My notions about handling global warming

Void · 2021-06-22 17:08:10

My notions about handling global warming
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have my MS Word running, so this is likely to be a spell check mess for a bit.

A title for a topic?

Well....."My notions about handling global warming"

I have not entered this as science, but chat, because I know that I am not all that
qualified.

To begin with, I am influenced by Robert Zubrin, his writinigs. He mentioned an event where Native Americans were able
stimulate Salmon growth by adding iron to the oceans waters. It worked. What followed was interference by Ecotopians.
They managed to stop it. It was not "Natural". However, their case is false, in my opinion. It has been said by another
person, that "We do not live in a natural world".

We live in a manged world. But it is often badly managed, in my opinion. I could argue that if humans managed to overheat
the Earth severely, that was only natural, as it would demonstrate the humans are naturally stupid. However, if we could
bypass the naturalists, then perhaps we could save the day, without having to exterminate most of the human population.

I could go into rants about what I consider to be stupid thinking, and so put down those who I think are a primary source
of not being ablle to solve/treat the problem, but I have better things to do.

How is the strip mining of the oceans of fish "Natural"? Don't get me wrong, I have no intention of seeking the ban of it.
However, I wish to analyze it's possible impact on the environment. Does it alter the distribution of nutients in the waters?
I think that very likely the answer is yes. If so, then rather than considering that situation as "Natural" it may be
considered "Unnatural". And sensible agriculture should prompt those who harvest to then fertalize the waters, to return
them to a state more resembling the natural.

I will attempt now to provide a sufficient reference:

This is not it, but it is interesting:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21339-5

www.nature.com has many articles, but I have not obtained the one I want most yet. It's title was "What controls ocean productivity
on long time scales".

I guess I don't need it. For the most part it indicated that insufficient Iron in many cases limits the produtivity.
So, then photons go unused I presume. If that is true, then it is the possible case, that by fishing out oceans we remove Iron
which otherwise might recycle to some degree. The remains of the fish may end elsewhere.

The point I am tryging to get to is that the oceans might be manipulated to do a better job of absorbing CO2, and
involving it in sedimentation on the ocean bottoms. So, it may not just be that we add CO2 to the atmosphere, but
it may be possible that we have crippled the oceans ability to consume it. This of course also would lead to less food
for people.

A higher content of CO2 in the atmosphere has apparently according to some sources shrunk the Sahara Desert by 10%.
I presume this is because plants find it easier to fix CO2 with less water loss. It may also be that warming oceans
might deliver more precipitation to some locations. By shrinking the Sahara Desert, there might be less Iron bearing
dust delivered into the oceans, and this factor might reduce ocean productivity. This would not be a "Natural" process.

The process of warming the Earth with added CO2 in the atmosphere, should cause more evaporation of ocean waters,
and I would presume more precipitation at certain locations. More precipitation should cause more erosion which should
remove more CO2 from the environment.

---------

I just wanted to do some diagnosis, as I feel that Ecotopians, really seem to lack the ability to see the bigger picture.

---------

OK, now I have something else to speculate on as per greenhouse gasses.

Some greenhouse gasses are fuels, and some are not.

Fuels=Hydrogen, CO, Methane???

Non-Fuels=CO2, and water vapor????

Whe have been hearing obcessions about Methane.

I have encountered articles that indicate that there are mocrobes that suck Hydrogen and CO out of the atmosphere. Some
are in Antarctica, but it is expected that they are in many places.

I do know that there are microbes that consume Methane, using Oxygen in the environment(s)

So, in order for life to make biomass using CO2 and Water, they seem to use photons as the energy source.

For life that makes biomass from Fuels and Oxygen, photons should not be necessary. It seems very likely to me that
given a choice at least some organisms would prefer to get their Carbon from Methane and not CO2. This is not proven,
but there is a lot of support that I suspect can be found.

-------

I would love to see experiments preformed where we see what happens if you inject Methane into a closed greenhouse
with a diverse biology of both Mircrobes and vascular plants at least. It could be controlled so that the amount of
Methane was not explosive. There would of course be Oxygen present, to simulate Earth like environments.

So, I am not a climate denier, but feel that the science around this needs to be improved. It may be possible that it
is not possible under current conditions to accumulate enough Methane in the atmosphere, to be a larger danger.

