Jump to content

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, stewfox said:

How about reducing the influence of the North Atlantic current ? We can see what it does in the winter. Surely if we had higher volume cover in the winter likely more would survive in summer ?

North Atlantic current.jpg

The idea of a "Floating Wall" of hollow steel blocks up to 100 metres deep across the North Atlantic from Arctic Norway to the Jan Mayen Islands and thence to the East Greenland Coast at 70N (see above) would stop the North Atlantic Drift from penetrating the Arctic thus allowing it to cool forming thicker winter pack-ice that would persist through the summer. The stronger sea surface temperature gradient along 70N would encourage more storms in that latitude to help furnish extra snowfall on the Greenland Icecap (thus preserving it). Such a measure would also help the British Steel Industry if our Government were able to find the funds to pay for it; at a time of high National Debt that might mean putting VAT up to 25% or selling the Channel Islands to the French- NOT POPULAR! It may be necessary to persuade the British Public that Global Warming is indeed a real threat and that some further austerity is needed to implement measures to counterract it in order that we all benefit in the long-run!  

Maybe that could be funded by "encouraging" the Bank of England to do a little Quantitative Easing first so that the Government can borrow at ultra-low rates without rattling the credit ratings Agencies, if that does not cause inflation above 2% maybe we could avoid more contentious measures for raising such funds as might be needed. We are talking ££ 10 billions for some of these projects and I cannot see the Private Sector providing the monies to do it.

 

Naturally, the proposals have to be cost-effective and some, such as putting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere to block out the Sun, diverting major rivers to freshen Arctic waters (so these waters freeze easier and so fresher water weakens the thermo-haline circulation bringing warmer water to the Arctic) and freezing trillions of tonnes of CO2 into the highest, coldest parts of the Antarctic Icecap (using a heat exchanger to cool the ice further and putting the CO2 under pressure) are all do-able programmes with £10 billion upwards. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What a very strange thread. The OP acknowledges the problem and then, for some reason, decides not only should we treat the symptoms rather than the cause, but that we should adopt crackpot 'solu

In the light of some recent posts I wondered if a brief extract from , “Principles Of Planetary Climate” by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert., might be of interest. The Big Question of how much the Earth

Some of the recent posts remind me of the old climate area where statements could be made willy nilly without the requirement of supporting evidence. If, as appears to be the case, some refute that Gh

Posted Images

On ‎06‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 20:39, iapennell said:

In fact the lower summer sunshine with reduced Earth tilt comes obliquely through a greater thickness of the atmosphere before reaching the surface so the effective reduction is likely to be upwards of 5% averaged over the year with little change to long-wave radiative heat loss. That will cause a substantial cooling effect which would probably more than offset the effect of increased CO2 levels.

The cooling effect will also be enhanced another way.  Whilst the suns rays spreading through a greater thickness of the polar atmosphere will cool the polar troposphere on the one hand, on the other hand it will warm the stratosphere over the polar regions which will enhance high pressure formation over the higher latitudes.  The strong high pressure systems will spread the frigid arctic and Antarctic airmasses into lower latitudes thus cooling the temperate and tropical regions as well.  Any compensating increase in deep tropospheric WAA in the poles via this process should be overridden by the great modification of tropical airmasses as they cross the cooling ocean and land areas as well as expanding icecaps.  The tropical airmasses would be even greatly modified at the source regions due to more intense and frequent cold waves and cooling oceans.  The latter process would also be enhanced if the seeding of marine stratocumulus and stratus decks over the oceans I mentioned earlier is employed.  A natural version of these atmospheric changes actually occurred in the coldest years of the Dalton Minimum, especially "The Year Without A Summer" 1816 which had an expanded but so-called "short-circuit" cross Polar Cell.

On ‎06‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 21:16, stewfox said:

Unfortunately this year was very low. A contributor to the heat budget

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

Let's hope this is just a temporary blip due to that monster El Nino.  We would be in big trouble if this is already a tipping point being breached in the Antarctic.

Edited by Lettucing Gutted
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a very strange thread.

The OP acknowledges the problem and then, for some reason, decides not only should we treat the symptoms rather than the cause, but that we should adopt crackpot 'solutions' to mask the said symptoms.

'Build a steel wall across the Atlantic'? 'Cover the equator in mirrors'? 'Blast massive rockets' to change the Earth's tilt?

Is this thread for real or is it a self spoof?

Edited by Devonian
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Devonian said:

What a very strange thread.

The OP acknowledges the problem and then, for some reason, decides not only should we treat the symptoms rather than the cause, but that we should adopt crackpot 'solutions' to mask the said symptoms.

