|
Gave a little talk today at my school on geoengineering. Please god let politicians never get it into their heads that we can solve climate problems by dumping sulfates into the atmosphere.
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:School as in where you attend or where you attended? If geoengineering is part of your career, I'd be interested in reading about what you do. It might be at some point, right now I'm just a dumb almost graduate student. What scares me about geoengineering is that if we start doing it, we'll basically have to keep doing it indefinetly, or until atmospheric concentrations start falling naturally, which is basically the same thing. If we just increase emissions and try to mitigate with heavy geoengineering and then have to stop for whatever reason, it could lead to extremely rapid warming, like 1 degree/10 years rapid. That's like giving the ecosystem both barrels. Carbon capture might help, but considering that last year's emissions alone fill a volume at 1 atm that almost equals the Baltic Ocean, I'm not too hopeful on that front. I'm not sure if I even want to study this poo poo. The more you look the more depressing it gets.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Here's a pretty comprehensive, one-stop basic look into geoengineering for anyone interested. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
The reaction happened for co2 dissolved in water and a specially made nanoscale structure raises questions about scalability. Also I didn't see any mention of the co2 concentration used on a quick read through their paper.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
Surprise Giraffe posted:So the graph Beck posted is of dubious veracity? Why are people still panicking about it ITT Because area and extent are two different measurements, lookie here: Uncle Jam posted:Seriously? They are measuring two different things. It is even in most of the simple FAQs!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:When I arrived they had just got a new round of private funding. All 3 guys also had just gotten shiny new ICE sports cars that they were eager to show off. So we did that for a half day. They were using a very power intensive process to separate the carbon out of the captured material so I asked the obvious question, if they captured more carbon than they ultimately produced. Oh yes, definitely no question. However, the second half of the interview was hooking up a power meter to measure the actual usage of electricity which had never been done before. Totally insane. Also they had extraordinary skepticism about the accuracy of the measurement equipment and asked a ton of questions about how it worked, which made me believe they might actually have hooked it up before and didn't like the results. lol I'll never stop being amazed by how quickly basic poo poo falls by the wayside when there's something new and shiny and lucrative to do.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Honestly not trying to be negative here, but this paragraph is a really good summary of why CCS is so difficult on scales that matter: Also as far as I can tell that system isn't sequestering a single gram of carbon. It's just concentrating it so it can be used to grow bigger salads.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:Yeah, that's the plan: getting the CO2 out of the atmosphere so it can be used for something else. Like I said, it's baby steps; they're operating on the assumption that market forces will turn the captured CO2 into a commodity ("blue crude"), or at least that federal subsidies will kick in. It's capitalist as gently caress, but it's a pilot program and it could lead to something more useful down the road. Right, but in that case the best they can do is reducing emissions by substituting carbon from the atmosphere for "frozen" carbon. I can't help but feel like there are lots of better ways to reduce current emissions by one percent than building 250000 of these plants, so if they have to be subsidized with political action and public money, they're kind of a waste.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Telephones posted:How can I personally accelerate climate change? Get a plane and learn to fly it, fly over the Amazon and boreal forests and drop homemade napalm into them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
I think this is a serviceable summary about that issue. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2018 09:20
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:No, it definitely makes people depressed. I could/should be working on a similiar degree right now and I'm stalled because of serious doubts that I actually have it in me to spend my life basically cataloging depressing poo poo. Years ago when I was doing my bachelors a professor told me that the IPCC 4.5 RCP was an optimistic scenario, and I thought that surely it was perfectly achievable with 2.6 being maybe too much to ask.  Evil_Greven posted:Yeah, this ain't hyperbole folks: lol nothing matters
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
hmm let me input this idea of slowly rising emissions until 2040 into this highly advanced climate simulation I have laying around hmm the output is just "lmao" I wonder what that means?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 18:56
|
|