Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Environmentalism

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Can we get real title and actual URL, please?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

      The topic of this thread is rather "special", so similar response should be expected.




      And my argument(also been consistent) is that it was short term solutions that created this "mess" in the first place. Basically the whales weren't reproducing fast enough to supply the demand for their blubber used for a variety of products used in budding industrial age that had some looking elsewhere, hence the development of petroleum (and other "fossil fuels"=carbon resources) which resulted in an even larger range or products possible than whale blubber had provided.

      However we had a case where 'feet first jump in' for short term solutions; based on limited knowledge and/or projection of consequences resulted in a chain of events and developments this past century and half which have helped bring us to this point.

      One aspect has to do with use of coal for generation of electrical power. A byproduct in the smoke/flue of burned coal is sulfur dioxide which when combined with atmospheric water vapor chemically reacts to produce sulfuric acid which results in acid rain. So an early attempt to provide "clean coal" power was to develop;

      Flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) is a set of technologies used to remove sulfur dioxide (SO2) from exhaust flue gases of fossil-fuel power plants, and from the emissions of other sulfur oxide emitting processes such as waste incineration.
      ...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization

      ... so what you are suggesting is to add sulfur to the atmosphere while others are doing their best to remove sulfur.



      Typical and consistent - looking at this situation in greater depth and detail than most responding here. Considering that the premise of ACC/AGW is bizarre and also the solutions advanced by some, there is a case for response in kind.

      BTW: earlier attempt at a response got wiped, either by glitch of my computer or this forum so intended links to insert will now be presented in other posts to follow.
      NOPE
      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

      Comment


      • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

        NOPE
        " One of the reasons that I favor atmospheric sulfate aerosols is that the effects are reversible ."
        https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...09#post5172209


        .......
        Stratospheric aerosol injection

        ...
        The ability of stratospheric aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in solar radiation management climate engineering projects[1] to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.[2] Delivery of precursor sulfide gases such as sulfuric acid,[3]hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or sulfur dioxide (SO2) by artillery, aircraft[4] and balloons has been proposed.[5] Non-sulfide substances such as calcite have also been proposed given their benefits to the ozone layer.[6] It appears that this could counter most changes to temperature and precipitation, take effect rapidly, have low direct implementation costs, and be reversible in its direct climatic effects.[7] However, it would do so imperfectly and other effects are possible.[8]

        One study calculated the impact of injecting sulfate particles, or aerosols, every one to four years into the stratosphere in amounts equal to those lofted by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991,[9] but did not address the many technical and political challenges involved in potential solar radiation management (SRM) efforts.[10] If found to be economically, environmentally and technologically viable, such injections could provide a "grace period" of up to 20 years by which time atmospheric greenhouse gas pollution would need to be reduced to safe levels.

        It has been suggested that the direct delivery of precursors could be achieved using sulfide gases such as dimethyl sulfide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbonyl sulfide, or hydrogen sulfide (H2S).[5] These compounds would be delivered using artillery, aircraft (such as the high-flying F-15C)[4] or balloons, and result in the formation of compounds with the sulfate anion SO42−.[5]

        According to estimates, "one kilogram of well placed sulfur in the stratosphere would roughly offset the warming effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide."[11]
        ....
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strato...osol_injection

        320px-SPICE_SRM_overview.jpg
        Last edited by G David Bock; 19 Feb 20, 16:28.

        Comment


        • 600-my-of-temps-560-my-of_med_hr.jpg

          Comment


          • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

            Doesn't jive with this;

            <Image stripped>
            Media bias/Fact check on WattsUpWithThat.

            Basically, anything sourced from that site gets a hard pass.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

              Can we get real title and actual URL, please?
              That is the real title and URL.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                I've suggested the elimination of jet contrails through a international program to route commercial jets around or above or below areas that they form. That is relatively easy to do, not very costly, and would soon (within a year or so) tell us how much actual effect contrails are having on anthropogenic warming.
                If we find they were significant, it could substantially reduce the CO2 emissions push to more reasonable levels. It would also hammer a nail in the coffin that CO2 alone is the problem.
                How changing aircraft altitude could cut flight's climate impact

                There you go. It sounds like the only challenge to overcome is determining the correct altitudes dynamically for all the flights each day. Doesn't sound like that's a problem that can't be solved.