'Build a steel wall across the Atlantic'? 'Cover the equator in mirrors'? 'Blast massive rockets' to change the Earth's tilt?

Is this thread for real or is it a self spoof?

@Devonian I am sorry if you don't agree with some of the proposals, but I am trying to get folk on here thinking about practical and cost-effective Geo-engineering solutions to counter the effect of rising CO2 so as to prevent dangerous levels of global warming. I am merely trying to promote a constructive discussion around some ingenious yet practical solutions to Global Warming that don't involve making countries around the World halve their GDPs (and in so doing condemning billions of folk to extreme poverty or even starvation) for this is what enforcement of carbon-neutral economies on all nations within 20 years will most precisely achieve! 

Of course,  some Geo-engineering solutions will seem a little wacky, indeed a number will prove to be totally unviable. But mankind has ever-greater technology with each passing year and it is surely time humankind starts looking outside the box for solutions to a major problem caused by over 200 years of mans earlier industrial and technical advance that has made the World immeasurably richer. Stopping developing countries from developing, shall we say, is no solution in my book. It is in fact criminal! 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

We're human beings ruled by elites that don't/can't give a toss about our future well being. Only if they are in some way targeted by warming would they enter the fray and facilitate endeavours to save our sorry little a$$es!

They have probably got their own sorry escape plans sorted and are merely waiting for 'The Great Dying'. After that they will re-emerge and enjoy ruling a more sustainable workforce.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gray-Wolf said:

We're human beings ruled by elites that don't/can't give a toss about our future well being. Only if they are in some way targeted by warming would they enter the fray and facilitate endeavours to save our sorry little a$$es!

They have probably got their own sorry escape plans sorted and are merely waiting for 'The Great Dying'. After that they will re-emerge and enjoy ruling a more sustainable workforce.

GW.

Do you really have this jaundiced oipinion?

We (in the UK) have just had 10 years being controlled  by pro CAGW people in the government. It is true that currently we do seem to be having a slight easing of the pressure on solar and windpower, but they are still committed to AGW restrictions.

Even worldwide ,very few regimes are 'governed' by anti AGW 'ers.

By the way, what is happening in China now? It has gone very quiet again. AreI they really NOT implementing their coal powered power stations as many of your posts were suggesting, or are they just getting on with it anyway, as I have been maintaining. 

MIA

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

GW.

Do you really have this jaundiced oipinion?

We (in the UK) have just had 10 years being controlled  by pro CAGW people in the government. It is true that currently we do seem to be having a slight easing of the pressure on solar and windpower, but they are still committed to AGW restrictions.

Even worldwide ,very few regimes are 'governed' by anti AGW 'ers.

By the way, what is happening in China now? It has gone very quiet again. AreI they really NOT implementing their coal powered power stations as many of your posts were suggesting, or are they just getting on with it anyway, as I have been maintaining. 

MIA

 

 

What in the last 10 years suggests pro "CAGW" people were running things? The UK has made no meaningful moves towards dealing with climate change, let alone any actions that would suggest CAGW is a real concern. There are few governments anywhere on the planet that have tried to do much to reduce emissions, bar maybe Germany and 1 or 2 others.

If anything, I'd say more governments act like climate change deniers than show any real commitment towards dealing with AGW. It's the problem with politics that looks only as far as the next election cycle.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I already mentioned enhancing weathering on my list of proposals earlier in this thread, however I am concerned about whether there is enough Silicate minerals (a vital weathering component) left on the Worlds mountains and lowlands to accommodate not only all the CO2 that humans are returning to the atmosphere (both directly via fossil fuel burning but also indirectly via positive feedbacks tied in with AGW), but also all the excess CO2 that is already up there (from our earlier contributions) and even the new CO2 which will always be generated by volcanoes.

If there is not enough Silicate minerals left to remove all excess CO2, at least in time to prevent dangerous Global Warming, would it be it possible to manufacture enough Silicate or similar mineral on a huge scale and in a short time frame?  Preferably less than 20 years if non of the other proposals are used or prove effective.

Another issue with weathering is if the upper atmosphere from the upper troposphere upwards becomes so warm that either there is no more rainfall or even worse, most of the water vapour is lofted to the outer edges of our atmosphere and broken down by sunlight or blown away into space.  If too much water is lost from Earth, then there would also be no more weathering to remove CO2.

Edited by Lettucing Gutted
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎08‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 11:05, Devonian said:
8 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

If anything, I'd say more governments act like climate change deniers than show any real commitment towards dealing with AGW. It's the problem with politics that looks only as far as the next election cycle.

What a very strange thread.

