If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ZME Science)   Todays 'Plan that Could Never Possibly Go Wrong in Any Way Ever' brought to you by scientists who want to fill the atmosphere with aerosols to reflect sunlight back into space   (zmescience.com) divider line 87
    More: Scary, global warming, sunlight, ocean acidification, Arctic sea ice, Jane Fonda, geoengineering, trade-off, thermostats  
•       •       •

1240 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Oct 2012 at 3:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-22 12:03:50 PM
Wasn't this part of the plot to Highlander 2?
 
2012-10-22 12:13:09 PM

neritz: Wasn't this part of the plot to Highlander 2?


Highlander 2? I think you're mistaken because they never made a sequel.

You're thinking of the Animatrix operation dark storm.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-10-22 12:15:17 PM
I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up. There may be a very good reason that's a bad idea, but it escapes me. I mean, if we're capable of changing the atmosphere inadvertently, why not go all out and force it to do our bidding?
 
2012-10-22 12:17:00 PM
ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!
 
2012-10-22 12:20:18 PM

nekom: I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up. There may be a very good reason that's a bad idea, but it escapes me. I mean, if we're capable of changing the atmosphere inadvertently, why not go all out and force it to do our bidding?


That sounds like science, and Jesus don't like him no sciencey stuff. Take yer book lernin' over to commie France where it belongs, surrender monkey!
 
2012-10-22 12:47:22 PM

neritz: Wasn't this part of the plot to Highlander 2? the 80s?


 
 
2012-10-22 01:00:24 PM

nekom: I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up. There may be a very good reason that's a bad idea, but it escapes me. I mean, if we're capable of changing the atmosphere inadvertently, why not go all out and force it to do our bidding?


Why would anybody want to plant trees? Are you some sort of new wave hippie?
 
2012-10-22 01:34:39 PM

nekom: I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up. There may be a very good reason that's a bad idea, but it escapes me. I mean, if we're capable of changing the atmosphere inadvertently, why not go all out and force it to do our bidding?


It's hard for companies to turn a profit on conservation and solutions that don't involve them making things.
 
2012-10-22 02:27:57 PM
1. Genetically engineer algae that process green house gasses into biofuels and are ultraefficient at scrubbing the atmosphere.
2. Install these biofuel production facilities near every major city, creating a major price interest in buying it.
3. ???
4. Profit/Carbon neutrality!
 
2012-10-22 02:28:35 PM

Endrick: neritz: Wasn't this part of the plot to Highlander 2?

Highlander 2? I think you're mistaken because they never made a sequel.

You're thinking of the Animatrix operation dark storm.

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 800x335]


Might explain why it's so dark in Blade Runner...
 
2012-10-22 02:58:09 PM
"We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky."
 
2012-10-22 03:41:42 PM
Giving the Jenny McCarthys of the world more ammunition.
 
2012-10-22 03:43:23 PM
Highlander 2 had a shield covering the planet to protect the earth but it wasn't necessary anymore. Neither was the movie.

Michael Ironside ripping off John C. McGinley's nutz FTW
 
2012-10-22 03:45:28 PM
It has one thing going for it: You can turn it off.
 
2012-10-22 03:46:08 PM

nekom: I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up. There may be a very good reason that's a bad idea, but it escapes me. I mean, if we're capable of changing the atmosphere inadvertently, why not go all out and force it to do our bidding?


it is if you know where to listen - look around you: chances are that every structure around you is made of lumber.

every 2x4 stud in a wall - every sheet of plywood - every wood deck or patio - arbor & trellis - it's all wood & it's all sequestered carbon. unless it gets set on fire.

which is why letting the forest do this:
washingtondnr.files.wordpress.com

instead of responsibly doing this:
extension.oregonstate.edu

is a bit confusing, but i'm sure someone here will gladly fill me in
 
2012-10-22 03:48:21 PM

neritz: Wasn't this part of the plot to Highlander 2?


No. Highlander 2 removed any and all mentions of the abortion that was 'Zeist' or ecological references of any sort.

Highlander: The Quickening doesn't exist.

Highlander: The Final Dimension also doesn't exist to most people.

If you're wondering if there were any movies based off of the TV series, yes. Slan Quince was in it. Aside from that, the rest also do not exist.
 
2012-10-22 03:48:35 PM

heinrich66: Giving the Jenny McCarthys of the world more ammunition.


I read that as 'giving us more Jenny McCarthys'.

1.bp.blogspot.com


I wouldn't mind.
 
