer. A few other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Norway, followed suit later that year, but the European Community rejected an analogous proposal. Even in the U.S., chlorofluorocarbons continued to be used in other applications, such as refrigeration and industrial cleaning, until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. After negotiation of an international treaty (the Montreal Protocol), CFC production was sharply limited beginning in 1987 and phased out completely by 1996.

On August 2, 2003, scientists announced that the depletion of the ozone layer may be slowing down due to the international ban on CFCs.[4] Three satellites and three ground stations confirmed that the upper atmosphere ozone depletion rate has slowed down significantly during the past decade. The study was organized by the American Geophysical Union. Some breakdown can be expected to continue due to CFCs used by nations which have not banned them, and due to gases which are already in the stratosphere. CFCs have very long atmospheric lifetimes, ranging from 50 to over 100 years, so the final recovery of the ozone layer is expected to require several lifetimes.

Compounds containing C–H bonds are being designed to replace the function of CFC's (such as HCFC), since these compounds are more reactive and less likely to survive long enough in the atmosphere to reach the stratosphere where they could affect the ozone layer.