Climate change reversal 'relatively inexpensive'

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, Calibeliever said:

Dos anyone think we should hold off for a minute trying to lower the temps and just keep reducing our carbon footprint? If you put any stock in this: 

https://www.universetoday.com/139189/are-we-headed-towards-another-deep-solar-minimum/ 

then the solar output may drop for a little while (possibly as low as the maunder) which might buy us a bit of time. If you accelerate cooling during a minimum that might have an unintended effect. 

As of now, we are INCREASING our carbon footprint.  The first step would be to halt that.  Then we can begin lowering it.

Doug

[Essan]

As regards the study - it isn't a proposal that we do something that has been discussed for decades and is generally regarded as probably a very bad idea given the known (and unknown) consequences.   It's just a feasibility study into the costs/practicalities should we decide to be very stupid.   Of course, the usual suspect have taken it entirely out of context ....

[Big Jim]

6 minutes ago, Essan said:

As regards the study - it isn't a proposal that we do something that has been discussed for decades and is generally regarded as probably a very bad idea given the known (and unknown) consequences.   It's just a feasibility study into the costs/practicalities should we decide to be very stupid.   Of course, the usual suspect have taken it entirely out of context ....

We've proven time and again that if stupidity is affordable we buy as much of it as we can get.

[Calibeliever]

20 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

As of now, we are INCREASING our carbon footprint.  The first step would be to halt that.  Then we can begin lowering it.

Doug

Agreed. That's not what I said?

[Nnicolette]

On 11/23/2018 at 12:42 PM, seanjo said:

Oh yes they are.

You know Putin has released a statement about this. He believes western governments are poisoning the air on purpose with the chemtrails and this needs to be stopped, because it is causing the global warming. According to what i read.

[Nnicolette]

On 11/24/2018 at 11:59 AM, toast said:

Yeah, and their convention is that people with an IQ >75 are not allowed to join the club/s.

I hate to break it to you but i have seen enough odd formations and instances with the trails to know something isnt right and i scored 189 on my iq test. Regardless of how people here talk to me it is the same number. Thinking you are smarter than other people for following the crowd and believing what you've been told is normal, but isnt generally superior to using your own eyes.

[Nnicolette]

On 11/27/2018 at 10:36 AM, Calibeliever said:

Dos anyone think we should hold off for a minute trying to lower the temps and just keep reducing our carbon footprint? If you put any stock in this: 

https://www.universetoday.com/139189/are-we-headed-towards-another-deep-solar-minimum/ 

then the solar output may drop for a little while (possibly as low as the maunder) which might buy us a bit of time. If you accelerate cooling during a minimum that might have an unintended effect. 

I do. I dont want anyone to kick off an ice age worrying about a little heat. I hate being cold i moved away from snow for a reason.

[Nnicolette]

On 11/23/2018 at 2:32 PM, Essan said:

No, there is no proposal and chemtrails are as real as flying unicorns.  Pink.  Mostly about 4ft in height.

Interesting. Never seen a flying unicorn but you know contrails are getting so abundant they are the new clouds. Something really strange happened to me last summer. Phones are getting creepy. So i was visiting my dad in a small secluded town and i saw two approaching jets. They looked like they were going to have a collision so i watched. They didnt. They began streaming a trail and made a big x over the town. As soon as the x was done they stopped spraying, both made sweeping turns and went back in the same direction leaving just a white x. What is going on up there? I live in a larger town than that and they often come spray grid patterns above us. Now heres the part that was weird. I couldn't believe what i just saw so i took out my phone to take a picture. But my phone recognised it. I was alone and hadnt said a word about it out loud. Before i could snap it my phone freezes up and decided to randomly force me into reading some weather alert. The alert was about disregarding the myth of contrails! I dont know if i was more shocked by the pilots nearly colliding just to make a blatant fume x and go back the same way or by the fact that my phone did that.

