Topic: Climate change: Scientists test radical ways to fix Earth's climate - page 2. (Read 836 times)

there are certain news that say the atmosphere and the ozone layer are now healing, this is a great news but the problem on global warming is too huge that they need to fix it.

No one is discrediting the work of scientists.  I am discrediting the use of principia-scientific because it is a fake site.   Being able to find reliable sources is the key to being able to obtain knowledge from the internet.  I can point you in the right direction.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-in-the-express-that-low-solar-activity-is-bringing-cold-weather-is-false/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/metros-claims-of-coming-mini-ice-age-have-no-basis-in-reality/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/ian-plimer-wrongly-claims-that-carbon-dioxide-emissions-do-not-cause-climate-change/


Someone else said it and I didn't bother correcting them but global cooling implies the whole world (global average) is cooling .  Global warming implies the opposite and does not suggest that every specific location is warming.  Global warming is happening and was not changed to climate change.  Global warming causes ice to melt and flow into the ocean which affects ocean currents.  Currents affect wind patterns and overall climate. The warming itself is not a global concern as its just a few degrees.   its all of the things that result from the warming.

Climate change is a result of global warming NOT an alternative to it.  

Global warming is a result of GHG emissions and so is ocean acidification.  

These comments attempt to discredit many papers by solar physicists suggesting that we may be approaching a solar minima, with consequences in weather such as the Little Ice Age.

You are not qualified to discredit these people or their work, however you are welcome to present scientifically sound arguments on the subject.

I fail to see any reason a climate alarmist would be against global cooling. After all, those guys telling you what to think and say have already changed their grammar to "climate change," so they could encompass the possibility of global cooling as well as the tired, worn out Global Warming mantra you are on.

I sure hope the climate-change scientists have a big bunch of their group working on anti-aging. Why? So that they live the hundreds of years that it will take to figure out how to change the climate even a little.

 

I am sure your intentions are good. However, this is basic chemistry. There was nothing "new" in 2015 and there have been no "advancements" since 2015 that change the laws of thermodynamics.

Co2 is created in a process that gives off energy.

To convert it back to something else, more than that amount of energy must be put back in, because of inefficiency in the conversion.

Ok so you just posted a link from a known pseudo-science website.   The papers they reference either don't say what they are claiming or are outright lies.  Authors have actually spoken out about their papers being misquoted or used out of context to push your anti-science agenda.

+40 years of degrading basic education and funding of bird-cage-liner like ScienceRag.org, and this is what you get; a nearly complete inability to understand the most basic elements of chemistry and physics!

I cannot call our society and Idiocracy because the idiot class are not running things.  But clearly they were not running things in the movie either.  There was a 'hidden hand'.

I believe it is possible to turn CO2 back into fuel. These methods arent exactly cheap, or easy, however. Furthermore, CO2 as fuel is still no match for liquid fuel in terms of efficiency and power output. However, according to an article writen on ScienceMag.org, here is one way it can be done...

CO2 is a very stable, unreactive molecule. Chemists can force it to react by pumping in electricity, heat, or both. The first step in this process is usually ripping off one of CO2’s oxygen atoms to make CO. That CO can then be combined with H2 to make a combination known as syngas, which can be converted into methanol, a liquid alcohol that can be either used directly or converted into other valuable chemicals and fuels. Massive chemical plants do just that, but they make their syngas not from air, but from plentiful and cheap natural gas.

This article was written back in 2015, so I would like to assume even more advancements have been made since then.

Imagine how much more difficult controlling the weather would have been without 3 decades of 'education' about the menace of global climate change.


http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html


https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

Contrary to the simplistic understandings of those starting to catch on, these people are not 'Communists'.  They'll use 'Communism' when it suites their goals, but in reality they are something much worse.  Probably not as bad as the Talmudics though who are fellow Lucifarians, and there is some evidence that this group is making a bid to snatch the prize.

It's interesting that we disagree on the importance of combatting global warming and climate change, but are 100% in agreement on these ridiculous pseudo-scientific schemes. Maybe there is some hope after all!

I tried to look it up again, not sure if this is the same article I read before or if that was a mention in a book but yes this is the guy and yes, it turns out they'll use sulfuric acid, which is supposed to turn into sulfates or something high up there and reflect sunlight.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/

Turns out they've already started testing last year, albeit with calcium carbonate first.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07533-4

I believe that if we try nutty geo engineering quackery, we'll totally wreck this planet's ecosystems and climates.

