Derails from Climate Change News thread.

[Seth]

I heard that simply dumping finely ground iron oxide into the oceans will do the same thing.

Yes, there are things that capture CO2, like, oh, I don't know...plants.

Iron has been trialed, with some mixed success, I believe ( without reading it up again ).

But shelled organisms need more than Iron. Iron will grow some green photosynthesising algae, but shell growing organisms need some other minerals like calcium or silicone. ( that's from memory, so it might be other stuff, but that is the principle ).

There are designs for doing what I suggested, dredging up silt from below. Some powered by wave motion too, which would help with the energy equation.
I think it could be done, but only on an international basis, which is probably the biggest hurdle.
But the potential is there. Wherever you get natural upwellings, you get huge blooms of plankton, leading to vast fishing grounds. As two thirds of the Earth is ocean, and eighty percent of that is virtual desert, at present, you have an area of about half the Earth's surface, that could be being used productively.
Fixing carbon would just be a convenient side show to the fish production

I don't think there's anything like the same scope for capturing carbon with plants. Most of the fertile land is used for growing food, and the Northern forests already trap carbon in tree growth.
But it doesn't fix it long-term, it all gets back into the atmosphere eventually.

We could harvest the frozen methane nodules at the same time. Dredge all the goop up, separate and pressurize the methane and ship it home and reseed the rest as you suggest.

[cronus]

Umbrella is the answer. Multi-faceted varied configuration like a leaf with solar panels on the opposite edge....very big. It can be fine tuned, starts shut and opends bit by bit, as knowledge how it effects the system below progresses. No danger because it can be closed opened meter by meter yet is the size of the moons disc. In fact it should give control of the climate via hard number crunching computers in a new and profound way. You don't intervene directly with a system that goes critical- feedback issues, you change it's external environment to obtain more control....

[mistermack]

Umbrella is the answer. Multi-faceted varied configuration like a leaf with solar panels on the opposite edge....very big. It can be fine tuned, starts shut and opends bit by bit, as knowledge how it effects the system below progresses. No danger because it can be closed opened meter by meter yet is the size of the moons disc. In fact it should give control of the climate via hard number crunching computers in a new and profound way. You don't intervene directly with a system that goes critical- feedback issues, you change it's external environment to obtain more control....

If you did have a deflector in space, you might get unintended consequences.
You might get reduced plankton growth, which reduces carbon fixation through shell building, resulting in more acid oceans, and more CO2 in the air...

Or not. Could be risky though.

[Seth]

meanwhile back in the ice loss arena ...not good news.

Why losing glaciers matters
May 23, 2014 11:38 AM
By Quirks
bobmcdonald-190.jpg
By Bob McDonald, Quirks & Quarks

The Earth is losing its ice faster than scientists have predicted. The loss of the white stuff is changing the colour of the planet, accelerating global warming, and could have serious consequences for low lying cities.

Maps of the world usually show Greenland and Antarctica as vast areas of white, which is pretty much all that explorers found when they crossed the enormous ice sheets, and what you see looking down from modern aircraft.

Now, thanks to ice-penetrating radar instruments carried by some of those planes, as well as satellite data, the geography of the land beneath the white is becoming visible. It turns out that the ice is hiding deep valleys and tall mountain peaks as rugged as the Rocky Mountains.

Some of those glacial valleys are below sea level, and that has scientists concerned.

Last week, a report described how warm ocean currents are undercutting the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which actually lies on ground below sea level. This, scientists think, means the ice sheet has passed the point of no return and will inevitably collapse as water encroaches and tears away at the massive ice sheet that represents nearly 10 per cent of the ice on Earth.

This week another report showed that some glaciers in Greenland are also sitting in sub-sea-level valleys. So as the toes of those glaciers retreat, the sea water will follow them up the valleys, causing them to erode more quickly than if the valley floors were higher and drier.

Yet another report showed that glaciers in Alaska and British Columbia are retreating faster than predicted. In fact, all glaciers on Vancouver Island will be completely gone in just 25 years.

This loss of ice is having a multitude of effects on the entire planet. It's changing the colour of the Earth, or in astronomical terms, the planet's albedo. That's a measure of how much sunlight a planet absorbs compared to how much it reflects back into space. White reflects sunlight, so glaciers and ice sheets have been keeping the Earth cooler than it would be otherwise.

