The 2 ( 3 !!!) ways to cool the planet

[Muse]

You're going to have issues with the car's rubber components eventually just due to age.

I did have a rubber issue. For a couple years I was mystified (unintentional pun there!) because I'd see fogging on the inside of the windows. Didn't know why. One day I realized water was puddling inside the trunk. The rubber seal had deteriorated. I ripped it out and replaced it personally and it's been fine and dry inside since.

There are some door seals that could use replacing but AFAIK no water's getting inside when it rains or when I wash the car, which I do personally.

Um, I guess, what? Hoses, belts, shocks... What? I had the 30k inspection done a couple 1000 before 30k, because, well, why not, it's so old. IDK that there was rubber issues then. It was at an indy shop with great reviews, about 6 guys there IIRC, and all well trained. Took it back a week later and had them fix my AC, which didn't work at all. This was maybe 5 years ago. Every one of their guys, I think, were trained to do AC. The owner is a mechanic too. Haven't been there since then! I figure I should sign up for AAA, but keep delaying it. I should, especially if I go anywhere. I haven't been more than ~20 miles from my house in several years.

 

[Scarpozzi]

All these "solutions" are a no go. You need to develop something that will make money or that will demonstrably improve things within a year or 2. No one is going to agree to flush billions down the drain so maybe things will be better in 20-30 years.

They make money by being overpriced when sold to governments.

 

[Muse]

All these "solutions" are a no go. You need to develop something that will make money or that will demonstrably improve things within a year or 2. No one is going to agree to flush billions down the drain so maybe things will be better in 20-30 years.

The OPR guys say it costs very very little compared to other proposals, just a few million. OPR appears to me to be pretty equivalent to the 100 villages concept... fishing villages. With professional help they add relatively small amounts of essential nutrients to ocean eddies, bringing back plankton essential to ocean life. There are immediate benefits, fishing comes back like right away, see the experiment they did off Alaska ~2012, the salmon boomed, in less than a year they couldn't handle the sudden increase in Alaskan fish processing facilities. And, they say, CO2 is right away sequestered. Check that video I posted above, it's a conference with speakers. Critics say it's toxic but they counter that it's only toxic near shorelines and they do it way out in deep ocean, so there's no toxicity.

 

[NTMBK]

ION drives ftw?
build the spaceship in outer space.

populate titan or uranus

Titan is a frozen hellscape. Making it habitable is basically impossible. There just isn't enough sunlight that far out.

 

[IronWing]

Titan is a frozen hellscape. Making it habitable is basically impossible. There just isn't enough sunlight that far out.

Our forum member from Timmins says that you are wrong.

 

[Pohemi]

Just cover all dry surfaces, buildings, roadways, etc. with the newly developed ultra white paint. Blind everything!

 

[Muse]

So mass oceanic algae blooms is exactly the kind of thing that I'm fairly certain will kill us off faster than doing nothing at all.

In addition, the article doesn't really state it'll do anything to actually sequester any CO2. How do you keep the plankton blooms from just decomposing like it normally does?

https://theecologist.org/2018/may/03/can-we-remove-trillion-tons-carbon-atmosphere

Russ George:

Well, we know that since 1950 if we have lost 12 entire Amazon’s worth of biomass in the oceans, if we merely restore it to that state, we’ll capture that much sustainable living biomass in the oceans.

That is more forestry potential that exists in all the lands on the planet. So we can grow plants in the ocean that will harvest many times the amount of CO2 than if we were to reforest all available land on the planet.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

https://theecologist.org/2018/may/03/can-we-remove-trillion-tons-carbon-atmosphere

Russ George:

So per this there's approximately 86GT of carbon biomass in the Amazon.

https://cce.nasa.gov/veg3dbiomass/saatchi-etal_GCB07.pdf

That comes out to close enough to 1T tons of carbon sequestered that I wouldn't bother with the details. That's pretty damned good, but it still doesn't touch our current output of approximately 40B tons/year. I'd also be curious how long it would take to repopulation the oceans, and how we keep other countries from just overfishing it back to where it was again.

