5 ms·

You’re right and you’re wrong. Not to try to push this, bcs although I started this thread, as I say elsewhere, it is, even to my mind, a last resort, you seem

You’re right and you’re wrong. Not to try to push this, bcs although I started this thread, as I say elsewhere, it is, even to my mind, a last resort, you seem to be having a bit of a failure of creativity. (a) Iron actually comes in powered form to begin with (the cars were literally a joke), and blows off land, or pours out of rivers, in many places already, seeding the southern eddy, for example. (b) More-or-less simple and cheap mining operations to “filter” iron out into, for example, the southern eddy. I’m not making this up. There are academics exploring this and they do actually do the math you’re describing. You’re right that’s it’s more complex than literally dumping powered cars into the sea. But you’re wrong to believe that only stupid people are thinking about OIF.

abrax3141 4y ago
Ps. Now that I think of it, I’ll bet that if you dumped a nuke into the ocean anyplace on the ocean floor in the southern eddy, it would “mine” and bring up (via heat convention) enough iron and micronutrients to create a very significant algal bloom. Not proposing doing it. Just being creative. That’s not much worse than an underwater volcanic eruption. Or maybe just stick a pipe on a black smoker and bring all those micronutrients to the surface in a controlled way.
robomartin 4y ago
> Iron actually comes in powered form to begin with (the cars were literally a joke), and blows off land, or pours out of rivers, in many places already, seeding the southern eddy, for example. It's the same things with all of these arguments, isn't it? Physics never matters. One, six, twelve, one hundred billion tons of powdered iron will magically fly into the oceans and distribute itself --just as magically-- in a uniform patter precisely where it is needed. It will do this without requiring any energy input whatsoever. It will do this without requiring any additional materials at all. It will also do this without having to rip the earth open to mine it. Which is convenient because that would --at that scale-- be incredibly damaging and produce so much CO2 it is hard to begin to calculate it. Of course, the billions of tons of iron powder will have absolutely no effect on anything else on the planet, life, weather, nothing. Sorry my friend. You acuse me of a lack of creativity. I think my position is precisely opposite that idea. I have decades of experience actually making things, designing, sourcing, manufacturing, building things destined for earth and space. When you do this for as long as I have creativity and imagination increase, rather than the opposite. The other thing you gain is an intense sense of proportion about what is and is not possible, or reasonable. The common fallacy of all of these proposals is that they sound great until one considers actually making it happen at a PLANETARY scale, not at the academic level. One of my favorite things to point out about academic, vs. real-world, science is that in academics a cow is a uniform sphere of milk, one meter in diameter. The issue goes far deeper than this conversation. If you actually honestly look at the issue of global warming, the only conclusion one can honestly reach is that there isn't a thing we can do about it. We are too small. You need Thor to descend on this planet to fix it. This is NOT about denying climate change at all. It's real. No doubt about it. This is to say: We need to wake up, stop listening to those using this for personal profit (financial or political) and start talking about how we are going to manage living with a changing planet. We are wasting valuable time and resources chasing nonsense and following those who promote it. I is particularly egregious when the scam artists among us start talking about fixing it in thirty years, or a few decades. They should be laughed out of the public square, and yet, we don't. You can't fix a problem of this magnitude, of a planetary scale, in a few decades. If you try, you are far more likely to kill all living things on earth rather than save one darn thing. A semi truck travelling at 60 mph stops in about 300 feet. If I were to propose we stop it in 1 inch without destroying the thing and shredding everything in it and the driver everyone would think I was crazy as can be. The mildest comment would be: You can't do that because of physics. And they would be right. The planet takes about 100K years to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration by 100 ppm. That's if we all left earth tomorrow. We actually have people claiming we can do the same in 30 years. That is a ratio equivalent to stopping a semi truck travelling at 60 miles per hour in 1 inch rather than 300 feet. Why aren't we calling these people crazy? This issue will take THOUSANDS of years, and likely tens of thousands, to revert. In other words, it is measured in hundreds of human generations, not three decades and four election cycles. We need to stop with the nonsense and start talking about reality.
