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

Gaoth Laidir · 20-12-2020 1:02pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

A chart that may interest you a little MT and one that may reflect, somewhat, what may be occurring in CET zone

Chart shows the 365 day running average number of days with daily temp averages below -1.5c (from the 1981-00 mean) here in Ireland. We can observe that all was hunky dory until 1986 (late October 1986 if we are to be pedantic) when 70s/80s cold seem to peak, but then sharply and inexplicably fell thereafter to more 'modern' values. If anything, we are seeing a slight uptick again in the number of significantly colder than average days over the last decade or so, but not really enough in a way to say that things are looking 'up' again at this stage and may be nothing more than statistical noise.

Edit: just to add, the yellow line is the running decadal trend.

Data from Met Eireann.

Edit: I've pointed this out before, but something happened in 1986 that changed the temp profile sharply over these lands and as I have also said before, 1986 was the year of Chernobyl. Maybe this has nothing to do with anything, but I think it is too much of a coincidence to ignore. Did nuclear radiation fallout from Chernobyl have some detrimental long-term effect on the polar ice caps? I don't know, but perhaps someone else does.

In 1995 I carried out a project in a university southern Germany looking at the effect of rainfall patterns on the distribution of Cesium-137 fallout in soils and how the levels had changed in the intervening 9 years.

Where rainfall had occured in the weeks after the accident in 1986 I measured notable spikes in Ce-137, but by then (1995) it was more pronounced in 30-cm samples then than in the top layer, which had shown higher levels back when first measurements were made in 1986. Leaching was the obvious reason.

I don't think that Chernobyl had any great effect on climate itself, rather the climate had an effect on the fallout. I can't see any mechanism that would cause a notable shift in temperatures from such an incident.

Oneiric 3 · 21-12-2020 11:04am

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

In 1995 I carried out a project in a university southern Germany looking at the effect of rainfall patterns on the distribution of Cesium-137 fallout in soils and how the levels had changed in the intervening 9 years.

Where rainfall had occured in the weeks after the accident in 1986 I measured notable spikes in Ce-137, but by then (1995) it was more pronounced in 30-cm samples then than in the top layer, which had shown higher levels back when first measurements were made in 1986. Leaching was the obvious reason.

I don't think that Chernobyl had any great effect on climate itself, rather the climate had an effect on the fallout. I can't see any mechanism that would cause a notable shift in temperatures from such an incident.

Very impressive work GL!
I know what you are saying, but my question was more to do with any possible effect that the fallout **** from Chernobyl might have had on polar sea ice. Even looking at this sea ice graph I found on the web:

5Y4EP_UZKa8Ny7OVtbtrlZU4NjKMUYAPjcJiFMdIEijWKIekpaYd-jIYw-8RPqio707_Oa0oidyH7BB8WYT8v5h41o-y15TDFvrUPMJ3lxW5_ls9FKY5j4g07IEC84PMljjUQo4A8LiJZ1eaedIg5BqPrG6yCyB9EsU

5Y4EP_UZKa8Ny7OVtbtrlZU4NjKMUYAPjcJiFMdIEijWKIekpaYd-jIYw-8RPqio707_Oa0oidyH7BB8WYT8v5h41o-y15TDFvrUPMJ3lxW5_ls9FKY5j4g07IEC84PMljjUQo4A8LiJZ1eaedIg5BqPrG6yCyB9EsU

we can see that coinciding with Irish temp patterns, we see a sharp fall in sea ice volume right from 1986 onwards. Is it possible the radiation (or whatever it was) falling on the ice caused it to weaken and melt more rapidly? because as it is clear by now, long-term temps here in Ireland (and possibly much of northern Europe) are pretty much directly affected by the Arctic sea ice volume.

Gaoth Laidir · 21-12-2020 11:53am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Very impressive work GL!
I know what you are saying, but my question was more to do with any possible effect that the fallout **** from Chernobyl might have had on polar sea ice. Even looking at this sea ice graph I found on the web:

we can see that coinciding with Irish temp patterns, we see a sharp fall in sea ice volume right from 1986 onwards. Is it possible the radiation (or whatever it was) falling on the ice caused it to weaken and melt more rapidly? because as it is clear by now, long-term temps here in Ireland (and possibly much of northern Europe) are pretty much directly affected by the Arctic sea ice volume.

