An interesting investigation into ways of reducing co2, which will have to be employed considering our reluctance to do anything of substance in the short term.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-10-07/scientists-warn-we-have-10-years-to-start-removing-co2/11563584

PermeateFree said:

An interesting investigation into ways of reducing co2, which will have to be employed considering our reluctance to do anything of substance in the short term.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-10-07/scientists-warn-we-have-10-years-to-start-removing-co2/11563584

read that

i’m tired, inclined not to think about it too much at moment, way too bigger problem for my neuron

i’m fairly sure climate change presents a challenge (read threat) to capitalism as it might be understood today, some of the political shift is hardening the structure

PermeateFree said:

An interesting investigation into ways of reducing co2, which will have to be employed considering our reluctance to do anything of substance in the short term.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-10-07/scientists-warn-we-have-10-years-to-start-removing-co2/11563584

Professor Boyd recently co-chaired a working group for the UN advisory organisation, Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) that reviewed 27 potential marine geoengineering techniques that had been studied or modelled to varying degrees worldwide.

The group particularly focused on:

• Iron fertilisation across 10 per cent of the Earth’s oceans by utilising every merchant ship in the world
• Adding lime to 10 per cent of the oceans to enhance alkalinity, increase CO2 uptake and counter seawater acidity
• Drawing up cool, nutrient-rich water from the depths with large pipes to create an artificial upwelling that provokes algal blooms while also cooling the ocean’s surface
• Injecting liquified CO2 into the seabed in depressions and trenches where it can be stored for 1,000 years
• Increasing the ocean’s reflectivity by drawing up cold water to increase Arctic ice thickness, or by adding foams, micro-bubbles or reflective particles to the surface
• Brightening marine clouds by spraying fine seawater into low lying stratocumulus clouds to increase their reflectivity and reduce surface temperatures
• Farming seaweed on a large scale before entombing it deep in the ocean to sequester its carbon, or process it for biofuels

Interesting combination of ideas. None of them has the potential for disaster. Not at all sure that any would suffice.

Perhaps more aircraft flights – more contrails – higher albedo of the Earth – lower tempetatures. I.e. make more clouds to keep the Earth cooler. (TIC).

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

An interesting investigation into ways of reducing co2, which will have to be employed considering our reluctance to do anything of substance in the short term.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-10-07/scientists-warn-we-have-10-years-to-start-removing-co2/11563584

Professor Boyd recently co-chaired a working group for the UN advisory organisation, Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) that reviewed 27 potential marine geoengineering techniques that had been studied or modelled to varying degrees worldwide.

The group particularly focused on:

• Iron fertilisation across 10 per cent of the Earth’s oceans by utilising every merchant ship in the world
• Adding lime to 10 per cent of the oceans to enhance alkalinity, increase CO2 uptake and counter seawater acidity
• Drawing up cool, nutrient-rich water from the depths with large pipes to create an artificial upwelling that provokes algal blooms while also cooling the ocean’s surface
• Injecting liquified CO2 into the seabed in depressions and trenches where it can be stored for 1,000 years
• Increasing the ocean’s reflectivity by drawing up cold water to increase Arctic ice thickness, or by adding foams, micro-bubbles or reflective particles to the surface
• Brightening marine clouds by spraying fine seawater into low lying stratocumulus clouds to increase their reflectivity and reduce surface temperatures
• Farming seaweed on a large scale before entombing it deep in the ocean to sequester its carbon, or process it for biofuels

Interesting combination of ideas. None of them has the potential for disaster. Not at all sure that any would suffice.

Perhaps more aircraft flights – more contrails – higher albedo of the Earth – lower tempetatures. I.e. make more clouds to keep the Earth cooler. (TIC).

The problem being is we don’t know what if any adverse effects they might have on the environment as the world’s ecosystems are so complex and we have very little idea of interrelationships. Past biological failures are too numerous to mention, of which we have a number in this country. One thing is for sure; any environmental action will generate a reaction.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

An interesting investigation into ways of reducing co2, which will have to be employed considering our reluctance to do anything of substance in the short term.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-10-07/scientists-warn-we-have-10-years-to-start-removing-co2/11563584

Professor Boyd recently co-chaired a working group for the UN advisory organisation, Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) that reviewed 27 potential marine geoengineering techniques that had been studied or modelled to varying degrees worldwide.

