Experiment to re-freeze Arctic shows promising early results

[Jman]

https://www.sustainability-times.com/environmental-protection/controversial-arctic-refreezing-plan-shows-promise-but-risks-remain/
 

Risks are of course there but if it does work, well, the ocean level can be reduced substantially.

[1pooh4u]

There are concerns over whether or not the process can be scaled up to include more than a few local areas. They all touched on the harm of that level of human intervention. Idk about all that.  Our interference fucked things up. Maybe it can fix it too

Edited February 6 by 1pooh4u

[Jman]

18 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

There are concerns over whether or not the process can be scaled up to include more than a few local areas. They all touched down the harm of that level of human intervention. Idk about all that.  Our interference fucked things up. Maybe it can fix it too

It’s better than sitting on our asses and waiting for the end because no one wants to do anything.  The scaling is showing promising results, and if this latest experiment they’re doing over the winter continues to show that, it scales up more, and yeah, we can fix things.

I’d rather fix things than accept it’s broken beyond repair.  

[Dark_Cloud_Overhead]

Just two questions... Who's working on building the Snowpiercer, and how soon can I get my ticket for it?

[Raptorpat]

It's intriguing but I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around it on a macro level

is it just canceling out sunlight-induced melting to break even and/or slow it down? It can't really reverse it on a macro scale because pumping water to the top doesn't change the air temperature. I want to understand but am I just dumb?

[Raptorpat]

[the answer is "yes, you are very dumb"]

[Jman]

23 minutes ago, Raptorpat said:

It's intriguing but I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around it on a macro level

is it just canceling out sunlight-induced melting to break even and/or slow it down? It can't really reverse it on a macro scale because pumping water to the top doesn't change the air temperature. I want to understand but am I just dumb?

https://www.realice.eco/science
 

The theory is that they can actually boost the amount of ice that re-freezes in the winter and slow the amount that melts during the summer, resulting in a year to year net gain on total ice, and in turn reducing sea levels by ensuring more and more ice is frozen.

I’m a historian by trade, not a scientist, but if the experiment is working that means that there’s year to year ice growth.  Not to mention if there’s more and more ice, it further reflects sunlight and reduces the temperature further, reversing the warming trend.  The ultimate goal is a reversal to pre-industrial levels of ice.

Edited February 5 by Jman

[rpgamer]

Scaling aside, it's a bandaid fix that will only get increasingly costly as it takes more and more effort to counter carbon output.

Further, does nothing to address things such as ocean acidification. Could even run the risk of increasing that, what with removing some of the water diluting the problem..

Also questions of long term sustainability. Maybe they really can increase ice deposition... but there's surely a limit. Are their methods able to effect significant decades-long change, or is there a natural cap on the process that could prevent it from reaching any inflection point?

[Jman]

Any attempt at refreezing the Arctic would need to be coupled with CO2 removal and switching to cleaner energy.

Surprisingly, the CO2 removal sector is also experimenting with a new scientific breakthrough, a chemical called COF-999 which is capable of sucking up the equivalent CO2 of an entire tree with half a pound of the substance.

https://www.chemistryviews.org/chemical-solution-to-the-co2-problem/

Another step that needs to be scaled, but also equally exciting to deal with the problem especially since the professor behind it is working on even more efficient variants.

That’s part of what drives me nuts about some people.  We can fix this shit, but we have to be proactive.

[discolé monade]

17 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

[the answer is "yes, you are very dumb"]

nope. i'm glad you asked.....

lurking is fun. 

[SwimOdin]

18 hours ago, Dark_Cloud_Overhead said:

Just two questions... Who's working on building the Snowpiercer, and how soon can I get my ticket for it?

My EXACT question, glad I kept scrolling

[1pooh4u]

18 hours ago, Jman said:

Any attempt at refreezing the Arctic would need to be coupled with CO2 removal and switching to cleaner energy.

Surprisingly, the CO2 removal sector is also experimenting with a new scientific breakthrough, a chemical called COF-999 which is capable of sucking up the equivalent CO2 of an entire tree with half a pound of the substance.

https://www.chemistryviews.org/chemical-solution-to-the-co2-problem/

Another step that needs to be scaled, but also equally exciting to deal with the problem especially since the professor behind it is working on even more efficient variants.

That’s part of what drives me nuts about some people.  We can fix this shit, but we have to be proactive.

