Climate change: Scientists test radical ways to fix Earth's climate

[KonstantinosM]

I've read this entire thread so far.

The most insightful thing in it was:

Geoengineering could bring the temperature down but not in the same way we are raising it.  Our goal is not to bring the temperature down.  Our goal is to keep things like they were.  An Earth with less incoming radiation, more co2, and the same temperature is still a completely different Earth. 

The geoengineering fixes in question, are unlikely to work.

Take converting CO2 back to fuel.

Think of all the air you need to push through your reactor to do that. And then all the energy needed to convert that CO2 into fuel. And then add the fact that if you convert it into fuel rather than burying it you're releasing the CO2 right back into the atmosphere.

So even if the process is carbon neutral, with current technology setting up the infrastructure certainly isn't. This technology would be viable in a fantasy land with ample zero-carbon energy production, but it's not going to magically save us in the next 10-20 years.

Take throwing salt into the atmosphere:

There is the problem that even if the temperature is reduced, CO2 stays the same. The climate can still be different despite the temperature being the same.
Then there is the global conflict such geoengineering could spark. What if the temperature can only be reduced if Russia's or The United State's crops have to fail for one year?
Where is the clear proof that this actually works as intended? Then there is the simple fact that you're throwing more water in with the salt particles, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.


The take ocean greening

The article itself debunks it and points to another article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7959570.stm

I'd also like to add that iron ore isn't free and that it would probably sink to the bottom, requiring us to keep adding it to the ocean for eternity.



I believe that we'll totally wreck this planet's ecosystems and climate. The glaciers will melt, the sea levels will rise, millions will lose their homes, incomes and food stability. But we'll probably survive it. We'll just be living in a different planet earth.

And one day, the history books will have a chapter on the time we could have saved millions of species of animals and plants, and prevented human suffering equivalent to many world wars, but instead we chose to drive gas guzzlers, build tanks and bombs and destroy ourselves in the process.

[Spendulus]

....

I believe that we'll totally wreck this planet's ecosystems and climate. The glaciers will melt, the sea levels will rise, millions will lose their homes, incomes and food stability. But we'll probably survive it. We'll just be living in a different planet earth.

And one day, the history books will have a chapter on the time we could have saved millions of species of animals and plants, and prevented human suffering equivalent to many world wars, but instead we chose to drive gas guzzlers, build tanks and bombs and destroy ourselves in the process.

I believe that if we try nutty geo engineering quackery, we'll totally wreck this planet's ecosystems and climates.

If we listen to greenie pseudo-scientific wackos, we'll totally wreck this planet.

If we build a thousand nuclear power planets, we'll probably do okay.

Oceans will rise and fall, and man does not have a Right to put huge population centers dangerously close to the oceans and stay safe. Oceans can rise and fall naturally, or through man's actions.

For example, the Western Peninsula of Antarctica is weakly held to the continent, and it could come loose and over time, melt. Sea levels would rise. Tsunamis happen, period. And then there are asteroid strikes, most of which will occur in the oceans, with effects on land masses. To focus on carbon dioxide and emissions dangerously ignores these various factors.

[Mometaskers]

I remember someone suggesting spraying sulfur aerosol into the atmosphere to reflect the light. Basically make a long tube up to the sky using balloons and spray away. I don't think they've much progress but it's a simple idea.

Not sure how that would affect the atmosphere though or if it could end up producing harmful substances. The rationale is that this is what exactly happens when volcanoes erupt.

Yes, that's exactly how you create "acid rain."

Sulfur --> Sulfuric acid in little raindrops

That was seen down wind of chemical refineries in the 1970s until it was banned by those smart guys.

... So now the smart guys want it back?

I tried to look it up again, not sure if this is the same article I read before or if that was a mention in a book but yes this is the guy and yes, it turns out they'll use sulfuric acid, which is supposed to turn into sulfates or something high up there and reflect sunlight.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/

Turns out they've already started testing last year, albeit with calcium carbonate first.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07533-4

[Spendulus]

I've read this entire thread so far.