                The only objection I'd make is that I do not believe anyone, anywhere has ever claimed CO2 alone is the problem. The Kyoto Protocol covers six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride (water vapor as well). The first three are most closely associated with human activity, so if you can prove it's mostly one of the others there's likely a big paycheck in there somewhere.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                  Media bias/Fact check on WattsUpWithThat.

                  Basically, anything sourced from that site gets a hard pass.
                  Like a whole bladder stone...
                  Dave 'the Doc' Middleton no longer posts here. His E - magazine must be thriving. Poor Dave. I raked him years ago over his claim that humidity was drop[ping worldwide- so no AGW. Teh graph was- reversed by a coven called 'Friends of Science.":
                  The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                    <snipped image>
                    Geocraft.com is another debunked source of misinformation on climate change. It's also a huge supporter of coal.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                      How changing aircraft altitude could cut flight's climate impact

                      There you go. It sounds like the only challenge to overcome is determining the correct altitudes dynamically for all the flights each day. Doesn't sound like that's a problem that can't be solved.

                      The only objection I'd make is that I do not believe anyone, anywhere has ever claimed CO2 alone is the problem. The Kyoto Protocol covers six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride (water vapor as well). The first three are most closely associated with human activity, so if you can prove it's mostly one of the others there's likely a big paycheck in there somewhere.
                      My view has been, and is, you start with the easy, cheap, and known workable fixes first and see if they work before going to an expensive, unproven fix like trying to eliminate fossil fuels. The Left, Progressives, and the True Believers in Gorebal Warming want a specific set of fixes that suits their political goals and positions. A pox on them. They can go to Hell before I'll accept that.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                        Actually, they did not. If you read the articles and papers, they explicitly note that challenges in forecasting demand for energy. Investment in energy technologies leads to cheaper energy which leads to greater demand. This is recognized.
                        Cheaper energy does NOT lead to greater demands .If heating oil would become cheaper ( which it will not become ) , people will not increase the temperature in their houses .
                        And, investment in energy technologies does not lead to cheaper energy, as the price /cost of energy is not determined by the private companies, but by the taxes imposed by the state .
                        In Belgium (and other countries ) more than 50% of the electricity price consists of taxes . Which is the reason why the state tries to eliminate the other energy sources . If the price of electricity would decrease because of investments in energy technologies, the state will increase the taxes .Everything that is cheap becomes expensive because of the intervention of the state who has as mission to rob the population of its money .

                        Comment


                        • Oil and gas firms 'have had far worse climate impact than thought'

                          No real surprise here. The Canadian government was letting tar sands projects self report on emissions and they were found to be significantly underestimated. And then there were large, undetected methane leaks in Turkmenistan, California, and Ohio.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                            My view has been, and is, you start with the easy, cheap, and known workable fixes first and see if they work before going to an expensive, unproven fix like trying to eliminate fossil fuels. The Left, Progressives, and the True Believers in Gorebal Warming want a specific set of fixes that suits their political goals and positions. A pox on them. They can go to Hell before I'll accept that.
                            There we are in agreement- for once.

                            Injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere is a band aid - but a band aid that defers major surgery,- until we are sure where and what to cut.
                            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DingBat View Post
                              I let you sucker me in on this one, and discovered I wasted one of my "free" articles at Scientific American for what was three paragraphs of garbage!

                              Had you posted the actual URL the way others do here, I would have a better clue whether to click or not. This is how a considerate member here presents such, in addition to your cutsey underlined tag;
                              https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ins-the-wrong/

                              So consider saving yourself the effort because anything(links) you present as you have without showing the actual URL will be ignored by me (and many others) and considered just more garbage.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                                There we are in agreement- for once.

                                Injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere is a band aid - but a band aid that defers major surgery,- until we are sure where and what to cut.
                                OMG!

                                Your "band-aid" is to increase the atmospheric load of the base compound that becomes acid rain!

                                Bad enough that China and India, with their scores of coal-fired electrical generation plants pump flue un-scrubbed (no FGD) into the atmosphere already loading it with the sulfur to become sulfuric acid=acid rain; but your "wise" solution is to increase that REAL POLLUTION!

                                I revise my opinion of you.
                                It's quite probable you may not understand the science(or math) regarding the topic of this thread.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X