No, there's really no mechanism by which that could happen. Cs-137 emits gamma radiation to form Barium 137 and has a half-life of around 30 years. Gamma radiation is not going to have any effect on ice molecules or albedo. In any case, the fallout concentrations in the Arctic would be so minimal. Radiation levels we measured in our samples in Germany (~1500 km from Chernobyl) were generally well below 100 Bq/kg, which is miniscule.

Banana Republic 1 · 21-12-2020 2:38pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Very impressive work GL!
I know what you are saying, but my question was more to do with any possible effect that the fallout **** from Chernobyl might have had on polar sea ice. Even looking at this sea ice graph I found on the web:

we can see that coinciding with Irish temp patterns, we see a sharp fall in sea ice volume right from 1986 onwards. Is it possible the radiation (or whatever it was) falling on the ice caused it to weaken and melt more rapidly? because as it is clear by now, long-term temps here in Ireland (and possibly much of northern Europe) are pretty much directly affected by the Arctic sea ice volume.

I had to delete a previous post because the links I wanted to add as an after post edit were acting stupid.

Its called the albedo feedback/amplification. Im pretty sure the "Chernobyl effect" you spoke of was just a coincidence.

Two links here short and longer explanation:

https://youtu.be/1KwZjHKOefk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZLX59FXr5w

Oneiric 3 · 21-12-2020 5:45pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Im pretty sure the "Chernobyl effect" you spoke of was just a coincidence.

Perhaps, but I can't see anything else that explains the

1.Almost vertical drop in the frequency of significantly colder than average days in Ireland since Chernobyl up to about 1990 and

2. The sharp drop in sea ice volume at which occurred at exactly the same time.

I'll watch your vids later when less eye ached and GL, ta for the explainer.

Gaoth Laidir · 21-12-2020 6:00pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Perhaps, but I can't see anything else that explains the

1.Almost vertical drop in the frequency of significantly colder than average days in Ireland since Chernobyl up to about 1990 and

2. The sharp drop in sea ice volume at which occurred at exactly the same time.

I'll watch your vids later when less eye ached and GL, ta for the explainer.

There's nothing of note with that decline around 1986 as there are many factors influencing sea ice, such as AMO trend, local effects, etc. This paper shows how the sea ice around Svalbard has shown many changes over a longer time period, much earlier than 1986.

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/47/10/963/573355/Early-start-of-20th-century-Arctic-sea-ice-decline

Here, we use long-lived encrusting coralline algae that strongly depend on light availability as a new in situ proxy to reconstruct past variability in the duration of seasonal sea-ice cover. Our data represent the northernmost annual-resolution marine sea-ice reconstruction to date, extending to the early 19th century off Svalbard. Algal records show that the decreasing trend in sea-ice cover in the high Arctic had already started at the beginning of the 20th century, earlier than previously reported from sea-ice reconstructions based on terrestrial archives.

M.T. Cranium · 25-12-2020 12:37am

Personally I doubt that Chernobyl had any significant effect on even regional let alone global temperature, but the timing was about the same as the most dramatic portion of the recent warming. In North America also, 1987 and 1988 saw a sharp rise in temperatures compared to years before, a process that had begun with a warming in late 1982 and most of 1983, then fell back somewhat each year to 1986 (after a relatively cold interval 1978 to 1981).

If you check out some 30-year averages I calculated in the net-weather thread for NYC, you'll see that most if not all of the increase in temperature in the most recent 30-year interval has been overnight lows, the daytime readings have not changed much if at all. Both June and July are basically steady-state for daytime highs going back as far as the 1931-60 period. Some months show a peak daytime average in an interval before the most recent one. In almost all cases the largest temperature increase was between the 1869-1900 data and 1901-30 (with the extra 2 years I just added them into the first interval). The average increase there was almost 1 C deg (about 1.5 F). A smaller increase can be seen from 1901-30 to 1931-60 after which the climate just warms at night.

Subtracting what I think is the urban heat island effect, the actual climate change has been about 1.0 C (1.8 F) over the entire period and most of it happened in the first two of the five intervals.

I can't really say that this totally contradicts the IPCC hypothesis as represented by some that the background climate should be cooling, but AGW makes it warmer. More likely we are in a rather steady state climate now and have been since the early to mid 20th century. Some human caused warming influences can be seen in the data.

