CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Akrasia · 31-12-2020 12:36pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I was referencing what Akrasia was (and still is) advocating.

Artillery is not launching rockets

And you need to learn what the word advocate means

I’m not advocating geoengineering. I’m advocating researching it so that we won’t screw it up so badly if we get to a point where we might need it. What I actually advocate is reducing our GHGs so that we never need to get to that point

You on the other hand just simply deny. Deny that it is possible or that it might every be needed, because you refuse to accept the unequivocal reality that is anthropogenic climate change

Gaoth Laidir · 31-12-2020 1:37pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Artillery is not launching rockets

And you need to learn what the word advocate means

Eh, I know what it means, but in case you're not sure...

I’m not advocating geoengineering. I’m advocating researching it so that we won’t screw it up so badly if we get to a point where we might need it. What I actually advocate is reducing our GHGs so that we never need to get to that point

You on the other hand just simply deny. Deny that it is possible or that it might every be needed, because you refuse to accept the unequivocal reality that is anthropogenic climate change

You're advocating it in as much as you're presenting it as a plausible option, despite its obvious flaws, which you seem to gloss over, such as your oil analogy.

The various options to deliver the particles to the stratosphere are discussed in this paper
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rsta.2011.0639
With the authors preferring tethered balloons and high pressure pumps to deliver the payload 12-20km up Obviously a suitable site would be required.
And before you tell me that we cannot pump anything vertically 12km up in the air, the deepest oil well is, coincidentally. 12km deep, and there is no problem in sucking that gloopy sludge out from underground

If it comes to the point where we need to deploy such a solution, then we have the engineering technology to deliver it, and in an emergency, it might be our least worst option

Banana Republic 1 · 31-12-2020 4:06pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I was referencing what Akrasia was (and still is) advocating.

I scanned through the royal society link in Akrasia's post, not all of it thought. They were essentially listed the possibilities and the cost associated. Some do seem outlandish but not by much.

Things like the ballon supported pipe is not that odd when you consider there is experiments with tethered wind turbines and many companies are developing space elevator systems.

Akrasia · 01-01-2021 8:32pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Eh, I know what it means, but in case you're not sure...

You're advocating it in as much as you're presenting it as a plausible option, despite its obvious flaws, which you seem to gloss over, such as your oil analogy.

I am advocating studying it to see if it is a plausible option in case we need it. And to study what the possible consequences there would be from doing it. I am not advocating using it as a solution for climate change. I hope we would never need to use it, but i think we should know more about it in the event that it is required

You on the other hand are advocating sticking our heads in the sand and doing nothing, dismissing potential tools without even bothering to do the most basic research into how they are proposed to work.

Solar radiation management through depositing aerosols into the stratosphere is perfectly within our current technological limits, we could begin doing it almost straight away. The question is whether it is something we should do, or whether we are prepared to pay the cost financially, and also in terms of downstream consequences of geoengineering.

Gaoth Laidir · 01-01-2021 8:54pm

Akrasia wrote: »

I am advocating studying it to see if it is a plausible option in case we need it. And to study what the possible consequences there would be from doing it. I am not advocating using it as a solution for climate change. I hope we would never need to use it, but i think we should know more about it in the event that it is required.

You are advocating the possibility of it as a viable solution, albeit one that you would not be in favour of. You are saying it could be done.

You on the other hand are advocating sticking our heads in the sand and doing nothing, dismissing potential tools without even bothering to do the most basic research into how they are proposed to work.

Eh, if you care to look over my past few posts you'll see that I've dissected the workings of it into a lot more detail than you seem to have. To say that I haven't is just a lie.

Solar radiation management through depositing aerosols into the stratosphere is perfectly within our current technological limits, we could begin doing it almost straight away. The question is whether it is something we should do, or whether we are prepared to pay the cost financially, and also in terms of downstream consequences of geoengineering.

That's interesting, because from my second point above I can't see any way we can possible do this "almost straight away". Please explain how we can do it; build and operate those 15-km towers or tethered balloons...reliably.

