Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Geoengineering, another rush for money?  (Read 90837 times)

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1769
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 364
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #350 on: July 05, 2019, 05:13:33 PM »
For example, in this work  predicted is the peak of phosphorus mining around 2035.

Probably by 2100 most of the forests on the planet will be destroyed.

"Peak phosphate" is a valid concern.  However, there are advances that may permit wider use of phosphite instead of phosphate.   See, for example,

Phosphite: a novel P fertilizer for weed management and pathogen control
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5698055/

For a broad view on advances in agricultural productivity, see:

THE FUTURE OF AGRICULTURE
https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2016-06-09/factory-fresh

These both emphasize biotech innovations, which many may not be comfortable with.

A simpler way to promote needed changes in land use would be to include beef in a global carbon tax system.  This should reduce economic incentives that drive deforestation.


Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3444
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 578
  • Likes Given: 281
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #352 on: August 02, 2019, 01:49:02 AM »
Harvard advisory panel on Geoengineering:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02331-y
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3444
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 578
  • Likes Given: 281
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #353 on: August 14, 2019, 03:36:10 AM »
Bill Gates in favor of blocking out the sun
https://news.yahoo.com/bill-gates-backing-plan-to-stop-climate-change-by-blocking-out-the-sun-183601437.html
A test of the technology is proposed for this year.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1454
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #354 on: August 15, 2019, 01:10:03 AM »
I am sure nothing will go wrong... /sarc

petm

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 321
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #355 on: August 15, 2019, 01:31:52 AM »
Jeebus not the guy who ruined computers. We're doomed.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #356 on: August 15, 2019, 11:33:35 AM »
Jeebus not the guy who ruined computers. We're doomed.


Could we drape a silk nighty or two over our solar panels as a "proof of concept" before giving the aging boy genius free reign?


What's he done since licensing Quick and Dirty DOS (which he didn't own), to a very gullible representative of Big Blue? - I've always wondered whether the rep. was that gullible, or whether he founded a behind the spotlight dynasty based on under the table dealings?
Terry

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #357 on: August 15, 2019, 01:57:03 PM »
Bill Gates' addiction to technological solutions is becoming a menace.
With Trump in charge and a gopher as the new boss of NASA one must doubt that good sense will prevail.

Some of you may remember that the Russkies tried the big mirror in the sky a few years back.
But their idea was the opposite - to light up and warm up Siberia in winter.
The big mirror failed to unfurl, many in the world breathed a sigh of relief.


"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1454
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #358 on: August 15, 2019, 02:01:01 PM »
Bill Gates' addiction to technological solutions is becoming a menace.
With Trump in charge and a gopher as the new boss of NASA one must doubt that good sense will prevail.

Some of you may remember that the Russkies tried the big mirror in the sky a few years back.
But their idea was the opposite - to light up and warm up Siberia in winter.
The big mirror failed to unfurl, many in the world breathed a sigh of relief.

Like it needs more warming...

Some people pray to the altar of technology thinking it has no limits. We have marveled at the evolution  of electronics and the  revolution  it brought to other fields of science, and we think we are limitless in all fields. However nature has other ideas... 

morganism

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #359 on: August 17, 2019, 11:43:16 PM »
Hadn't seen this one- reducing the number of trees in Siberia, to increase its albedo ?

https://elidourado.com/blog/dawn-of-geoengineering/

"The core idea is delightfully counterintuitive: Siberia has too many trees. In ages past, Siberia used to be grassland, and today it is mostly forest. Although trees can sequester carbon in their trunks and branches (at least until they burn or decompose), Siberian forests have significant drawbacks with respect to climate change.

First, forests don’t reflect a lot of solar radiation. A treeless, grassy Siberia would increase Earth’s albedo, reflecting more solar energy back into space. Forests absorb more solar radiation and put it into the ground as heat.

Second, forests are poor habitats for snow-trampling herd animals. In the winter, a thick layer of snow acts as an insulator on the permafrost, preventing frigid above-ground temperatures from reaching deep into the Earth’s crust, where they can shore up the frozenness of the permafrost. When large herds of grazing animals trample the snow, its insulating properties are reduced and the permafrost can hard freeze. Forests reduce these snow-trampling grazing populations."

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #360 on: August 18, 2019, 12:46:31 AM »
Hadn't seen this one- reducing the number of trees in Siberia, to increase its albedo ?

https://elidourado.com/blog/dawn-of-geoengineering/

"The core idea is delightfully counterintuitive: Siberia has too many trees. In ages past, Siberia used to be grassland, and today it is mostly forest. Although trees can sequester carbon in their trunks and branches (at least until they burn or decompose), Siberian forests have significant drawbacks with respect to climate change.