I remain skeptical about any projections of current trends into the future for a number of reasons. Solar variability may be a larger factor than assumed. Feedback processes may be inadequately anticipated and modelled. Political and social trends remain too large an unknown for reliable projections.

For all we know, the supposedly long slow decline into the next glacial could in fact turn into a rapid and dramatic cooling trend. I don't think Milankovitch is the only player in that complex game, although I accept that based on his research alone, the next glacial is 20-40 thousand years away. And I don't know if it's particularly wise to assume that sea level rises can be managed by political processes, I would place my money on inevitable sea level rises and plan accordingly.

Birdnuts · 25-12-2020 2:29am

Personally I think there needs to be much more focus on regional climate change and human activities like deforestation,overgrazing and drainage of wetlands. I've read a number of papers on these things and it seems the GW brigade have more or less overlooked these factors in their obsession with CO2. Some examples include rising temps on the edge of the Amazon basin as the cooling and transpiration influences of tropical forests are lost as they are felled by ranchers/loggers - the exposed red Earth produces a much hotter and more hostile climate. As more and more forest is lost this effect is steadily getting more significant. Another example is the loss of lake affect snow around Mexico City with the final loss of the major wetlands that once surrounded the city. The sad story of the human induced destruction of the Aral Sea in Asia is another striking example

Nabber · 25-12-2020 4:09am

Birdnuts wrote: »

Personally I think there needs to be much more focus on regional climate change and human activities like deforestation,overgrazing and drainage of wetlands. I've read a number of papers on these things and it seems the GW brigade have more or less overlooked these factors in their obsession with CO2.

Lowering CO2 levels has been painted as the panacea to all climate issues. Wildlife endangerment comes directly from habitat destruction, poaching and disruption of predator/prey equilibrium.
Instead we get hyperbole spin doctors like Attenborough assign all of nature’s woes to CO2.

Renewable energy only expands on habitat destruction, yet that is fine as it’s ‘green’. We have ourselves in a sorry state and some have the audacity to think their way is better for all, won’t even entertain that they are at the least the lesser of 2 evils.

There is something to be said for living in ignorance ðŸ˜ŽðŸ€“

Banana Republic 1 · 25-12-2020 9:36am

Nabber wrote: »

Lowering CO2 levels has been painted as the panacea to all climate issues. Wildlife endangerment comes directly from habitat destruction, poaching and disruption of predator/prey equilibrium.
Instead we get hyperbole spin doctors like Attenborough assign all of nature’s woes to CO2.

Renewable energy only expands on habitat destruction, yet that is fine as it’s ‘green’. We have ourselves in a sorry state and some have the audacity to think their way is better for all, won’t even entertain that they are at the least the lesser of 2 evils.

There is something to be said for living in ignorance ðŸ˜ŽðŸ€“

There was an episode of the Simpsons were an asteroid was coming to destroy the town. There was no way out and the population were trapped. They all gathered together to witness this thing as one but in the end the thing burned up in the atmosphere and they were saved. Before they dispersed one of the crowd, Moe the bar tender, shouted out “let’s go burn down the observatory so this never happens again”

Nabber · 26-12-2020 7:12pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

There was an episode of the Simpsons were an asteroid was coming to destroy the town. There was no way out and the population were trapped. They all gathered together to witness this thing as one but in the end the thing burned up in the atmosphere and they were saved. Before they dispersed one of the crowd, Moe the bar tender, shouted out “let’s go burn down the observatory so this never happens again”

You miss the point again.

Banana Republic 1 · 26-12-2020 10:58pm

Nabber wrote: »

You miss the point again.

This was your point.

There is something to be said for living in ignorance

Hooter23 · 28-12-2020 4:10pm

Isn't it strange how the warmest months recorded in febuary was in 1891 - 18.1 degrees...and March 1965 - 23.6 degrees...December 1984 - 18.1 degrees..June 1887 - 33.3 degrees...September 1906 - 29.1....October 1908 -25.2 degrees

The barely even mention it...yet if we have records broken these days you never hear the end of it....surely if climate change was so bad these days these records should have been all broken by now...just picking and choosing information that suits them...seems so called climate change was way worse in the past before we even had an excuse to say it existed

https://www.met.ie/climate/weather-extreme-records

Oneiric 3 · 28-12-2020 8:45pm

NEW - Bill Gates wants to spray millions of tonnes of dust into the stratosphere to "dim the sun and stop global warming." The project is known as SCoPEx and is funded in large part by the billionaire.

