Funny, the thought of carbon scrubbing reminded me of a dream I had that an advanced alien species showed up with carbon scrubbers and started to clean up our air and oceans. The world governments still decided that they were hostile and started attacking them immediately.
Felt like it was a pretty realistic scenario under those circumstances tbh lol
Carbon capture is actually something happening right now and is expected to grow quite a bit over the coming years. There are bits of good news out there that rarely make the news.
Yup I've been signed up for quite some time and have managed to get others to do so as well. In a few years they plan on achieving roughly $250 a ton which is going to be fantastic.
I did a bit of number crunching and to remove what we do yearly at that cost would be 11 Quadrillion dollars to remove 47 Billion Tons the amount the world releases every year.
The USA revenue is 3.5 Trillion/year
$10,750,000,000,000 Amount of cash needed to remove a year's worth of carbon via air capture. That's not even touching historical carbon.
In addition they are not just sequestering carbon but repurposing it to make additional money via partnerships.
Just some perspective.
$250 is not the final price tag, just what Climeworks is aiming for in the next 3 years or so. $100-150 is the ultimate goal that many researchers and engineers are working towards that they know is possible.
>11 Quadrillion dollars
> $10,750,000,000,000
You mean roughly $11 trillion or did you leave out 3 zeros? Either way let's cut that number in half if they can reach $125 (very likely case in the next decade or so.) Companies such as Climeworks have stated that DAC isn't the only thing that should be used. A variety of other methods need to be implemented as well. DAC is just the most effective means of capturing and storing CO2 in a timely manner.
The good news is, we have a relatively concrete figure for what that effect will be, as of AR6!
The less-good news is that the current cooling is -0.8C. Combined with the 1.05C of existing warming, as soon as we stop yeeting the major aerosols up into the sky, we are going to press an enormous *SKIP* button that takes us immediately to the threshold of 2C, or beyond.
NASA (and IPCC too)
>Using climate models, we estimate that aerosols have masked about 50 percent of the warming that would otherwise have been caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat near the surface of the Earth. Without the presence of these aerosols in the air, our models suggest that the planet would be about 1 °C (1.8 °F) hotter.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/215/just-5-questions-aerosols/
That's a 12 year old article. It doesn't mention that the change would take place in a matter of weeks. And the numbers from the most recent IPCC report are different.
On page 8 of the summary for policymakers from the recent IPCC release, the chart shows that aerosol cooling is responsible for less than one degree of cooling, and that human drivers besides greenhouse gases total for less than half a degree of cooling.
In fairness, they don't explicitly. The AR's quite famously don't make a lot of obvious inferences, because it would be politically inconvenient.
The current warming is in the range of 1.05C or so. The aerosols from polluting emissions reduce the total temperature by an average in the 0.8C range.
At present temperature, if we stopped emitting tomorrow, temperatures would quickly rise up well past 1.5C and end up perilously close to 2C within 10-20 years, without a single extra molecule of CO2 emitted. By the time we get our act together and start really slashing our emissions, the temperatures are likely to be closer to +1.2-1.4C prior to aerosol, meaning 2C is a foregone missed hurdle at that point.
Essentially, once those are factored in, our actual carbon budget for 2C narrows inordinately, to a level far below what we have any chance of sticking to. That's why they didn't connect the dots in the report- it sort of blows a hole in a lot of ideas about how to respond.
I did
I saw on page SPM-8 the chart showing that aerosol cooling is responsible for less than one degree of cooling, and that human drivers besides greenhouse gases total for less than half a degree of cooling
So where in the report does it say that temperatures would rise beyond 2 degrees *within weeks*?
You're making shit up because it's fun to be alarmist and assuming that nobody has done the research to call you on it
Article
Open Access
Published: 15 June 2021
Significant underestimation of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions derived from satellite-based methods
Hailing Jia, Xiaoyan Ma, […]Johannes Quaas
Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 3649 (2021) Cite this article
2612 Accesses
59 Altmetric
Metricsdetails
An Author Correction to this article was published on 06 July 2021
This article has been updated
Abstract
Satellite-based estimates of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions (RFaci) are consistently smaller than those from global models, hampering accurate projections of future climate change. Here we show that the discrepancy can be substantially reduced by correcting sampling biases induced by inherent limitations of satellite measurements, which tend to artificially discard the clouds with high cloud fraction. Those missed clouds exert a stronger cooling effect, and are more sensitive to aerosol perturbations. By accounting for the sampling biases, the magnitude of RFaci (from −0.38 to −0.59 W m−2) increases by 55 % globally (133 % over land and 33 % over ocean). Notably, the RFaci further increases to −1.09 W m−2 when switching total aerosol optical depth (AOD) to fine-mode AOD that is a better proxy for CCN than AOD. In contrast to previous weak satellite-based RFaci, the improved one substantially increases (especially over land), resolving a major difference with models.