If we listen to greenie pseudo-scientific wackos, we'll totally wreck this planet.

If we build a thousand nuclear power planets, we'll probably do okay.

Oceans will rise and fall, and man does not have a Right to put huge population centers dangerously close to the oceans and stay safe. Oceans can rise and fall naturally, or through man's actions.

For example, the Western Peninsula of Antarctica is weakly held to the continent, and it could come loose and over time, melt. Sea levels would rise. Tsunamis happen, period. And then there are asteroid strikes, most of which will occur in the oceans, with effects on land masses. To focus on carbon dioxide and emissions dangerously ignores these various factors.

I've read this entire thread so far.

The most insightful thing in it was:


The geoengineering fixes in question, are unlikely to work.

Take converting CO2 back to fuel.

Think of all the air you need to push through your reactor to do that. And then all the energy needed to convert that CO2 into fuel. And then add the fact that if you convert it into fuel rather than burying it you're releasing the CO2 right back into the atmosphere.

So even if the process is carbon neutral, with current technology setting up the infrastructure certainly isn't. This technology would be viable in a fantasy land with ample zero-carbon energy production, but it's not going to magically save us in the next 10-20 years.

Take throwing salt into the atmosphere:

There is the problem that even if the temperature is reduced, CO2 stays the same. The climate can still be different despite the temperature being the same.
Then there is the global conflict such geoengineering could spark. What if the temperature can only be reduced if Russia's or The United State's crops have to fail for one year?
Where is the clear proof that this actually works as intended? Then there is the simple fact that you're throwing more water in with the salt particles, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.


The take ocean greening

The article itself debunks it and points to another article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7959570.stm

I'd also like to add that iron ore isn't free and that it would probably sink to the bottom, requiring us to keep adding it to the ocean for eternity.



I believe that we'll totally wreck this planet's ecosystems and climate. The glaciers will melt, the sea levels will rise, millions will lose their homes, incomes and food stability. But we'll probably survive it. We'll just be living in a different planet earth.

And one day, the history books will have a chapter on the time we could have saved millions of species of animals and plants, and prevented human suffering equivalent to many world wars, but instead we chose to drive gas guzzlers, build tanks and bombs and destroy ourselves in the process.

Yes, they should be able to, if the model they have been taught is accurate. Because they would have been told during class the answers found by those teams, and they would parrot them back on the quiz without understanding much.

What I've noted as questions do nicely show the problems of climate science as promulgated. You have suggested an appropriate technical team could easily find the "correct temperature." It says volumes that that is not done.

By ignoring heat content, characteristic behavior of gray bodies, and multiphase environments, a false "social good" is promulgated that "co2 BAD", "more co2 VERY BAD."

Factually Incorrect.

https://principia-scientific.org/norwegian-scientist-global-cooling-beginning-due-low-solar-activity/

Scientists are increasingly tuning out the claims that the Earth’s temperatures are predominantly shaped by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or that future climate is destined to be alarmingly warm primarily due to the rise in trace atmospheric gases.  Instead, solar scientists are continuing to advance our understanding of solar activity and its effect on the Earth system, and their results are progressively suggestive of robust correlations between solar variability and climate changes.

For example, in 2016 alone, there were at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers documenting a significant solar influence on climate.  Among them there were 18 papers that directly connected centennial-scale periods of low solar activity (the Little Ice Age) with cooler climates, and periods of high solar activity (the Medieval Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period [20th Century]) with high solar activity levels.  Another 10 papers warned of an impending solar minimum and concomitant cooling period in the coming decades.

And this trend of scientists linking climate changes to solar forcing mechanisms — and bypassing an anthropogenic explanation — continues to rage on in 2017.A Seminal New Paper Unveils The ‘Cause Of Causes’ Of Climate Change

In their groundbreaking New Astronomy paper, Norwegian professors Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim indicate that the modern (1940-2015) Grand Maximum of very high solar activity — the highest solar activity levels in 4,000 years — has just ended.




I don't think your answers are genuine. If you can't explain why what you propose is actually good, and you can't show the effect of your proposals, you have nothing except a massive control freak scheme.

NASA is probably one of the worst places to start considering the the High Priest types that they hire (e.g., James Hansen.)