Maybe

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-06-22 17:11:06)

Calliban · 2021-06-23 07:14:27

Gail Tverberg and Tim Morgan, are two significant writers in the emerging discipline of surplus energy economics. Both maintain that the human economy is essentially a thermodynamic machine, which runs on surplus energy. This interpretation may sound obvious, but it has implications for global warming that are less than obvious at first sight. Whilst the Earth's fossil fuel resources are enormous and sufficient to fulfill the worst emissions trend modelled by the IPCC, the majority of these fuels are unsuitable for use as energy resources and would provide insufficient surplus energy to allow complex societies to function. In terms that we can understand, there is a maximum affordable price for resources like oil, coal and gas, beyond which the economy will begin to contract. Most of the Earth's fossil fuels will never be affordable as energy sources. This means that realistic fossil fuel reserves are much smaller than is typically assumed in climate change models. For the past 15 years, oil prices have exceeded the level at which organic economic growth is possible in OECD countries. Energy cost of energy, has now reached a level where even developing countries, with lower labour costs and less complex economies, are struggling to maintain rising prosperity. Fake growth is being pursued by quantitative easing (inflating the money supply) and close to zero interest rates on borrowed money. However, these have tended to result in inflated asset prices. The manufacturing base of Western economies has not grown at all since 2008.

In summary, regardless of whether fossil fuels are ruining the environment, they will bankrupt entire nation states, if we do not transition away from them relatively soon. Another significant insight from surplus energy economics, is that some of the most commonly cited solutions to global warming (renewable energy technologies) are poorly effective, because their embodied energy is extremely large and they add complexity and additional infrastructure requirements to energy systems, that tends to inflate energy cost of energy and monetary cost simultaneously.

A sustainable energy solution must therefore greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, whilst maintaining or improving whole system energy return on investment (ERoEI). This is a tough requirement to meet and it excludes most renewable energy sources. It could include carbon capture and storage, in situations where a resource like coal can get exploited at a high enough net energy return to cover the cost of liquidating the CO2. Nuclear energy sources (fission, fusion and hybrid) have the potential to meet both requirements. But these technologies have languished for the past thirty years due to political opposition and are proving difficult to start again from scratch. So we are left in a difficult situation. The path that many political idealists on the left would have us pursue, would lead to civilisation collapse due to insufficient surplus energy. Ironically, the FF based energy path of the right, could produce the same result. No one is seriously pursuing the third option, which is a mass build out of nuclear technologies of various kinds. Hence the liklihood is that our civilisation will collapse due to insufficient surplus energy, long before climate change brings it to an end. Given the rate at which conventional oil reserves are declining, this could easily happen within the next thirty years. It is likely to be a staged process, rather than a rapid one. But my the end of it, no one will have the ability to colonise Mars or even launch satellites anymore.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-06-23 07:23:44)

louis · 2021-06-23 08:14:14

My observations on global warming/climate change.

(a) It's suspicious the climate alarmists switched from global warming to climate change. Climate change allows them to claim every - literally every - weather event out of the normal range as a result of climate change whether it be droughts, severe rainfall, cold periods (warmed Arctic air pushing cold air south), periods of extreme heat, hurricanes, tornadoes, hailstorms, just about everything.

(b) When you look at actual official weather figures, it's clear that the rise in temperature has been below virtually all "scientific" prediction levels.

(c) Even so, official figures cannot be trusted because of factors such as urban heat effects. Just think about how airports have grown in size over 50 years and how much hotter they are than surrounding areas. And yet airports are always used as weather stations. We think satellite observations are "objective" but they actually require loads of calibration and statistical interpretation. It's way too easy for people to decide to take the approach that most underlines the risk of climate change, because that way hardly anyone will criticise the observations as inaccurate.

(d) There has been no general rise in sea levels of any consequence. If there had been we would be losing islands in the Maldives and Seychelles, but we are not.

While I don't approve of ludicrous scaremongering I think on Earth we need to apply the precautionary principle and try to get control of CO2 emissions.

I agree we don't really live in a natural world anymore. In the UK probably 99% of the landscape (including all rivers and coasts) is managed through urban settlement, farming, forestry, Government departments, local authorities, National Parks agencies, and Environment Agency. Some mountains and a few dense thickets here and there are left to their own devices perhaps.