The most insightful thing in it was:

Geoengineering could bring the temperature down but not in the same way we are raising it.  Our goal is not to bring the temperature down.  Our goal is to keep things like they were.  An Earth with less incoming radiation, more co2, and the same temperature is still a completely different Earth. 

The geoengineering fixes in question, are unlikely to work.

Take converting CO2 back to fuel.

Think of all the air you need to push through your reactor to do that. And then all the energy needed to convert that CO2 into fuel. And then add the fact that if you convert it into fuel rather than burying it you're releasing the CO2 right back into the atmosphere.

So even if the process is carbon neutral, with current technology setting up the infrastructure certainly isn't. This technology would be viable in a fantasy land with ample zero-carbon energy production, but it's not going to magically save us in the next 10-20 years.

Take throwing salt into the atmosphere:

There is the problem that even if the temperature is reduced, CO2 stays the same. The climate can still be different despite the temperature being the same.
Then there is the global conflict such geoengineering could spark. What if the temperature can only be reduced if Russia's or The United State's crops have to fail for one year?
Where is the clear proof that this actually works as intended? Then there is the simple fact that you're throwing more water in with the salt particles, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.


The take ocean greening

The article itself debunks it and points to another article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7959570.stm

I'd also like to add that iron ore isn't free and that it would probably sink to the bottom, requiring us to keep adding it to the ocean for eternity.



I believe that we'll totally wreck this planet's ecosystems and climate. The glaciers will melt, the sea levels will rise, millions will lose their homes, incomes and food stability. But we'll probably survive it. We'll just be living in a different planet earth.

And one day, the history books will have a chapter on the time we could have saved millions of species of animals and plants, and prevented human suffering equivalent to many world wars, but instead we chose to drive gas guzzlers, build tanks and bombs and destroy ourselves in the process.

It's interesting that we disagree on the importance of combatting global warming and climate change, but are 100% in agreement on these ridiculous pseudo-scientific schemes. Maybe there is some hope after all!

[tvbcof]

It's interesting that we disagree on the importance of combatting global warming and climate change, but are 100% in agreement on these ridiculous pseudo-scientific schemes. Maybe there is some hope after all!

Imagine how much more difficult controlling the weather would have been without 3 decades of 'education' about the menace of global climate change.

The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

Contrary to the simplistic understandings of those starting to catch on, these people are not 'Communists'.  They'll use 'Communism' when it suites their goals, but in reality they are something much worse.  Probably not as bad as the Talmudics though who are fellow Lucifarians, and there is some evidence that this group is making a bid to snatch the prize.

[mikehersh2]

All of these are idiotic fantasies based on wrong presumptions.

Where would you like to start with the process of intelligent debunking?

CO2 --> fuel?

The end product of exothermic combustion is CO2.

CO2 does not magically reform into something that is exothermic, right?

I believe it is possible to turn CO2 back into fuel. These methods arent exactly cheap, or easy, however. Furthermore, CO2 as fuel is still no match for liquid fuel in terms of efficiency and power output. However, according to an article writen on ScienceMag.org, here is one way it can be done...

CO2 is a very stable, unreactive molecule. Chemists can force it to react by pumping in electricity, heat, or both. The first step in this process is usually ripping off one of CO2’s oxygen atoms to make CO. That CO can then be combined with H2 to make a combination known as syngas, which can be converted into methanol, a liquid alcohol that can be either used directly or converted into other valuable chemicals and fuels. Massive chemical plants do just that, but they make their syngas not from air, but from plentiful and cheap natural gas.

This article was written back in 2015, so I would like to assume even more advancements have been made since then.

[tvbcof]

...
CO2 does not magically reform into something that is exothermic, right?

I believe it is possible to turn CO2 back into fuel. These methods arent exactly cheap, or easy, however. Furthermore, CO2 as fuel is still no match for liquid fuel in terms of efficiency and power output. However, according to an article writen on ScienceMag.org, here is one way it can be done...