- abrax3141 4y ago
  Dude, decaf. First, re: Stopping the truck: Nice metaphor - er, intuition pump. You’ve seen a runaway truck ramp, right? Second, a bunch of actual physicists appear to disagree with you: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4018 https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4018 And they’re not even counting OIF. Third, no one in this conversation gave a timeline (although I agree that it’s generally implied to be around 2100). Also, no one is talking removing all the CO2, just creating a drain. Fourth, Re Thor. Well, we have Thor-like technologies in some areas, like nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. It seems like building a bunch of little Thors isn’t that insane. Fifth, what’s your suggestion? Put a dome over every city an run giant air conditioners? Move to Mars? Lay down and die as the planet turns into Venus? Those all seem way less likely than CC. (Well, I guess lay down and die as the planet turns into Venus is the default, but that’s not really a suggestion, just giving up.)
  - robomartin 4y ago
    > Dude, decaf. That's all I drink, but, thanks for the suggestion. > First, re: Stopping the truck: Nice metaphor - er, intuition pump. You’ve seen a runaway truck ramp, right? Sure. I drive by one with some frequency. They are in the order of 2000 to 3000 feet long. Did you miss the small matter of SCALE? I said stopping a semi truck in ONE INCH of length. That's the ratio that matches what they are talking about when it comes to "saving the planet". They claim they can do in 30 years what would take an entire planetary-scale system 100K years. Hence the idea that, if they try, they far more likely to kill everything on earth than save the planet. > a bunch of actual physicists appear to disagree with you No, they don't. That article is a complete joke. It talks about cost --in dollars-- not about cost in energy, materials and the pollution these non-solutions produce. I am not talking about cost at all. The only line in that article that superficially touches what I am saying is at the end: Quoting: “You can emit a CO2 molecule for each one you capture,” In other words, you produce one molecule of CO2 for each molecule you capture. How is that for crazy? And we are not even accounting for energy, materials, storage and ongoing maintenance and operations. Everything sounds great, until you start actually looking at reality. > I agree that it’s generally implied to be around 2100). Politicians and cult members are talking about 30 years. I have never heard "around 2100". And yet, that is just as ridiculous. Once again, we are talking about planetary scale factors while, at the same time, saying we are going to fix it in 30, 50 or 80 years. It's a complete joke. Absolutely laughable at best. Here's the math: 30 years means they are claiming they can fix this over 3000 times faster than the normal rate of change. 80 years (your year 2100 claim), is 1250 time faster than the natural rate. 500 years? 200 times faster. 1000 years? 100 times faster. If someone claimed they can stop a semi truck 100 times faster than normal (3 feet, instead of 300, without damage to the truck, contents and occupants) they would rightly be labelled crazy. And 1000 times or 3000 times? That would, again, rightly, have them laughed out of the room. The semi truck physics absolutely dwarfed by the planetary scale problem we are discussing, and yet people are proposing, promoting and believing snake-oil solutions that should have them laughed and ridiculed out of the conversation. It's truly insane to watch. > we have Thor-like technologies in some areas, like nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. It seems like building a bunch of little Thors isn’t that insane. And those things have one very important thing in common: They are based on the physics that rules their operation. Show me a proposed solution that passes the physics test and we have something real to talk about. You can't. Sorry. > Fifth, what’s your suggestion? Put a dome over every city an run giant air conditioners? Move to Mars? Lay down and die as the planet turns into Venus? Those all seem way less likely than CC. (Well, I guess lay down and die as the planet turns into Venus is the default, but that’s not really a suggestion, just giving up.) Ah, well, that's the right question to ask. None of the things you add there are realistic at all. And, no, the planet isn't going to turn into Venus, that's a grotesque exaggeration. The first thing to accept is that we do not have the energy and resources to fix it. We cannot. It's impossible. Once that becomes the root of the conversation we can have intelligent discussion about what could or should be done. This isn't about denying what humanity has contributed to the atmosphere (about 100 ppm of CO2 over a very short period of time). This is about understanding that, if I light a pile of wood on fire inside a building it is impossible to go capture every single molecule of material released into the building and coating every single object and surface. The energy, time and resources that would require is impossible to imagine. Now think that, but at a planetary scale. This also does not means we should not clean-up our act. Not at all. We should do solar and renewables, not to save the planet --we can't-- but to be cleaner locally and enable cleaner growth. Yet, we