Geoengineering and the oceans (taboo?)

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Geoengineering and the oceans (taboo?)

Geoengineering and the oceans (taboo?)07-08-2018 15:40
baedr ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	Even the current computer simulations are often not able to replicate the speed at which melting of ice in Greenland and Antarctica are happening right now. But estimates for future melting are (for good reasons) based on those models, which have had a tendency to be too conservative. Professor Eric Rignot from the University of California Irvine says that six to nine meters (!) of sealevel rise are to be expected at around 2050 (Youtube interview) So before I get to the point, I just want to point out how catastrophic those changes are viewed by many governments, because even a small increase in sea level could displaces large parts of their population and has enormous economical and security implications. Many nations are not going to accept those problems, and they have a much higher priority than the implications for wild life and ecological systems. So I'm pretty sure although geo engineering is hardly discussed publically, this possibility is not being discarded by many governments. Although it would solve some issues created by climate change, it would create many new problems, mainly regarding ecological systems like further ocean acidification (which are not valued as high). As pointed out by the Wikipedia article for geo engineering, some of those methods like putting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere are on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars or tens of billions of dollars per year... This seems very cheap and lies within the possibilities of a lot of smaller countries and even some wealthy individuals. So what exactly is going to stop them? Are those methods even effective? I've heard that most of the warming goes into the oceans, and just cooling down the atmosphere is not going to be enough. Are there any ressources on this? Why does nobody talk about this? Edited on 07-08-2018 16:13
07-08-2018 16:02
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	...baedr, ..My own opinion is I think they got the cause and effect of climate change wrong. I was watching the news this morning and they brought up this issue of the sand on the beach being 85° F. or more. This is because 85° F. is the tipping point between boy and girl sea turtles. It takes both to keep the species going. ..This brings up a couple of questions about where the heat is coming from. A slowing of the Gulf Stream could increase the effects of equatorial warming. At the same time I don't accept that melting glaciers alone account for the Arctic heating up. While they often cite the reflectance of sea ice they also forget to mention how much heat is refracted because of the curvature of our planet that far north. ..A minimal slowing of our planet's thermohaline circulation could release a lot of heat. Lifting tectonic plates could allow for this because in the north the sea floor would be rising while around the equator the Earth's bulge might have a very slight reduction. ..With me, I think waste heat might be an intensifier to quote what my favorite ice core researcher says about CO2. A part of the problem is that we don't have a clear understanding of why ice ages are cyclical. To give you an idea, when ice ages went from once every 40,000 years to once every 100,000 years the Great Rift Valley and the mountain range that formed it finished it's uplift at the same time. Coincidence ? Maybe then again maybe not. It's just that 1 million years ago geologic changes were happening that seemed to have changed how often we have ice ages. p.s., with the sea turtles, since they are known to breed on Florida's Atlantic Coast, will they know to start breeding further north ? Basically are they sensitive to the water temperature ? It wouldn't surprise me because with what they showed on the news this morning was only one location. Edited on 07-08-2018 16:23
07-08-2018 18:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	baedr wrote: Even the current computer simulations Computer simulations are random number generators. They are pretty meaningless. baedr wrote: are often not able to replicate the speed at which melting of ice in Greenland and Antarctica are happening right now. The ice isn't melting. Antarctica recorded a record MAXIMUM ice extent, the highest ever recorded, in 2014. baedr wrote: But estimates for future melting are (for good reasons) based on those models, which have had a tendency to be too conservative. Estimates are meaningless. baedr wrote: Professor Eric Rignot from the University of California Irvine says that six to nine meters (!) of sealevel rise are to be expected at around 2050 (Youtube interview) He's an idiot. It's not possible to measure the global sea level. The only cities reporting floods are those on river deltas silting up, or those on land that is sinking (like Venice). baedr wrote: So before I get to the point, I just want to point out how catastrophic those changes are viewed by many governments, because even a small increase in sea level could displaces large parts of their population and has enormous economical and security implications. Don't panic. There is really nothing to worry. There is nothing you can do anyway. baedr wrote: Many nations are not going to accept those problems, and they have a much higher priority than the implications for wild life and ecological systems. There is nothing they can do either. There is also no need to do anything. baedr wrote: So I'm pretty sure although geo engineering is hardly discussed publically, this possibility is not being discarded by many governments. Geo engineering