CO2 is a very stable, unreactive molecule. Chemists can force it to react by pumping in electricity, heat, or both. The first step in this process is usually ripping off one of CO2’s oxygen atoms to make CO. That CO can then be combined with H2 to make a combination known as syngas, which can be converted into methanol, a liquid alcohol that can be either used directly or converted into other valuable chemicals and fuels. Massive chemical plants do just that, but they make their syngas not from air, but from plentiful and cheap natural gas.

This article was written back in 2015, so I would like to assume even more advancements have been made since then.

+40 years of degrading basic education and funding of bird-cage-liner like ScienceRag.org, and this is what you get; a nearly complete inability to understand the most basic elements of chemistry and physics!

I cannot call our society and Idiocracy because the idiot class are not running things.  But clearly they were not running things in the movie either.  There was a 'hidden hand'.

[coins4commies]

...

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?

.....
There is absolutely no scientific basis for global cooling that is made up. .....

Factually Incorrect.

https://principia-scientific.org/norwegian-scientist-global-cooling-beginning-due-low-solar-activity/

Scientists are increasingly tuning out the claims that the Earth’s temperatures are predominantly shaped by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or that future climate is destined to be alarmingly warm primarily due to the rise in trace atmospheric gases.  Instead, solar scientists are continuing to advance our understanding of solar activity and its effect on the Earth system, and their results are progressively suggestive of robust correlations between solar variability and climate changes.

For example, in 2016 alone, there were at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers documenting a significant solar influence on climate.  Among them there were 18 papers that directly connected centennial-scale periods of low solar activity (the Little Ice Age) with cooler climates, and periods of high solar activity (the Medieval Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period [20th Century]) with high solar activity levels.  Another 10 papers warned of an impending solar minimum and concomitant cooling period in the coming decades.

And this trend of scientists linking climate changes to solar forcing mechanisms — and bypassing an anthropogenic explanation — continues to rage on in 2017.A Seminal New Paper Unveils The ‘Cause Of Causes’ Of Climate Change

In their groundbreaking New Astronomy paper, Norwegian professors Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim indicate that the modern (1940-2015) Grand Maximum of very high solar activity — the highest solar activity levels in 4,000 years — has just ended.

...

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?

The problem is that your questions are not genuine, could be easily googled, and are simply meant to muddy the waters....

I have said all along in this thread that the goal is not to put the temperature back to a certain place.  The goal is to limit carbon emissions.  It is smart to treat causes not symptoms.  

I don't think your answers are genuine. If you can't explain why what you propose is actually good, and you can't show the effect of your proposals, you have nothing except a massive control freak scheme.

Ok so you just posted a link from a known pseudo-science website.   The papers they reference either don't say what they are claiming or are outright lies.  Authors have actually spoken out about their papers being misquoted or used out of context to push your anti-science agenda.

[Spendulus]

All of these are idiotic fantasies based on wrong presumptions.

Where would you like to start with the process of intelligent debunking?

CO2 --> fuel?

The end product of exothermic combustion is CO2.

CO2 does not magically reform into something that is exothermic, right?

I believe it is possible to turn CO2 back into fuel. These methods arent exactly cheap, or easy, however. Furthermore, CO2 as fuel is still no match for liquid fuel in terms of efficiency and power output. However, according to an article writen on ScienceMag.org, here is one way it can be done...

CO2 is a very stable, unreactive molecule. Chemists can force it to react by pumping in electricity, heat, or both. The first step in this process is usually ripping off one of CO2’s oxygen atoms to make CO. That CO can then be combined with H2 to make a combination known as syngas, which can be converted into methanol, a liquid alcohol that can be either used directly or converted into other valuable chemicals and fuels. Massive chemical plants do just that, but they make their syngas not from air, but from plentiful and cheap natural gas.

This article was written back in 2015, so I would like to assume even more advancements have been made since then.

I am sure your intentions are good. However, this is basic chemistry. There was nothing "new" in 2015 and there have been no "advancements" since 2015 that change the laws of thermodynamics.