[Silver_Raven]

On 11/26/2018 at 4:56 PM, Doug1o29 said:

Probably true, but we've run out of time.  It's too late for a soft landing and if we want a successful landing (one we can walk away from), we may have to resort to some form of terraforming on earth.

Doug

While I don't disagree with that, there's historical evidence that it won't work. In the 1800's there were two major volcanic eruptions, Krakatoa and Tambora, both put enough material into the atmosphere to modify the global temperature by a few degrees. The results were the same for both, mass die offs, crops failed, etc. This happened on a global scale, and the temperature change was, at most, 4 degrees. What they want to do is far more significant than what these two eruptions caused, and irreversible once started. There are better methods, such as true green city projects, most of the ones I see are mostly PR events planting a couple of trees and flowers in a public space. Most trees and plants can process the gasses and other substances that are causing the problem. We aren't gonna fix the problem with the same thinking that got us into it in the first place, that's just gonna make things worse, if you get pricked by a thorn bush, grabbing the branch with both hands won't keep you from getting pricked.

[Doug1029]

5 hours ago, Silver_Raven said:

While I don't disagree with that, there's historical evidence that it won't work. In the 1800's there were two major volcanic eruptions, Krakatoa and Tambora, both put enough material into the atmosphere to modify the global temperature by a few degrees. The results were the same for both, mass die offs, crops failed, etc. This happened on a global scale, and the temperature change was, at most, 4 degrees. What they want to do is far more significant than what these two eruptions caused, and irreversible once started. There are better methods, such as true green city projects, most of the ones I see are mostly PR events planting a couple of trees and flowers in a public space. Most trees and plants can process the gasses and other substances that are causing the problem. We aren't gonna fix the problem with the same thinking that got us into it in the first place, that's just gonna make things worse, if you get pricked by a thorn bush, grabbing the branch with both hands won't keep you from getting pricked.

It doesn't have to be any one method.  It could be a mix of techniques.  My guess is we haven't yet invented the one we'll eventually use.

Tamboura barely left a wiggle in the tree ring record in Oklahoma.  There's a mystery triplet for 1824-1826.  Maybe a delayed response to Tamboura, but probably not.  It shows up as a drought in most analyses, but I have my doubts.  Krakatoa, on the other hand, was probably the cause of the worst winter on record for the Great Plains.  They're still telling stories about how bad it was.

In a "perfect" world, we would only want to drop the temps about 0.5 degrees below current.  We can live with the 1.3 degrees above-normal that would entail, as long as it doesn't get any worse.  That might even be an ideal temp for us humans.  We don't have to do away with global warming completely and trying to do so might cause more damage - the cure could be worse than the disease.

I know.  Women's Clubs love to plant a tree on Arbor and pat themselves on the back.  I've planted maybe 30,000, including ones I handled the contracts for.  Some of those are sawlog size now.  The largest is one my grandmother and I planted together.

But, tree planting has a place.  The ideal balance between forests and other land uses is about 25% forest.  We're below that now.  And there are a lot of areas that have just been abandoned.  Old fields, abandoned parking lots, etc.  Those could be planted.  Trees aren't as good at sequestering carbon as we once hoped.  Most forests in the US are at about 25% of capacity, so there's still a lot of room for improvement.  But by planting abandoned places, we could increase the capacity.  The capacity for carbon storage could also be increased by thinning doghair stands.  Beyond that, just let them grow.  When they reach capacity, cut them down and sequester the carbon in the form of buildings and other non-perishable products.  Carbon storage in soil drops after cutting.  As the stand regrows, so does its storage capacity.  The problem is that with forests, you eventually reach a steady-state where carbon losses balance gains.  At that point we have exhausted the forests' storage capacity.  It's going to take more than just reforestation.

Doug

[Doug1029]

On 11/30/2018 at 9:41 AM, seanjo said:

We are due an ice age, from past cycles, do you think we should try to stop the next one?

The next one is due in 8000-10,000 years.  So it's true that one is due - we're just going to have to wait awhile.

Doug