First, forests don’t reflect a lot of solar radiation. A treeless, grassy Siberia would increase Earth’s albedo, reflecting more solar energy back into space. Forests absorb more solar radiation and put it into the ground as heat.

Second, forests are poor habitats for snow-trampling herd animals. In the winter, a thick layer of snow acts as an insulator on the permafrost, preventing frigid above-ground temperatures from reaching deep into the Earth’s crust, where they can shore up the frozenness of the permafrost. When large herds of grazing animals trample the snow, its insulating properties are reduced and the permafrost can hard freeze. Forests reduce these snow-trampling grazing populations."
Damn Rooskies are trying to steal my Green Pellets for Green Washing project.
Terry >:(

vox_mundi

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3906
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2278
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #361 on: August 23, 2019, 03:01:15 PM »
Industry Guidance Pushes Untested Tech as Climate Fix
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-industry-guidance-touts-untested-tech.html

Draft guidelines for how industry fights climate change promote the widespread use of untested technologies that experts fear could undermine efforts to slash planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, AFP can reveal

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), a global industry-driven non-profit group comprising more than 160 member states, has produced new draft guidance on climate action for businesses.

Rather than measuring climate action by the yardstick of emissions reduction, the draft, seen by AFP, concentrates on managing "radiative forcing", which is the amount of excess energy trapped in Earth's atmosphere.

Specifically, it looks at techniques for manipulating the climate through large-scale geoengineering, notably one called Solar Radiation Management (SRM).


SRM entails injecting heat-deflecting aerosols directly into Earth's stratosphere to bounce more of the Sun's heat back into space.

Studies have shown that SRM could be extremely effective—and relatively inexpensive—in stemming rising temperatures.

But there are fears that tinkering with Earth's atmosphere could unleash a tide of unintended consequences, potentially destabilising global weather patterns and undermining food security.

... "What is so significant about this process is that the ISO is a global standard-setting body. Companies tout their ISO compliance as a demonstration of the validity of what they are doing," he told AFP

Quote
... "There is a really profound risk when you take something as untested, controversial, politically volatile and morally risky as geoengineering and you make it the subject of industry-driven, market-oriented standards,"

- Carroll Muffett, president of the Centre for International Environmental Law

In March, discussions at the United Nations Environment Assembly in Nairobi were held up over a dispute centred on the future governance of geoengineering schemes such as SRM.

Sources close to the talks told AFP at the time that the US and Saudi delegations voiced "fierce opposition" to even the mention of international oversight.

"Our interpretation is that they want to avoid further regulation, governance, oversight over these technologies and it's definitely in the interest of the fossil fuel industry," said Linda Schneider, senior programme officer at the Heinrich Boll Institute.

Trade organisations funded by oil and gas majors have for several years advocated SRM, including the influential American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

One AEI policy paper from 2013 concluded: "The incentives for using SRM appear to be stronger than those for (greenhouse gas) control".
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1454
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #362 on: August 23, 2019, 03:24:37 PM »
The biggest issue that I have is that there is no way to "de-risk" the scale-up other than global transport models that are not adequately quantitative there is no "mini earth system" physical model to understand what will happen. There is about 100% chance of an unexpected negative consequence. What they will focus is to try and convince us that the consequence is going to be less than doing nothing....

Richard Rathbone

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #363 on: August 23, 2019, 08:44:04 PM »
The biggest issue that I have is that there is no way to "de-risk" the scale-up other than global transport models that are not adequately quantitative there is no "mini earth system" physical model to understand what will happen. There is about 100% chance of an unexpected negative consequence. What they will focus is to try and convince us that the consequence is going to be less than doing nothing....

Who pays for the consequences?

A geoengineering scheme is going to get blamed for every weather disaster that happens after its launched. I don't think US backing would last past the next Harvey and if others keep it going after US approval vanishes, there's going to be some really nasty consequences to them after the next Katrina. Imagine a US public convinced that the Chinese and EU had deliberately caused a catastrophic flood of a major US population centre.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3154
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 374
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #364 on: August 23, 2019, 09:40:15 PM »
vox quoting c. muffet: "There is a really profound risk when you take something as untested, controversial, politically volatile and morally risky as geoengineering and you make it the subject of industry-driven, market-oriented standards..."

