DailyDirt: Fixing A Hole Where The Rain Gets In…

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Pollution from energy generation is an enormous problem that will probably require an expensive solution — which, thankfully, billionaires like Bill Gates are willing to fund. However, we’re already spending billions on energy R&D, but progress seems slow when the doomsday clock appears to be “catastrophically” close to midnight. The option of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere might give us some additional time, though, even if global-scale geoengineering sounds like it might have its own unintended side effects.

After you’ve finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , , ,
Companies: carbon engineering

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “DailyDirt: Fixing A Hole Where The Rain Gets In…”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
37 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

fun little bit of old research

We need more trees as trees filter particulates from the air. how do we get more trees? Well may you ask. We need to plant more of them. But in conjunction we also need to get the CO2 levels up so they can grow faster and better.

Recent news was the release of the information that Australian trees like higher levels of CO2 as they grow better with the same water usage. Or grow the same with less water usage.

What is the best carbon sequestration method, put the carbon to use in plant growth and reap the benefits thereof.

Hence, we need to increase our atmospheric CO2 levels to promote plant growth and so remove the carbon from the atmosphere into a beneficial product.

The only problem we have is idiots and fools advocating removal of atmospheric carbon by industrial means. We have a far better and more beneficial means – trees and other flora.

So, more CO2 is better all round for humans and their environment. I rather like trees (except in the bike lanes of roads).

Jon M. Kelley (profile) says:

Re: Re: Anon 12Nov2015-0509

“…hide the nuclear waste in poor third world countries,
preferably on the same ones we extracted the uranium in the first place, so that it kind of cancels in a zero sum”

That’s really a brilliant idea, I forwarded it to my U.S. Senator, along with a link so that she could actually see the source. It is much better than letting the EPA run wild protecting the algae, and given their recent history I think that they are tree killers rather than tree huggers.

Thank you.

JoeCool (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Algae grows BETTER in polluted waters and higher temps, so the pollution couple with global warming has increased algae masses to record levels. Surely you’ve heard of the red-tide epidemic over the last several years. That’s algae.

The call to decrease water pollution is in an effort to curb algae growth as increased algae harms other inhabitants of the seas. Currently, we want edible fish, crabs, lobsters, oysters, and clams more than we want increased oxygen from algae.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

yes a “club of rome” version of better place:

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” – Aurelio Peccei, an, Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

Personanongrata says:

Re: Re:

What if global climate change is a hoax and we make the world a better place for nothing?

The phenomena of climate change on Earth is a indisputable fact that has been occurring since the beginning geological time.

The issue is not does climate change occur on Earth but rather what are the mechanisms responsible for the change.

The billion dollar question is are the mechanisms anthropogenic or natural?

Personanongrata says:

Specious

Capturing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and fluorocarbons can be accomplished using certain porous materials that trap these gases. The problem remains: how can we reliably store vast amounts of greenhouse gases — and do so economically? [url]

There is no need for humans to waste any time engineering new methods to capture CO2 as it would be exponentially less expensive to plant trees, flowers, grasses and such than to create man made CO2 sinks.

Natures solution is also non-toxic.

Carbon cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to making the Earth capable of sustaining life; it describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere.

The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide.

Don’t we have real problems to solve?

PS Greenhouse gases are a prerequisite for Earth’s atmosphere and without them life as we know it would cease to exist.

Please read:

Greenhouse effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet’s atmosphere warms the planet’s surface to a temperature above what it would be in the absence of its atmosphere.[1][2] If a planet’s atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) the atmosphere radiates energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it.

On Earth, solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface. The surface itself emits energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases also radiate energy, some of which is directed to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

JonK (profile) says:

re: Specious, Personanongrata, Nov 12th, 2015 @ 2:20pm

Humanity has known how to relatively cheaply reduce global warming for over half a century. It is called nuclear winter, and is the expected effect of a nuclear war. The Chinese, Russians, and North Koreans all again seem willing to help.

Another alternative, though less exciting would be to simply pump ocean water into all available volcanic caldera. This would generate a similar effect of stratospheric microscopic particles reflecting sunlight, reducing global temperatures, & reducing the amount/growth of life on Earth. All good warmist goals.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »