Quote:Original post by LessBread
How about putting forth the effort to make a rational counter argument to climate change rather than merely relying on ridicule? The religion of the day? That's the kind of nonsense argument that desperate people use when they've got nothing meaningful left to say.

Yeah, I just have to disprove man made global warming on an internet forum, presumably using wikipedia links and then I'll have made a valid statement.

Quote:
Who says that the surface of Mars has warmed at a rate 5 times faster than the Earth over the last 20 years? Is that something that you pulled out of the air? And even if that's true, is it even meaningful in the first place? Rate comparisons are relative. Without stipulating what they are relative to, they're meaningless. You're engaging in sophistry and parading yourself as a rational creature. What a joke.

Try google, I'm sure you could find it in a moment or so if your google-fu is up to par, and who says it has to be meaningful? I'm just saddened that us poor humans are self flagellating while those damned martians are REALLY heating up their atmosphere relative to ours. I mean, think about the future of all the martian children.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:Original post by LessBread
How about putting forth the effort to make a rational counter argument to climate change rather than merely relying on ridicule? The religion of the day? That's the kind of nonsense argument that desperate people use when they've got nothing meaningful left to say.

Yeah, I just have to disprove man made global warming on an internet forum, presumably using wikipedia links and then I'll have made a valid statement.

You couldn't disprove it if you tried. I guess that explains your resentment: What you can't beat, ridicule.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Who says that the surface of Mars has warmed at a rate 5 times faster than the Earth over the last 20 years? Is that something that you pulled out of the air? And even if that's true, is it even meaningful in the first place? Rate comparisons are relative. Without stipulating what they are relative to, they're meaningless. You're engaging in sophistry and parading yourself as a rational creature. What a joke.

Try google, I'm sure you could find it in a moment or so if your google-fu is up to par, and who says it has to be meaningful? I'm just saddened that us poor humans are self flagellating while those damned martians are REALLY heating up their atmosphere relative to ours. I mean, think about the future of all the martian children.

I suppose you're right. This is the lounge after all. You're perfectly free to babble on all you want about Martians and such. Science-fiction double feature!

Meanwhile, back in reality: Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too

Quote:Original post by Sneftel
Sigh.

Let's math a little, shall we?

Assume that we have magic mylar glitter, where each piece can perfectly align outwards for maximum reflectivity. Let's say that these are ultra-thin 100-micron mylar (0.01 cm)... I don't think that exists, but let's go with it. Mylar has a density of about 1.3 g/cc. Assume that we only want to reflect 1 percent of the light, and that our ultrathin mylar is nevertheless perfectly reflective, so we only need to cover 1% of the virtual sphere 100 miles up around the earth. The earth has radius 6300 km, so that'd be about 6500 km (6.5e8 cm) radius. That's a surface area of 5.3e18 cm^2, of which we need to cover 5.3e16 cm^2. That comes to 5.3e14 cm^3 of mylar, which weighs.... wait for it.... 689 million metric tons. For reference, a Delta IV rocket, commonly used to lift heavy satellites into orbit, has a maximum payload of about 25 metric tons. That's twenty-seven million rocket launches. I think the global warming caused by that sort of thing might be... er... counterproductive.

yeah....scratch my idea then. :) It seems impossible in terms of scale and cost, and it would be dangerous for orbiting equipment. It's completely infeasible.

Back to the drawing board! :)

Quote:3.2) Nuclear winter has nothing to do with temperatures or snowfall.

:P rats, I am totally wrong on this. Next time, I'll do some simple research before I refute something instead of relying on incomplete/false understandings. *eats humble pie*

Quote:Original post by LessBread
I recall reading that trees aren't the efficient absorbers of CO2 that we imagine them to be. This isn't the article that I recall, but it still makes the point: Trees 'will not avert climate change'

I read your article and I've read similar things more recently. I agree: Trees are not the single best way to avert climate change, but, they do help quite a bit! Wired magazine had a recent article which makes this main point:

Quote:"Over its lifetime, a tree shifts from being a vacuum cleaner for atmospheric carbon to an emitter. A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years. After that, its growth slows, and it takes in less carbon. Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO2 gets released."