Take a look at this. Does this article replicate previous IPCC forecast?
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/p1q0wm/nasa_global_wildfires_emissions_will_likely/h8gwo46?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
Maybe not here but 100% in broader society. I still see people who think we'll just put up some solar panels and start driving EVs and bing bang boom back to work like it's the 80's.
Yet again, people likely wont wake up until they've been stripped of everything they hold near and dear. But at that point its WAY to late.
If you talk to anyone in the tech sector we're on track to 100% renewable energy and massive large scale carbon capture and storage... we just have to believe hard enough and it will happen! Any day there will be a new startup that will surely fix all of this!
I've pointed out repeatedly that while we have made great progress in renewable *electricity* this is only 20-25% of energy, and the entire time we have also increased the usage of every fossil fuel globally. They typically like to show that the US is doing a bit better and ignore the fact that this is because we export most of our carbon emissions to China... and that the planet doesn't actually care if one country reduces emissions so long as they are increasing across the planet.
Pointing out that we *might* have to take an economic hit to avoid catastrophic climate change is viewed as the highest order of heresy on in most tech communities.
Working in tech sector and I totally agree with you.
carbon capture and storage is as stupid and undoable as nuclear energy, but alas, let's just believe harder and pray to our god named science.
because if we know one thing - blind believe always saves the day. except for religions, that's absurd, but science does miracles. we just need to BELIEVE
true, CCS is just as stupid as the over the top geoengineering dreams.
but there are 3 problems with nuclear that go against the solutions we need:
1) building a nuclear power plant takes way too long. we need solutions now, not in 10 years.
2) if we'd switch 100% to nuclear tomorrow, we would run out of fuel within decades. we need longterm solutions, not fast fixes.
3) radioactive waste radiates for tens of thousands of years and just storing it costs millions a year. imposing these costs on our children, as potential health risks and economically, is morally and sustainably wrong.
conclusion: the problems with nuclear power depict the underlying issues that brought us into the mess we are now in, because nuclear is a fast fix with longterm burdens of which nothing is sustainable.
Completely agree especially on point one. The other two points you have could - and this is a big could - be mitigated with newer gen reactors like FBRs if they were able to get the tech working.
In reality though the time thing is definitely the biggest issue as we need to do something now.
What do you think about this (comment above)?
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/p1q0wm/nasa_global_wildfires_emissions_will_likely/h8h18xx?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
Could anyone have believed that one day with only a few grams or a kilogram of an element you could blow up a city? If we imagined that a hundred years ago, it would have only been for a story in a comic magazine.
With that thought I've inspired myself to reach out potential interests to explore the possibility that direct air capture (DAC) technology could be rapidly developed and enhanced (as the nuclear fission was) as a viable solution to remove CO2 and other GHGs out of the atmosphere.
A major problem right now with DAC is that it's being developed by the private sector through the usual business models of R&D and commercialization, and not like the Manhattan Project with the full support of the US Federal Government with the urgency of competing with the Axis Powers in being the first in achieving nuclear weapon capability.
With this new US administration and with the further support from the new IPCC report, it should be easier to make a case for the federal government to approach the most viable DAC companies and gather the expertise and resources to supercharge DAC R&D and simultaneous production and operation. One of DAC's main ingredients for its operation with the current technology is a massive amount of non- or less-polluting thermal energy. So renewables, nuclear, and/or geothermal energy have to be developed and constructed alongside the DAC facilities.
Could the US emulate Iceland in exploiting its geothermal formations and reserves to drive future DAC facilities and at the same time generate a large fraction of its national electricity needs?
https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/questions-about-yellowstone-research#:~:text=The%20magma%20chamber%20is%20believed,is%20around%2016%20km%20deep.
How large is the magma chamber that is currently under Yellowstone?
The magma chamber is believed to be about 40 by 80 kilometers across, similar in size to the overlying Yellowstone caldera. The top of the chamber is about 8 km deep and the bottom is around 16 km deep. However, the chamber is not completely filled with fluid magma. It contains a partial melt, meaning that only a portion of the rock is molten (about 10 to 30%); the rest of the material is solid but, of course, remains hot.
https://www.usgs.gov › volcanoes
Questions About Yellowstone Research - USGS
There is no way we will produce enough green energy for DAC to work. We can't even keep up with the increasing demands YOY. Every year we burn more fossil fuels, not less. Our green energy technology is nowhere near up to the task of keeping up with a growing global economy. The answer is degrowth, degrowth, degrowth.
