181–190 of 384 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The consensus is that unchecked GW would not be a human extinction event.
Oh so it's not the end of the entirety of human beings, instead it's just the end of civilized modern society as we know it! Phew THAT was close!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In layman's terms, how much are we screwed without hope of a solution, and what is the rough timeframe before the evening news starts looking like "The Day After Tomorrow?"
Our grandchildren are in for tough times. Unless a political miracle occurs. Even then, it might be too late.
Here is a good video about the arctic methane emergency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9ed5E54s4 Some summary points: - Total amount of methane in the current atmosphere: ~5 gigatons - Amount of carbon preserved as methane in the arctic shelf: estimated at 100s-1000s of gigatons - Only 1% release would double the atmospheric burden of methane - Not much effort is needed to destabilize this 1% - The volume current…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we can't figure out an engineering solution to this problem then it's game over. It always amazes me how much people and governments focus on prevention when it comes to climate change, knowing full well it's far too late to change anything by reducing carbon emissions. If we can't sequester these 'surplus' gases from the atmosphere then I guess you could say we don't have a chance in hell, pun intended, of surviv…
IMHO, even if we end up needing some mega-geoengineering project for our survival, it would still be cheaper if we first stop our CO2 emission and then plan for geoengineering, rather than building something scaled for our current CO2 emission trajectory. Basically, if an oil tanker is leaking oil all over the beach, we should first plug the goddamn hole before talking about (expensive) solutions to clean up the cont…
Here is a good video about the arctic methane emergency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9ed5E54s4 Some summary points: - Total amount of methane in the current atmosphere: ~5 gigatons - Amount of carbon preserved as methane in the arctic shelf: estimated at 100s-1000s of gigatons - Only 1% release would double the atmospheric burden of methane - Not much effort is needed to destabilize this 1% - The volume current…
I wonder how many of these bubbles are harvestable into useful fuel? Prevent a crisis and stockpile fuel at the same time? Obviously it's nicer if we could get everyone to sign the Kyoto treaty but ...
that ignores the whole CH4 being a short term problem thing though...
Here is a good video about the arctic methane emergency: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9ed5E54s4 Some summary points: - Total amount of methane in the current atmosphere: ~5 gigatons - Amount of carbon preserved as methane in the arctic shelf: estimated at 100s-1000s of gigatons - Only 1% release would double the atmospheric burden of methane - Not much effort is needed to destabilize this 1% - The volume current…
I apologize for not watching the video, but what sort of effects will these increased levels have on humans, plants, and other life on the planet? It doesn't sound like it would be beneficial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how many of these bubbles are harvestable into useful fuel? Prevent a crisis and stockpile fuel at the same time? Obviously it's nicer if we could get everyone to sign the Kyoto treaty but ...
Where're you going to store that much gas?
Here is another article about the same event (in german) that has an aerial view supposedly showing the distribution of the craters over one of the islands: http://www.spektrum.de/news/7000-gasblasen-woelben-sich-in-s... (The craters filled with water, hence the dark color. The picture doesn't say anything about the craters' depth) I don't know about the source though, so I guess it should be taken with a grain of sa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we can't figure out an engineering solution to this problem then it's game over. It always amazes me how much people and governments focus on prevention when it comes to climate change, knowing full well it's far too late to change anything by reducing carbon emissions. If we can't sequester these 'surplus' gases from the atmosphere then I guess you could say we don't have a chance in hell, pun intended, of surviv…
IMHO, even if we end up needing some mega-geoengineering project for our survival, it would still be cheaper if we first stop our CO2 emission and then plan for geoengineering, rather than building something scaled for our current CO2 emission trajectory. Basically, if an oil tanker is leaking oil all over the beach, we should first plug the goddamn hole before talking about (expensive) solutions to clean up the cont…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the only option either. Combine that solution on a massive scale with re-forestation and (even though eventually it's CO2 neutral) it might actually make a dent. My go-to model was always: - Plant heliostat molten salt reactors in desert coastal areas [1] - Use generated heat to desalinate water - Use desalinated water to provide irrigation - Plant (potentially GMO'ed) bootstrapping organisms to create a soi…
Yes, re-forestation or afforestation is another scheme worth considering. It can't scale up to the extent of accelerated silicate weathering but it could reach a scale of gigatons of CO2 per year. And it could produce food, wood products, and desirable living space for humans where once there were deserts with little biomass of any kind. You need to harvest-and-bury wood (as biochar, preferably) pretty regularly if t…