The article says that trees suck up carbon until they're about 55 years old, so that's when we should cut them down and plant new trees. The wood products you make from the trees sequesters the carbon and it is even profitable and sustains the lumber industry.

Quote:Original post by LessBread
As far as iron fertilization goes, I think the precautionary principle applies. Let's not run off half cocked and make our problems worse.

I think iron fertilization has a lot of promise based on the initial studies which have been conducted. The worlds oceans are a complex system and we should certainly study the impact iron fertilization may have on the life within it. Maybe it has more feasible promise then my glitter idea? To lend more credibility then a wikipedia link, Scientific American ran an article on this with some reserved criticism and optimism. It's a fascinating idea with interesting implications and consequences to consider...

Quote:Original post by Edtharan

Quote:Someone mentioned putting large mirrors up in space, but that's just too hard to do logistically and economically. I think, it would be better to put billions of little mirrors ~100 miles in space. All we have to do is sprinkle glitter all over the place. Each glitter particle will deflect an amount of sunlight which would otherwise impact earth and warm us up.

[joke]We could all just lay mirrors in our backyards for a day each month, that would reflect more sunlight back into space. :D
[/joke]

Actually, I wonder how much heat energy that would actually reflect? And would it make any difference?

hehehe, well, I do know that the polar ice caps reflect a lot of light back into space... so keeping the ice caps would be better then having big mirrors in our backyards :)

I was also thinking...what if we did the opposite and had yards full of black asphalt and other things which absorb sunlight and heat? We could probably expect a warmer earth, right? Could it be that the earth is getting warmer from human development too?

Quote:Original post by slayemin

Quote:Original post by Edtharan

Quote:Someone mentioned putting large mirrors up in space, but that's just too hard to do logistically and economically. I think, it would be better to put billions of little mirrors ~100 miles in space. All we have to do is sprinkle glitter all over the place. Each glitter particle will deflect an amount of sunlight which would otherwise impact earth and warm us up.

[joke]We could all just lay mirrors in our backyards for a day each month, that would reflect more sunlight back into space. :D
[/joke]

Actually, I wonder how much heat energy that would actually reflect? And would it make any difference?

hehehe, well, I do know that the polar ice caps reflect a lot of light back into space... so keeping the ice caps would be better then having big mirrors in our backyards :)

I was also thinking...what if we did the opposite and had yards full of black asphalt and other things which absorb sunlight and heat? We could probably expect a warmer earth, right? Could it be that the earth is getting warmer from human development too?

There is no question that urban development effects local temperatures. If you compare an urban area and a nearby rural area that should be roughly the same temperature the urban area will be warmer.

The earth has a large scale balancing mechanism inherent in its design. Deserts, polar caps, rain forests, all play a signifigant role in climate control. Deforestification, dessertization, are real issues. Not for some socialist post apocalyptic command economy wet dream but for resource management.

What's dissapointing is rather than champion real issues this has been spun into an article of faith. Now you either wear the funny hat of the new religion or as Lessbread says you're obviously payed by the (evil) petroleum companies to fool the simple minded.

Quote:Original post by slayemin

Quote:Original post by LessBread
I recall reading that trees aren't the efficient absorbers of CO2 that we imagine them to be. This isn't the article that I recall, but it still makes the point: Trees 'will not avert climate change'

I read your article and I've read similar things more recently. I agree: Trees are not the single best way to avert climate change, but, they do help quite a bit! Wired magazine had a recent article which makes this main point:

Quote:"Over its lifetime, a tree shifts from being a vacuum cleaner for atmospheric carbon to an emitter. A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years. After that, its growth slows, and it takes in less carbon. Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO2 gets released."

The article says that trees suck up carbon until they're about 55 years old, so that's when we should cut them down and plant new trees. The wood products you make from the trees sequesters the carbon and it is even profitable and sustains the lumber industry.

Yep, so long as the wood products aren't burned... I wonder if there are specific species well suited for this purpose, trees that grow fast, absorb a lot of CO2 and that provide useful materials.