Not a bad plan, but I still only see it as part of a whole.

 

[Muse]

So per this there's approximately 86GT of carbon biomass in the Amazon.

https://cce.nasa.gov/veg3dbiomass/saatchi-etal_GCB07.pdf

That comes out to close enough to 1T tons of carbon sequestered that I wouldn't bother with the details. That's pretty damned good, but it still doesn't touch our current output of approximately 40B tons/year. I'd also be curious how long it would take to repopulation the oceans, and how we keep other countries from just overfishing it back to where it was again.

Not a bad plan, but I still only see it as part of a whole.

I think these people are making the case that it's not just overfishing bringing down the fish population in the oceans, that it's more the lack of nutrients, starting with the bottom of the food chain, the plankton. They're saying that this is because the plankton are lacking what they need to propagate due to the dust droughts caused by the relative overgrowth of pasture grasses caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere, which decreases dust going into the winds which would have dropped in the ocean, feeding the plankton what they need. So, they're saying supply what would have been supplied by the dust, which is pretty easily and cheaply done, and they've had very successful _experiments_, in particular the one off Alaska in 2012. AFAIK, they're not saying we don't need to go carbon neutral in emissions as well. Look, I'm not knee deep in this stuff, I've just gotten my feet wet, but this much I've gleaned just in the last few days.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think these people are making the case that it's not just overfishing bringing down the fish population in the oceans, that it's more the lack of nutrients, starting with the bottom of the food chain, the plankton. They're saying that this is because the plankton are lacking what they need to propagate due to the dust droughts caused by the relative overgrowth of pasture grasses caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere, which decreases dust going into the winds which would have dropped in the ocean, feeding the plankton what they need. Look, I'm not knee deep in this stuff, I've just gotten my feet wet, but this much I've gleaned just in the last few days.

That all tracks, doesn't allay my fears about making massive changes to our environment but from a technical perspective it makes sense.

Still gotta get that co2 usage down though, or this just pushes the apocalypse back by ~25 years.

 

[Muse]

That all tracks, doesn't allay my fears about making massive changes to our environment but from a technical perspective it makes sense.

Still gotta get that co2 usage down though, or this just pushes the apocalypse back by ~25 years.

I continued to edit my post above, please reread it. Yes, they say we should push hard to stop the CO2 emissions, to go neutral on them ASAP. But that alone doesn't DECREASE the CO2 in the air already (that has been building up since the start of the industrial revolution) and that's what we need to cool the planet.

 

[cytg111]

I am afraid that the only real possibility for halting emissions is to glass over the planet.
Look at the power draw of cryptocurrency.
Why?
Money is power and power is what plants crave.
Now contemplate the major geopolitical axises, Russian like mafia states vs. “The West” vs. CPC and friends.
In a race to be the dominant ideology on the planet you think you can pump the brakers on floating carbon?
Want to bet climate change is not already weaponized? “I might take a hit but my enemy will take a bigger”?
Even if you find a super efficient carbon reduction method to clean up the atmosphere, someone on the other side of the planet will just fire up 200 new coal plants to mine crypto.

Lets get real folks, stop kiddingyourselves.
We’re fucked.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I continued to edit my post above, please reread it. Yes, they say we should push hard to stop the CO2 emissions, to go neutral on them ASAP. But that alone doesn't DECREASE the CO2 in the air already (that has been building up since the start of the industrial revolution) and that's what we need to cool the planet.

Understood, I'm not good at going back to check for edits Yeah the ongoing CO2 usage is a huge problem, but ocean sequestration isn't a bad idea in principal but the devil's always in the details. That stuff came from under the dirt, and imho that's where it should end up if it stays on Terra.

 

[Muse]

Understood, I'm not good at going back to check for edits Yeah the ongoing CO2 usage is a huge problem, but ocean sequestration isn't a bad idea in principal but the devil's always in the details. That stuff came from under the dirt, and imho that's where it should end up if it stays on Terra.