Gaoth Laidir · 04-01-2021 11:23am

And this from one of the most vehement pro-AGW proponents going...

https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1345928184739614720

Banana Republic 1 · 04-01-2021 1:27pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I can't see any way we can possible do this "almost straight away". Please explain how we can do it.

Jet planes.

Gaoth Laidir · 04-01-2021 2:27pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Jet planes.

Which ones, exactly? Which ones could fly 15-20 km, first of all, and with enough payload to make it worthwhile? Certainly no commercial jets, and military jets wouldn't have the payload capacity.

Has anyone thought this through at all??

Danno · 04-01-2021 2:41pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Jet planes.

So, we use fossil fuel burning planes to solve a problem apparently caused by pollution from fossil fuel burning planes.

The Greens are fond of the mile high club.

Banana Republic 1 · 04-01-2021 9:00pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Which ones, exactly? Which ones could fly 15-20 km, first of all, and with enough payload to make it worthwhile? Certainly no commercial jets, and military jets wouldn't have the payload capacity.

Has anyone thought this through at all??

Yes!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGdz5gYqm-o

Gaoth Laidir · 04-01-2021 11:17pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Yes!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGdz5gYqm-o

Akrasia said we could do it "almost straight away". Since he was asked for more details on how he thinks those methods that he posted himself would work in practice he's come up a blank.

You say jet planes that don't exist yet, that would most likely burn fossil fuels (because we don't have any other technology that is ready to go "almost straight away"), and all this in the name of doing something that is an extreme unknown in both the short and long term.

I note too that Keith - another pro-AGWer - stated at the end that "there still lies deep uncertainty in the amount of warming we will get for a given amount of added CO2". Settled science, eh?

Akrasia · 05-01-2021 12:04am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Akrasia said we could do it "almost straight away". Since he was asked for more details on how he thinks those methods that he posted himself would work in practice he's come up a blank.

You say jet planes that don't exist yet, that would most likely burn fossil fuels (because we don't have any other technology that is ready to go "almost straight away"), and all this in the name of doing something that is an extreme unknown in both the short and long term.

I note too that Keith - another pro-AGWer - stated at the end that "there still lies deep uncertainty in the amount of warming we will get for a given amount of added CO2". Settled science, eh?

The royal society paper I linked to days ago goes through the options, it would be very very expensive to do it with planes but it could be done, again, if things are bad enough to warrant its use, the costs of not acting would be higher than even a very expensive mitigation program

Gaoth Laidir · 05-01-2021 12:16am

Akrasia wrote: »

The royal society paper I linked to days ago goes through the options, it would be very very expensive to do it with planes but it could be done, again, if things are bad enough to warrant its use, the costs of not acting would be higher than even a very expensive mitigation program

I know you posted the paper but it doesn't go through realistic practicalities. It puts ideas out there but they're pie in the sky (pun) and can't seriously be considered as presented. You think they can be, so how? Money can't do the physically impossible.

And how would you reckon we power the planes (that don't exist yet)?

Nabber · 05-01-2021 12:25am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I note too that Keith - another pro-AGWer - stated at the end that "there still lies deep uncertainty in the amount of warming we will get for a given amount of added CO2". Settled science, eh?

Did you not see the picture of a flooded home, the dry cracked earth or other clips that looked like the Danakil Depression.
How can you ignore that?

Horrendous journalism as always.

Much like that picture of the polar
43w__6MwoVtA9j1vAwxbwJFTDv3B7sYHumzvwIgEpukdwsjOTVdkv2DpXouel4Np9bpq1poUjbW9VfJFACUwQ2_7NJGieXj0nKP_M2DxIQEoWY9A5XdoSgA

43w__6MwoVtA9j1vAwxbwJFTDv3B7sYHumzvwIgEpukdwsjOTVdkv2DpXouel4Np9bpq1poUjbW9VfJFACUwQ2_7NJGieXj0nKP_M2DxIQEoWY9A5XdoSgA

When Polar bears were added to the endangered list, not because of an conclusive study of population decline, but rather the projection of ice free Artic ocean killing off 70% of the population.