should not be crazy lunatics about it. It isn't a mission from god, it's about consistently cleaning-up our act over time. We need to get our collective heads out of our asses and solidly get behind modern nuclear power. That is the only thing that is going to allow us to make a full transition to electric transportation in a serious way. I did say "modern", no need to fear monger about the issues of ancient designs. We can always do better from lessons learned, that's engineering. We also need to stop making crazy claims aiming to scare the population into getting behind causes (and, most often, politicians). No, we are not going to go up in flames anytime soon. I invite anyone who can take a moment to apply a modicum of critical thinking to do one simple thing: Buy a CO2 meter. Carry it around everywhere you go. Take measurements and write them down. And then answer this question: Are you turning into a pile of amorphous jelly? Are all your plants and animals gasping for air and half dead? Are your children crawling on the ground and not able to walk? No? Because, if you do that, if you buy a CO2 meter and get a real sense of what you are breathing every day you will discover that you have been living in a range between 600 and 1400 ppm of CO2 your entire life. In fact, it isn't too far fetched to say that generations of humans, animals and plants have been living in that range. This is certainly true of cities and suburbs. It would be my guess that conditions were not likely to be better in buildings decades ago. Here are some of my measurements: Outdoors, on grass 500 ppm: https://i.imgur.com/srjNIYE.png https://i.imgur.com/srjNIYE.png Outdoors, on concrete, under my solar panels, 484 ppm: https://i.imgur.com/ChfVWeD.png https://i.imgur.com/ChfVWeD.png Outdoors, on patio table under my solar panels, 447 ppm: https://i.imgur.com/doWyYC2.png https://i.imgur.com/doWyYC2.png Indoor, kitchen, 742 ppm: https://i.imgur.com/KPfCxRx.png https://i.imgur.com/KPfCxRx.png Indoor, lab, 955 ppm: https://i.imgur.com/3jEru4d.png https://i.imgur.com/3jEru4d.png I don't have a picture right now inside one of my cars. It easily hit 1400 ppm. Most people, kids, pets, indoor plants live inside buildings most of their lives. This means that we all live in environments with way more than 500 ppm of CO2. We live in this pretty much 24/7. And we are not turning into amorphous masses of goo on the floor. It is important to have a sense of proportion about things. Should indoor CO2 levels be lower than this? Probably? Maybe? Not sure what is easily attainable. Each environment is different. In my town it is so hot (105 F, 41 C), it is impossible to open the windows and create air circulation. You might be able to do it very late at night (after 10 PM, maybe, sometimes). And then you have to consider that you are going to fill the house (and your lungs) with dust. In other words, it's easy to say "just open the windows" while ignoring the realities of the proposal (which is a very common problem when discussing anything related to this subject). I would say that using a CO2 meter is one of the most eye-opening things someone can do if interested in this subject. After that, understanding first year physics is of critical importance in evaluating what we are being told and separating fact from fiction.

abrax3141 4y ago

Ps. Now that I think of it, I’ll bet that if you dumped a nuke into the ocean anyplace on the ocean floor in the southern eddy, it would “mine” and bring up (via heat convention) enough iron and micronutrients to create a very significant algal bloom. Not proposing doing it. Just being creative. That’s not much worse than an underwater volcanic eruption. Or maybe just stick a pipe on a black smoker and bring all those micronutrients to the surface in a controlled way.

robomartin 4y ago

> Iron actually comes in powered form to begin with (the cars were literally a joke), and blows off land, or pours out of rivers, in many places already, seeding the southern eddy, for example. It's the same things with all of these arguments, isn't it? Physics never matters. One, six, twelve, one hundred billion tons of powdered iron will magically fly into the oceans and distribute itself --just as magically-- in a uniform patter precisely where it is needed. It will do this without requiring any energy input whatsoever. It will do this without requiring any additional materials at all. It will also do this without having to rip the earth open to mine it. Which is convenient because that would --at that scale-- be incredibly damaging and produce so much CO2 it is hard to begin to calculate it. Of course, the billions of tons of iron powder will have absolutely no effect on anything else on the planet, life, weather, nothing. Sorry my friend. You acuse me of a lack of creativity. I think my position is precisely opposite that idea. I have decades of experience actually making things, designing, sourcing, manufacturing, building things destined for earth and space. When you do this for as long as I have creativity and imagination increase, rather than the opposite. The other thing you gain is an intense sense of proportion about what is and is not possible, or reasonable. The common fallacy of all of these proposals is that they sound great until one considers actually making it happen at a PLANETARY scale, not at the academic level. One of my favorite