2012-10-22 03:49:29 PM

inner ted: nekom: I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up. There may be a very good reason that's a bad idea, but it escapes me. I mean, if we're capable of changing the atmosphere inadvertently, why not go all out and force it to do our bidding?

it is if you know where to listen - look around you: chances are that every structure around you is made of lumber.

every 2x4 stud in a wall - every sheet of plywood - every wood deck or patio - arbor & trellis - it's all wood & it's all sequestered carbon. unless it gets set on fire.

which is why letting the forest do this:
[washingtondnr.files.wordpress.com image 300x215]

instead of responsibly doing this:
[extension.oregonstate.edu image 326x211]

is a bit confusing, but i'm sure someone here will gladly fill me in



Trees are pretty.
 
2012-10-22 03:49:36 PM

nekom: I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up.


If you look at the estimated CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from land use change (e.g. deforestation), it's not very large compared to fossil fuels. It stands to reason that reforestation isn't going to help much, even if you could free up that much land. You could fertilize the ocean algae, but that has potentially scary ecosystem consequences.

Furthermore, the problem is permanent (or at least, very long term) sequestration. Trees, for example, die and release most of the carbon back to the atmosphere within a century or so. But that carbon needs to be removed from the carbon cycle entirely, e.g. with geologic sequestration. This is expensive. It's probably about as expensive as extracting all that fossil fuel from the ground in the first place, except without the profits to go along with it.
 
2012-10-22 03:51:42 PM

inner ted: nekom: I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up. There may be a very good reason that's a bad idea, but it escapes me. I mean, if we're capable of changing the atmosphere inadvertently, why not go all out and force it to do our bidding?

it is if you know where to listen - look around you: chances are that every structure around you is made of lumber.

every 2x4 stud in a wall - every sheet of plywood - every wood deck or patio - arbor & trellis - it's all wood & it's all sequestered carbon. unless it gets set on fire.

which is why letting the forest do this:
[washingtondnr.files.wordpress.com image 300x215]

instead of responsibly doing this:
[extension.oregonstate.edu image 326x211]

is a bit confusing, but i'm sure someone here will gladly fill me in


trees aren't really a long term solution to pull carbon out of the atmosphere, we have released millions of years of carbon that was locked in buried plants. trees take out their amount, and in a short number of years, rot, or are burned. releasing their carbon.
 
2012-10-22 03:52:13 PM

nekom: I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up. There may be a very good reason that's a bad idea, but it escapes me. I mean, if we're capable of changing the atmosphere inadvertently, why not go all out and force it to do our bidding?


The last individual who proposed such a solution ultimately used it as a secret means to disable human augmentations.
 
2012-10-22 03:53:02 PM
Well, considering there's no sun in the sky at night, wouldn't it make sense to just make the night longer?
 
2012-10-22 03:54:42 PM
i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-22 03:54:59 PM
 
2012-10-22 03:56:59 PM

nekom: I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up. There may be a very good reason that's a bad idea, but it escapes me. I mean, if we're capable of changing the atmosphere inadvertently, why not go all out and force it to do our bidding?


There`s always the other story about the guys who use solar power to make fuel from water and CO2. Might just have some bearing on this story. If people were cereal about this then they would kickstarter a giant CO2 sequestering operation that made fuel instead of ranting on FARK with sevenizgud and the green threadshiatter...

You could just lock up the CO2 and bury the fuel if you wanted.

The main problem is we use too much energy and the solution is to make fuel AND NOT USE IT if you are cereal about reversing the amount of CO2 in the air.
 
2012-10-22 03:57:36 PM

Vodka Zombie: nekom: I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up. There may be a very good reason that's a bad idea, but it escapes me. I mean, if we're capable of changing the atmosphere inadvertently, why not go all out and force it to do our bidding?

That sounds like science, and Jesus don't like him no sciencey stuff. Take yer book lernin' over to commie France where it belongs, surrender monkey!


To be fair, the idea in the article is also "sciencey stuff" and is a farking horrific idea.
 
2012-10-22 04:01:23 PM
What we do is, we'll load all the carbon onto a rocket an launch it to Mars. Keep doing that and Mars will warm up. Eventually we save our one inhabitable planet and terraformed another. Two for one.
 
2012-10-22 04:02:16 PM

inner ted: which is why letting the forest do this:
washingtondnr.files.wordpress.com

instead of responsibly doing this:
extension.oregonstate.edu

is a bit confusing, but i'm sure someone here will gladly fill me in


Fires are a natural part of the forest ecosystem. Certain trees reproduce during fires, for example.
 