To help the lads out with geo engineering through jet planes
This is how it's done. Case rested....
Contrail.fourengined.arp.jpg

Banana Republic 1 · 05-01-2021 12:49am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Akrasia said we could do it "almost straight away". Since he was asked for more details on how he thinks those methods that he posted himself would work in practice he's come up a blank.

You say jet planes that don't exist yet, that would most likely burn fossil fuels (because we don't have any other technology that is ready to go "almost straight away"), and all this in the name of doing something that is an extreme unknown in both the short and long term.

I note too that Keith - another pro-AGWer - stated at the end that "there still lies deep uncertainty in the amount of warming we will get for a given amount of added CO2". Settled science, eh?

You've changed man, now you don’t even bother to spoof. It’s a waste of time responding to your “prove it” posts with actual evidence because you don’t even look at it.

And FYI Ive no affiliation with Australian Grape & Wine Inc

Gaoth Laidir · 05-01-2021 1:12am

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

You've changed man, now you don’t even bother to spoof. It’s a waste of time responding to your “prove it” posts with actual evidence because you don’t even look at it.

And FYI Ive no affiliation with Australian Grape & Wine Inc

?? I did look at it. I saw their idea of 95 planes. Your response seems one of someone who doesn't have the answers and instead plays the man.

Banana Republic 1 · 05-01-2021 4:29pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Your response seems one of someone who doesn't have the answers and instead plays the man.

LOL:pac:

Danno · 06-01-2021 4:33pm

FROM: https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2021/0106/1187941-climate-action-ireland-transport-home-heating-farming-2021/

For transport, Ireland has some of the most generous supports in the world for electric vehicle purchase. These include a purchase grant, vehicle registration tax relief, a toll incentive, a home charger installation grants and reduced motor tax rates. In total, the average electric vehicle purchaser receives a direct subsidy from the state of over €10,000.

Paul Deane here points out that anyone purchasing a NEW EV is getting around 10k from the Government. This basically is a subsidy for the rich or well off who already are in the affordability bracket for seeking a new car. John and Jane Doe on minimum wage or slightly above it are foobared.

What is also required is strong disincentives to buy inefficient vehicles such as SUVs by massively increasing the tax on these vehicles. This will be politically unpopular, but our current purchasing trends are not compatible with emissions reduction or clean air ambitions

Even if you scrimp and save and perhaps look at a €15k Dacia Duster, Paul Deane wants to put that out of financial reach for you. Nice guy Paul.

The Government can help families by providing strong and sustained financial support such as 100% grant funding for home upgrades. A key challenge is to understand how to finance such an investment, with over €15 billion required in a 10-year period.

€15 billion to upgrade 1.6 million homes at €9,375 per home? :rolleyes:

Nabber · 09-01-2021 11:23pm

Why does that clown Attenborough continue to destroy nature programs with doom and gloom.

Just watched him there talking about Polar bears. Not once did he mention hunting being the biggest issue or that their numbers have increased. Surely that is something to celebrate?
Hunting Conservation programs were run to help the polar bear numbers. Not one word. Rising from ~12k to ~23k.

Instead here’s a baby polar bear, it may see an ice free artic. Let’s ignore the good work and focus on predicting their doom.

How about national geographic blaming climate change for a polar bears starvation. Then sending out an apology 7 months later after securing funding through donations. Charity funding through false narratives....nothing to see here!!!

"National Geographic went too far in drawing a definitive connection between climate change and a particular starving polar bear in the opening caption of our December 2017 video about the animal. We said, ‘This is what climate change looks like.’ While science has established that there is a strong connection between melting sea ice and polar bears dying off, there is no way to know for certain why this bear was on the verge of death. Above is an updated version of the video".

Strong connection is not there either. Starvation is the leading cause for polar bear death. Competition and inexperience causing a significant amount.

Danno · 09-01-2021 11:37pm

Nabber wrote: »

Strong connection is not there either. Starvation is the leading cause for polar bear death. Competition and inexperience causing a significant amount.

There is a train of thought amongst the eco-warriors that starving Polar Bears venturing into arctic villages seeking food is another sign of "climate change".