As ice disappears, it is replaced by dark land or sea water, which absorbs sunlight and turns it into heat. This process accelerates in a feedback loop that warms the planet faster as the area of the ice gets smaller and smaller.

This heating effect is in addition to the heating caused by our carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

more
http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/technology/ ... tters.html

Ho hum. More Warmist propaganda. Less ice, more humidity, more humidity, more clouds, more clouds higher albedo and the wheels on the bus go round and round.

[mistermack]

Finally, in Canada, glaciers are the source of fresh water for many rivers such as the Bow and North Saskatchewan, which carry that water from the mountains into our agricultural areas. Their loss means we will have to rely more on ground water and aquifers, which are already being pumped heavily for irrigation and fracking natural gas.

What a fucking moronic article. How do these people get the idea that they know something about climate?
Let alone enough to lecture the rest of us.

I nominate that article as the most stupid I have ever read from the alarmist camp.
And that's really really saying something.

[macdoc]

[Hermit]

[Seth]

Problem is the Green agenda isn't about creating a better world, it's about power and control and creating a world in which the worship of environmentalism becomes the mandatory religion of everyone and apostasy is punishable by death.

Forcing people to wear hair shirt, live in wattle and daub huts and grub in the ground with sticks for roots is not what I call a "better world."

A better world is one where sustainability and ecological balance is achieved by sober and careful consideration and planning, good science and achievable plans that don't bankrupt entire economies trying to do things that will make absolutely no difference in the long run, but that are instituted as artificial crises in order to consolidate power and control but to no useful ecological purpose. That's what's going on today.

[Hermit]

Problem is the Green agenda isn't about creating a better world, it's about power and control and creating a world in which the worship of environmentalism becomes the mandatory religion of everyone and apostasy is punishable by death.

Forcing people to wear hair shirt, live in wattle and daub huts and grub in the ground with sticks for roots is not what I call a "better world."

Why, of course. Capitalism good. Environmentalism tyrannous. Now hop along and clearfell another forest for photocopy paper please. And don't forget to kill a whale on your way. For scientific purposes, of course. On your way home you may as well do a little detour through Africa. The rhinoceros may be in danger of extinction, but its horny protuberance is so lucrative.

[Animavore]

I love me a good conspiracy theory

[mistermack]

Of course, the fallacy is that a lower carbon world is a better world.

The evidence for that is minutely thin. The only thing established scientifically about CO2 is that it has a tiny warming effect, and helps plants survive with less water.

Both of which make for a better world, not worse.

[Animavore]

Plants surviving with less water messes up the hydrological cycle of ecosystems and increases run-off leading to soil erosion and more pollutants washed into the rivers and oceans so it's not particularly good at all.

[mistermack]

Plants surviving with less water messes up the hydrological cycle of ecosystems and increases run-off leading to soil erosion and more pollutants washed into the rivers and oceans so it's not particularly good at all.

Any evidence for that? I would say that more plants means more undergrowth, more roots, and more obstructions to rapid run-off. Not less.

This has been studied, and satellite imaging has shown that marginal areas that used to be brown and arid have become greener.
If there is more foliage, this cuts the kinetic energy of raindrops, reducing erosion.

[Animavore]

Plants surviving with less water messes up the hydrological cycle of ecosystems and increases run-off leading to soil erosion and more pollutants washed into the rivers and oceans so it's not particularly good at all.

Any evidence for that? I would say that more plants means more undergrowth, more roots, and more obstructions to rapid run-off. Not less.

This has been studied, and satellite imaging has shown that marginal areas that used to be brown and arid have become greener.
If there is more foliage, this cuts the kinetic energy of raindrops, reducing erosion.

Any evidence? Sure. Read the exact same paper you're referring to with regards the idea that more Co2 means plants use less water.
You can't just pick out the part you agree with because you think it confirms your position (more CO2 = good) while rejecting the part that goes against it.

[mistermack]

There's evidence all over the world, that more vegetation means less erosion. Where to start?
The Amazon? Cutting down rain forests leads to soil erosion? Wherever it happens?

It's perfectly simple. Rain has kinetic energy because it falls from a great height. If there are leaves to break it's fall, it has far less energy when it hits the ground.
If there is undergrowth, even better. And roots bind soil together.

Basically, vegetation acts like a sponge. Bare soil doesn't.