Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Oct 20, 2018 6:24 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 6:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33608
Location: Pigdogistan
Brumbie_Steve wrote:
Farva wrote:
Im incredibly optimistic for tye engineering. We have the technologies to solve 50% plus of our carbon emmissions.
Also, anyone suggesting current nuclear technology is the solution is mad. Its just not viable financially.
Solar and wind, mixed with pumped storage, displaced by batteries as the technology arrives, is the future.


No love for Hydrogen?


That's not a generation technology, it's conversion and storage for redistribution away from central generator sites. The hydrogen economy still requires solar, hydro, wind etc to generate power in the first place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:18 pm
Posts: 1253
Liked this analogy about how to lessen climate change.........

Its a monkey trap. The cunning monkey has found the bottle of nuts and got his fist inside and has a fistful but cannot withdraw from the bottle and as the hunter approaches to whack its head, despite knowing the danger to be mortal refuses to let go the nuts and escape.

Monkey = human nature. Hunter = Mother nature. Monkey trap = lifestyle. Nuts = everything to fight for, eat, desire, need and strive for.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1826
terangi48 wrote:
Liked this analogy about how to lessen climate change.........

Its a monkey trap. The cunning monkey has found the bottle of nuts and got his fist inside and has a fistful but cannot withdraw from the bottle and as the hunter approaches to whack its head, despite knowing the danger to be mortal refuses to let go the nuts and escape.

Monkey = human nature. Hunter = Mother nature. Monkey trap = lifestyle. Nuts = everything to fight for, eat, desire, need and strive for.

Image


That's clearly a banana. You don't seem to know the difference between nuts and bananas, therefore your opinion is dismissed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13333
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
Meanwhile, the UK Government, having announced lofty "Road to Zero" plans to pivot to electrification of transport, been defeated multiple times in Court on the inadequacy of its air pollution plans and in the face of the IPCC Report, decides to cut the EV grants by £1k for full EVs and completely for PHEVs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7402
Good


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22588
Location: STRAYA PLUM
zzzz wrote:
Good

Why?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13333
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
zzzz wrote:
Good


Maybe a Norway style model would be more acceptable?

Meanwhile, VW have learned from their past mistakes and are whining like bitches about emissions regulations and the impact of EVs on their business model.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7402
Farva wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Good

Why?



Price the external costs of carbon. Impose a carbon tax based on that price. Then step the fudge away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22588
Location: STRAYA PLUM
zzzz wrote:
Farva wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Good

Why?



Price the external costs of carbon. Impose a carbon tax based on that price. Then step the fudge away.

Reckon thats the best solution. But we need a solution.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:51 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14705
I'm not fully convinced that human can influence climate change unless we detonate 100 million nuclear bombs at once. I do however believe in keep our environment clean and reducing pollution to keep our quality of living.
For example, Australia 2000 yrs ago would've been a rain forest but now a desert and it had nothing to do with us. Whether the climate changes or not we don't have much influence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10976
CrazyIslander wrote:
I'm not fully convinced that human can influence climate change unless we detonate 100 million nuclear bombs at once. I do however believe in keep our environment clean and reducing pollution to keep our quality of living.
For example, Australia 2000 yrs ago would've been a rain forest but now a desert and it had nothing to do with us. Whether the climate changes or not we don't have much influence.

What would convince you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 33608
Location: Pigdogistan
Just because you can't see it happening almost instantly doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

Look at the research and the numbers. It's a fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6966
CrazyIslander wrote:
I'm not fully convinced that human can influence climate change unless we detonate 100 million nuclear bombs at once. I do however believe in keep our environment clean and reducing pollution to keep our quality of living.
For example, Australia 2000 yrs ago would've been a rain forest but now a desert and it had nothing to do with us. Whether the climate changes or not we don't have much influence.