things to point out about academic, vs. real-world, science is that in academics a cow is a uniform sphere of milk, one meter in diameter. The issue goes far deeper than this conversation. If you actually honestly look at the issue of global warming, the only conclusion one can honestly reach is that there isn't a thing we can do about it. We are too small. You need Thor to descend on this planet to fix it. This is NOT about denying climate change at all. It's real. No doubt about it. This is to say: We need to wake up, stop listening to those using this for personal profit (financial or political) and start talking about how we are going to manage living with a changing planet. We are wasting valuable time and resources chasing nonsense and following those who promote it. I is particularly egregious when the scam artists among us start talking about fixing it in thirty years, or a few decades. They should be laughed out of the public square, and yet, we don't. You can't fix a problem of this magnitude, of a planetary scale, in a few decades. If you try, you are far more likely to kill all living things on earth rather than save one darn thing. A semi truck travelling at 60 mph stops in about 300 feet. If I were to propose we stop it in 1 inch without destroying the thing and shredding everything in it and the driver everyone would think I was crazy as can be. The mildest comment would be: You can't do that because of physics. And they would be right. The planet takes about 100K years to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration by 100 ppm. That's if we all left earth tomorrow. We actually have people claiming we can do the same in 30 years. That is a ratio equivalent to stopping a semi truck travelling at 60 miles per hour in 1 inch rather than 300 feet. Why aren't we calling these people crazy? This issue will take THOUSANDS of years, and likely tens of thousands, to revert. In other words, it is measured in hundreds of human generations, not three decades and four election cycles. We need to stop with the nonsense and start talking about reality.

abrax3141 4y ago
Dude, decaf. First, re: Stopping the truck: Nice metaphor - er, intuition pump. You’ve seen a runaway truck ramp, right? Second, a bunch of actual physicists appear to disagree with you: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4018 https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4018 And they’re not even counting OIF. Third, no one in this conversation gave a timeline (although I agree that it’s generally implied to be around 2100). Also, no one is talking removing all the CO2, just creating a drain. Fourth, Re Thor. Well, we have Thor-like technologies in some areas, like nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. It seems like building a bunch of little Thors isn’t that insane. Fifth, what’s your suggestion? Put a dome over every city an run giant air conditioners? Move to Mars? Lay down and die as the planet turns into Venus? Those all seem way less likely than CC. (Well, I guess lay down and die as the planet turns into Venus is the default, but that’s not really a suggestion, just giving up.)
- robomartin 4y ago
  > Dude, decaf. That's all I drink, but, thanks for the suggestion. > First, re: Stopping the truck: Nice metaphor - er, intuition pump. You’ve seen a runaway truck ramp, right? Sure. I drive by one with some frequency. They are in the order of 2000 to 3000 feet long. Did you miss the small matter of SCALE? I said stopping a semi truck in ONE INCH of length. That's the ratio that matches what they are talking about when it comes to "saving the planet". They claim they can do in 30 years what would take an entire planetary-scale system 100K years. Hence the idea that, if they try, they far more likely to kill everything on earth than save the planet. > a bunch of actual physicists appear to disagree with you No, they don't. That article is a complete joke. It talks about cost --in dollars-- not about cost in energy, materials and the pollution these non-solutions produce. I am not talking about cost at all. The only line in that article that superficially touches what I am saying is at the end: Quoting: “You can emit a CO2 molecule for each one you capture,” In other words, you produce one molecule of CO2 for each molecule you capture. How is that for crazy? And we are not even accounting for energy, materials, storage and ongoing maintenance and operations. Everything sounds great, until you start actually looking at reality. > I agree that it’s generally implied to be around 2100). Politicians and cult members are talking about 30 years. I have never heard "around 2100". And yet, that is just as ridiculous. Once again, we are talking about planetary scale factors while, at the same time, saying we are going to fix it in 30, 50 or 80 years. It's a complete joke. Absolutely laughable at best. Here's the math: 30 years means they are claiming they can fix this over 3000 times faster than the normal rate of change. 80 years (your year 2100 claim), is 1250 time faster than the natural rate. 500 years? 200 times faster. 1000 years? 