2012-10-22 04:02:47 PM
Todays 'Plan that Could Never Possibly Go Wrong in Any Way Ever' brought to you by scientists who want to fill the atmosphere with aerosols to reflect sunlight back into space

As opposed to the plan where we completely overturn the current system, take per-capita energy consumption back to some point in the distant past, and make what energy we do use come from sources so expensive that it results in a big drop in GDP and drags the economy to the nether regions of hell? No way that could have unintended consequences, is there?
 
2012-10-22 04:16:28 PM

heypete: inner ted: which is why letting the forest do this:
washingtondnr.files.wordpress.com

instead of responsibly doing this:
extension.oregonstate.edu

is a bit confusing, but i'm sure someone here will gladly fill me in

Fires are a natural part of the forest ecosystem. Certain trees reproduce during fires, for example.


yes, they are. however, because we are not allowed to harvest much of the forest here in the u.s., it goes un managed, leaving so much standing dead and fallen timber that makes a "normal" forest fire into a massive fire.

so we release huge amounts of carbon instead of harvesting those trees and building things with them (sequestering that carbon and eliminating the need for alternatives like plastics)

i understand that forestry practices here domestically were not healthy in the past, but we have swung the pendulum wildly back in the other direction & that isn't helping either.
 
2012-10-22 04:20:02 PM

Kuta: So they want to stop sunlight from adding energy to the earth to make it an isolated system?

All natural and technological processes proceed in such a way that the availability of the remaining energy decreases.
In all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves an isolated system, the entropy of that system increases.

Energy continuously flows from being concentrated, to becoming dispersed, spread out, wasted and useless.
New energy cannot be created and high grade energy is being destroyed. An economy based on endless growth is...
Un-sus-tain-able!


Um, I don't think anyone is talking about full isolation from the Sun...
 
2012-10-22 04:22:11 PM
Let us just do what Futurama did and make a giant space mirror.
 
2012-10-22 04:24:34 PM

dready zim: nekom: I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up. There may be a very good reason that's a bad idea, but it escapes me. I mean, if we're capable of changing the atmosphere inadvertently, why not go all out and force it to do our bidding?

There`s always the other story about the guys who use solar power to make fuel from water and CO2. Might just have some bearing on this story. If people were cereal about this then they would kickstarter a giant CO2 sequestering operation that made fuel instead of ranting on FARK with sevenizgud and the green threadshiatter...

You could just lock up the CO2 and bury the fuel if you wanted.

The main problem is we use too much energy and the solution is to make fuel AND NOT USE IT if you are cereal about reversing the amount of CO2 in the air.


Other than being a nutricious breakfast, it can help reduce Global Warming™?
s14.postimage.org
 
2012-10-22 04:29:02 PM

inner ted: heypete: inner ted: which is why letting the forest do this:
washingtondnr.files.wordpress.com

instead of responsibly doing this:
extension.oregonstate.edu

is a bit confusing, but i'm sure someone here will gladly fill me in

Fires are a natural part of the forest ecosystem. Certain trees reproduce during fires, for example.

yes, they are. however, because we are not allowed to harvest much of the forest here in the u.s., it goes un managed, leaving so much standing dead and fallen timber that makes a "normal" forest fire into a massive fire.

so we release huge amounts of carbon instead of harvesting those trees and building things with them (sequestering that carbon and eliminating the need for alternatives like plastics)

i understand that forestry practices here domestically were not healthy in the past, but we have swung the pendulum wildly back in the other direction & that isn't helping either.


You are assuming that we have a lumber shortage.Harvesting more trees is all well and good but what are we going to do with the extra timber?
 
2012-10-22 04:37:50 PM

inner ted: nekom: I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up. There may be a very good reason that's a bad idea, but it escapes me. I mean, if we're capable of changing the atmosphere inadvertently, why not go all out and force it to do our bidding?

it is if you know where to listen - look around you: chances are that every structure around you is made of lumber.

every 2x4 stud in a wall - every sheet of plywood - every wood deck or patio - arbor & trellis - it's all wood & it's all sequestered carbon. unless it gets set on fire.

which is why letting the forest do this:
[washingtondnr.files.wordpress.com image 300x215]

instead of responsibly doing this:
[extension.oregonstate.edu image 326x211]

is a bit confusing, but i'm sure someone here will gladly fill me in


In part because many of the people who do the second don't WANT to cut down the types of trees and shrub brush that cause forest fires, because THEY CAN'T SELL THEM. They want to cut the strong old growths.. the type that are most likely to *WITHSTAND* a forest fire.

Do you really think they'd only cut standing dead trees?
 