Co2 is created in a process that gives off energy.

To convert it back to something else, more than that amount of energy must be put back in, because of inefficiency in the conversion.

[BADecker]

I sure hope the climate-change scientists have a big bunch of their group working on anti-aging. Why? So that they live the hundreds of years that it will take to figure out how to change the climate even a little.

 

[Spendulus]

....
Ok so you just posted a link from a known pseudo-science website.   The papers they reference either don't say what they are claiming or are outright lies.  Authors have actually spoken out about their papers being misquoted or used out of context to push your anti-science agenda.

These comments attempt to discredit many papers by solar physicists suggesting that we may be approaching a solar minima, with consequences in weather such as the Little Ice Age.

You are not qualified to discredit these people or their work, however you are welcome to present scientifically sound arguments on the subject.

I fail to see any reason a climate alarmist would be against global cooling. After all, those guys telling you what to think and say have already changed their grammar to "climate change," so they could encompass the possibility of global cooling as well as the tired, worn out Global Warming mantra you are on.

[coins4commies]

No one is discrediting the work of scientists.  I am discrediting the use of principia-scientific because it is a fake site.   Being able to find reliable sources is the key to being able to obtain knowledge from the internet.  I can point you in the right direction.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-in-the-express-that-low-solar-activity-is-bringing-cold-weather-is-false/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/metros-claims-of-coming-mini-ice-age-have-no-basis-in-reality/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/ian-plimer-wrongly-claims-that-carbon-dioxide-emissions-do-not-cause-climate-change/


Someone else said it and I didn't bother correcting them but global cooling implies the whole world (global average) is cooling .  Global warming implies the opposite and does not suggest that every specific location is warming.  Global warming is happening and was not changed to climate change.  Global warming causes ice to melt and flow into the ocean which affects ocean currents.  Currents affect wind patterns and overall climate. The warming itself is not a global concern as its just a few degrees.   its all of the things that result from the warming.

Climate change is a result of global warming NOT an alternative to it.  

Global warming is a result of GHG emissions and so is ocean acidification.  

[Bitkoyns]

there are certain news that say the atmosphere and the ozone layer are now healing, this is a great news but the problem on global warming is too huge that they need to fix it.

[Spendulus]

No one is discrediting the work of scientists.  I am discrediting the use of principia-scientific because it is a fake site.   Being able to find reliable sources is the key to being able to obtain knowledge from the internet.  I can point you in the right direction.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-in-the-express-that-low-solar-activity-is-bringing-cold-weather-is-false/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/metros-claims-of-coming-mini-ice-age-have-no-basis-in-reality/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/ian-plimer-wrongly-claims-that-carbon-dioxide-emissions-do-not-cause-climate-change/

....

You are no climate scientist, although you claimed to be. You don't even know the definition of climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

Climate change occurs when changes in Earth's climate system result in new weather patterns that last for at least a few decades, and maybe for millions of years.

And you'r just pointing to a wacko website.

The actual articles on solar physics are readily available though.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-019-3500-9

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3103/S1062873817020411

https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/our-staff/z/professor-valentina-zharkova/

If you deny the science, you are a climate science denier, pure and simple.

[coins4commies]

None of the things you just got off of wikipedia conflicts with what I said but I'm not even asking you to trust that I am a climate scientist or anything I say for that matter.  I'm just asking you to trust the known consensus amongst climate scientists who you are calling wackos. 

You are taking all of those papers out of context and using them out of context to support a conclusion you made prior to even reading them.  That is why its pseudo science.

The "wacko" website has 19 climate scientists explaining the misconception you hold.  It is something that is designed specifically to help people with this sort of thing.  Imagine a guy with a random guy on a bitcoin forum reading a paper and noticing something that has fooled almost every pHd for their entire career.

[Spendulus]

None of the things you just got off of wikipedia conflicts with what I said but I'm not even asking you to trust that I am a climate scientist or anything I say for that matter.  I'm just asking you to trust the known consensus amongst climate scientists who you are calling wackos. 