The group particularly focused on:

• Iron fertilisation across 10 per cent of the Earth’s oceans by utilising every merchant ship in the world
• Adding lime to 10 per cent of the oceans to enhance alkalinity, increase CO2 uptake and counter seawater acidity
• Drawing up cool, nutrient-rich water from the depths with large pipes to create an artificial upwelling that provokes algal blooms while also cooling the ocean’s surface
• Injecting liquified CO2 into the seabed in depressions and trenches where it can be stored for 1,000 years
• Increasing the ocean’s reflectivity by drawing up cold water to increase Arctic ice thickness, or by adding foams, micro-bubbles or reflective particles to the surface
• Brightening marine clouds by spraying fine seawater into low lying stratocumulus clouds to increase their reflectivity and reduce surface temperatures
• Farming seaweed on a large scale before entombing it deep in the ocean to sequester its carbon, or process it for biofuels

Interesting combination of ideas. None of them has the potential for disaster. Not at all sure that any would suffice.

Perhaps more aircraft flights – more contrails – higher albedo of the Earth – lower tempetatures. I.e. make more clouds to keep the Earth cooler. (TIC).

The problem being is we don’t know what if any adverse effects they might have on the environment as the world’s ecosystems are so complex and we have very little idea of interrelationships. Past biological failures are too numerous to mention, of which we have a number in this country. One thing is for sure; any environmental action will generate a reaction.

> The problem being is we don’t know

Lack of knowledge is never the problem. Find out. Then and only then will you know if there’s a problem.

I call it “arguing from ignorance”.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Professor Boyd recently co-chaired a working group for the UN advisory organisation, Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) that reviewed 27 potential marine geoengineering techniques that had been studied or modelled to varying degrees worldwide.

The group particularly focused on:

• Iron fertilisation across 10 per cent of the Earth’s oceans by utilising every merchant ship in the world
• Adding lime to 10 per cent of the oceans to enhance alkalinity, increase CO2 uptake and counter seawater acidity
• Drawing up cool, nutrient-rich water from the depths with large pipes to create an artificial upwelling that provokes algal blooms while also cooling the ocean’s surface
• Injecting liquified CO2 into the seabed in depressions and trenches where it can be stored for 1,000 years
• Increasing the ocean’s reflectivity by drawing up cold water to increase Arctic ice thickness, or by adding foams, micro-bubbles or reflective particles to the surface
• Brightening marine clouds by spraying fine seawater into low lying stratocumulus clouds to increase their reflectivity and reduce surface temperatures
• Farming seaweed on a large scale before entombing it deep in the ocean to sequester its carbon, or process it for biofuels

Interesting combination of ideas. None of them has the potential for disaster. Not at all sure that any would suffice.

Perhaps more aircraft flights – more contrails – higher albedo of the Earth – lower tempetatures. I.e. make more clouds to keep the Earth cooler. (TIC).

The problem being is we don’t know what if any adverse effects they might have on the environment as the world’s ecosystems are so complex and we have very little idea of interrelationships. Past biological failures are too numerous to mention, of which we have a number in this country. One thing is for sure; any environmental action will generate a reaction.

> The problem being is we don’t know

Lack of knowledge is never the problem. Find out. Then and only then will you know if there’s a problem.

I call it “arguing from ignorance”.

It is always the problem when dealing with wild things, surprised you didn’t know that. Think you have a comprehension problem moll, why you don’t post about things you know something about is a great mystery to me.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Professor Boyd recently co-chaired a working group for the UN advisory organisation, Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) that reviewed 27 potential marine geoengineering techniques that had been studied or modelled to varying degrees worldwide.

The group particularly focused on:

• Iron fertilisation across 10 per cent of the Earth’s oceans by utilising every merchant ship in the world
• Adding lime to 10 per cent of the oceans to enhance alkalinity, increase CO2 uptake and counter seawater acidity
• Drawing up cool, nutrient-rich water from the depths with large pipes to create an artificial upwelling that provokes algal blooms while also cooling the ocean’s surface
• Injecting liquified CO2 into the seabed in depressions and trenches where it can be stored for 1,000 years
• Increasing the ocean’s reflectivity by drawing up cold water to increase Arctic ice thickness, or by adding foams, micro-bubbles or reflective particles to the surface
• Brightening marine clouds by spraying fine seawater into low lying stratocumulus clouds to increase their reflectivity and reduce surface temperatures
• Farming seaweed on a large scale before entombing it deep in the ocean to sequester its carbon, or process it for biofuels

Interesting combination of ideas. None of them has the potential for disaster. Not at all sure that any would suffice.

Perhaps more aircraft flights – more contrails – higher albedo of the Earth – lower tempetatures. I.e. make more clouds to keep the Earth cooler. (TIC).

The problem being is we don’t know what if any adverse effects they might have on the environment as the world’s ecosystems are so complex and we have very little idea of interrelationships. Past biological failures are too numerous to mention, of which we have a number in this country. One thing is for sure; any environmental action will generate a reaction.

> The problem being is we don’t know

Lack of knowledge is never the problem. Find out. Then and only then will you know if there’s a problem.

I call it “arguing from ignorance”.

Lack of knowledge is always the problem.

Being unaware of that problem, or pretending it is not a problem, compounds the problem.