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

Nabber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fade Into You

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

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

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

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

Gaoth Laidir

American-accented teenage climate activists from Cork on RTE1 right now. What an embarrassment.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a thread about climate change, not chemical weapons

It is also a scientific thread, and chemical weapons, like all highly profitable mass killing armaments, are science.

This literal worship and adoration of scientists that we see going on lately has to be the most cultishly ignorant phenomena of our time.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

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.

I can't believe you're even entertaining such an outlandish and impractical idea. Forty million balloon flights per year (110,000 per day). Yep, that would work. It would be great to have 110,000 burst 20-metre balloons floating back down to earth.

As for your pumping idea and the analogy to oil. You're missing one important detail: a 20-km oil duct is mechanically supported right along its whole length up to the surface. How do you reckon such a delivery system would be supported in the sky?

It's all science-fiction brainstorming, to be kind to it, but like all brainstorming, the most crazy ideas (and this is one of those) gets thrown in the bin.

Banana Republic 1

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.

There not launching rockets to do any of this, in the experiment or otherwise. I recommend watching the clips I posted earlier.

1 barrel of oil has roughly 6GJ of energy
1 barrel of oil has roughly .006TJ of energy
1 barrel of oil weighs about 140kg

Using jargon can l only get one so far.

Banana Republic 1

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

Who was the war criminal you were on about earlier ?

Gaoth Laidir

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

There not launching rockets to do any of this, in the experiment or otherwise. I recommend watching the clips I posted earlier.

1 barrel of oil has roughly 6GJ of energy
1 barrel of oil has roughly .006TJ of energy
1 barrel of oil weighs about 140kg

Using jargon can l only get one so far.

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

Oneiric 3

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Who was the war criminal you were on about earlier ?

You ask this after me posting numerous links only in the last week?

But here's another one for your convenience:

https://twitter.com/richimedhurst/status/1333583830998020096

Wanderer78

Oneiric 3 wrote:

This literal worship and adoration of scientists that we see going on lately has to be the most cultishly ignorant phenomena of our time.

There is such a thing called 'bad science', but not all science is bad!

Banana Republic 1

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

You ask this after me posting numerous links only in the last week?

But here's another one for your convenience:

https://twitter.com/richimedhurst/status/1333583830998020096

George W Bush started the Iraq war. He used faked CIA intelligence to get Congress and Blair to support him. Donald trump also supported that war for years.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

It is also a scientific thread, and chemical weapons, like all highly profitable mass killing armaments, are science.

This literal worship and adoration of scientists that we see going on lately has to be the most cultishly ignorant phenomena of our time.

So science is bad because of chemical weapons.
You’re writing that message on an electronic device that would be impossible without scientists

Is every one your messages intended to divert the conversation away from climate change or just the vast majority of them?