2012-10-22 04:39:50 PM
They just need one of these.

nurtz.com

/hot like global warming
 
2012-10-22 04:40:21 PM
If we're gonna do a giant geoengineering project it should probably be a gigantic dam from the tip of south America to Antarctica. That'll deviate tropical currents from just rounding the horn to circling the whole southern continent before heading north. The net effect will be a drastic warming of antartica and moderate cooling everywhere else. It will counteract global warming and once the ice melts there's a whole continent of resources to extract, beaches to build resorts on, and semi-euclidean temples to visit.

Wins all around. Plus if we don't like how it works out we don't have to worry about scraping aeresols out of the top layer of the atmosphere. Just blow the damn.
 
2012-10-22 04:54:02 PM
Hell, guys, we've DONE this.

BTDT.

Filled the atmosphere with aerosols, and all we got was this T-shirt.

And, you know what? It worked. It worked SO well, a lot of people look at the data and, missing the punch line, think we had a big upturn in global warming when we STOPPED filling the atmosphere with aerosols.

I'd be all happy if we'd go back to it - we do need to do more aboveground nuclear weapons tests, especially with the new Sandia design series. It's such a big departure from known design rules that I'm not sure simulation is good enough.
 
2012-10-22 04:54:46 PM

jjorsett: Todays 'Plan that Could Never Possibly Go Wrong in Any Way Ever' brought to you by scientists who want to fill the atmosphere with aerosols to reflect sunlight back into space

As opposed to the plan where we completely overturn the current system, take per-capita energy consumption back to some point in the distant past, and make what energy we do use come from sources so expensive that it results in a big drop in GDP and drags the economy to the nether regions of hell? No way that could have unintended consequences, is there?


but but... change is inherently good. the old status quo is not only bad, it is downright evil.
 
2012-10-22 04:55:58 PM

erewhon: Hell, guys, we've DONE this.

BTDT.

Filled the atmosphere with aerosols, and all we got was this T-shirt.

And, you know what? It worked. It worked SO well, a lot of people look at the data and, missing the punch line, think we had a big upturn in global warming when we STOPPED filling the atmosphere with aerosols.

I'd be all happy if we'd go back to it - we do need to do more aboveground nuclear weapons tests, especially with the new Sandia design series. It's such a big departure from known design rules that I'm not sure simulation is good enough.


we should kick off some volcanoes while we are at it.
 
2012-10-22 04:59:54 PM

Pro Zack:

we should kick off some volcanoes while we are at it.


It's pretty obvious that works, too.
 
2012-10-22 05:16:52 PM

Your_Midnight_Man: [i50.tinypic.com image 500x330]


That's exactly what the headline made me think.
 
2012-10-22 05:17:13 PM

Felgraf: inner ted: nekom: I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up. There may be a very good reason that's a bad idea, but it escapes me. I mean, if we're capable of changing the atmosphere inadvertently, why not go all out and force it to do our bidding?

it is if you know where to listen - look around you: chances are that every structure around you is made of lumber.

every 2x4 stud in a wall - every sheet of plywood - every wood deck or patio - arbor & trellis - it's all wood & it's all sequestered carbon. unless it gets set on fire.

which is why letting the forest do this:
[washingtondnr.files.wordpress.com image 300x215]

instead of responsibly doing this:
[extension.oregonstate.edu image 326x211]

is a bit confusing, but i'm sure someone here will gladly fill me in

In part because many of the people who do the second don't WANT to cut down the types of trees and shrub brush that cause forest fires, because THEY CAN'T SELL THEM. They want to cut the strong old growths.. the type that are most likely to *WITHSTAND* a forest fire.

Do you really think they'd only cut standing dead trees?


few things

the "strong old growths" are mostly dead or dying already. their co2 / o2 exchange is paltry compared to a young tree - think metabolism of a child vs an old person. most are partially or completely rotted on the inside, which is why they fall over. they are also the biggest "i'm over here" to lightening strikes.

while acknowledging the history of forestry in the states has not always been the kindest to nature - like i mentioned earlier, the pendulum has swung so dramatically in the other direction, i fail to see how we are better off.

using plastics or other synthetics as opposed to lumber is hardly "greener". wood takes the least amount of energy to get from tree to usable product. many many mills have (for decades) powered their plants from the biomass they produce. lumber IS sequestered carbon.

of course the lumber industry would harvest more than just standing dead and blowdown. that's the point, to reasonably and responsibly maintain and work the forest.

i think that often people view the forestry industry of north america with that of the practices currently used in south america / asia / africa if you need to rage against forestry practices, start there.
 
zez
2012-10-22 05:43:44 PM
Wasn't there a big deal in the 80's to stop using aerosols, due to them burning holes in the ozone layer or something? It's why most things are pump spray now.
 