Or as Lovelock once put it...it's like putting a goat in charge of a garden...
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #365 on: August 24, 2019, 12:04:37 AM »
vox quoting c. muffet: "There is a really profound risk when you take something as untested, controversial, politically volatile and morally risky as geoengineering and you make it the subject of industry-driven, market-oriented standards..."

Or as Lovelock once put it...it's like putting a goat in charge of a garden...
or - an old goat in charge of the Haram. ::)
Terry

vox_mundi

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3906
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2278
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #366 on: August 24, 2019, 12:16:35 AM »
Ramen!
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #367 on: August 24, 2019, 01:28:01 AM »
Ramen!
May his Noodly Appendage rest lightly on your shoulders.
Ramen !


Terry

morganism

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #368 on: August 25, 2019, 12:15:30 AM »
Enhanced (adsortive) Natural Gas Storage to Help Reduce Global Warming

" Of these 29 distinct chemical structures, COP-150 was particularly noteworthy as it achieved a high deliverable gravimetric methane working capacity when cycled between 5 and 100 bar at 273 K, which is 98% of the total uptake capacity. This result surpassed the target set by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE).

COP-150 is the first ever structure to fulfil both the gravimetric and volumetric requirements of the US DOE for successful vehicular use, and the total cost to produce the COP-150 adsorbent was only 1 USD per kilogram.

COP-150 can be produced using freely available and easily accessible plastic materials, and moreover, its synthesis takes place at room temperature, open to the air, and no previous purification of the chemicals is required. The pressure-triggered flexible structure of COP-150 is also advantageous in terms of the total working capacity of deliverable methane for real applications."

https://www.kaist.ac.kr/_prog/_board/?mode=V&no=100841&code=ed_news&site_dvs_cd=en&menu_dvs_cd=0601&list_typ=B&skey=&sval=&smonth=&site_dvs=&GotoPage=

This study, reported in Nature Energy on July 8, was supported by National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grants ( NRF-2016R1A2B4011027, NRF-2017M3A7B4042140, and NRF-2017M3A7B4042235

morganism

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #369 on: August 28, 2019, 10:21:30 PM »
"tests confirmed that water microdroplets spontaneously form hydrogen peroxide, that smaller microdroplets produced higher concentrations of the molecule, and that hydrogen peroxide was not lost when the microdroplets recombined into bulk water.

The researchers ruled out a number of possible explanations before arriving at what they argue is the most likely explanation for hydrogen peroxide's presence. They suggest that a strong electric field near the surface of water microdroplets in air triggers hydroxyl molecules to bind into hydrogen peroxide."

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-chemists-microdroplets-spontaneously-hydrogen-peroxide.html

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1911883116

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3190
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 792
  • Likes Given: 200
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #370 on: October 22, 2019, 01:48:47 PM »
We know that if we block solar radiation in the Arctic summer we reduce the melting. Easy peasy.

But how do we increase freezing during winter?

Large floating platforms (in the hundreds or thousands of KM^2 scale) that will lower albedo, gather snow and dampen waves. The idea is to simulate land fast ice in the middle of the ocean to "seed" sea ice. Once the sea ice is seeded the polar night takes care of the rest.

This will allow the open ocean to close as early as possible giving it as much time to thicken as possible.

Like all geoengineering solutions, this must be done at the same time as CO2 is reduced, forests are regrown and pollution is eliminated.

Time is running out, maximizing the life of the Arctic will buy us some time.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

morganism

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #371 on: January 23, 2020, 10:23:07 AM »
TIo2 modified with broken rutile , is the most effective catalyst for direct conversion of CO2, to CO.

"For the efficient artificial photosynthesis for the conversion of CO2 into oxygen and pure CO, IBS researchers aimed to improve the performance of these nanoparticles by combining blue (Ao/Rd) TiO2 with other semiconductors and metals that can enhance water oxidation to oxygen, in parallel to CO2 reduction into CO only. The research team obtained the best results with hybrid nanoparticles made of blue titania, tungsten trioxide (WO3), and 1% silver (TiO2/WO3-Ag). WO3 was chosen because of the low valence band position with its narrow bandgap of 2.6 eV, high stability, and low cost. Silver was added because it enhances visible light absorption, by creating a collective oscillation of free electrons excited by light, and also gives high CO selectivity. The hybrid nanoparticles showed about 200 times higher performance than nanoparticles made of TiO2 alone and TiO2/WO3 without silver.