Void wrote:

My notions about handling global warming
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have my MS Word running, so this is likely to be a spell check mess for a bit.
A title for a topic?
Well....."My notions about handling global warming"
I have not entered this as science, but chat, because I know that I am not all that
qualified.
To begin with, I am influenced by Robert Zubrin, his writinigs. He mentioned an event where Native Americans were able
stimulate Salmon growth by adding iron to the oceans waters. It worked. What followed was interference by Ecotopians.
They managed to stop it. It was not "Natural". However, their case is false, in my opinion. It has been said by another
person, that "We do not live in a natural world".
We live in a manged world. But it is often badly managed, in my opinion. I could argue that if humans managed to overheat
the Earth severely, that was only natural, as it would demonstrate the humans are naturally stupid. However, if we could
bypass the naturalists, then perhaps we could save the day, without having to exterminate most of the human population.
I could go into rants about what I consider to be stupid thinking, and so put down those who I think are a primary source
of not being ablle to solve/treat the problem, but I have better things to do.
How is the strip mining of the oceans of fish "Natural"? Don't get me wrong, I have no intention of seeking the ban of it.
However, I wish to analyze it's possible impact on the environment. Does it alter the distribution of nutients in the waters?
I think that very likely the answer is yes. If so, then rather than considering that situation as "Natural" it may be
considered "Unnatural". And sensible agriculture should prompt those who harvest to then fertalize the waters, to return
them to a state more resembling the natural.
I will attempt now to provide a sufficient reference:
This is not it, but it is interesting:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21339-5
www.nature.com has many articles, but I have not obtained the one I want most yet. It's title was "What controls ocean productivity
on long time scales".
I guess I don't need it. For the most part it indicated that insufficient Iron in many cases limits the produtivity.
So, then photons go unused I presume. If that is true, then it is the possible case, that by fishing out oceans we remove Iron
which otherwise might recycle to some degree. The remains of the fish may end elsewhere.
The point I am tryging to get to is that the oceans might be manipulated to do a better job of absorbing CO2, and
involving it in sedimentation on the ocean bottoms. So, it may not just be that we add CO2 to the atmosphere, but
it may be possible that we have crippled the oceans ability to consume it. This of course also would lead to less food
for people.
A higher content of CO2 in the atmosphere has apparently according to some sources shrunk the Sahara Desert by 10%.
I presume this is because plants find it easier to fix CO2 with less water loss. It may also be that warming oceans
might deliver more precipitation to some locations. By shrinking the Sahara Desert, there might be less Iron bearing
dust delivered into the oceans, and this factor might reduce ocean productivity. This would not be a "Natural" process.
The process of warming the Earth with added CO2 in the atmosphere, should cause more evaporation of ocean waters,
and I would presume more precipitation at certain locations. More precipitation should cause more erosion which should
remove more CO2 from the environment.
---------
I just wanted to do some diagnosis, as I feel that Ecotopians, really seem to lack the ability to see the bigger picture.
---------
OK, now I have something else to speculate on as per greenhouse gasses.
Some greenhouse gasses are fuels, and some are not.
Fuels=Hydrogen, CO, Methane???
Non-Fuels=CO2, and water vapor????
Whe have been hearing obcessions about Methane.
I have encountered articles that indicate that there are mocrobes that suck Hydrogen and CO out of the atmosphere. Some
are in Antarctica, but it is expected that they are in many places.
I do know that there are microbes that consume Methane, using Oxygen in the environment(s)
So, in order for life to make biomass using CO2 and Water, they seem to use photons as the energy source.
For life that makes biomass from Fuels and Oxygen, photons should not be necessary. It seems very likely to me that
given a choice at least some organisms would prefer to get their Carbon from Methane and not CO2. This is not proven,
but there is a lot of support that I suspect can be found.
-------
I would love to see experiments preformed where we see what happens if you inject Methane into a closed greenhouse
with a diverse biology of both Mircrobes and vascular plants at least. It could be controlled so that the amount of
Methane was not explosive. There would of course be Oxygen present, to simulate Earth like environments.
So, I am not a climate denier, but feel that the science around this needs to be improved. It may be possible that it
is not possible under current conditions to accumulate enough Methane in the atmosphere, to be a larger danger.
Maybe
Done.

Void · 2021-06-23 10:35:48

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am comfortable with what has been said by the other members.

I feel that we could have further conversations, that do not become nonsense per emotions, lack of vision, or bad intentions.
I feel that those present, are fine for the effort.

The effort would be to be rational, and try to solve problems, while not trying to take humanity as a captive to drain energy
from.

As for Left and Right, in my opinion, if you go futher and further primitive in behaviors and methods, eventually the Right
and Left are siblings. Among their activities in my opinion, are to kill each other, and to take captive those of us who
try to exhibit autonomy in thinking, a full deck of cards, (We hope). They are more like a primitive hive mind version of
humans. If we are lazy they can take us captive and waste the time and effort that should be devoted to the continuance of
a greater human conciousness. So, we have a duty.

Done.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2021-06-22 17:08:10

My notions about handling global warming

#2 2021-06-23 07:14:27

Re: My notions about handling global warming

#3 2021-06-23 08:14:14

Re: My notions about handling global warming

#4 2021-06-23 10:35:48

Re: My notions about handling global warming

Board footer