Rogue Climatologists

[TugboatEng]

I thought you this was fake news but apparently there is a company injecting sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere in order to cause global cooling.

Contact

We create global cooling by launching reflective, biodegradable, high-altitude clouds. main side effect: more vivid sunsets;)

makesunsets.com

I still didn't believe this could be true but sources more reputable than I have confirmed it.

Is This Climate Tech Start-Up Going Rogue?

Make Sunsets' sulfur dioxide strategy has academics and NGOs fuming

spectrum.ieee.org

Cooling by blocking sunlight can't be good for plant growth. They claim a tree equivalent for cooling but does that account for the reduction in growth it can cause?

 

[GregLocock]

Any geo engineering project will create winners and losers. An example of this is cloud seeding, which has threatened to start wars in SE Asia, and in Tasmania for example is used to increase rainfall in the catchment for the hydro dams, at the expense of causing reduced rainfall in the agricultural land to the East.

The simple way to get rid of this particular idiocy is to declare that the process is not approved for carbon credits.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Meh.... I don't think this type of attempt to regulate weather should ever be done by a private company. Unless it happens in a nation that is sponsoring and approving it. For the same reason that my neighbor is not allowed to build a patio that cantilevers over my property. For the same reason that oil companies aren't allowed to dig up my yard because there are minerals they want to extract. Or, they want to run a pipeline through my property. The government might get away with something like that, but not private companies.

FWIW, I doubt that this would have much of an effect on the world climate. Maybe locally. Maybe short term.

 

[TugboatEng]

If they do create a negative condition, it can be quite difficult to get private companies to clean up the messes they have made. Canada is having to deal with an abandoned tidal turbine.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/tidal-power-green-energy-bay-of-fundy-trevor-boudreau-1.7509897

 

[enginesrus]

What really? I've been trying to convey this for years now.

 

[GregLocock]

Yes, when they decommission the wind turbines in Australia, often built on prime farming land, they take the actual turbines away, but all the foundations and the rest of the mess gets left behind. I guess they take the copper. The usual method to avoid having to pay for cleanup is to sell the business to a single purpose entity with no other assets, and then that goes bankrupt and there's no recourse back to the original developers.

 

[GregLocock]

"For years, successive premiers and energy ministers have talked about the potential of using the tides in the Bay of Fundy to create renewable energy, but there's been little to show for that talk other than bankrupt companies and busted devices."

Indeed, same story all around the world. Various tidal and wave power experiments over the last 30 years have been failures or caused unacceptable side effects with very few exceptions.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I saw this drivel in the news today:

Earth is headed toward several catastrophic climate 'tipping points,' study warns

These points of no return are specific moments when the planet has warmed so much that certain effects become irreversible.

www.usatoday.com

My issue with the article is mostly about the use of a new "buzz word" to create fear. There are 16 climate related "tipping points" that scientists say can lead to irreversible problems if we don't change course rapidly.... Or, whatever their exact words are. None of what they say is new in any way to people who have been reading articles like this for years. They mentions:
a) Collapse of the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets.
b) Amazon Rain Forest loss
c) Loss of winter sea ice in the Arctic
d) Abrupt permafrost thaw
e) Mountain glacier loss
f) "Die off" of tropical coral reefs
g) collapse of a key Atlantic current

Well, maybe the last on is one that I haven't heard much about before. But, that's probably because I'm on the west coast. I've heard plenty of speculation about Pacific currents and what climate change is doing to them and how we should all be scared of how this is going to affect everything from rainfall, droughts, forest fires, lead to male patter baldness, frequent hurricanes and other such silliness.

 

[GregLocock]

"People can also choose to adopt electric vehicles since road transport is responsible for about 12% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide"

Hmm, and since most electricity is produced by burning coal then there seems little likelihood that this stupid idea will make much difference.

Here's the original paper, probably not worth reading given the above https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/16/565/2025/

 

[TugboatEng]

As an operator of propellers, its obvious by watching the wash of a propeller that the concept of a tidal generator is totally absurd. The wash rapidly expands and fans out due to turbulence in the fast moving water. Trying to reverse that process and convert a small cross section area of that fast turbulent flow doesn't seem like it has the capability to extract much power. Power is pressure x flow after all and without any depth differential across the turbine there is exactly 0 pressure...

 

[JoshPlumSE]

GregLocock: Hmm, and since most electricity is produced by burning coal then there seems little likelihood that this stupid idea will make much difference.

I wouldn't say that "most" electricity (at least in California) is produced by burning coal. In CA, we use relatively little coal. We have Natural Gas, Hydro power, Nuclear. But, very little coal.

Certainly, in locations that heavily lean towards coal, electric cars don't make as much sense as the proponents of them would assume. But, here in CA my tendency is to think they are probably pretty good. That being said, my family prefers hybrid vehicles at this point. They're just more convenient for our lifestyle. At least for our main car.

I'd consider getting an electric car (or e-bike) since I work from home and barely use my car. But, for the main family car I just don't think they're as functional for us.

 

[GregLocock]

Every marginal kWh of electricity used is generated by fossil fuel. I was wrong above, coal is not in the absolute majority, but fossil fuels are, and continue to supply 60-70% of electricity.

 

[stevenal]

Every marginal kWh of electricity used is generated by fossil fuel.

Not true. Some of the margin is made up by nice carbon free dispatchable hydro. Of course some wish to breach the dams to ensure your statement becomes true.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

GregLocock: Every marginal kWh of electricity used is generated by fossil fuel. I was wrong above, coal is not in the absolute majority, but fossil fuels are, and continue to supply 60-70% of electricity.

Absolutely. I was nit-picking the reference to coal in particular. FWIW, here is the breakdown of electricity production for the USA (and California further down):


And, for California which appears to hardly use any coal at all: