Climate change: 'Magic bullet' carbon solution takes big step

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Cravens

Fusion has already happened. The problem is it takes more power than it produces (called, “break even ”). That is what is being pursued. Progress leveled off in the 80s because magnets had not kept pace. That has/is changing right now.

EOR doesn’t “filter” anything. Read lumenaria’s response how the mixture all comes back out and is not being pursued in the real world (I thought SCO2 displaced residual oil and pushed it out... which is what the article nay-sayers were complaining about).

Nothing was said about natural gas being replaced let alone any mention of cold fusion (now called LENR, btw).

The whole point was about taking action not arguing minutiae about opinions or beliefs.

Cool thing is, nobody has to do anything but sit back and then argue their political viewpoints about results after the plant is built and runs for a while.

Fusion is probably God's reserved toy. Not for humans. You need a huge star to make it work. Not even Jupiter can make it work.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Anyone promising a magic bullet is a con artist or radically deluded.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Anyone promising a magic bullet is a con artist or radically deluded.

Green New Deal costs 93 trillion USD. Direct Air Capture costs at least 10 times that much.

a reply to: kulombi

CO2 measurement began in 1959. No one knows how much CO2 there was 100 years ago.

Active measurements started then, but yes we do know how much co2 there was 100 years ago we know how much there was going back millions of years.

Paleoclimatology it is a science. The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before instrumental sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets but that isn't the only way to take measurements. The sedimentary record can be used to make co2 measurements which is in the video I posted.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: kulombi

CO2 measurement began in 1959. No one knows how much CO2 there was 100 years ago.

Active measurements started then, but yes we do know how much co2 there was 100 years ago we know how much there was going back millions of years.

Paleoclimatology it is a science. The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before instrumental sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets but that isn't the only way to take measurements. The sedimentary record can be used to make co2 measurements which is in the video I posted.

Nope. Only direct measurements count.Proxies are inaccurate, and the more so the further back in time.

a reply to: kulombi

Yes they do count.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: kulombi

Yes they do count.

Nope. They don't count. Only direct measurement counts.

a reply to: kulombi

Sure they count. It is science. testable, repeatable, and verified.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: kulombi

Sure they count. It is science. testable, repeatable, and verified.

Not provable. People will only accept laws, such as law of gravity, law of conservation of energy, the three laws of thermodynamics. Not everyone will accept the heavier things fall faster than lighter things theory, Not everyone will accept evolution theory. Not everyone will accept big bang theory. Not everyone will accept greenhouse gas theory. Theories if proven true become law.

a reply to: kulombi

Theories if proven true become law.

You have just proven you have no clue.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: kulombi

Theories if proven true become law.

You have just proven you have no clue.

I have no clue? And you do? Hell, I don't even believe in big bang theory. What are you going to do about it? Insult?

a reply to: kulombi

Yeah, I have a clue. By no means am I an expert on the subject, but I am informed. As for what I did... well, I laughed.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: kulombi

Yeah, I have a clue. By no means am I an expert on the subject, but I am informed. As for what I did... well, I laughed.

Theories are not laws. Most theories eventually get proven wrong. Few theories become enshrined in science as laws. Gravity law is one famous example.

a reply to: kulombi

See below

A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask. ... "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

a reply to: kulombi


Not even close to how it works.

For the first time, a team of scientists succeeded in using a computer simulation that fits ocean floor sediment data of climate evolution over this period of time. Ice age onset, hence the start of the glacial cycles from cold to warm and back, the study reveals, was mainly triggered by a decrease of CO2 levels. Yet today, it is the increase of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels that is fundamentally changing our planet, the analysis further confirms. Global mean temperatures never exceeded the preindustrial levels by more than 2 degrees Celsius in the past 3 million years, the study shows—while current climate policy inaction, if continued, would exceed the 2 degrees limit already in the next 50 years.

"We know from the analysis of sediments on the bottom of our seas about past ocean temperatures and ice volumes, but so far the role of CO2 changes in shaping the glacial cycles has not been fully understood," says Matteo Willeit of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, lead author of the study now published in Science Advances. "It is a breakthrough that we can now show in computer simulations that changes in CO2 levels were a main driver of the ice ages, together with variations of how the Earth's orbits around the sun, the so-called Milankovitch cycles. These are actually not just simulations: we compared our results with the hard data from the deep sea, and they prove to be in good agreement. Our results imply a strong sensitivity of the Earth system to relatively small variations in atmospheric CO2. As fascinating as this is, it is also worrying."

phys.org, April 4, 2019 - Carbon dioxide levels highest in 3 million years, shows unprecedented computer simulation.

Try 3 millions years worth of data. Ocean core samples drilled all around the globe show how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. Using that data, they built a model where CO2 were driven upwards and it matches what was actually recorded in the cores. Levels drove the ice age. Who knows where we are heading.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: kulombi


Not even close to how it works.

For the first time, a team of scientists succeeded in using a computer simulation that fits ocean floor sediment data of climate evolution over this period of time. Ice age onset, hence the start of the glacial cycles from cold to warm and back, the study reveals, was mainly triggered by a decrease of CO2 levels. Yet today, it is the increase of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels that is fundamentally changing our planet, the analysis further confirms. Global mean temperatures never exceeded the preindustrial levels by more than 2 degrees Celsius in the past 3 million years, the study shows—while current climate policy inaction, if continued, would exceed the 2 degrees limit already in the next 50 years.

"We know from the analysis of sediments on the bottom of our seas about past ocean temperatures and ice volumes, but so far the role of CO2 changes in shaping the glacial cycles has not been fully understood," says Matteo Willeit of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, lead author of the study now published in Science Advances. "It is a breakthrough that we can now show in computer simulations that changes in CO2 levels were a main driver of the ice ages, together with variations of how the Earth's orbits around the sun, the so-called Milankovitch cycles. These are actually not just simulations: we compared our results with the hard data from the deep sea, and they prove to be in good agreement. Our results imply a strong sensitivity of the Earth system to relatively small variations in atmospheric CO2. As fascinating as this is, it is also worrying."

phys.org, April 4, 2019 - Carbon dioxide levels highest in 3 million years, shows unprecedented computer simulation.

Try 3 millions years worth of data. Ocean core samples drilled all around the globe show how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. Using that data, they built a model where CO2 were driven upwards and it matches what was actually recorded in the cores. Levels drove the ice age. Who knows where we are heading.

Nobody knows CO2 level before 1959. CO2 level measurement started in 1959.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: kulombi


Not even close to how it works.

For the first time, a team of scientists succeeded in using a computer simulation that fits ocean floor sediment data of climate evolution over this period of time. Ice age onset, hence the start of the glacial cycles from cold to warm and back, the study reveals, was mainly triggered by a decrease of CO2 levels. Yet today, it is the increase of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels that is fundamentally changing our planet, the analysis further confirms. Global mean temperatures never exceeded the preindustrial levels by more than 2 degrees Celsius in the past 3 million years, the study shows—while current climate policy inaction, if continued, would exceed the 2 degrees limit already in the next 50 years.

"We know from the analysis of sediments on the bottom of our seas about past ocean temperatures and ice volumes, but so far the role of CO2 changes in shaping the glacial cycles has not been fully understood," says Matteo Willeit of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, lead author of the study now published in Science Advances. "It is a breakthrough that we can now show in computer simulations that changes in CO2 levels were a main driver of the ice ages, together with variations of how the Earth's orbits around the sun, the so-called Milankovitch cycles. These are actually not just simulations: we compared our results with the hard data from the deep sea, and they prove to be in good agreement. Our results imply a strong sensitivity of the Earth system to relatively small variations in atmospheric CO2. As fascinating as this is, it is also worrying."

phys.org, April 4, 2019 - Carbon dioxide levels highest in 3 million years, shows unprecedented computer simulation.