Via email I posted Alex Carlin your questions and he replied me with answers. Here is what I posted him, below that his reply.
------------------------------------------------
- - - -
So mass oceanic algae blooms is exactly the kind of thing that I'm
fairly certain will kill us off faster than doing nothing at all.

In addition, the article doesn't really state it'll do anything to
actually sequester any CO2. How do you keep the plankton blooms from
just decomposing like it normally does?
- - - -

And this:
- - - -
I haven't yet heard anything to dismiss...? How are they getting around
decomposition? How are they removing carbon from the carbon cycle? It's
a super simple question with what should be a simple answer.
- - - -

And this:
- - - -
Oh lord, so they're talking about generating plankton blooms for
shellfish to consume, multiply, die, then over millions of years turn
into limestone? How is this a solution to an emergency today?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Carlin's reply:

Hi everybody. I want to make 3 points that I hope will answer the main questions that I see on this thread:

1) Plankton blooms in the deep open ocean far from shore have zero negative effects. No toxic effects at all. Please read my "Misconceptions..." article for the ironclad proof. https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2021/08/05/misconceptions-shouldnt-hold-up-key-climate-solution/

2) Regarding how much carbon actually gets sequestered with Ocean Pasture Restoration: Conservatively, about 75%, in these proportions: 25% of the carbon sinks deep into the seabed and stays sequestered there for centuries if not millenia. 25% eventually goes back into the atmosphere. The remaining 50% gets recycled indefinitely in the sustainable ocean living ecosystem, eaten by other fish, etc, which is tantamount to sequestration.

3) Ocean Pasture Restoration can remove and sequester enough CO2 from the atmosphere to give us a chance to survive. Quickly (in a few years we get big results), cheaply (instead of spending trillions of dollars it costs almost nothing because it generates money from restored fisheries, etc), and safely (read my article above).

 

[Muse]

Even if you find a super efficient carbon reduction method to clean up the atmosphere, someone on the other side of the planet will just fire up 200 new coal plants to mine crypto.

Lets get real folks, stop kiddingyourselves.
We’re fucked.

CPC is on the verge of OUTLAWING crypto. Saw that in the news the other day. If other nations follow suit, that shoots down the energy draw of mining crypto (which I know nothing whatsoever about).

 

[cytg111]

CPC is on the verge of OUTLAWING crypto. Saw that in the news the other day. If other nations follow suit, that shoots down the energy draw of mining crypto (which I know nothing whatsoever about).

Its gonna end badly either way. Crypto was a metaphor/placeholder.
Europe is moving but moving waaay too slow.
The US is in reverse, bringing back coal and a congress that is owned by fossils. You're fighting homegrown talibans ffs.
Putin and gang dont give a fuck.
Sometimes I think the only shot mankind have is to hand over everything to the Chinese. Sure. Human rights. MEH. But contemplating the numbers that might come out on the other side of this climate fiasko I have to wonder if its not the better play overall. Will of course never happen. As I said. We're fucked. Start preppin'.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Via email I posted Alex Carlin your questions and he replied me with answers. Here is what I posted him, below that his reply.
------------------------------------------------
- - - -
So mass oceanic algae blooms is exactly the kind of thing that I'm
fairly certain will kill us off faster than doing nothing at all.

In addition, the article doesn't really state it'll do anything to
actually sequester any CO2. How do you keep the plankton blooms from
just decomposing like it normally does?
- - - -

And this:
- - - -
I haven't yet heard anything to dismiss...? How are they getting around
decomposition? How are they removing carbon from the carbon cycle? It's
a super simple question with what should be a simple answer.
- - - -

And this:
- - - -
Oh lord, so they're talking about generating plankton blooms for
shellfish to consume, multiply, die, then over millions of years turn
into limestone? How is this a solution to an emergency today?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Carlin's reply:

Hi everybody. I want to make 3 points that I hope will answer the main questions that I see on this thread:

1) Plankton blooms in the deep open ocean far from shore have zero negative effects. No toxic effects at all. Please read my "Misconceptions..." article for the ironclad proof. https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2021/08/05/misconceptions-shouldnt-hold-up-key-climate-solution/

2) Regarding how much carbon actually gets sequestered with Ocean Pasture Restoration: Conservatively, about 75%, in these proportions: 25% of the carbon sinks deep into the seabed and stays sequestered there for centuries if not millenia. 25% eventually goes back into the atmosphere. The remaining 50% gets recycled indefinitely in the sustainable ocean living ecosystem, eaten by other fish, etc, which is tantamount to sequestration.

3) Ocean Pasture Restoration can remove and sequester enough CO2 from the atmosphere to give us a chance to survive. Quickly (in a few years we get big results), cheaply (instead of spending trillions of dollars it costs almost nothing because it generates money from restored fisheries, etc), and safely (read my article above).

Excellent, real responses to questions. I'm glad to have actual expert answers to questions for once (not that every question, mine or otherwise, deserves it).

 

[Muse]

Its gonna end badly either way. Crypto was a metaphor/placeholder.
Europe is moving but moving waaay too slow.
The US is in reverse, bringing back coal and a congress that is owned by fossils. You're fighting homegrown talibans ffs.
Putin and gang dont give a fuck.

Sometimes I think the only shot mankind have is to hand over everything to the Chinese. Sure. Human rights. MEH. But contemplating the numbers that might come out on the other side of this climate fiasko I have to wonder if its not the better play overall. Will of course never happen. As I said. We're fucked. Start preppin'.

I read this:

We're Doomed. Now What?: Essays on War and Climate Change: Scranton, Roy: 9781616959364: Amazon.com: Books

We're Doomed. Now What?: Essays on War and Climate Change [Scranton, Roy] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. We're Doomed. Now What?: Essays on War and Climate Change

www.amazon.com

Well, Alex Carlin says there's "good news." I can't say either way. I used to be an optimist. I can't say I am now. But maybe the OPR people are right and we can save ourselves.

Biden and the Democrats are trying to go carbon neutral. That's the plan. The big automakers in the USA are planning to go electric bigtime. Republicans are stonewalling, we shall see what happens. One thing I have been observing and I can't quantify it, not sure anybody can: The environmental impacts of global warming have been increasing at a very alarming rate. I don't believe that a year or two you heard anything like the response we're getting in the media now. If you poll Americans most will say it really is a big deal.

 

[cytg111]

I read this:

We're Doomed. Now What?: Essays on War and Climate Change: Scranton, Roy: 9781616959364: Amazon.com: Books

We're Doomed. Now What?: Essays on War and Climate Change [Scranton, Roy] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. We're Doomed. Now What?: Essays on War and Climate Change

www.amazon.com

Well, Alex Carlin says there's "good news." I can't say either way. I used to be an optimist. I can't say I am now. But maybe the OPR people are right and we can save ourselves.

Biden and the Democrats are trying to go carbon neutral. That's the plan. The big automakers in the USA are planning to go electric bigtime. Republicans are stonewalling, we shall see what happens. One thing I have been observing and I can't quantify it, not sure anybody can: The environmental impacts of global warming have been increasing at a very alarming rate. I don't believe that a year or two you heard anything like the response we're getting in the media now. If you poll Americans most will say it really is a big deal.

Yea, I am generally an optimist as well, cant say I am on this topic today, our most relevant issue of out time, any time mayhaps (plenty of ways to blow up humanity I guess), the only thing I can reduce this to, is to move my own ass out of the way and help promote those who still have drive and optimism at their core.

Push forward the new generation, they're gonna have to grow up way faster than whats fair. Go Thunberg and friends. I pray to a non existent god that you got this.

 

[Muse]

Yea, I am generally an optimist as well, cant say I am on this topic today, our most relevant issue of out time, any time mayhaps (plenty of ways to blow up humanity I guess), the only thing I can reduce this to, is to move my own ass out of the way and help promote those who still have drive and optimism at their core.