is not possible. baedr wrote: Although it would solve some issues created by climate change, Define 'climate change'. This is a meaningless buzzword that can only be defined by itself. baedr wrote: it would create many new problems, Like sucking money out a nation's economy to satisfy a religion? baedr wrote: mainly regarding ecological systems like further ocean acidification (which are not valued as high). You can't acidify the oceans. They are alkaline. The pH varies from place to place in the ocean. baedr wrote: As pointed out by the Wikipedia article for geo engineering, some of those methods like putting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere are on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars or tens of billions of dollars per year... Sulfur dioxide produces sulfuric acid when exposed to rainwater...acid rain. baedr wrote: This seems very cheap and lies within the possibilities of a lot of smaller countries and even some wealthy individuals. Obviously, you have no idea what you're talking about. baedr wrote: So what exactly is going to stop them? Are those methods even effective? I've heard that most of the warming goes into the oceans, There is no warming. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. baedr wrote: and just cooling down the atmosphere is not going to be enough. The temperature of the atmosphere is governed mostly by the temperature of the land beneath it. It's how the land cools off, distributing energy into the atmosphere. ALL of it radiates into space. baedr wrote: Are there any ressources on this? Why does nobody talk about this? You are, and a load of other religious believers also do. The Church of Global Warming is getting nuttier. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-08-2018 18:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	James___ wrote: ...baedr, ..My own opinion is I think they got the cause and effect of climate change wrong. Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. This is a meaningless buzzword. James___ wrote: I was watching the news this morning and they brought up this issue of the sand on the beach being 85° F. or more. So what? That's normal. James___ wrote: This is because 85° F. is the tipping point between boy and girl sea turtles. It takes both to keep the species going. Nope. Sea turtles just mate and lay eggs. They don't need a particular temperature on the beach to do that. James___ wrote: ..This brings up a couple of questions about where the heat is coming from. Look up in the sky during the daytime. See that bright object up there? James___ wrote: A slowing of the Gulf Stream could increase the effects of equatorial warming. The Gulf Stream isn't slowing. Stop getting your information from the movies. James___ wrote: At the same time I don't accept that melting glaciers alone account for the Arctic heating up. The Arctic isn't heating up. There is more ice this year than last year. Source: Natl snow and ice data center. James___ wrote: While they often cite the reflectance of sea ice they also forget to mention how much heat is refracted because of the curvature of our planet that far north. Heat doesn't reflect or refract. James___ wrote: ..A minimal slowing of our planet's thermohaline circulation could release a lot of heat It isn't slowing either. James___ wrote: Lifting tectonic plates could allow for this because in the north the sea floor would be rising while around the equator the Earth's bulge might have a very slight reduction. The Earth's overall shape hasn't changed. Navigation charts show no change whatsoever. James___ wrote: ..With me, I think waste heat There is no such thing as 'waste heat' warming the Earth. James___ wrote: might be an intensifier to quote what my favorite ice core researcher says about CO2. Ice cores do not show CO2. CO2 is permeable to ice. James___ wrote: A part of the problem is that we don't have a clear understanding of why ice ages are cyclical. We already know. The Earth's orbital parameters change due to the gravitational effects of other planets in the solar system. It follows a regular cycle. We are currently moving toward a more circular orbit...away from an ice age. James___ wrote: To give you an idea, when ice ages went from once every 40,000 years to once every 100,000 years the Great Rift Valley and the mountain range that formed it finished it's uplift at the same time. Coincidence ? You don't know the geography of Earth 40,000 or 100,000 years ago. James___ wrote: Maybe then again maybe not. It's just that 1 million years ago geologic changes were happening that seemed to have changed how often we have ice ages. You don't know the geography of Earth 1 million years ago. James___ wrote: p.s., with the sea turtles, since they are known to breed on Florida's Atlantic Coast, will they know to start breeding further north ? They already do. That have for as long as there have been sea turtles. James___ wrote: Basically are they sensitive to the water temperature ? Like most sea critters, yes. But they can tolerate and even enjoy fairly cold water (and beaches). James___ wrote: It wouldn't surprise me because with what they showed on the news this morning was only one location. Getting your daily dose from Pravda, eh? Perhaps Tokyo Rose is more your style. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-08-2018 00:54
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. This is a meaningless buzzword. ...Please define circular definitions. A circular penis going into a circular rectum is what ? Those 2 things require circular definitions because they are circular. ..I don't think climate change has anything to do with circular arguments. Can you explain your fascination with circular arguments without "Going to Deep Into It" ?