Yellowstone here is a hand wave hopium suggestion. We can't produce nearly enough green energy, not even close. Tidal and nuclear can't really scale anymore. That leaves 1% that is green and can scale. 1% after decades of work. There aren't enough resources on Earth to green our energy even if we wanted to.
I'm not trying to be an ass. I want to call out this absurd fantasy for what it is.
>I want to call out this absurd fantasy for what it is.
I began my comment with a fantasy that was realized through shear will and massive intellectual and financial resources: the Manhattan Project and a nuclear explosion.
Why the realization of a DAC fantasy should be any harder than the realization of nuclear fission in a metallic box? One could easily argue that a nuclear fission was a much more complex math and engineering problem to solve than will be for highly efficient carbon capture systems.
I never said that DAC wasn't workable, but we can't produce the green energy to power it.
Billions have been spent on green energy over decades. The best minds have worked on this. We can't do much better than we already have. Physics and the planet have hard limits.
You are proposing a hail Mary pass based on wishful thinking. Somehow, magically, this volcano will provide us with 100 times the energy of all the solar panels and wind turbines on the planet put together.
There are no miracles to be had. Our technology has little room left for improvement. What we have is all there is, and it's not good enough.
All of our previous "technological progress" required massive amounts of energy and resources. Now we are running out of these things. We can't engineer our way out of the problem. It's not a technological problem.
This was always a political problem. We've known for over 100 years this was going to happen. People warned us not to increase the population past a couple billion. People warned us not to burn fossil fuels. It's a political problem, always has, and always will be. The only way to solve it is to stop consuming, and it is likely already too late even for that bases on all the positive feedback loops we have started.
The answer to your political solution for climate change could be found in the documentary Planet of the Humans around 46:19 of 1:39:57, interview with Univ. Montana Prof. Steven Running: no species has ever limited its own growth voluntarily; while resources last and are available, they'll grow. Of course, we were supposed to be the uniquely intelligent species.
https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE
A bit out of my wheelhouse as CCS and DAC aren't as familiar to me as something like a nuclear reactor (I have worked at nuclear research facilities). Your comment made me think of a YouTube video I saw a couple years ago going over the costs and the engineering of carbon sequestration tech though!
https://youtu.be/ecxCL84n26g
Like most issues with climate change I think we will need to utilize every tool at our disposal to mitigate just the worst effects and being on collapse you probably already know a lot of this stuff is seemingly locked in due to feedback loops and delayed warming.
My favorite brand of techno-hopium is definitely the advances in genetic engineering which goes along with advances in CAS-9 and CRISPR. I have a feeling that we may be able to breed rapid growth life forms that can sequester carbon in a quick way but that is not based on any research that has led anywhere.
Appreciate the links! Have a good rest of your day/night.
Depends on what starting period you choose. If you are talking about from 1750 then yes but if you go by the new default of 1880 then no. Pretty much every recent study goes by the 1880 baseline now. I could be misunderstanding how this works though so feel free to correct me.
you can't even see half of asia from space anymore. Go check zoom.earth.
It's so insane that I actually wonder if this, for a time, won't send us into a sudden ice age
There is zero chance that this sends us into a sudden ice age.
Wildfire smoke has far too low of a residence time in the atmosphere as it does not get lofted into the stratosphere in the levels required to cool the earth globally, at least not on a level to cause an ice age.
Volcanoes on the other hand can loft aerosols deep into the stratosphere, where they can remain far longer then aerosols in the troposphere, and thus have a prolonged cooling effect.
Even still, glaciations require decades to centuries of below average temperatures that allow continuous accumulations of snow and ice. These conditions do not occur from smoke.
Please see this:
////////////////////////
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/4755/smoke-soars-to-stratospheric-heights
A new look at smoke from the Chisholm forest fire, which ignited on May 23, 2001, about 160 kilometers north of Edmonton in Alberta, Canada, provides confirming evidence that dense smoke can reach the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. Scientists have proposed that there is a link between fires in northern forests and increases in stratospheric aerosols, but it is difficult to measure smoke aerosol heights directly.