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1343363159860649984

Pretty clear now that the world is nothing but the playground of the rich, which is given some sort of (questionable) scientific morality (I.E, totally amoral) legitimacy via their useful idiots.

Danno · 28-12-2020 8:51pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

NEW - Bill Gates wants to spray millions of tonnes of dust into the stratosphere to "dim the sun and stop global warming." The project is known as SCoPEx and is funded in large part by the billionaire.

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1343363159860649984

Pretty clear now that the world is nothing but the playground of the rich, which is given some sort of (questionable) scientific morality (I.E, totally amoral) legitimacy via their useful idiots.

I guess some pollution is more equal than other pollution.

Oneiric 3 · 28-12-2020 8:57pm

Danno wrote: »

I guess some pollution is more equal than other pollution.

The real pollution on this planet is these psychopaths.

Gaoth Laidir · 28-12-2020 9:27pm

There's nothing new about this idea of David Keith. It's been spoken about for years.

This experiment involves only 2 kg of calcium carbonate (chalk), so it's not exactly going to do any harm. I can't see what data they can get from such a small payload, other than learnings for scaling up.

It's all unnecessary and a waste of time if you ask me. It's bucketing water out of the boat without first sealing off the leak.

Banana Republic 1 · 28-12-2020 10:09pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

The real pollution on this planet is these psychopaths.

:rolleyes:

Oneiric 3 · 28-12-2020 10:40pm

"Even though northern Scandinavia should be strongly affected by global warming, the area has experienced little summer warming over recent decades -- in stark contrast to the hemispheric trend of warming temperatures, which is strongly linked to rising greenhouse gas emissions. According to the study, temperature changes have been accompanied by an increase in cloudiness over northern Scandinavia, which in turn has reduced the impact of warming."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190325120401.htm

I read before that cloudiness has increased on a global scale, a form of natural 'daytime dimming' that also results in warmer night time temps, which, if like here and over in the States, is what is actually what is weighted more in the rise of mean temperatures. But by all means, overpaid scientists and your billionaire buddies, clog up our atmosphere with even more gunk to prevent nights cooling down even further. Man-made climate change is bad, except, of course, when you do it.

Banana Republic 1 · 28-12-2020 11:26pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

"Even though northern Scandinavia should be strongly affected by global warming, the area has experienced little summer warming over recent decades -- in stark contrast to the hemispheric trend of warming temperatures, which is strongly linked to rising greenhouse gas emissions. According to the study, temperature changes have been accompanied by an increase in cloudiness over northern Scandinavia, which in turn has reduced the impact of warming."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190325120401.htm

I read before that cloudiness has increased on a global scale, a form of natural 'daytime dimming' that also results in warmer night time temps, which, if like here and over in the States, is what is actually what is weighted more in the rise of mean temperatures. But by all means, overpaid scientists and your billionaire buddies, clog up our atmosphere with even more gunk to prevent nights cooling down even further. Man-made climate change is bad, except, of course, when you do it.

:rolleyes:

Oneiric 3 · 28-12-2020 11:39pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I take it that Mr "I was educated in Harvard" Banana does not approve?

Good.

Gaoth Laidir · 29-12-2020 1:27am

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

"Even though northern Scandinavia should be strongly affected by global warming, the area has experienced little summer warming over recent decades -- in stark contrast to the hemispheric trend of warming temperatures, which is strongly linked to rising greenhouse gas emissions. According to the study, temperature changes have been accompanied by an increase in cloudiness over northern Scandinavia, which in turn has reduced the impact of warming."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190325120401.htm

I read before that cloudiness has increased on a global scale, a form of natural 'daytime dimming' that also results in warmer night time temps, which, if like here and over in the States, is what is actually what is weighted more in the rise of mean temperatures. But by all means, overpaid scientists and your billionaire buddies, clog up our atmosphere with even more gunk to prevent nights cooling down even further. Man-made climate change is bad, except, of course, when you do it.

Particles like calcium carbonate would not affect nighttime cooling but rather reflect the sun's shortwave radiation during the day.

In any case it's all such a load of bullocks that it makes no difference. I'd love to see where, how and at what cost (in ghg as well as monetary terms) they will get this thing off the ground, so to speak. I suppose The Burren is a good source of calcium carbonate, and we don't really need it anyway, do we? Let's mine the feck out of it and start launching payload balloons from nearby Shannon.