08-08-2018 01:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. This is a meaningless buzzword. ...Please define circular definitions. A definition that uses an undefined word (itself) to define that word. For example, you can't define 'global warming' as 'global warming', since 'global warming' is undefined. James___ wrote: ...deleted crude humor... ..I don't think climate change has anything to do with circular arguments. Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. James___ wrote: Can you explain your fascination with circular arguments without "Going to Deep Into It" ? An argument that uses itself as a predicate to that argument. By itself, the circular argument is not a fallacy. Failure to recognize one for what it is, though, DOES become the fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. Attempting to use a circular argument as a proof is a fallacy, known as 'affirming the antecedent'. It is failing to recognize the circular nature of the argument for what it is. I'm not particularly fascinated by them, but you and other believers in the Church of Global Warming tend to be quite fundamentalist. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-08-2018 21:08
still learning ★★☆☆☆ (244)	baedr wrote: ....."Professor Eric Rignot from the University of California Irvine says that [i]six to nine meters (!) of sealevel rise are to be expected at around 2050 " That's not what I heard when I listened to the video. Rignot did mention that during the Eemian sealevel was six to nine meters higner than now and that the Earth's average temperature may reach Eemian levels. He did say that he expects that the rate of sealevel rise to accelerate or "ramp up" about 2050. He didn't say six to nine meters of rise around 2050. What he did say was alarming enough, no need to exaggerate.
09-08-2018 02:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21592)	still learning wrote: baedr wrote: ....."Professor Eric Rignot from the University of California Irvine says that [i]six to nine meters (!) of sealevel rise are to be expected at around 2050 " That's not what I heard when I listened to the video. Rignot did mention that during the Eemian sealevel was six to nine meters higner than now and that the Earth's average temperature may reach Eemian levels. He did say that he expects that the rate of sealevel rise to accelerate or "ramp up" about 2050. He didn't say six to nine meters of rise around 2050. What he did say was alarming enough, no need to exaggerate. It's still all speculation, nothing more. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-08-2018 17:15
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	still learning wrote: baedr wrote: ....."Professor Eric Rignot from the University of California Irvine says that [i]six to nine meters (!) of sealevel rise are to be expected at around 2050 " That's not what I heard when I listened to the video. Rignot did mention that during the Eemian sealevel was six to nine meters higner than now and that the Earth's average temperature may reach Eemian levels. He did say that he expects that the rate of sealevel rise to accelerate or "ramp up" about 2050. He didn't say six to nine meters of rise around 2050. What he did say was alarming enough, no need to exaggerate. ...The Eemian interglacial period lasted a whopping 15,000 years. We're at 13,000 years with the current inter-glacial period. When this warm period ends then we start cooling which will last for over 80,000 years. We'll all be dead by then so does it matter ? Scientists still can't say why ice ages happen except for they are cyclical and the Earth's orbit plays a role in it. ...From what I understand about our current warming is that we generate enough energy to warm our atmosphere more than what it's being warmed. This makes me think that our atmosphere dumps excess heat at night just as the Van Allen radiation belts dump trapped solar radiation in the earth's shadow out into space. .. And to stay current, the red tide off of Florida's coast is in it's 9th month. https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/red-tide/red-tide-linked-to-heavy-rain-pollution-runoff/67-581866953

Join the debate Geoengineering and the oceans (taboo?):

Threads	Replies	Last post
Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification	325	20-04-2024 00:23
Oceans are dying	13	15-12-2019 02:31
The mechanism of the vertical circulation of the waters of the oceans	3	01-05-2019 20:48
Warming oceans	31	25-04-2019 18:20
Oceans absorb almost a third of global CO2 emissions, but at what cost?	2	20-03-2019 04:36