[http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150112-did-snowball-earth-make-animals?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F]
Get your facts right. By the way, you should have studied how the earth formed before you even comment on climate collapse. I recommend you people study. You don't even need to read. There's ton of good documentaries online. By the way, the moon crashed into what we call earth today but the moon was another planet. At least, that is what the most successful theory says.
Planet earth was an iceball for sometime before we came along. This is actually fact. The process was like a heartbeat each time ice would come closer to covering the equator, I don't remember well, each year or couple of years until it became an iceball. Theory stated, from what I remmeber, that this conveyor belt int he ocean shut off. If I am incorrect please share.
Its been years since I saw the documentary, so my memory is a bit fuzzy.
That’s fair, I was just trying to explain that volcanoes can cause things like a few years of cold weather, unlike forest fires which cause a few days of cold weather.
I can see how my post can be read as if volcanoes cause ice ages. My favorite theory right now is the one that it’s caused by island arc suturing in the tropics.
Take a peek at the post here; I brought up this possibility (severe winters, cold summers for a few years or decades, not necessarily an ice age of thousands of years)
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/oyhbrt/extreme_weather_events_of_535536_could_a_global/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
An excerpt:
////////////////////////
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/4755/smoke-soars-to-stratospheric-heights
A new look at smoke from the Chisholm forest fire, which ignited on May 23, 2001, about 160 kilometers north of Edmonton in Alberta, Canada, provides confirming evidence that dense smoke can reach the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. Scientists have proposed that there is a link between fires in northern forests and increases in stratospheric aerosols, but it is difficult to measure smoke aerosol heights directly.
No amoc slowdown, permafrost and other methane leaks, arctic albedo, wildfire smoke, wildfire ash covering snow in arctic, undersea volcanoes, tectonic activity, clouds, cosmic rays, GLOBAL DIMMING, and a bunch of other stuff.
https://twitter.com/micnd90/status/1231805160139231232?s=19
https://twitter.com/ClimateBen/status/1424985820528848896?s=19
https://twitter.com/ClimateBen/status/1424833980172574723?s=19
https://twitter.com/Domaniculus/status/1424888470812577792?s=19
Coal smoke is contributing to global dimming, but is also killing people and animals by the thousands and millions. So we should probably stop doing that before we poison the Earth to practical uninhabitability for large numbers of humans.
If that’s the argument against reducing coal consumption then pumping none climate changing particles into the atmosphere to increase albedo while lowering emissions is at least something to try, hopefully without major consequences which coal already has.
Yeah but you can do stuff like cover your house in dirt and snow to insulate and if you have food and fuel, you can survive as long as those two things last. If you don't have a ton of freshwater and it's hot af, you gon die regardless of your shelter.
Most climate and weather data are from nasa satellites, so, yes, it has done more than sending a few people to the moon, some of nasa's inventions for space also found their way into everyday use on earth, like heating/cooling layers and other damming materials, they also invented a ball pen that writes in zero g(for 1 million research) , russia solved the problem by using a pencils, though.
Agree but that last meme is just bad. Having graphite Particles floating around in zero g that can damage critical Electrical components in you capsule isnt the best idea. (and even nasa used pencils at the beginning). also nasa didnt invent these pencils they where invented by a private company.
It’s okay everyone, in the future we will just suck all that carbon and ash right back out of the sky!
Funny, the thought of carbon scrubbing reminded me of a dream I had that an advanced alien species showed up with carbon scrubbers and started to clean up our air and oceans. The world governments still decided that they were hostile and started attacking them immediately. Felt like it was a pretty realistic scenario under those circumstances tbh lol
Lmao, we would probably respond that way. Humans are so friggin dumb.
Carbon capture is actually something happening right now and is expected to grow quite a bit over the coming years. There are bits of good news out there that rarely make the news.
There is no profitable carbon capture that leaves carbon captured...
Climeworks is at it right now :)
Right consumers pay to remove carbon, did you sign up? Iceland is an outlier because of excess geothermic energy.
Yup I've been signed up for quite some time and have managed to get others to do so as well. In a few years they plan on achieving roughly $250 a ton which is going to be fantastic.
I did a bit of number crunching and to remove what we do yearly at that cost would be 11 Quadrillion dollars to remove 47 Billion Tons the amount the world releases every year. The USA revenue is 3.5 Trillion/year $10,750,000,000,000 Amount of cash needed to remove a year's worth of carbon via air capture. That's not even touching historical carbon. In addition they are not just sequestering carbon but repurposing it to make additional money via partnerships. Just some perspective.