What they fail to realise is that these bears will seek the path of least resistance. If they were in the polar bear's fur and had a choice between natural hunting or venturing 2000m down the road to rummage a wheelie bin, what would the bear choose?

Path of least resistance is not just a human attribute. That is why when you have an issue with a production line, look for the lazy ba$tard to solve the issue.

SpacialNeeds · 10-01-2021 12:30am

https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine

We're already fubar.

https://ss2.climatecentral.org/#7/51.673/-9.536?show=satellite&projections=0-K14_RCP85-SLR&level=10&unit=feet&pois=hide

Imagine how expensive property will be in 2050 given the overpopulation crisis likely to be happening, assuming the current rate of growth continues and combined with rising sea levels taking habitable space away.

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/10/12/the-worst-ever-known-drought-could-happen-again-says-study/

There'll be far more volatile weather conditions with even a conservative 2° rise in temperature.

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-48947573

The solution, to my mind, is don't have children. There are already too many people on the planet. Adoption and fostering is a fulfilling and ethically sound decision and brings stability, love and opportunities to children who just weren't lucky enough to be born into a family.

Danno · 10-01-2021 12:43am

SpacialNeeds wrote: »

https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine

We're already fubar.

https://ss2.climatecentral.org/#7/51.673/-9.536?show=satellite&projections=0-K14_RCP85-SLR&level=10&unit=feet&pois=hide

Imagine how expensive property will be in 2050 given the overpopulation crisis likely to be happening, assuming the current rate of growth continues and combined with rising sea levels taking habitable space away.

Google would be considered left-of-centre in it's ethos, in general supporting left-leaning causes such as climate change amongst others, right?

If sea levels are rising as you claim via the links offered, then why the f00k are Google investing huge sums of money on buildings that will be under water in little over two decades time? https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/google-will-continue-to-invest-in-dublin-office-buildings-ireland-boss-1.4356226#:~:text=Google%20will%20continue%20to%20invest,the%20search%20giant%20has%20said.

Such short-sightedness on their behalf and into the bargain wasting such huge sums of money when these funds could be used to say, pay for climate change mitigation initiatives, right?

SpacialNeeds wrote: »

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/10/12/the-worst-ever-known-drought-could-happen-again-says-study/

There'll be far more volatile weather conditions with even a conservative 2° rise in temperature.

Won't really worry us here in Ireland, cause we'll be flooded with increased yearly rainfall according to the experts.

SpacialNeeds wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-48947573

The solution, to my mind, is don't have children. There are already too many people on the planet. Adoption and fostering is a fulfilling and ethically sound decision and brings stability, love and opportunities to children who just weren't lucky enough to be born into a family.

Ah, this nugget - the over-population issue. Lets sterilise Africa and most parts of Asia, yeah? That's where they're popping out babbies to bate the band. Start there, okay? Agree?

Gaoth Laidir · 10-01-2021 12:47am

SpacialNeeds wrote: »

https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine

We're already fubar.

Clicking on the 4th link (Global Temperature) below and dragging the slider from 1884 it's amazing to see how a few small and localised warm pockets in Africa and South America Africa suddenly appear and then disappear year-to-year in the first couple of decades, while the blue colder areas don't show such variation back then. Makes you wonder

a) how these small localised pockets of warmth just appeared out of nowhere (they're probably just one sporadic observation), and
b) if there were other such areas that were equally warm but were just not recorded.

Have a look for yourself. The effect becomes less pronounced towards the middle of the 20th century, and especially so since the satellite era, but it kind of makes a mockery of how today's temperature is being compared to that of "pre-industrial times" when the dataset from back then is just slightly better than useless.

https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine#

Also notable is the focus of the Sea Level tool on the Gulf of Mexico, where the land is subsiding due to isostatic rebound in any case, regardless of sea level. I didn't see that noted anywhere, however.

Danno · 10-01-2021 1:02am

Thargor wrote: »

I mean you're a mod in the science forum and you think some hur-hur-hur gibberish about Google buying office space (?) and then some cliched hyperbole about sterilizing Africa is supposed to be any kind of rebuttal to the studies he posted, do you actually think about what you're saying?