I have long been a believer in climate change, but I'd be interested to know what you make of this. Richard Muller was a long term climate change skeptic, was funded by the Kochs...see what he had to say in 2015;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:25 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14705
penguin wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
I'm not fully convinced that human can influence climate change unless we detonate 100 million nuclear bombs at once. I do however believe in keep our environment clean and reducing pollution to keep our quality of living.
For example, Australia 2000 yrs ago would've been a rain forest but now a desert and it had nothing to do with us. Whether the climate changes or not we don't have much influence.


I have long been a believer in climate change, but I'd be interested to know what you make of this. Richard Muller was a long term climate change skeptic, was funded by the Kochs...see what he had to say in 2015;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w

I'm not going to argue science with professors etc. But this bloke was a climate change skeptic then goes out to do a study that changed his mind. My question is, did he become a skeptic out of thin air? Did he not investigate before taking a position? Surely as a scientist he would've had to research before taking such a strong position.
In his interview he didn't address the difference from his previous position. It seemed like it's the first study he did on the subject. Nice curve fits in with CO levels rising though CO levels had been high in previous periods in earth's history not included in the study.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14492
Nolanator wrote:
Just because you can't see it happening almost instantly doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

Look at the research and the numbers. It's a fact.


Look at who you are addressing, its a waste of time


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:48 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14705
Since the ice age the climate has bern getting warmer fir thousands of years. 10 yrs ago in Australia we were in a middle of a drought and it looked pretty grim (as they wanted us to believe). States started building desalination plants to prepare for the worse etc. Now it's a distant memory, rivers are flowing and plants blooming.

I believe in environmental conservation but I'm not driven for fear of climate change - if it happens it's the natural environment rather than humans.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6966
CrazyIslander wrote:
penguin wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
I'm not fully convinced that human can influence climate change unless we detonate 100 million nuclear bombs at once. I do however believe in keep our environment clean and reducing pollution to keep our quality of living.
For example, Australia 2000 yrs ago would've been a rain forest but now a desert and it had nothing to do with us. Whether the climate changes or not we don't have much influence.


I have long been a believer in climate change, but I'd be interested to know what you make of this. Richard Muller was a long term climate change skeptic, was funded by the Kochs...see what he had to say in 2015;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w

I'm not going to argue science with professors etc. But this bloke was a climate change skeptic then goes out to do a study that changed his mind. My question is, did he become a skeptic out of thin air? Did he not investigate before taking a position? Surely as a scientist he would've had to research before taking such a strong position.
In his interview he didn't address the difference from his previous position. It seemed like it's the first study he did on the subject. Nice curve fits in with CO levels rising though CO levels had been high in previous periods in earth's history not included in the study.


You could argue that skepticism should be the default position of a good scientist - for him he thought that not all possible explanations/factors involved had been explored, so when he had the chance to do a comprehensive study, he set about rectifying that...and was able to satisfy his doubts, bringing him to agreement with his peers. You'd have to look into his work further to get details.

You say you're not going to argue with professors, but they are almost all saying that we can and do change the climate, so what would it take to convince you? It seems you are sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring them rather than arguing against it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:55 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14705
If I'm asked on the spot, I will have to take the opinions of the experts and that would be that. But I won't take part in the hysteria. After all if I had taken Muller's advise to heart 10 yrs ago I might gone out and kill some climate change activitists, only to find out later he has changed his mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39454
Location: in transit
CrazyIslander wrote:
Since the ice age the climate has bern getting warmer fir thousands of years. 10 yrs ago in Australia we were in a middle of a drought and it looked pretty grim (as they wanted us to believe). States started building desalination plants to prepare for the worse etc. Now it's a distant memory, rivers are flowing and plants blooming.

I believe in environmental conservation but I'm not driven for fear of climate change - if it happens it's the natural environment rather than humans.
. Australia’s still in drought you f**king stupid twat. Half of your PI homelands are under direct threat.