Quote:Original post by slayemin

Quote:Original post by LessBread
As far as iron fertilization goes, I think the precautionary principle applies. Let's not run off half cocked and make our problems worse.

I think iron fertilization has a lot of promise based on the initial studies which have been conducted. The worlds oceans are a complex system and we should certainly study the impact iron fertilization may have on the life within it. Maybe it has more feasible promise then my glitter idea? To lend more credibility then a wikipedia link, Scientific American ran an article on this with some reserved criticism and optimism. It's a fascinating idea with interesting implications and consequences to consider...

I think it's definitely an avenue of research worth pursuing.

In the end it'll probably be a combination of responses that tackle the problem.

Quote:Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
What's dissapointing is rather than champion real issues this has been spun into an article of faith. Now you either wear the funny hat of the new religion or as Lessbread says you're obviously payed by the (evil) petroleum companies to fool the simple minded.

That's a false dichotomy. This is a real issue, not based on faith but science. And it's a documented fact that the petroleum companies have been fooling people. The fact that you have to resort to ridiculing this science as religion demonstrates how bankrupt your arguments are. It's a sad testimony of your desperation.

While working on an SF novel, I've been thinking up some throwaway technologies to solve some of the issues raised in this thread.

So here are my suggestions:


1. Nuclear waste disposal.

Trivially solved by simply disposing of said waste in tectonic subduction zones. The waste gets sucked under a tectonic plate and, by the time it comes spewing out of a volcano, it's long since ceased to be dangerous.


2. Free energy.

We currently use extremely inefficent and roundabout methods of extracting energy from what is, ultimately, the Earth's gravitational field. (Hydroelectric is one of the more efficient systems; others include tidal and wind power.)

Now, modern materials and advances in our understanding of flywheel physics suggests we could produce electricity using a flywheel spun by (electro)magnetism in a variation of the electric motor. Once the flywheel reaches its target speed, the energy required to *keep* it spinning should be less than the energy we could extract from it.


Two major world problems solved for the price of one using the miracle wonder science known as "Making shit up"!


And for my next trick, FTL space travel: Simply con the universe into thinking your spaceship is now a tachyon! Voilà! You'll suddenly be travelling faster than the speed of light!

("But how?" I hear you ask! Well, I suggest either arm-waving or merely shouting very loudly that it must be done ought to suffice; this is how most managers seem to think science works. Let some post-doc researcher sort out the piffling details.)

Quote:Original post by stimarco

While working on an SF novel, I've been thinking up some throwaway technologies to solve some of the issues raised in this thread.

So here are my suggestions:


1. Nuclear waste disposal.

Trivially solved by simply disposing of said waste in tectonic subduction zones. The waste gets sucked under a tectonic plate and, by the time it comes spewing out of a volcano, it's long since ceased to be dangerous.
...

I've been thinking along the same lines. If we could inject our nuclear waste into earths magma, the nuclear waste will melt down and dilute itself. The hard part is finding a way to inject the waste into the magma. I think the most efficient way would be to make a tunnel or a chute of some sort where you just drop the barrels of waste down it and they eventually get to the magma. If you make a tunnel to the magma, how do you ensure that it doesn't collapse? By insulating the tunnel with metal tubing! How do you prevent your injection equipment (tunnel) from melting at the same time? I don't know.
You mention subduction zones but I think those are all in the ocean and that would be a lot more difficult, technically, and dangerous in case a storm sinks a freighter with waste onboard (if you thought an oil spill was bad, try a nuclear waste spill).
My idea is to dig an ultra deep mine shaft. The deepest mines go down about 2.5 miles (4km) and already, the temperature at the bottom is 100F or 55C. Any deeper then that and people won't be able to withstand the rising heat, so we'll have to get mining machines which can withstand the heat and go deeper. Eventually, a point will be reached where rock becomes molten, and that would be when you start dropping the nuclear waste down the chute. The only thing you'd have to precaution against is radioactive steam from boiling/melting waste.