Starting from water and CO2, this novel hybrid catalyst produced O2 and pure CO, without any side products, such as hydrogen gas (H2) and metane (CH4). The apparent quantum yield that is the ratio of several reacted electrons to the number of incident photons was 34.8 %, and the rate of reacted electrons 2333.44 μmol g−1h−1. The same measurement was lower for nanoparticles without silver (2053.2 μmol g−1h−1), and for nanoparticles with only blue TiO2 (912.4 μmol g−1h−1)."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200121112930.htm

Highly efficient nanostructured metal-decorated hybrid semiconductors for solar conversion of CO2 with almost complete CO selectivity. Materials Today, 2020; DOI: 10.1016/j.mattod.2019.11.005

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1331
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 232
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #372 on: January 27, 2020, 09:06:40 PM »
We know that if we block solar radiation in the Arctic summer we reduce the melting. Easy peasy.

But how do we increase freezing during winter?

The biggest problem in the winter is the clouds that reflect back outgoing radiation, so in the winter actions should be taken to block cloud formation (allowing more radiation to escape out into space) while in the summer its aerosols to block incoming radiation.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1331
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 232
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #373 on: January 27, 2020, 10:29:22 PM »
NOAA Gets Go-Ahead to Study Controversial Climate Plan B - Government climate scientists will study two geoengineering proposals to counteract global warming

Quote
The top climate change scientist for NOAA said he has received $4 million from Congress and permission from his agency to study two emergency—and controversial—methods to cool the Earth if the U.S. and other nations fail to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

David Fahey, director of the Chemical Sciences Division of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, told his staff yesterday that the federal government is ready to examine the science behind “geoengineering”—or what he dubbed a “Plan B” for climate change

Quote
“There could be more than $100 million attached to this, I’m told,” he explained.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/noaa-gets-go-ahead-to-study-controversial-climate-plan-b/

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1144
  • Likes Given: 991
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #374 on: February 19, 2020, 02:56:24 PM »
One of the simpler tricks proposed was seeding the oceans with iron but this will not work:

Seeding oceans with iron may not impact climate change

...

A new MIT study suggests that iron fertilization may not have a significant impact on phytoplankton growth, at least on a global scale.

The researchers studied the interactions between phytoplankton, iron, and other nutrients in the ocean that help phytoplankton grow. Their simulations suggest that on a global scale, marine life has tuned ocean chemistry through these interactions, evolving to maintain a level of ocean iron that supports a delicate balance of nutrients in various regions of the world.

"According to our framework, iron fertilization cannot have a significant overall effect on the amount of carbon in the ocean because the total amount of iron that microbes need is already just right,'' says lead author Jonathan Lauderdale, a research scientist in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200217162348.htm
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3444
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 578
  • Likes Given: 281
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #375 on: February 22, 2020, 03:19:22 PM »
The March-April Analog has a fact article and a short story on geoengineering.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2298
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 262
  • Likes Given: 19550
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #376 on: February 22, 2020, 04:30:23 PM »
Thanks for that info kassy.
WIll the mad geo-engineering industry listen to this report? It would be great if the planned massive iron pollution would not go ahead.

I wrote "mad" because they still try to use human technology to control nature
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

blumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #377 on: February 22, 2020, 08:56:51 PM »
Call it madness, insanity, hybris, or just corporate greed. Everything is correct in this context.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3559
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 383
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #378 on: February 28, 2020, 09:05:47 PM »
Soluble iron and global climate
Dr. Steve Drury – Earth-Logs – February 28, 2020
Quote

So, would deliberate iron-fertilisation of polar oceans help draw down greenhouse warming? When several small patches of the Southern Ocean were injected with a few tonnes of dissolved iron they did indeed respond with phytoplankton blooms. However, it is impossible to tell if that had any effect on the atmosphere. ‘Going for broke’ with a massive fertilisation of this kind has been proposed, but this ventures [deep] into the political swamp that currently surrounds global warming and the wider environment. It is becoming possible to model such a strategy by using the data from the experiments and from ice cores, and early results seem to confirm the role of iron and the biological pump in CO2 sequestration by suggesting that half the known draw-down during ice ages can be explained in this way.
Based on a review by: Heather Stoll in February 2020. (30 years of the iron hypothesis of ice ages. Nature, v. 578, p. 370-371; DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-00393-x}
I can imagine some folks are convinced this type of geoengineering is the only way to mitigate our looming disasters as there won’t be enough Model 3s (etc.) and bicycles to do the job.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2298
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 262
  • Likes Given: 19550
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #379 on: February 29, 2020, 06:44:54 AM »
^^
In other words: Mitigation because richer people don't want to do adapt.
Mitigation because the rich countries' people don't want to change their luxury high-energy lifestyles. Massive FEAR of having to do with LESS.