Wanderer78 · 29-12-2020 7:42am

Oneiric 3 wrote:

NEW - Bill Gates wants to spray millions of tonnes of dust into the stratosphere to "dim the sun and stop global warming." The project is known as SCoPEx and is funded in large part by the billionaire.

Any credible source for this?

Hooter23 · 29-12-2020 12:26pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

NEW - Bill Gates wants to spray millions of tonnes of dust into the stratosphere to "dim the sun and stop global warming." The project is known as SCoPEx and is funded in large part by the billionaire.

It dosn't matter we wont even notice the difference here in ireland anyway

Nabber · 29-12-2020 1:57pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Any credible source for this?

Not sure the definition of credible. The story is years old. It is financially backed by one of gates quasi investment schemes.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/07/bill-gates-funded-solar-geoengineering-could-help-stop-global-warming.html

When following the populist sheep, Bill Gates poses a challenge to the norm. Super rich, relocated his residence to avoid income tax, lead a company that avoided billions in tax. Now his pet projects are human conservation. He stays kosher by signalling that rich should be taxed more yet operates outside of what is expected of the rest of his fellow citizens.

I’m sure he just used the laws of his country and countless others to aid in his wealth growth. Sure it’s legal, perhaps he left his moral compass at home when making tax decisions. At least he has found it now!!!

The science is settled on CO2 being the issue? Shame we can’t settle the science on how to fix it.

Akrasia · 29-12-2020 2:52pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

NEW - Bill Gates wants to spray millions of tonnes of dust into the stratosphere to "dim the sun and stop global warming." The project is known as SCoPEx and is funded in large part by the billionaire.

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1343363159860649984

Pretty clear now that the world is nothing but the playground of the rich, which is given some sort of (questionable) scientific morality (I.E, totally amoral) legitimacy via their useful idiots.

I think you need to find better sources Oneric. Disclosed.tv has David Icke conspiracy theories on their front page.

Wanderer78 · 29-12-2020 2:55pm

Nabber wrote: »

Not sure the definition of credible. The story is years old. It is financially backed by one of gates quasi investment schemes.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/07/bill-gates-funded-solar-geoengineering-could-help-stop-global-warming.html

When following the populist sheep, Bill Gates poses a challenge to the norm. Super rich, relocated his residence to avoid income tax, lead a company that avoided billions in tax. Now his pet projects are human conservation. He stays kosher by signalling that rich should be taxed more yet operates outside of what is expected of the rest of his fellow citizens.

I’m sure he just used the laws of his country and countless others to aid in his wealth growth. Sure it’s legal, perhaps he left his moral compass at home when making tax decisions. At least he has found it now!!!

The science is settled on CO2 being the issue? Shame we can’t settle the science on how to fix it.

so we ll put it in the bullsh1t pile until its proven.....

Akrasia · 29-12-2020 2:57pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I take it that Mr "I was educated in Harvard" Banana does not approve?

Good.

We already knew clouds reduce warming in daytime in summer.
Does this study state that climate change increased daytime cloud cover on average globally? No it doesn’t, it refers to a regional increase that helped mitigate warming in contrast with other parts of the hemisphere that saw high levels of warming

Akrasia · 29-12-2020 3:12pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Particles like calcium carbonate would not affect nighttime cooling but rather reflect the sun's shortwave radiation during the day.

In any case it's all such a load of bullocks that it makes no difference. I'd love to see where, how and at what cost (in ghg as well as monetary terms) they will get this thing off the ground, so to speak. I suppose The Burren is a good source of calcium carbonate, and we don't really need it anyway, do we? Let's mine the feck out of it and start launching payload balloons from nearby Shannon.

The SCoPEx project is there to study whether this could be effective in reducing TSI
Maybe we should wait until the first experimental evidence is back before dismissing it, and there is no shortage of calcium carbonate. Producing it is even a potential method of carbon capture, in fact, the natural formation of calcium carbonate is what nature used for billions of years to sequester CO2 emitted by biological and geological activity

Banana Republic 1 · 29-12-2020 4:24pm

This is an experiment to establish if the models used for solar geo-enigineering are correct. Its findings will help move the science forward. If you are actually interested follow the link attached. There is a video at the bottom of the text within the link for those who can't read.

https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex

They actually want to put sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere and the calcium carbonate is just used in the experiment as outlined above.

