[Gasification] CO2 recycling

[David G. LeVine]

At 02:33 AM 10/7/2007, you wrote:
>well, break down was a poor choice of terms.

Okay, that explanation is accepted.

>i should have said "reuptaken"  or "consumed".

Okay, please define your terms here, that way I will avoid making 
inaccurate characterizations of you.

>whatever the terms, the issue is persistence. the life time of newly 
>emited h2o in the atmosphere is significantly less than c02.  the 
>mechanisms where it can be reuptaken are diverse, and apparently 
>total to a much faster processing than co2.  thus h20 has a total 
>less impact as a green house gas than co2, even though per unit gas 
>per time, it has more effect.  this is my understanding.

It appears that your understanding is different from that of many 
others.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas where it claims

>The major greenhouse gases are 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor>water vapor, which causes 
>about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth 
>(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing>not including clouds); 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide>carbon dioxide, which 
>causes 9-26%; ...

And many others.

What you are probably remembering is MANMADE greenhouse 
gasses.  Water vapor and carbon dioxide come from both natural and 
manmade sources, if you ignore the natural sources, your statements 
are correct, but if natural sources are many times more voluminous, 
the manmade sources may be meaningless.

>i lack the data at hand to support this.  i would encourage myself 
>and others to check this claim.  green house gas claims are famously 
>complicated and moderately understood.

I would agree with your suggestion that research is desirable and 
your assertion that greenhouse gas claims are complicated, but your 
assertion that they are moderately understood seems to be a bit too 
generous.  I feel that poorly understood would be more accurate.


David G. LeVine
Nashua, NH  03060