"Climate Change Is Here. It’s Time to Talk About ..." Topic

…Geoengineering.

"Let's pretend that the US didn't recently pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Let's also pretend that all the other countries that scolded it for withdrawing also met their Paris pledges on deadline. Heck, let's pretend that that everyone in the whole world did their very best to cut emissions, starting today. Even if all that make-believing came true, the world would still get very hot.

Fact is, if you add up all the emissions cuts every country promised in their Paris pledges, it still wouldn't keep the planet's temperature from rising beyond the agreement's goals—to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2˚ C higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution, and as close to 1.5˚ C as possible. If Earthlings want to avoid a heat-soaked, tide-swamped, and war-clouded future, they need to do more. This raises the specter of geoengineering: things like seeding the stratosphere with sulfur, or using ice crystals to dissolve heat-trapping clouds. But geoengineering is a dirty word many climate scientists and climate policy experts avoid, because humans meddling with nature doesn't have the best track record. Which is why they say world leaders need to come up with some rules about geoengineering ASAP, before desperation over the coming climate catastrophe forces humanity to do something it might well regret.

Geoengineering strategies generally fall into two categories: removing carbon dioxide and reducing heat. The former problem has vexed researchers for years. Sure, they can do it on small scales—carbon scrubbers are essential life support aboard closed systems like the International Space Station and submarines. But installing systems large enough make a dent in all those parts per million is functionally impossible. It would be expensive, energy-intensive, and also nobody really knows how to do it. Doing the same with reforestation would require covering nearly half of all world's landmass with trees. Not likely to happen. And despite the hype, carbon capture and storage—sucking the stuff up before it leaves the smokestack and pumping it underground—is still in its infancy…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Or bioengineering! Some of the really hardcore believers have already begun their transition now, in order to beat the big rush later. The price of the procedure is sure to go up too. :)

Dan
link

Stop pretending, the US DID get out of the Paris Agreement so find another cash cow. I'd better stop or it'll be hard time in the DH

ZuluPaul,

Lol. Pretending what? To be a comic? I know. My wife never thinks I'm funny. :)

Anyway, even if I were against that move, as I've learned through the years, I ultimate have no real control over what any leader does once they are at the helm.

Dan

My wife never thinks I'm funny

Easy. Space parasol at L1.
Or even simpler, move some asteroids there and pulverize 'em into a cloud of space dust to similarly reduce solar energy reaching the Earth.
We actually could do both of these, given time.

But then there's this: link

So maybe we don't want to go mucking about with permanent alterations to our planet's energy input system.

Best bet: quit screwing around and build nuclear power plants to replace fossil fuel plants (if we'd done that back in the '70s and '80s instead of listening to chicken littles, we wouldn't be facing the current "crisis", if it really is one).

(Oh, by the way, in a related note, electric cars solve nothing. The carbon footprint to make the batteries for one electric vehicle is the equivalent of driving a typical sedan for 8 years. And then you still have to provide power for the thing, which would currently come from (drum roll)…fossil fuel.)

Bowman,

It's true! She just rolls her eyes.

Dan

The "solution" is obvious: create gunk in the atmosphere, a la volcanic eruptions. Heck, Lex Luthor could do it. So can we. Just pick a few strategic locations and nuke 'em deep. No fallout that way either…………

Oh, by the way, in a related note, electric cars solve nothing. The carbon footprint to make the batteries for one electric vehicle is the equivalent of driving a typical sedan for 8 years.

Do you have figure for this? These sources say that the most important aspect is how clean the source for the electricity is.

link

link

link

And then you still have to provide power for the thing, which would currently come from (drum roll)…fossil fuel.)

Not really…depends where you live. Here's the electrical generation breakdown where I'm from:

link

Looks like fossil fuel (natural gas at that….not coal) electrical generation is just a bit above that generated by wind power. So 95% of the electricity that powers your Prius, Volt or Tesla comes from nuclear and hydro electric generation, at least in Ontario.

The "solution" is obvious: create gunk in the atmosphere, a la volcanic eruptions. Heck, Lex Luthor could do it. So can we. Just pick a few strategic locations and nuke 'em deep. No fallout that way either…………

It's hard to tell with you if this is Poe's Law.

Study on manufacturing process for electric car batteries and CO2 release (translated from Swedish, so a bit rough): link

Important comment in the study: "The calculation is based on the assumption that the electricity mix used by the battery plant is based by more than half by power generated by fossil fuels. In Sweden, power generation predominantly consists of zero-carbon nuclear and hydropower, as a result of which lower emissions can be achieved."