This is a short intro to solar geo engineering from The Economist. (Youtube clip)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGdz5gYqm-o

This is a more critical clip of the idea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR6uSXW-8p4

Nabber · 29-12-2020 5:02pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so we ll put it in the bullsh1t pile until its proven.....

Put it where ever you like. :pac::pac:

The issue is that the headlines are more about Gates than the science or proposal.
Cloud seeding is nothing new. More interference with natural cycles.

Akrasia · 29-12-2020 5:12pm

Nabber wrote: »

Put it where ever you like. :pac::pac:

The issue is that the headlines are more about Gates than the science or proposal.
Cloud seeding is nothing new. More interference with natural cycles.

The headlines are about gates because they’re published in a conspiracy theory website

Gaoth Laidir · 29-12-2020 6:06pm

Akrasia wrote: »

I think you need to find better sources Oneric. Disclosed.tv has David Icke conspiracy theories on their front page.

If you care to click on the link in the Twitter post you will get to a Reuters article, which I would assume would be more reputable.

Akrasia wrote: »

The SCoPEx project is there to study whether this could be effective in reducing TSI
Maybe we should wait until the first experimental evidence is back before dismissing it, and there is no shortage of calcium carbonate. Producing it is even a potential method of carbon capture, in fact, the natural formation of calcium carbonate is what nature used for billions of years to sequester CO2 emitted by biological and geological activity

Yes, billions of years, trillions of tonnes. At what cost do you reckon we could produce enough of that or whatever and get it up there to make any difference? It's a nonsense idea.

Nabber wrote: »

Put it where ever you like. :pac::pac:

The issue is that the headlines are more about Gates than the science or proposal.
Cloud seeding is nothing new. More interference with natural cycles.

This is not cloud-seeding. That's a totally different thing altogether.

Banana Republic 1 · 29-12-2020 6:36pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

If you care to click on the link in the Twitter post you will get to a Reuters article, which I would assume would be more reputable.

Yes, billions of years, trillions of tonnes. At what cost do you reckon we could produce enough of that or whatever and get it up there to make any difference? It's a nonsense idea..

This is an experiment to establish if the models used for solar geo-enigineering are correct. Its findings will help move the science forward. If you are actually interested follow the link attached. There is a video at the bottom of the text within the link for those who can't read.

https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex

They actually want to put sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere and the calcium carbonate is just used in the experiment as outlined above.

This is a short intro to solar geo engineering from The Economist. (Youtube clip)
https://www.youtube.com/watch
?v=OGdz5gYqm-o

This is a more critical clip of the idea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR6uSXW-8p4

Akrasia · 29-12-2020 7:09pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

If you care to click on the link in the Twitter post you will get to a Reuters article, which I would assume would be more reputable.

Yes, billions of years, trillions of tonnes. At what cost do you reckon we could produce enough of that or whatever and get it up there to make any difference? It's a nonsense idea.

This is not cloud-seeding. That's a totally different thing altogether.

If the Reuters article was Onerics source, then why didn’t he use that link as his source instead of linking to a conspiracy site on Twitter.
In terms of geoengineering by deploying aerosols to the stratosphere
I’m not a huge fan of the idea, I think we need to focus on reducing the buildup of GHGs but it may be necessary to have a plan B. if it is ever required it means our attempts to reduce our emissions have failed, or that we have crossed a tipping point and need to take drastic action, and I’d much rather have a plan that is properly tested and researched so that we can use it at short notice if it is required

It is estimated that about 5 million tonnes of particles deployed to the stratosphere per year would be enough with an estimated cost of about 8 billion USD which sounds expensive, but actually it is a pittance compared to the global military spending per year and would be much less than the costs should climate change breach the ‘safe’ level of 1.5 to 2c above preindustrial levels

Gaoth Laidir · 29-12-2020 7:14pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

This is an experiment to establish if the models used for solar geo-enigineering are correct. Its findings will help move the science forward. If you are actually interested follow the link attached. There is a video at the bottom of the text within the link for those who can't read.

https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex

They actually want to put sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere and the calcium carbonate is just used in the experiment as outlined above.