If the rich countries would restrict their behaviour to the carbon footprint and energy use of poor countries, no mitigation of this kind is necessary.
From my perspective this is extremely addictive behaviour, fueled by temptation from commerce and lack of empathy.
The show must go on. Insanity.
Addicted to ease, comfort, lazyness and pushing buttons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Historical_and_modern_definitions,_views,_and_associations

"As defined outside Christian writings, greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs, especially with respect to material wealth.[30] Like pride, it can lead to not just some, but all evil.[2]"


Geoengineering to cover for rich people's sins.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

blumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #380 on: June 25, 2020, 11:17:07 AM »
Quote
@leafcrunch

my plan would involve hollowing out
west virginia and using the slag to fill in
lake ontario, completing a diagonal chain
of now saltwater lakes across turtle
island and linking the arctic & atlantic
seas. this would benefit no one & cause
untold damage. i will take no questions


gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #381 on: July 08, 2020, 06:40:17 PM »
This one might not do a lot of harm and might do farmland & farmers a bit of good...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/08/spreading-rock-dust-on-fields-could-remove-vast-amounts-of-co2-from-air
Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
It may be best near-term way to remove CO2, say scientists, but cutting fossil fuel use remains critical

Quote
Spreading rock dust on farmland could suck billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air every year, according to the first detailed global analysis of the technique.

The chemical reactions that degrade the rock particles lock the greenhouse gas into carbonates within months, and some scientists say this approach may be the best near-term way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

The researchers are clear that cutting the fossil fuel burning that releases CO2 is the most important action needed to tackle the climate emergency. But climate scientists also agree that, in addition, massive amounts of CO2 need to be removed from the air to meet the Paris agreement goals of keeping global temperature rise below 2C.

The rock dust approach, called enhanced rock weathering (ERW), has several advantages, the researchers say. First, many farmers already add limestone dust to soils to reduce acidification, and adding other rock dust improves fertility and crop yields, meaning application could be routine and desirable.

Basalt is the best rock for capturing CO2, and many mines already produce dust as a byproduct, so stockpiles already exist. The researchers also found that the world’s biggest polluters, China, the US and India, have the greatest potential for ERW, as they have large areas of cropland and relatively warm weather, which speeds up the chemical reactions.

The analysis, published in the journal Nature, estimates that treating about half of farmland could capture 2bn tonnes of CO2 each year, equivalent to the combined emissions of Germany and Japan.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2448-9
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2298
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 262
  • Likes Given: 19550
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #382 on: July 09, 2020, 05:06:17 AM »
^^
I haven't read the nature article, sorry, but here some (important?) side-notes from thinking about the concept:


Will the rock dust just appear on half the farm fields of the world by magic?

Where does the enormous amount rock dust come from? Only from mining? Only some types of rock can be used and they have to be crushed. How much FF used in the making of the rock dust?
How will the rock dust be transported to half of the farm fields all over the world? More FF?
How will the rock dust be put on half the farm fields all over the world? By aeroplane? Even more FF?
Rock dust is very heavy. Logistics and storage? More FF?

Is the rock dust effective if wet? Can the rock dust get saturated by other chemicals (pesticides, nitrogen/phosphor artificial manure)? Interactions with UV? Can the wind blow it away from the fields and concentrate it (or make it airborne as aerosols)? Do animals think it is food? Does it interact/stick with e.g. microplastic?
How will the saturated rock dust interact in water with biological functions of fish, amphibians, molluscs and other life? Will it pile up and block?

Applying this would be just enough (2bn) to offset the annual indirect-anthropogenic CO₂ emissions from the melting permafrost alone. It wouldn't cover anything from our anthropogenic annual emissions and perhaps not even the FF used in its application.

Unforeseen consequences for soil health (funghi & other microorganisms) and productivity in the future?

With this, the all-important soil biotopes of farmland get hammered with another human invention. Abused and degraded, but essential for our food. How many more harvests?

We must stop with geo-engineering (I include our GHG emissions, habitat destruction and mass extinction) before it is over for humanity. Why not start using less energy and consume less? That'll make a bigger difference than the effect of this proposal. And it will be good for you.

edit: disclaimer: I do not have much knowledge of chemistry and biology.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2020, 05:27:54 AM by nanning »
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1144
  • Likes Given: 991
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #383 on: July 09, 2020, 01:30:19 PM »
The Nature article is paywalled. Of the three important citations this one is open access:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0714
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3444
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 578
  • Likes Given: 281
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #384 on: July 09, 2020, 01:48:51 PM »
nanning:
Wish I could "double like" that comment.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS