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.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: bill gates, biofuel, carbon dioxide, carbon fixation, carbon sequestration, climate change, energy, fluorocarbons, geoengineering, ghg, pollution
Companies: carbon engineering

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2015 @ 1:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I am all for exploring alternative energy systems. New building methods, recycling of currently unrecyclable wastes, etc, are worth investigating. Actually understanding the interactions within the global environment can help in innumerable ways.

    But this incessant caw caw caw of the politically correct anthropogenic climate change proponents only gets in the way of actual understanding. We know essentially zip about what causes, effects, directs our climate. Anyone of the climate change scientists who says otherwise is simply playing a shell con game.

    The whole point is that we have an opportunity to do study but this has been hijacked by the politically motivated.

    And we can't fight volcanoes or hurricanes or tsunamis at the moment, but does that mean we shouldn't explore possible ways to, even if our current technology seems woefully inadequate? You've been watching too much Star Trek and have lost the recognition that it takes enormous amounts of energy to mitigate such events. We don't yet and unless there is a major breakthrough in energy system, we won't for the foreseeable future.

    A function of science and engineering is to push or understanding and develop new techniques. However, in the current time, any ideas that shake the current dogma is stomped upon immediately.

    How does progress even happen with an attitude that we can't change things that seem impossible to change?
    There is nothing wrong with dreaming, this gives rise to inspiration. But, as I said earlier, there are more important problems to deal with than this current fad of anthropogenic climate change and the subsequent control of people.

    If I understand it correctly, Michael, you have been trained as a scientist. However, many times, you articles and comments seem to indicate that your teachers did not teach you well. You seem to have drunk the modern "kool-aid" instead of having an active enquiring mind that wants to understand the nature of the universe around us.

    There are many things we investigate (areas such as the broad world of physics, chemistry, biology, etc) that we have models of thought about how they work. But in reality, we know actually little. What is amazing is that we can do so much with those ideas. But as has been shown throughout history, our understanding of the world around is extremely limited and the systems and models of thought on which we base our understanding change over time or in some cases come back to haunt us.

    The more I read of the ideas of the theorists, the more I see that they have followed a path that does not lead to actual understanding. Theory is good, but that is all it is, theory. It helps get a possible understanding of the interactions that we observe and in some cases gives some predictive ability.

    But all theories fall short and if you believe they are the truth then you are on the path of dogmatism not science. Unfortunately, there are many dogmatists in the leadership of the various endeavours of study.

    I'll give you but one example. The universal background radiation. It is used to validate the various "Big Bang" models. But there is a serious problem in what is actually found. The first is that actual radiation temperature is only close to the various predicted values. Secondly, it is supposed to be uniform (or close to it) across the sky (according to the various models) but is, in fact, not uniform at all. There is a great deal of variability in the measurements. At the levels measured, the percentage variance is far too high.

    The question that needs to be answered is this: What is the cause of the variance? and are the models in use even remotely correct? and is there an alternative cause that can be investigated for the cause of this background radiation?

    For example, we can only observe this background radiation from one location in the universe - here in our solar system. What are the consequences if what we observe is in fact an artefact of where we are in our galaxy and not a fundamental property of the universe in question.

    Since we cannot test in any other location, our understanding of the measurements will not be and can be verified in any meaningful way. We should be looking at viable alternatives but we don't. If there are no viable alternatives that we can come up, then that too is okay.

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.