The OP acknowledges the problem and then, for some reason, decides not only should we treat the symptoms rather than the cause, but that we should adopt crackpot 'solutions' to mask the said symptoms.

 

Come on lets not have another free fall.  This was a nice little thread discussing ideas .

Could not the North Atlantic current be influence by dropping high volumes of fresh water somer where ? Influence the conveyor belt

 

Edited by stewfox
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lettucing Gutted said:

I know I already mentioned enhancing weathering on my list of proposals earlier in this thread, however I am concerned about whether there is enough Silicate minerals (a vital weathering component) left on the Worlds mountains and lowlands to accommodate not only all the CO2 that humans are returning to the atmosphere (both directly via fossil fuel burning but also indirectly via positive feedbacks tied in with AGW), but also all the excess CO2 that is already up there (from our earlier contributions) and even the new CO2 which will always be generated by volcanoes.

If there is not enough Silicate minerals left to remove all excess CO2, at least in time to prevent dangerous Global Warming, would be it possible to manufacture enough Silicate or similar mineral on a huge scale and in a short time frame?  Preferably less than 20 years if non of the other proposals are used or prove effective.

Another issue with weathering is if the upper atmosphere from the upper troposphere upwards becomes so warm that either there is no more rainfall or even worse, most of the water vapour is lofted to the outer edges of our atmosphere and broken down by sunlight or blown away into space.  If too much water is lost from Earth, then there would also be no more weathering to remove CO2.

Why should that occur when the Stratosphere and upwards is cooling with global warming as predicted? Frankly reading the nonsense in this thread is like reading James Thurber.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its this new area in the space bringing all these higher energies from the centre of the milkway which is effecting everthing to not just planet but whole solar system and changing everything including consciousness and,warming things up abit and making everything more volatile like the weather and people and eventually we`re entering the golden dawn.:)

There I`ve said it just IMO.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

What in the last 10 years suggests pro "CAGW" people were running things? The UK has made no meaningful moves towards dealing with climate change, let alone any actions that would suggest CAGW is a real concern. There are few governments anywhere on the planet that have tried to do much to reduce emissions, bar maybe Germany and 1 or 2 others.

If anything, I'd say more governments act like climate change deniers than show any real commitment towards dealing with AGW. It's the problem with politics that looks only as far as the next election cycle.

Sorry BFTV..

I thought that we had been leading in the commitments to reduce our CO2 levels to the agreed targets for 2020, 2030 and  2050..

Why else  are we exposing ourselves to power outages in the next 2 years and then again in 2025 when we will be relying on Nuclear. (or maybe not!). ??

The UK has  removed 95% of our coal based power stations, and this whilst  we have no effective alternative cover for them during extreme conditions.

What more what you have expected?

MIA

PS

I thought Germany are now planning on going back to coal based power stations to avoid going to Nuclear?

.  

Edited by Midlands Ice Age
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Returning to earth for a moment perhaps a refresher with the 2012 paper from the Royal society

Geoengineering the climate: an overview and update

Quote

Abstract

The climate change that we are experiencing now is caused by an increase in greenhouse gases due to human activities, including burning fossil fuels, agriculture and deforestation. There is now widespread belief that a global warming of greater than 2°C above pre-industrial levels would be dangerous and should therefore be avoided. However, despite growing concerns over climate change and numerous international attempts to agree on reductions of global CO2 emissions, these have continued to climb. This has led some commentators to suggest more radical ‘geoengineering’ alternatives to conventional mitigation by reductions in CO2 emissions. Geoengineering is deliberate intervention in the climate system to counteract man-made global warming. There are two main classes of geoengineering: direct carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management that aims to cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight back to space. The findings of the review of geoengineering carried out by the UK Royal Society in 2009 are summarized here, including the climate effects, costs, risks and research and governance needs for various approaches. The possible role of geoengineering in a portfolio of responses to climate change is discussed, and various recent initiatives to establish good governance of research activity are reviewed.

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1974/4166#ref-list-1

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Snowyowl9 said:

Its this new area in the space bringing all these higher energies from the centre of the milkway which is effecting everthing to not just planet but whole solar system and changing everything including consciousness and,warming things up abit and making everything more volatile like the weather and people and eventually we`re entering the golden dawn.:)

There I`ve said it just IMO.

 

Beam me up, Scotty.

There are several chapters on mitigation of climate change in the last IPCC report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/

Not as exciting as a 3000 mile floating steel wall (that somehow won't drift off), but it's probably a good place to start.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, stewfox said:

Come on lets not have another free fall.  This was a nice little thread discussing ideas .