What is it now, '12 years' before climate catastrophe?

It's time to face up to the fact that you guys have become a doomsday cult.  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a good number of you could be convinced to take cyanide because the Hale-Bopp comet was relatively close to earth's orbit.

Climate change deniers take advantage of snippets of what climate scientists say, disregarding the rest. The whole idea that there isn't consensus on climate change in the scientific community comes from the responsible peer reviewing process where other climate scientists question every part of any findings for the sake of academic honesty. The biggest excuse used right now is that our data set is too small to make any scientifically significant judgement. Thats sort of true, but not so much in a way that supports the denial of climate change. If we saw a 20 degree shift in a matter of a single day, the same argument would stand. Academic honesty prevents real climate scientists from saying, we have calculated that in 9.17549 years the average temperature of the earth will increase by 0.19123 degrees. It allows them to say, we predict that in 9.17549 years considering the data that we've collected over the past 100 years, the average temperature of the earth will increase by 0.19123 degrees.

People then say, yeah but thats like just your prediction man, and then we end up with the problem we are in. Its not as critical of a matter at this time as some try to make it sound, but reversing climate change gets more difficult the further we keep spurring it on. We've got a handful of groups all fighting against each other right now. Real climate scientists, advocates for climate science who are making it worse by trying to appeal by sensationalizing and misinterpreting data to make it look more extreme, and climate change deniers who argue against the climate science advocates.



Nope, they cannot. You'll need teams of thermo/astrophysicists and engineers (to make the data interpretable) for that. We know the temperature of the universe to its creation with an error of 10^-35 seconds. Telling you exactly what temperature the earth should be is cake, you just need a team of people in the correct fields.



Global cooling is a real thing, its just localized and improperly described by nearly anyone that has a half understanding of it. The area that I live in is technically experiencing global cooling due to equilibrium conditions modeled by adiabatic/isotherm curves resulting from emission shielding from atmospheric debris (dust mixing with vapors). Essentially just how weather forecasts are predicted but with corrections that allow them to be stretched out longer term. Taking a guess here, but I'd say that less than 1/10,000th of the world's population is being effected by global cooling. Its kind of one of those fringe cases.

^^^ CO2 is the root cause of plant growth. It is the root cause, when combined with water and nitrogen and sunlight why there is enough food for people around the world. When food is abundant, more people are fostered into being by parents who have more time to "play."

Even though the Earth isn't warming other than ups and downs that have always happened, we need more land. Global warming would open up cold lands for habitation. Warmer weather in general would cause more moisture to be evaporated into the air, some of which would be deposited onto the deserts of the world, opening them up for easy habitation.

More crops could be grown on the lands that were opened up, to feed the larger populations of the world.

The whole false notion of global warming as a bad thing, is being fostered by people who don't what you to have a fun life with your pet wife/husband, so that you can have and raise more kids in more security, so you have more support in your old age.

You climate change jokers are completely missing it.

The problem is that your questions are not genuine, could be easily googled, and are simply meant to muddy the waters of the discussion by confusing people who don't know about these things already.  If you have a point then make it but don't pretend to ask questions. CO2 is the root cause of all things we need to be worried about in the context of climate change.  Yes there are other GHG but CO2 is the main one we are releasing that will stick around causing much of the additional water and methane to end up in the atmosphere.

There is absolutely no scientific basis for global cooling that is made up. Even if we pretended Earth wasn't warming, CO2 emissions would still be an emergency situation. There are many effects but ocean acidification by itself would still be a global emergency.  

I have said all along in this thread that the goal is not to put the temperature back to a certain place.  The goal is to limit carbon emissions.  It is smart to treat causes not symptoms.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/
Good place to start

The question is not a distraction, and your ducking responding is an answer.

Temperature change is a response to many factors, of which one minor one is human greenhouse emissions.

Further, carbon dioxide is not the "root cause of all the other things we are worried about." We need to be worried about global cooling, according to eminent astrophysicists and solar scientists. We certainly need to be worried about random asteroids hitting Earth.

The simple fact is if you cannot state a temperature which is the temperature we should return to, after correcting all alleged problems, you have no credible basis for arguing about climate change. You also have no credible basis for claiming you are a climate scientist.

I take it then you are refusing to answer my simple questions.

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?