https://theconversation.com/climate-...us-trap-157368

I remain very skeptical of high-tech solutions to a problem created by excess and waste. Isn’t that like prescribing a second medication against the side effects of the first? Less is more.

Yes if we are talking rising sea levels for 20000 years ago the plot thickens.

There is a very interesting 2 part documentary from ARD (in German) which explains what is happening, why it is happening and what is being done, what can be done and what needs to be done to combat climate change. Here is a trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPHN3Sm6XPw
If interested, you should be able to find the full doku someone on Youtube.
Anywho, this really breaks down the topic of climate change in a really logically manner. One of the take aways from it, is that we will have to rely on technology to help us. Less is more is also correct but that won't be enough without technology.

She always is.

Tom

Around the time of the Paris Agreement there was a lot of talk of artificial carbon capture. They were talking about capturing carbon from the atmosphere or directly from smokestacks and pumping it under high pressure into underground storage, for example depleted gasfields in which the carbon dioxide would fill the space where the methane had been taken out.

I always felt this was rather risky if not pointless as you are pumping gas into a the ground without having a clue whether it isn't coming out somewhere else. maybe not immediately but at some point in the future. Who would then absorb the responsibility and the negative carbon credits for such leakages?

Same thing with forestation. I like the idea of forestation from a biodiversity perspective. But forests are only carbon sinks when they are young and growing and only if they aren't replacing forests that were there previously. Which as the article says, means competing with agriculture or reforesting in places where it is problematic or even counterproductive.

In other words, all the grand plans don't have any teeth. Meanwhile Bill Gates is talking about a James Bond villainesque plan of launching smart nanoparticles into space to form a shield and make the sun turn dark. If the previous plan wasn't crazy enough, propose something that's crazier.

The same people that need to solve leaks of underground nuclear waste disposals: grand grand grand grand......grand children.

The difference being that nuclear waste gets less and less radioactive over time and is ultimately indistinguishable from the material from which it was first extracted. And even if some idiot accidentally digs some of it up, it may have some local effects but it won't wreck the planet and it can be cleaned up and put back underground. . But carbon dioxide doesn't turn back into methane or coal, at least not while its deep underground. And if at any time your storage bubble pops, even in a thousand years time, then its all in the atmosphere and all over the planet.

So carbon sinks are much more dangerous than nuclear dumps.

Of course, CO_2 is a noble gas and potential reservoirs are not formed by carbonate rocks.

carbonate is carbonate because it has already absorbed its share of carbonic acid.

Further pushing carbonate is making the bedrock more vulnerable to natural erosion and acidifying drinking water.

Models made by geologists show thy are anticipating that carbon injected today is likely to continue migrating for hundreds of years.

Time to check those aqueous geochemistry books.

Carbonate rock dissolution is CO_2 sink. Carbonate precipitation is a source.

That person, if you were referring to me, was commenting on Trump (and his supporters) and his views on climate change. I don't care about SVP and bashing them is not an easy way to get my goat (whatever this means). But well, if the shoe fits....

Glad that Biden has different views.

Outdoing Sanders by a mile.

That is how I got my apprentice as a chef, traveling on the Vienna to Oostende express on my way to Blackburn, guy slumped in a corner with a hangover you could have sold to science, offered me an apprenticeship near Frankfurt, fast forward four years I was on my way to Buenos Aires to join the cruiseliner MS Europa as a chef...

Do you still cook?

Only for myself and on occasion for family and friends, I´m a great cook but I was never a great chef.

I am a great cook but get bored after a while. Have to change things around. The worst thing is, the longer I've been cookkng and it's been long, since I was 8, the more I realize that Czech cuisine is uninventive, heavy, soggy, and overall more comforting than inspiring.

I wasn‘t referring to you! There is no goat I want to get less than yours on EF

The problem with forestation - as is, not as ideal - is nicely discussed in that Conversation article. Quote:

„The Earth certainly needs more trees. Humanity has cut down some three trillion since we first started farming some 13,000 years ago. But rather than allow ecosystems to recover from human impacts and forests to regrow, BECCS generally refers to dedicated industrial-scale plantations regularly harvested for bioenergy rather than carbon stored away in forest trunks, roots and soils.

Currently, the two most efficient biofuels are sugarcane for bioethanol and palm oil for biodiesel – both grown in the tropics. Endless rows of such fast growing monoculture trees or other bioenergy crops harvested at frequent intervals devastate biodiversity.

It has been estimated that BECCS would demand between 0.4 and 1.2 billion hectares of land. That’s 25% to 80% of all the land currently under cultivation. How will that be achieved at the same time as feeding 8-10 billion people around the middle of the century or without destroying native vegetation and biodiversity?“

She is also one smart young woman.

Thanks for that. Mai Thi Nguyen-Kim aka maiLab has to be most watchable science nerd ever, and I‘ve never known her to be anything but solid. Here‘s the link to Part One: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ1zm65u-ck&t=0s and Part Two: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bCvUwnIdqBI

It is funny that people always bring up nuclear waste and nobody ever brings up highly toxic chemical waste.

Nuclear waste decays with time. Highly toxic chemical waste remains at the same level of toxicity forever and ever...

Nuclear waste has very small volumes/quantities because nuclear fuel has the highest power density (by several order of magnitude) of any other fuel. The nuclear waste of all German nuclear power plants combined operated in the last 30 years could all go in a little corner of one of the several (I believe 6) underground storages currently used in Germany for highly toxic chemical waste... :-)

From wikipedia
Germany
A number of repositories including potash mines in Herfa-Neurode and Zielitz have been already used for years for storage of highly toxic mercury, cyanide and arsenic waste. There is little debate in Germany regarding toxic waste in spite of the fact that unlike nuclear waste it does not lose toxicity with time.

I always considered that real cooking is making something good and imaginative out of what you have (preferably grown in your own garden) rather than hunting down elusive and pricey ingredients .

So the more boring the stuff that is available , the more you can differentiate the good cooks .

How did this turn into a cooking thread?

Mods please relocate.