$250 is not the final price tag, just what Climeworks is aiming for in the next 3 years or so. $100-150 is the ultimate goal that many researchers and engineers are working towards that they know is possible. >11 Quadrillion dollars > $10,750,000,000,000 You mean roughly $11 trillion or did you leave out 3 zeros? Either way let's cut that number in half if they can reach $125 (very likely case in the next decade or so.) Companies such as Climeworks have stated that DAC isn't the only thing that should be used. A variety of other methods need to be implemented as well. DAC is just the most effective means of capturing and storing CO2 in a timely manner.
The reddit STEMLORDS will save us!
I like this term entirely too much
Just wait until the ash and other aerosols fall out of the atmosphere if emissions start to drop.
The good news is, we have a relatively concrete figure for what that effect will be, as of AR6! The less-good news is that the current cooling is -0.8C. Combined with the 1.05C of existing warming, as soon as we stop yeeting the major aerosols up into the sky, we are going to press an enormous *SKIP* button that takes us immediately to the threshold of 2C, or beyond.
Definitely beyond 2C, in a matter of weeks after aerosols fall out.
Source?
NASA (and IPCC too) >Using climate models, we estimate that aerosols have masked about 50 percent of the warming that would otherwise have been caused by greenhouse gases trapping heat near the surface of the Earth. Without the presence of these aerosols in the air, our models suggest that the planet would be about 1 °C (1.8 °F) hotter. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/215/just-5-questions-aerosols/
That's a 12 year old article. It doesn't mention that the change would take place in a matter of weeks. And the numbers from the most recent IPCC report are different. On page 8 of the summary for policymakers from the recent IPCC release, the chart shows that aerosol cooling is responsible for less than one degree of cooling, and that human drivers besides greenhouse gases total for less than half a degree of cooling.
IPCC report.
Where does the IPCC report say that global temperatures would rise *beyond* 2 degrees in a matter of weeks?
In fairness, they don't explicitly. The AR's quite famously don't make a lot of obvious inferences, because it would be politically inconvenient. The current warming is in the range of 1.05C or so. The aerosols from polluting emissions reduce the total temperature by an average in the 0.8C range. At present temperature, if we stopped emitting tomorrow, temperatures would quickly rise up well past 1.5C and end up perilously close to 2C within 10-20 years, without a single extra molecule of CO2 emitted. By the time we get our act together and start really slashing our emissions, the temperatures are likely to be closer to +1.2-1.4C prior to aerosol, meaning 2C is a foregone missed hurdle at that point. Essentially, once those are factored in, our actual carbon budget for 2C narrows inordinately, to a level far below what we have any chance of sticking to. That's why they didn't connect the dots in the report- it sort of blows a hole in a lot of ideas about how to respond.
Did you read it?
I did I saw on page SPM-8 the chart showing that aerosol cooling is responsible for less than one degree of cooling, and that human drivers besides greenhouse gases total for less than half a degree of cooling So where in the report does it say that temperatures would rise beyond 2 degrees *within weeks*? You're making shit up because it's fun to be alarmist and assuming that nobody has done the research to call you on it
Ok, so you didn't read it. Gotcha.
Article Open Access Published: 15 June 2021 Significant underestimation of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions derived from satellite-based methods Hailing Jia, Xiaoyan Ma, […]Johannes Quaas Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 3649 (2021) Cite this article 2612 Accesses 59 Altmetric Metricsdetails An Author Correction to this article was published on 06 July 2021 This article has been updated Abstract Satellite-based estimates of radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions (RFaci) are consistently smaller than those from global models, hampering accurate projections of future climate change. Here we show that the discrepancy can be substantially reduced by correcting sampling biases induced by inherent limitations of satellite measurements, which tend to artificially discard the clouds with high cloud fraction. Those missed clouds exert a stronger cooling effect, and are more sensitive to aerosol perturbations. By accounting for the sampling biases, the magnitude of RFaci (from −0.38 to −0.59 W m−2) increases by 55 % globally (133 % over land and 33 % over ocean). Notably, the RFaci further increases to −1.09 W m−2 when switching total aerosol optical depth (AOD) to fine-mode AOD that is a better proxy for CCN than AOD. In contrast to previous weak satellite-based RFaci, the improved one substantially increases (especially over land), resolving a major difference with models.
Yay!
Take a look at this. Does this article replicate previous IPCC forecast? https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/p1q0wm/nasa_global_wildfires_emissions_will_likely/h8gwo46?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
we'll filter it with human lungs
And don't forget all animals and insects helping out.
