Sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere to create carbon nanofibers
Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 8 months ago to Technology
Please note that I don't think its necessary to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, and that the result could be a much colder planet with much lower food production.
that said, the technology is interesting;^)
that said, the technology is interesting;^)
Note: the nanofiber information did not answer the call of the computer but the first thought came to mind without information was asbestos.
Setting aside arguments whether CO2 is actually causing global warming, warming would be a positive force. Matt Ridley, who calls himself a "lukewarmer" says that the projected warming is a net positive through 2080 http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/...
We are already seeing significant greening of the planet as increased CO2 spurs plant growth.
The piling on and destruction tactics of the warmists, is what is overwhelming.
Every bit of the alleged documented change is within the margin of error of the instrumentation. Translation - statistically meaningless.
No problem. Reverse the current solution where Canada grows wheat and the US grows bananas while Central America increases the production of mangos. And move the winter olympics to Carrot River.
Once bit twice shy and that's not counting Rachel Carson and Al Bore..
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/s...
On another topic, could you reply to this link, please? I really am interested but haven't found any evidence to support your comment.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/head...
http://www.technologyreview.com/artic...
Which hasn't stopped Al Gore from sucking money from the unwary
It only takes a simiple Google check but then some still believe in balanced budgets with a surplus.
Always fool a lot of the people all of the time.
We're in one phenomenal timei period though. Without doubt it's the generations referred to by Forrest Gumps Mama.
Image: Esteban De Armas/Shutterstock.com
A 'mini ice age' is coming in the next 15 years
Solar activity is predicted to drop by 60 percent in 2030.
BEC CREW
13 JUL 2015
Facebook Icon127kTwitter Icon895Email Icon
A new model that predicts the solar cycles more accurately than ever before has suggested that solar magnetic activity will drop by 60 percent between 2030 and 2040, which means in just 15 years’ time, Earth could sink into what researchers are calling a mini ice age.
Such low solar activity has not been seen since the last mini ice age, called the Maunder Minimum, which plunged the northern hemisphere in particular into a series of bitterly cold winters between 1645 and 1715.
The prediction is based on what’s known as the Sun’s '11-year heartbeat'. The Sun’s magnetic activity is not the same year in year out, it fluctuates over a cycle that lasts between 10 and 12 years. Ever since this was discovered 172 years ago, scientists have struggled to predict what each cycle will look like.
But just last week at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales, mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova from Northumbria University in the UK has presented a new model that can forecast what these solar cycles will look like based on the dynamo effects at play in two layers of the Sun. Zharkova says she can predict their influence with an accuracy of 97 percent.
What exactly are these so-called dynamo effects? They’re part of a geophysical theory that explains how the motion of Earth’s outer core moves conducting material, such as liquid iron, across a weak magnetic field to create an electric current. This electric current also interacts with the fluid motion below the surface of Earth to create two magnetic fields along the axis of its rotation.
When Zharkova’s model applied this theory to the Sun, it drew its predictions assuming that there are dynamo effects in two subterranean layers - one deep down in the convection zone, and another up near the surface, each fluctuating between the northern and southern hemispheres.
Zharkova explained her findings at the conference:
"We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun's interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent."
Looking at these magnetic wave patterns, the model predicted that there would be few sunspots over the next two 11-year heartbeats - called Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022, and Cycle 26, which runs from 2030 to 2040.
"In Cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other - peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder minimum'," said Zharkova.
During the original Maunder Minimum, the entire River Thames froze over in England. So I guess time to get your skates ready?
Read these next:
Here are the countries most likely to survive climate change
Florida officials have banned the terms “climate change” and “global warming”
It’s official: scientists say we're entering Earth's sixth mass extinction
and the list grows.
One of the things that first caught my attention about the whole "global warming" issue is all the descriptions of terrible consequences. But I know from history that when things are warm life is generally good, crops prosper, people live better lives, exploration occurs. The era of Viking exploration when they colonized America was at a time of global warming.
Part of the problem is not the claim of warming but the distortion of the effects, focusing only on the bad. An example he gave was the IPCC listing as a consequence the millions of people who would have lower access to water without mentioning the greater number who would have greater access. There are no positive global warming stories but there is positive global warming science.
The MSM media appear not to understand it. I would not go by their stories. They tend to use it to explain weather events, which I believe is not consistent with the science. I have read about how climate change has brought farming to parts of western Greenland; so there's some critical reporting, but I agree most of it is blaming storm systems on climate change, which I think is completely unfounded.
I think the scientific evidence is accelrating deglaciation will be a large net cost to humankind. The farming in Greenland and similar changes will not outweight the costs.
This did not happen, but new evidence shooting down old models is key to science. We actually encourage people disproving established theories. It's part of how science works. We can't just pick one answer we like and stick to it.
There is no irrefutable evidence. It's just what the preponderance of evidence shows now. People's ability to deny reality when the answer is undesirable is amazing.
"You haven't posted it because there is nothing to post except from so-called scientists with a financial interest in their conspiracy theory of global warming."
This is almost exactly my understanding. There is a huge financial interest in burning stuff, because it powers an industrial economy, that motivates people to pose as scientists and promote a bizarre conspiracy theory that doesn't have a chance of fooling most people but may at least throw them off or confuse the issue. They're like patent medicine salesmen posing as doctors and promising a quick fix to people facing a grave illness. This is exactly how I see it.
That is correct. I am not a climatologist, but I know the very basics: We are in an interglacial period during an ice age. The cycle of glacial maxima and minima takes 10s of thousands of years. The glaciers have been retreating throughout recorded history, due to this cycle. This is a general trend and does not mean each century the temperature increased. Human activities are accelerating the current deglaciation trend. We know human activities play a large role, but we don't the exact percentage or what how the effects will interact with geological cycles. If the worse predictions come true, it will be very costly to fix.
I can't dig in deeper because I only know the basic facts.