This is a short intro to solar geo engineering from The Economist. (Youtube clip)
https://www.youtube.com/watch
?v=OGdz5gYqm-o

This is a more critical clip of the idea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR6uSXW-8p4

Yep, I saw your post the first time you posted it, thank you No need to double-post.

Gaoth Laidir · 29-12-2020 7:17pm

Akrasia wrote: »

If the Reuters article was Onerics source, then why didn’t he use that link as his source instead of linking to a conspiracy site on Twitter.
In terms of geoengineering by deploying aerosols to the stratosphere
I’m not a huge fan of the idea, I think we need to focus on reducing the buildup of GHGs but it may be necessary to have a plan B. if it is ever required it means our attempts to reduce our emissions have failed, or that we have crossed a tipping point and need to take drastic action, and I’d much rather have a plan that is properly tested and researched so that we can use it at short notice if it is required

It is estimated that about 5 million tonnes of particles deployed to the stratosphere per year would be enough with an estimated cost of about 8 billion USD which sounds expensive, but actually it is a pittance compared to the global military spending per year and would be much less than the costs should climate change breach the ‘safe’ level of 1.5 to 2c above preindustrial levels

Do you have a source for those figures? That's almost 14,000 tonnes per day. How do you reckon we could get all that up there in that volume?

Oneiric 3 · 29-12-2020 7:22pm

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

They actually want to put sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere

Best way to do that to use more fossil fuels. Peeps, get burning!

http://www.air-quality.org.uk/27.php

Let's just be honest here, these people are just nuts. Preached for decades that we need to clean up the aul air. We did, and now they want to counter the effects of that (greater warming/increased solar radiation) by dirtying it up big stylee again. But yeah, 'science'.

I'm happy enough with my sources. I couldn't care less what is on the front page of that site because it doesn't negate the fact that big science is big business. There is nothing authentic about these people. It's all about the readies and the sustainment of their jet-set lifestyles. This was revealed in all its glory when they decided to back one of the biggest genocidal war criminals of the modern era in order to keep up their funding only a few months back. When people throw aside their intrinsic humanity for a few extra quid, then it is time to throw them aside.

Oneiric 3 · 29-12-2020 7:31pm

Akrasia wrote: »

If the Reuters article was Onerics source, then why didn’t he use that link as his source instead of linking to a conspiracy site on Twitter.

I'll link to whatever I please. And I think it is a bit rich, that you, who pushed debunked Russian conspiracy theories on this very thread, because agenda driven corporate vampires from 'credible sources' told you they were real, get to take the moral high ground here about 'sources'.

Banana Republic 1 · 29-12-2020 7:45pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Best way to do that to use more fossil fuels. Peeps, get burning!

http://www.air-quality.org.uk/27.php

Let's just be honest here, these people are just nuts. Preached for decades that we need to clean up the aul air. We did, and now they want to counter the effects of that (greater warming/increased solar radiation) by dirtying it up big stylee again. But yeah, 'science'.

I'm happy enough with my sources. I couldn't care less what is on the front page of that site because it doesn't negate the fact that big science is big business. There is nothing authentic about these people. It's all about the readies and the sustainment of their jet-set lifestyles. This was revealed in all its glory when they decided to back one of the biggest genocidal war criminals of the modern era in order to keep up their funding only a few months back. When people throw aside their intrinsic humanity for a few extra quid, then it is time to throw them aside.

Who was the war criminal ?

Danno · 30-12-2020 2:37am

Oh holy baby Jebus, now the green fringe are telling us to stop pumping our $hit into the atmosphere and to start pumping their $hit up there cause they've this thang all figured out.

Where was that quote from the farmers forum that referenced avocados from Peru used as a recipe outlined in a book Karen picked up from her last weekend break to Monaco...?

Akrasia · 30-12-2020 12:03pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I'll link to whatever I please. And I think it is a bit rich, that you, who pushed debunked Russian conspiracy theories on this very thread, because agenda driven corporate vampires from 'credible sources' told you they were real, get to take the moral high ground here about 'sources'.

It’s fine by me if you want to demonstrate your own credulity by showing everyone that you trust sources that parrot David Icke

Maybe I’m not giving you enough credit, maybe you like these sources because they believe in lizard people, not despite that fact.

Akrasia · 30-12-2020 12:24pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Do you have a source for those figures? That's almost 14,000 tonnes per day. How do you reckon we could get all that up there in that volume?