2012-10-22 05:45:53 PM

Egoy3k: inner ted: heypete: inner ted: which is why letting the forest do this:
washingtondnr.files.wordpress.com

instead of responsibly doing this:
extension.oregonstate.edu

is a bit confusing, but i'm sure someone here will gladly fill me in

Fires are a natural part of the forest ecosystem. Certain trees reproduce during fires, for example.

yes, they are. however, because we are not allowed to harvest much of the forest here in the u.s., it goes un managed, leaving so much standing dead and fallen timber that makes a "normal" forest fire into a massive fire.

so we release huge amounts of carbon instead of harvesting those trees and building things with them (sequestering that carbon and eliminating the need for alternatives like plastics)

i understand that forestry practices here domestically were not healthy in the past, but we have swung the pendulum wildly back in the other direction & that isn't helping either.

You are assuming that we have a lumber shortage.Harvesting more trees is all well and good but what are we going to do with the extra timber?


And plus after the burn, more trees quickly grow back and pull in an equal amount of CO2 that was burned off in just a couple of years, so forest fires are carbon neutral (unless we intervene and stop trees growing back for some reason).
 
2012-10-22 05:57:22 PM

Marine1: Vodka Zombie: nekom: I'm still wondering why large-scale carbon sequestering isn't being talked about much. It could be as simple as planting trees, or maybe some weird biomass thing to eat it up. There may be a very good reason that's a bad idea, but it escapes me. I mean, if we're capable of changing the atmosphere inadvertently, why not go all out and force it to do our bidding?

That sounds like science, and Jesus don't like him no sciencey stuff. Take yer book lernin' over to commie France where it belongs, surrender monkey!

To be fair, the idea in the article is also "sciencey stuff" and is a farking horrific idea.


Why is cloud whitening a horrific idea? The aerosol in question is water droplets. By whitening the clouds, you cause more solar radiation to be radiated into space. It also has the advantage of being easily regulatable - if you have too much effect on temperature, you simply stop whitening clouds. The water droplets dissipate quickly.

It isn't a permanent solution, but it has the ability to stop and even reverse warming, buying time to let carbon mitigation work. At present estimates it will take something like 50 years to have any measurable effect on atmospheric carbon levels if we started carbon cuts now that are frankly more than the developed world will accept, and that does nothing to address increasing carbon usage in China and India.

Why not conduct an experiment in a remote area (some have suggested the Faeroe Islands) and see what happens? The worst that can happen is we find out that it doesn't work, or has too much effect on local weather and circulation patterns. It has the potential to be a very cost effective solution that will allow us to pursue real greenhouse gas mitigation/sequestration/emission reductions in a way that won't bankrupt half the world.
 
2012-10-22 06:04:44 PM

jjorsett: As opposed to the plan where we completely overturn the current system, take per-capita energy consumption back to some point in the distant past, and make what energy we do use come from sources so expensive that it results in a big drop in GDP and drags the economy to the nether regions of hell?


That's not an actual plan that's been proposed, you know. It's your farcical alarmist misrepresentation of it.
 
2012-10-22 06:13:37 PM

erewhon: Filled the atmosphere with aerosols, and all we got was this T-shirt.

And, you know what? It worked. It worked SO well, a lot of people look at the data and, missing the punch line, think we had a big upturn in global warming when we STOPPED filling the atmosphere with aerosols.


The warming is not attributable to decreased aerosol loading. In fact, global aerosol emissions have only modestly decreased, thanks to an increase in pollution in non-Western countries.
 
2012-10-22 06:15:21 PM

zez: Wasn't there a big deal in the 80's to stop using aerosols, due to them burning holes in the ozone layer or something? It's why most things are pump spray now.


It was the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were the problem. They were delivered in aerosol spray cans, but the aerosols weren't the problem. TFA is talking about sulfate aerosols, which are different.
 
2012-10-22 06:18:10 PM

Ambitwistor: zez: Wasn't there a big deal in the 80's to stop using aerosols, due to them burning holes in the ozone layer or something? It's why most things are pump spray now.

It was the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were the problem. They were delivered in aerosol spray cans, but the aerosols weren't the problem.


That didn't come out right. The CFCs were used in the aerosol propellant. They affected the ozone layer chemically (and are also greenhouse gases). The sulfate aerosols TFA is talking about (basically, droplets of sulfuric acid) affect the climate by scattering sunlight, cooling the Earth. (They're also what acid rain was about.)
 
Displayed 50 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report