100 times faster. If someone claimed they can stop a semi truck 100 times faster than normal (3 feet, instead of 300, without damage to the truck, contents and occupants) they would rightly be labelled crazy. And 1000 times or 3000 times? That would, again, rightly, have them laughed out of the room. The semi truck physics absolutely dwarfed by the planetary scale problem we are discussing, and yet people are proposing, promoting and believing snake-oil solutions that should have them laughed and ridiculed out of the conversation. It's truly insane to watch. > we have Thor-like technologies in some areas, like nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. It seems like building a bunch of little Thors isn’t that insane. And those things have one very important thing in common: They are based on the physics that rules their operation. Show me a proposed solution that passes the physics test and we have something real to talk about. You can't. Sorry. > Fifth, what’s your suggestion? Put a dome over every city an run giant air conditioners? Move to Mars? Lay down and die as the planet turns into Venus? Those all seem way less likely than CC. (Well, I guess lay down and die as the planet turns into Venus is the default, but that’s not really a suggestion, just giving up.) Ah, well, that's the right question to ask. None of the things you add there are realistic at all. And, no, the planet isn't going to turn into Venus, that's a grotesque exaggeration. The first thing to accept is that we do not have the energy and resources to fix it. We cannot. It's impossible. Once that becomes the root of the conversation we can have intelligent discussion about what could or should be done. This isn't about denying what humanity has contributed to the atmosphere (about 100 ppm of CO2 over a very short period of time). This is about understanding that, if I light a pile of wood on fire inside a building it is impossible to go capture every single molecule of material released into the building and coating every single object and surface. The energy, time and resources that would require is impossible to imagine. Now think that, but at a planetary scale. This also does not means we should not clean-up our act. Not at all. We should do solar and renewables, not to save the planet --we can't-- but to be cleaner locally and enable cleaner growth. Yet, we should not be crazy lunatics about it. It isn't a mission from god, it's about consistently cleaning-up our act over time. We need to get our collective heads out of our asses and solidly get behind modern nuclear power. That is the only thing that is going to allow us to make a full transition to electric transportation in a serious way. I did say "modern", no need to fear monger about the issues of ancient designs. We can always do better from lessons learned, that's engineering. We also need to stop making crazy claims aiming to scare the population into getting behind causes (and, most often, politicians). No, we are not going to go up in flames anytime soon. I invite anyone who can take a moment to apply a modicum of critical thinking to do one simple thing: Buy a CO2 meter. Carry it around everywhere you go. Take measurements and write them down. And then answer this question: Are you turning into a pile of amorphous jelly? Are all your plants and animals gasping for air and half dead? Are your children crawling on the ground and not able to walk? No? Because, if you do that, if you buy a CO2 meter and get a real sense of what you are breathing every day you will discover that you have been living in a range between 600 and 1400 ppm of CO2 your entire life. In fact, it isn't too far fetched to say that generations of humans, animals and plants have been living in that range. This is certainly true of cities and suburbs. It would be my guess that conditions were not likely to be better in buildings decades ago. Here are some of my measurements: Outdoors, on grass 500 ppm: https://i.imgur.com/srjNIYE.png https://i.imgur.com/srjNIYE.png Outdoors, on concrete, under my solar panels, 484 ppm: https://i.imgur.com/ChfVWeD.png https://i.imgur.com/ChfVWeD.png Outdoors, on patio table under my solar panels, 447 ppm: https://i.imgur.com/doWyYC2.png https://i.imgur.com/doWyYC2.png Indoor, kitchen, 742 ppm: https://i.imgur.com/KPfCxRx.png https://i.imgur.com/KPfCxRx.png Indoor, lab, 955 ppm: https://i.imgur.com/3jEru4d.png https://i.imgur.com/3jEru4d.png I don't have a picture right now inside one of my cars. It easily hit 1400 ppm. Most people, kids, pets, indoor plants live inside buildings most of their lives. This means that we all live in environments with way more than 500 ppm of CO2. We live in this pretty much 24/7. And we are not turning into amorphous masses of goo on the floor. It is important to have a sense of proportion about things. Should indoor CO2 levels be lower than this? Probably? Maybe? Not sure what is easily attainable. Each environment is different. In my town it is so hot (105 F, 41 C), it is impossible to open the windows and create air circulation. You might be able to do it very late at night (after 10 PM, maybe, sometimes). And then you have to consider that you are going to fill the house (and your lungs) with dust. In other words, it's easy to say "just open the windows" while ignoring the realities of the proposal (which is a very common problem when discussing anything related to this subject). I would say that using a CO2 meter is one of the most eye-opening things someone can do if interested in this subject. After that, understanding first year physics is of critical importance in evaluating what we are being told and separating fact from fiction.