Most of my power comes from a nuclear plant also. When the US was buying all those old nukes from Russia and recycling the material into low cost fuel for nuclear power plants, our power was cheaper than those North of us having to rely on coal. The good old days. Then the power company got greedy and combined the two zones into one and now we pay the higher rate of the Northern zone, even though a good percentage of power is generated by wind and gas now.

Of course the other solution to the problem is to kill off 2/3 or more of the population of the world. Of course if it keeps getting worse and we do nothing, we will end up killing most of the population anyway.

Are those Mammy Nuns?

YouTube link

Doug Redshirt: "Of course the other solution to the problem is to kill off 2/3 or more of the population of the world. Of course if it keeps getting worse and we do nothing, we will end up killing most of the population anyway."

LOL. Isn't that part of the Gaian Depopulation Plan that some crazies* want to start implementing already? I guess everyone else would become Soylent Green or fertilizer or something useful.

That plan should help them cleanse the developed nations of all unbelievers/non-conformists. :)

Dan
* Similar to the hilarious first commandment on the creepy "Georgia Guidestones":
link

While the study is in Swedish, I believe the battery supply plant for Tesla, as one example, is not in Sweden, but the Netherlands. So Sweden 's power makeup isn't really relevant, except to say "bring on the nuke juice!"

Definition – Global Warming – Cash cow for al gore.

Well, to be fair, he needed a cash cow just to pay for his divorce and sex scandals:

link

As a private citizen he has apparently been busy. :)

Dan
PS. I love his face here. He looks like a televangelist.

Looks like he's about to pass some really hot greenhouse gas.

And the existence of a bunch of crazies with a monument is a necessary and sufficient condition to overturn decades of scientific research?

Nah. IF you can offer-up a theory that says that global warming isn't a problem, while offering a less catastrophic interpretation of the palioclimate record while still respecting the laws of thermodynamics, I'm all ears. Hell, I'm sure that if it's a good and coherent explanation that overturns the existing paradigm, start booking your flight and hotel in Stockholm right now, because you'll be a windmill slam for the Nobel prize.

Hmm. Stockholm, December 10th. Should I pack summer clothes? :)

Dan

Definition – Global Warming – Cash cow for al gore.

This is how low the level of discussion has sunk on the Science thread.

Ya, all the research, all the government science associations and societies, all the universities, all that……it's all just Al Gore. Is this what we decided as being "fractally stupid"?

Study on manufacturing process for electric car batteries and CO2 release (translated from Swedish, so a bit rough

Thanks for that. Lithium mining is one source of the pollution, however that will not abate even if no electric car batteries are built. Most go into cell phone and portable computing batteries. That should improve as the mining nations get better with their mining habits. I would expect Argentina to be ahead of China in that regard, but that is not certain.

Nice to see the Swedish researchers are in agreement with me here:

"The calculation is based on the assumption that the electricity mix used by the battery plant is based by more than half by power generated by fossil fuels."

Maybe the batteries should be built in nuclear powered first world countries.

As Goldman Sachs says, "Lithium is the new gasoline"!

link

While the study is in Swedish, I believe the battery supply plant for Tesla, as one example, is not in Sweden, but the Netherlands. So Sweden 's power makeup isn't really relevant, except to say "bring on the nuke juice!"

Agreed, especially as power generation in the Netherlands is from a whopping 81% fossil fuels. The Dutch also contribute more of a carbon footprint than the average EU values.

link

Definition – Global Warming – Cash cow for al gore.

This is how low the level of discussion has sunk on the Science thread.

Ya, all the research, all the government science associations and societies, all the universities, all that……it's all just Al Gore. Is this what we decided as being "fractally stupid"?

Is it time to unearth Wolfgang Pauli?

But that is actually what Global Warming/Climate Change is for Al "Conman" Gore.

He has made millions off of it.

It is not happening but that is not stopping individuals from getting in on the dole.

Bulled by a Gore.

Martin: "Ya, all the research, all the government science associations and societies, all the universities, all that……it's all just Al Gore. Is this what we decided as being "fractally stupid"?"

You gotta admit that spending $ trillions on unknown projects to reduce the potential temperature rise by century's end by only .5˚ C – which is what some in the media have been announcing will be the net result of that effort – can sound a bit extreme to some in the general public.

(I take it back. You don't have to admit to it. It just happens to be the reality.)

In any case, every "doomsday scenario" that is almost a century away needs to be taken with a grain of salt, including this one (for half a degree C). Specially when one of its public poster children and its greatest celebrity believer/disciple (Gore) is so overly passionate and so hilarious in his claims.

Dan

Climate change is demonstrably happening.

When I was a kid the mountain behind my house would have snow on it till mid summer. Winter snows now melt and are gone in a day or two. (Even the guy at the gas station was commenting the other day about how the snow disappeared.)