You are taking all of those papers out of context and using them out of context to support a conclusion you made prior to even reading them.  That is why its pseudo science.

The "wacko" website has 19 climate scientists explaining the misconception you hold.  It is something that is designed specifically to help people with this sort of thing.  Imagine a guy with a random guy on a bitcoin forum reading a paper and noticing something that has fooled almost every pHd for their entire career.

Please explain why what solar scientists say about the Sun entering a quiet period, and it having effects on climate, is something you or anyone else should disregard.

[coins4commies]

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-in-the-express-that-low-solar-activity-is-bringing-cold-weather-is-false/
Its all explained in there.  I'm not going to summarize it for you to miss the full context but here are a few important quotes.

This headline (and the article below it, as scientists who reviewed the article detail below) misrepresents a NOAA press release by inventing a claim that appears nowhere in that source—the idea that a coming minimum in the Sun's natural 11-year cycle of solar activity will cause cold weather around the world. There is no evidence supporting this.

The very top of Earth’s atmosphere (the thermosphere, 250 km up and above) is certainly influenced by solar activity. This is important for factors like orbital decay of satellites but has no implications for surface weather at all. It is a space weather effect not a terrestrial weather effect.

[Astargath]

We are moving to Mars and the Moon soon enough, who cares about climate change, if we really want to think about the future, we should focus on conquering more planets instead. An asteroid impact or other catastrophic accidents can happen at any time here, even nuclear wars.

[Spendulus]

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-in-the-express-that-low-solar-activity-is-bringing-cold-weather-is-false/
Its all explained in there.  I'm not going to summarize it for you to miss the full context but here are a few important quotes.

This headline (and the article below it, as scientists who reviewed the article detail below) misrepresents a NOAA press release by inventing a claim that appears nowhere in that source—the idea that a coming minimum in the Sun's natural 11-year cycle of solar activity will cause cold weather around the world. There is no evidence supporting this.

The very top of Earth’s atmosphere (the thermosphere, 250 km up and above) is certainly influenced by solar activity. This is important for factors like orbital decay of satellites but has no implications for surface weather at all. It is a space weather effect not a terrestrial weather effect.

Please do not attempt to misdirect any more. I am not referring some NOAA press release (which you don't even quote a link for.)

First of all, this.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming

Grand Solar minima is coming.

The last time this happened it was accompanied by some rather serious cooling. Ice skating on the river Thames in England.

Does that conclusively show cause and effect? Nope. But it's enough for serious concern. Global cooling is and will continue to be a subject of concern, because of the devastating effects an ice age would have. Or even a "mini ice age."

You and your links appear ignorant of the relationship between space weather and our climate. Probably because "climatefeedback" is some semi-religious climate nonsense. It certainly isn't a peer reviewed scientific article, is it?

The CERN CLOUD experiments looked at this issue.

https://home.cern/science/experiments/cloud

You are either able to think your way rationally through these facts, experimental data and observations to a conclusion or you are not. If not, you certainly seem to be a denier.

Any rational person can see that some amount of warming of the planet by humans might be occurring and at the same time, other things could well be happening with opposite effects. Of course, a great many climate alarmists are not rational.

[Spendulus]

We are moving to Mars and the Moon soon enough, who cares about climate change, if we really want to think about the future, we should focus on conquering more planets instead. An asteroid impact or other catastrophic accidents can happen at any time here, even nuclear wars.

It's beyond me why a fair sized group of people would obsessively focus on "climate change," and ignore many other serious threats to humanity, of which asteroid impacts may be the #1 threat.

Techniques exist to nudge space rocks away from hitting the Earth, but there is virtually no hardware or budget to do this. A rock that is inbound could kill a billion people or all of humanity, yet these fools babble about "climate change" and waste their time.

A rock that is nudged will have a 100% predictable orbital change. There is close to zero uncertainty as to orbits and what happens when one is changed.