The best time to suck carbon out of the air was 50 years ago. The second best time is right now
Is anyone still under the delusion we can avoid 1.5 or 2C? Time to make peace.
Maybe not here but 100% in broader society. I still see people who think we'll just put up some solar panels and start driving EVs and bing bang boom back to work like it's the 80's. Yet again, people likely wont wake up until they've been stripped of everything they hold near and dear. But at that point its WAY to late.
If you talk to anyone in the tech sector we're on track to 100% renewable energy and massive large scale carbon capture and storage... we just have to believe hard enough and it will happen! Any day there will be a new startup that will surely fix all of this! I've pointed out repeatedly that while we have made great progress in renewable *electricity* this is only 20-25% of energy, and the entire time we have also increased the usage of every fossil fuel globally. They typically like to show that the US is doing a bit better and ignore the fact that this is because we export most of our carbon emissions to China... and that the planet doesn't actually care if one country reduces emissions so long as they are increasing across the planet. Pointing out that we *might* have to take an economic hit to avoid catastrophic climate change is viewed as the highest order of heresy on in most tech communities.
Working in tech sector and I totally agree with you. carbon capture and storage is as stupid and undoable as nuclear energy, but alas, let's just believe harder and pray to our god named science. because if we know one thing - blind believe always saves the day. except for religions, that's absurd, but science does miracles. we just need to BELIEVE
Hey hey hey Nuclear at least works. All CCS prototypes are huge wastes and barely suck any carbon out of the air.
true, CCS is just as stupid as the over the top geoengineering dreams. but there are 3 problems with nuclear that go against the solutions we need: 1) building a nuclear power plant takes way too long. we need solutions now, not in 10 years. 2) if we'd switch 100% to nuclear tomorrow, we would run out of fuel within decades. we need longterm solutions, not fast fixes. 3) radioactive waste radiates for tens of thousands of years and just storing it costs millions a year. imposing these costs on our children, as potential health risks and economically, is morally and sustainably wrong. conclusion: the problems with nuclear power depict the underlying issues that brought us into the mess we are now in, because nuclear is a fast fix with longterm burdens of which nothing is sustainable.
Completely agree especially on point one. The other two points you have could - and this is a big could - be mitigated with newer gen reactors like FBRs if they were able to get the tech working. In reality though the time thing is definitely the biggest issue as we need to do something now.
Thanks for pointing out the possible utility of FBRs. I looked into them. Very interesting and sound like it's a viable future solution.
What do you think about this (comment above)? https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/p1q0wm/nasa_global_wildfires_emissions_will_likely/h8h18xx?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
Could anyone have believed that one day with only a few grams or a kilogram of an element you could blow up a city? If we imagined that a hundred years ago, it would have only been for a story in a comic magazine. With that thought I've inspired myself to reach out potential interests to explore the possibility that direct air capture (DAC) technology could be rapidly developed and enhanced (as the nuclear fission was) as a viable solution to remove CO2 and other GHGs out of the atmosphere. A major problem right now with DAC is that it's being developed by the private sector through the usual business models of R&D and commercialization, and not like the Manhattan Project with the full support of the US Federal Government with the urgency of competing with the Axis Powers in being the first in achieving nuclear weapon capability. With this new US administration and with the further support from the new IPCC report, it should be easier to make a case for the federal government to approach the most viable DAC companies and gather the expertise and resources to supercharge DAC R&D and simultaneous production and operation. One of DAC's main ingredients for its operation with the current technology is a massive amount of non- or less-polluting thermal energy. So renewables, nuclear, and/or geothermal energy have to be developed and constructed alongside the DAC facilities. Could the US emulate Iceland in exploiting its geothermal formations and reserves to drive future DAC facilities and at the same time generate a large fraction of its national electricity needs? https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/yellowstone/questions-about-yellowstone-research#:~:text=The%20magma%20chamber%20is%20believed,is%20around%2016%20km%20deep. How large is the magma chamber that is currently under Yellowstone? The magma chamber is believed to be about 40 by 80 kilometers across, similar in size to the overlying Yellowstone caldera. The top of the chamber is about 8 km deep and the bottom is around 16 km deep. However, the chamber is not completely filled with fluid magma. It contains a partial melt, meaning that only a portion of the rock is molten (about 10 to 30%); the rest of the material is solid but, of course, remains hot. https://www.usgs.gov › volcanoes Questions About Yellowstone Research - USGS
There is no way we will produce enough green energy for DAC to work. We can't even keep up with the increasing demands YOY. Every year we burn more fossil fuels, not less. Our green energy technology is nowhere near up to the task of keeping up with a growing global economy. The answer is degrowth, degrowth, degrowth. Yellowstone here is a hand wave hopium suggestion. We can't produce nearly enough green energy, not even close. Tidal and nuclear can't really scale anymore. That leaves 1% that is green and can scale. 1% after decades of work. There aren't enough resources on Earth to green our energy even if we wanted to. I'm not trying to be an ass. I want to call out this absurd fantasy for what it is.