If you actually re-read my "gibberish" as you like to frame it, you'll realise the comments are a rebuttal to "special needs" interpretation to what he/she thinks they've read.

But do carry on...

Before you do though - why did you drop Asia from your evaluation of my comments regarding sterilisation? (not with a z-ed). What card comes next I do wonder?

Danno · 10-01-2021 3:11am

Thargor wrote: »

...and he'll just come back with more hur-hur-hur but the Google bought a building near the sea and Eamonn Ryan made me buy diesel gibberish. The last word is all that matters to them even if its embarrassing horsesh1t.

Are we flooded/burnt/even dead yet?

I'm sorry here bud, but I'm not in the habit of making wild accusations like cities under water, British kids not knowing what snow is, entire island nations disappearing under water, Arctic sea ice gone... etc... and then sitting back to see it like most 66/1 on the 2.45pm at Thurles go south.

I could really write a Billy Joel "We didn't start the Fire" with all of the outlandish predictions/claims made.

Just, go away, research it better, then come back.

Gaoth Laidir · 10-01-2021 9:57am

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

It seems to be ok for you to do it,

I think you'll see that 99% of my posts have some scientific content. Whether you agree with that content is another matter

The other 1% is replying to people who just post waffle.

Did you have a chance to check out that temperature time machine I mentioned yesterday? No. Too busy...

Nabber · 10-01-2021 1:21pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Yes, Australian bush fires, Californian bush fires,

Come on Harvard you can do better!

No acknowledgement of poor forest management and encroachment of housing development, they are ignored in favour of AGW.

Take Australia fires, the plants have evolved to survive fires and some rely on fires for seed germination. I guess plants knew humans would warm the planet and the areas that would be prone to fires.

AGW relies on enhanced forms of existing weather patterns and natural disasters. Post AGW we lived in the garden of Eden some would have you believe.

IDontBleevCC · 10-01-2021 1:53pm

MT is right. Spain under feet of snow. One big scam. Years ago they said by 2020 thered be no ice left. We’d be having hot winters. Spain had there worst snow since 1971.
ONE BIG PROOPAGANDA SCAM to take more money off the sheep FACT

Gaoth Laidir · 10-01-2021 2:04pm

IDontBleevCC wrote: »

MT is right. Spain under feet of snow. One big scam. Years ago they said by 2020 thered be no ice left. We’d be having hot winters. Spain had there worst snow since 1971.
ONE BIG PROOPAGANDA SCAM to take more money off the sheep FACT

That sounds very conspiracy-theorist. Spain has had a decent snowfall over a wider area than usual, however the whole country is not under snow down to all levels. The -34 C reported in the Pyrenees earlier this week was measured by a brand new station (1 year old) sitting in a frost hollow 2305 metres up on the top of a mountain. It's certain that such a low temperature has occurred in that place before and was just not observed. In any case, one event does not a winter make.

But yes, the predictions of doom re. sea ice have been shifted and shifted out year after year to the point that such predictions are as frequent and questionable as the annual Daily Express headlines of "Worst Winter in 50 Years On The Way".

https://twitter.com/sergimet/status/1346766055545466880

10-01-2021 2:11pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

That sounds very conspiracy-theorist. Spain has had a decent snowfall over a wider area than usual, however the whole country is not under snow down to all levels. The -34 C reported in the Pyrenees earlier this week was measured by a brand new station (1 year old) sitting in a blow 2305 metres up on the top of a mountain. It's certain that such a low temperature has occurred in that place before and was just not observed. In any case, one event does not a winter make.

But yes, the predictions of doom re. sea ice have been shifted and shifted out year after year to the point that such predictions are as frequent and questionable as the annual Daily Express headlines of "Worst Winter in 50 Years On The Way".

Proof positive as to why so many records are being broken in recent years, more weather stations in previously unmonitored areas. Many of these being in areas that are more likely to experience extreme weather.

Meanwhile there are still huge areas of the planet that are completely unmonitored and their weather is calculated from the average of two or more weather stations 100s to 1000s of km away. Many of the places that are furtherest away from human activity are the least monitored, but have their weather calculated from places close to human activity.

CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Comments