This folks, is what happens when stupid thinks it can troll.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:09 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14705
guy smiley wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Since the ice age the climate has bern getting warmer fir thousands of years. 10 yrs ago in Australia we were in a middle of a drought and it looked pretty grim (as they wanted us to believe). States started building desalination plants to prepare for the worse etc. Now it's a distant memory, rivers are flowing and plants blooming.

I believe in environmental conservation but I'm not driven for fear of climate change - if it happens it's the natural environment rather than humans.
. Australia’s still in drought you f**king stupid twat. Half of your PI homelands are under direct threat.

This folks, is what happens when stupid thinks it can troll.

Bullshit Australia is still in doubt?
And sea levels hadnt risen in Tonga either. Yet the mid 00s predictions were they should be underwater now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10976
CrazyIslander wrote:
If I'm asked on the spot, I will have to take the opinions of the experts and that would be that. But I won't take part in the hysteria. After all if I had taken Muller's advise to heart 10 yrs ago I might gone out and kill some climate change activitists, only to find out later he has changed his mind.

Have a look at the earths dashboard. See if there are any red lights:

https://www.climatelevels.org/?pid=2deg ... grid-light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6966
CrazyIslander wrote:
If I'm asked on the spot, I will have to take the opinions of the experts and that would be that. But I won't take part in the hysteria. After all if I had taken Muller's advise to heart 10 yrs ago I might gone out and kill some climate change activitists, only to find out later he has changed his mind.


If they are correct in their findings then what you are hearing is not hysterical - it is a proportional response to the scale of the challenge ahead of us. If you accept the science then it is hard to overstate how dramatic the problem is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:30 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14705
I take your point but not buying into the hysteria. The reasob being, if you go back 15 years ago and go through the various scientific arguments then the doom should've already been upon us. Perhaps, toning down the predictions might be a way to convince the undecided.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10976
CrazyIslander wrote:
I take your point but not buying into the hysteria. The reason being, if you go back 15 years ago and go through the various scientific arguments then the doom should've already been upon us. Perhaps, toning down the predictions might be a way to convince the undecided.


The variance is in a severity is essentially irrelevant. And we are clearly already experincing man made climate change problems within our lifetimes, which was what was predicted from the start.

Quote:

Sawyer, 1973
One of the first projections of future warming came from John Sawyer at the UK’s Met Office in 1973. In a paper published in Nature in 1973, he hypothesised that the world would warm 0.6C between 1969 and 2000, and that atmospheric CO2 would increase by 25%. Sawyer argued for a climate sensitivity – how much long-term warming will occur per doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels – of 2.4C, which is not too far off the best estimate of 3C used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today.

Unlike the other projections examined in this article, Sawyer did not provide an estimated warming for each year, just an expected 2000 value. His warming estimate of 0.6C was nearly spot on – the observed warming over that period was between 0.51C and 0.56C. He overestimated the year 2000’s atmospheric CO2 concentrations, however, assuming that they would be 375-400ppm – compared to the actual value of 370ppm.


The point is they all predicted an upward trajectory, sharply in both temperature and CO2. That should have been enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6966
CrazyIslander wrote:
I take your point but not buying into the hysteria. The reasob being, if you go back 15 years ago and go through the various scientific arguments then the doom should've already been upon us. Perhaps, toning down the predictions might be a way to convince the undecided.


Quote:
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.


Science is not there to win you over - it is there to present the data, not as you want to see it, but as it is. If you think it is hysterical then that is about you, and there is little more to say.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7374
Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 368
Location: Over at the Frankenstein place
CrazyIslander wrote:
I'm not fully convinced that human can influence climate change unless we detonate 100 million nuclear bombs at once. I do however believe in keep our environment clean and reducing pollution to keep our quality of living.
For example, Australia 2000 yrs ago would've been a rain forest but now a desert and it had nothing to do with us. Whether the climate changes or not we don't have much influence.