Do you worry that some of this technology will be used to continue living in the irresponsible way that we are?  Not saying the tech should not be created. just saying there’s a chance that when something more efficient than a tree is created to remove CO2, that we’ll continue to chop down all the trees we want because something “better exists anyway”  Humans are dumb af in a way. It seems that either we stop gaf once the problem created for us is solved, or it’s known that something like a tree adds more than just being a giant filter for the environment but it’s too expensive to care about planting more of them 

[Jman]

17 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Do you worry that some of this technology will be used to continue living in the irresponsible way that we are?  Not saying the tech should not be created. just saying there’s a chance that when something more efficient than a tree is created to remove CO2, that we’ll continue to chop down all the trees we want because something “better exists anyway”  Humans are dumb af in a way. It seems that either we stop gaf once the problem created for us is solved, or it’s known that something like a tree adds more than just being a giant filter for the environment but it’s too expensive to care about planting more of them 

I think the worst thing at this point is paralyzing indecision.  The will to wean off fossil fuels because some dickhead with a cowboy hat or a sheik can’t buy a new sports car or pickup truck.   The ability to clone our food with shit like cultured meat because some bitch ranch owner makes more taking up endless space with cows.  Indecision kills.  I’m not saying it’s perfect,  yet the alternative is things getting worse and worse because no one wants to do anything, when we potentially fix it.  Why should humanity have to bear that cross of “No take-backs!”?

People are fucking stupid, but everyone’s saying if we don’t fix the problem, we all die.  So let’s fix it.

Edited February 6 by Jman

[Top Gun]

9 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Do you worry that some of this technology will be used to continue living in the irresponsible way that we are?  Not saying the tech should not be created. just saying there’s a chance that when something more efficient than a tree is created to remove CO2, that we’ll continue to chop down all the trees we want because something “better exists anyway”  Humans are dumb af in a way. It seems that either we stop gaf once the problem created for us is solved, or it’s known that something like a tree adds more than just being a giant filter for the environment but it’s too expensive to care about planting more of them 

The thing is, even if we magically stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow, it would still take hundreds of years for what's already in the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial levels. Even if you want to put a pin in a certain spot and say "let's at least get levels to where they were in the 1950s," you're still talking decades. Any comprehensive solution to climate change needs to involve both severe restrictions on new emissions going into the atmosphere, and some sort of geoengineering projects to remove what's already there.

[1pooh4u]

3 minutes ago, Jman said:

I think the worst thing at this point is paralyzing indecision.  The will to wean off fossil fuels because some dickhead with a cowboy hat or a sheik can’t buy a new sports car or pickup truck.   The ability to clone our food with shit like cultured meat because some bitch ranch owner makes more taking up endless space with cows.  Indecision kills.  I’m not saying it’s perfect,  yet the alternative is things getting worse and worse because no one wants to do anything, when we potentially fix it.  Why should humanity have to bear that cross of “No take-backs!”?

People are fucking stupid, but everyone’s saying if we don’t fix the problem, we all die.  So let’s fix it.

Absolutely fix the problem but $$$ controls everything. $ interests are part of the reason we are here. A lot of innovation either gets repurposed for bad shit or is killed altogether by people controlling the $

[1pooh4u]

1 minute ago, Top Gun said:

The thing is, even if we magically stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow, it would still take hundreds of years for what's already in the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial levels. Even if you want to put a pin in a certain spot and say "let's at least get levels to where they were in the 1950s," you're still talking decades. Any comprehensive solution to climate change needs to involve both severe restrictions on new emissions going into the atmosphere, and some sort of geoengineering projects to remove what's already there.

I think we are capable of doing both but we get in our own way because of people like Musk who have the $$ to influence what the public thinks is important. 

[Jman]

3 minutes ago, Top Gun said:

The thing is, even if we magically stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow, it would still take hundreds of years for what's already in the atmosphere to return to pre-industrial levels. Even if you want to put a pin in a certain spot and say "let's at least get levels to where they were in the 1950s," you're still talking decades. Any comprehensive solution to climate change needs to involve both severe restrictions on new emissions going into the atmosphere, and some sort of geoengineering projects to remove what's already there.

Our current technology would take forever, to say nothing of not doing anything.  
 

It’s why COF-999 and its ilk are so exciting if they can be scaled.  Its inventor pointed out with the right scale…it could all be gone in less than a decade.   But we need to scale it and have the will to implement it.