Push forward the new generation, they're gonna have to grow up way faster than whats fair. Go Thunberg and friends. I pray to a non existent god that you got this.

I have deduced that you are in Europe... which I've yet to set foot on. However, I've long long considered Europe the seat of modern western civilization, and I figure rightly so. I'm not sure they always wear that mantel well. The world wars and all.

I am prepared to travel, got my passport around 3-4 years ago (unused), bought an assortment of travel luggage. The pandemic squashed any idea of immediate travel thoroughly. And, TBH, there's no place I crave to see/go!

My cumulative carbon footprint is very small. But I should go! Been sitting on the same checkerboard square too long.

A non existent god isn't going to help. Yes, I do/will cheer on anyone who earnestly takes on the global warming crisis and continue to do what I can. Prayers are a good start but by themselves won't get us far.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Its gonna end badly either way. Crypto was a metaphor/placeholder.
Europe is moving but moving waaay too slow.
The US is in reverse, bringing back coal and a congress that is owned by fossils. You're fighting homegrown talibans ffs.
Putin and gang dont give a fuck.
Sometimes I think the only shot mankind have is to hand over everything to the Chinese. Sure. Human rights. MEH. But contemplating the numbers that might come out on the other side of this climate fiasko I have to wonder if its not the better play overall. Will of course never happen. As I said. We're fucked. Start preppin'.

This China?

China eyes coal output boost, higher power prices to ease shortages

China has ordered its two top coal regions to boost output and will allow coal-fired power utilities to charge customers higher prices as the country battles its worst power crunch in years.

www.reuters.com

From what I understand, the rise in coal usage across the globe is a temporary reaction to the energy crisis caused by the pandemic. IMO, this trend will rapidly reverse as renewables continue to become insanely cheap and profitable.

 

[Brainonska511]

Love all these "solutions" to cool the planet instead of dealing with the underlying issue. People will support anything to avoid even a small change in lifestyle (ie, dealing with our continued reliance on automobiles (and excessively large ones at that) for everything and our wasteful practices of using energy).

 

[Muse]

Love all these "solutions" to cool the planet instead of dealing with the underlying issue. People will support anything to avoid even a small change in lifestyle (ie, dealing with our continued reliance on automobiles (and excessively large ones at that) for everything and our wasteful practices of using energy).

I bet my cumulative carbon footprint is a lot smaller than yours.

The NYTimes article by David Keith linked in the OP makes mention of the moral hazard of strategies that do not specifically basically involve decreasing CO2 emissions, e.g. this:

Research is minimal because geoengineering has influential opponents. The strongest opposition to geoengineering research stems from fear that the technology will be exploited by the powerful to maintain the status quo. Why cut emissions if we can seed the atmosphere with sulfur and keep the planet cool? This is geoengineering’s moral hazard.

Of course, the exact same thing can be said of Ocean Pasture Restoration.

 

[cytg111]

Love all these "solutions" to cool the planet instead of dealing with the underlying issue. People will support anything to avoid even a small change in lifestyle (ie, dealing with our continued reliance on automobiles (and excessively large ones at that) for everything and our wasteful practices of using energy).

How do you propose to deal with the underlying issue? You are think me buying another car is gonna fix anything?

 

[Red Squirrel]

How do you propose to deal with the underlying issue? You are think me buying another car is gonna fix anything?

Stop burning fossil fuel is the main answer. We just need to switch everything to green energy along with nuclear as base load. Ideally thorium reactors. It can be done it's just nobody wants to do it because it has initial cost. And the main reason is that once it is done, there is no continuous source of costly fuel going into the system, thus no money to be made.

All the money that goes towards fossil fuel subsidies should be going towards large scale energy storage R&D instead, such as molten salt and flow batteries. Removing fossil fuel subsidies would probably destroy the entire enconomy in a single night though. But it has to happen. It will not be easy at first, but it needs to happen.