Try 3 millions years worth of data. Ocean core samples drilled all around the globe show how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. Using that data, they built a model where CO2 were driven upwards and it matches what was actually recorded in the cores. Levels drove the ice age. Who knows where we are heading.

CO2 has no effect on temperature. It's not a magic gas like they say. Gore makes a fool of himself yet again. Correlation is not causation. Heavier things don't actually fall faster than lighter things. Who knows where we are heading? You think people are stupid? The only reason people don't ban fossil fuel like people banned CFC is because greenhouse gas is fake.

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Cravens

Fusion has already happened. The problem is it takes more power than it produces (called, “break even ”). That is what is being pursued. Progress leveled off in the 80s because magnets had not kept pace. That has/is changing right now.

EOR doesn’t “filter” anything. Read lumenaria’s response how the mixture all comes back out and is not being pursued in the real world (I thought SCO2 displaced residual oil and pushed it out... which is what the article nay-sayers were complaining about).

Nothing was said about natural gas being replaced let alone any mention of cold fusion (now called LENR, btw).

The whole point was about taking action not arguing minutiae about opinions or beliefs.

Cool thing is, nobody has to do anything but sit back and then argue their political viewpoints about results after the plant is built and runs for a while.

My bad, I mistakenly assumed the waste stream was a pyrolysis-derived charcoal, otherwise I stand by my assertions.

Fusion is pie in the sky. Whether an entity makes sex robots or tulips or hydrocarbons, that entity would cease operations yesterday if it could break even on fusion; no one is even remotely close.

The southeast US’s pulp and paper mills are currently pelletizing, what would otherwise become pulp feedstock or fuel for co-generation, wood waste (it has a salvage value in the US, so it has a positive market value) to ship to the EU to meet biomass standards that are heavily subsidized...guess what, it’s a carbon ‘positive’ (i.e. lifecycle emissions are >1) policy. Oops.

Mitigation as a first-order condition; adaptation as a second-order condition; and hydrocarbons until something cost-effective comes along — sucking CO2 outta the air is likely to never be cost-effective (lifecycle emissions

a reply to: Cravens

Fusion isn't pie in the sky. It is a really big endeavor that will require hundreds or thousands of small breakthroughs to resolve. There are dozens of major breakthroughs in the last year on it that I am aware of. The Chinese managed to create stable fusion for 10 seconds at over one hundred million degrees before it unraveled. A San Diego team flipped the orientation of the plasma chamber of an old tokamak reactor the pressure ramped up enough to meet the requirements for fusion power reactions to occur, with energy levels much higher than expected. The plasma was also more stable which is the holy grail of fusion. Then there is Lockheed Martin new coil-based magnet technology in its CFR that produces a much more effective magnetic field for plasma containment, thereby significantly increasing the reactor’s beta limit. Also, Princeton stabilized plasma with RF waves which is another breakthrough. Private companies are getting involved and designing their own reactors such as the Copernicus reactor based of the Norman reactor which created break-even energy. Yes, you read that correctly the Norman reactor is already a break-even reactor. Private companies don't usually like to waste money so fingers crossed.

Fusion will be a reality at some point, but it will not be through a single eureka moment it will be hundreds and hundreds of small breakthroughs solving the huge problem of creating and maintaining a stable fusion reaction that is net positive in energy production. The one I am watching for is the Copernicus reactor that should be up and running this year which may be the first commercially viable fusion reactor to go to market. It will all depend on its output.

a reply to: kulombi


It is not just ocean core samples, they have hundreds of thousands of years data in ice core samples from Antarctica which also tell the same data (i.e., amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere).

I don't care about AGW. I do care about the tons of sh# we are pumping into the air with no end in sight and no slowing down. Somebody has to try and clean up the mess.

High March temperatures shortened Alaska's winter weather.

The ice is out on one of the lakes near downtown. That usually lasts until mid-May. We didn't have any snow in March here in town.

This (end of winter) has been creeping back since the 90s. This is not seasonal weather. I can see it happening all around me.

Repeating yourself does not make it true. Get over it, they have records of CO2 levels going back thousands even millions of years.