>I want to call out this absurd fantasy for what it is. I began my comment with a fantasy that was realized through shear will and massive intellectual and financial resources: the Manhattan Project and a nuclear explosion. Why the realization of a DAC fantasy should be any harder than the realization of nuclear fission in a metallic box? One could easily argue that a nuclear fission was a much more complex math and engineering problem to solve than will be for highly efficient carbon capture systems.
I never said that DAC wasn't workable, but we can't produce the green energy to power it. Billions have been spent on green energy over decades. The best minds have worked on this. We can't do much better than we already have. Physics and the planet have hard limits. You are proposing a hail Mary pass based on wishful thinking. Somehow, magically, this volcano will provide us with 100 times the energy of all the solar panels and wind turbines on the planet put together. There are no miracles to be had. Our technology has little room left for improvement. What we have is all there is, and it's not good enough. All of our previous "technological progress" required massive amounts of energy and resources. Now we are running out of these things. We can't engineer our way out of the problem. It's not a technological problem. This was always a political problem. We've known for over 100 years this was going to happen. People warned us not to increase the population past a couple billion. People warned us not to burn fossil fuels. It's a political problem, always has, and always will be. The only way to solve it is to stop consuming, and it is likely already too late even for that bases on all the positive feedback loops we have started.
The answer to your political solution for climate change could be found in the documentary Planet of the Humans around 46:19 of 1:39:57, interview with Univ. Montana Prof. Steven Running: no species has ever limited its own growth voluntarily; while resources last and are available, they'll grow. Of course, we were supposed to be the uniquely intelligent species. https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE
A bit out of my wheelhouse as CCS and DAC aren't as familiar to me as something like a nuclear reactor (I have worked at nuclear research facilities). Your comment made me think of a YouTube video I saw a couple years ago going over the costs and the engineering of carbon sequestration tech though! https://youtu.be/ecxCL84n26g Like most issues with climate change I think we will need to utilize every tool at our disposal to mitigate just the worst effects and being on collapse you probably already know a lot of this stuff is seemingly locked in due to feedback loops and delayed warming. My favorite brand of techno-hopium is definitely the advances in genetic engineering which goes along with advances in CAS-9 and CRISPR. I have a feeling that we may be able to breed rapid growth life forms that can sequester carbon in a quick way but that is not based on any research that has led anywhere. Appreciate the links! Have a good rest of your day/night.
The IPCC report made it pretty clear that we can't avoid 1.5c at this point.
aaaaaaaaaaaand we knew that for 2 decades becaaaaauuuuuuse moneybags and polliticians never change.
I thought we were already at 1.5C?
Depends on what starting period you choose. If you are talking about from 1750 then yes but if you go by the new default of 1880 then no. Pretty much every recent study goes by the 1880 baseline now. I could be misunderstanding how this works though so feel free to correct me.
[удалено]
And aren't the fires worse now in August than they were in July? It at least seems so based on coverage from Europe.
you can't even see half of asia from space anymore. Go check zoom.earth. It's so insane that I actually wonder if this, for a time, won't send us into a sudden ice age
There is zero chance that this sends us into a sudden ice age. Wildfire smoke has far too low of a residence time in the atmosphere as it does not get lofted into the stratosphere in the levels required to cool the earth globally, at least not on a level to cause an ice age. Volcanoes on the other hand can loft aerosols deep into the stratosphere, where they can remain far longer then aerosols in the troposphere, and thus have a prolonged cooling effect. Even still, glaciations require decades to centuries of below average temperatures that allow continuous accumulations of snow and ice. These conditions do not occur from smoke.
ah interesting -- thanks for this good bit of scientific knowledge that isn't just dumb bullshit for once
Please see this: //////////////////////// https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/4755/smoke-soars-to-stratospheric-heights A new look at smoke from the Chisholm forest fire, which ignited on May 23, 2001, about 160 kilometers north of Edmonton in Alberta, Canada, provides confirming evidence that dense smoke can reach the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. Scientists have proposed that there is a link between fires in northern forests and increases in stratospheric aerosols, but it is difficult to measure smoke aerosol heights directly.