Could not the North Atlantic current be influence by dropping high volumes of fresh water somer where ? Influence the conveyor belt

 

The OP put this thread in free fall with this section:

"It is my contention that too much debate has been about "How To Get The World To Stop Producing CO2"; when the only way that can possibly be achieved on any relevant time-scale is by imposing massive tariffs on companies and individuals who pollute which would halve global GDP output overnight: Billions would starve to death due to the extreme poverty that would result and governments around the World would lose their tax-bases and have to make massive cuts to health, education, policing, social-security, infrastructure and defence budgets- with disastrous results. How can any sane (let alone compassionate) group of individuals even propose measures that would do that to the global economy??"

Can we have a 'nice little thread' when people like me (people who think the answer is not more interference with the atmosphere but less) are being described (in the OP remember) as wanting mass starvation, the world's economy destroyed and as being insane?

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

While some of the ideas on this thread seem a little outlandish, perhaps it's better to keep comments to debunking them or pointing out their physical limitations, rather than simply belittling them. 

12 hours ago, Midlands Ice Age said:

Sorry BFTV..

I thought that we had been leading in the commitments to reduce our CO2 levels to the agreed targets for 2020, 2030 and  2050..

Why else  are we exposing ourselves to power outages in the next 2 years and then again in 2025 when we will be relying on Nuclear. (or maybe not!). ??

The UK has  removed 95% of our coal based power stations, and this whilst  we have no effective alternative cover for them during extreme conditions.

What more what you have expected?

MIA

PS

I thought Germany are now planning on going back to coal based power stations to avoid going to Nuclear?

.  

So, 10 years of people in charge that think catastrophic climate change is coming, and all they've really done is say "ehhh, we'll get around to in the next decade or so". All while permitting more drilling operations and trying to get in on the fake shale boom... doesn't really make sense.

For as long as I've been on this forum people have been warning about imminent power outages due to green policies, while others have pointed out that it's due to a lack of any coherent energy plan. Have you got anything to back up that 95% removal figure? As far as I can see only about 35% of coal power have been removed, and much of this based on clean air regulations from the EU as well as commitments to phase out by 2025. I don't think anyone wants to go back to the smog filled air of previous decades.

What do I expect? Nothing much. 

What would I like to see? Something that signifies real intent to keep warming below 2C (1.5C is a lost cause). We've seen little more than small gestures and platitudes so far, like a couple of wind farms and pledges to do something in the next few decades. It all seems rather futile when you then go and award huge numbers of new drilling licenses.

www.ogj.com/articles/2015/07/uk-awards-41-more-licenses-in-offshore-round.html

The UK government has awarded 41 licenses for exploration and production in the second tranche of the 28th Offshore Licensing Round.
In the first tranche late last year, it awarded 134 licenses (OGJ Online, Nov. 6, 2014).
The combined results make the 28th round “one of the largest rounds in the 5 decades since the first licensing round took place,” according to the new Oil & Gas Authority, which recently took over licensing from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
The round, opened in January 2014, drew 173 total applications. The 175 licenses awarded in both tranches cover 353 blocks on the UK Continental Shelf.


No government that was genuinely concerned about AGW, let alone CAGW, would act in such a way.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Weather-history said:

Trying to change the tilt of the Earth has got to be one of the dumbest, most ridiculous ideas I have heard. 

 

The same was probably said of discussion about putting a man on the Moon in the 1920s. The Earth biosphere and humankind faces potentially deadly upheaval in the next 50 years because the threat of Dangerous Global Warming. The Scientific community and national governments worldwide MUST start thinking outside the box in looking at solutions to tackle it.

Btw are researchers who work on cures for currently incurable diseases, some of which involve controversy by testing products on mice dumb? And, if so, what do you suggest the British Government pour R&D money into to develop solutions to tackle the serious threat posed by Dangerous Global Warming, that is solutions that don't involve damaging businesses and stifling economies?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting point to throw into the melting pot ; an idea for removing CO2 from the atmosphere on a massive scale and averting Dangerous Global Warming by stopping the rise in CO2 levels almost overnight. Again, this is a proposal that might sound wacky to some of you but mankind already has the technology and money in his grasp to make this a reality within the next 10 to 15 years :

This involves the direct freezing out of the atmosphere of CO2 into dry -ice on a truly MASSIVE scale. The idea, in a nutshell is for a 100 metre-high Ice Wall to be built round one million square miles of the East Antarctica Ice-Sheet. The ice to build the wall could be cut out of the Ice-sheet and such a wall would never melt because the temperature never rises above -20C there even in the "hottest" summer weather there.