The surfers in my region are loving climate change -- the water is a degree warmer -- which is significant when you are at a higher latitude with generally cold water! (Conversation with a surfer last month)

As a fisherman, fishing has been improved as several new species have moved into the area -- fish that have not been seen for the last 200 years. (I am hoping to hook into one of those large Kingfish!)

Follow the money. It is always about the money.

Anecdotal/regional variations don't prove anything either way. In Utah we've had some of the most mild winters in living memory, followed this year by very heavy snowpack. Nothing is shown by arid and wet cycles. Or temperature variances either.

Follow the money. It is always about the money.

Good advice. Lets see…. Heartland Institute (backed by those enlightened Koch brothers), Climate Depot (brought to you by ExxonMobil), and the list goes on and on. Yeah, follow the money…. RIGHT….

Anecdotal/regional variations don't prove anything either way.

But increases in ocean temperature sure as heck does…

Believe whatever fantasy you want. Me, I'll stick with the science…

@ c12 – Let's see, the folks you named are NOT trying to get taxpayer money for their "research". They are NOT demanding that we give taxpayer money to "developing countries". Sorry, you have taken a large gulp of the al gore kool-aid.

Yes, it is ALL about the money.

Let's see, the folks you named are NOT trying to get taxpayer money for their "research". They are NOT demanding that we give taxpayer money to "developing countries". Sorry, you have taken a large gulp of the al gore kool-aid.

They pay millions to lobbyists to politicians to sway voting in congress. Plus, it is pretty ignorant to assume a pro-AGW stance somehow translates into more grant money for a researcher. I'm sure Martin would be using your inside info if it was.

Yes, it is ALL about the money.

Yep. The Koch Brothers and Exxon/Mobile want to avoid losing money and lawsuits like the tobacco industry did. Hence the same lobbyists and "think tanks" being utilized.

When it's all about discussion of wealth redistribution, rather than changing how we get and use energy, then where the money is going to go must pass through the hands of the grabbers, who have positioned themselves to siphon off that wealth into their own grasping hands. That is the core problem with the debate. The same grabbers don't walk the walk, they only talk the talk, Gore being one of the chiefest of the offenders. The size of the motorcades and body guard "armies" that surround these activists belies their own words. They show up on jets, instead of skyping in, or using other social Medía from where they are already at. These conventions to discuss "the problems" are just so much jet-setting. And the outcome is more "agreement" by national reps that their respective nations will put limits on everybody else, to achieve some nebulous goal in temperature reductions: all of it spells doom to the affluent nations and artificially upgraded lifestyles to the developing nations, via the shifted wealth, etc.

So this will not fly anywhere!

Ocean temperatures didn't doom the planet either way in the past. That humans are actively causing temperature changes by our very presence in our very, very increasing numbers, will not doom the planet simply because warming has never been done this way before. Fast or slow, which is the only difference, doesn't show as doomful, only faster or slower. The temperature slowly increasing allows for slower change. Temperature quickly increasing requires faster change. That some animals die off because this time around they can't adapt doesn't make humans evil, since we are part of Nature.

Are any of you going to argue that the rapid demise of the dinosaurs (because of some theoretical comet impact, or whathaveyou) was somehow a doom for the planet? Wasn't the very warm, humid earth a very nifty place with millions of dinos running around? The plethora of giant flora and fauna! The fecundity! All ended suddenly, far more suddenly in all likelihood than any "sudden" changes that homo sapiens have been bringing on. So don't go all boogeyman about the rapidity "this time around". Obviously, fast changes still allow for evolutionary changes to take place in the surviving species.

We weren't around before to assert that the current state of the ecosystem of earth "is the way it's supposed to be". Nothing about the way the earth IS means it must stay that way in order to be right.

So let's stop with all the talk about doom, look at the changes coming as scientifically as possible, and get together and plan for those changes: instead of pointing figures at each other and saying that we must DO SOMETHING to prevent those changes.

We can live smartly. I'm all for that, for conservation, for clean energy that is renewable, and, for FEWER PEOPLE. Smart people balance their numbers, they engage in sex with procreating beyond a point, etc. We can do all of that without siphoning off wealth and moving it around. Rich people are not evil…………

Also, you do know that Exxon knew that they were contributing to global warming as much as 40 years ago. Revealed internal memos from their scientists were in sharp contrast to what their PR department was saying in public. Again, another example of behaving like the tobacco companies.

link

exxonknew.org/timeline

link

link

link

etc.

GWA, its just an opinion piece on Wired. Don't behave like it's official IPCC policy.

I wasn't addressing the IPCC or any other single entity. I was/am talking about example. And about proposed "solutions" to an asserted problem.

It doesn't matter if the self-interest causes people to say things that are distorted/untrue. That happens every time humans open their mouths. Pointing out the obvious is just a form of finger pointing.