To talk down of such a talented and bright young woman is to admit your deep ignorance of her work and artistic vision. You should visit her website calamara.com and see her fantastic body of work!

I have placed my throne at the edge of Global Warming and ordered the tide of heat to turn away from my royal presence. It is working. See here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/chill-in-the-air-part-2-us-breaks-or-ties-115-of-cold-and-sets-63-new-snowfall-records/

If more artists would order heat away we could be soon in the middle of our own wonderful little ice age.

We can only hope there are more people like this artist doing what they can to bring a solution to this problem.

What are you doing to prevent global warming?

Typical headline blaming everything on climate change but as always when you read the article climate change may or may not be one of the many factors.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn15000-climate-change-is-driving-increase-in-tiger-attacks.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news7_head_dn15000

If you prefer aerobic digestion, Lundy’s on Sheepshead Bay comes highly recommended.

This was not always the case with the New School, which makes the situation even sadder. In the 1930′s, it was a ‘University in Exile’, a haven for many scholars from Central Europe who were forced to flee for their lives, among them Leo Strauss (briefly), Hans Jonas and Hannah Arendt, three thinkers who most assuredly meet the gold standard of ‘intellectual rigor’. Arendt continued to teach political philosophy at the New School well into the 1970′s.

They’re, also, doing this in Rialto, Ca. There, and in some other Ca districts they’re doing fuel cells powered by biogas.

The density of the Carbon in the shells is roughly (12/88) x CaCO3 Density of 2.83 g/cm³, = .386 gm/cm3. Compare that to the density in the air from CO2 which is (roughly) (380/1,000,000) x 1.98 gm/l = 0.000752 gm/l.

So the density of Carbon in shells is (.386 gm/cm**3)/(.000752 gm/l) = 513,000 times greater than the weight density in air.

From: SVENSMARK: COSMOCLIMATOLOGY

Cloud tops have a high albedo and exert their cooling effect by scattering back into the cosmos
much of the sunlight that could otherwise warm the surface. But the snows on the Antarctic ice
sheets are dazzlingly white, with a higher albedo than the cloud tops. There, extra cloud cover
warms the surface, and less cloudiness cools it. Satellite measurements show the warming effect
of clouds on Antarctica, and meteorologists at far southern latitudes confirm it by observation. Greenland too has an ice sheet, but it is smaller and not so white. And while conditions in Greenland are coupled to the general climate of the northern hemisphere, Antarctica is largely isolated by vortices in the ocean and the air.
.

Limestone weathering: CaCO3 + CO2 (dissolved) = Ca(HCO3)2 (calcium bicarbonate).

Dodgy Geezer,

thanks for the competition link – I got really excited until i realised the prize is only £500 and probably aimed at students. I have a winning idea and I may be a skeptic but I am also a cynic and funding is funding. But then i couldn’t live with myself if i won – think of all that publicity they’re planning. I’d be smiling in photos and feeling like a hypocrite while I’m really thinking “I don’t believe the world needs CO2 capture”. Perhaps it would be worth it to use the publicity to blast AGW and renounce the prize. That would grab a few (minor) headlines.

Hmm. Faced with this scenario though, would a scientist or engineer who relies on government research funding take such a risk?? And so the myth perpetuates.

Re New York City Sewage – Anaerobic digestion is already used to treat sewage sludge in Brooklyn, but the methane produced is flared (i.e. wasted by just burning it). A new installation will use it to produce electricity and heat: Biogas System to be Installed at Brooklyn Wastewater Treatment Facility
http://www.energyvortex.com/pages/headlinedetails.cfm?id=1983&archive=1

What happens when it weathers? Does it truly absorb CO2 as it weathers, as Pete suggests? What is the chemical equation of such weathering? CaCO3 plus CO2 equals ????.

When continents collide, such as was the case when India crashed into Asia, raising the Himalayas, huge amounts of limestone must have been incorporated into volcanic eruptions, (as well as the existing coal, oil and gas reserves of those continental shelves.) How did the planet handle the out-gassing of so much CO2, and was it in any way similar to current conditions?

What a wonder this planet is.

They are primarily calcium on an atomic weight (about 40 to 12) and volume basis (roughly (2.23/.91)**3), although there is one Calcium atom for every Carbon atom in Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3), so it’s a 50/50 split as far as # of atoms goes.

Actually it brings an interesting (ROM) calculation.

WARNING: Back of the envelope calculation coming….

The density of the Carbon in the shells is roughly (12/40) x CaCO3 Density of 2.83 g/cm³, = .85 gm/cm3. Compare that to the density in the air from CO2 which is (roughly) (380/1,000,000) x 1.98 gm/l = 0.0007524 gm/l.

So the weight density of Carbon in shells is (.85 gm/cm**3)/(.0007524 gm/l) = 1,129,718 times greater than the weight density in air.

I wonder if that’s anywhere close to being right?

As energy resources get more scarce, and thus more expensive, polluting behavior will become less profitable.

The engineering angle competition indicates that the solution must either (a) Reduce the content of GHGs in the planet’s atmosphere, or (b) Alter the climate system beneficially.

I would propose that an engineering solution to increase CO2, perhaps to levels of about 1000PPM that many greenhouses do should be a winner as it should beneficially alter the climate system by slowing the current probable natural cycle cooling over the next 30 years(?) and increase plant growth to benefit forest regeneration and food production. If global cooling is not to be, then this would warm us up by perhaps 1.5C and warmer is better. If we can get it higher than 1000PPM that would be just a nice bonus. By the way, OSHA says 5000PPM is the upper limit for workplace exposure (although they didn’t really have any evidence that it was bad above these levels, so they made a conservative choice.

Increasing clean burning hrdrocarbon use might be a good idea, except to the extent that it may waste our supplies over the next 200 years. A means of coating of exposed carbonate rock to slow the absorption of CO2 due to weathering of limestone could help, but may be impractical.

So, my grand solution is to dump clam and oyster shells (and any available carbonate rock like limestone) into the nearest volcano to release the carbon from the carbonates. This additionally has the benefit of removing those sharp oyster shells from areas frequented by bathers. Those shells can give you some nasty cuts on you feet, and I should know as I’ve done it quite a few times.

We should establish aquaculture production areas around the world in close vicinity of volcanoes, so we could quickly get the shells into the volcano and reduce the disposal concerns that arise around shellfish preparation plants.

Think I could have a winner here?