Seems you were wrong on that one, as in so much that you post. It is very possible that humans influenced the climate in Australia.

https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discu ... 3-2013.pdf
Quote:
5 Conclusions
The overall conclusion that emerges from this model study is that changes in vegetation
through Aboriginal burning practices could have impacted on the regional hydrological
cycle of northern Australia, since the occupation of the continent some
15 50 000 yr ago. The climate changes evident in the model results point to particularly
pronounced changes during the early/pre-monsoon months. During the peak
monsoon, the large scale hemispheric-interhemispheric land/ocean thermodynamicdynamic
controls overwhelmed the more regional scale biophysical changes. From the
results it is also clear that the northern Australian hydroclimate responses to vegetation
20 are not directly mirrored by other monsoon regions, prompting a clear need for further
explorations of the reasons for the monsoon region-specific response to vegetation
changes. In this it may be worthwhile to remember that modeling studies are modeldependent
and there is a clear need for more observed vegetation feedback benchmark
studies, in which palaeoecological work can play a major role. Given projected
25 changes in climate of the low latitude monsoon regions our findings carry implications
for future climates. With a changing climate over the monsoon regions provoking a vegetation
response, feedbacks will be set-up which may project the regional climates into

other climate trajectories. In closing, we draw attention to the wider implications of our
findings, emphasising the long term history of vegetation clearing, as evidenced by the
archaeological record. And draw attention to the likelihood that vegetation modifications
over historical-prehistoric time scales, may well have brought about stronger regional to
5 continental scale climate-hydrology changes than are commonly recognised, changes
which are clearly embraced by the concept of the Anthropocene


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14572
Location: XPAT CUNT
Anyone know any companies seriously investing in carbon capture? I'd love to put some money in that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:32 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53080
Gwenno wrote:
Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.



Have temperatures risen by 1.5 degrees then ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7374
bimboman wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.



Have temperatures risen by 1.5 degrees then ?

:blush: Sorry! Mixed it up with the target. A quick google search ranged from 0.8 to 1 since 1880.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:32 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53080
Gwenno wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.



Have temperatures risen by 1.5 degrees then ?

:blush: Sorry! Mixed it up with the target. A quick google search ranged from 0.8 to 1 since 1880.



Phew! Don't worry early IPCC models said they would by 2000, they're stubbornly not rising that fast. I'm sure they will.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13333
Location: The centre of The Horrendous Space Kablooie!
Oh good, bimbo's here to set us straight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:37 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 53080
The Man Without Fear wrote:
Oh good, bimbo's here to set us straight.



On what ? I've said nothing controversial have I ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7374
Gwenno wrote:
Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.

I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6340
Nolanator wrote:
Brumbie_Steve wrote:
Farva wrote:
Im incredibly optimistic for tye engineering. We have the technologies to solve 50% plus of our carbon emmissions.
Also, anyone suggesting current nuclear technology is the solution is mad. Its just not viable financially.
Solar and wind, mixed with pumped storage, displaced by batteries as the technology arrives, is the future.


No love for Hydrogen?


That's not a generation technology, it's conversion and storage for redistribution away from central generator sites. The hydrogen economy still requires solar, hydro, wind etc to generate power in the first place.


I know that I was suggesting it as well as pumped storage and batteries. It is certainly potentially more flexible than pumped.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1826
Farva wrote:
zzzz wrote:


Price the external costs of carbon. Impose a carbon tax based on that price. Then step the fudge away.

Reckon thats the best solution. But we need a solution.


I think his point is don't rely on the government to find a solution - decent chance they will back the wrong horse. Let the private sector find the solution(s). Just impose a carbon price/tax as the carrot/stick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28164
Gwenno wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
Can anyone put a figure on the extra greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2, methane) which are in the atmosphere simply because of the extra 1.5 degree rise? You know, the extra stuff from warmer seas, trapped methane etc.

I asked this question because if the process of warming the sea releases CO2, and a quick google confirms this, then if the world were warming anyway, as in one if the denial stages, then of course we would see a CO2 rise accompanying the temperature rise, but as a result of the rise rather than a cause. I suspect however that the value attributable to sea release is small and can be shown not to have contributed enough to account for the measured CO2 rise. Anyone on the board can confirm that?