The purpose of this huge ice enclosure is to trap very cold air and prevent it draining to lower levels as it is cooled by the persistent net radiative heat-loss that exists high up on East Antarctica almost all year round. Thus the very cold air would remain close to the surface and get even colder as it is cooled by radiation under the clear skies dominant over the Interior East Antarctica Ice-Sheet. The wall and the hemming in of such extremely cold air at the surface would discourage stronger winds at the surface and this would permit even more cooling. 

I am aware that limitations would be placed on the low temperatures reached by the effective "sky" temperature which even in mid-winter is not going to drop below -100C and under overcast it will warm up to around -60C anyway. In summer the 24-hour sunshine (even with 85% of insolation reflected off the Ice-sheet) would prevent temperatures dropping below -50C. Over the year this would result in a mean annual temperature close to -70C on the surface of the Ice-sheet and in the lowest surface layers of the atmosphere. 

This is nothing like cold enough to freeze CO2 from the atmosphere, so to cool the ice and surface layers down to the -140C required requires super-frigeration units which would be powered by energy taken from the ice in the Enclosure and involving a substance like liquid xenon or argon under pressure (xenon or argon would exist in liquid form under pressure in this cold enclosure atop the East Antarctica Ice-Sheet, even in summer). A couple of million such heat exchangers with liquid argon\xenon released into low-pressure pipes through valves and pumped around the one million square mile enclosure would have the desired effect and the very frigid air could be cooled to -150C and CO2 would freeze directly onto the ice.

The dry ice would then be brushed off after a week and put into a deep vault under pressure in this ultra frigid Enclosure. This will require the employment of 100,000 especially hardy souls protected by space-suits who would drive special vehicles adapted to cope with ultra -extreme cold. After the dry ice is removed to the vault the dense ultra-cold air is let out of the Enclosure by opening vents in the Ice Wall so that a fresh lot of air can be cooled to -150C and relieved of its load of CO2. 

ps. If the walls around the East Antarctica Ice Enclosure were built to be 1,000 metres high by digging out the ice to make this huge wall from a location within the Enclosure one could make the huge hole to place all the frozen CO2 in the process. The huge hole would be sealed at the bottom to stop the CO2 escaping and the extremely low temperatures at the top would keep the CO2 from subliming where it is under less pressure. The higher walls would allow a deeper portion of the atmosphere to be cooled and by containing the atmosphere in this way lower temperatures could be achieved without refrigeration because cooling such a depth of atmosphere would reduce the effective "sky" temperature at the surface. It would also modify the Circumpolar Vortex around Antarctica by cooling such a large area so the Vortex would be tighter and would prohibit the advection of warmer air from lower latitudes at high levels. This would yield further cooling and it could be that little further refrigeration would be needed to freeze 80% or more of the CO2 from the atmosphere over the proposed East Antarctica Ice Enclosure. 

Edited by iapennell
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The idea, in a nutshell is for a 100 metre-high Ice Wall to be built round one million square miles of the East Antarctica Ice-Sheet.

It would keep the White Walkers out too, as an added bonus. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iapennell said:

The same was probably said of discussion about putting a man on the Moon in the 1920s. The Earth biosphere and humankind faces potentially deadly upheaval in the next 50 years because the threat of Dangerous Global Warming. The Scientific community and national governments worldwide MUST start thinking outside the box in looking at solutions to tackle it.

Btw are researchers who work on cures for currently incurable diseases, some of which involve controversy by testing products on mice dumb? And, if so, what do you suggest the British Government pour R&D money into to develop solutions to tackle the serious threat posed by Dangerous Global Warming, that is solutions that don't involve damaging businesses and stifling economies?

Trying to change the tilt of the earth is a ridiculous idea and can't be compare with the idea of trying to put a man on the moon in 1920s. 

Trying to change the tilt is meddling with Mother Nature. The tilt is as it is through natural processes, don't you think man has done enough meddling with Mother Nature without adding this to its crimes?

Edited by Weather-history
.
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, iapennell said:

Another interesting point to throw into the melting pot ; an idea for removing CO2 from the atmosphere on a massive scale and averting Dangerous Global Warming by stopping the rise in CO2 levels almost overnight. Again, this is a proposal that might sound wacky to some of you but mankind already has the technology and money in his grasp to make this a reality within the next 10 to 15 years :

This involves the direct freezing out of the atmosphere of CO2 into dry -ice on a truly MASSIVE scale. The idea, in a nutshell is for a 100 metre-high Ice Wall to be built round one million square miles of the East Antarctica Ice-Sheet. The ice to build the wall could be cut out of the Ice-sheet and such a wall would never melt because the temperature never rises above -20C there even in the "hottest" summer weather there.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...