Pinatubo blasted 20 million tonnes of ash and SO2 into the atmosphere and that cooled the atmosphere for about 4 years. Using more refined materials that are designed to stay in the stratosphere and reflect sunlight, we would need less than this to achieve a similar effect. Of course we need experimental data to verify this.
How to get it up there?
There are multiple options, one of which is simply blasting it up there using artillery

America managed to drop 270 million bombs on Laos, who they weren’t even at war with during the Vietnam war. If we needed to, we could easily gat 15k tonnes of particles into the stratosphere per day

Akrasia · 30-12-2020 12:27pm

Danno wrote: »

Oh holy baby Jebus, now the green fringe are telling us to stop pumping our $hit into the atmosphere and to start pumping their $hit up there cause they've this thang all figured out.

Where was that quote from the farmers forum that referenced avocados from Peru used as a recipe outlined in a book Karen picked up from her last weekend break to Monaco...?

No, scientists are doing an experiment to see if this is something we could do in case we need to

Nobody would ever agree to allowing the government to spray thousands of gallons of water onto their house and all of their possessions unless their house was already on fire

Gaoth Laidir · 30-12-2020 12:44pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Pinatubo blasted 20 million tonnes of ash and SO2 into the atmosphere and that cooled the atmosphere for about 4 years. Using more refined materials that are designed to stay in the stratosphere and reflect sunlight, we would need less than this to achieve a similar effect. Of course we need experimental data to verify this.
How to get it up there?
There are multiple options, one of which is simply blasting it up there using artillery

America managed to drop 270 million bombs on Laos, who they weren’t even at war with during the Vietnam war. If we needed to, we could easily gat 15k tonnes of particles into the stratosphere per day

So you don't have a source.

You really believe that we could blast 15 thousand tonnes of payload ballistically 15 km into the stratosphere every day? Do you know how much energy what it costs per kg to do that? 150 kJ. In total it would a total expenditure of 2.2 TJ per day, just for the payload, never mind the ballistic rockets themselves. Thats the equivalebt of around 52 tonnes of oil.

How many rockets would be needed per day? It would be a constant stream of them.

Fade Into You · 30-12-2020 1:05pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np5pP2tKw

This is the most recent video I've seen on this thread.
https://twitter.com: georg/status/13...9791448?s=19

"The new coronavirus has been identified as

30-12-2020 4:12pm

Fade Into You wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np5pP2tKw

This is the most recent video I've seen on this thread.
https://twitter.com: georg/status/13...9791448?s=19

"The new coronavirus has been identified as

video gone, what was said?

Oneiric 3 · 30-12-2020 4:50pm

Akrasia wrote: »

No, scientists are doing an experiment

Yep, they are great at that alright:

Chemical weapons and the scientists who make them

It would take a hard-hearted person not to have been moved to tears by the images on our television screens of Syria over the last week - of infants struggling to breathe while their parents looked on helplessly, and of others foaming at the mouth or twitching uncontrollably...

https://theconversation.com/chemical-weapons-and-the-scientists-who-make-them-17701

Akrasia · 30-12-2020 8:01pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So you don't have a source.

You really believe that we could blast 15 thousand tonnes of payload ballistically 15 km into the stratosphere every day? Do you know how much energy what it costs per kg to do that? 150 kJ. In total it would a total expenditure of 2.2 TJ per day, just for the payload, never mind the ballistic rockets themselves. Thats the equivalebt of around 52 tonnes of oil.

How many rockets would be needed per day? It would be a constant stream of them.

Here's a source https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01606-0
Its a study into what happens if the aerosols were unevenly distributed and they used the value of 5 teragrams per year (5 million tonnes) to achieve cooling of .7c to 1.1c

The various options to deliver the particles to the stratosphere are discussed in this paper
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/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

I'd much rather us avoid such a scenario by focusing our efforts on decarbonising the global economic system as quickly as possible.

Akrasia · 30-12-2020 8:03pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Yep, they are great at that alright:

Chemical weapons and the scientists who make them

It would take a hard-hearted person not to have been moved to tears by the images on our television screens of Syria over the last week - of infants struggling to breathe while their parents looked on helplessly, and of others foaming at the mouth or twitching uncontrollably...

https://theconversation.com/chemical-weapons-and-the-scientists-who-make-them-17701

This is a thread about climate change, not chemical weapons

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

Comments