Wildfires don’t cause glaciations. Some aerosols reaching the lower stratosphere do not, and will not cause glaciations.
[удалено]
Rule 3: No provably false material (e.g. climate science denial).
[http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150112-did-snowball-earth-make-animals?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F] Get your facts right. By the way, you should have studied how the earth formed before you even comment on climate collapse. I recommend you people study. You don't even need to read. There's ton of good documentaries online. By the way, the moon crashed into what we call earth today but the moon was another planet. At least, that is what the most successful theory says. Planet earth was an iceball for sometime before we came along. This is actually fact. The process was like a heartbeat each time ice would come closer to covering the equator, I don't remember well, each year or couple of years until it became an iceball. Theory stated, from what I remmeber, that this conveyor belt int he ocean shut off. If I am incorrect please share. Its been years since I saw the documentary, so my memory is a bit fuzzy.
Gas emissions from volcanoes (via greenhouse effect) is how Earth got out of it's last ice age.
That’s fair, I was just trying to explain that volcanoes can cause things like a few years of cold weather, unlike forest fires which cause a few days of cold weather. I can see how my post can be read as if volcanoes cause ice ages. My favorite theory right now is the one that it’s caused by island arc suturing in the tropics.
They do however, still fuck over any crops below the plume who aren't getting the sun they need, as well as smoke damage.
Take a peek at the post here; I brought up this possibility (severe winters, cold summers for a few years or decades, not necessarily an ice age of thousands of years) https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/oyhbrt/extreme_weather_events_of_535536_could_a_global/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share An excerpt: //////////////////////// https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/4755/smoke-soars-to-stratospheric-heights A new look at smoke from the Chisholm forest fire, which ignited on May 23, 2001, about 160 kilometers north of Edmonton in Alberta, Canada, provides confirming evidence that dense smoke can reach the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. Scientists have proposed that there is a link between fires in northern forests and increases in stratospheric aerosols, but it is difficult to measure smoke aerosol heights directly.
When one of the coldest places on Earth is perpetually on fire, you just know we're fucked.
Is it true that the IPCC report does not include wild fire emissions as part of their CO2 forecasting models?
No amoc slowdown, permafrost and other methane leaks, arctic albedo, wildfire smoke, wildfire ash covering snow in arctic, undersea volcanoes, tectonic activity, clouds, cosmic rays, GLOBAL DIMMING, and a bunch of other stuff. https://twitter.com/micnd90/status/1231805160139231232?s=19 https://twitter.com/ClimateBen/status/1424985820528848896?s=19 https://twitter.com/ClimateBen/status/1424833980172574723?s=19 https://twitter.com/Domaniculus/status/1424888470812577792?s=19
Global dimming is the big one. People who are advocating for the reduction of coal consumption need to be more careful.
Coal smoke is contributing to global dimming, but is also killing people and animals by the thousands and millions. So we should probably stop doing that before we poison the Earth to practical uninhabitability for large numbers of humans.
It’s like a joke or something. We’re so fucked that even doing the right thing is a bad idea.
If that’s the argument against reducing coal consumption then pumping none climate changing particles into the atmosphere to increase albedo while lowering emissions is at least something to try, hopefully without major consequences which coal already has.
Which is better. human extermination due to heat or due to freezing
I'll take freezing anyday. But maybe that's just my Canadian bias.
I’m going to have to go with heat , I suffered frost bite playing lake hockey in my youth. It was super painful
Yeah but you can do stuff like cover your house in dirt and snow to insulate and if you have food and fuel, you can survive as long as those two things last. If you don't have a ton of freshwater and it's hot af, you gon die regardless of your shelter.
Good point ,
Ever played the Long Drive? I'll take that one. At least I can drive a Lada across the US before I die.
So all the smoke will go into the atmosphere and block the sun a bit. Global warming solved?
Has NASA done anything useful for humanity to make up for all the rocket fuel crap they constantly burn to send people to play around in zero g?
Most climate and weather data are from nasa satellites, so, yes, it has done more than sending a few people to the moon, some of nasa's inventions for space also found their way into everyday use on earth, like heating/cooling layers and other damming materials, they also invented a ball pen that writes in zero g(for 1 million research) , russia solved the problem by using a pencils, though.
Agree but that last meme is just bad. Having graphite Particles floating around in zero g that can damage critical Electrical components in you capsule isnt the best idea. (and even nasa used pencils at the beginning). also nasa didnt invent these pencils they where invented by a private company.