I can't confirm that, but as I understand it, the issue is not so much the rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature as the rate of rise in measured CO2/increase in temperature, i.e. although the earth has naturally warmed and cooled to similar levels in the past, it has never done it this quickly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 3:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7109
I think some type of outside the box thinking like this will work out a solution

here are two of many being looked at
Quote:

SYDNEY researchers are pushing ahead with controversial plans to fertilise the ocean off Australia's coast and use plankton to slow climate change.

The director of the University of Sydney's Ocean Technology Group, Professor Ian Jones, said sprinkling nitrate fertiliser across an area of ocean just 40 kilometres by 40 kilometres would stimulate the growth of carbon-absorbing plankton on a scale big enough to meet the Federal Government's total greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020.


Quote:
Iron filings in the sea

Dumping piles of iron filings in the sea may not sound the greenest of policies but "seeding" infertile areas of the ocean is known to create plankton "blooms" which take up thousands of tons of carbon dioxide.

The plankton then dies, taking carbon to the bottom of the sea where it can remain for centuries.

In 2012 a team from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany added several tonnes of iron sulphate to the ocean near Antarctica.

The addition of the missing nutrient prompted a massive bloom of phytoplankton to begin growing within a week.

As the phytoplankton began to die after three weeks, they sank towards the ocean floor, taking the carbon they had incorporated with them.

In the journal Nature, the scientists concluded that the carbon is likely to be kept out of the atmosphere for many centuries or longer.

The team claims that ocean iron fertilisation could bury at most one gigatonne of carbon dioxide per year, around an eighth of global emissions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1826
_fatprop wrote:
I think some type of outside the box thinking like this will work out a solution

here are two of many being looked at
Quote:

SYDNEY researchers are pushing ahead with controversial plans to fertilise the ocean off Australia's coast and use plankton to slow climate change.

The director of the University of Sydney's Ocean Technology Group, Professor Ian Jones, said sprinkling nitrate fertiliser across an area of ocean just 40 kilometres by 40 kilometres would stimulate the growth of carbon-absorbing plankton on a scale big enough to meet the Federal Government's total greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020.


Quote:
Iron filings in the sea

Dumping piles of iron filings in the sea may not sound the greenest of policies but "seeding" infertile areas of the ocean is known to create plankton "blooms" which take up thousands of tons of carbon dioxide.

The plankton then dies, taking carbon to the bottom of the sea where it can remain for centuries.

In 2012 a team from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany added several tonnes of iron sulphate to the ocean near Antarctica.

The addition of the missing nutrient prompted a massive bloom of phytoplankton to begin growing within a week.

As the phytoplankton began to die after three weeks, they sank towards the ocean floor, taking the carbon they had incorporated with them.

In the journal Nature, the scientists concluded that the carbon is likely to be kept out of the atmosphere for many centuries or longer.

The team claims that ocean iron fertilisation could bury at most one gigatonne of carbon dioxide per year, around an eighth of global emissions.


Interesting. I wonder if they have worked through all the flow on effects? Sounds a lot like introducing cats to catch the rats. Do you then have a wild cat problem?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:11 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 14705
Wouldn't it be easier to nuke China and India, carbon emissions down 60%.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 4071, BBC 2, beafheart, bimboman, Blake, Brumby_in_Vic, Cartman, Conn, CrazyIslander, Diego, Edinburgh01, FairWeather_Aussie, Google Adsense [Bot], grimoald, haunch, hermie, iarmhiman, juddy, Kanbei, LandOTurk, lorcanoworms, Luckycharmer, maherro, message #2527204, Mr Fedora, Oxbow, redderneck, rfurlong, SamShark, Sandstorm, Sards, Short Man Syndrome, TheBouncer, Ulsters Red Hand and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group